Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 02:19:26 AM

    You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why.  The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.

    You now admit the deviation is immaterial.  Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade.  You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to.  The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid.  This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests.  Your goal is completely unfathomable.  TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life.  You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions.  What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?

absolute lies, you can withdraw this statement immediately or i can go fetch all the relevant posts and drag you over the coals. i knew long ago the irfpg50 wouldn't perform the same as his original substitution. why do you think i played him for so long? why do you think i let him talk himself into a corner? never mind, you can't see the whole board and refuse to think a couple moves ahead. anytime you wanna play chess for $ you let me know.

i have never admitted the deviation is immaterial. can you show some evidence of your claim? this is the real world where you are accountable for your words. i have always maintained and continue to maintain that using "whatever" and claiming some data sheet similarity is NOT a replication. and WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE of my "admission"? tk has made numerous errors in his conclusions, and i have pointed most (not all, there is a few left...) of them out.


edit: i noticed you failed to provide evidence of your last asinine claim and still moved right on to the next asinine claim, which you also failed to provide evidence of.

[WilbyInebriated]

see how he makes stuff up to suit his argument, BUT can provide NO evidence.

utilitarian, you have made several statements in the recent past that have been shown to be patently false. again you show no evidence of your claims. i remind you that this is the opposite of credibility.

you can assume whatever you want about me, i could really care less of the opinion of someone who won't back up their claims.

i have shown tk's lack of credibility and integrity with HIS OWN words. i have done the same to you, to milehigh and to poynt99.  can you return me the favor? you've hung yourself more than once already, here is an opportunity to not repeat the same mistakes... something you and your sycophants do all to often.

[Asymatrix]

Quote from: utilitarian on August 15, 2009, 02:19:26 AMabsolute lies, you can withdraw this statement immediately or i can go fetch all the relevant posts and drag you over the coals. i knew long ago the irfpg50 wouldn't perform the same as his original substitution. why do you think i played him for so long? why do you think i let him talk himself into a corner? never mind, you can't see the whole board and refuse to think a couple moves ahead. anytime you wanna play chess for $ you let me know.

i have never admitted the deviation is immaterial. can you show some evidence of your claim? this is the real world where you are accountable for your words. i have always maintained and continue to maintain that using "whatever" and claiming some data sheet similarity is NOT a replication. and WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE of my "admission"? tk has made numerous errors in his conclusions, and i have pointed most (not all, there is a few left...) of them out.


edit: i noticed you failed to provide evidence of your last asinine claim and still moved right on to the next asinine claim, which you also failed to provide evidence of.

Let's play the Wilby game for a moment.

Wilby, your grammar is extraordinarily bad, as evidenced by your inability to capitalize the first word of your sentences.

According to Wilby Logic, you should rightfully be classified as illiterate.

Is my conclusion too extreme?

And away we go...

[WilbyInebriated]

Let's play the Wilby game for a moment.

Wilby, your grammar is extraordinarily bad, as evidenced by your inability to capitalize the first word of your sentences.

According to Wilby Logic, you should rightfully be classified as illiterate.

Is my conclusion too extreme?

And away we go...

let me show you how it is played...

can you demonstrate how NOT capitalizing the first word of a sentence changes it's meaning?
if you can't tell where the sentence starts and stops via punctuation, well you're an idiot.

grammar typically includes syntax and morphology, can you show where in the list of syntactic terms capitalizing the start of a sentence is referenced?

your conclusion is a logical fallacy. furthermore, you have no ground to stand upon because my habits of sentence structure are NOT the topic of this thread. questions regarding tk's integrity and credibility ARE COMPLETELY RELEVANT, as well as questions regarding the credibility of anyone else offering their opinions or assumptions about this circuit. i remain on solid ground because i have offered no such opinions OR assumptions.

here is what it all boils down to, and i will use as few words as possible for the slower members of the class...

professional integrity is the cornerstone of a scientists credibility.

asymatrix, you still have NOT provided any of the requested evidence of your prior claims and here you are moving on.

[Asymatrix]

let me show you how it is played...

can you demonstrate how NOT capitalizing the first word of a sentence changes it's meaning?
if you can't tell where the sentence starts and stops via punctuation, well you're an idiot.

grammar typically includes syntax and morphology, can you show where in the list of syntactic terms capitalizing the start of a sentence is referenced?

your conclusion is a logical fallacy. furthermore, you have no ground to stand upon because my habits of sentence structure are NOT the topic of this thread. questions regarding tk's integrity and credibility ARE COMPLETELY RELEVANT, as well as questions regarding the credibility of anyone else offering their opinions or assumptions about this circuit. i remain on solid ground because i have offered no such opinions OR assumptions.

here is what it all boils down to, and i will use as few words as possible for the slower members of the class...

professional integrity is the cornerstone of a scientists credibility.

asymatrix, you still have NOT provided any of the requested evidence of your prior claims and here you are moving on.

Perfect.

I didn't state it changed the meaning of a sentence, I said your grammar is extraordinarily bad.

By virtue of this fact, according to Wilby Logic, you are indeed illiterate.

See how this works?

It's also effective when one needs to classify a thorough experimenter as incompetent.

Over to the troll...