Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"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.

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

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



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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors

What was that?

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

(paul packer) writes:

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


And the fact that he makes grammatic errors

What was that?

Log/splinter.
--
% Randy Yates % "So now it's getting late,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and those who hesitate
%%% 919-577-9882 % got no one..."
%%%% % 'Waterfall', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"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....)

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"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.



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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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


And you are quite wrong Graham.



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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"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.....

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liquidator wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
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


And you are quite wrong Graham.

Grammatical would certainly be preferred British English use. C.F. a
mathematical error and a mathematic error.

Graham

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

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


liquidator wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
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


And you are quite wrong Graham.

Grammatical would certainly be preferred British English use. C.F. a
mathematical error and a mathematic error.

Graham


According to Webster's and Princeton University the words are pretty much
interchangeable.

While I agree grammatical sounds less clumsy, I spent time as a journalist,
where if two words are synonyms, the shorter is generally preferred. There
the concern is fitting information into less space, the economics being
space is sold for money.

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.



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

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

Hey, Keefie, I don't mind an entertaining fellow like you hijacking my
threads for your amateur recording efforts, but some of these guys
exist solely for the purpose of eating alive those who poach on their
preserves.

When they finish with you, you might enjoy this, in which I put the
seal of doom on Slapdash Krueger's pretentions to being a recording
engineer:

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1

Heh-heh!

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review



Keith G wrote:
"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.....

And here, lest we forget, is the famous post KeefieG hijacked for his
own dastardly ends. Hee-hee!

****

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

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

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liquidator wrote:

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.


Yes, but we are talking about English.

Ian

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

liquidator said:

According to Webster's and Princeton University the words are pretty much
interchangeable.

That's like saying brass bolts and steel bolts are pretty much
interchangeable. All the dictionaries are telling you is that you won't be
misunderstood by choosing one word or the other. You have omitted to
enrich your opinion with the stylistic inflection, and concomitant
connotation, of choosing grammatical over grammatic. Furthermore, it's not
a question merely of meaning but also of usage. Why are both words current
and equally prescribed if no difference exists? One would expect the
less-used word to fall into disuse or archaism. And yet both are still
easily recognizable as commonly used.

While I agree grammatical sounds less clumsy, I spent time as a journalist,
where if two words are synonyms, the shorter is generally preferred. There
the concern is fitting information into less space, the economics being
space is sold for money.

"Journalistic style" is the apotheosis of elegance in writing. All
newspapers also require omitting the serial comma (sorry, don't know the
Brit term) in the same cause of saving space.

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.

The Usenet law about a grammar flame (or is that grammer flayme?)
automatically engendering a grammatical error was fulfilled.






--

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

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

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, Keefie, I don't mind an entertaining fellow like you hijacking my
threads for your amateur recording efforts, but some of these guys
exist solely for the purpose of eating alive those who poach on their
preserves.


:-)

Sounds a bit ominous.....

But I hafta say - anyone crossposts into ukra gets treated as 'fair game' in
my book, although I admit I didn't spot it until too late! (Too fekkin' late
now anyway.... :-)



When they finish with you,


Hah!

Do they know the *Tiger Hand* move...??

See:

http://www.rockpapersaddam.com/one.html


for clarification....


you might enjoy this, in which I put the
seal of doom on Slapdash Krueger's pretentions to being a recording
engineer:

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1

Heh-heh!


This I particularly like:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg


I want one!! :-)

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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

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

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:35:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


This I particularly like:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg


I want one!! :-)



I think that is what they used to compile that "Love" abortion of old
Beatles tunes. Not this high-tech version though, the base model.

d

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

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

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 Graham "Poopie" Stevenson really be an engineer?
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:35:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


This I particularly like:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg


I want one!! :-)



I think that is what they used to compile that "Love" abortion of old
Beatles tunes. Not this high-tech version though, the base model.

d

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

Now just wait and see how many people don't grasp that Don is making a
joke, and write in to ask where they can buy the same gear as the
Beatles were recorded on...(The URL is below, fellers.)

I've always wondered if that handsome little man in the piccie on the
box at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg
is Gupta "Dashmeboss" Mokkerjee the Acolyte or Arny "Slapdash" Krueger.


For elucidation, see:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1

Andre Jute
This is the season for exposing heathen hypocrites skulking in the pews.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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.

--
Eiron.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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.

d

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Don Pearce wrote:

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.

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

Poopie said:

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Brits often have trouble staying sober past 3 p.m. See the Rose & Crown,
the Otter & Bump, the Dirk & Dragon, the Coot & Kipper, etc., etc., etc.







--

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:59:01 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

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.

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Graham

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

d

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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:59:01 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:

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.

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Graham

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

d

You speak truthfully.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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


liquidator said:

According to Webster's and Princeton University the words are pretty
much
interchangeable.

That's like saying brass bolts and steel bolts are pretty much
interchangeable. All the dictionaries are telling you is that you won't be
misunderstood by choosing one word or the other. You have omitted to
enrich your opinion with the stylistic inflection, and concomitant
connotation, of choosing grammatical over grammatic. Furthermore, it's not
a question merely of meaning but also of usage. Why are both words current
and equally prescribed if no difference exists? One would expect the
less-used word to fall into disuse or archaism. And yet both are still
easily recognizable as commonly used.

While I agree grammatical sounds less clumsy, I spent time as a
journalist,
where if two words are synonyms, the shorter is generally preferred.
There
the concern is fitting information into less space, the economics being
space is sold for money.

"Journalistic style" is the apotheosis of elegance in writing. All
newspapers also require omitting the serial comma (sorry, don't know the
Brit term) in the same cause of saving space.

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.

The Usenet law about a grammar flame (or is that grammer flayme?)
automatically engendering a grammatical error was fulfilled.






--

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



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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

"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.



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

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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.








--

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

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

Andre Jute wrote:

Eiron wrote:

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.

I think it is your turn to explain what these qualities of metals
might be which are concentrated at the surface of a rod. We all
know how rods and tubes behave under tension, compression, torsion
and bending, but the fact that the surface may be more stressed
than the centre doesn't mean that the metal has any different quality.

--
Eiron.

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

Eiron wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Eiron wrote:

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.

I think it is your turn to explain what these qualities of metals
might be which are concentrated at the surface of a rod. We all
know how rods and tubes behave under tension, compression, torsion
and bending, but the fact that the surface may be more stressed
than the centre doesn't mean that the metal has any different quality.

They must be the same mythical *magic* properties that underly all popular
audiophoolery. One must not speak their name lest the magic escape.

Graham

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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.

Can this ignoramus really be an engineer?
 

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???