On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:24:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:
>> but we take his word for it that they are many and magnificent.
>
>The record does not reflect that I mentioned anything magnificent by
>anyone.
>
>Like I said, if you are delusional, the record ain't yer friend.
>
>..........
>
>>>Just as the criminal exposes himself by returning to the scene of the
>>>crime . . .
>
>>>> Yeah, we are in awe of his accomplishments. We don't actually know of
>>>> any,
>
>>>You need to get something peer reviewed by authorities other than sock
>>>puppets. ? Otherwise everyone will think you are pretending more than
>>>a small child.
>
>> I don't need peer reviewers;
>
>Almost all who are active in industry will eventually end up
>publishing _something_ as a byproduct of their work.
Why? Writing code and manuals is plenty enough work.
What have you published?
>
>> I have customers.
>
>Let me guess. There's no paper trail whatsoever.
Checks are made of very nice paper.
>
>Nothing in the public record either.
>
>No patents, no nothing.
Again, why? It takes a lot of time and energy to get patents, and
that's just the down payment on the legal fees. I'd rather keep
designing new stuff to keep ahead of the curve... let people copy my
old stuff if they want to.
How many patents do you have? How successful have they been for you?
John
