Eeyore wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

You're quite correct Don.

Graham

Once more you demonstrate your barbaric disregard for the niceties of
your mother tongue, Poopie. "Grammatic" is perfectly good usage.

Would you care to entertain us with your thoughts on the main issue in
this thread:

*****

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

Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.


Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

'Grammatic' is a valid alternative to 'grammatical' according to the OED.
A man should be praised, not criticized, for the breadth of his vocabulary.
The main error, grammatic and otherwise, in this thread, is:
"There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim."

--
Eiron.

Eiron said:

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

Are you suggesting we cut off the rims?







--

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

Eiron wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.


Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

'Grammatic' is a valid alternative to 'grammatical' according to the OED.
A man should be praised, not criticized, for the breadth of his vocabulary.

Oh, definitely. One can easily become to pedantic, as we see so often
with the rote-learning, slow-learning "engineers" on these conferences.
But there is a fine line between civil tolerance of loose speaking and
being complaisant about the sort of barbaric mutilation Poopie
Stevenson and, even worse, his American counterpart Slapdash Krueger
inflict on the language.

I rather enjoyed "liquidator's" contribution. Reminded me of when TIME
Magazine asked why engineers are the ugliest people in the world and
went on to describe Poopie and Slapdash!

The main error, grammatic and otherwise, in this thread, is:
"There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim."

Really? Perhaps you'd care to explain why, Eiron. Unless we're supposed
to divine what is in your mind by the magic of "homogenious" rods.
Meanwhile, I give it to your again in context:

*******

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

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

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"



Not necessarily - check your Webster's. (It probably depends on the way it
is used in a specifical context.... ;-)

Now, as you obviously have a little time on your hands, you might be
interested in this (which I nearly didn't bother to post, due to its
near-uselessness):


I have recorded this array of speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...r%20lineup.JPG


With a single (ribbon) mic, set back in a reet lazy-like, 'catch-all'
postion thus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/mic%20setup.JPG


And (as well as a lot of 'roominess') captured the following:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20A.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20B.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20C.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20D.wav


I would be interested in any comment you have and also which one you think
'best' or 'least worse'...?? (Or order them in accord with your preference?)

(I am only really interested in a direct comparison between two of the
speakers in question and may well post a better-miked comparison shortly,
but have included them all here out of casual interest....)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

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

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"



Not necessarily - check your Webster's. (It probably depends on the way it
is used in a specifical context.... ;-)

Now, as you obviously have a little time on your hands, you might be
interested in this (which I nearly didn't bother to post, due to its
near-uselessness):


I have recorded this array of speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...r%20lineup.JPG


With a single (ribbon) mic, set back in a reet lazy-like, 'catch-all'
postion thus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/mic%20setup.JPG


And (as well as a lot of 'roominess') captured the following:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20A.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20B.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20C.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20D.wav


I would be interested in any comment you have and also which one you think
'best' or 'least worse'...?? (Or order them in accord with your
preference?)

(I am only really interested in a direct comparison between two of the
speakers in question and may well post a better-miked comparison shortly,
but have included them all here out of casual interest....)



**** me - didn't spot the cross-posting!

Jeez.....

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:19:22 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


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

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"



Not necessarily - check your Webster's. (It probably depends on the way it
is used in a specifical context.... ;-)


Grammatical would certainly be the common usage today.

Now, as you obviously have a little time on your hands, you might be
interested in this (which I nearly didn't bother to post, due to its
near-uselessness):


I have recorded this array of speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...r%20lineup.JPG


With a single (ribbon) mic, set back in a reet lazy-like, 'catch-all'
postion thus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/mic%20setup.JPG


And (as well as a lot of 'roominess') captured the following:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20A.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20B.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20C.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20D.wav


I would be interested in any comment you have and also which one you think
'best' or 'least worse'...?? (Or order them in accord with your preference?)

(I am only really interested in a direct comparison between two of the
speakers in question and may well post a better-miked comparison shortly,
but have included them all here out of casual interest....)



Hard to tell them apart, with the exception of C, which seems to be
falling over a bit in the bass. The amount of room makes the
comparison hard though.

d

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

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

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

d

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

Nope. Look it up.



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

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:27:47 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


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

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

d

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

Nope. Look it up.

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.

d

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