Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Jon Yaeger" wrote in message
...
in article , liquidator at
wrote on 12/30/06 2:31 PM:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...

George Middius proceeds to prove himself a complete and utter twit. None
of
what he says is true or even logical.




And we should care on R.A.T. because???


No reason. No reason why anyone should care on any of the groups you posted
to.
alt.audio.pro.live-sound,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.tubes,uk.rec.audio, rec.aud
io.opinion
Yet you chose to do it.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liquidator said:

Why haven't you been murdered?

No reason.

I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest raising it
to $10 US.







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Quite so. But grammatic and grammatical mean two quite different
things. You can talk about the grammatic structure of a sentence, but
if you are discussing the correctness of that structure, the word is
grammatical.



No, they mean exactly the same. It is just that there are times when to use
one suits the situation/context (in 'High English'??) better than the other.
Common with words ending 'ic' - spheric/spherical, symmetric/symmetrical are
two other examples which spring immediately to mind...

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com...

George M. Middius a scris:
Don Pearce said:

Momentarily and soon seem to give them trouble too. And of course
American English is now a language essentially without adverbs.

That's bad grammar, Don. Call your editor.



another grammatic error.




Is this not becoming a little cyclic now...

(Or should that be 'cyclical'...??)

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.


I'm sure that should be 'pedantical'...

Or even a 'pedal antic', in your case...??? :-)


(Hint for the crossposted Yanks - it's both good English and an 'anagram',
respectively..... :-)

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Keith G wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Quite so. But grammatic and grammatical mean two quite different
things. You can talk about the grammatic structure of a sentence, but
if you are discussing the correctness of that structure, the word is
grammatical.

No, they mean exactly the same. It is just that there are times when to use
one suits the situation/context (in 'High English'??) better than the other.
Common with words ending 'ic' - spheric/spherical, symmetric/symmetrical are
two other examples which spring immediately to mind...

I query the very existence of the word grammatic in UK English.

The 'ical' ending seems most suitable here to convert a noun to an adjective
e.g. farce, farcical but then again there's hyperbolic as opposed to
hyperbolical.

But why is it circle, circular ? And what noun does perpendicular come from ?

Isn't English fun ?

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Keith G said:

Or even a 'pedal antic', in your case...??? :-)
(Hint for the crossposted Yanks - it's both good English and an 'anagram',
respectively..... :-)

You don't get any points for an anagram that is not also a pun. You could
try calling him a "pliant dace" if you think his scales are askew, or
perhaps advise him to visit a "tepid canal" if you suspect his hearing is
overheated.








--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Poopie is bemused.

And what noun does perpendicular come from ?

You've heard the term "three square meals", I presume. It comes from
"preprandial".







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Keith G wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the
correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Quite so. But grammatic and grammatical mean two quite different
things. You can talk about the grammatic structure of a sentence, but
if you are discussing the correctness of that structure, the word is
grammatical.

No, they mean exactly the same. It is just that there are times when to
use
one suits the situation/context (in 'High English'??) better than the
other.
Common with words ending 'ic' - spheric/spherical, symmetric/symmetrical
are
two other examples which spring immediately to mind...

I query the very existence of the word grammatic in UK English.

The 'ical' ending seems most suitable here to convert a noun to an
adjective
e.g. farce, farcical but then again there's hyperbolic as opposed to
hyperbolical.

But why is it circle, circular ? And what noun does perpendicular come
from ?


Perpend.

See more he

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perpend


Isn't English fun ?



It was, but only because the English teacher (100+ year-old 'school card')
usually/mostly digressed into Classical History for entire lessons and
managed to teach us absolutely SFA about *English* per se - not bad going
for a 400 year-old 'Grammar School', eh?

But that didn't matter. As anyone will tell you, Latin is more important to
learning 'good English' than an 'English teacher' - that was less fun
because both of the teachers I had for the subject were actually ******* -
the first in a 'ditsy/dreamy' way (but a very nice bloke and a very good
cricket umpire), the second (Katherine Whitehorn's father) was just a
disinterested old git (also 100+) only concerned with picking up a few
shekels for attending....

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Keith G said:

Or even a 'pedal antic', in your case...??? :-)
(Hint for the crossposted Yanks - it's both good English and an
'anagram',
respectively..... :-)

You don't get any points for an anagram that is not also a pun. You could
try calling him a "pliant dace" if you think his scales are askew, or
perhaps advise him to visit a "tepid canal" if you suspect his hearing is
overheated.



Possibly, but the Brownies are mine for *appositeness*, I think....

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Keith G said:

Or even a 'pedal antic', in your case...??? :-)
(Hint for the crossposted Yanks - it's both good English and an
'anagram', respectively..... :-)

You don't get any points for an anagram that is not also a pun. You could
try calling him a "pliant dace" if you think his scales are askew, or
perhaps advise him to visit a "tepid canal" if you suspect his hearing is
overheated.

Possibly, but the Brownies are mine for *appositeness*, I think....

Ya think? Maybe you should explain what "pedal antic" means then. A
reference to a circus clown riding a unicycle, maybe?








--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:14:46 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
.. .


Keith G said:

Or even a 'pedal antic', in your case...??? :-)
(Hint for the crossposted Yanks - it's both good English and an
'anagram',
respectively..... :-)

You don't get any points for an anagram that is not also a pun. You could
try calling him a "pliant dace" if you think his scales are askew, or
perhaps advise him to visit a "tepid canal" if you suspect his hearing is
overheated.



Possibly, but the Brownies are mine for *appositeness*, I think....



Or is that "apposition"? For that aged effect just supply him
"pantiled AC" and you should be there.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Keith G said:

Or even a 'pedal antic', in your case...??? :-)
(Hint for the crossposted Yanks - it's both good English and an
'anagram', respectively..... :-)

You don't get any points for an anagram that is not also a pun. You
could
try calling him a "pliant dace" if you think his scales are askew, or
perhaps advise him to visit a "tepid canal" if you suspect his hearing
is
overheated.

Possibly, but the Brownies are mine for *appositeness*, I think....

Ya think? Maybe you should explain what "pedal antic" means then. A
reference to a circus clown riding a unicycle, maybe?



Did you miss this bit: "When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles
to the public library to consult the full 24 volume edition." in the post I
was replying to..???

The Brownies are still mine....

(More than ever now... :-)

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


liquidator said:

Why haven't you been murdered?

No reason.

I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest raising it
to $10 US.




Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:14:46 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
. ..


Keith G said:

Or even a 'pedal antic', in your case...??? :-)
(Hint for the crossposted Yanks - it's both good English and an
'anagram',
respectively..... :-)

You don't get any points for an anagram that is not also a pun. You
could
try calling him a "pliant dace" if you think his scales are askew, or
perhaps advise him to visit a "tepid canal" if you suspect his hearing
is
overheated.



Possibly, but the Brownies are mine for *appositeness*, I think....



Or is that "apposition"? For that aged effect just supply him
"pantiled AC" and you should be there.



Not playing - my anagram was my own (as, I suspect, was yours), but I'm
advised 'tepid canal' (along with 'acid planet', 'lead catnip', data pencil'
and gawd knows how many others) are easily 'computer generated...???

Takes the fun out of it....

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie is bemused.

And what noun does perpendicular come from ?

You've heard the term "three square meals", I presume. It comes from
"preprandial".

Absence of answer noted.

There really should be a suitable perpend but it's not so.

per·pend1
–noun
a large stone passing through the entire thickness of a wall.

per·pend2
–verb (used with object)
1. to consider.
–verb (used without object)
2. to ponder; deliberate.

Doesn't work.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Soundhaspriority" wrote in message
...

"Jason Lavoie" wrote in message
ps.com...

Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities
in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.
[snip]
Graham is a sour old man. There comes an age where some kind of man can
only feel alive by criticizing others. For this kind, it comes very early;
for others, late, and for the young at heart, never. Let us use Graham as
an example of what to avoid becoming. Let us hold him up as something to
avoid.
[snip]

those of use who are not mechanical or structural engineers will almost
certainly not be familiar with timmy's strength of materials.
electrical engineers are not required to study structures at length.

Jason

In a good school, the first year physics course touches on many things,
including the static strength of materials. Given that Andre's focus has
been primarily in the arts, his familiarity is impressive. It comes from
making self education a part of one's life.



Nicely put....

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liquidator wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
liquidator said:

Why haven't you been murdered?

No reason.

I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest raising it
to $10 US.


Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?

You expect some kind of logic from Georgina ?

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Soundhaspriority wrote:

Graham is a sour old man.

LMAO !

You're the one spending half your life 'justifying' an attack on a non-existent
person on Usenet.

Given that Andre's focus has
been primarily in the arts, his familiarity is impressive.

Licky licky, slurp slurp. You're a gayboy too ?

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


liquidator wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
liquidator said:

Why haven't you been murdered?

No reason.

I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest raising
it
to $10 US.


Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?

You expect some kind of logic from Georgina ?

Graham


Point taken.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liquidator said:

Why haven't you been murdered?

No reason.

I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest raising it
to $10 US.

Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?










--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Poopie is on the rag again.

You expect some kind of logic from Georgina ?

Every time you lash out at me, it's because you're stinging from one of
Jute's rebukes.






--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Poopie, you really need to chill a bit.

Given that Andre's focus has
been primarily in the arts, his familiarity is impressive.

Licky licky, slurp slurp. You're a gayboy too ?

This comment reinforces the "sour old man" judgment nicely.







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Poopie relates his last visit to the doctor's office.

Doesn't work.

Pills are not the answer for every one of life's tribulations, Gayham.







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


liquidator said:

Why haven't you been murdered?

No reason.

I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest raising
it
to $10 US.

Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?



and a useless link proves your point how?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liqui-duh-tor said:

Why haven't you been murdered?
No reason.
I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest raising it
to $10 US.
Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?


and a useless link proves your point how?

My god, you might be as stupid as Krooger. Have you been assimilated?







--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie is on the rag again.

You expect some kind of logic from Georgina ?

Every time you lash out at me, it's because you're stinging from one of
Jute's rebukes.

SNORT !!!

Jote couldn't meaningfully rebuke a fluffy toy.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie, you really need to chill a bit.

Given that Andre's focus has
been primarily in the arts, his familiarity is impressive.

Licky licky, slurp slurp. You're a gayboy too ?

This comment reinforces the "sour old man" judgment nicely.

Slurrrpppp !

Are you a bottom or a top btw ?

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


liqui-duh-tor said:

Why haven't you been murdered?
No reason.
I'm sure it's because the bounty is not high enough. I suggest
raising it
to $10 US.
Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?


and a useless link proves your point how?

My god, you might be as stupid as Krooger. Have you been assimilated?

Now you are getting just plain boring. I though t much more of you than that
George.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie, you really need to chill a bit.

Given that Andre's focus has
been primarily in the arts, his familiarity is impressive.

Licky licky, slurp slurp. You're a gayboy too ?

This comment reinforces the "sour old man" judgment nicely.

Slurrrpppp !

Are you a bottom or a top btw ?

Graham

You seem quite interested.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie, you really need to chill a bit.

Given that Andre's focus has
been primarily in the arts, his familiarity is impressive.

Licky licky, slurp slurp. You're a gayboy too ?

This comment reinforces the "sour old man" judgment nicely.

Slurrrpppp !

Are you a bottom or a top btw ?

Graham

You seem quite interested.

Just curious ! He's never let on. He could be a switch of course.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jenn wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie, you really need to chill a bit.

Given that Andre's focus has
been primarily in the arts, his familiarity is impressive.

Licky licky, slurp slurp. You're a gayboy too ?

This comment reinforces the "sour old man" judgment nicely.

Slurrrpppp !

Are you a bottom or a top btw ?

Graham

You seem quite interested.

Just curious !

Evidently.

He's never let on. He could be a switch of course.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liqui-duh-tor said:


Didn't say that George- why do you choose to attribute it to me?

and a useless link proves your point how?
My god, you might be as stupid as Krooger. Have you been assimilated?

Now you are getting just plain boring. I though t much more of you than that
George.

What else do you need tutoring in, likker? Perhaps a primer on reading a
business letter, instruction in not gashing your hand when using a
screwdriver? I'm betting you do know how to breathe.








--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

Can this ignoramus Graham "Poopie" Stevenson really be an engineer?
 

And this has to do with audio electronics, what?
Gerhard

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jason Lavoie wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the
qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How
about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept
when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie,
to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and
other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

those of use who are not mechanical or structural engineers will almost
certainly not be familiar with timmy's strength of materials.
electrical engineers are not required to study structures at length.

Jason

That may be true, Jason, but if you cast your mind back I think you
will discover that the reason pipes are preferred to rods was mentioned
in the first ten minutes of whatever time was given to structures.
Poopie Stevenson above admits that he is ignorant of an engineering
fact known by every hotrodder in the world. And, if he doesn't know any
hotrodders to straighten him out, he claims to have associated with
rock groups, so how come he lacks the curiosity in forty years to ask
the roadies and riggers why they use tubes rather than rods for
erecting stands? I mean, this idiot Poopie Stevenson has the monumental
cheek to lecture people who actually build their own gear on "science",
but he has no common curiosity, and no common sense either, just a
little bit of rote learning that he spouts as rules of thumb as if he's
frightened that thought will tarnish him.

timmy's strength of materials.

Timoshenko was an educated Ukrainian of Victorian times. He would not
have spoken with the strangled peasant accent later popularized by
Kremlin-dwelling Ukrainian scum like Kruschev. So the likelihood is
that he would have pronounced his name tea-moe-shank-ko, not
tim-mo-shenko. So I prefer Timo to Timmy, though I surely admire your
familiarity with the great man.

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg.
-- Robert Casey

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:27:22 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors

What was that?

Grammatic is perfectlt fine. Look it up fool.

"perfectlt" fine, eh? And I should take your word? :-)

BTW, please put a comma before "fool" when you call me that. Thanks.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 11:28:17 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:


The Usenet law about a grammar flame

What about a grammar gentle correction?

automatically engendering a grammatical error was fulfilled.

It's a curse, I tell you! A curse!

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Perhaps now would be a good time for that.

Via the scenic Route. :-)

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:17:00 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


You speak truthfully.


Also...he speaks the truth.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:17:00 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


You speak truthfully.


Also...he speaks the truth.

But I wrote adverbally. ;-)

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

paul packer said:

The Usenet law about a grammar flame

What about a grammar gentle correction?

This is war. Or, perhaps euphemistically, the "debating trade".

automatically engendering a grammatical error was fulfilled.

It's a curse, I tell you! A curse!

Damn.






--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.