On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 12:25:40 +1000, "Rod Speed"
gmail.com> wrote:
>John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>> John Fields
austininstruments.com> wrote>>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>>> John Larkin
highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote>>>>>>>> Rod Speed
gmail.com> wrote>>>>>>>>> John Larkin
highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote>>>>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote>>>>>>>>>>> John Larkin
highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote>>>>>>>>>>>> Bret Cahill wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone's seen that stuff 8 billion times.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you trying to bore everyone to death or what?
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, show us something interesting that you've done.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm constantly posting ideas, especially in the summer.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Ideas are wonderful; the more the better. But they have to be
>>>>>>>>>> sifted by reality, lest they just be a heap of noise. And occasionally
>>>>>>>>>> turned into real stuff to add a little feedback to the process.
>
>>>>>>>>>> It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell
>>>>>>>>>> it to people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the
>>>>>>>>>> ideas out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating.
>
>>>>>>>>> Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'
>
>>>>>>>> If nobody buys your stuff, that's OK with you?
>
>>>>>>> Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not.
>
>>>>>> So you and your good idea get to die in the dark
>
>>>>> Never said anything like that. You dont have to turn the idea
>>>>> into a viable product yourself for it to be a worthwhile idea.
>
>>>> Never said you did. What I said is that if you don't share
>>>> the idea then it's going to go to the grave with you
>
>>> We werent discussing not sharing the idea, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
>>> What was being discussed was whether an worthwhile idea needs to
>>> be VALIDATED by producing a product that corporates choose to buy.
>
>> No,
>
>Yep.
>
>> what was being discussed is the validation that _people_ feel when
>> a good idea is turned into reality and appreciated by serious people.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
The dialogue which shows that you're either terminally stupid or a two
faced liar or a terminally stupid two faced liar follows.
Larkin:
"It's rewarding to have an idea, make it actually work, and sell
it to people who appreciate it. Call it insecurity, but seeing the
ideas out there working, for serious people, is awfully validating."
You:
"Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'"
Note that nowhere is validation of a product mentioned, and your
"pathetically insecure" was meant to counter Larkin's "rewarding" and
"validating" which refer to emotional states attributed to the
originator of the idea.
Squirm, bitch.
---
>
---
Running out of steam, are you?
---
>>>> and you will have cheated mankind out of something worthwhile.
>
>>> Nope, most obviously if someone else also comes up with that idea later.
>
>> Some things never come back once they're lost.
>
>Thats never ever true of any idea that matters.
---
More stupidity.
If an idea which hasn't been disclosed is irretrievably lost then
there'll be no knowledge of its having existed in the first place, and
no guarantee that it will ever be thought of again.
Even if it was thought of again later, was divulged, and was
worthwhile, mankind would still have been cheated out of its benefits
for the period of time it took between the first and second
conception.
---
>>>>>> instead of getting proliferated for your good and that of all mankind?
>
>>>>> Plenty of ideas are nothing like that.
>
>>>> Got an example or two?
>
>>> The idea that you can con some fools into believing that that if
>>> they blow themselves to bits in the right circumstances that that
>>> will be an instant transport to nirvana is one obvious example.
>
>> Well, we were talking about _good_ ideas that are lost because
>> of the reticence of the thinker to share them, for whatever reason,
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Got something like a poll to prove it?
---
>> so your example is clearly out of the scope of the discussion.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Got something like a poll to prove it?
---
>>> Religion is repleat with examples of ideas that are bad for mankind.
>
>> What?
>
>You deaf ?
---
Nope, incredulous.
---
>> The idea that it's bad to commit murder, or lie, or steal is bad for mankind?
>
>Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
---
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
Religion is also "repleat" with ideas that are good for mankind
(matter of fact, most religious texts are survival manuals)
and what I did was present an example from the Ten Commandments to
illustrate that.
Your flying off the handle at a statement which counters yours is a
sign of deep-seated insecurity (what a surprise!) and probably
something you should have evaluated (and treated) by a professional.
---
>
---
See the immediately preceding re. professional help
---
>>>>>>> That's pretty damned selfish, I'd say,
>
>>>>> Have fun thrashing that straw man ?
>
>>>> It's not a straw man, it's the point.
>
>>> Its a straw man.
>
>>>> Moreover, your impugning it as being a straw man _is_ a straw man.
>
>>> Pathetic. You wouldnt know what a real straw man was if one bit you on your lard arse.
>
>> Well, then, explain how my statement was a straw man.
>
>You're too stupid to understand the anwer.
---
Translation: "I can't."
---
>>>>>> since all you get if you do it that way is to suck
>>>>>> tour thumb and watch the world die around you.
>
>>>>> Not if someone else chooses to use the idea.
>
>>>> But you have to SHARE it for that to happen
>
>>> And we werent discussing not SHARING it, we were discussing
>>> whether producing a product that uses that idea and flogging it
>>> to a corporate VALIDATES the idea. Of course it doesnt.
>
>> validating the _idea_ wasn't what was being discussed,
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Got some proof?
---
>> the feelings of validation experienced by the thinker-upper of the idea were.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>> and you stated earlier:
>
>>>> "Only the pathetically insecure actually need any 'validating'"
>
>>> Clearly nothing to do with SHARING.
>
>>>> and:
>
>>>> "Yep, if I know that its a good idea. I dont care whether anyone else agrees or not."
>
>>>> Which indicates to me that you won't share the idea
>
>>> More fool you. We were clearly discussing the Brat sharing ideas.
>
>> Do try to keep up.
>
>Not even possible to keep up with your pathetic excuse for lying bullshit.
---
Then you admit I'm winning?
---
>> The thread meandered away from that quite a while ago.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>> because that'll compromise your sense of "No validation required".
>
>>> Pathetic.
>
>
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>>>>>> I love it when Pratt&Whitney or McDonald Douglas or Rolls Royce or the Skunk
>>>>>>>> Works picks my stuff over somebody else's. Is that pathetically insecure?
>
>>>>>>> Yep, particularly when anyone with a clue realises that corporates
>>>>>>> can pick things for completely silly bureaucratic reasons.
>
>>>>>> Like _you've_ got a clue?
>
>>>>> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
>
>>>> But you can't.
>
>>> Just did.
>
>> Did not, doom-doom head.
>
>Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>Get one to help you before posting again.
---
Seems I've got one thrashing around on the end of my line.
---
>If anyone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.
---
Hmm...
That's an interesting dodge.
Given up on validation?
---
>>>>>> Tell us about your life in corporate America
>>>>>> and how you know that what you claim is true.
>
>>>>> Dont need to have anything like that to see that that particular claim is true.
>
>>>> If you haven't "Been there, done that." then it's all hearsay.
>
>>> Wrong again. Thats not what hearsay is.
>
>> Where did you hear that?
>
>Usual place, a dictionary. Try it some time.
>>>>> History is riddled with examples of footshot after footshot after footshot
>>>>> where corporates have been too stupid to know a good idea when they
>>>>> see one and where they ignore a good idea because it would cripple
>>>>> the prospects for their current offers in the market etc.
>
>>>> Hindsight's 20-20, isn't it?
>
>>> Taint hindsight either. Just history.
>
>> Of course it's history, That's blatantly obvious but your claim that:
>> "Geez, they shouldn't have done it that way." is _precisely_ hindsight.
>
>Pity that was never ever my claim, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
---
Then shooting oneself in the foot is a _good_ thing?
---
>>>> If exploiting an idea would endager their position in
>>>> the marketplace, then they'd have to be daft to try it.
>
>>> But that does mean that if they decide that they arent interested
>>> in your idea, that that does NOT mean that the idea is invalid,
>>> just that they are have their own agenda and that they are
>>> irrelevant as far as whether your idea is worthwhile or not.
>
>> Again, the subject at hand is _not_ validation of the idea,
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>> it's validation of the person who generated the idea.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>> Besides, "Ignore" is hardly the right word since if an idea is presented
>>>> and subsequently rejected, it's still been acknowledged as an idea.
>
>>> We're discussing VALIDATION of an idea. If its ignorned, it aint been VALIDATED.
>
>> No.
>
>Yep.
>
>> Were discussing validating the generator of the idea, not the idea itself.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>>>> Oh, and while you're at it, tell us about your experiences regarding
>>>>>> electronic circuit design and how you've made a difference, OK?
>
>>>>> None of your business.
>
>>>> Translation: "I don't have a clue."
>
>>> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>> What do you mean?
>
>Pathetic.
---
Translation:
"I don't know."
---
>>>>>>> If you've got a clue, you know if your idea is any good.
>
>>>>>> Nope,
>
>>>>> Yep.
>
>>>> Nope.
>
>>> Yep.
>
>>>> There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip,
>
>>> Irrelevant to whether its a worthwhile idea or not.
>
>> Hardly.
>
>Fraid so.
>
>> if it's a worthwhile idea then its worth will be borne out with its successful execution.
>
>Doesnt have to be by the individual that produced the idea, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>> If it's found to be unexecutable then it's a bad idea.
>
>Not if that problem isnt permanent.
---
>
>> An example in that direction might be: "I have this great idea!
>> Everything revolves around the Earth!" Initially a great idea.
>> As time went by, not so great.
>
>Thats not an idea that can be turned into a product and flogged
>to a corporate, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Neither was your entry about religion being "repleat" with ideas which
are bad for mankind, so as long as it's you and not someone else it's
OK?
What a phony bastard you are.
--
>> In the other direction, Feynman was initially ridiculed for his
>> views re. quantum electrodynamics, but as time went by he
>> was vindicated and his "bad" idea became an excellent one.
>
>And that did not require any product that could be flogged to a
>corporate to validate it, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
See above, ya goddam phony.
---
>>>> so even if you've got a clue there's no telling whether
>>>> the idea is good or not unless it's reduced to practice,
>
>>> Wrong again.
>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.
>
>>> There's been many who have come up with a good idea
>>> who arent capable of turning that into a viable product.
>>> Its still a good idea even if they cant and someone else
>>> can turn it into a viable product.
>
>> We're not talking about whether it can be made to work by _someone_,
>> we're taking about it being a bad idea if it can't be made to work by anyone.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>> But, we're getting off the subject here, the subject being the validation
>> of the originator of the idea, not the validation of the idea itself.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>> even if that "practice" has to be a thought experiment.
>
>>> Just as true even with that.
>
>> So you're agreeing with me about something?
>
>Pathetic.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>>>> unless all you care about it is for your own use.
>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>
>>>> Your word is hardly sacrosanct, so have you got some proof?
>
>>> How odd that we havent seen a shred of that from you.
>
>
---
No doubt that was in response to my earlier:
"Dodging, huh?
Your not being able to or desiring to see truth doesn't mean truth
isn't there.
That's a predicament many liars find themselves in, in that in order
to traverse the tangled web they weave they start to believe their own
lies and consider truth to be stepping-stones they must avoid.
How's about that proof you owe me?"
A typical cheater's trick: snip it and pretend it wasn't there because
it can't be contested.
---
>>>>>>> You dont need someone to 'validate' that.
>
>>>>>> That's not true in the private sector,
>
>>>>> Wrong again. Most obviously when someone else uses a worthwhile idea.
>
>>>> If someone else uses it, then you must admit that it has to be shared to be brought to fruition,
>
>>> We werent discussing sharing, we were discussing whether
>>> you need to turn it into a viable product that some corporate
>>> chooses to buy to VALIDATE and idea. Of course you dont.
>
>> Once again, we weren't discussing validation of the
>> idea, we were discussing the feelings of validation experienced
>> by the originator of the idea when that idea was successfully
>> brought to fruition and appreciated by serious people.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>> and the validation occurs when it's proven to work.
>
>>> Yep, unlike Larkin's silly claim about turning it into a viable product
>>> yourself and getting a corporate interested in that product.
>
>>> And even with someone else choosing to use an idea, only the pathetically
>>> insecure need that to happen to 'validate' what is a useful idea. Its STILL a
>>> useful idea even if you're the only one that ever gets to hear about it.
>
>> Larkin wasn't talking about that, he was talking about the
>> feeling of satisfaction (elation, even, if the path to the summit
>> is difficult) one feels when one's ideas are translated into
>> reality and they work and are acknowledged as being
>> worthwhile by people who know what they're talking about.
>
>Everyone can see for themselves that you are lying, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>
---
More snippage subterfuge?
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>>>> where sales are validation.
>
>>>>> Only for narrow focused fools that are pathetically insecure.
>
>>>> I'd say that exactly the opposite is true,
>
>>> Your problem.
>
>> In what respect?
>
>Pathetic.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>> considering the amount of effort and risk that's involved
>>>> in fleshing out an idea and bringing it to the marketplace.
>
>>> It aint just about the marketplace. Plenty of the most
>>> important ideas dont involve the marketplace at all.
>
>> Well, even your last cockamamie example about some
>> jihadope blowing himself to smithereens involved some
>> explosives, and where do you think they came from?
>
>Who cares ?
---
Law enforcement, for one.
---
>In some cases they make them themselves, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
---
They still have to buy the ingredients, poopster.
---
>>>> Certainly not an exercise for the faint of heart,
>
>>> Its got nothing to do with hearts.
>
>
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>> a set of which you seem to be a member.
>
>>> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>
---
Change the record, OK?
---
>>>>>>>> How do you feel about atheletes who want to win an Olympic Gold, or the Super Bowl?
>
>>>>>>> I've always believed that all competitive sports were completely stupid.
>
>>>>>>> Those who participate in them in spades.
>
>>>>>> And yet, here you are on USENET, running the race of your life
>>>>>> and trying to prove that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
>
>>>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys/pathetic excuse for a troll.
>
>>>> Hardly,
>
>>> Fraid so.
>
>
>
>
>>>> since you seem to be the one tugging on the hook.
>
>>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
>
>
>
>>>>>>> Are they pathetically insecure?
>
>>>>>>> Yep, in spades.
>
>>>>>> I think not.
>
>>>>> Thats the only thing you did manage to get right. Nothing to 'think' with.
>
>>>> Well, that was marginally clever, for a change.
>
>>> Unlike your juvenile shit.
>
>
>
>
>>>>>> They have the balls to believe they're the best
>
>>>>> Or are drugged to the gills to try to cheat the system.
>
>>>> You elieve that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, eh?
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Then why would you assume they're all "drugged to the gills" with no proof?
>
>Never ever did anything of the sort, you pathetic excuse for a lying bullshit artist.
>
>>>>>> and aren't afraid to put it all on the line to prove it.
>
>>>>>> And you?
>
>>>>> I piss on clowns like you from a great height.
>
>>>> Sounds like a mescaline induced hallucination to me.
>
>>> You'd be the expert on those.
>
>> Yup, that's how I spotted it.
>
>>>>> You get to like that or lump it, child.
>
>>>> Geez, Mommy, are those the only chices I'm allowed to have?
>
>>> Yep, and if you dont like it, do the decent thing and hang yourself or sumfin.
>
>
---
Well, this has gotten tedious what with all your dodging and
terminally boring, predictable entries, so I'm dislodging the hook and
letting you go back to your school of minnows.
Goodbye! :-)
JF
