From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 11/11/2025 2:48 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   > "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:10e   
   5mv$3r8qk$1@dont-email.me...   
   >> On 10/11/2025 4:01 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news:1   
   erqko$3o5c0$6@dont-email.me...   
   >>>> On 10/11/2025 3:29 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message news   
   10ermr8$3o5c0$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>> On 10/11/2025 2:57 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message ne   
   s:10epc7k$33b3h$1@dont-email.me...   
   >>>>>>>> On 9/11/2025 4:01 am, Edward Rawde wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman"  wrote in message    
   ews: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".   
      
   Yes. You posted your response after the bit you wanted to respond to, so   
   you were responding to that rather than what I was actually saying.   
      
   This is the problem with selective quotation, and you have just   
   established that you are too stupid to realise this.   
      
   > My reply came after your first sentence, but none of your text was snipped   
   or changed at all.   
      
   Except that posting your text where you did changed the message you were   
   responding to.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)