On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:55 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields wrote:

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.

---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?

What causes the problem is irrelevant.

---
You're the cause of the problem, so I'll concede the point and agree
with you.

What _isn't_ irrelevant is the problem itself and the inconvenience it
causes those who wish to reply to your posts.

_Not_ fixing it when, ostensibly, you could with a few key clicks is
raising pig-headedness to a new low and speaks volumes about your
character.
---

You may aswell say the invention of the motor vehicle cause Mr Bloggs
to die yesterday, so let's all go sue Henry Ford.

---
That's not the same thing at all.

Mr. Ford's philosophy mandated that the mistakes he made be fixed as
they were found, in the field, while yours seems to be that your readers
are responsible for finding work-around solutions to your errors.

JF

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:


He was deeply in love. When she spoke, he thought he heard bells, as if
she were a dustcart reversing.

---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?

I did not follow your response to my sig.

---
Really?

That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.

JF

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:36:12 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:48:55 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:14:24 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 00:45:16 -0000, John Fields wrote:

It's easy enough to insert and fix up his post, but most of the time
it's "Why bother?"

Why bother getting a news client that can word wrap when replying? I dunno, ask yourself.

---
Since yours is the source of the problem, why not fix yours?

What causes the problem is irrelevant.

---
You're the cause of the problem, so I'll concede the point and agree
with you.

No, the people who can't interpret a non-carriage returned line are the problem.

What _isn't_ irrelevant is the problem itself and the inconvenience it
causes those who wish to reply to your posts.

They can get decent software.

_Not_ fixing it when, ostensibly, you could with a few key clicks is
raising pig-headedness to a new low and speaks volumes about your
character.

It wouldn't be "fixing" it, it would be "changing" it. I don't want narrow columns of text on my wide screen.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

____
_[]_/____\__n_
|_____.--.__()_|
|LI //# \\ |
| \\__// |
| '--' |
'--------------'

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:44:33 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:




---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?

I did not follow your response to my sig.

---
Really?

That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.

Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Microsoft: This company has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.

In article op.uo7fjiin4buhsv@i7, says...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:44:33 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:




---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?

I did not follow your response to my sig.

---
Really?

That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.

Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

Kinda defeats the purpose of every replying to you.

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:44:33 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:




---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?

I did not follow your response to my sig.

---
Really?

That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.

Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly, and if you didn't
understand it, oh well...

JF

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:44:33 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:




---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?

I did not follow your response to my sig.

---
Really?

That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.

Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly,

What you mean was it was a serious joke.

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

After hearing a couple's complaints that their intimate life wasn't what it used to be, the sex counselor suggested they vary their position.
"For example," he suggested, "you might try the wheelbarrow. Lift her legs, penetrate, and off you go."
The eager husband was all for trying this new idea as soon as they got home.
"Well, OK," the hesitant wife agreed, "but on two conditions.
First if it hurts, you will stop right away, and second," she insisted, "You have to promise we won't go past my mother's."

In article op.uo85jyhj4buhsv@i7, says...
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:44:33 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:53:30 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:52:46 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:19:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:06:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:




---
leaving you alone again, naturally?

What?

Huh?

I did not follow your response to my sig.

---
Really?

That's sad, but just like it's not your problem to set the line wrap
when you post, it's not my problem to learn you up.

Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly,

What you mean was it was a serious joke.

No, *you* are a serious joke; nothing funny about it.

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

Talking sense to one PHucker, certainly.

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:56:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:
Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly,

What you mean was it was a serious joke.

---
What a pompous ass you are, telling me what I meant.
I meant exactly what I said, and if you can't cope with the fact that
your ignorance keeps you from understanding certain things, then oh
well, Boo-hoo-hoo.
---

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

---
No, it wasn't since, your response and continued response to it paints a
more accurate picture of who you are.

JF

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:38:04 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:56:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:
Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly,

What you mean was it was a serious joke.

---
What a pompous ass you are, telling me what I meant.
I meant exactly what I said, and if you can't cope with the fact that
your ignorance keeps you from understanding certain things, then oh
well, Boo-hoo-hoo.

What you did was to make a joke with no effect as I didn't understand it. Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

---
No, it wasn't since, your response and continued response to it paints a
more accurate picture of who you are.

What are you a ****ing detective?


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Scots are tightwads who are saving up to become Jewish.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:38:04 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:56:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:
Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly,

What you mean was it was a serious joke.

---
What a pompous ass you are, telling me what I meant.
I meant exactly what I said, and if you can't cope with the fact that
your ignorance keeps you from understanding certain things, then oh
well, Boo-hoo-hoo.

What you did was to make a joke with no effect as I didn't understand it.

---
If you didn't understand it, then what makes you think it was a joke?
---

Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.
---

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

---
No, it wasn't since, your response and continued response to it paints a
more accurate picture of who you are.

What are you a ****ing detective?

---
Just tryin' to get the facts, Ma'am.

JF

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:38:04 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:56:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:
Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly,

What you mean was it was a serious joke.

---
What a pompous ass you are, telling me what I meant.
I meant exactly what I said, and if you can't cope with the fact that
your ignorance keeps you from understanding certain things, then oh
well, Boo-hoo-hoo.

What you did was to make a joke with no effect as I didn't understand it.

---
If you didn't understand it, then what makes you think it was a joke?

Nothing else would have fitted in there.

---

Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them. If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing. You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

---
No, it wasn't since, your response and continued response to it paints a
more accurate picture of who you are.

What are you a ****ing detective?

---
Just tryin' to get the facts, Ma'am.

Get a life?


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:38:04 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:56:12 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:39:27 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:36:44 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:
Posting a joke that the victim doesn't understand defeats the purpose.

---
It wasn't a joke, it suited my purpose perfectly,

What you mean was it was a serious joke.

---
What a pompous ass you are, telling me what I meant.
I meant exactly what I said, and if you can't cope with the fact that
your ignorance keeps you from understanding certain things, then oh
well, Boo-hoo-hoo.

What you did was to make a joke with no effect as I didn't understand it.

---
If you didn't understand it, then what makes you think it was a joke?

Nothing else would have fitted in there.

---
Rubbish.

It was an insult, regardless of your claim that it wasn't.

Whether it was jocular or not is immaterial since you didn't understand
it and can't, therefore, responded to whether there was humor in it or
not.
---

Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them.

---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing.

---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

---
No, it wasn't since, your response and continued response to it paints a
more accurate picture of who you are.

What are you a ****ing detective?

---
Just tryin' to get the facts, Ma'am.

Get a life?

---

"Polly want a cracker?"

Trite, predictable, and ordinary.

JF

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them.

---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

Like what?

If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing.

---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

What use is that?

You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

To prevent you getting the last wod and gloating about it.

and if you didn't understand it, oh well...

Wasted exercise.

---
No, it wasn't since, your response and continued response to it paints a
more accurate picture of who you are.

What are you a ****ing detective?

---
Just tryin' to get the facts, Ma'am.

Get a life?

---

"Polly want a cracker?"

Trite, predictable, and ordinary.

Sorry, I've not enrolled in the troll school like yourself.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Q: If you have a mothball in one hand and another mothball in the other hand, what would you have?
A: The undivided attention of a very large moth!

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:59:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them.

---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

Like what?

---
Like to put them in their place, for one.
---


If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing.

---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

What use is that?

---
It's a weapon I can use against you in the future.
---

You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

To prevent you getting the last wod and gloating about it.

---
So it's OK for you to have the last word, but not for me?
---

"Polly want a cracker?"

Trite, predictable, and ordinary.

Sorry, I've not enrolled in the troll school like yourself.

---
Bull****.

You're just not that good at it and you hate it when you get caught
because you can't flame worth a **** either.

Go ahead and take the last word, Bozo, I'm sure all of USENET is
waiting, suspensefully, to hear what you've got to say...

JF

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:09:29 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:59:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them.

---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

Like what?

---
Like to put them in their place, for one.
---

If I don't understand the insult, you haven't placed me anywhere.

If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing.

---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

What use is that?

---
It's a weapon I can use against you in the future.
---

Admittance of trolling noted.

You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

To prevent you getting the last wod and gloating about it.

---
So it's OK for you to have the last word, but not for me?
---

Of course.

"Polly want a cracker?"

Trite, predictable, and ordinary.

Sorry, I've not enrolled in the troll school like yourself.

---
Bull****.

You're just not that good at it and you hate it when you get caught
because you can't flame worth a **** either.

So you do admit to trolling.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A man in a hot air balloon* realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He* descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a* friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The woman below replied, "You're in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You're between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."
"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist. "I am," replied the woman, "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is, technically correct, but I've no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I'm* still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help at all. If anything, you've* delayed my trip."
The woman below responded, "You must be in Management."
"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well," said the woman, "You don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.*You made a promise which you've no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is you are in exactly the same position
you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:37:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:09:29 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:59:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

Pointless. To insult someone they must know you are doing so.

---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them.

---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

Like what?

---
Like to put them in their place, for one.
---

If I don't understand the insult, you haven't placed me anywhere.

---
Try to keep up, OK?

We're not talking about you and your disabilities, I was answering your
question about what insults can be used for.

Whether _you_ understand the insult is immaterial, since the fact
remains that an insult can be used to someone in their place.
---


If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing.

---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

What use is that?

---
It's a weapon I can use against you in the future.
---

Admittance of trolling noted.

---
I don't _admit_ to trolling, asshole, I REVEL in it.

Especially when I hook minnows, like you, pretending to be sharks.
---

You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

To prevent you getting the last wod and gloating about it.

---
So it's OK for you to have the last word, but not for me?
---

Of course.

---
Well, that's a juicy little tidbit. Got any more?
---

"Polly want a cracker?"

Trite, predictable, and ordinary.

Sorry, I've not enrolled in the troll school like yourself.

---
Bull****.

You're just not that good at it and you hate it when you get caught
because you can't flame worth a **** either.

So you do admit to trolling.

---
"Admit" is such a pussy word, and now that you've taken the bait and
can't get off the hook, hatch gonna do?

JF

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:07:48 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:37:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:09:29 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:59:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:



---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them.

---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

Like what?

---
Like to put them in their place, for one.
---

If I don't understand the insult, you haven't placed me anywhere.

---
Try to keep up, OK?

We're not talking about you and your disabilities, I was answering your
question about what insults can be used for.

Whether _you_ understand the insult is immaterial, since the fact
remains that an insult can be used to someone in their place.
---

If they don't understand the insult, you haven't put them in their place. Imagine insulting someone in another language.

If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing.

---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

What use is that?

---
It's a weapon I can use against you in the future.
---

Admittance of trolling noted.

---
I don't _admit_ to trolling, asshole, I REVEL in it.

Especially when I hook minnows, like you, pretending to be sharks.
---

Trolls are the lowest form of life. Nobody looks up to you.

You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

To prevent you getting the last wod and gloating about it.

---
So it's OK for you to have the last word, but not for me?
---

Of course.

---
Well, that's a juicy little tidbit. Got any more?
---

You sad git.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

If debugging is the process of removing software bugs, then programming must be the process of putting them in.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:30:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:07:48 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:37:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:09:29 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:59:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:49:26 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:19:03 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:



---
Nope.

When you've been insulted, you've been insulted whether you know it or
not.

Sometimes it's even sweeter if don't understand the insult because that
shows off your stupidity.

The point of insulting someone is to annoy them.

---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

Like what?

---
Like to put them in their place, for one.
---

If I don't understand the insult, you haven't placed me anywhere.

---
Try to keep up, OK?

We're not talking about you and your disabilities, I was answering your
question about what insults can be used for.

Whether _you_ understand the insult is immaterial, since the fact
remains that an insult can be used to someone in their place.
---

If they don't understand the insult, you haven't put them in their place. Imagine insulting someone in another language.

---
Damn, but you're thick! You still don't get it...
---

If they don't understand the insult, you've achieved nothing.

---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

What use is that?

---
It's a weapon I can use against you in the future.
---

Admittance of trolling noted.

---
I don't _admit_ to trolling, asshole, I REVEL in it.

Especially when I hook minnows, like you, pretending to be sharks.
---

Trolls are the lowest form of life. Nobody looks up to you.

---
Are you kidding?

Trolling is a high art when it's done properly and when the intended
prey is well-hooked.

Like you, my boy, out there playing your little line-wrap and last word
games.

Well, the hook is firmly set and I'll not cut you loose anytime soon.
---

You might aswell wait until someone is out of earshot then call him names.

---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

To prevent you getting the last wod and gloating about it.

---
So it's OK for you to have the last word, but not for me?
---

Of course.

---
Well, that's a juicy little tidbit. Got any more?
---

You sad git.

---
What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?

JF

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:30:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:07:48 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 19:37:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:09:29 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:59:36 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:20:21 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:09:59 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:





---
So say you, but there are many more reasons than that to insult someone.
---

Like what?

---
Like to put them in their place, for one.
---

If I don't understand the insult, you haven't placed me anywhere.

---
Try to keep up, OK?

We're not talking about you and your disabilities, I was answering your
question about what insults can be used for.

Whether _you_ understand the insult is immaterial, since the fact
remains that an insult can be used to someone in their place.
---

If they don't understand the insult, you haven't put them in their place. Imagine insulting someone in another language.

---
Damn, but you're thick! You still don't get it...
---



---
Sure I have.

What I've achieved is discovering that your insight and intellectual
resources are insufficient to understand the insult and then to
retaliate.
---

What use is that?

---
It's a weapon I can use against you in the future.
---

Admittance of trolling noted.

---
I don't _admit_ to trolling, asshole, I REVEL in it.

Especially when I hook minnows, like you, pretending to be sharks.
---

Trolls are the lowest form of life. Nobody looks up to you.

---
Are you kidding?

Trolling is a high art when it's done properly and when the intended
prey is well-hooked.

Like you, my boy, out there playing your little line-wrap and last word
games.

Well, the hook is firmly set and I'll not cut you loose anytime soon.
---



---
You keep responding, so you're well within earshot, and you obviously
feel you have an emotional investment in the thread, otherwise you'd
just drop it.

So why do you keep responding?
---

To prevent you getting the last wod and gloating about it.

---
So it's OK for you to have the last word, but not for me?
---

Of course.

---
Well, that's a juicy little tidbit. Got any more?
---

You sad git.

---
What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?

JF

You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.


--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Why doesn't DOS ever say "EXCELLENT command or filename"?

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields wrote:

What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?

JF

You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.

---
As do I.

Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.

JF

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:55:02 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields wrote:

What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?

JF

You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.

---
As do I.

Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.

JF

Trolls and intelligent adults are mutually exclusive.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

I used to not get along with my mother-in-law, but over the last few
months, I've developed quite an attachment for her. It goes over her
head, and a strap comes down under her chin to keep her mouth shut.

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:09:08 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:55:02 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields wrote:

What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?

JF

You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.

---
As do I.

Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.

JF

Trolls and intelligent adults are mutually exclusive.

---
Then you're obviously not be an intelligent adult.

JF

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:19:08 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:09:08 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:55:02 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:16:45 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:05:32 -0000, John Fields wrote:

What's the matter, hook starting to bother you?

JF

You're a silly little child. I prefer discussions with intelligent adults.

---
As do I.

Unfortunately, I now have to deal with you.

JF

Trolls and intelligent adults are mutually exclusive.

---
Then you're obviously not be an intelligent adult.

JF

You have admitted you are a troll. You have also stated that I am no good at trolling. Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

It turns out a Chinese food deliveryman who was thought to be missing, was actually stuck in a Manhattan apartment building elevator for 4 days.
The man is ok, but the building's owner is charging him $1,500 rent.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:


You have admitted you are a troll.

---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.

You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.

---
Indeed.
---

Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.

---
Wrong on both counts.

My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.

Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.

A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.

JF

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:


You have admitted you are a troll.

---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.

WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that. You were boasting about being a very good troll, or a better troll than me, or something like that.

You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.

---
Indeed.
---

Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.

---
Wrong on both counts.

My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.

Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.

A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.

But I'm not a troll at all.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Officer: Soldier, do you have change for a dollar?
Soldier: Sure, buddy.
Officer: That's no way to address an officer! Now let's try it again. Soldier, do you have change for a dollar?
Soldier: No, SIR!

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:


You have admitted you are a troll.

---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.

WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.

---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.

An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.

It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.
---

You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.

---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.

What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.
---

You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.

---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.
---

---
Indeed.
---

Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.

---
Wrong on both counts.

My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.

Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.

A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.

But I'm not a troll at all.

---
Yes, you are.

JF

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:39:09 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:


You have admitted you are a troll.

---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.

WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.

---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.

An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.

It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.

You're now quibbling about pedantic meanings of words. When I say "you admit to it", I mean you agree that you are that thing.

You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.

---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.

What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.

That's near enough.

You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.

---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.

Stop trying to chat me up. I have enough problems with a homosexual in the survival group.

---
Indeed.
---

Therefore I am not one, and must be an intelligent adult.

---
Wrong on both counts.

My saying you're not good at trolling doesn't mean you're not a troll,
it just means that you're a troll who's not good at trolling.

Not knowing the difference also means that you're not an intelligent
adult.

A good analogy might be that of a thief who gets caught a lot. He's not
an intelligent adult because he gets caught a lot, but he's still a
thief.

But I'm not a troll at all.

---
Yes, you are.

No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it, just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts. I just reply to people for conversation, or when I disagree with a point they've made.

--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

A waiter brings the customer the steak he ordered with his thumb over the meat.
"Are you crazy?" yelled the customer, "with your hand on my steak?"
"What" answers the waiter, "You want it to fall on the floor again?"

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:39:09 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:


You have admitted you are a troll.

---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.

WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.

---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.

An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.

It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.

You're now quibbling about pedantic meanings of words. When I say "you admit to it", I mean you agree that you are that thing.
---
It's not 'pedantic' it's 'semantic', and if you don't know the
difference between the two perhaps I gave you too much credit for
knowing anything about the emotional baggage one agrees to take on when
one 'admits' to an accusation made by another.

And, BTW, your refusal to CR LF for your readers' convenience is a sure
sign of a troll at work.

A low-grade troll who only wants to annoy and bring attention to himself
by making his readers pay to read his drivel, but a troll nonetheless.
---

You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.

---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.

What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.

That's near enough.

---
So, you admit to being hooked?
---

You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.

---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.

Stop trying to chat me up.

---
Stop flattering yourself...

Since you think that you're the one who's in control, all you have to do
to make the whole thing go away is stop replying.
---

I have enough problems with a homosexual in the survival group.

---
A woman who isn't interested in you?

A man who is?

Eewww...

Why are you in a group like that?
---
..
..
..

But I'm not a troll at all.

---
Yes, you are.

No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it, just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts. I just reply to people for conversation, or when I disagree with a point they've made.

---
Oh, how wonderfully benign...

You get to define it all away and wind up, according to you, _just
perfect_.

How about your refusal to CR LF on your end when you've been apprised
that your infinitely long line length is annoying?

Surely you're not stupid enough to think that doesn't wind people up
when you tell them that even though you know how to fix the problem you
won't, and it's their problem if they want to read you.

Or, maybe you are.

JF

In MsgIDop.upvij6nw4buhsv@i7 on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, in
sci.electronics, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:

No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it,
just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts.

No no, that sounds more like a 'September-ite' AKA an AOLer.

A troll (a real one, the ones that are fun to watch from a distance) is
the one who'll make *one* posting, and then retire to watch a thirty plus
posting flame-roast-thread comprised of the ensuing argument between the
*other* subscribers.

One distinguishing factor between a truly skilled troll and a beginner is
whether initial cross posting is necessary to fan the flames.

Sadly they've become an endangered species these days. Pretty much
displaced by gangs of cross-posting childish vandals (usenet equiv of
hooded chavs) who see a cascade as a mark of artistry.


//---------------------

OB-Sci: Anyone know a UK source of tunnel diodes?

OB-Sci2: What's the current state of the single chip u-proc game? Low cost
devices, as self contained as possible, PC design tools would be nice
(compilers/assemblers/simulators). No particular target, some sort of
EEProm, reasonable chunk of en-chip RAM, any sort of IO. RISC or CISC
instruction set, not fussed. Something to play with. Preferably neither a
PIC nor a 'basic stamp'..

//----------------------


Dave J.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:35:06 +0000, Dave J. wrote:

In MsgIDop.upvij6nw4buhsv@i7 on Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, in
sci.electronics, 'Peter Hucker' wrote:

No. I define a troll as someone who starts arguments for the sake of it,
just to wind people up, or to get the most replies to his posts.

No no, that sounds more like a 'September-ite' AKA an AOLer.

A troll (a real one, the ones that are fun to watch from a distance) is
the one who'll make *one* posting, and then retire to watch a thirty plus
posting flame-roast-thread comprised of the ensuing argument between the
*other* subscribers.

One distinguishing factor between a truly skilled troll and a beginner is
whether initial cross posting is necessary to fan the flames.

Sadly they've become an endangered species these days. Pretty much
displaced by gangs of cross-posting childish vandals (usenet equiv of
hooded chavs) who see a cascade as a mark of artistry.

---
Nice. :-)


JF

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:12:35 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:44:20 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:39:09 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:56:25 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:11:03 -0000, John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 19:42:38 -0000, "Peter Hucker"
wrote:


You have admitted you are a troll.

---
The term "admitted" is one _you_ introduced in a pejorative way and one
which I don't subscribe to for reasons I've stated before.

WTF are you on about now? You said you were a troll and that's that.

---
Yes, I said I was a troll, which is way different than an admission.

An admission carries with it guilt, which is what you're trying to heap
on me.

It won't work, because there's nothing about you which carries authority
of any kind.

You're now quibbling about pedantic meanings of words. When I say "you admit to it", I mean you agree that you are that thing.
---
It's not 'pedantic' it's 'semantic', and if you don't know the
difference between the two perhaps I gave you too much credit for
knowing anything about the emotional baggage one agrees to take on when
one 'admits' to an accusation made by another.

You're being pedantic again.

And, BTW, your refusal to CR LF for your readers' convenience is a sure
sign of a troll at work.

No it's lazyness, impoliteness, and perhaps a superiority complex.

A low-grade troll who only wants to annoy and bring attention to himself
by making his readers pay to read his drivel, but a troll nonetheless.
---

I don't care how much attention I get, I just have conversations.

You were boasting about being a very good troll,
or a better troll than me, or something like that.

---
I said nothing of the sort, as I recall.

What I did say was that I reveled in trolling for minnows pretending to
be sharks, and that's why you're on my hook.

That's near enough.

---
So, you admit to being hooked?
---

No.

You have also stated that I am no good at trolling.

---
I said you weren't very good at it, not that you were no good at it.

Stop trying to chat me up.

---
Stop flattering yourself...

Since you think that you're the one who's in control, all you have to do
to make the whole thing go away is stop replying.
---

I don't want it to go away.

I have enough problems with a homosexual in the survival group.

---
A woman who isn't interested in you?

x.

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:35:06 +0000, Dave J. wrote:

OB-Sci2: What's the current state of the single chip u-proc game? Low
cost devices, as self contained as possible, PC design tools would be
nice (compilers/assemblers/simulators). No particular target, some sort
of EEProm, reasonable chunk of en-chip RAM, any sort of IO. RISC or CISC
instruction set, not fussed. Something to play with. Preferably neither
a PIC nor a 'basic stamp'..

The Arduino family seems to be gaining ground as playthings - based on
the Atmega uControllers.

There's a whole IDE, libraries etc for the asking, and a kit can be had
for £15 or so from the US via EBay.

Peter Hucker wrote:
We have a wireless network at work which appears to have gone downhill since the workmen installed PIRs for the burglar alarm. One of them in particular appears to cause dropped packets the closer a laptop is to it. Is this possible?? It's not a wireless PIR as far as I know, as I can see some leftover cable he was using which is a multicore (about 10 cores) type similar to phone systems, so I assume this is for the signal aswell as power. The person in that office swears blind that there were absolutely no problems until the PIR was installed above her desk, and now when I check, about 60% of the packets are being dropped. Moving her laptop to the opposite side of the room it drops only 5% of packets. PIRs used to just pick up infrared of your bodyheat, but I think now they are also motion sensors? Perhaps this means they are sending out a signal and bouncing it off you? Perhaps this could interfere with wireless networking?

The IR sensor might be one of the dual sensor (expensive!) type that
also include a microwave T/R motion sensing circuit. That would be very
likely to interfere with wireless networking systems. The security
company should be able to tell you for sure.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

In on Thu, 26 Feb 2009
20:53:32 GMT, in alt.electronics, 'PCPaul' wrote:

OB-Sci2: What's the current state of the single chip u-proc game? Low
cost devices, as self contained as possible, PC design tools would be
nice (compilers/assemblers/simulators). No particular target, some sort
of EEProm, reasonable chunk of en-chip RAM, any sort of IO. RISC or CISC
instruction set, not fussed. Something to play with. Preferably neither
a PIC nor a 'basic stamp'..

The Arduino family seems to be gaining ground as playthings - based on
the Atmega uControllers.

There's a whole IDE, libraries etc for the asking, and a kit can be had
for £15 or so from the US via EBay.


Hey, thanks for that, a slightly more focused search on the subject has
brought back loads of interesting sample projects.

Loads to read about and scheme over. I haven't yet managed to find a write
up on straight ASM programming, all they seem to push is some sort of
compiled magicery. Also, shame it's so tiny on the RAM / eeprom front in
these days of gigabytes for tenners. For the price it's a marvelous
shortcut, including additional bells/whistles over what I'd consider
standard for a single chip proc. Just, like I say, puzzlement that it
doesn't seem to have caught up with what should be possible in this
decade.

Thanks again

PS: I completely missed this msg initially because the 'clever' crosspost
checking on this client decided I must have read it already.

Dave J.