XPost: sci.electronics.design   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:   
   > On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   wrote:   
   >>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:   
   >>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to   
   >>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.   
   >>>   
   >>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here   
   >>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused   
   >>> for any significant length of time.   
   >>   
   >> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't   
   >> appreciate what it is actually doing.   
   >   
   > Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never   
   > knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How   
   > would we ever manage without you?   
      
   You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came   
   from electrochemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby   
   electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John   
   Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but robablyu wasn't   
   paying attention to that bit of the course.   
      
   >>> It's vintage scope repair 101 and even you must be aware restoring vintage   
   scopes is my prime interest   
   >>> in the subject. God knows I've posted enough about it over the years!   
   >>   
   >> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You   
   >> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, any more than you did   
   >> when you acted out what you thought was researching the climate change   
   >> literature, and were actually performing a trawl through the unreliable   
   >> early results to cherry-pick those few results that suited your daft   
   >> hypothesis.   
   >   
   > Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more   
   > inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless   
   > pissing contests.   
      
   The kind that involves you telling everybody that you know more about   
   anthropogenic global warming than the academic experts on the subject,   
   because you studied some dubious data published in the 1890's, and have   
   ignored all the work that has been done since then?   
      
   That's more of a crapping contest - with all the crap coming from you.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)