>> I posted some material on sunspots and how the sun >> worked, >> couched in simple terms but based on the very very very >> best >> science to date, and accurate in terminology, and with eg >> NOAA/NASA refs amongst others. Your response, > Sunspots have no place on piclist EE ... is a straw man. It addresses the point that I specifically said I wasn't addressing. ie >> leaving aside his reaction to my >> posting per se [he didn't think I should be talking about >> sunspots] What you did not address was: > As this AFAIK is the latest available example of Bob in > persuasion mode then, ... > ... an examination of his comments on my mental > processes, the scientific content of what I posted and > related matters are, presumably exemplars of what Bob has > in > mind for the future. Cherry picking is dangerously easy. You managed it above and I understand that this is easy to do accidentally. In the following I'll try not to do it more than is unavoidable for brevity. I'm sure somebody will point it out if I overdo it :-) To refresh your memory. _____________ The following within the same email: Russell: >... Sunspot cycles and magnitude are > believed to be caused by a "dynamo" effect within the sun. > Each cycle is a half cycle of the sun's dynamo with the > polarity reversing per half cycle. ... > ... This much is established fact. Bob > Yawn. So tell me what you're Engineering here? Because > discussing > "theories" about "half cycles of the sun's 'dynamo'" > doesn't seem like > Engineering to me. Show me the code or the circuit or > something. This > sounds more like Astrology to me, or Tea Leaves, or just > wanting to have > Long Meaningful Talks about things that are Off Topic and > Not > Engineering. Engineering is Doing Something. ... FWIW - the tea-leave reading is a summary of best NOAA/NASA understanding, as I had indicated at the time. _________________ Another email: Bob > I've finally had enough of this crap. Have your > pseuedo-scientific > mumbo-jumbo and while you're at it, tie some magnets to > the fuel line on > your automobile to get better mileage, Russell. It's you > or me and I > quit. You win. Have fun with what's left of the piclist. The same material. Still best science available. Doesn't make it true, but it's the best anyone can do. BUT the main point I'm raising here is that terming the factual content of what I offer "crap", and linking both my material and my level of offerings with fuel line magnets is not quite up to the full-frontal attacks that have been seen here, but would I imagine, at least be considered in evidence when assessing the seriousness of your assertions about being the face of calm reasoned and balanced admin professionalism. I have never called you, here or anywhere. I did not denigrate your offerings, or your intellectual capabilities, and I have NEVER done so. Olin's comment, a little further along the thread, was interesting, given recent discourses Jinx >> I'm surprised he didn't filter. Olin >> He shouldn't have to. _________________________ Leading up to the above Bob > Why not look at the "spirit of the law". If something like > Global > Warming generates giant amounts of OT chatter, it belongs > OT no matter > what the people who say they want "serious scientific > discussions" > intend. Bob > In other words, it defines itself as OT because of the > effect it has. ... If you look at the rather low % (believe it or not) of my posts that lead to a furore, and then look at the name, and perhaps names of the people who make very large noises about them and make sure that they are noticed by all and yon, then you may wonder at the shortness of the list of names that you have. ie in the context of the above comments, the short (short short) list of people decide something is OT (or that I posted it) and work diligently to ensure that it has an effect. Paranoia? Find some non cherry-picked examples of long wranglings that "I" have caused and then look to see if the super-short-list people are the very active complainers. ______________________________________ It matters less, but you are also not totally unknown for trashing my engineering comments with witty one liners that tend to obscure the underlying technical aspects. All good fun and very funny I'm sure. But I'm never surprised when I see such about something I've written with your name under it. Russell >>>> In practice you get the superb CES2310 which is not >>>> sold by >>>> is in a SOT23 package >>>> 30V >>>> 4.8A continuous. >>>> 1.25W Other >> Really? 1.25W in an SOT23 pkg? For how long? Bob > Less time than it takes to read this message? I then went on to explain what the data sheet said. I won't detail it here. Available in archives. [[Entirely reasonable to look at that 1.25W figure. But it is not quite as meaningless as may be imagined from the above exchange]]. FWIW the CES2310 is one of the most marvellous MOSFETS available in its class. It is one of the very few MOSFETs available that can be driven well on 3 volt supplies without gate voltage boosting circuits. ______________________________ Enough for now, I'm sure. My mainest point is that I'd be rather suspicious at how long the poacher notionally turned gamekeeper could be relied on to remember he wasn't a poacher. Not that, from what you say your intentions are, there's any suggestion of a total change of heart. Russell -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist