From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10es5   
   v$3r8qk$1@dont-email.me...   
   > On 10/11/2025 4:01 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10   
   rqko$3o5c0$6@dont-email.me...   
   >>> On 10/11/2025 3:29 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:   
   0ermr8$3o5c0$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>> On 10/11/2025 2:57 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message new   
   :10epc7k$33b3h$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>> On 9/11/2025 4:01 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message n   
   ws:10emnnb$2cnh3$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 4:49 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message   
   news:10elb3i$20r3i$3@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/11/2025 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> "Liz Tuddenham"  wrote in   
   message   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> news:1rlfnmd.5t4y3yjlsancN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2025 9:24 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/11/2025 10:41 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>    
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> I'd need access to a lot more information than I can find on-line to   
   construct such a mathematical argument. And I haven't   
   >>>>>>> been arguing that other people can't  design ferrite cored or other   
   inductors very well.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Er when Liz said "I worked for a company that built its reputation on   
   the R.F. inductors   
   >>>>>> it designed; these factors were among the many problems they tackled."   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Your reply was "Probably not very well."   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> So either we have an issue with the meaning of words or you're talking   
   nonsense.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In fact it is you that is talking nonsense.   
   >   
   > What I actually posted was   
   >   
   > "In fact it is you that is talking nonsense. For a company to make a   
   reputation for building good RF inductors, they merely have   
   > to make them better than the competition. To do it "very well" they'd have   
   needed some kind of mathematical insight into what they   
   > were doing, and there wasn't a lot of that around in UK industry when I was   
   working there from 1971 to 1993. The Cambridge   
   > university electronic engineers were trained in math, but seemed singularly   
   incapable of applying it in real life. If a problem   
   > was framed in exactly the way their lecturers had presented it they were   
   happy, but not creative, nor flexible."   
   >   
   > You snipped out the bulk of the comment without marking the snip, which made   
   my response look very different.   
      
   Unfortunately for you, your paragraph above was posted AFTER the quotes in   
   question.   
      
   Even if relevant (which it isn't) I did not snip out any of your paragraph   
   which begins "In fact" and ends with "nor flexible".   
      
   My reply came after your first sentence, but none of your text was snipped or   
   changed at all.   
      
   If you still think I snipped out the bulk of an irrelevant comment of yours   
   then please   
   cite exactly the post and the line where this happened. Give the date and   
   exact time of the post.   
      
   If you can't do that then stronger words than shut up are coming.   
      
   Obfuscating the truth is what should be a criminal offence.   
      
      
   >>>> No Bill. I wasn't talking at all. I merely quoted the words of others.   
   >>>   
   >>> Selective quotation is a very effective way of creating nonsense messages.   
   >>   
   >> The quotes are exact quotes in the order which they were said.   
   >> Nothing was created by myself, it was only replicated correctly.   
   >   
   > But if you left out bits between the exact quotes you can still covey a   
   misleading message. That's what selective quotation means.   
      
   Unfortunately for you I did not leave out bits between the exact quotes.   
   Therefore nothing misleading is being conveyed by myself either intentionally   
   or unintentionally.   
      
   Here is the quote in the exact context with nothing   
   whatsoever changed or snipped:   
      
   ">>>> I worked for a company that built its reputation on the R.F. inductors   
   >>>> it designed; these factors were among the many problems they tackled.   
   >>>   
   >>> Probably not very well."   
      
   You've just provided a prize example of your stupidity Bill.   
   You may not even be aware that this what you are doing.   
      
   >   
   > You've just provided a prize example of it here   
   >   
   >>> You may not even be aware that that is what you are doing.   
   >   
   > --   
   > Bill Sloman, Sydney   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)