On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:58:58 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 06:09:59 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:48:00 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:58:13 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 12:44:53 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:


So, you approve of JF's design here?

Nowhere have I said that, have I?

No, you are careful to not commit one way or the other. If you say
they're good, you'll be lying *and* look like a fool. If you say
they're bad, you'll be betraying a fellow hen\\\ ally.

---
Matter of fact, Jim _did_ take issue with my circuit, but apprised me
of a potential problem via private email.

Makes my point. He won't comment on a bad circuit in the group because
his loyalties are more to geezerdom than to electronics. How the
mighty have fallen.

---
Total nonsense, since it's not a bad circuit. He was just giving me a
heads-up in an area where there might be a little trouble.

Had he posted it here, you would - of course - have blown everything
way out of proportion, just like you're doing now, in an effort to
exalt yourself at the expense of others.

It's also nonsense because he has no qualms about commenting on your
atrocious garbage all the time.
---

Wisely, I think, in order to keep your nasty, self-serving vitriol out
of the loop.

He's gone private to worm out of being honest in public. He does that
a lot. When you are willing to hide from the truth, you design bad
electronics.

---
Then your stuff must be really rotten to the core, just like you are.
---

In any case, the fix was duck soup and the potential problem is now
solved.

Care to _guess_ what it was?

No, there are far too many candidates.

---
Translation: "I can't, but I'm a loudmouthed, sneaky sonofabitch, so
I'll make some noise and sidestep the issue."


--
JF