Jamie wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:00:08 -0500, Jamie
t wrote:


Eeyore wrote:


Archimedes' Lever wrote:



I know more about soldering and connections between metals than you
ever will.


Jolly Good for you. I doubt you know much else.

Graham


You're opening your self up for a big one Graham, get prepared
for the aftermath.



You're both spewing more **** into the group than I ever have.

Donkey ass, with his less-than-peanut-gallery commentary, and you, with
your retarded link-to-self on each post. You're a joke.

You're both pretty ****ing pathetic.

Thank you.

Your comments are duly noted and dropped into the suggestion box.

Have a horrible day, and may it rain on your parade.
-


May your head explode from your continuing hatred.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:27:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:57:20 -0500, kony wrote:

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:06:31 -0500, kony
wrote:

Here's an example with an ECS GeForce 6100SM-M v. 1.0 motherboard:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3397/...b349938d_o.jpg


snip

I don't have an nForce /4xx series board available to check
it, but checking an old A7N8X board that uses a Silicon
Image SATA controller, it has the SATA data pins coupled
directly to the chip inputs with a 2200pF ceramic chip
capacitor in series.

The picture linked above is a little high in contrast so
it's hard to tell but might those empty spots be
corresponding to capacitors on the adjacent used SATA spots?
Further, if you can trace these data lines to the chipset,
are there unused surface mount pads adjacent to it?


I must be blind, upon looking at the picture again obviously
what I was thinking of is supposed to be capacitors as
marked with the C(nnn) silkscreening but now I wonder if you
were looking at the resistor, R(nn) silkscreened positions
above the SATA port in the pictures. They don't seem to be
for SATA?


Ever thought about tracing the local circuitry with a DVM? D'OH!

Actually, I did trace the circuit and also reported what I
measured in a separate post, but on a board I have that is
not the same make and model as his, and if you are familiar
with the extreme economizing ECS often does on their boards,
you would then realize that what is normal is not always to
be taken for granted when ECS is involved.

However, taking measurements with a DVM is a bit less simple
than that in many instances since the parts are still
in-circuit, potentially still in parallel or series with
other parts unless one starts desoldering each one or can
read and decipher the markings with a magnifying glass.

However, on my other post where I listed capacitance values
I am fairly confident there was not need as one end of the
circuit was open at the SATA connector itself. This is
where working with multi-layer boards becomes more complex,
tracing a dense circuit enough to follow it within a
reasonable amount of time, not merely soldering a connector
or SMD cap on the board.


Especially useful at the unpopulated areas for schematesizing the work
in progress. Pretty much leaves out all doubt.

A schematic leaves no doubt... if we can assume it was
followed. Otherwise there are several hints but the first
step is the one not so hard to do, put the port on the board
after populating the missing cap locations with parts
mirroring those on the other implemented ports.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:25:31 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:09:24 -0500, kony wrote:


Funny, I always thought that if it worked that was proof.


Typical dumb**** with a soldering iron remark. You crank up the temp
control too, 'eh?

You are one predictable dip****, boy.

You mean that you already knew you were wrong so the proof
was inevitable?

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:26:18 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:09:24 -0500, kony wrote:


You don't seem to know much then.


I have decades more experience and knowledge than you do.

At trolling, farting, or looking like an idiot?

How many decades? You must think the average usenet
participant is 20 years old. Maybe in '75. Try again, it's
pretty unlikely the average age around here is even 10 years
your junior, all the kids use the web instead of usenet.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:53:32 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:38:46 -0500, kony wrote:


You lied previously, you're not even half my age.


Are you 86?


If you are 86 then your prior threats of violence are funny
as hell.

However, we are in a unique situation with modern
electronics, you were not working with multilayer surface
mount (anything, including SATA ports) for the first half of
your life so you might as well cut your age almost in half
when trying to claim experience in this topic.

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

Pick up a soldering iron and see what you can do, you are
not too old to learn new tricks (if you pull your head out
of your ass long enough to actually try). In China people
walk in off the streets and do more complex soldering after
a few weeks training.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:48:21 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:19:49 -0500, kony wrote:

Besides that,
if the chipset supported the addt'l ports, and once the OP
had the needed capacitors, it was a 4 to 10 minute job.


Doesn't matter if the chipset has it if the BIOS doesn't dumbass.

How little you know about modular bios.

Find a different board with the same set of chips and you
don't even have to use the same bios! There are also tools
to reenable hidden features. They do not write a custom
bios for every board that has only minor changes, they just
add or subtract modules and hide features.

What you are failing to grasp is why the OP suspected the
mod was possible, because he, and I, and others, have
already seen and done such things in the past.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.


Then quit posturing and show us!

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

krw wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:


Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.


DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).


My first hands-on direct exposure to large multilayer real estate was
a 12 layer Control Data Terminal Systems CPU board which held about 400
MSI devices densely packed, made in 1970.

Michael

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:19:49 -0500, kony wrote:

Oh, you mean you bought something as an end-user, and claim
that's knowledge, but you still can't wrap your head around
soldering a mere connector onto a PCB.

I used to make 7000 connections a day, and my work looks like that of a
machine. My soldering is easily an order of magnitude better than yours.
My knowledge of rework and retrofit procedures as well.

It's quite ridiculous.

You ridicule yourself.

This is a very simple soldering job
that you've blown out of proportion.

No. It is MORE than a mere soldering job, as I stated in my original
reply, which you likely did not read.

Ok, you made a mistake
underestimating the ability of people who have held a
soldering iron.

No. I have seen banks of dumb ****heads like you that claim to be good,
but fail miserably when hundreds of thousands of dollars of company
assets are at stake. I have personally beat out a crew of 50 such
assholes for a chip removal task where their standard lab boys were
scraping pads. That was a $10M+ rework effort.

It's like billiards. You have to know a little bit about the nitty
gritty to be able to do the really tricky shots.

You, and nitty gritty have never met.

That part was not such a big deal but
continuing to insist you are right contrary to common sense?

You're an idiot. Your grasp of common sense would fit on the tip of a
molecular probe.

It's just amazing.

I'd even bet you don't know what *that* word means.


kinell, what is it about usenet?


NT

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)

Hundred layers?

Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.

I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.

That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.


Then quit posturing and show us!

Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.

DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong,

I am neither.

You are, in fact, both.

but the above is simply bull****.

It is also nothing I ever said. The kony retard that thinks he knows
all about PCBs said it.

You're also CantRead.

Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).

In article t,
_ says...
krw wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:


Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.


DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC) on system backplanes and
easily eight layers (4P-4S) on plug-in cards well before '80 (the
latter were old hat when I started in '74). I haven't done anyting as
simple as two layers since college projects, and that was limited by
our wierd method (sides were cut individually on a lathe then
laminated).


My first hands-on direct exposure to large multilayer real estate was
a 12 layer Control Data Terminal Systems CPU board which held about 400
MSI devices densely packed, made in 1970.

IBM mainframes. Our standard boards were 10 layer PWB + wirewrap
overflow and customization in the '60s. The plug-in cards
(nominally 18 per board) were usually 8 layer. Four were needed to
power the ECL. In the late '70s things shifted to 100 (then 121)
chip MCMs on huge boards (~3'x3', IIRC). These pretty much went
away with the ECL processors. CMOS packed more into the chips
without increasing the board wiring density much. The number of
layers on the MCM boards was dictated by timing and impedance
control required as much as density.

krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.
DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)
Hundred layers?
Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.
I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.

Then quit posturing and show us!

Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.


At the risk of damping down this lovely flame war, here's a 2004 article
on the IBM z990 series machines that discusses the module and board
layer buildups in detail:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/winkel.pdf

The net: 110 layers in the modules and 30 in the cards.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

In article ,
says...
krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:16:11 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 00:09:15 -0500, kony wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:57:36 -0600, krw
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:07:02 -0500, kony wrote:

Come to think of it, there was very little that had more
than 2 layers before '80, so if that is where your supposed
experience comes from, suddenly it all starts to make sense.
DimBulb is certainly AlwaysWrong, but the above is simply bull****.
Perhaps in your little corner of the world you were still using
phenolic substrates too but others had moved on long before. We were
using upwards of a hundred layers (96, IIRC)
Hundred layers?
Just under, yes. Late '70s, yes.

We must have a language difference, because that is not even
close to true in english.
I can't help it if you can't comprehend simple English.

In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.

Then quit posturing and show us!

Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.


At the risk of damping down this lovely flame war, here's a 2004 article
on the IBM z990 series machines that discusses the module and board
layer buildups in detail:

I didn't work on the 'z' series (left for BTV during the ES9000 to
'z' changeover).

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/winkel.pdf

The net: 110 layers in the modules and 30 in the cards.

Thanks Phil. The 3081-ES9000 boards were much larger and had more
layers (lower integration by several orders of magnitude). I did a
search on the ibm.com site and didn't turn anything up on the older
stuff ("Clark Board" was some sort of philanthropic organization,
or something).

Archimedes' Lever wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:46:13 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Jamie wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:


On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:00:08 -0500, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter. net wrote:



Eeyore wrote:



Archimedes' Lever wrote:




I know more about soldering and connections between metals than you
ever will.


Jolly Good for you. I doubt you know much else.

Graham


You're opening your self up for a big one Graham, get prepared
for the aftermath.



You're both spewing more **** into the group than I ever have.

Donkey ass, with his less-than-peanut-gallery commentary, and you, with
your retarded link-to-self on each post. You're a joke.

You're both pretty ****ing pathetic.

Thank you.

Your comments are duly noted and dropped into the suggestion box.

Have a horrible day, and may it rain on your parade.
-


May your head explode from your continuing hatred.



Hey, at least I got the dope to strip that stupid link away.

Speaking of being mentally incapacitated, your name arose out of
discussion.

--
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5"

On Jan 13, 8:41*pm, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

* Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... *There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

More slaty language : (-1) point

* I doubt that you even know what a VME backplane is, much less have any
grasp of circuit board manufacturing technology. *You obviously have no
clue as to how many layers modern boards have, much less how many were
available to be had in 1975. *Your grasp of PC boards is limited to that
which you ever saw. *That is proven by the inane remark about what YOU
think was available at the time.



Granted, there's not one second I buy this,

* We know... *but that is because you're an absolute ****ing retard.

calling someone f*&k-head twice in the same post : (-1) point

but let's see
what you come up with.

* You really are one brainless little bitch.- Hide quoted text -

Third insult using curse words: (-1) point

- Show quoted text -

You get a (-3) point trolling score for this post.

You really suck at this trolling thingy man!

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:22:22 -0500, Phil Hobbs
wrote:


In fact, I challenge you to find any 100 layer boards,
anywhere, ever... within the next 30 years or more.
That statement simply shows the world your lack of experience.

Then quit posturing and show us!

Sorry, I don't have documentation from thirty years ago, nor would
I have the hardware to display it.

Granted, there's not one second I buy this, but let's see
what you come up with.

Of course you don't. You want to live in your little protected
world forever. The bigger world is scary, for those with such a
limited mind.


At the risk of damping down this lovely flame war, here's a 2004 article
on the IBM z990 series machines that discusses the module and board
layer buildups in detail:

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/483/winkel.pdf

The net: 110 layers in the modules and 30 in the cards.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

While that is interesting, it isn't a 100 layer mainboard
PCB? It seems we are not talking about the same thing,
although a search of the document did not find "110"
anywhere, what page is that on?

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:47:23 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


It's just amazing.

I'd even bet you don't know what *that* word means.

Since this topic has no further productive value there is no
reason to waste more time on it.

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject. 2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:04:42 -0500, kony wrote:


While that is interesting, it isn't a 100 layer mainboard
PCB? It seems we are not talking about the same thing,
although a search of the document did not find "110"
anywhere, what page is that on?


Come back perhaps in your next life. You are hard wired retarded in
this one.


Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did
you think anyone would take your comments seriously? That's
not really a question.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:36:15 -0600, krw
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject.

We had been talking about mainboards. Obviously even the
CPUs themselves had more than that.


2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.


We weren't talking about a big world, we already had a
context for the topic, or do we really have to backtrack and
restate every little thing in a topic without it being in
context? If so, where exactly does that end?

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:36:15 -0600, krw
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded ****head... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject.

We had been talking about mainboards. Obviously even the
CPUs themselves had more than that.

We were talking about PCBs. Define "CPU" (we clearly weren't
talking about chips).

2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.


We weren't talking about a big world, we already had a
context for the topic, or do we really have to backtrack and
restate every little thing in a topic without it being in
context? If so, where exactly does that end?

When you admit that you leaped *way* beyond your knowledge.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:41:30 -0500, kony wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
[sos]
Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did you think
anyone would take your comments seriously? That's not really a question.

And yet, after 3,001 trolls, you continue to feed it, bypassing my troll
filter?

Go away.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:10:56 GMT, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:41:30 -0500, kony wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
[sos]
Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did you think
anyone would take your comments seriously? That's not really a question.

And yet, after 3,001 trolls, you continue to feed it, bypassing my troll
filter?

Go away.


If it bothers you that much, I *permit* you to stop
reading... though this topic is like beating a dead horse so
you'll get your wish either way.