[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:50:07 -0500, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Turner you can't be that daft? I could give a flip about the Brook 10C.
I don't own one nor do I care to own one. Try to understand this, ok?? In
a number of messages you send to this group, you put down the Bible, even
thought it has nothing to do with the topic of the message. I believe in
the Bible but you don't see me here message after message with my pro-Bible
stance. You have your biases against the Bible but I don't understand why
you continue to interject your biases in messages that have nothing to do
with the Bible???? Keep you biases to yourself.

Edward Morris

Mr. Morris. You do yourself no favours here. First you say "I could
give a flip" when you clearly mean "I couldn't give a flip". Now,
while this may be simply a typo it is common enough among Americans
that I choose to believe it to be ignorance and stupidity.

You second stupidity is to claim gullibility as if it were
praiseworthy. When you say you believe in the bible you are revealing
yourself to be a credulous fool who believes what he is told without
the least shred of evidence. Again, this is not something you should
be saying aloud because it reduces you to the level of an idiot.

As for anybody keeping their biases to themselves, why should they do
that? Personal biases are what this sort of venue is all about. All of
your statements are based on your credulous nature and it is important
for our understanding of them that we know that you consider thinking
to be a sin.

Now, try to behave.

d

[Edward Morris]

Mr. Pearce. I'm certain that Mr. Turner is indebted to you for jumping to
his defense. This group is about electronics, tube electronics
specifically. What does anybody's chosen faith journey whether Christian,
Muslim, agnostic or atheist have to do with tube electronics?.
Edward Morris

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:50:07 -0500, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Turner you can't be that daft? I could give a flip about the Brook
10C.
I don't own one nor do I care to own one. Try to understand this, ok?? In
a number of messages you send to this group, you put down the Bible, even
thought it has nothing to do with the topic of the message. I believe in
the Bible but you don't see me here message after message with my pro-Bible
stance. You have your biases against the Bible but I don't understand why
you continue to interject your biases in messages that have nothing to do
with the Bible???? Keep you biases to yourself.

Edward Morris

Mr. Morris. You do yourself no favours here. First you say "I could
give a flip" when you clearly mean "I couldn't give a flip". Now,
while this may be simply a typo it is common enough among Americans
that I choose to believe it to be ignorance and stupidity.

You second stupidity is to claim gullibility as if it were
praiseworthy. When you say you believe in the bible you are revealing
yourself to be a credulous fool who believes what he is told without
the least shred of evidence. Again, this is not something you should
be saying aloud because it reduces you to the level of an idiot.

As for anybody keeping their biases to themselves, why should they do
that? Personal biases are what this sort of venue is all about. All of
your statements are based on your credulous nature and it is important
for our understanding of them that we know that you consider thinking
to be a sin.

Now, try to behave.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:52:50 -0500, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce. I'm certain that Mr. Turner is indebted to you for jumping to
his defense. This group is about electronics, tube electronics
specifically. What does anybody's chosen faith journey whether Christian,
Muslim, agnostic or atheist have to do with tube electronics?.
Edward Morris

I jumped to nobody's defence. I attacked you for being a mindless
idiot, prepared to believe superstitious crap rather than thinking for
yourself. Chosen faiths are themselves the problem. Faith is one of
the filthiest four letter words in the English language. It permits
people to carry out atrocities on other people by robbing them of
their self respect and sense of personal responsibility. Atheism is
not a faith. It is a lack of faith and hence is the only honest
position to hold. Stop believing and start analyzing. Until you do
that you are of no value.

d

[Edward Morris]

Mr. Pearce, why are you so angry at me? You have no idea who I am. I'm not
a mindless idiot. Yes atheism is a faith. It is a belief not to believe.
I am not asking anyone to believe anything. You've got a burr up your butt
but I didn't put it there. That's your problem. I simply asked that Mr.
Turner stay to the subject of the Brook 10C. That is what the thread was
about. Is this a newsgroup about tube electronics? Please send me the
newsgroup policy.

Edward Morris

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 10:52:50 -0500, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce. I'm certain that Mr. Turner is indebted to you for jumping to
his defense. This group is about electronics, tube electronics
specifically. What does anybody's chosen faith journey whether Christian,
Muslim, agnostic or atheist have to do with tube electronics?.
Edward Morris

I jumped to nobody's defence. I attacked you for being a mindless
idiot, prepared to believe superstitious crap rather than thinking for
yourself. Chosen faiths are themselves the problem. Faith is one of
the filthiest four letter words in the English language. It permits
people to carry out atrocities on other people by robbing them of
their self respect and sense of personal responsibility. Atheism is
not a faith. It is a lack of faith and hence is the only honest
position to hold. Stop believing and start analyzing. Until you do
that you are of no value.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:39:01 -0500, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce, why are you so angry at me? You have no idea who I am. I'm not
a mindless idiot. Yes atheism is a faith. It is a belief not to believe.
I am not asking anyone to believe anything. You've got a burr up your butt
but I didn't put it there. That's your problem. I simply asked that Mr.
Turner stay to the subject of the Brook 10C. That is what the thread was
about. Is this a newsgroup about tube electronics? Please send me the
newsgroup policy.

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

If you choose to admit that you believe things for which there is no
evidence (faeries, elves, Bigfoot, unicorns, gods, Loch Ness Monsters
etc.), the problem is yours. You shouldn't say embarrassing stuff out
loud.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:55:20 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:39:01 -0500, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce, why are you so angry at me? You have no idea who I am. I'm not
a mindless idiot. Yes atheism is a faith. It is a belief not to believe.
I am not asking anyone to believe anything. You've got a burr up your butt
but I didn't put it there. That's your problem. I simply asked that Mr.
Turner stay to the subject of the Brook 10C. That is what the thread was
about. Is this a newsgroup about tube electronics? Please send me the
newsgroup policy.

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

Of course it's 'faith'. It's 'faith' in your vision of what
constitutes "reason" and "evidence" plus you wield it like a religion,
declaring 'moral truths', and as a 'chosen prophet' compelled to
proselytize to 'sinners' no matter what the topic.

There's also no 'evidence' of the kind you mean that there isn't one
either so at best you have a Mexican standoff and the world would do
better if people were not so rabid about things that affect themselves
not one whit.

If you choose to admit that you believe things for which there is no
evidence (faeries, elves, Bigfoot, unicorns, gods, Loch Ness Monsters
etc.), the problem is yours. You shouldn't say embarrassing stuff out
loud.

Spoken like a true 'religious zealot'.

d

You aren't going to win this by deploying hackneyed debating trade
tricks like perverting the meaning of a key word (which you have just
done with "faith"). I understand (no, I really do) that debating trade
tricks are all the religious have to fight with, but don't bother.
I've seen them all.

d

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

The above argument fails to consider the well known and intensely valid
principle that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

It's also a matter of being polite and honoring the principle of freedom of
faith. I can't recall ever seeing a person of faith berate someone simply
because they are an atheist, but I surely can remember numerous occasions
where atheists have publicly and gratuitously attacked people of faith for
simply being people of faith. If memory serves, Mr. Pearce is a repeat
offender.

And please let me clarify that I'm not getting down on Pearce for being an
atheist. I'm pointing out his flawed logic, bad manners and retrograde
politics reminiscent of the days of Stalin.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:10:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

The above argument fails to consider the well known and intensely valid
principle that absence of proof is not proof of absence.


No it doesn't. However, proof of absence is an absurd position to
advance. It is countered by the flying spaghetti monster, the orbiting
teapot and the chocolate cake on the far side of the moon.

It's also a matter of being polite and honoring the principle of freedom of
faith. I can't recall ever seeing a person of faith berate someone simply
because they are an atheist, but I surely can remember numerous occasions
where atheists have publicly and gratuitously attacked people of faith for
simply being people of faith. If memory serves, Mr. Pearce is a repeat
offender.

I will always attack superstition and gullibility wherever I encounter
them. They are poison to our society and have no place in a scientific
world.

And please let me clarify that I'm not getting down on Pearce for being an
atheist. I'm pointing out his flawed logic, bad manners and retrograde
politics reminiscent of the days of Stalin.


No, my logic is sound. And Stalin trained to be a Russian Orthodox
priest at Tvilisi seminary. As history reports, he decided he could do
the job better on his own, but he still kept all the religious
trappings - the inquisition, miracles, leader worship etc.

d

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:10:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

The above argument fails to consider the well known and intensely valid
principle that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

No it doesn't.

Spoken like a true believer. ;-)

However, proof of absence is an absurd position to
advance. It is countered by the flying spaghetti monster, the orbiting
teapot and the chocolate cake on the far side of the moon.

Following your logic Don, it was stupid to believe most if not all of the
things we now believe about modern and nuclear physics until proof was
obtained. The Greeks were idiots for believing in atoms way back when?

The orbiting teapot and the chocolate cake (or at least a Little Debbie
cream filled chocolate cupcake) could be examples of space debris
intentially put in place by astronauts or space engineers with a sense of
humor. They might be there - how will you prove that they are not?

If you talk too loudly about that flying spaghetti monster we have some
chaps who call themselves intentionally who just might make one work...

LOL!

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 3, 5:50*pm, "Edward Morris" wrote:
Mr. Turner you can't be that daft? *I could give a flip about the Brook 10C.
I don't own one nor do I care to own one. *Try to understand this, ok?? *In
a number of messages you send to this group, you put down the Bible, even
thought it has nothing to do with the topic of the message. *I believe in
the Bible but you don't see me here message after message with my pro-Bible
stance. *You have your biases against the Bible but I don't understand why
you continue to interject your biases in messages that have nothing to do
with the Bible???? *Keep you biases to yourself.

Ah, finally a word about bias, and that is relevant to the Brook 10C
amplifier, but not in any Godly or Un-Godly manner, and so therefore I
deduce you are a benign Old *******, and entirely harmless.

Many of my friends believe in the Bible, ie, the "Tome Of Bull****"
written from about 5,000BC onwards to describe the beginning of
Creation, the World and all the Creatures Innit, and Morality and what
everyone needs to know about gettin inta heaven.

But I can't accept ALL of the message in the Bible, and can't manage
to be apologetic for my summed atheistic hedonistic beliefs, although
I do think the 10 Commandmants and seven vices and seven virtues form
the basis of all mankind and womenkind to be nicer to each other than
they are, despite their beliefs in the their various Gods and beliefs
in the unproven properties of such Gods. You see, the 10 commandments
and stuff about vice and virtue is relevant to a good/bad life lived
no matter what one's belief in supernatural crapology might be.

Meanwhile, someone mentioned this about Old Pilots :-

You think you have lived to be 80 and know who you are, then along
comes someone and blows it all to heck!

An old Pilot sat down at the Starbucks and ordered a cup of coffee.
As he sat sipping his coffee, a young woman sat down next to him..
She turned to the pilot and asked, 'Are you a real pilot?'

He replied, 'Well, I've spent my whole life flying biplanes, Cubs,
Aeronca's, Nieuports, flew in WWII in a B-29, and later in the Korean
conflict, taught 50 people to fly and gave rides to hundreds, so I
guess I am a pilot, and you, what are you?

She said, 'I'm a lesbian. I spend my whole day thinking about naked
women. As soon as I get up in the morning, I think about naked women.
When I shower, I think about naked women. When I watch TV, I think
about naked women. It seems everything makes me think of naked
women.'

The two sat sipping in silence.

A little while later, a young man sat down on the other side of the
old pilot and asked: "are you a real pilot?"

He replied, 'I always thought I was, but I just found out I'm a
lesbian.'



So you see Eddie, Life is fulla surprizes when ya think about things
long enough.

Patrick Turner.








morailknbibleonarality iltyosdfs ysd

Edward Morris

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message

...
On Nov 2, 10:07 pm, Patrick Turner wrote:





On Oct 25, 2:46 am, "Edward Morris" wrote:

You're quite the pratter yourself, Patrick. You've got a very prominent
problem with the Bible. I read this newsgroup to glean information and
your
****ing on the Bible is getting tiresome. It has nothing to do with the
topic at hand or the topic of this newsgroup. Get ****ed with something
else.

Eddie

I guess the word pratter must be american slang for arogant **** or
dick head or something else negative, and I don't mind what you call
me, because that won't stop those wanting to know the truth about a
Brook 10C.

Then you've mentioned I have a problem with the Bible, and I'm
assuming you mean the Old Testament, and presumably the New Testament
written many years after Christ's death. There is much wisdom in such
old books which tell us how to get to Heaven, but as someone very
famous said in about 1500, the Bible does not tell us how the heavens
go, and I recall Rome was vastly browned off by this upstart no-good
arsole and the church treated him very poorly. Trouble was, the bloke
was right, and Rome was wrong, about the Earth going around the Sun,
rather than agreeing with Rome's idea the Sun went around the Earth.
Turns out that space is so infinitely large, that anyone's ideas about
who or what God is MUST be all bull****, because infinite info about
infinite sized universes and infinite details can't fit into little
dumb Homo Sapien brains which are only marginally brighter than a
monkey's, from which they evolved rather slowly.
Then there are all these stories about God the Father, God the Son,
and God the Holy Ghost, and the story of the Virgin Mary, who got
pregnant with Christ without anyone sticking a dick up her. Just where
does one begin to make a list of Bull**** Items in the Bible? All too
difficult for me to find the time, and instead I concentrate on being
a useful solderer making connections to favour music, and to serve up
a bitta heaven right here on Earth, and I figure I don't have to be a
God Botherer while I'm serving Humanity, and Hu-womanity, should they
need a fix for a problem, whatever.
Perhaps by "Bible" you mean RDH4, in which case there is nothing about
getting to heaven, but everything about how the heavens go, ie,
stories about the workings of physics in relation to vacuum tubes, and
thingemejigs with L, C and R within. So I don't have too much to
disagree with in RDH4; it leaves out any mention of God, thank
Goodness.

For many people, the Old Testamant is the only one True Book, and
everything which was before or after it is basically bull**** not
worth reading. That's OK, I don't mind, but I'll still remain me, ever
questioning all I see and hear, and open to absorbing good info
wherever I find it, and its years since I studied the Bible, and if I
did, I doubt I'd be a better person, but probably would be a mal-
contented person because such grand old books cannot tell me what I
like to consider in the universe, without myths and fantasies.

So what have you got to say about the Brook 10C?

Last time I posted I was just fed up with ppl NOT supporting their
claims about the bias control circuit in the Brook 10C, but they were
so sure they were correct.

Patrick Turner.

Mr Morris has replied to me in private with subject matter that is
entirely off the topic of the Brook 10C, ie, he has rambled on and on
and that's OK, but he has not done anything positive to determine
whether or not the Brook 10C bias control is any good or not. I
present his private email here because he should have addressed the
group, not just me.

"""You like to ramble don't you Patrick? *You type and type and ramble
about
things you're guessing about. *I have nothing to say about the Brook
10C.
You are the one who rambled about the Bible in the Brook 10C thread.
I
didn't.
Edward Morris""""



----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Turner"

Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 6:07 AM
Subject: Brook 10C's

On Oct 25, 2:46 am, "Edward Morris" wrote:
You're quite the pratter yourself, Patrick. You've got a very prominent
problem with the Bible. I read this newsgroup to glean information and
your
****ing on the Bible is getting tiresome. It has nothing to do with the
topic at hand or the topic of this newsgroup. Get ****ed with something
else.

And BTW, he has nothing to say which would change my doubt about
what's been scribbled in the Bible, apparently by those with vivid
imaginations, or by those who like to get control over other people by
writing a book at a time when there were SFA books around to read, so
then then it was easy to enforce biblical propaganda and enforce laws
and order, such as the 10 commandments. Such books and rules led to
monastories or ruling elite who could con others into doing all sorts
of BS things such as building the Pyramids, or the Vatican, while
sweating from work and being poorly paid while fat guys in fancy dress
paraded around prosletizing Bible content, and maybe ****ing little
boys or nuns on their rounds.

The 10 commandments are not a bad set of rules.

Usually most societies eventually end up inventing such laws, give or
take a few, and then invent beheading and burnings at stakes to
enforce dogma. Some move forward to having serious religious wars and
conducting Crusades. Eventually, societies get rich and then just ****
on dogma and most commandments yet life proceeds remarkably well.
Rules are made to be broken, hence the occasional Depression, and a
woeful divorce rate, and 20,000 shootings in the USA, land of the
Free, and goodness knows how many traffic fatalities. ( Could the
Amish really have the answers? ) But before that, Sometimes things
fell apart of course, and there was a Plague anyway, despite ppl
praying to God about it. They'd kill cats in cities because they
thought them to be evil witches and then that allowed more rats and
their fleas, so hence the Plagues. That meant that 1/2 the poplulation
would inherit a windfall in the form of the inheritance from those who
died. So Plagues were not all bad for everyone if you survived. But a
better solution was scientific thought which led to the knowledge
about city hygiene, good plumbing and sewers, and inventing so very
much to avoid **** happening without praying to God or reading the
Bible at all.

If there was a bit more scientific thought from Flipper et all, we'd
see more tolerance of variablity in opinions, and we'd also see the
TRUTH about the brook 10C which so far niether myself or anyone else
has established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 3, 7:03*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 01:50:07 -0500, "Edward Morris"

wrote:
Mr. Turner you can't be that daft? *I could give a flip about the Brook 10C.
I don't own one nor do I care to own one. *Try to understand this, ok?? *In
a number of messages you send to this group, you put down the Bible, even
thought it has nothing to do with the topic of the message. *I believe in
the Bible but you don't see me here message after message with my pro-Bible
stance. *You have your biases against the Bible but I don't understand why
you continue to interject your biases in messages that have nothing to do
with the Bible???? *Keep you biases to yourself.

Edward Morris

Mr. Morris. You do yourself no favours here. First you say "I could
give a flip" when you clearly mean "I couldn't give a flip". Now,
while this may be simply a typo it is common enough among Americans
that I choose to believe it to be ignorance and stupidity.

But diidden ya see that Eddie's just a flippant creature?

You second stupidity is to claim gullibility as if it were
praiseworthy. When you say you believe in the bible you are revealing
yourself to be a credulous fool who believes what he is told without
the least shred of evidence. Again, this is not something you should
be saying aloud because it reduces you to the level of an idiot.

Evidence is in the mind of the reader, and because old scribes wrote
the Bible so long ago, and the Book ain't been chucked out of old
libraries, it must be true to many readers, in the same way
Shakespeare is so true about human behaviour. Some might say John
Lennon was right that the Beatals were more popular than Jesus, with a
truer message about "True Lerve" than the tough love Jesus went on
about.

All is subject to subjective estimations of right, rong, troo, fallz.
Its a liberal period in human history.

Meanwhile, for me, Science Remains The Key to understanding the
universe and ultimate meaning of life which cannot be known because it
can't be known why existance exists, well, not yet, it seems.

I'm left wondrin what discoveries will be made about the universe, or
the billions of univereses outside the one we can observe, and maybe a
glimpse of God is possible one day, but while I know I'm human, and
cosmically insignificant, I'll try to be nice to all others I meet
even when I see they have no basis on which to believe the stuff the
believe in. I'm quite happy I know nearly SFA, compared to what is
knowable, or compared to what yas yet to be discovered and then
knowable, which is an infinite quantity, IMHO.

I don't believe in the God described in any silly Bible, but I won't
eat your children or root your missus if left alone with them. I'm a
good man without needing to have any damn God to look after me, and
without bowing down in front of any ****in God.


As for anybody keeping their biases to themselves, why should they do
that? Personal biases are what this sort of venue is all about. All of
your statements are based on your credulous nature and it is important
for our understanding of them that we know that you consider thinking
to be a sin.

I'm still wondrin about bias control in a Brook 10C.

Everyone has personal biases, often un-regulated by impudence orany
resistance to logical thoughts.

The humanic biases are generated by personal experiences and
emotionality in gene expressions, and to prosper while young and breed
successfully, tolerance of biasistic differences is essential, but may
be reliquished after the divorce when persuit and indulgence and
development of biases might continue un-attenuated into old age, when
we become harshly judged by youth, yet to make the journey.

Riding my bicycle is enough. I thus avoid perplexing issues which have
no resolutions.



Now, try to behave.

That's the easy part.

Patrick Turner.



d

[Patrick Turner]

see more tolerance of variablity in opinions, and we'd also see the
TRUTH about the brook 10C which so far niether myself or anyone else
has established beyond all reasonable doubt.

That's flying fig funny coming from someone who calls people with a
different 'opinion' a "stupid idiot" and "arrogant ****."

Flipper, you have not proved anything you think is true about the
Brook 10C.

You resent being called names because you have not done your homework.

But someone has to always criticise other ppl's opinions in order to
establish the truth. Its part of the healthy process of establishing
scientific proof, and if you don't agree that your views SHOULD be
well challenged until you have bent over backwards to proove your
case, then don't be surprised to be called arrogant, and a female
genital.

Contless times during the history of establishing scientific truth one
man has given an opinion then 10 men say he's wrong. But sooner or
later the truth emerges, and rises above the egos of all those
involved.

So never ever think you are always right Flipper, because youse fukken
well ain't.

If ya wanna be seen to be right around here you're gonna havfta work a
fukken lot harder in your workshop with a soldrin' iron and note book,
and we'll all keep criticising until you are right. Such is the heat
of the science kitchen, get out if ya can't stand the temperature.

Some of the greatest scientists have got things wrong, and made
observations to suit their theories, rather than cite a theory because
of observations. An example I heard today on a radio show about
science concerned fuzzy pictures of distant stars back before 1920
when Einstein's ideas were new and un-proven. Will, turns out picture
fuzz was due to gravity bending lightwaves. Greater minds than mine
worked out the ramifications. Einstein was right about much, but not
about everything, and methinks we have a heck of a lot more to
discover. Certainly a lot more if we were to know what God knows, and
of course there has to be a God, although he, she, or it is nothing
like what the Bible tells us, so God is an awful word to describe some
greater being out there in space which is infinitely more complex and
mysterious than any human can imagine.

I suggest you build the Brook 10C, carefully measure its performance,
and let the truth be known to be both yourself and everyone else about
this tiny bit of scientific knowledge and the experience will teach
you never to be sure of anything unless you have investigated all the
facts.

Who is ever going to respect your credibility if what you say you
believe in is based on what some bloke in a patent has said?

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 5, 12:23*am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 07:55:20 -0500, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 11:39:01 -0500, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce, why are you so angry at me? *You have no idea who I am. *I'm not
a mindless idiot. *Yes atheism is a faith. *It is a belief not to believe.
I am not asking anyone to believe anything. *You've got a burr up your butt
but I didn't put it there. *That's your problem. *I simply asked that Mr.
Turner stay to the subject of the Brook 10C. *That is what the thread was
about. *Is this a newsgroup about tube electronics? *Please send me the
newsgroup policy.

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

Of course it's 'faith'. It's 'faith' in your vision of what
constitutes "reason" and "evidence" plus you wield it like a religion,
declaring 'moral truths', and as a 'chosen prophet' compelled to
proselytize to 'sinners' no matter what the topic.

There's also no 'evidence' of the kind you mean that there isn't one
either so at best you have a Mexican standoff and the world would do
better if people were not so rabid about things that affect themselves
not one whit.

If you choose to admit that you believe things for which there is no
evidence (faeries, elves, Bigfoot, unicorns, gods, Loch Ness Monsters
etc.), the problem is yours. You shouldn't say embarrassing stuff out
loud.

Spoken like a true 'religious zealot'.

d

You aren't going to win this by deploying hackneyed debating trade
tricks like perverting the meaning of a key word (which you have just
done with "faith"). I understand (no, I really do) that debating trade
tricks are all the religious have to fight with, but don't bother.
I've seen them all.

d- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I thought Faith in its purest form is where a belief is held to be
true, and all reasons for doubt have been denied, or abandoned.

Faith would have us believe Jesus was the Son of God, and that he died
on the Cross to save us.
To me I find this an utterly stupid idea for which there is not the
slightest bit of tangible evidence. But Jesus said a lotta stuff
about howta be good to other people, and such advice was anything but
stupid. There is much wisdom in the Bible and Gospels, and we would
all get along better with others in the world if we all adopted such
wisdoms. Much of the old wisdom is universally true in many religious
texts of different faiths, but the fundementalists in each brand of
faith refuse to accept any deviation from their own one eyed views.
Such stupidity has led to huge rivers of blood over bull****.

Believing Jesus was a Son of some invented giza in the sky is largely
irrelevant to being a good person in the real world. Who gives a ****
about who was Jesus's dad? To me it was Joseph, and his mum was Mary,
and they hadda bitta hokey pokey 9 months before Christmas in the year
1 BC. So, for me, Jesus needs no heavenly dad to make what he preached
years later any more better than it was by means of him being given a
dad called God. The business of citing God as the dad of Jesus is
merely man made sales talk for a new religion. Its the oldest trick in
the book, the trick of sexing up a story to make it less boring and
more exciting. So we are left with the residue of what was written to
suit aspiring nerdish religious fanatics who felt ill at ease
discussing sex or politics and religion at dinner parties. Jesus
didn't mind though it seemed, he sure ventured into the 3 most
unpopular dinner party subjects often enough, and enough to get
himself in a spot of bother, and he ended up crucified. We are
expected to believe he ascended into heaven but that's all just homage
to a good bloke all taken a bit too far, over the top stuff to give
him hero status. Trial and error taught authors what to write to get a
believing audience for a new religious community called Christians,
and ya needed a strong line of BS to get 'em revved up and
contributing to church funding etc. Eventually, Faith had the Romans
giving up the suppression of Christian faith. If ya can't beat 'em,
join'em, and we had the Holy Roman Empire. Faith was a real mover and
shaker, no? but it is based on lies and bull**** nevertheless, nice
stories, or not so nice, depending how you view things, and who is
listening to you tell them how you understand the Bible and Gospels,
and in say 1600, one learned to STFU about religion if there was a
preiest around, you could get boiled in oil if you spoke wrong about
beliefs. Anyway while I was a boy, many people were unquestionably
faithful, believing in Christ and the Holy Trinity and the Virgin Mary
et all, and the miracles at Lourdes and so on, but ya know, there
ain't no crutches left behind by ppl visiting Lourdes. Lotsa claims
for cures, but very little proven.
Now between the time Man was more or less a monkey and before
civilisation which began about 10,000 years ago after the slow rise in
our IQ levels, there were lots of ppl who grew up as certifiable
heathens without any of the TRUE FAITH than we understand to be true
faith. Well, among them all were lots of arsoles who would kill male
rivals who might threaten or lessen their chances of genetic
reproduction, so lots of killings occurred over who gets to root the
best sheilas in the jungle. But also amoung those BR ppl, ( Before
Religion) there were those who found the care&share approach worked
for them best, and that jaw-jaw worked better than war-war. This is
all still going on now as I type, the clash of the warriors and peace-
nics, and regardelss of faith, religion, atheism or whatever, because
what drives people to do what they do has never been fully supressed
or modulated by a belief system. We spend much of our lives dealing
with ourselves or others who act against the tenets of the belief
system.

All is vague, and rather meaningless, except science based knowledge.

I'm glad doctors like being doctors at my local hospital. I don't care
if they are christians, jews, moslems, hindu, athiests or
callathumpians. There are even Cathode Followers amoung them. Ditto
about the nurses. I only care that they know about taking care. So,
without worry, I'll ride 90km tomorrow on my bicycle, and leave the
truth to be found out about the Brook 10c to be afirmed by someone
else. The Real World now does not demand anyone conform to only one
idea about the Universe and God, and fortunately my society around me
here has become very tolerant, and its a very nice place to be, as a
result of enlightement, and abandoning the superstitious bull**** that
ruined so many lives in bygone years of history.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Below Fipper tries desperately to wriggle out of his self created
quagmire of self deception where he thinks he's right and anyone who
challenges him is wrong about the Brook 10C.

He is DETERMINED to NOT BUILD AND TEST A BROOK circuit so he'll never
know the truth about it. He is determined to accept the patent wording
instead.

OK, he's like the man who believes in the literal truth of the Bible,
and that the world was made in 7 days by God and it all happened about
7,000 years ago - all because some wise looking dodery old gizas wrote
it down, heck, they musta been wise, but they didn't get any degrees
at any university I know, nor present any evidence to support their
claims.....

I can only recommend that NOBODY SHOULD EVER TAKE FLIPPER SERIOUSLY
ABOUT ANYTHING, and it is my opinion that unless he builds and
carefully measures a Brook 10C type of circuit carefully, he just
hasn't any real idea of how it works.

His main interest in life is to maintain that he's right AFTER
spurting bull**** that could be wrong.

He's welcome to hate me as much as he likes, but I always prefer the
truth to bull****.

Patrick Turner.

On Nov 6, 5:57*am, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 06:15:24 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
see more tolerance of variablity in opinions, and we'd also see the
TRUTH about the brook 10C which so far niether myself or anyone else
has established beyond all reasonable doubt.

That's flying fig funny coming from someone who calls people with a
different 'opinion' a "stupid idiot" and "arrogant ****."

Flipper, you have not proved anything you think is true about the
Brook 10C.

I've proved I can read, comprehend, and recount the method of
operation described in a patent better than you can.

You resent being called names because you have not done your homework.

More flying fig humor from the man who's done none.

But someone has to always criticise other ppl's opinions in order to
establish the truth.

Excepting, of course, yours.

Its part of the healthy process of establishing
scientific proof,

You invoke 'science' like a religious icon without the slightest care
what it means.

and if you don't agree that your views SHOULD be
well challenged until you have bent over backwards to proove your
case,

I've already 'proven' my 'case'

then don't be surprised to be called arrogant, and a female
genital.

And the self appointed 'god' shall speweth filth.

Contless times during the history of establishing scientific truth one
man has given an opinion then 10 men say he's wrong. But sooner or
later the truth emerges, and rises above the egos of all those
involved.

So never ever think you are always right Flipper, because youse fukken
well ain't.

Speak for yourself as you've provided not one shred of 'evidence'
other than "Lord Turner hath spoken."

If ya wanna be seen to be right around here you're gonna havfta work a
fukken lot harder in your workshop with a soldrin' iron and note book,
and we'll all keep criticising until you are right. Such is the heat
of the science kitchen, get out if ya can't stand the temperature.

Got news for you, pal. *You* and "around here" are not synonyms and
you are not 'god' of the group, or anything else.

And no, I do not need to whip out a "solderin' iron" to read and
comprehend a patent just because you can't.

babble snip

Who is ever going to respect your credibility if what you say you
believe in is based on what some bloke in a patent has said?

Because, for one, there is no reason to presume the 'bloke' and patent
office are lying, and certainly no reason to 'believe' you over the
'bloke'.

The accuser has the burden of proof. That's you.

Second, you have yet to demonstrate you even grasp the circuit's
intended method of operation, which makes your 'opinion' of it
worthless.

Third, I've done simulations confirming the patent and it's of no
consequence that you don't grok simulations.

And you throwing a precocious three year old temper tantrum isn't a
'scientific argument'.



Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

Building and testing a Brook is easier said than done, because the
transformers are not regular old transformers. The ONLY legitimate
study would be to obtain and test a REAL Brook, which would be very
expensive.

A Brook Replica with off the shelf opt and a driver choke wound to
some reasonable speculation of what is needed would be helpful and
probably work very well but would not be definitive.

Lincoln Walsh was an obsessive compulsive and secretive as well.

The circuit has all the desireable tweak attributes except it is push
pull and uses NFB, which is why it's any good.

It uses directly heated low mu triodes, and is lower power than
similar beam power tube designs, which is why it was not emulated
commercially.

2A3s were readily and even cheaply available until about 20 years ago.
WE 300s -A or B makes no difference- were never all that readily
available but were available with some effort until the 80s for
somewhat reasonable prices.

After 1960 or so, there was no reason commercial builders could not
use 300Bs, since the license issues were moot and expired.

The real super tweakos, such as the mentally ill Robert Fulton, never
even LIKED the 300B. Curits Schafer did a two chassis 300B amp design
in the late forties that was published and Boegli did one around 1955
but it used a lot of feedback and really demanded a special opt (he
used regular ones in a pinch). Audio Research still does much the same
thing to this day, putting the secondary in the cathode circuit-a Bad
Idea, but so are a lot of other ARC ones.

[Edward Morris]

Mr. Pearce. Thank the Lord (if there is one) I'm not you because if I were
you, I wouldn't know where to spend all of my money. I mean you've set
yourself high up on a pedestal, kind of like a god, in that you KNOW for
certain of certains that there is no God. I mean you really have all the
world's wisdom packed inside that head of yours. There are so many people
worshiping this god or that god and only if you could tell them that there
is no God they could go on with their lives and stop wasting their time. l
would pray that I could have some of the wisdom you have but, oh yeah,
there is no God. haha

Edward Morris

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:10:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

The above argument fails to consider the well known and intensely valid
principle that absence of proof is not proof of absence.


No it doesn't. However, proof of absence is an absurd position to
advance. It is countered by the flying spaghetti monster, the orbiting
teapot and the chocolate cake on the far side of the moon.

It's also a matter of being polite and honoring the principle of freedom of
faith. I can't recall ever seeing a person of faith berate someone simply
because they are an atheist, but I surely can remember numerous occasions
where atheists have publicly and gratuitously attacked people of faith for
simply being people of faith. If memory serves, Mr. Pearce is a repeat
offender.

I will always attack superstition and gullibility wherever I encounter
them. They are poison to our society and have no place in a scientific
world.

And please let me clarify that I'm not getting down on Pearce for being an
atheist. I'm pointing out his flawed logic, bad manners and retrograde
politics reminiscent of the days of Stalin.


No, my logic is sound. And Stalin trained to be a Russian Orthodox
priest at Tvilisi seminary. As history reports, he decided he could do
the job better on his own, but he still kept all the religious
trappings - the inquisition, miracles, leader worship etc.

d

[MeDicWek]

Anybody else addicted to trout fishin? I only had 1 worm I dug up,split em in half and caught this pretty lil guy on 2nd cast. Not big enough to eat yet. Mountain fed brook is freezin all year round, less than 100ft from my window. I listen to the brook all summer and chill by the cool waters. awesome crays too.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 21:42:10 -0600, "Edward Morris"
wrote:

Mr. Pearce. Thank the Lord (if there is one) I'm not you because if I were
you, I wouldn't know where to spend all of my money. I mean you've set
yourself high up on a pedestal, kind of like a god, in that you KNOW for
certain of certains that there is no God. I mean you really have all the
world's wisdom packed inside that head of yours. There are so many people
worshiping this god or that god and only if you could tell them that there
is no God they could go on with their lives and stop wasting their time. l
would pray that I could have some of the wisdom you have but, oh yeah,
there is no God. haha

Edward Morris

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:10:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

Permit me to suggest that you re-read the atheist position, which I
have described just above this. It is NOT a statement that I know
there is no god. I can't know that any more than you can know there is
one. It is the altogether more rational statement that there is no
evidence to suggest there is one.

Like all religious people, in the absence of actual argument, you
resort to distortion and lies about the reasoned arguments of the
opposition. Your second false argument is that because lots of people
believe there is a god, it must be true. Your third is the "wishful
thinking" false argument. I'll leave you to work that out.

In short, never try to defend religion by reason. It won't work. Do
yourself the honour of calling it faith - an unreasoned, evidence-free
belief. This is a good definition of the word gullibility.

d

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 6, 12:31*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 13:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
Below Fipper tries desperately to wriggle out of his self created
quagmire of self deception where he thinks he's right and anyone who
challenges him is wrong about the Brook 10C.

I don't 'think' I know, I know I know. And the reason I know is you've
demonstrated an inability to comprehend the patent or even the
*purpose* of the circuit despite a clear and unambiguous statement of
the two goals.

Ah, the arrogance in this paragraph from Mr Flipper is clear to be
seen by all. He has NO ROOM for any self doubt, he makes out that
because he knows he'd right, he must be right, but so many scientists
have fallen on their sword by making such an idiotic and ridiculous
statement.

Flipper could be wrong folks. He does not believe in testing an idea
by building the idea to make sure there is no doubt. If NASA had only
simulated their rocket designs, how successful do you think they'd
have been getting to the moon in 1969 if they had not built a few
sample rockets and tested all the technology?

How nervous do you think the astronauts would have been if they were
on a rocket that had only ever been simulated.

I can say Flipper is a jerk who doesn't know his own **** stinks.

He is DETERMINED to NOT BUILD AND TEST A BROOK circuit so he'll never
know the truth about it.

Correction, YOU are determined to not build one and since you can't
grasp it's operation from the patent description you'll never know the
truth about it.

But offering a correction makes you look like an even bigger fool. If
you won't prove the Brook bias circuit works by building it, then you
have no proof, and everyone can relax, knowing they should ignore you
completely because your attitude is all wrong.

I suggest ppl try the Brook circuit for themselves. Flipper is no help
help to anyone, IMHO.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 7, 5:08*pm, (Don Pearce) wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 21:42:10 -0600, "Edward Morris"





wrote:
Mr. Pearce. *Thank the Lord (if there is one) I'm not you because if I were
you, I wouldn't know where to spend all of my money. *I mean you've set
yourself high up on a pedestal, kind of like a god, in that you KNOW for
certain of certains that there is no God. *I mean you really have all the
world's wisdom packed inside that head of yours. *There are so many people
worshiping this god or that god and only if you could tell them that there
is no God they could go on with their lives and stop wasting their time. *l
would pray that I could have some of the wisdom you have but, oh yeah,
there is no God. *haha

Edward Morris

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:10:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

Permit me to suggest that you re-read the atheist position, which I
have described just above this. It is NOT a statement that I know
there is no god. I can't know that any more than you can know there is
one. It is the altogether more rational statement that there is no
evidence to suggest there is one.

Indeed. Its impossible to be correct if you say there is no God.
There's just too much evidence that there is something Out There which
is infinitely greater than any one of us, and the deeper we look into
the atom, and the further we gaze into Space, the more we see mystery
and perhaps feel wonderment or fear.

But the ancients who wrote the Bible just didn't know much, but they
sure figured out howta write a good story so that ppl would gather to
hear and read their BS results of their imagination, and pretty soon
you have an alms paying religious congregation meeting together for as
many reasons one might think of, eg, meeting together at a Mayan
pyramid while priests cut the heart from a human victim, or meeting to
drink the blood of Jesus Christ. All pretty wacky bull**** riddled
crapological behaviour, when ya woulda been better off mowing the lawn
on Sunday, or reading the newspaper instead of reading the Bible.

I have no evidence that the God or multiple Gods described in any book
are real. I've never had a "spiritual experience" I've heard no voices
from angels or devils.

I don't regret never going to church since about age 15.

Some ppl need God, or some sort of Big Daddy In The Sky, but I've
never ever needed anyone after I learnt to think for myself at about
age 15. Before that I guess I needed my parents, but I sure didn't
ever think I needed an extra mummy or daddy in heaven someplace. Some
people hated me for not needing them, ex wives for example. I
explained I liked them and the good they were while it lasted, and
that I knew the difference between need and want, as well as good and
bad, at least for me that is.

So I'm a natural born atheist. I also have a conscience, and it stops
me being bad, and my lack of being bad isn't due any fear I have about
punishment in Hell. I'm here for my life, and when its over, I just
will not be anywhere, and my atoms might find other atoms to combine
with, hence there will be some re-incarnation, but I won't ever exist
after death, and I won't be resurected at some later date on Judgement
Day, and be judged by some God in the sky. I'm a reall good blasphemer
one might say, but unless there is evidence to proove I'm wrong, then
see no reason to change my disbeliefs in all these many pet theories
which ppl hold to be true, "because they know them to b true", even
without any evidence. People FEEL something is true, so therefore it
is true, to them. This isn't being rational, its being a fool.
There's an outside chance I'm wrong, and that fool me will be sent to
Hell. Oh well, ain't nuthin' I can do 'bout it. I jus don't give a
****.

Like all religious people, in the absence of actual argument, you
resort to distortion and lies about the reasoned arguments of the
opposition. Your second false argument is that because lots of people
believe there is a god, it must be true. Your third is the "wishful
thinking" false argument. I'll leave you to work that out.

Indeed.

In short, never try to defend religion by reason. It won't work. Do
yourself the honour of calling it faith - an unreasoned, evidence-free
belief. This is a good definition of the word gullibility.

Its pointless to convert many people into disbelieving what they like
to believe in. Rarely can anyone convert a Muslim to be a Christian,
or convert a Jew to being a Buddhist.

So defending or attacking religion is impossible. Religion just is.
Look at Russia and China and how the Communists tried so hard to
destroy religion. Well, the Russian Orthodox Church is doing fine in
Russia. Despite all the BS beliefs, there's a bigger sense of warm
togetherness at church gatherings than at the local communist party
meeting from where you may be arrested if you say you don't agree with
the party line. Some people find all the ceremonial aspect of sunday
church to be uplifting and maybe they get to meet a wife and get a
root, or a work contract or something or other sooner or later. But my
attendance at church led me to believe I was no ****en good at all,
just a ****, and meeting any girl and getting a root wasn't ever gonna
happen, and pretty soon I thought the whole business of being at
church and mumbling mumbo jumbo and honouring some God was all a pile
of BS. I recall the pub and beer and other non religious people
offered me more opportunity to socialise and be accepted than any damn
church. For awhile though, and with a few others, I started the
Wayside Angels Motorcycle Club in Kings Cross in Sydney. We based
ourselves at the Wayside Chapel, a meeting place and church cafe for
anyone anytime and where ppl who'd fallen to drugs could come. Our
bikie meetings were held in the actual Chappel. We sat along the
Alter. The late Ted Noffs who was pastor in 1965 was genuinely
tolerant of all ppl no matter who they were, so we all accepted him,
and behaved very well. He never once tried to ram God down our ear-
holes. The club got up to about 100 members and the lane outside was
fulla bikes on Sunday night. Nobody worshipped God. But maybe our bike
club was the sanest of those who went to this sort of church. There
was an auditorium where Ted organised for people to have a sunday
night forum on any kind of subject. I dunno if God was there, but
surely Jesus would have felt more at home amoung us than had he
visited the Vatican.

So, I would fight to defend the right of people to worship any God
they wished, ie, or any God they imagine IS THERE FOR THEM. I've lived
a life where nobody has ever been anywhere for me, and certainly not
any caring God as defined in any Bible. God is just there, utterly
indefinable, and yet all these different religions claim their God is
more Godly than anyone else's God. Didn't someone make a Golden Calf?
and then some God got ****ed off mightily. Nice story, and ya can't go
around makin some object to worship or else some God gets jealous, and
revengeful, Ya can't **** ya neighbours wife without **** happening.
Common sense. No need to go to all that silly trouble of makin a
golden calf. And I'd add, no need to invent a God either. I think it
better to be content about one's ignorance better to swan about like a
dickhead who believes in stuff without proof. Some ppl, like Ted
Noffs, just stood out amoung the crowd and their practice of religion
is conducted in a very welcome manner, because they have a gift for
it.

Someone said today I should Pray. I would, if I believed it worked.
Some ppl claim their prayers are answered, but but i'm not aware
anyone would listen if I prayed. Humans like to just wish things into
existance. But **** keeps on happening to real good people, and some
real arsoles live happily to 100. God isn't listening it seems to me.
He, She, or It might be listening, and we are taught to love God, but
loving God is like trying to stay married to someone who is grossly un-
communicative, and totally dysfunctional when it comes to
relationships. I hafta admit that I can't get rid of all the Catholic
brainwashing my schools and parents and religious orders foisted on
me. If I see a statue of the Virgin Mary, I think wow, there's a nice
young sheila, and I must quash any ideas about chattin her up and
getting her home for some good old rumpy-pumpy after a joint or glass
of wine. Fact is, the young Mary's of this world ( and presumably of
the spirit world ) would find me quite sexually repulsive, even if I
had a few spare million bucks, and was 25, and able to woo them in a
romantically correct fashion. Seemed like all the Marys were all
taken, or dreamin of the next better bloke if they could wangle it,
using their favourite companion, Miss Fanny. The Virgin Mary of course
became soon taken by a better bloke than I'd ever be, so I was told,
and I know she'd say no to my advances. Old Joseph was a carpenter.
That's what I became when I was young, but that did me little good.
The Marys I met all seemed to have other *******s in mind to root -
more loot was ultimately forthcoming, especially after the divorce,
when the Marys have had 3 kids, and do what they have done for ages,
be good at house-keeping, and keep the house.
Religion has an amazing lot of distracting imagery. The Virgin Mary is
a classic example. But people like fantasy and unreal things, and
religion filled the niche for such things in the human psyche.
Hollywood movies replaced religion a fair degree.
Religion, when not extremist, eg, a la Taliban, is good for many
societies, or at least benign, even helpful, but when ppl get all
silly and fundementalist, then all Hell breaks loose.

I'll try to cycle a few miles tommorrow. I'll let my mind contemplate
the universe, and majesty of it all, and how much greater everything
is than I am, but I'll try to be alert at road crossings, lest a bus
run over me.
I wouldn't ever even dream of asking God for anything. I'm happy most
days, even though there is so little in my life. People have said the
good things just come to you, but they don't come. People never say
bad things just come to you, oh, but they do come. One gets older,
prone to ageing and disease, either quickly or slowly, **** happens,
and youth's bliss un-happens. One hopes the wonderment of a declining
existance with lingering positives transcends the encroachment of
decline with increasing negatives. In 10 years I may not agree with
what I've just said. I might not be even alive. Whatever.

I see all those arabs having their Arabian Spring where so many have
risen up against their tyrant rulers. They run about firing ammunition
into the air shouting "God Is Great". But is he great? Young Mohammod
would, IMHO, do better to forget his God, and focus on solving
problems he needs to solve himself. But I ain't gonna tell young Mo-ha
to do anything, because he's likely to become very unpredictable, and
he jus lerves that AK47. He might be alive in 10 years, and perhaps by
then he'll be doing the "tyrant business" like those who went before
him, as it has been during the previous thousands of years of
history.

At the end of the day, it don't really matter whether ppl are right or
wrong about God. I just avoid the extremists and that leaves the rest
of everyone who also don't much care about God, and they jus wanna
live as well as they can manage, without asking God for anything.
Fortunately, there are hardly any extremists here in Oz, dashing about
trying to control everyone, and the population is fairly uncontrolled,
yet co-operative and productive and tolerant, they leave God to sit on
the back step, and they won't invite him inside.

But sometimes I get a big electric shock fixin tube amps. I naturally
think its the God Of Triodes tellin me to not be such a dick head, and
to get real pal! - Its OK.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 7, 4:23*pm, MeDicWek wrote:
Anybody else addicted to trout fishin? I only had 1 worm I dug up,split
em in half and caught this pretty lil guy on 2nd cast. Not big enough to
eat yet. Mountain fed brook is freezin all year round, less than 100ft
from my window. I listen to the brook all summer and chill by the cool
waters. awesome crays too.

Sounds like ya in de right place at de right time.

Plenty fish in the lake here, but mostly introduced european carp, and
most ppl don't like them. But the perch make a magnificent meal. I'm
not the huntin' fishin' type and I just enjoy the nature as it is.

Patrick Turner.



--
MeDicWek

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:10:00 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:12:04 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

Atheism is NOT a faith. It is the position that there is no reason or
evidence to suggest that any supernatural entity exists. It requires
no faith.

The above argument fails to consider the well known and intensely valid
principle that absence of proof is not proof of absence.

No it doesn't.

Spoken like a true believer. ;-)

However, proof of absence is an absurd position to
advance. It is countered by the flying spaghetti monster, the orbiting
teapot and the chocolate cake on the far side of the moon.

Following your logic Don, it was stupid to believe most if not all of the
things we now believe about modern and nuclear physics until proof was
obtained. The Greeks were idiots for believing in atoms way back when?

The orbiting teapot and the chocolate cake (or at least a Little Debbie
cream filled chocolate cupcake) could be examples of space debris
intentially put in place by astronauts or space engineers with a sense of
humor. They might be there - how will you prove that they are not?

If you talk too loudly about that flying spaghetti monster we have some
chaps who call themselves intentionally who just might make one work...

LOL!

Seeing that it is now 3 days later and that Don has apparently abandoned
this subthread, I declare victory. ;-)

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 8, 12:51*am, flipper wrote:
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 23:54:00 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner





wrote:
On Nov 6, 12:31*pm, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 13:16:13 -0700 (PDT), Patrick Turner

wrote:
Below Fipper tries desperately to wriggle out of his self created
quagmire of self deception where he thinks he's right and anyone who
challenges him is wrong about the Brook 10C.

I don't 'think' I know, I know I know. And the reason I know is you've
demonstrated an inability to comprehend the patent or even the
*purpose* of the circuit despite a clear and unambiguous statement of
the two goals.

Ah, the arrogance in this paragraph from Mr Flipper is clear to be
seen by all. He has NO ROOM for any self doubt, he makes out that
because he knows he'd right, he must be right, but so many scientists
have fallen on their sword by making such an idiotic and ridiculous
statement.

Wrong. It's simply that I can read.

If someone writes 1+1=2 and you claim it says 1+1=3 then I know you
are wrong and I am right in saying the text is 1+1=2, for which I
provide the proof of quoting the text saying 1+1=2.

You then call me "arrogant" for not taking your 'word' it says 1+1=3
even though the text clearly does not.

Sorry, but it is you who are arrogant for expecting everyone to take
you 'word' even when it's plainly and demonstrably wrong.

Flipper could be wrong folks. He does not believe in testing an idea
by building the idea to make sure there is no doubt.

YOU are the one who will not test a blessed thing about the Walsh
automatic bias control. I *have* tested it by simulation and that you
don't grok simulations is *your* problem.

If NASA had only
simulated their rocket designs, how successful do you think they'd
have been getting to the moon in 1969 if they had not built a few
sample rockets and tested all the technology?

How nervous do you think the astronauts would have been if they were
on a rocket that had only ever been simulated.

The Walsh bias control is not a 'moon rocket' nor am I making any
'performance' claims about it. I've simply described how it is
intended to work and can assure you that before NASA ever put pencil
to paper on the design of a 'rocket' they already understood it's
basic principle of operation without having to 'build it'. In fact,
you'd have one hell of a time trying to 'build it' if you DIDN'T first
understand the basic principle of operation at least enough to know
you close one end, leave the other open, and point the darn thing the
right way. Well, golly gee, Mr. Wizard, why should I do that? Well,
you see, insert description of basic principle of operation.

I can say Flipper is a jerk who doesn't know his own **** stinks.

Jerks love to call people jerks.

He is DETERMINED to NOT BUILD AND TEST A BROOK circuit so he'll never
know the truth about it.

Correction, YOU are determined to not build one and since you can't
grasp it's operation from the patent description you'll never know the
truth about it.

But offering a correction makes you look like an even bigger fool. If
you won't prove the Brook bias circuit works by building it, then you
have no proof, and everyone can relax, knowing they should ignore you
completely because your attitude is all wrong.

If you can't grasp the circuit without building one then YOU should do
so but I suffer from no such limitation as I am able to read and
comprehend the description.

And as I have explained before, I don't need to 'build' an airplane to
grasp it's basic principles of operation, nor do I need to build an
internal combustion engine to grasp those basic principles either, and
so on. In fact, I don't need to build a rocket either to grasp the
action-reaction principle that generates thrust nor do I need to build
an F-22 to grasp the principle of pitch axis thrust vectoring.

You must be very limited in your understanding of things because I'd
bet you've never built a fighter jet, or a car, or a multitude of
other things so, by your own proclaimed standard, you don't know how
they work.

I suggest ppl try the Brook circuit for themselves. Flipper is no help
help to anyone, IMHO.

The 'problem' is you don't know how to use a triode as a rectifying
detector which, since no one knows everything, wouldn't be so much of
a problem if not for the 'Lord Turner' arrogance of insisting the
inventor is a liar for describing something you don't understand
despite the inventor explaining how to do it. Namely, biasing the
specified tube in his example circuit so plate voltage rests at mu
times Ek.

He doesn't elaborate much further on that aspect because those
"skilled in the art," the standard of description in a patent (it's
not a 'text book' or a 'lab report' whether you wish it were or not),
will instantly recognize the tube is biased around cutoff and being
used similar to the well know, at the time, AM "plate detector" (or,
alternately, "Anode Bend Detector"), except he's driving it from the
cathode, instead of the grid, to get the desired inversion from a
positive envelope detector to a negative envelope detector. Cathode
drive presents no problem for his application because the 'signal
source' is not an antenna but the low impedance 'pilot' resistor.

Now, if one were interested in applying the patent to their particular
design they'd, no doubt, want to 'build it' in order to optimize
things but there is no need to 'build it' just to grasp the basic
principle of operation, which is to detect the combined cathode
voltage minimums he discovered represent idle current even when the PP
output goes into Class AB and AB2 operation so that bias can be kept
"essentially constant" in a manner like "fixed bias," the second of
his two explicitly stated goals.

Here's a 'one tube' radio using a triode plate detector for rectifying
RF and, so, doing AM detection.

http://home.comcast.net/~phils_radio...enedyneTwo.pdf

I suppose you'll tell us that he and all the others who've built this
radio are liars too since you've proclaimed a cathode biased triode
can't rectify.

Or you could read about plate detection in RDH4, page 1084, but, then,
they're probably liars too.

Alternately I would graciously accept an apology.



Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Flipper seems determined to display his stupidity.

What you've said above is all red-herring stuff.

YOU MUST BUILD THE BROOK 10C TO DISPLAY TO US YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT.

By the way, where did you come up with the idea that i'm Lord Turner?
I'm fukkin not any such ****in thing, and it makes you look even
sillier to describe me that way. I'm just a fukkin bloke who does have
the courage to stand up to those who pose as know-alls and who fail so
dismally to prove what they read to be true in their own workshop.
Even if I knew absolutely nothing, I could still apply the
principle :-

DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING FLIPPER EVER SAYS ANOUT ANYTHING UNLESS HE
PROVIDES VERIFIABLE PROOF.

I make no apologies for asking questions Flipper fails to answer with
any satisfaction.

He thinks that because he can read a patent, and pull all sorts of
examples and arguments from the air, he can prove himself right about
the Brook 10C. Besides, in previous emails he's said he knows he's
right, which makes him right. So he fully believes in his own
bull****. But I sure don't, and I maintain anyone with half a brain
could never accept what Flipper says about the Brook 10C.

But of course such stances as Flipper takes have been often seen
before at r.a.t. people get all sure about themselves over what is a
fairly simple thing to investigate such as the 10C, then get all
****ty when some says "proove it" and the very one thing they really
hate doing is prooving what they allege to be true.

There is no onus on me to proove anything.

Just imagine if NASA had tested rockets that were similar to, but
different from the real ones they were to use in moon shots, and then
conclude the ones they were to use for moon shots would definately
work.
The logic is completely BOGUS.

So when you try to shoot me down with a Helendyne radio schematic, it
fails to meet the criteria of the scientific method, so

PLEASE SHOVE THE HELENDYNE UP YOUR FUKKIN ARSE.

Have another lousy day Flipper.

Flipper could understand all this **** SO MUCH EASIER if he just spent
an afternoon soldering up a Brook 10C, and examined it properly,
rather than having endless dayfulls of typing bull**** at me and
everyone else.

But then no doubt w'ed argue for months about what a proper
examination would be, because so often it happens the stubborn will
find a way to use test results to illustrate bull****. The good
scientist, like myself, always assumes he could be wrong, until he has
found proof himself, independently of anyone else and unaffected by
what anyone else might have said, ( even including lawyers who wrote a
patent.)

Now run along Flipper to your soldering iron, and do something useful.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Flipper is most determined to maintain he is right without proving he
is.

I said before....

Flipper seems determined to display his stupidity.

Says the one who can't read a patent.

I've read the Brook patent.

What you've said above is all red-herring stuff.

Crap

YOU MUST BUILD THE BROOK 10C TO DISPLAY TO US YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT.

No, I don't. And I've explained why in terms so clear and plain even a
3 year old could grasp it. That, of course, doesn't mean you can.

Well then because you are so stubborn, the world will never take you
seriously.

You just cannot get the world to agree you are correct, without
proving it.

By the way, where did you come up with the idea that i'm Lord Turner?

It's fewer keystrokes than self aggrandizing arrogant jackass.

snip jackass gibberish

You hate me because I see right through your methodology which fails
dismally to adhere to the Scientifc Method.

You know that I have suggested I could be wrong about Brook's bias
control, and until I prove what I've said, i have only expressed an
opinion.
Everyone knows this. And because of this, nobody could conclude you
are correct, or that your opinion is fact.

But you want to insist your opinion is fact, and there is just no REAL
evidence to support your opinion because you have not, and will not
spend a day to build a real working sample of a Brook amp, ie, maybe
convert an existing amp to be equal to a PP triode Brook 10C, and wire
up just one 6SN7, then measure everything in an open minded manner
with no attempt to try to fudge the test results to support a wrong
opinion. And you have to present your workings as an easily understood
document for your website, and basically, with a similar level of
information as in the brook 10C patent, which, IMHO, is a misleading
amount of words by lawyers,
and which may not describe what you may discover about the Brook 10C
bias control.

If you want to continue to be seen as a brainless dickhead, then just
continue as you are, thinking you are right, and never ever doubting
yourself, fooling both yourself and an un-thinking band of followers,
while all those with real intelligence will laugh at you.

All you have to do to escape my reasonable expectation that you prove
you are right after saying you are is to admit you could be possibly
incorrect.

It would appear there is no room in your mind that you could ever
possibly be wrong, and whilever that seems to be the case, I'll always
point this out to all, just so they just won't believe you, and become
fooled.

It means then that the truth then remains hidden if nobody builds a
Brook 10C biasing circuit and does not do the work to test it
properly.

I won't fly on a rocket you design until you have built and tested it
properly. I don't have to care what your patent says, but of course
I'd prefer it to describe the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth.

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

I've deleted ridiculous claims from Flipper, leaving this paragraph
which undermines Flipper's credibility completely......

I have supported my 'opinion' with accurate quotes from the patent,
simulations, references to RDH4 explaining the method, and examples of
other circuits using the same principle (and could provide more,
including consumer radios) to which your 'scientific' response was
'shove it up your ass'.

My response was not that, but that you build the Brook 10C to find out
the real truth about it. This of course could be misread to look like
"shove it up your ass", but not by others reading r.a.t who can think
and see past their noses. Unless you Build a Brool 10C, your opinion
remains entire unsupported.

Working examples, whether it was I who 'built it' or not, takes it out
of the realm of 'opinion' and becomes an established fact.

Working examples do indeed "take it out of the realm of opinion", but
you are determined to NEVER EVER build and measure a Brook 10C
circuit. Is Flipper just another dull minded lazy ******* who is
allergic to scrutiny, and who idiotically thiks every word he types is
the truth?

Flipper can wriggle and squirm and try desperately to avoid building a
good eaxample of the Brook 10C biasing scheme to show he understands
if fully.

He can type all he likes here, quote books, patents, lawyers,
whatever, and, it does not matter at all what I may have said, or even
if I'd said absolutely nothing, or never ever read the patent at all;
Flipper cannot be believed about all he's said about the Brook 10C.
He's just one duck quacking around the pond, and he has not put proof
to a word he says, he posers as somebody good with the jargon, but the
**** won't solder a circuit together and measure the ****en thing, so
there is not the slightest need to regard his typings as the truth on
the matter - you could be reading bull****!

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

On Nov 20, 7:31*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:09:17 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:

I've deleted ridiculous claims from Flipper, leaving this paragraph
which undermines Flipper's credibility completely......

I have supported my 'opinion' with accurate quotes from the patent,
simulations, references to RDH4 explaining the method, and examples of
other circuits using the same principle (and could provide more,
including consumer radios) to which your 'scientific' response was
'shove it up your ass'.

My response was not that,

And I quote "PLEASE SHOVE THE HELENDYNE UP YOUR FUKKIN ARSE."

Yeah, but you've been trying so hard to get me to eat a **** sandwich
you made me for dinner.

I didn't tell ya to stick a Brook amp up yer arse, OK, I told yer to
build a sample of it to enable you to understand it, then you will
know. As Granpa said, if youse don't look, youse won't find the
truth.


but that you build the Brook 10C to find out
the real truth about it. This of course could be misread to look like
"shove it up your ass", but not by others reading r.a.t who can think
and see past their noses. Unless you Build a Brool 10C, your opinion
remains entire unsupported.

Wrong, and after having explained why upwards to a dozen times I won't
waste my time repeating it.

Well, the world of intelligent readers will know you are a dumb brute.
If ya don't make the effort, the truth stays hidden, and what you say
is considered to be a pile of evasive bull****.

But you reckon you are perfect. But youse fukkin ain't, youse jus
fallible like everyone else,

Let us all know when you get a Brook amp working. Then we'll grill you
to death over your misconceptions, if we think there are any.

Patrick Turner.

[flipper]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 04:14:43 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner
wrote:

On Nov 20, 7:31*am, flipper wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:09:17 -0800 (PST), Patrick Turner

wrote:

I've deleted ridiculous claims from Flipper, leaving this paragraph
which undermines Flipper's credibility completely......

I have supported my 'opinion' with accurate quotes from the patent,
simulations, references to RDH4 explaining the method, and examples of
other circuits using the same principle (and could provide more,
including consumer radios) to which your 'scientific' response was
'shove it up your ass'.

My response was not that,

And I quote "PLEASE SHOVE THE HELENDYNE UP YOUR FUKKIN ARSE."

Yeah, but you've been trying so hard to get me to eat a **** sandwich
you made me for dinner.

"Yeah, but" is a yes.

As for the "**** sandwich," you're the one who made it.


I didn't tell ya to stick a Brook amp up yer arse, OK, I told yer to
build a sample of it to enable you to understand it, then you will
know. As Granpa said, if youse don't look, youse won't find the
truth.

It seems readily apparent *you* won't find 'truth' without building
one but that's your problem, not mine.


but that you build the Brook 10C to find out
the real truth about it. This of course could be misread to look like
"shove it up your ass", but not by others reading r.a.t who can think
and see past their noses. Unless you Build a Brool 10C, your opinion
remains entire unsupported.

Wrong, and after having explained why upwards to a dozen times I won't
waste my time repeating it.

Well, the world of intelligent readers will know you are a dumb brute.
If ya don't make the effort, the truth stays hidden, and what you say
is considered to be a pile of evasive bull****.

Same news flash: You are not "the world" and look around. You are the
only one who's expressed the slightest 'problem' grasping how the
Walsh Automatic Bias Control works.

But you reckon you are perfect.

No but I *am* able to read and comprehend what's written.

But youse fukkin ain't, youse jus
fallible like everyone else,

Excepting 'Lord Turner'.

Let us all know when you get a Brook amp working.

Let us all know when you get a Brook amp working.

And, btw, I never said a damn thing about the "Brook 10C." I described
how the Lincoln Walsh Automatic Bias Control is intended to work and
that you hate the Brook 10C, as you do just about everything and
everyone, is irrelevant.

Then we'll grill you
to death over your misconceptions, if we think there are any.

In other words, you'll call anyone who builds one a liar just like
you've called the inventor, the patent office, Brook Electronics,
RDH4, Wikipedia, and everyone who built a plate detector liars and
idiots.

In addition to the Hellenedyne you think a suppository that would
include Packard Bell

http://www.nostalgiaair.org/PagesByM...4/M0012864.pdf

Sears Silvertone

http://www.nostalgiaair.org/PagesByM...2/M0017372.pdf

and a raft of others who built radios with plate detectors.

And there's no reason for me to 'build one' of those either.

Patrick Turner.