messing with the power connection

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:17:12 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:08:25 -0800 VWWall wrote: |> |> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like |> | it! ;-) |> |> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do |> respond. | | | So what? You are almost always wrong.

If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you have thus left unchallenged.

Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and post what you believe is the correct statement.

For example, if I post:

You would following up with:

Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement would be "1 + 1 = 2".

But be sure you get the context correct. If I am posting something that is intentionally using an error as an example, you would look silly to refute it in that context. For example I might post (in response to something):

That would be as wrong as saying 1 + 1 = 3.

Then you should look at the context, too. Perhaps in light of that context you might find the relationship being wrong. If so, explain that.

The important points are to always be sure you clearly understand what the context is. If in doubt, ask. If you got the context wrong, your could look silly refuting my post. And always be as specific as you possibly can be. Narrow things down to exactly the points that are wrong within the working context.

Because almost everything you post is wrong. You NEVER have ANYONE backing up your wild claims.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:48:52 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:17:12 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |>

|> |> On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:08:25 -0800 VWWall wrote: |> |>

|> |> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like |> |> | it! ;-) |> |>

|> |> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do |> |> respond. |> | |> | |> | So what? You are almost always wrong. |> |> If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic |> to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly |> what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know |> you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost |> always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations |> on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you |> have thus left unchallenged. |> |> Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of |> a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a |> very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and |> post what you believe is the correct statement. |> |> For example, if I post: |> |> 1 + 1 = 3 |> |> You would following up with: |> |> Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement |> would be "1 + 1 = 2". | | | | Because almost everything you post is wrong. You NEVER have ANYONE | backing up your wild claims.

I don't see anyone backing up YOUR wild claims. In fact, it is very rare that anyone does a followup to say "yeah, that guy is right, I back him up with his wild claims". Even take "wild" out of that sentence, and there is no common practice of such. That's the way it has been on Usenet since I started using it in 1986.

Rare, as opposed to you never being backed up? HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM........

Have you ever looked in a mirror, Phil. ...or did they all shatter?

You can lead an ass to information, but you can't make him listen.

You can't get away with being a know-nothing "expert" and get away with it, so you sob in the corner like a little girl. Grow up!

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:26:09 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net | says... |> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:25:22 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> |> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet. |> | |> | Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one |> | MikeT. |> |> The "you" is the general class of people that are acting like jerks. |> You ( snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzz) are one of them. There's the bud guy here. |> The rest are in other newsgroups. | | You can't get away with being a know-nothing "expert" and get away | with it, so you sob in the corner like a little girl. Grow up!

Huh? Your creative imagination is still driving you to making posts that have no basis in fact or logic.

On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:22:56 -0500 Michael A. Terrell wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> I don't see anyone backing up YOUR wild claims. In fact, it is very rare |> that anyone does a followup to say "yeah, that guy is right, I back him up |> with his wild claims". Even take "wild" out of that sentence, and there |> is no common practice of such. That's the way it has been on Usenet since |> I started using it in 1986. | | | Rare, as opposed to you never being backed up?

Lots of discussions have been carried out where people discuss things that have posted. They don't need to point out that I was right. They know it and followed through. If I was wrong, they had the chance to challenge and did not.

As I said before, I challenge YOU to post a followup to my posts that do not follow you, stating exactly the specific error I make. Try it!

Well, if we don't have Pa' Kettle here. Phil, you really are becoming tiring.

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:58:45 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:26:09 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net |> | says... |> |> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:25:22 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> |> |> |> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet. |> |> | |> |> | Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one |> |> | MikeT. |> |> |> |> The "you" is the general class of people that are acting like jerks. |> |> You ( snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzz) are one of them. There's the bud guy here. |> |> The rest are in other newsgroups. |> | |> | You can't get away with being a know-nothing "expert" and get away |> | with it, so you sob in the corner like a little girl. Grow up! |> |> Huh? Your creative imagination is still driving you to making posts |> that have no basis in fact or logic. | | Well, if we don't have Pa' Kettle here. Phil, you really are | becoming tiring.

Will you tire of me, or tire of posting, first?

You. ...some time back.

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 22:13:16 -0500 krw wrote: | In article , phil-news- | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:58:45 -0500 krw wrote: |> | In article , phil-news- |> | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net says... |> |> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 21:26:09 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> | In article , snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net |> |> | says... |> |> |> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:25:22 -0500 krw wrote: |> |> |> |> |> |> |> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet. |> |> |> | |> |> |> | Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one |> |> |> | MikeT. |> |> |> |> |> |> The "you" is the general class of people that are acting like jerks. |> |> |> You ( snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzz) are one of them. There's the bud guy here. |> |> |> The rest are in other newsgroups. |> |> | |> |> | You can't get away with being a know-nothing "expert" and get away |> |> | with it, so you sob in the corner like a little girl. Grow up! |> |> |> |> Huh? Your creative imagination is still driving you to making posts |> |> that have no basis in fact or logic. |> | |> | Well, if we don't have Pa' Kettle here. Phil, you really are |> | becoming tiring. |> |> Will you tire of me, or tire of posting, first? | | You. ...some time back.

Then maybe you should cease reading my posts. Afterall, they provide you would no value whatsoever.

You should demand a refund of the $2 you spent to learn english.

Give the man a cigar!

With a half pound 'C4' load?