Competence, rudeness and abuse

Competence and rudeness are inversely proportional.

the most competent tend to be polite, accurate, considerate and soft spoken...

...the rudest, and most abusive demonstrate the most ignorance... these are virtually always in the lower income groups... the most abusive are the drunks... not an impressive set. Excusable to some degree in youth though...

On that issue, I made a similar posting a few years ago to an HVAC NG group and was assailed by a small army of guys choosing to differ with me, stating that they were earning *8 dollars an hour..and that was a full 2 dollars above minimum wage.. and some bragging about how they had their own cars.

80 dollars an hour was an alien concept to them as was the notion of high end markets for such skills...these thought HVAC was placing a cooling appliance in the home.

Did education work in that arena?

nah :)

Phil Scott

Reply to
Phil Scott
Loading thread data ...


Reply to

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:54:52 -0800, "Phil Scott" Gave us:

Stupid off topic posts and skull thickness are directly proportional, BONE HEAD.

You have no clue as to any proper method of assessing competency, dipshit.

I do ignore your utter stupidity. Especially when you cut and paste the same drivel through several replies.

Now, you are just plain being a goddamned retard.

I don't drink, and I can abuse a total retard like you without taking an extra breath.

Your posts?

Hell, you don't even know a goddamned thing about kids either. One can only hope that you didn't take a stab at raising any.

Did you revert to stupid cut and paste retardedness then too?

You're an idiot.

You're an idiot.

What is with the twenty blank lines under your post, you clueless Usenet twit?

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

You knew he was referring to you!!! Your not as stupid as I thought! Damnit, Roy, there's hope for you yet. Maybe if you quit blabbering long enough to form a cogent thought, you might learn something useful.

Reply to
Long Ranger


Roy has a fatal disease... it is that of trashing others in an effort to support his own error... that not only locks the error in, but the entire set of mechanisms, hard wired into the brain that preclude rational thought...

. that combination chews up the seratonin and dopamine generators and depletes the brain chemistry while running up the cortizol levels... I don't wish that ending on anyone.

Thats about like volunteering to soak your brain in draino... its fatal. Such a person destroys themselves and all they get close to.

Roys does this to anyone he communicates with, even those he calls friends. ,,, its the family of a man like that suffers the most.

There is no change for these types on the horizon until they hit bottom, by then its most often too late for any repair or recovery...

Phil Scott

Reply to
Phil Scott

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:57:22 GMT, "Daniel Indyk" Gave us:

Yet top posted, which shows that you STILL do not know how to conform to conventions. Do you run red lights too?

Said current flow is NOT "on the surface of the wire" as was stated.

Reply to
Roy L. Fuchs

Not only (at least from this quote) does the original post make little sense, but any reference to electrons is obfuscates skin effect phenomena. Skin effect was known and understood, via Maxwell's equations, way before electrons were proven to exist. At best, Maxwell's equations describe currents generated by the motion of charged particles. There is no net current flow anyway, because charge transfer in ac is ZERO for complete cycles.

It is interesting to know that Hertz, who proved the existence of radio waves as predicted by Maxwell also got some of the first experimental evidence for the existence of electrons. He observed the photoelectric effect from the sparks generated by his equipment. Maxwell's equations by themselves DO NOT explain the photoelectric effect. Quantum modifications to Maxwell's theories are required to do that.


-- Ferme le Bush

Reply to
Salmon Egg

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.