Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #445747 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-02 08:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-02-05 08:55 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 228 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 08:51 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 08:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 11:52 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 09:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 12:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 07:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:21 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:44 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:48 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:32 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-02 20:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:44 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-02-07 11:22 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 12:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 17:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 00:26 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 17:33 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 19:35 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:36 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 07:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 08:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:12 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 19:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 21:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:43 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:51 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:55 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 15:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 03:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 03:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 12:15 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 09:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 16:24 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 13:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:41 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:03 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:16 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:43 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:47 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:52 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 15:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 04:02 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:19 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-04 17:29 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-04 08:14 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 09:01 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 04:09 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:39 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 17:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:42 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 10:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 10:35 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-03 13:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 10:18 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 09:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-04 17:21 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:09 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 11:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 23:47 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 18:39 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:14 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 06:13 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:04 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 01:27 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 09:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:37 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley tomseim2g@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:28 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 16:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-04 00:54 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 18:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 08:34 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-03 11:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:40 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:57 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:17 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 08:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 17:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:14 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-02 21:16 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 06:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-03 07:53 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-04 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 07:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 08:37 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 10:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 12:41 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 13:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 14:53 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 06:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 08:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 12:21 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 11:05 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 20:24 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-07 09:29 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 11:02 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 17:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 17:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 23:27 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-07 16:48 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 16:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 16:42 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 14:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 16:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:34 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 09:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:56 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 08:51 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 18:42 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:13 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 17:43 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 10:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:14 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:26 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 10:06 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:15 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-02 10:25 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:47 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 12:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:29 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:07 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:19 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:29 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-02 11:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:31 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-02 14:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-02 18:37 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley tomseim2g@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 22:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-05 00:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 14:55 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 16:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 22:54 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:10 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 21:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:04 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-03 06:24 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 06:56 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:51 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 21:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:15 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 19:16 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 23:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 21:07 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 19:05 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:25 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:30 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-03 05:22 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:23 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:02 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:28 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 15:23 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 18:14 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 19:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 21:00 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:01 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 21:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-03 13:03 +1100
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:48 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 07:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 09:25 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 10:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 18:51 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:37 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 22:38 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-03 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 11:56 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-02 21:17 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:23 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 20:19 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-02-02 23:37 -0600
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-05 08:55 -0800
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
| From | Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 23:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o78di0$h9b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446300 |
On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:36:59 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: > Those principles are timeless. The design is either true, or not true > to its stated purpose. Slurring the designers is simply obnoxious. But sadly a popular passtime for stinkin' commies and anarchists nowadays.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <prkf9cho1orfcec4qs7dsknqk3n59vk57g@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446353 |
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:47:12 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
<jb9889@notformail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:36:59 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote:
>
>> Those principles are timeless. The design is either true, or not true
>> to its stated purpose. Slurring the designers is simply obnoxious.
>
>But sadly a popular passtime for stinkin' commies and anarchists nowadays.
I don't think they know enough to be "stinkin' commies and
anarchists"... I think they're just stinkin' village idiots >:-}
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| STV, Queen Creek, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Thinking outside the box... producing elegant solutions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 15:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <389b2d44-4f49-4890-ab08-56eaf7ed0b7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446353 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:49:01 PM UTC-5, Julian Barnes wrote: > On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:36:59 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: > > > Those principles are timeless. The design is either true, or not true > > to its stated purpose. Slurring the designers is simply obnoxious. > > But sadly a popular passtime for stinkin' commies and anarchists nowadays. I don't count George in those ranks--he's a good egg. But there is an element, once marginal, recently in power, that believes that a thing needs to be hated, then destroyed before it can be changed. Thanks, Howard Zinn. And Karl, and Carter, and Grace Lee Boggs, natch.) Cheers, James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 06:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9756102d-da0a-4b29-8fb0-3753191a7159@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446498 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 6:14:48 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:49:01 PM UTC-5, Julian Barnes wrote: > > On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 09:36:59 -0800, dagmargoodboat wrote: > > > > > Those principles are timeless. The design is either true, or not true > > > to its stated purpose. Slurring the designers is simply obnoxious. > > > > But sadly a popular passtime for stinkin' commies and anarchists nowadays. > > I don't count George in those ranks--he's a good egg. But there is an > element, once marginal, recently in power, that believes that a thing > needs to be hated, then destroyed before it can be changed. > > Thanks, Howard Zinn. And Karl, and Carter, and Grace Lee Boggs, natch.) > > Cheers, > James Arthur I'm not sure who started the name calling and demonizing. The left points to Newt Gingrich as the start. My guess is that it has always has gone on at some level. (Does it matter? ... some old saying; fix the problem, not the blame.) I can sit in the local tavern and discuss politics with the local rednecks, they know I'm "mostly liberal". It's mostly a civil affair. George H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 18:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <74764206-d43d-4723-aa32-dfe907a7ba1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446300 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:37:08 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:10:58 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:09:40 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > > > > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > > > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > > > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> Well deserved! > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > > > > > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > > > > > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > > > > > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > > > > > >> >> without much fan fare. > > > > > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > > > > > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > > > > > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > > > > > >> >a vote. > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >Cheers > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> >Phil Hobbs > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > > > > > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > > > > > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > > > > > > > > > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > > > > > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > > > > > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > > > > > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > > > > > > > > > > > >George H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > > > > > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The > > > > > courts become the engineers. > > > > Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, > > > > but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) > > > > The constitution is a living > > > > document in that we can change it. > > > > > > > > > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of > > > > > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think > > > > > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their > > > > > interpretation isn't accepted. > > > > > > > > OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along > > > > the middle, if they want anything permanent. > > > > > > > > > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > > > > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > > > > > meaningless. > > > > Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked > > > > to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the > > > > Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. > > > > (I'm not much into legal stuff.) > > > > > > > > George H. > > > > > > It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the > > > common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to > > > explain what they meant in painstaking detail. > > > > OK so "men" in the original constitution refereed to white males. > > That's a nasty libel, false, and irrelevant. > > o There were white slaves and black citizens. > > o That has almost no bearing on the principles laid out in the documents. > That Romans used wheels in cruel machinery does not discredit wheels, > or mean we disparage wheels, or machines using wheels. > > Our founding documents lay out a plan whereby a common man could set his own > destiny, without having it dictated to him by some ignorant (best case), > tyrant, or do-gooder (worst case) on high. Their "common man" had enough property to qualify as a voter - about 6% of the population at the time, so not all that common. > They believed that overall a man is the best judge of his own affairs, > and whenever possible, should be entrusted with them. Provided that he had enough property to qualify as a man of affairs. Adam Smith was well aware that the well-off tended to conspire to rip off the rest of the community http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/420123-people-of-the-same-trade-seldom-meet-together-even-for and the US constitution doesn't seem to have any articles directed at restraining them. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1895 didn't get enacted until long after all the founding tax evaders were safely dead. > Those principles are timeless. The design is either true, or not true to > its stated purpose. Slurring the designers is simply obnoxious. The design of the US constitution owes a lot to earlier constitutions and to Moderate Enlightenment thinking. More recent constitutions reflect more Radical Enlightenment thinking - the Radical Enlightenment won because it is based on more rigorous thinking, while the US constitution hung onto a lot that was familiar, and not all that well thought out. Even if the US constitution had had any intellectual respectability, it's a document of it's time - which didn't involve any kind of rapid communication. The first semaphore telegraph was invented in France in 1792, after the US constitution had been ratified, and it value was first demonstrated by Napoleon. James Arthur gets his political opinions from Bastiat - who died in 1850 - and his admiration for the US constitution is of a piece with his enthusiasm for antique political technology - but if he were consistent in his preferences he'd only travel by horse-drawn coach, and only read by candle-light. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <flse9ct5iumhftq674psp4tdttf5eodd8e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445989 |
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 11:10:55 -0800 (PST), George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:09:40 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: >> > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >> > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >> > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >> > > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >> > > >> >>> >> > > >> >>> Well deserved! >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >> > > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >> > > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >> > > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >> > > >> >> without much fan fare. >> > > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >> > > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >> > > >> > >> > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >> > > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >> > > >> >a vote. >> > > >> > >> > > >> >Cheers >> > > >> > >> > > >> >Phil Hobbs >> > > >> >> > > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >> > > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >> > > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >> > > > >> > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >> > > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >> > > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >> > > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >> > > > >> > > >George H. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >> > > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >> > > courts become the engineers. >> > Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >> > but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >> > The constitution is a living >> > document in that we can change it. >> > > >> > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >> > > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >> > > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >> > > interpretation isn't accepted. >> > >> > OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along >> > the middle, if they want anything permanent. >> > > >> > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >> > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >> > > meaningless. >> > Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked >> > to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the >> > Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. >> > (I'm not much into legal stuff.) >> > >> > George H. >> >> It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the >> common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to >> explain what they meant in painstaking detail. > >OK so "men" in the original constitution refereed to white males. Where? -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 15:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <550bf683-c0dc-4ec8-b2a5-7b2a5b6ff68a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445982 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 5:09:40 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: <snip> > > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > > > meaningless. > > > > > Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked > > to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the > > Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. > > (I'm not much into legal stuff.) > > It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the > common man. Nonsense. It was written for the Constitutional Convention, with an eye to satisfying the separate states that were going to have to ratify it. The Federalist Papers were written to sell it to the newspaper-reading public, at a time when the common man couldn't afford a newspaper. Only 6% of the population ended up being allowed to vote, which doesn't include the common man. It has been described as "a makeshift series of unfortunate compromises". > And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to > explain what they meant in painstaking detail. The Federalist papers are extended set of smoke-blowing documents. Hamilton's claims for the Electoral College in Federalist 68 were demonstrably unrealistic. You've got yourself a demagogue as president - which the electoral college was claimed to be designed to prevent - when a simple popular vote would have saved you from that fate. > It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. It's a cobbled-together antique. Plenty of people have written better constitutions since then, and you've had to amend what you were given. This isn't a lawyer-free environment. > At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from > attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. At the moment the top 1% of the US income distribution is harming the remaining 99% by hogging the products of any growth in the economy. The US Federal Government - far from acting to reduce the damage - seems hell-bent on making the rich richer and doing as little as possible for the rest of the population. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 01:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o73s50$s1l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #445863 |
George Herold wrote: > Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, > but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) > The constitution is a living > document in that we can change it. You can change it by the amendment process, which also requires 75% of the state legislatures. I understand why disingenuous left-wingers can pretend they never heard of the amendment process and claim they can change it by waving their hands instead, but I don't know why anyone honest would think so. Latin is the language of the law precisely because it is not a living language. If it was then the meaning of words would change, and we don't want the meaning of laws to change without deliberate action.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 09:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <Mt-dnYnsJvkxiAvFnZ2dnUU7-KHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #446058 |
On 2017/02/03 10:27 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > George Herold wrote: >> Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >> but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >> The constitution is a living >> document in that we can change it. > > You can change it by the amendment process, which also requires 75% of > the state legislatures. > > I understand why disingenuous left-wingers can pretend they never heard > of the amendment process and claim they can change it by waving their > hands instead, but I don't know why anyone honest would think so. > > Latin is the language of the law precisely because it is not a living > language. If it was then the meaning of words would change, and we > don't want the meaning of laws to change without deliberate action. > > > The meaning of Latin words has evolved along with the languages it has been translated into. It may be dead, but that doesn't mean it can't be reinterpreted as needs change... Look at how the bible has changed depending on who was translating it. Latin doesn't change, just how it is translated. I took Latin way back in the mid 60s. Hated it. Remember it though... John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <sdn79c94am320ov10ga8i30ursimst9l26@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445820 |
On Thu, 02 Feb 2017 12:09:46 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold ><gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > >>On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >>> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> OT: Berkeley... >>> >>> >>> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>> >>> >>> >>> Well deserved! >>> >> >>> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >>> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >>> >> >>> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >>> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >>> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >>> >> without much fan fare. >>> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >>> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >>> > >>> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >>> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >>> >a vote. >>> > >>> >Cheers >>> > >>> >Phil Hobbs >>> >>> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >>> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >>> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >> >>Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >>I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >>but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >>vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >> >>George H. >> > >Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >courts become the engineers. more than just read the Constitution literally, but read it in the language in which it was written (whether it be the Constitution, BoR, or amandments written a hundred years later). > >Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >interpretation isn't accepted. Or, when someone wants to say something they don't agree with. > >Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >meaningless. If a law isn't enforced as it's written, rather interpreted based on the particulars of the case, the law is meaningless. It means what the judge says it means, which may be different today than yesterday, and watch out for tomorrow!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 18:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0c860110-42b2-4b3e-aeb0-c4e0de76e00d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445820 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... > >> >>> > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > >> >>> > >> >>> Well deserved! > >> >> > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > >> >> > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > >> >> without much fan fare. > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > >> > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > >> >a vote. > >> > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > mathematician accepting axioms. Not exactly. Axioms are written by mathematicians, and aren't ambiguous. The US constitution wasn't written by mathematicians, and it's not sensible to ignore the fact that it was written for a very different society in which initially only 6% of the population were entitled to vote. Treating the constitution as if has some sort of mystical significance is obviously insane. > Congress becomes the theorems. The courts become the engineers. A theorem is a logical consequence of a set of axioms. Legislation passed by Congress might be a theorem, if the constitution were a set of axioms - which it obviously isn't - but in reality legislation is merely extra sets of rules, which the courts test for conformity to the constitution. Congress might be seem as engineers, and the courts as the regulatory institution, testing whether a particular set of rules is consistent with all the other rules already in place. > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their > interpretation isn't accepted. The people who riot and set fires aren't the people who are interpreting the constitution - the people who riot and set fires are the people who have been disadvantaged by some particular set of rules that they perceives as not treating them fairly. Since the constitution was written by a bunch of well-off tax evaders primarily interested in maintaining their own grasp on political and economic power, the US has quite a few rules that work that way. > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > meaningless. If the constitution is to be interpreted literally, the job becomes impossible. In fact the constitution can be amended - and has been - which makes it clear that the founding tax evaders didn't see it as a collection of irrefutable axioms. If they weren't confident that they'd got it absolutely right, why should you be? -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tomseim2g@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 15:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <773bb635-1f9a-4f03-a826-0bdd118ffc06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445887 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 6:17:06 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... > > >> >>> > > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Well deserved! > > >> >> > > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > > >> >> > > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > > >> >> without much fan fare. > > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > > >> > > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > > >> >a vote. > > >> > > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > > > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > > > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > > mathematician accepting axioms. > > Not exactly. Axioms are written by mathematicians, and aren't ambiguous. The US constitution wasn't written by mathematicians, and it's not sensible to ignore the fact that it was written for a very different society in which initially only 6% of the population were entitled to vote. > > Treating the constitution as if has some sort of mystical significance is obviously insane. > > > Congress becomes the theorems. The courts become the engineers. > > A theorem is a logical consequence of a set of axioms. Legislation passed by Congress might be a theorem, if the constitution were a set of axioms - which it obviously isn't - but in reality legislation is merely extra sets of rules, which the courts test for conformity to the constitution. > > Congress might be seem as engineers, and the courts as the regulatory institution, testing whether a particular set of rules is consistent with all the other rules already in place. > > > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of > > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think > > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their > > interpretation isn't accepted. > > The people who riot and set fires aren't the people who are interpreting the constitution - the people who riot and set fires are the people who have been disadvantaged by some particular set of rules that they perceives as not treating them fairly. Since the constitution was written by a bunch of well-off tax evaders primarily interested in maintaining their own grasp on political and economic power, the US has quite a few rules that work that way. What a bunch of ill-informed garbage. You have NO IDEA who those rioters are - they deliberately covered their faces and wore identical black clothing to disguise their identities. But that doesn't stop you from making a totally fabricated bio for these criminals. Yes criminals, we DO KNOW they are that! > > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > > meaningless. > > If the constitution is to be interpreted literally, the job becomes impossible. In fact the constitution can be amended - and has been - which makes it clear that the founding tax evaders didn't see it as a collection of irrefutable axioms. If they weren't confident that they'd got it absolutely right, why should you be? The way to change the US Constitution is thru the permitted process of amendment, not by five people who have absolutely no accountability. Tom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 16:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d51aee2-d2c2-41e0-bef7-805fc95a1aec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446017 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 10:28:06 AM UTC+11, toms...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 6:17:06 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 7:09:57 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: <snip> > > The people who riot and set fires aren't the people who are interpreting the constitution - the people who riot and set fires are the people who have been disadvantaged by some particular set of rules that they perceives as not treating them fairly. Since the constitution was written by a bunch of well-off tax evaders primarily interested in maintaining their own grasp on political and economic power, the US has quite a few rules that work that way. > > What a bunch of ill-informed garbage. You have NO IDEA who those rioters are - they deliberately covered their faces and wore identical black clothing to disguise their identities. But that doesn't stop you from making a totally fabricated bio for these criminals. Yes criminals, we DO KNOW they are that! So you don't know who they are either, so you reject my plausible hypothesis - it's been found to be true anywhere where the police have been competent enough to capture and identify rioters - as "ill-informed". You haven't even bothered to set up a counter-hypothesis, so you are in your regular emotionally-loaded content-free abuse mode. > > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > > > meaningless. > > > > If the constitution is to be interpreted literally, the job becomes impossible. In fact the constitution can be amended - and has been - which makes it clear that the founding tax evaders didn't see it as a collection of irrefutable axioms. If they weren't confident that they'd got it absolutely right, why should you be? > > The way to change the US Constitution is thru the permitted process of amendment, not by five people who have absolutely no accountability. The nine justices of the US Supreme Court would argue that they aren't changing the US constitution, merely clarifying its interpretation. Right-wing nitwits can convinced themselves that their interpretation of the US Constitution is more reliable than that of a selected group of elite jurists, but that does reflect the fact that right-wing nitwits don't have a particularly firm grasp of reality. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 00:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o738nq$gu5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446017 |
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:28:03 -0800, tomseim2g wrote: > What a bunch of ill-informed garbage. You have NO IDEA who those rioters > are - they deliberately covered their faces and wore identical black > clothing to disguise their identities. But that doesn't stop you from > making a totally fabricated bio for these criminals. Yes criminals, we > DO KNOW they are that! When it comes to ill-informed garbage, Sloman is the top go-to guy. Heres another asshole thats full of shit and invents 'facts' to suit himself: http://www.infowars.com/cnn-guest-claims-berkeley-rioters-were-right- wingers/ YOu could not make this shit up (but he did!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 18:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9debfdf-15a2-431e-a74d-0f5186dd388c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446026 |
On Saturday, February 4, 2017 at 11:56:06 AM UTC+11, Julian Barnes wrote: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 15:28:03 -0800, tomseim2g wrote: > > > What a bunch of ill-informed garbage. You have NO IDEA who those rioters > > are - they deliberately covered their faces and wore identical black > > clothing to disguise their identities. But that doesn't stop you from > > making a totally fabricated bio for these criminals. Yes criminals, we > > DO KNOW they are that! > > When it comes to ill-informed garbage, Sloman is the top go-to guy. Julian Barnes hasn't bothered to identify the ill-informed garbage he claims that I've posted. I suspect he'd have to go back to "The people who riot and set fires aren't the people who are interpreting the constitution - the people who riot and set fires are the people who have been disadvantaged by some particular set of rules that they perceives as not treating them fairly" to find something he didn't like. The chance of finding a bunch of constitutional lawyers in mob of pyromaniac rioters does strike me as slim. If he finds the claim ill-informed, he ought to be able to point to some kind of counter evidence, but the people he fronts for don't collect and package up that kind of "evidence" so he's forced to fall back on his own unsubstantiated claims. > Here's another asshole that's full of shit and invents 'facts' to suit > himself: > > http://www.infowars.com/cnn-guest-claims-berkeley-rioters-were-right- > wingers/ > > You could not make this shit up (but he did!). The right makes a great fuss about rent-a-mob demonstrations. When some group of rioters at a Berkeley demonstration look unfamiliar to a Berkeley professor it's not unreasonable for him to imagine that it was a rent-a-mob demonstration, assembled to provide extra publicity for lecturer involved. The hypothesis wasn't advanced as a "fact" - more as a plausible hypothesis to explain the absence of the usual activists. Of course Julian Barnes doesn't make up shit, which is a task above his pay grade. He just retails shit that other people have made up. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 17:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97ba6b48-826a-4c96-b56b-6f738191c59e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446017 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 3:28:06 PM UTC-8, toms...@gmail.com wrote: > The way to change the US Constitution is thru the permitted process of amendment, not by five people who have absolutely no accountability. The US Constitution gives interpretive power to the Supreme Court. That isn't a function you can lightly dismiss. Would you away with paper currency (an interpretation of 'to coin money')? Be a conservative, honor the decisions of that branch of government. Even the decisions that you don't like. You aren't the court.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 17:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <acd0ba3e-9e06-4f5d-9845-4459cccedc29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445787 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:21:34 AM UTC+11, George Herold wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > > > >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > > >>> OT: Berkeley... > > >>> > > >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > > >>> > > >>> Well deserved! > > >> > > >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > > >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > > >> > > >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > > >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > > >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > > >> without much fan fare. > > >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > > >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > > > > > >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > > >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > > >a vote. > > > > Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > > serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > > strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. Wasn't Hamilton the guy who claimed - in Federalist 68 - that the electoral college would serve to filter out demagogues? As it turns out, a popular majority would done that, and the electoroal college didn't. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mrdarrett@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 08:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a50e49b2-4e71-44bd-8222-e5aa4d132566@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445787 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:21:34 AM UTC-8, George Herold wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > > > >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > > >>> OT: Berkeley... > > >>> > > >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > > >>> > > >>> Well deserved! > > >> > > >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > > >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > > >> > > >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > > >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > > >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > > >> without much fan fare. > > >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > > >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > > > > > >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > > >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > > >a vote. > > > > > >Cheers > > > > > >Phil Hobbs > > > > Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > > serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > > strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > > George H. A Schrodinger Hamiltonian? ;) Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o72bce$82b$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #445954 |
On 02/03/2017 11:34 AM, mrdarrett@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:21:34 AM UTC-8, George Herold wrote: >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>> >>>>> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >>>>> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >>>>> >>>>> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >>>>> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >>>>> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >>>>> without much fan fare. >>>>> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >>>>> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >>>> >>>> There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >>>> that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >>>> a vote. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Phil Hobbs >>> >>> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >>> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >>> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >> >> Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >> but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >> vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >> >> George H. > > > A Schrodinger Hamiltonian? ;) > > Michael > Probably. He certainly wasn't relativistic. ;) Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 13:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h_KkA.144076$xZ1.45177@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #445768 |
On 02/02/2017 12:09 PM, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>> >>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>> >>>> Well deserved! >>> >>> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >>> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >>> >>> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >>> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >>> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >>> without much fan fare. >>> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >>> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >> >> There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >> that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >> a vote. >> >> Cheers >> >> Phil Hobbs > > Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. A strict-constructionist conservative SCJ would certainly be a novel thing. In recent history "strict-constructionalist" has been code for "You get a pass so long as you have 'Co.' or 'Inc.' next to your name."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web