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 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
| From | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 08:51 -0700 |
| Subject | OT: Berkeley |
| Message-ID | <a9l69cdrqvf9fa458kgrekt74r4al5gqvg@4ax.com> |
OT: Berkeley...
<http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5>
Well deserved!
...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] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 08:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <704244fb-e969-4930-9619-2ca31c30c7f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445747 |
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.) George H. > > ...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 | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pb6dncFRWfF__g7FnZ2dnUU7-e-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #445762 |
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 -- 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 | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 09:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2rp69cp03ev3lu4ejie55s23idfbv9i86p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445763 |
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. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 12:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <cuGdnQeQTOZA8A7FnZ2dnUU7-e-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| 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. > 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. Then all we need is to get rid of all the "legal realists" in the law school faculties. You know, the ones who find "penumbras" and "emanations" that allow them to legislate from the bench. 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 | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 07:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <703d6de3-d3c3-441d-ad24-589f9c82bfd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445772 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:35:34 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote: > 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. > > > 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. > > Then all we need is to get rid of all the "legal realists" in the law > school faculties. You know, the ones who find "penumbras" and > "emanations" that allow them to legislate from the bench. Penumbras are handy for obvious reasons when it rains, and if it's clear, you can write new laws with them. But that was before pens-and-phones...old school. Cheers, James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 10:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6bf927e4-968f-4f3d-af05-fd77585e7761@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445768 |
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. > > > -- > > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > > lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r5v69chr83l6rnmh18qp733a25j108kn1i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445787 |
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. No, the terms were already set by the "Biden rule". The Rs were just following the Ds lead, as they will with the Reid's "nuclear option". >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, It means that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was plainly written and there isn't one penumbra in there anywhere. >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. That's the first bad thing I've heard about him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 13:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qaLkA.32438$i35.30590@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #445795 |
On 02/02/2017 01:44 PM, krw@notreal.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. > > No, the terms were already set by the "Biden rule". The Rs were just > following the Ds lead, as they will with the Reid's "nuclear option". >> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > > It means that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was plainly > written and there isn't one penumbra in there anywhere. It's a great idea if any of the recent conservative SCJs actually do/did it. Which they don't/didn't! Scalia certainly wasn't a constructionist - he decided cases based on his own whims and personal preferences all the time, as just about all judges either liberal or conservative tend to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <han79chspn4t3urseq0nojg1aihualtgu4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445799 |
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:48:53 -0500, bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >On 02/02/2017 01:44 PM, krw@notreal.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. >> >> No, the terms were already set by the "Biden rule". The Rs were just >> following the Ds lead, as they will with the Reid's "nuclear option". >>> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >> >> It means that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was plainly >> written and there isn't one penumbra in there anywhere. > >It's a great idea if any of the recent conservative SCJs actually do/did >it. Which they don't/didn't! You mean like allowing Obamacare? Even a 24hr clock is right once a day. >Scalia certainly wasn't a constructionist - he decided cases based on >his own whims and personal preferences all the time, as just about all >judges either liberal or conservative tend to do. Now you're just lying again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o70n14$rtk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #445869 |
<krw@notreal.com> wrote in message news:han79chspn4t3urseq0nojg1aihualtgu4@4ax.com... > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:48:53 -0500, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On 02/02/2017 01:44 PM, krw@notreal.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. >>> >>> No, the terms were already set by the "Biden rule". The Rs were just >>> following the Ds lead, as they will with the Reid's "nuclear option". >>>> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >>> >>> It means that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was plainly >>> written and there isn't one penumbra in there anywhere. >> >>It's a great idea if any of the recent conservative SCJs actually do/did >>it. Which they don't/didn't! > > You mean like allowing Obamacare? Even a 24hr clock is right once a > day. > >>Scalia certainly wasn't a constructionist - he decided cases based on >>his own whims and personal preferences all the time, as just about all >>judges either liberal or conservative tend to do. > > Now you're just lying again. He's a liberal. That's what liberals do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ggRkA.44270$nV4.37583@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #445873 |
On 02/02/2017 08:41 PM, tom wrote: > <krw@notreal.com> wrote in message > news:han79chspn4t3urseq0nojg1aihualtgu4@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:48:53 -0500, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>> On 02/02/2017 01:44 PM, krw@notreal.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. >>>> >>>> No, the terms were already set by the "Biden rule". The Rs were just >>>> following the Ds lead, as they will with the Reid's "nuclear option". >>>>> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >>>> >>>> It means that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was plainly >>>> written and there isn't one penumbra in there anywhere. >>> >>> It's a great idea if any of the recent conservative SCJs actually do/did >>> it. Which they don't/didn't! >> >> You mean like allowing Obamacare? Even a 24hr clock is right once a >> day. >> >>> Scalia certainly wasn't a constructionist - he decided cases based on >>> his own whims and personal preferences all the time, as just about all >>> judges either liberal or conservative tend to do. >> >> Now you're just lying again. > > He's a liberal. That's what liberals do. > http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ I'm really kind of an amateur.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-07 11:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o7cs7e$9d8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #445876 |
On 2/2/2017 8:44 PM, bitrex wrote: > On 02/02/2017 08:41 PM, tom wrote: >> <krw@notreal.com> wrote in message >> news:han79chspn4t3urseq0nojg1aihualtgu4@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:48:53 -0500, bitrex >>> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> On 02/02/2017 01:44 PM, krw@notreal.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: [...] >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> No, the terms were already set by the "Biden rule". The Rs >>>>> were just following the Ds lead, as they will with the Reid's >>>>> "nuclear option". >>>>>> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >>>>> >>>>> It means that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was >>>>> plainly written and there isn't one penumbra in there >>>>> anywhere. >>>> >>>> It's a great idea if any of the recent conservative SCJs >>>> actually do/did it. Which they don't/didn't! >>> >>> You mean like allowing Obamacare? Even a 24hr clock is right >>> once a day. >>> >>>> Scalia certainly wasn't a constructionist - he decided cases >>>> based on his own whims and personal preferences all the time, >>>> as just about all judges either liberal or conservative tend to >>>> do. >>> >>> Now you're just lying again. >> >> He's a liberal. That's what liberals do. > > http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/ > > I'm really kind of an amateur. Perhaps you can get a fellowship under the Kellyanne: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/kellyanne-conway/ -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 17:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f1096edc-6095-4978-9595-d2cc051581b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445873 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:41:36 PM UTC+11, tom wrote: > <krw@notreal.com> wrote in message > news:han79chspn4t3urseq0nojg1aihualtgu4@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:48:53 -0500, bitrex > > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >>On 02/02/2017 01:44 PM, krw@notreal.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. > >>> > >>> No, the terms were already set by the "Biden rule". The Rs were just > >>> following the Ds lead, as they will with the Reid's "nuclear option". > >>>> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > >>> > >>> It means that the Constitution is to be interpreted as it was plainly > >>> written and there isn't one penumbra in there anywhere. > >> > >>It's a great idea if any of the recent conservative SCJs actually do/did > >>it. Which they don't/didn't! > > > > You mean like allowing Obamacare? Even a 24hr clock is right once a > > day. > > > >>Scalia certainly wasn't a constructionist - he decided cases based on > >>his own whims and personal preferences all the time, as just about all > >>judges either liberal or conservative tend to do. > > > > Now you're just lying again. > > He's a liberal. That's what liberals do. That's what conservative like to think - and what conservatives would like to be true gets their vote, whether or not it accords with real world facts. The real distinction between liberals and conservatives is that liberals will spend time and money finding out what is really going on, while conservatives regard this as a waste of time - if you already "know" the truth, why waste any effort on confirming that it really is true. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 13:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <O6LkA.98737$Q62.13390@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #445787 |
On 02/02/2017 01:21 PM, George Herold wrote: > Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means It's "Conservative Code" for "If you're a 'job creator' you can do whatever you want."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 12:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <12479cpv6fv9dqj0ocusouvheh4q08n8j1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445787 |
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. 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. Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is meaningless. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 16:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <RXNkA.25923$Hz6.9774@fx28.iad> |
| In reply to | #445820 |
On 02/02/2017 03:09 PM, 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. And real people don't operate this way at all, ever.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 17:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <a%NkA.44337$js3.28641@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #445820 |
On 02/02/2017 03:09 PM, John Larkin wrote: > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The > courts become the engineers. > > 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. > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > meaningless. An essay on how a government of people should operate, provided to you by hello I am a robot beep boop computer-man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 00:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57QkA.184941$sc6.69797@fx25.am4> |
| In reply to | #445820 |
On 02/02/17 20:09, John Larkin wrote: > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The > courts become the engineers. > > 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. We've always been somewhat bemused by the /religious/ adherence to the written constitution. There are advantages to not having a written constitution, in particular "it" can evolve naturally as understanding and circumstances change. OTOH, it has the disadvantage in that sometimes it is invented on the fly. We've seen the consequences of that in Brexit where the government asserted that it had the right to leave the EU. A /private/ prosecution caused the judges to slap down the government and state categorically that parliament had that sovereign power (unlike the sovereign :) ). Now all we need is an opposition that does its job, i.e. to _oppose_, not to dither and waffle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 17:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5n79cp8c1nhf2t7p43m0uvm27d4p7932h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445854 |
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:26:40 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 02/02/17 20:09, John Larkin wrote: > >> Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >> mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >> courts become the engineers. >> >> 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. > >We've always been somewhat bemused by the /religious/ adherence >to the written constitution. > >There are advantages to not having a written constitution, >in particular "it" can evolve naturally as understanding >and circumstances change. > >OTOH, it has the disadvantage in that sometimes it is >invented on the fly. We've seen the consequences of that >in Brexit where the government asserted that it had the >right to leave the EU. A /private/ prosecution caused the >judges to slap down the government and state categorically >that parliament had that sovereign power (unlike the >sovereign :) ). > >Now all we need is an opposition that does its job, >i.e. to _oppose_, not to dither and waffle. A constitutional right to free speech is absolute. Without that, a govennment can define "hate speech" or "denying facts" and make such expression and writing a crime. That happens in Europe all the time. The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, protects us against government. It gives us rights that can't be legislated away. Strict interpretation is necessary, or the rights are worthless. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 12 [1] 2 3 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web