jim beam

On 02/04/2010 07:04 PM, Guy wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:35:28 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 02/03/2010 06:49 AM, Guy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:26 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>>>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>>>>> of the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>>>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>>>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>>>>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>>>>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>>>>
>>>> behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>>>> out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>>>> reflection of fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> just
>>>>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>>>>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>>>>> not sure what that is.
>>>>
>>>> yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>>>> with their reality. see above, retard.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just as I predicted.
>>
>> "predicted"??? you didn't "predict" anything, retard.
>
>
> I didn't expect you to understand nor will I bother to explain it to a
> person of your limitations.

"bother to explain"??? you couldn't "explain" your way out of a wet
paper bag, retard.

Guy

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:08:48 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 02/04/2010 07:04 PM, Guy wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:35:28 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/03/2010 06:49 AM, Guy wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:26 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>>>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>>>>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>>>>>> of the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>>>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>>>>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>>>>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>>>>>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>>>>>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>>>>>
>>>>> behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>>>>> out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>>>>> reflection of fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>>>>>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>>>>>> not sure what that is.
>>>>>
>>>>> yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>>>>> with their reality. see above, retard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just as I predicted.
>>>
>>> "predicted"??? you didn't "predict" anything, retard.
>>
>>
>> I didn't expect you to understand nor will I bother to explain it to a
>> person of your limitations.
>
>"bother to explain"??? you couldn't "explain" your way out of a wet
>paper bag, retard.

LOL

Clive

In message <F-qdnfoSY6HwGvbWnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam
<me@privacy.net> writes
>it seems you didn't intend to mean that, but that is what your words
>convey. and i'm not contesting your taste, but i am contesting the
>rationale that "digital" is "accurate" because those are /not/
>synonymous.
Indeed, I own a Fluke multimeter which is calibrated and is twice the
price of an almost identical model but without calibration, it shows
quite plainly that calibration IS a requiremet for digital readouts or
they are as imprecise as analogue ones
--
Clive