FPGA Central

Well, thanks to the efforts of one particularly "stupid boy" I am
unsubscribing from this group after many years of lurking.

The "infantile" author who posts "ad-homium" trying to correct the
general populous of this group when he, himself, is the one who is
incorrect. The constant stream of childish personal attacks he made
on regular posters bothered me. The fact that he won't fscking shut
the fsck up even after he has been proved wrong was the last straw.

Is this the image that you want to portray to the world about
engineers/scientists/whoever? If you can't turn to a forum full of
experts for advice on a real DSP issue without getting insulted by
this bean-brain, where can you turn?

Thank you all for the valuable and interesting discussions over the
years. I haven't contributed much, if at all, but I have learned a
great deal.

Goodbye!

A

On 6 Dec 2004 15:18:16 -0800, [email protected] (Adam Hawes) wrote
in comp.dsp:

> Well, thanks to the efforts of one particularly "stupid boy" I am
> unsubscribing from this group after many years of lurking.
>
> The "infantile" author who posts "ad-homium" trying to correct the
> general populous of this group when he, himself, is the one who is
> incorrect. The constant stream of childish personal attacks he made
> on regular posters bothered me. The fact that he won't fscking shut
> the fsck up even after he has been proved wrong was the last straw.
>
> Is this the image that you want to portray to the world about
> engineers/scientists/whoever? If you can't turn to a forum full of
> experts for advice on a real DSP issue without getting insulted by
> this bean-brain, where can you turn?
>
> Thank you all for the valuable and interesting discussions over the
> years. I haven't contributed much, if at all, but I have learned a
> great deal.
>
> Goodbye!
>
> A

Wouldn't a *plonk* into a kill file be sufficient?

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

Adam Hawes wrote:
> Well, thanks to the efforts of one particularly "stupid boy" I am
> unsubscribing from this group after many years of lurking.

Aw, don't go Adam. For him that's winning.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

adam,
hes not that bad once you get to know him.
Hes a jokester is all. Stop taking things so personal

Chrissy

On 2004-12-07 06:40:11 +0100, "Chrisandra" <[email protected]> said:

> adam,
> hes not that bad once you get to know him.
> Hes a jokester is all. Stop taking things so personal
>
> Chrissy

You think so? You know, I'm wondering if you're yet another incarnation
of him playing sharade with us for his amusement...
--
Stephan M. Bernsee
http://www.dspdimension.com

No, I'm not. I'm a female student from Florida. I go through an
international correspondence school for computers.
My tutors name is Erik and I'm halfway through this course, but I want
to be advanced by the time I graduate this course.
So, I'm asking all of you for your help and knowledge. I'm new here and
so far I've learned only from him.
So, I don't know why you all have to down him. I guess I'll find out
soon enough, huh?

Chrissy

Hello Chrissy,

Which part of Florida are you in? My business is there.

Clay


"Chrisandra" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ps.com...
> No, I'm not. I'm a female student from Florida. I go through an
> international correspondence school for computers.
> My tutors name is Erik and I'm halfway through this course, but I want
> to be advanced by the time I graduate this course.
> So, I'm asking all of you for your help and knowledge. I'm new here and
> so far I've learned only from him.
> So, I don't know why you all have to down him. I guess I'll find out
> soon enough, huh?
>
> Chrissy
>

Chrisandra wrote:

> adam,
> hes not that bad once you get to know him.
> Hes a jokester is all. Stop taking things so personal
>
> Chrissy

Chrissy,

How do you know about him? Are you really the Beanie Baby?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Clay,

If you want , you can IM me at anytime to answer any questions or
generally chat about computers.

YIM:
marcia7773

YIM:
marcia77732003

MSN:
[email protected]

I'd love to hear from you, sometime.
Chrissy

BTW, I'm located in the Orlando area.

Sorry Clay,

AIM:marcia7773

Chrissy

I think you'll find that my contribution was not
as you describe, but merely the perspective of
an adult chastising a number of rather infantile
contributors.

No infantile remarks have ever originated from me.

You yourself are the originator of gratuitous infantile remarks below.

Shame on you.

Grow up, Adam Hawes!

"Adam Hawes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
> Well, thanks to the efforts of one particularly "stupid boy" I am
> unsubscribing from this group after many years of lurking.
> The "infantile" author who posts "ad-homium" trying to correct the
> general populous of this group when he, himself, is the one who is
> incorrect. The constant stream of childish personal attacks he made
> on regular posters bothered me. The fact that he won't fscking shut
> the fsck up even after he has been proved wrong was the last straw.
> Is this the image that you want to portray to the world about
> engineers/scientists/whoever? If you can't turn to a forum full of
> experts for advice on a real DSP issue without getting insulted by
> this bean-brain, where can you turn?
> Thank you all for the valuable and interesting discussions over the
> years. I haven't contributed much, if at all, but I have learned a
> great deal.

Mr.Avins proves once again that if there is any trolling
taking place, it originates from his own keyboard.

"Jerry Avins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Chrisandra wrote:
> > adam,
> > hes not that bad once you get to know him.
> > Hes a jokester is all. Stop taking things so personal
> > Chrissy
> Chrissy,
> How do you know about him? Are you really the Beanie Baby?

Dear Adam,

Well booh hooh hooh :-)
I'm not following the discussions about this, but for me it's been obvious
all the time that you should _Never_ take a ng-post personally. If you think
you're offended in any way, just stop the discussion. Don't do what you just
did... ever!

He has won now, you know. And for good reason to, imho.

Hmm, I kindof feel like I have no right posting this, but I just had the
urge ...

So long, Adam.

Rob.




"Adam Hawes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] m...
> Well, thanks to the efforts of one particularly "stupid boy" I am
> unsubscribing from this group after many years of lurking.
>
> The "infantile" author who posts "ad-homium" trying to correct the
> general populous of this group when he, himself, is the one who is
> incorrect. The constant stream of childish personal attacks he made
> on regular posters bothered me. The fact that he won't fscking shut
> the fsck up even after he has been proved wrong was the last straw.
>
> Is this the image that you want to portray to the world about
> engineers/scientists/whoever? If you can't turn to a forum full of
> experts for advice on a real DSP issue without getting insulted by
> this bean-brain, where can you turn?
>
> Thank you all for the valuable and interesting discussions over the
> years. I haven't contributed much, if at all, but I have learned a
> great deal.
>
> Goodbye!
>
> A

I have not "won" in any sense of the word. I have not yet
achieved what I set out to achieve which was, in part,
to find a derivation of the LT for what is claimed by others
to be the mathematical representation of sampling.

We are stuck on the evaluation of int -oo^+oo f(t).d(t).e^(-st)

There are those who have attempted to present the
anti-derivative of f(t).d(t) but who have made the mistake of
attempting to use the result of evaluating the definite integral
before they have arrived at the indefinite integral.

Arguing a posteriori ISTR is the critique that applies.

"Rob Vermeulen" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]..
> He has won now, you know. And for good reason to, imho.

8 years after and he's still no wiser, still he says himself he's a slow
learner. From the archives:-

"Digital Signal Prcessing - A Practical Approach
Authors : Emmanuel Ifeachor & Barrie Jervis
Pub : Addison-Wesley
ISBN : 0 201 54413 X

I found this to be a good book because I am a slow learner, and find
"left as an exercise to the reader" or "it can be shown as" to be
particularly infuriating. This book is an exception; in particular, the
chapter on Correlation derives the formula by showing a developing
series of possibilities that can each in turn be shot down for some
reason.

After reading some books you can "do" DSP.
After reading this book, you understand DSP.

I accept that this is my reaction to this particular book, after having
read (and absorbed) information from a whole series of others. What is
true for me is not necessarily true for others.
--
G.A.Evans, Director, Out And About Systems Ltd
Software Consultancy for Telecommunications, Real Time and ATE
XX XXXXXns XXXse, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 XXX
(01XXX) 65XXXX




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:36:10 +0100


Original Subject: Re: Looking for a good book on DSP"

"Airy R. Bean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> I have not "won" in any sense of the word. I have not yet
> achieved what I set out to achieve which was, in part,
> to find a derivation of the LT for what is claimed by others
> to be the mathematical representation of sampling.
>
> We are stuck on the evaluation of int -oo^+oo f(t).d(t).e^(-st)
>
> There are those who have attempted to present the
> anti-derivative of f(t).d(t) but who have made the mistake of
> attempting to use the result of evaluating the definite integral
> before they have arrived at the indefinite integral.
>
> Arguing a posteriori ISTR is the critique that applies.
>
> "Rob Vermeulen" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]..
> > He has won now, you know. And for good reason to, imho.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 05/12/04

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:46:18 -0000, "Steve H" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>G.A.Evans

Is this the same Evans who was referred to in a posting by Airy R.
Bean as 'prevailing' in a case of libel - as in "...I prevailed
against them all"?

<http://www.google.co.uk/groups?selm=3f22350e%241_1%40mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com&output=gplain>

Well, well.
--
from
Aero Spike

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> I think you'll find that my contribution was not
> as you describe, but merely the perspective of
> an adult chastising a number of rather infantile
> contributors.
>
> No infantile remarks have ever originated from me.
>
> You yourself are the originator of gratuitous infantile remarks below.
>
> Shame on you.
>
> Grow up, Adam Hawes!
>


Yet another lie?

http://tinyurl.com/6hf35

Well Rob,

I do agree with you. Obviously, this person like to play with others.
Doing it as a practical joke. But, Adam, he is right. You should never
let anyone
"Get your goat". That's what I was talking about when I said "Stop
taking things
so personally". This person was obviously trying to spice this group up
a bit,
But at the same time, sticking to the topics at hand.
Oh well, you'll learn that soon enough. Good luck!

Chrissy

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:15:19 -0000, "Airy R. Bean" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have not "won" in any sense of the word. I have not yet
>achieved what I set out to achieve which was, in part,
>to find a derivation of the LT for what is claimed by others
>to be the mathematical representation of sampling.

And since this has been shown to you and repeatedly explained in
detail to you by multiple qualified people, including references to
decent, respected texts, it is clear to many of the rest of us that
you are not capable of recognizing achieving what you've set out to
achieve. So our choices are limited, since an intellectual dialogue
on the topic has clearly and repeatedly been demonstrated to be
ineffective.

Many have genuinely tried to help you understand what you're
interested in, but have been met with your indolence, insults, and
erratic behavior in response. You label as childish or infantile
those that try to help you but aren't willing to agree to your faulty
view of your selected topic. That's not conducive to learning or
productive dialogue or anything else productive.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

"Does it really matter? The important thing is to gain some
analogy to aid your understanding. When I am involved in
teaching others, I always stress that they must make up
their own minds, for each of us has a different way of
thinking. I say to take opinions from as many people as possible,
and not necessarily to pay heed to me, for my way of
thinking may not be theirs."

You wrote that in a Change-Ringers list about five years ago. Maybe
I misunderstand, but it seems that your state of mind or outlook on
such matters has changed substantially since then.



Eric Jacobsen
Minister of Algorithms, Intel Corp.
My opinions may not be Intel's opinions.
http://www.ericjacobsen.org

Once again you launch into an unveiled personal attack.

Shame on you for that.

I suggest that a number of people have ranted at me their
illogically-held views and have refused to discuss points
that I have raised which disagree with their viewpoint, but
no-one has shown anything to me and certainly
no-one has explained anything.

The torrent of personal remarks that has accompanied such ranting
cannot be termed "intellectual dialogue" by any stretch of the
imagination.

I certainly do not label as "childish or infantile" those who
disagree with me, only those who resort to childish
or infantile outbursts. It is those outbursts that are "not
conducive to learning or productive dialogue or anything
else productive", and not my chastising of them.

"Change-Ringers List"? What is that? - you are confusing me
with somebody else.

Your contribution below is of little value, being a continuation
of a series of personal attacks from you - you do not
come across as a worthy debater. Indeed, you are not
debating and you are certainly not offering an "intellectual dialogue"
in what you post below - an aggressive ad hominem attack
as is your wont, but by no means an "intellectual dialogue".

"Eric Jacobsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> And since this has been shown to you and repeatedly explained in
> detail to you by multiple qualified people, including references to
> decent, respected texts, it is clear to many of the rest of us that
> you are not capable of recognizing achieving what you've set out to
> achieve. So our choices are limited, since an intellectual dialogue
> on the topic has clearly and repeatedly been demonstrated to be
> ineffective.
> Many have genuinely tried to help you understand what you're
> interested in, but have been met with your indolence, insults, and
> erratic behavior in response. You label as childish or infantile
> those that try to help you but aren't willing to agree to your faulty
> view of your selected topic. That's not conducive to learning or
> productive dialogue or anything else productive.
> Here's an interesting tidbit:
> "Does it really matter? The important thing is to gain some
> analogy to aid your understanding. When I am involved in
> teaching others, I always stress that they must make up
> their own minds, for each of us has a different way of
> thinking. I say to take opinions from as many people as possible,
> and not necessarily to pay heed to me, for my way of
> thinking may not be theirs."
> You wrote that in a Change-Ringers list about five years ago. Maybe
> I misunderstand, but it seems that your state of mind or outlook on
> such matters has changed substantially since then.

Calm down softy, it's only a hobby.


"Airy R. Bean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Once again you launch into an unveiled personal attack.
>
> Shame on you for that.
>
> I suggest that a number of people have ranted at me their
> illogically-held views and have refused to discuss points
> that I have raised which disagree with their viewpoint, but
> no-one has shown anything to me and certainly
> no-one has explained anything.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.806 / Virus Database: 548 - Release Date: 05/12/04

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> Once again you launch into an unveiled personal attack.
>
> Shame on you for that.
>
> I suggest that a number of people have ranted at me their
> illogically-held views and have refused to discuss points
> that I have raised which disagree with their viewpoint, but
> no-one has shown anything to me and certainly
> no-one has explained anything.
>
> The torrent of personal remarks that has accompanied such ranting
> cannot be termed "intellectual dialogue" by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
> I certainly do not label as "childish or infantile" those who
> disagree with me, only those who resort to childish
> or infantile outbursts. It is those outbursts that are "not
> conducive to learning or productive dialogue or anything
> else productive", and not my chastising of them.
>
> "Change-Ringers List"? What is that? - you are confusing me
> with somebody else.
>
> Your contribution below is of little value, being a continuation
> of a series of personal attacks from you - you do not
> come across as a worthy debater. Indeed, you are not
> debating and you are certainly not offering an "intellectual dialogue"
> in what you post below - an aggressive ad hominem attack
> as is your wont, but by no means an "intellectual dialogue".
>


OK Airy, time to put this to rest.

Are you, or are you not, Gareth Alun Evans, of Chippenham, Wiltshire?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you say yes, then clearly you have been lying and are guilty of
hypocrisy in this, and other recent, threads.

If you say no, then you were lying in an earlier post regarding the
matter of Hooley vs Evans, where you apparently triumphed over Mr Hooley
and three of the top barristers in the country, with the aid of a law
book (cost to you £350), although you did not buy the book.

Which is it to be? Can you give an honest answer to this, which will not
show you to be a fraud of the highest order?

thank bast!

thank you beanie. very interesting report as often. tell me where exactly it
is that you live nd your callsign though, would be interested in that
information, look forward to contacting you on the airwaves because you are
such an excellent person


dr. x

"Airy R. Bean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> Once again you launch into an unveiled personal attack.
>
> Shame on you for that.
>
> I suggest that a number of people have ranted at me their
> illogically-held views and have refused to discuss points
> that I have raised which disagree with their viewpoint, but
> no-one has shown anything to me and certainly
> no-one has explained anything.
>
> The torrent of personal remarks that has accompanied such ranting
> cannot be termed "intellectual dialogue" by any stretch of the
> imagination.
>
> I certainly do not label as "childish or infantile" those who
> disagree with me, only those who resort to childish
> or infantile outbursts. It is those outbursts that are "not
> conducive to learning or productive dialogue or anything
> else productive", and not my chastising of them.
>
> "Change-Ringers List"? What is that? - you are confusing me
> with somebody else.
>
> Your contribution below is of little value, being a continuation
> of a series of personal attacks from you - you do not
> come across as a worthy debater. Indeed, you are not
> debating and you are certainly not offering an "intellectual dialogue"
> in what you post below - an aggressive ad hominem attack
> as is your wont, but by no means an "intellectual dialogue".
>
> "Eric Jacobsen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> And since this has been shown to you and repeatedly explained in
>> detail to you by multiple qualified people, including references to
>> decent, respected texts, it is clear to many of the rest of us that
>> you are not capable of recognizing achieving what you've set out to
>> achieve. So our choices are limited, since an intellectual dialogue
>> on the topic has clearly and repeatedly been demonstrated to be
>> ineffective.
>> Many have genuinely tried to help you understand what you're
>> interested in, but have been met with your indolence, insults, and
>> erratic behavior in response. You label as childish or infantile
>> those that try to help you but aren't willing to agree to your faulty
>> view of your selected topic. That's not conducive to learning or
>> productive dialogue or anything else productive.
>> Here's an interesting tidbit:
>> "Does it really matter? The important thing is to gain some
>> analogy to aid your understanding. When I am involved in
>> teaching others, I always stress that they must make up
>> their own minds, for each of us has a different way of
>> thinking. I say to take opinions from as many people as possible,
>> and not necessarily to pay heed to me, for my way of
>> thinking may not be theirs."
>> You wrote that in a Change-Ringers list about five years ago. Maybe
>> I misunderstand, but it seems that your state of mind or outlook on
>> such matters has changed substantially since then.
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.805 / Virus Database: 547 - Release Date: 06/12/2004

"Gary Cavie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] t...
OK Airy, time to put this to rest.

Are you, or are you not, Gareth Alun Evans, of Chippenham, Wiltshire?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you say yes, then clearly you have been lying and are guilty of
hypocrisy in this, and other recent, threads.

If you say no, then you were lying in an earlier post regarding the
matter of Hooley vs Evans, where you apparently triumphed over Mr Hooley
and three of the top barristers in the country, with the aid of a law
book (cost to you £350), although you did not buy the book.

Which is it to be? Can you give an honest answer to this, which will not
show you to be a fraud of the highest order?

LOL! Heads Beanie loses, tails Beanie loses. Proof (if it was ever needed)
that Beanie is a loser.
I wonder which will happen, a stock response such as 'STUPID BOY, GROW UP!'
or 'ISP problems'?
--
;>)
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
http://turner-smith.co.uk

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:15:19 -0000, "Airy R. Bean" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have not "won" in any sense of the word. I have not yet
>achieved what I set out to achieve which was, in part,
>to find a derivation of the LT for what is claimed by others
>to be the mathematical representation of sampling.
>
>We are stuck on the evaluation of int -oo^+oo f(t).d(t).e^(-st)

No. _You_ are stuck on that. Nobody else is - it's incredibly
trivial:

By definition, if g is a continuous function then

(i) int -oo^+oo g(t).d(t-a) = g(a).

Now fix s, and let g(t) = f(t) e^(-st). Then g is
a continuous function, so (i) shows that

-oo^+oo f(t).d(t-a).e^(-st)

= int -oo^+oo g(t).d(t-a) = g(a) = f(a) e^(-as).

That's really all there is to it. You've said that some
steps there are not valid, but you have not given any
reason except just your assertion that I can't do that.

>There are those who have attempted to present the
>anti-derivative of f(t).d(t) but who have made the mistake of

At least one such person made the mistake of trying to explain
the result in a more complicated way, that conformed to the
arbitrary and invalid restrictions you were imposing. I couldn't
resist, since it's _so_ easy to show that the same result
follows by methods you'd agreed were legal, but it was a
mistake, since it seems to have given you the impression
that there's some doubt about the validity of the much
simpler proof above.

>attempting to use the result of evaluating the definite integral
>before they have arrived at the indefinite integral.

Note that there's a definite integral in (i). I was able
to evaluate that definite integral without finding an
indefinite integral first. How? Using the fact that (i)
is true _by definition_. (True fact: The actual technical
definition of delta(t-a) would involve a few technicalities,
but what it amounts to is that delta(t-a) is something such
that (i) holds. Or to put it another somewhat more precise
way, g(a) is the definition of int -oo^+oo g(t).d(t-a) .)

>Arguing a posteriori ISTR is the critique that applies.

Huh. You accuse _us_ of arguing out of our asses, in fancy Latin
no less, but then you complain when we "lower the tone"?
Shame on you.

(heh-heh. I kinda like that one...)

>"Rob Vermeulen" <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]..
>> He has won now, you know. And for good reason to, imho.
>


************************

David C. Ullrich