You need to grow the fuck up, Chuck. You make me want to upchuck!
You and the twit that wrote the shit.
Just so you know... I do get it. The reason I didn't is because I am
not, nor was not cross... ever.
I am, in fact, laughing quite loudly at the utter stupidity exhibited
by some of you.
Try reading the volume 31, number 7 issue of NASA Tech Briefs, and then
you all can shut the fuck up about that which you know nothing about,
save what you can cut-and-paste from a dictionary, and then declare as
having known all along.
I placed myself in the group called "electrical engineers": a small
proportion of the population, but that says nothing about being "above
others". Indeed, the fact that you are posting (I assume) from a.e.e.
tends to suggest that there are some EEs who are complete dorks.
EEs are supposed to know this stuff. Other people might or might not
know it, and that says nothing about them. The President of the USA
probably doesn't know the difference between a battery and a cell, and
he's smarter than ... OK, sorry, bad example. I'm quite certain, though,
that if I bothered to search I could find, for example, an eminent and
respected historian who doesn't know the difference.
By talking of the average Joe you're talking about a scale that's
practically orthogonal to the technical vs non-technical axis. (If you
don't know what "orthogonal" means, look it up.)
Harvey was talking about the newsgroup alt.usage.english, where we take
careful use of language very seriously.
"Pedantic" is a compliment in these here parts, stranger.
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
No shit? That is true of practically any trivial fact.
Wow... you got one right.
Ooops... you have reverted back to total retard again.
A historian of battles, and scientific advances, and societal advances
throughout history would know of major events in our timeline.
Not many at all, that did not also involve themselves with the
scientific realms would, however, since our society set us up for that
fall decades ago by incorrectly giving single cells the "battery"
moniker, and never correcting the error.
Your IQ just fell ten more point, "professor". Why are you professing
No shit. I knew exactly what the dope was referring to.
Except that he was incorrect in his pedantry.
I just can't wait for the flood of retarded kill file edit
announcements from your group's "buddies", "plonking" me and then
telling the world that they did.
The first act is pretty stupid. The announcement is even more
retarded, but I am quite sure that some of you holier than thou twits
will give us a show.
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:45:32 -0700, Spurious Response posted:
We tend not to do that in aue. Well, plonking yes, but we tend not to
tell the plonkee about it. I would hazard a guess that 40 or 50 folks
have already plonked you, mostly because they feel that poking the
mentally deficient through the bars is needlessly cruel.
Parallel or series, if more than one cell is used, it STILL constitutes
a battery. It makes no difference what the final voltage of a given
configuration is. If it is a multiple cell configuration, it IS a
battery. If it is a single unit, it IS a cell. There are no exceptions.
Even then, when they were wrapped in card stock paper, they were "less
The fact is that the marketing arms of the manufacturers are to blame for
the shift in what everyday folks call their portable, chemically based DC
Yes, and the convention IS that a single unit is a cell, and any array,
whether packaged together or assembled together in their destination
device is a BATTERY of cells.
THAT IS the convention in the electronics industry, and the rest of the
world, as well as any in our realm that believe otherwise is faltering,
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.