On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:27:17 +0000, John Doe wrote:
>
>> The people to whom it would be news, haven't yet learned how to read.
>
> I bet that would include your mother.
>
This was uncalled for. Nowhere have I treated you rudely or with
anything approaching disrespect. I insist on being treated with
respect. I have a killfile and I know how to use it. There's always
room for one more in there.
>> Coming here to tell people to tie wire into a knot
>
> A new kind of knot.
What is "new" about this knot? Surely not the physical configuration of
the material being tied into a knot. An overhand knot is the same,
whether done with thread, rope, wire, or other length of flexible
material. So apparently your "innovation" is what? To tie a knot in
wire as opposed to rope? Or to fold the wire before tying?
>> is something like suggesting that a light shines much brighter when
>> connected to some sort of power supply.
>
> Then why hasn't anybody seen it? If your conclusion is "because it
> doesn't work", well, you can believe whatever you want to believe, and I
> will continue using it like I have for several years.
Oh, by all means, continue to use your invention. Heck, maybe you can
even get it patented.
But how do you figure I believe it won't work? It's obvious that it
*will* work, because any idiot can see that tying a knot into a length of
wire (or rope, string, etc.) will cause the length to be shortened a
bit. This is nothing new. This is nothing worth commenting about. This
is so obvious that we do it all the time without even thinking about it.
>
>> I doubt you'll find any prior descriptions of this idea, either.
>
> That's a distinct possibility, and it leads to be conclusion that my
> method probably is novel.
Umm... I was referring to my bright idea concerning the improvement in
function of a light, when connected to some sort of power supply. So if
your method is novel, so is mine. However, I doubt whether anyone would
consider either of our methods innovative.
>
>> It's not because my idea is so novel
>
> It's because you are acting like a moron.
In what way am I acting like a moron? I suspect that the only stupid
thing I'm doing is trying to engage in a reasonable discussion with
someone who is disinclined to engage in a reasonable discussion.
>> If I came here and presented such a simple-minded idea,
>
> My method is not simpleminded, it's just simple. Your pride won't let
> you appreciate a simple idea, because you think you're above it all.
> That's what we thought before September 11, 2001, when 19 box knife
> carrying knuckle draggers hijacked some planes and killed 3000 of our
> people with them. You can't see the simple because the complex is in
> your way.
So you are under the impression that you know what I think? Remarkable.
Let me assure you, you haven't the slightest idea how I think. It's not
pride. It's not that I think I'm "above it all." Nothing I have said or
done has in any way suggested either possibility.
I disagree with you. That does not automatically make me stupid, nor
does it automatically make you smart. My guess is that no one is as dumb
as you think they are, nor as smart as you think you are. This is a
guess - I don't know what you think, any more than you know what I
think. However, it seems clear that you are claiming to have come up
with a clever idea, and that anyone who disagrees with your estimation is
too stupid to understand it.
>
>> people would not be impressed.
>
> Speaking of... Have you ever invented anything or done anything
> intellectual that you can show to prove that you are some sort of an
> intellectual judge? I'm not talking about your mental masturbation here
> on UseNet. Anything substantial? Anything ever? Or are you just a mouthy
> critic? Talk is cheap.
Certainly I have. I wrote a database program for the retirement accounts
department of a savings and loan. I've done a few other things besides
that, but this should suffice. I'm quite a clever fellow, actually...
But that's not really the point. The fact that someone may never have
invented anything in his whole life, doesn't imply that he is not capable
of assessing whether some idea is innovative or original.
>> If I kept insisting that the idea was novel,
>
> I haven't been insisting that the idea is novel, liar. But in fact,
But you have. You did it in a comment above; and you do it again in your
next comment. And in previous posts.
> there are lots of very old people in here who have not seen my method.
> To me, that suggests that it is in fact novel. You might think it means
> that the method is useless, but I know better since I have been using it
> for years.
Nowhere did I ever say that the idea was *useless*. All I said was that
it wasn't clever or innovative or original.
I've seen your method and used it for decades. I've used it since I was
about 5 or 6 years old. Of course, back then I didn't use it with wires,
I used it with string or rope. I didn't start to use it with wire until
I was around 12 or so and got interested in electronics. That was a
long, long time ago. I'm one of those "old people" you keep talking
about.
And you know, now that I think of it, I believe I've seen this idea
before. I believe it was in my Boy Scout's handbook, in the section on
knots (where else?). There was the sheepshank knot, which is used to
shorten lengths of rope. And as I recall there was something about
doubled lengths tied in an overhand knot. But I could be wrong about
that, and I don't have a copy of the handbook around, so I don't insist
on that.
>
>> Now we're at the point of mutual insults.
>
> I call it "trolling". At best you are a worthless critic who has never
> done anything inventive in your life. Otherwise, care to show us what
> you have done that anyone else took note of? Anything at all? And I'm
> not talking about your back and forth mental masturbation here on
> UseNet.
>
Yes, yes, you're repeating yourself now. Mental masturbation on Usenet,
show us what you've done, blah-blah. See above. You have no idea what
I've done in my life. Not a clue. Just because I disagree with you,
doesn't mean I'm as dumb as you. Now, the fact that I *argue* with you
may indicate that I'm stupid.
>> All this makes me wonder - what's in it for you to do this?
>
> Because I feel like it. Same reason you are a troll.
Actually, I'm not a troll by any reasonable definition of the term. I
*disagree* with you, and you don't like that, but that doesn't make me a
troll. I have consistently treated you respectfully, while you have not
returned the favor. I have avoided the use of inflammatory rhetoric and
tried to express my ideas succinctly, accurately, and without insulting
you or anyone else. I have remained on topic without resorting to ad
hominem arguments, fallacious reasoning, or other histrionics.
In the meantime, you have freely abused me, insulted my mother and me,
called me names, used fallacious reasoning, and otherwise behaved in a
manner consistent with the definition of "troll." So compare our
respective behaviors with the definition of troll, and see who comes
closer.
Anyway, enough. Talk nice, or I'll plonk you and never learn any more of
your wonderful gems of wisdom.
Good luck.
--
Everyone wants results, but no one is willing to do what it takes to get
them.
-- Dirty Harry