Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[WilbyInebriated]

i just checked the first 25 pages of this thread for a post from our pauly come lately. NOT A ONE.

i did find this gem from ramset re: me riding tk to use proper scientific method.

It will probably make as big a difference as the kind of scotch you drink

remember that one chety? and surprise surprise, no mea culpa from you either.

[PaulLowrance]

WilbyInebriated,

I don't want to spend more time on you. Recently in this thread I already detailed several of your quotes that are Ad hominem. I've answered your questions. You have not answered my question, and to be honest I don't really care if you do at this point.

Paul

FYI, I never said that I posted in this thread from the start. I said from the start I offered the best method. And yes, the best method would be the correct method. In case you can't see beyond your nose, my statement is in reference to the start of *my* posts. Hello? Wow!  WilbyInebriated, my man, get a life! Adios.

[WilbyInebriated]

WilbyInebriated,

I don't want to spend more time on you. Recently in this thread I already detailed several of your quotes that are Ad hominem. I've answered your questions. You have not answered my question, and to be honest I don't really care if you do at this point.

Paul

FYI, I never said that I posted in this thread from the start. I said from the start I offered the best method. And yes, the best method would be the correct method. In case you can't see beyond your nose, my statement is in reference to the start of *my* posts. Hello? Wow!  WilbyInebriated, my man, get a life!

you are wrong pauly, what you detailed IS NOT ad hominem. if you think it is, then please explain how i was rejecting an argument by saying the things you quoted. an explanation will require you to define the argument i was rejecting. have at it and good luck, you will need it.
here is the definition for your lazy pleasure, AGAIN.
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

   1. Person A makes claim X.
   2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
   3. Therefore A's claim is false.
i answered your question. here it is again. FOR THE THIRD TIME...
i said, and i quote, "i think i'll let you keep talking since you are so sure of yourself."
can't answer and choosing not to are different. go ahead and assume what you wish.

LOL pauly, maybe you shouldn't be so ambiguous

[PaulLowrance]

Because you use name calling as a distraction to make up for your lack of knowledge & expertise. You still have not answered the technical question, yet you carry on & on with childish questions. By all means, continue on with your pointless handwaving ambiguous chit chat. I'm only interested in a technical discussion about the measurements.

So far only .99 has done correct measurements, to my surprise, even though he did not complete them, yet. My hats off to .99!

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Poynt - I've got a tribute to you too.  See if it matches.  LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23qcXbxKcWc