Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 03:41:32 PM
Again Rosemary, which opinions do you believe are actionable? I've quoted 2 or 3 I thought you'd already objected to. If you no longer object to these, what's left? Be specific and ill tell you if I concur or not.


What is the email address of your legal representation?

my dear sean,

It is NOT customary to invite anyone at all to check on one's legal representation.  Nor is there any cause for this unless your intention is to annoy them with some early correspondence.  And nor am I about to oblige you.  On MONDAY you can PM evolvingape and even Harti.  And IF either of them see fit - then I'm sure that either one of them will be able to oblige you.  AND your opinion related to TK'S wattage analysis is simply YOUR OPINION.  It is also ERRONEOUS.  IF you factor out the TIME in order to compute that wattage then you are ALSO making a profound and fundamental error.  IF a product of the instantaneous delivery of energy from a battery supply source and the amperage measured to have flowed from that battery is a reflection of the energy dissipated or delivered WITHOUT reference to the applied duty cycle period - then STANDARD computations of a switched cycle NEED TO BE COMPLETELY UPENDED AND REVISED.  It is UTTERLY and PROFOUNDLY and COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS to assume otherwise.

But nor is THAT opinion the object of my complaint.  It is merely part of a technical discussion - that is IRRELEVANT because it is ERRONEOUS

Rosie Pose

Silly old woman.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/powerac.html#c3
Please look at the link, and then scroll up and down a bit to look at the boxes immediately before and after this one.

Are they wrong?

Oh... that's right.... you don't have any algebra, much less calculus. Maybe you can get a tenth grader to explain what that funny stretched out "S" means.

Rosemary,

You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.

The rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.


TinselKoala

I've uploaded the screenshots to a website here for ease. If you want access to it to amend titles, PM me.

http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/


Rosemary, if you object to this, feel free to have your legal representation contact me, I've given you two suitable addresses.

Quote from: mrsean2k on May 19, 2012, 04:01:59 PM
Rosemary,

You are non-responsive to the request. The purpose is to allow you to determine that the two email addresses you've been provided with are legitimate. Your refusal to acknowledge this is no longer surprising.

The rest of your post is a set of obvious strawmen. Even *if* TK was at odds with everything you assert in your "unique" way, that wouldn't constitute the wrongdoing you claim is actionable.


TinselKoala

I've uploaded the screenshots to a website here for ease. If you want access to it to amend titles, PM me.

http://seani.justemail.net/rosemary_ainslie/


Rosemary, if you object to this, feel free to have your legal representation contact me, I've given you two suitable addresses.

Guys - whatever is made available on that forum of sean's was NOT with my permission - and I believe my computer has again been rifled.  It's ON GOING.  I have NOT made 60 or more screenshots available to the public.  And IF these have been accessed then it's been done without my permission.  I will MOST CERTAINLY take action against this.

Rosemary

I'm not asking your permission, and I don't need it.


If you have any objections, take action, you have my full name and you can contact me at the two addresses I've already given you.