From: invalid@invalid.invalid
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message news:10eun
u$hv9m$1@dont-email.me...
> On 11/11/2025 2:48 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message news:10
s5mv$3r8qk$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 10/11/2025 4:01 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message news:
0erqko$3o5c0$6@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 10/11/2025 3:29 pm, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message new
:10ermr8$3o5c0$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2025 2:57 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message n
ws:10epc7k$33b3h$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/2025 4:01 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news: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,
Why would anyone post a response _before_ the bit they want to respond to?
Please do try to make some sense Bill.
My response was exactly where is should have been in the context of what I was
responding to.
You still haven't pointed out the post where I "snipped out the bulk of the
comment without marking the snip".
Is that because no such posts exists?
Either point it out or shut up.
> 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)
|
