Testing the TK Tar Baby

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And as for this number...

Ainslie ranted, telling the story of the famous "collaboration":
See.. she is NOT paranoid.
She is psychotic.

I am able to insert a wire that is simply not there. I am DANGEROUS. And the worst calumny of all.... I am WELL PAID.

Well, I'm amused, certainly.

Guys I'll try and find the link.  Jibbguy has explained the 'function' of the TK's and picowatts of this world - and the MileHigh's for that matter.  I'lll try and look for the link and attach it here.  I 'stumbled' on the thread.  Something to do with 'how to find out if you're dealing with a troll'.  Something like that.  In any event.  He sketched the procedure which he learned because he, himself was approached to 'join the team' so to speak.  Not TK's team specifically.  Just be become one of the 'enlisted'.  Rather bravely he did a bit of whistle blowing.  Mylow - the poor sod - had some motor which seemed to work.  His tests ENTIRELY convinced one collaborator and at least 2 other engineers that I've spoken to.  They concluded that TK 'inserted' a 'wire' - and Mylow then went underground.  I know NOTHING about this because I wasn't even on the forums at that time.  But frankly - now that I see TK in 'full flood' so to speak - I am ENTIRELY satisfied that poor Mylow was subjected to PRECISELY the same spin - with probably the same 'formula' or 'procedure'.  Not sure.  In any event.  I am INDEED - ENTIRELY satisfied that TK has a paid agenda.  He works on this FULL TIME - and he can ONLY succeed if he manages to effectively diminish our results.  It certainly is NOT paranoia.  If it were then I'd be 'scared' of this 'cruel' attack.  In truth I'm hugely amused.  But that - in no way - means that any of their tactics are acceptable.  They're a disgrace to any forum let alone a forum with the wealth of information that is available here.  It's a 'blot' on the proud reach of Open Source and research into Energy Efficiencies.  I intend to salvage that rather excellent Open Source tradition - and with it the required credibility for the ease with which we breach those unity barriers. 

Regards,
Rosemary 

[TinselKoala]

TK - may I propose some quid pro quo.  Is there some reason you have not addressed the points in this post of mine?

Yes, Polly Parrot. It is very simple:
1. Because you are an idiot liar; and
2. Because I already did, pages ago. For example I showed that a Google search for "Current sensing resistor" returned five million hits, and a search for "current VIEWING resistor" returned NINE million hits.

So now you are reduced to simply reposting your old messages, cut and paste. Do you know what that is called, on the internet?

YOU ARE SPAMMING, in addition to being a bloviating and insulting, paranoid liar.

When will you be doing ANYTHING to refute ANYTHING I've demonstrated? When will you give us that "transcript" of ALL my videos like you promised? I am especially interested in your response to the one you have been trying to bury for the past several days under your piles of logorrhea.

But your tactic isn't going to work. You aren't going to be able to get yourself banned, like you are plainly trying to do. YOU CANNOT GET OFF THE HOOK that easily.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP, Polly Parrot.

[TinselKoala]

NOR TK for that matter, have you addressed the points in THIS post.

... He has named me 'polly parrot'....

Yes, because you parrot back words you do not understand at all, and you squawk holy hell when your tail feathers are pulled.


Is my name really Leon? Is it, Polly?


Are you a scrawny wench? Am I a shorter version of Hitler?

You figure it out.

When YOU START OFF calling people funny names.... you really shouldn't protest too much when they do it back, Polly Parrot.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And guys... Just take a LONG HARD LOOK at this number...

Polly Parrot squawks and flutters but says nothing true.

An INFANTILE exercise in 'name calling' and a slanderous allegation of lying.  Amusingly 'direct' and 'unrestrained' but the amusement somewhat tempered by the rather clumsy OBVIOUS - disrespect.  It's on a par a kindergarden standard of dialogue.  Possibly not even that much.  Yet no attempt at moderation.

Except perhaps that she cannot find my spreadsheet. So I laugh and laugh and laugh.

Clear evidence of malice and a flaunted refusal to co-operate on a professional level.  Intended somehow to make anyone at all think that he's clever.  Sadly.  At best it's just SO inappropriate it's actually hugely amusing.  And would require moderation - at least.

Where is your comprehensive treatment of inductive reactance, Polly Parrot?

This is RIDICULOUS.  IF I didn't understand the requirement for impedance I would not have URGENTLY brought it to their attention.  Should I be tempted to answer I would be endorsing their abusive level of dialogue with me.  Not only that but I would, again, be subjected to another 5 pages of PROTEST - as was evident when I weakened and EXPLAINED why it was that the duty cycle needed to be incorporated into the analysis of WATTAGE.  We all know where that one went.  Still not addressed.  And STILL TK is trying to argue that he was correct.

And your statements about the power continue to betray your abysmal ignorance.

And this is simply a 'doozy'.  I was, after all, the one who needed to point out THEIR rather CATASTROPHIC errors related to the calculation of power.  And NOW?  He claims that I'm suffering form 'abysmal ignorance'?  And this is meant to be taken seriously?  The tactics are SO obvious that it's actually intellectually INSULTING.  It's factually slanderous.  It's tactically transparent.  And it's criminally abusive.  AGAIN.  No effort to moderate.  Apparently Harti sees no need.

And in addition it is perfectly possible for a person to obtain multiple degrees in different areas of study in the United States. I am sorry that this does not appear to be the case where you come from. And there certainly is a distinction between "research" universities and plain old liberal-arts colleges, which you would grasp if you ever attended any. But you haven't.

And as for this?  What a load of nonsense.  I'm 63 years old.  I have, myself, attended university.  WHY would I not know that there are MANY people who have MULTIPLE degrees - in many unrelated fields.  What's new?  I haven't even commented on this.  I only commented on TK's claim to have multiple degrees.  In SCIENCE to boot.  Why then does he NOT know that you cannot take an unrepresentative sample from a small part of a duty cycle - and CLAIM that it in any way can be represented as a reliable measure of watts. It STILL hasn't been answered.  And why, if he is, as he claims, a 'professional' - does he act as a criminal?  The two terms are mutually exclusive.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

continued/...

When are you going to be doing some kind of test that can prove me wrong, Polly Parrot? Never, that's when.

These incessant demands.  That I perform when they DEMAND that I perform.  Our tests will most certainly be done.  But right now we STILL do not have our LeCroy.  It's STILL with that calibration laboratory - STILL more than 1000 K's out of reach.  Apparently there's some difficulties in calibrating a machine with 4 channels.  And they've had to refer questions to LeCroy.  I'm not entirely sure of the problem.  But.  As ever.  It will eventually come to hand. And EVEN then I'll need time to orchestrate the event.  There's much planning to be done.

When are you going to explain how that last scope shot was made, Polly? You can't even do that. How do you put 12 volts positive to the gate of a mosfet without turning it on, Polly Parrot? Run off and ask your "academics" for an explanation of that scope shot, because it's clear that YOU don't understand it at all. You've been asked many times and you always dodge the issue.

I will only ever feel obliged to answer any of TK's questions TK when he's apologised for his slander and calumny and sundry traducements and when he engages on a level that is professional.  Else I am simply dealing with a criminal with a criminal disregard for his accountability and a criminal predisposition to abuse.

When are you going to stop misrepresenting your OWN work, as you have been doing for some time? How do you explain the differences between your account in your blog posts 117 and 118, and your recent accounts of the same experiment?

This again is SLANDER.  We have only ever represented results that are born out by PERFECTLY excellent machines.  This statement is not only malicious but it is SLANDEROUS.  Our demonstrations will PROVE that slander.  Then he will, most assuredly, be required to account for that slander.

Senility, perhaps? Or just your ordinary mendacity that we have grown to accept as normal from you?

And there it is again.  If I am senile there would need to be some evidence.  I think my ability to reason is considerably greater than his own and my command of language more than adequate to demonstrate that reasonableness. Therefore - yet again -  we have more examples of criminal and slanderous abuse.  And STILL it is entirely and completely advanced without any requirement for him to conform to forum guidelines.  Which begs that same old question.  Why is this not only ALLOWED - but PROMOTED - on this a 'science forum'?  It is rather strange.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary