LOL Wilby,

I was wondering if you were still reading here. 

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on May 10, 2012, 10:56:03 AM
bullying
bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more 'lieutenants' who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his or her bullying activities.

bullying behavior may include name calling, verbal or written abuse, exclusion from activities, exclusion from social situations, physical abuse, or coercion. bullies may behave this way to be perceived as popular or tough or to get attention. they may bully out of jealousy or be acting out because they themselves are bullied.

social aggression or indirect bullying is characterized by attempting to socially isolate the victim. this isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including spreading gossip, refusing to socialize with the victim, bullying other people who wish to socialize with the victim, and criticizing the victim's manner of dress and other socially-significant markers (including the victim's race, religion, disability, , or sexual preference, etc.). other forms of indirect bullying which are more subtle and more likely to be verbal, such as name calling, the silent treatment, arguing others into submission, manipulation, gossip/false gossip, lies, rumors/false rumors, staring, giggling, laughing at the victim, saying certain words that trigger a reaction from a past event, and mocking.

I think this PERFECTLY describes our TK et al - and their tactics.  But it's excess also renders it ineffectual - somehow?  Frankly I'd encourage them all to 'bring it on' as TK puts it.  It serves the OU cause really well.  Imagine where we'd be if they were merely decent upright citizens with no obvious agenda to follow?  LOL.  Then OU may certainly have been dealt a body blow.  God forbid.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

@ Rosemary

QuoteBut the fact is that we're measuring this with a calibrated instrument and we're doing so REPEATEDLY.  And our measurements comply with alternate sophisticated instruments.  So?  Those instruments are NOT doing their thing.  OR we're dealing with anomalies.

These are you two scenarios??
Calibrated instruments 'not doing their thing' or anomalies. 
The possibility that you might have your equipment hooked up wrong never occurred to you?
Instead of asking 'what did I do wrong?' you immediately assume you did nothing wrong and that the instruments are 'not doing their thing' properly or there is an anomaly? Am I understanding your post as intended?

I doubt I am the first to mention this, but measuring things 'REPEATEDLY' with sophisticated calibrated instruments DOES NOT make those measurements a FACT Rosemary. Measurements give you numbers you need to PROVE or (better yet) try and DISPROVE using more tests. And those measurements don't mean ANYTHING if they aren't connected and MEASURED PROPERLY.
This is why the Dim Bulb Test has been suggested to you over and over and over ad. nauseum...

You aren't very easy to understand sometimes Rosemary.
I still don't get the 'sauce' remark...
You're covered in tar, not sauce lady.

Regards,
PC

@ Wilby: You realize that Rosemary is the only one listening to you right?

My dear MileHigh, 

Since you are simply repeating your usual post then I'll simply repeat my earlier answer.

I'm entirely satisfied that the invective and 'bashing' was entirely from TK and picowatt and evolvingape and FTC and PhiChaser.  Me?  I merely argued their SPURIOUS assumption and their SPURIOUS allegation that 20 watts was representative of the energy applied to our element resistor. It was indeed a ridiculous proposal.  Clearly 20 watts was NEVER applied on ANY continual basis at all. Therefore, correctly the wattage should have read 2.5 watts.  You are all of you seasoned anti over unity campaigners.  It is a sad truth that our poor science must fall victim in that campaign.  And the flaunted credentials in support of that claimed 'competence' is lacking in EVIDENCE.  TK must be the only student that has graduated with a degree in electrical engineering - with HONOURS - that STILL does not know that a MOSFET is not a mosfet - that a CSR is NOT a CVR - and who then further supposes that any part of any single voltage value from a switched cycle can represent the ACTUAL level of WATTAGE.  He is also the ONLY such honours graduate who applies Ohm's Law without factoring in impedance.  And notwithstanding the BURDEN of all this professed professionalism - indulges in level of invective that would - outside of the freedoms that Harti is allowing him - make him criminally accountable.

And may I add.  He is also the only honours graduate who has claimed that instantaneous wattage can be 'inferred' 'applied' 'computed' from a switched cycle.  Extraordinary.  And the worst of it is that he STILL claims this. There most certainly WAS an issue related to instantaneous power vs average power.  And our little TK disgraced himself with an oversight that should have hit him between the eyes - certainly if he hopes to convince anyone that he has any credentials at all.  As it indeed it should also have occurred to picowatt.  But at least picowatt admits that he is not credentialed.  It's interesting to see how they both continue with that tar brush application.  Notwithstanding.  LOL. 

Rosie Posie

Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AM
@ Wilby: You realize that Rosemary is the only one listening to you right?

LOL  Not actually PhiChaser.  No-one is listening. The best any of us can do is read.  And self-evidently YOU are reading his posts.  Which means that I am most certainly NOT the only one 'reading'.  And I'm not sure that you can determine exactly who IS or IS NOT reading here.  I think the best you can do is speculate.  Which makes your observation spurious and unprovable.  Like so many of your 'allegations' and 'observations'. 

Golly.
as ever
Rosie Pose

And as to the balance of this post of yours PhiChaser - where you limp in the wake of TK's tarred 'feather duster'...

Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AM
These are you two scenarios??
Calibrated instruments 'not doing their thing' or anomalies.  The possibility that you might have your equipment hooked up wrong never occurred to you?

We have shown where our probes are 'hooked up' - in our schematic.  And yes - IF there are still measurement errors - then that has to be proved.

Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AMInstead of asking 'what did I do wrong?' you immediately assume you did nothing wrong and that the instruments are 'not doing their thing' properly or there is an anomaly? Am I understanding your post as intended?

NO.  You are NOT understanding my post.  Not even close.  I said what I intended to say.  And I said it to Groundloop. 

Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AMI doubt I am the first to mention this, but measuring things 'REPEATEDLY' with sophisticated calibrated instruments DOES NOT make those measurements a FACT Rosemary. Measurements give you numbers you need to PROVE or (better yet) try and DISPROVE using more tests. And those measurements don't mean ANYTHING if they aren't connected and MEASURED PROPERLY.

You are now stating the fatuously self-evident.  And you're IMPLYING that we have connected and measured IMPROPERLY?  LOL

Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AMThis is why the Dim Bulb Test has been suggested to you over and over and over ad. nauseum...

The dim lightbulb test has not been done by TK.  Or IF he's done this he has not shown us any numbers.  WHAT exactly do you wish us to do with that strange little test?  Replicate it?  LOL

Quote from: PhiChaser on May 10, 2012, 11:17:49 AM
You're covered in tar, not sauce lady.

Not actually.  The only thing that is rather disgustingly tarred is TK's Tar Baby. 

Rosie Pose