Ultimate digital caliper for modelers.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:41:12 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"


Yet you use the same defense by others as an excuse to do the attacking when it suits you. That's hypocrisy.

You are a hypocrite. That's not an attack That's reality.

You can attack. Others can't. That's hypocrisy in action. Deal.

Your advice often is wrong. It can also be dangerous when you delve into the areas of electrical power. When it comes to train operation, you have died in a ditch defending your theories which have been proven wrong. When others DO prove you wrong, you switch into the personal attack mode while crying about others attacking your theories. Wrong is wrong, Greg. You can't make it right by pretending outrage when you aren't entitled to outrage.

Greg, I'm not the one complaining about personal attacks. YOU are. It's not my image in question here. If you are behaving rationally here, it would be a first but you're not being rational. You're denying a personal behavior of yours to be hypocritical. That's not rational. That's denial.

You're wise. There's no defense for the truth as I presented it. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Haddad wrote:

The attacker sets the level for the defender.

I see, you still prefer personal attack to rational discussion. At least we all know.

It's entirely your construct. Cite where I attacked other than in response to attack. (that's sometimes called 'defense' by the way)

Isn't everyones? I've never claimed perfection. OTOH I'd be very interested to hear when or where I've offered advice that might fall into the 'dangerous' category! If I have done that then I need to re-examine my own procedures so your advice rather than insults would be welcome.

Where was I wrong? - Mark bleating "you're wrong - you're wrong!" interminally doesn't make me wrong, Mark finding an exception may well show that I'm not 100% right but that doesn't make me 100% wrong, it means I don't know every single fact and exception to the general rule.

I'm complaining about posts whose only (new) content is a personal attack - I'm responding to you now because there is reasoned content contained.

Sorry but the moment you post here you set yourself up to be judged, just as I do.

I'm sure you will be judged by others for those irrational and hypocritacal comments, just as I will be for pointing them out in this manner. =8^)

LOL. This reminds me of an occassion at a party (1970) when I argued nuclear physics with someone who turned out to be a university lecturer in that subject - now I'm arguing hypocracy with God!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:16:47 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

It doesn't matter WHY you use personal attacks, Greg. The fact that you DO it makes it hypocrisy since you spend time showing your scorn for OTHERS doing it. You can do it. You have a right to do it because you have free speech in New Zealand. That you DO attack others is proven daily when you post here. The reason is completely and unalterably irrelevant. Defense or offense. It doesn't matter. It's STILL a personal attack.
If you really believed that a personal attack was a bad thing, you'd avoid doing it even when someone else does it to you. Instead, you use it as an excuse to do the very thing you declare as evil. Thus, when you declare it bad for others while doing it yourself, you become a hypocrite by that act. -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Haddad wrote:

You obviously can't discern between attacking the messenger and attacking the message.

When I'm personally maligned I have four main options: 1- attack back at the person. 2- attack the statement. 3- defend a position I shouldn't have to defend. (ie prove my innocence) 4- ignore the attack and wear the mud thrown.
My preference is for the second of those options, one which you seem to be unable to separate from the first, either deliberately or through stupidity. I shan't post my opinion on that point.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:22:25 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

Greg, Greg, Greg, Greg . . .
Seriously. Read this carefully. I don't disagree that you CAN use personal attack to argue here. What I am pointing out to you is your hypocrisy in declaring personal attack wrong when someone ELSE does it while YOU do it yourself. Go ahead and do it. Just don't malign anyone else for doing it.
Have you got that yet? Are you still so hard headed and dimwitted that you really can't understand that?
The real issue here has so far gone unmentioned. Why is it SO important for you to "win" so many discussions on a newsgroup? What flaw in your makeup forces you to continue a discussion beyond the point where you have been shown wrong? -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Haddad wrote:

Ray, Ray, Ray, Ray ... If someone attacks me personally and I attack that person's message I am _not_ making a personal attack on that person.
I know that's tough for people like you to comprehend, but there is a major distinction.

The flaw in my makeup is that I dislike giving in to idiots, particularly those who are totally clueless and can only "win" when those they pick on finally give up in disgust - It looks like you are going to win this one.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:59:06 +1300, I said, "Pick a card, any card"

That's not what you do, Greg. You make personal attacks in retaliation then moan when others do it to you. Grow up. 'k? -- Ray
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray Haddad wrote:

I already told you Ray - I give up - you win - you can lie down and sleep now!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:00:22 +1300, Greg Procter wrote:

Don't stop now; sheep from Perth to Christchurch have been able to breathe easy and not walk bowlegged while you lot were occupied.
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:
>> When it comes to train operation, you have died in a ditch >> defending your theories which have been proven wrong. When others >> DO prove you wrong, you switch into the personal attack mode while >> crying about others attacking your theories. Wrong is wrong, Greg. >> You can't make it right by pretending outrage when you aren't >> entitled to outrage.
> Where was I wrong?
For what it's worth, Greg, I agree 100% with you that the suggestion critics of US politics are motivated by envy is unreasoning stupidity.
*BUT*
You've been repeatedly wrong in your assertions about US railroad operating rules, practices and procedures. You've been corrected by people who are railroad operating professionals, and you've had numerous rules and documents cited by myself and others that explicitly show where you are mistaken.
I don't know whether you simply don't understand the underlying concepts, you can't think beyond your limited knowledge of German practice, or you deliberately choose to ignore the overwhelming body of evidence that contradicts your position. Whichever way, you're consistently wrong on this topic.
And then there's the operating rules, practices and procedures of the railway I work for. All of the above comments apply here, as well.
And then there's loco operation and train handling, steam loco basics, and so on...
> - Mark bleating "you're wrong - you're wrong!" interminally doesn't > make me wrong, Mark finding an exception may well show that I'm not > 100% right but that doesn't make me 100% wrong, it means I don't know > every single fact and exception to the general rule.
You've repeatedly shown that you don't know much in the way of any general rules for any of the railways usually discussed in r.m.r.
You reckon you "dislike giving in to idiots". In my book someone who is as inexperienced as you are in railway operations, but insists he knows more, and is more correct than those who are professionals, is an idiot.
Cheers,
Mark.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

Chalk that one up - we both agree!

Where did I make assertions about "US railroad operating rules"????
This might very well be to point where we have been at cross purposes. I've made assertions about the safety _of_ "US railroad operating rules" which is rather different.

I've never commented on "the general rules of the railways usually discussed in r.m.r."

You think I'm an idiot - I think you're an idiot - we're equal on that point. You think I'm inexperienced - I think your experience is limited to a specific limited operating situation.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:
> Mark Newton wrote: >> >> You've been repeatedly wrong in your assertions about US railroad >> operating rules, practices and procedures. You've been corrected by >> people who are railroad operating professionals, and you've had >> numerous rules and documents cited by myself and others that >> explicitly show where you are mistaken. > > Where did I make assertions about "US railroad operating rules"????
On numerous occasions, usually prefaced by snide remarks about "slot cars".
> This might very well be to point where we have been at cross > purposes. I've made assertions about the safety _of_ "US railroad > operating rules" which is rather different.
Here we go - Greg starts ducking and weaving. We haven't been at cross purposes. You've made assertions about both the rules and their safety.
>> You've repeatedly shown that you don't know much in the way of any >> general rules for any of the railways usually discussed in r.m.r. > > I've never commented on "the general rules of the railways usually > discussed in r.m.r."
Yes, you have, on numerous occasions.
>> You reckon you "dislike giving in to idiots". In my book someone >> who is as inexperienced as you are in railway operations, but >> insists he knows more, and is more correct than those who are >> professionals, is an idiot. > > You think I'm inexperienced
No Greg, I *KNOW* you're inexperienced - both by your own admission and by the nonsense you've posted here.
> I think your experience is limited to a specific limited operating > situation.
Even if that were the case, I'd still have way more than you. But my operating experience is "limited" to the entire standard gauge network in Australi, using every safeworking system we use here. I've had a bit of a play in other countries, including NZ and Germany. Where did you say you'd run trains, again?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

That was in regard to _DCC_ Model_ railway operation. There's quite a major difference between _model_ railways and _prototype_ railway (operation).

Obviously you don't comprehend the difference between models and the prototype.

So you reckon we're on equal footing - fair enough.

You're still avoiding my entire point that DCC is about operating a single train on a model railroad, not about operating (or simulating operation) of a railway/railroad.
I don't need to be a Cordon Bleu chef to appreciate food, a brewer to appreciate beer, a concert pianist to appreciate music, a Renoir to appreciate art, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:
>>> Where did I make assertions about "US railroad operating >>> rules"???? >> >> On numerous occasions, usually prefaced by snide remarks about >> "slot cars". > > That was in regard to _DCC_ Model_ railway operation. There's quite a > major difference between _model_ railways and _prototype_ railway > (operation).
Ducking and weaving, yet again. When I, and others, have stated that DCC is ideally suited to emulating a particular style of prototypical operation, your response has been to slag that style of operation off as "running slot cars". There *is* a major difference between model railways operation and prototype railway operation - a difference you haven't grasped.
> Obviously you don't comprehend the difference between models and the > prototype.
Pig's arse I don't. If anyone has that problem, it'd be you, attempting to apply your limited understanding of German procedures across the board...
> So you reckon we're on equal footing
No. You're a dilettante, I'm a professional. Nothing equal about it.
> You're still avoiding my entire point that DCC is about operating a > single train on a model railroad, not about operating (or simulating > operation) of a railway/railroad.
You point is not worth responding too, it's a load of utter bullshit. It's been demonstrated time and time agin that DCC can simulate the operation of an entire railroad, and in a manner that is far more realistic than your Heath-Robinson gadgetry could ever manage. But a combination of willful ignorance, arrogance and bias prevents you from ever understanding that, let alone acknowledging it.
> I don't need to be a Cordon Bleu chef to appreciate food, a brewer to > appreciate beer, a concert pianist to appreciate music, a Renoir to > appreciate art, etc.
No you don't, but you'd want to be all of these things if you wanted your criticisms to be taken seriously...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

So much for honesty. You're a barefaced liar - I've *NEVER EVER* made such a statement, either in those words or by implication.
The paucity of your argument is continually underlined by your lies and distortions.
As others have noted in relation to "curt", replying to trolls only encourages them. I should have heeded their advice ages ago, and ignored you both. Still, it's never too late.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Newton wrote:

That is the sort of statement that I have been arguing against. When you weigh in against my responses you are in effect saying/supporting those statements. You're a barefaced liar - you have made such a statement, either in those words or by implication. (as you may be able to discern, I've cut and pasted your obnoxious accusation and adjusted the grammar to suit the reversed sentiment)

Good, so Mark the Troll is going to clam up - about time!
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

Please don't judge us by the actions of our government. Even if "we" had legally elected the Shrub, it would have been by a very small margin. Not a rousing mandate from the people. At least almost half of us who voted voted against him. More disturbing to me is the large numbers of people who didn't vote at all - they've given up (perhaps justifyably)trying to influence the government.
And Shrub only got into office the first time via a vote of the US Supreme Court, not a vote of the people. The second time was a little more legit, but I blame that on the known tendency, at least in the US, of not changing horses in midstream (i.e. don't change presidents in the middle of a war). Not a tendency I agree with, but it does exist.
I do wonder if other governments, including yours, would or would not act as arrogantly as ours does if they had the power to do so. History seems to indicate that they would.
--
It's turtles, all the way down

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Right now you're judging yourselves ;-) The rest of us aren't up close so we judge the overall picture. If you come to New Zealand 99.9% of New Zealanders would judge you as an individual. In places like Turkey I think it's different judging by the fact that we have to keep explaining that we're not from the USa.

Perhaps if you stopped claiming to be a democratic nation? ;-)))

Tough call! - we (New Zealand) hitched ourselves to Britain/Australia for our first century and then the US since WWII. As such we maintained our British arrogance. - we cut some of the ties to Britain after our troops (also Australia) were used as the spearhead at Galipoli during WWI. - We cut some of our ties to the USa after Vietnam and then further over the US stupidity/arrogance of nuclear armaments in the early 80s. - With 4 million people we're too small to maintain any real level of arrogance - we actually have to figure out how to co-exist with the rest of the world.
Regards, Greg.P.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard spake thus:

Maybe, but there are enough who don't that the tar-brushing is deserved.
D "another Steve in the US" N
--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:34:43 GMT, Gunner wrote:

You mean the guy who was so scared shitless of being sent to Vietnam that he got his daddy to help him jump the waiting line and get into the Texas Country Club Air National Guard, where he was often missing, too drunk or too coked up to take a flight physical, too busy partying under the aegis of helping some Republicans campaign in Alabama, and ultimately got an unfficial early out (although, its hard to see how an absence can leave a hole behind) to go to business school? He must have partied though that, too, judging from his parade of "successes" after that (if success is defined as being given insider info and a bail out, or being hired for his Daddy's name to figurehead a baseball team).
He's a coward and an idiot, and Rumsfeld (who was a peacetime Navy pilot for a few years) is almost the only other person ever in his administration who even had any pretence to having "served". And we can all see how well HE screwed up the invasion and occupation of Iraq, like McNamara ramming his untested ideas down the throats of military professionsla, and firing those, like Gen. Eric Shinseki, who wouldn't drink the koolaid.
PS - wipe that purple stain off your chin before you go out in public
--
Steve

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.