Disappointed

Well, thanks to the efforts of one particularly "stupid boy" I am unsubscribing from this group after many years of lurking. The "infantile" author who posts "ad-homium" trying to correct the general populous of this group when he, himself, is the one who is incorrect. The constant stream of childish personal attacks he made on regular posters bothered me. The fact that he won't fscking shut the fsck up even after he has been proved wrong was the last straw.
Is this the image that you want to portray to the world about engineers/scientists/whoever? If you can't turn to a forum full of experts for advice on a real DSP issue without getting insulted by this bean-brain, where can you turn?
Thank you all for the valuable and interesting discussions over the years. I haven't contributed much, if at all, but I have learned a great deal.
Goodbye!
A

Dear Adam,
Well booh hooh hooh :-) I'm not following the discussions about this, but for me it's been obvious all the time that you should _Never_ take a ng-post personally. If you think you're offended in any way, just stop the discussion. Don't do what you just did... ever!
He has won now, you know. And for good reason to, imho.
Hmm, I kindof feel like I have no right posting this, but I just had the urge ...
So long, Adam.
Rob.
  Quoted Text Here  

I have not "won" in any sense of the word. I have not yet achieved what I set out to achieve which was, in part, to find a derivation of the LT for what is claimed by others to be the mathematical representation of sampling.
We are stuck on the evaluation of int -oo^+oo f(t).d(t).e^(-st)
There are those who have attempted to present the anti-derivative of f(t).d(t) but who have made the mistake of attempting to use the result of evaluating the definite integral before they have arrived at the indefinite integral.
Arguing a posteriori ISTR is the critique that applies.
message
  Quoted Text Here  

8 years after and he's still no wiser, still he says himself he's a slow learner. From the archives:-
"Digital Signal Prcessing - A Practical Approach Authors : Emmanuel Ifeachor & Barrie Jervis Pub : Addison-Wesley ISBN : 0 201 54413 X
I found this to be a good book because I am a slow learner, and find "left as an exercise to the reader" or "it can be shown as" to be particularly infuriating. This book is an exception; in particular, the chapter on Correlation derives the formula by showing a developing series of possibilities that can each in turn be shot down for some reason.
After reading some books you can "do" DSP. After reading this book, you understand DSP.
I accept that this is my reaction to this particular book, after having read (and absorbed) information from a whole series of others. What is true for me is not necessarily true for others.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Is this the same Evans who was referred to in a posting by Airy R. Bean as 'prevailing' in a case of libel - as in "...I prevailed against them all"?
<http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm?22350e%241_1%40mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com&output=gplain
Well, well.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
And since this has been shown to you and repeatedly explained in detail to you by multiple qualified people, including references to decent, respected texts, it is clear to many of the rest of us that you are not capable of recognizing achieving what you've set out to achieve. So our choices are limited, since an intellectual dialogue on the topic has clearly and repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective.
Many have genuinely tried to help you understand what you're interested in, but have been met with your indolence, insults, and erratic behavior in response. You label as childish or infantile those that try to help you but aren't willing to agree to your faulty view of your selected topic. That's not conducive to learning or productive dialogue or anything else productive.
Here's an interesting tidbit:
"Does it really matter? The important thing is to gain some analogy to aid your understanding. When I am involved in teaching others, I always stress that they must make up their own minds, for each of us has a different way of thinking. I say to take opinions from as many people as possible, and not necessarily to pay heed to me, for my way of thinking may not be theirs."
You wrote that in a Change-Ringers list about five years ago. Maybe I misunderstand, but it seems that your state of mind or outlook on such matters has changed substantially since then.
Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions. http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Once again you launch into an unveiled personal attack.
Shame on you for that.
I suggest that a number of people have ranted at me their illogically-held views and have refused to discuss points that I have raised which disagree with their viewpoint, but no-one has shown anything to me and certainly no-one has explained anything.
The torrent of personal remarks that has accompanied such ranting cannot be termed "intellectual dialogue" by any stretch of the imagination.
I certainly do not label as "childish or infantile" those who disagree with me, only those who resort to childish or infantile outbursts. It is those outbursts that are "not conducive to learning or productive dialogue or anything else productive", and not my chastising of them.
"Change-Ringers List"? What is that? - you are confusing me with somebody else.
Your contribution below is of little value, being a continuation of a series of personal attacks from you - you do not come across as a worthy debater. Indeed, you are not debating and you are certainly not offering an "intellectual dialogue" in what you post below - an aggressive ad hominem attack as is your wont, but by no means an "intellectual dialogue".
  Quoted Text Here  

Calm down softy, it's only a hobby.
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
OK Airy, time to put this to rest.
Are you, or are you not, Gareth Alun Evans, of Chippenham, Wiltshire?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
If you say yes, then clearly you have been lying and are guilty of hypocrisy in this, and other recent, threads.
If you say no, then you were lying in an earlier post regarding the matter of Hooley vs Evans, where you apparently triumphed over Mr Hooley and three of the top barristers in the country, with the aid of a law book (cost to you £350), although you did not buy the book.
Which is it to be? Can you give an honest answer to this, which will not show you to be a fraud of the highest order?

OK Airy, time to put this to rest.
Are you, or are you not, Gareth Alun Evans, of Chippenham, Wiltshire?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
If you say yes, then clearly you have been lying and are guilty of hypocrisy in this, and other recent, threads.
If you say no, then you were lying in an earlier post regarding the matter of Hooley vs Evans, where you apparently triumphed over Mr Hooley and three of the top barristers in the country, with the aid of a law book (cost to you £350), although you did not buy the book.
Which is it to be? Can you give an honest answer to this, which will not show you to be a fraud of the highest order?
LOL! Heads Beanie loses, tails Beanie loses. Proof (if it was ever needed) that Beanie is a loser. I wonder which will happen, a stock response such as 'STUPID BOY, GROW UP!' or 'ISP problems'?

thank bast!
thank you beanie. very interesting report as often. tell me where exactly it is that you live nd your callsign though, would be interested in that information, look forward to contacting you on the airwaves because you are such an excellent person
dr. x
  Quoted Text Here  

Well, that's the longest response I've managed to get from you yet! I shall endeavor to do even better.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
How so?
  Quoted Text Here  
Whatever.
My point exactly. You repeatedly demonstrate the inability to realize what's going on around you.
  Quoted Text Here  
Which personal remarks and ranting?
  Quoted Text Here  
Must be a different Gareth Alun Evans in Chippenham with your old email address. BTW, I was in Chippenham last spring. I would've stopped by for a pint had I known what a friendly chap you are.
  Quoted Text Here  
It wasn't an attempt at a debate, and I don't hold out much hope of having an intellectual dialogue with you unless you change your behavior.
So which part was the ad hominem attack?
  Quoted Text Here  
Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions. http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Then it is clear that it is your intention to troll.
Shame on you.
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Or engage in a dialogue beyond your almost meaningless one or two line responses.
Like this one.
  Quoted Text Here  
Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions. http://www.ericjacobsen.org

It is clear that it is your intention to troll.
Shame on you.
  Quoted Text Here  

ohh beanie, how lovely you are!
crystal thinks so too!
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
It's true. I remember trying to explain patiently my perspective on "the sampling problem" a year or two ago. Airy and I had several technical exchanges back and forth, asking questions and making things clearer, until one day he wigged out at me for no reason! I ignored it the first time but then he kept it up.
People are complicated. Usually, if we want to know something really badly, we'll change and work for it. Emotions and logic work together to accomplish this. But, sometimes, emotions get hooked up backwards, making problems worse instead of better.
Sometimes, when our words are overemphasized, like usenet tends to do, they don't match up with our actual thoughts and actions. I believe whatever's going on with ARB has very little to do with sampling, and is more the artifacts of some complex situation, that I am certainly not prepared to deal with.
ARB's stubbornness could be a real asset to an essential part of DSP technology or even something else, but I think he'll have to overcome his personal issues first. I wish I could offer more than the usual comforts: vacation, fresh air, an afternoon laughing with a good friend, lawnchairs, frisbee, roadtrips, chocolate, etc.
For now, Airy, I hope you seek the attention of someone who can understand you in a way better than any of us could.
  Quoted Text Here  

On Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:05:20 +0000, Tachyon wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Are you suggesting that usenet is undersampling ARB, (even though the process is complex, and so sampling at one times the bandwidth should suffice), and that a higher sample-rate medium would make everything clearer? TV? Ham radio? I'm not sure that I could deal with that any more easily.
:-)
Cheers,

I have not been on Usenet for two years.
There have been a total of 7 posters using the pseudonym, "Airy.R.Bean" I suggest that you rail at the other 6.
I would never "wig out" unless in response to a childish outburst and therefore the person you describe below must be one of the other 6.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Why do you suppose that would be?
Your excuses appear to be getting thin lately, Gareth. Another recent newsreader failure, and now two independent claims of 'that wasn't me'.
If you're having difficulty with getting confused with other people, why not do something simple like use a unique identifier? Might I even suggest that people would take you more seriously if you posted with your real name? You used to do that, I don't know why you stopped.
  Quoted Text Here  
Well, I've observed the Airy R. Bean that's been posting to comp.dsp has 'wigged out' pretty regularly.
  Quoted Text Here  
Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp. My opinions may not be Intel's opinions. http://www.ericjacobsen.org