A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called
the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a >long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called
the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a >> long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called
the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a >long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called >>> the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a >>> long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleaze :-)
probabbly this here:
< >https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
cheers, Gerhard
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 00:26:47 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called >>>> the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a
long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleaze :-)
probabbly this here:
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
>
cheers, Gerhard
What is D1 for?
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called >>> the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a >>> long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleaze :-)
probabbly this here:
< >https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
cheers, Gerhard
Am 03.09.26 um 01:34 schrieb john larkin:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 00:26:47 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>compensating the Q3 BE-drop?
wrote:
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called >>>>> the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a
long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleaze :-)
probabbly this here:
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
>
cheers, Gerhard
What is D1 for?
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called >>> the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a >>> long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleaze :-)
probabbly this here:
< https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
cheers, Gerhard
Am 03.09.26 um 01:34 schrieb john larkin:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 00:26:47 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>compensating the Q3 BE-drop?
wrote:
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was
called
the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts -
basically a
long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleazeÿÿ :-)
probabbly this here:
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
ÿ >
cheers, Gerhard
What is D1 for?
Am 03.09.26 um 01:34 schrieb john larkin:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 00:26:47 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>compensating the Q3 BE-drop?
wrote:
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called >>>>> the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a
long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was
something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleaze :-)
probabbly this here:
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
>
cheers, Gerhard
What is D1 for?
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 01:40:10 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>
wrote:
Am 03.09.26 um 01:34 schrieb john larkin:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2026 00:26:47 +0200, Gerhard Hoffmann <dk4xp@arcor.de>compensating the Q3 BE-drop?
wrote:
Am 02.09.26 um 23:08 schrieb JM:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 20:48:26 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
A couple years back someone posted a reference to what I think was called
the Widlar super follower? I recall something like 3 NPN bjts - basically a
long tail pair diff amp with emitter follower but I think there was >>>>>> something more to it than just that?
Gerhard Hoffman was evaluating this topology in LTspice a few years
back, so search his posts.
Hoffmann with 2 n, pleaze :-)
probabbly this here:
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/52723391238/in/datetaken/lightbox/
>
cheers, Gerhard
What is D1 for?
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he
used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to
the thin base region.
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he
used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to
the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
And this isn't a superbeta design.
I wonder how it works without the diode.
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to
the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design
(if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it
would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have
been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he
used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to
the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design
(if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it
would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have
been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
Yes.ÿ In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design
(if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it
would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have
been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at
length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC" in
the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volumeÿ SC-4 number 4, August
1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have managed
to miss it.
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>Sorry, none of that makes sense.
Yes.ÿ In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design
(if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it
would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have
been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at
length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC"
in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volumeÿ SC-4 number 4,
August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
<ÿÿ https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
< https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ ÿ>
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design
(if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it
would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have
been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at
length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC" in
the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume SC-4 number 4, August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have managed
to miss it.
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>
Yes.ÿ In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at
length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC"
in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volumeÿ SC-4 number 4,
August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
<ÿÿ https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ ÿ>
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
John Larkin does seem to experience it (and anything else that isn't
fulsome flattery) as venom. It was more an expression of bewilderment on
my part.
We probably also need to worry about the Early effect in that follower
as well. It isn't big but it might matter in a "super follower".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_effect
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Yes.? In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2. >>>>>> It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at
length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC"
in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume? SC-4 number 4,
August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
<?? https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ ?>
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
John Larkin does seem to experience it (and anything else that isn't
fulsome flattery) as venom. It was more an expression of bewilderment on
my part.
We probably also need to worry about the Early effect in that follower
as well. It isn't big but it might matter in a "super follower".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_effect
Not sure I follow you, the diff pair both operate at zero c-b voltage
Early effect there and the emitter follower stage is inside the feedback >loop?
Oh, that's what the diode is for. Clever.
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor
for IC" in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume SC-4 number 4, August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
< https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
< https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ >
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may
have managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
John Larkin does seem to experience it (and anything else that isn't fulsome flattery) as venom. It was more an expression of
bewilderment on my part.
We probably also need to worry about the Early effect in that follower as well. It isn't big but it might matter in a "super
follower".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_effect
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design
(if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it
would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have
been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorfry, none of that makes sense.
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2. >>>>>> It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor
for IC" in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume SC-4 number 4, August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
< https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
< https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ >
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may
have managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
John Larkin does seem to experience it (and anything else that isn't fulsome flattery) as venom. It was more an expression of
bewilderment on my part.
In that case I think you should recalibrate your definition of what an expression of bewilderment is.
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
We probably also need to worry about the Early effect in that follower as well. It isn't big but it might matter in a "super
follower".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_effect
On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 16:09:14 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
We accidentally met Widlar's girlfriend at the Washington Square
Bar&Grille, not long before he died. She had no idea that he was
famous. She was concerned about his drinking.
On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 15:35:06 -0000 (UTC), piglet
<erichpwagner@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
Yes.ÿ In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2. >>>>>>> It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at >>>>> length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC" >>>>> in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volumeÿ SC-4 number 4,
August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
<ÿÿ https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
John Larkin does seem to experience it (and anything else that isn't
fulsome flattery) as venom. It was more an expression of bewilderment on >>> my part.
We probably also need to worry about the Early effect in that follower
as well. It isn't big but it might matter in a "super follower".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_effect
Not sure I follow you, the diff pair both operate at zero c-b voltage
Oh, that's what the diode is for. Clever.
But 0.6 c-b might work as well.
so no
Early effect there and the emitter follower stage is inside the feedback
loop?
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what
computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told
you that.
And in which thread was that?
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to any of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view.
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design
(if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it
would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have
been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor
for IC" in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume SC-4 number 4, August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
< https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
< https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ >
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
For those willing to experiment:
TEXT 256 -984 Left 2 !.include d:\\lib\\spice\\ghf_spice_lib.txt
Gerhard
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>Sorry, none of that makes sense.
Yes.? In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at
length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC"
in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume? SC-4 number 4,
August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
<?? https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ ?>
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
John Larkin does seem to experience it (and anything else that isn't
fulsome flattery) as venom. It was more an expression of bewilderment on
my part.
"Gerhard Hoffmann" <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote in message news:117dumv$1kusl$1@solani.org...
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM>
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2.
It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor
for IC" in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume SC-4 number 4, August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
< https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
< https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ >
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
For those willing to experiment:
TEXT 256 -984 Left 2 !.include d:\\lib\\spice\\ghf_spice_lib.txt
File not found.
Gerhard
Am 05.09.26 um 17:47 schrieb Edward Rawde:
"Gerhard Hoffmann" <dk4xp@arcor.de> wrote in message news:117dumv$1kusl$1@solani.org...
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM>
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>>
Yes. In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2. >>>>>> It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
Sorry, none of that makes sense.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain
Transistor
for IC" in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volume SC-4 number 4, August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
< https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
< https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ >
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may
have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
For those willing to experiment:
TEXT 256 -984 Left 2 !.include d:\\lib\\spice\\ghf_spice_lib.txt
File not found.
< https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ql3rq3ui3rbqfvtjpswt0/ghf_spice_lib.txt?rlkey=xv9vq2k3epepsni2ahi24ce5n&st=80te0qb2&dl=0
I have started to divide this file to separate libs for BJTs, FETs, Opamps... The collection has simply grown too big.
(It won't stay on dropbox forever.)
The simulation itself does not require exotic things.
Gerhard
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to any of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view.
Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant.
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
Or more likely a selective memory.
if (input = criticism) then delete() or attack();
On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 23:54:09 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote: >>>>>>Sorry, none of that makes sense.
Yes.ÿ In his original monolithic designs the superbeta transistors he >>>>>>>> used had a Vce breakdown voltage of only about 1 to 1.4 volts due to >>>>>>>> the thin base region.
Makes no sense. The low end of the diode is a current sink.
I don't follow - this is just an attempt to copy a monolithic design >>>>>> (if this was built as is with the discretes shown I'm pretty sure it >>>>>> would oscillate) and in that design superbeta transistors would have >>>>>> been used, so without D1 you would likely get punch through of Q2. >>>>>> It's also good to try and balance the dissipation in Q1,2.
If you don't know about super-beta transistors, it probably won't.
Bob Widlar's Linear Application note AN-29 goes into the subject at
length, and references his 1969 paper "Super Gain Transistor for IC"
in the IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits volumeÿ SC-4 number 4,
August 1969.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1050006
which has had 18 citations in the peer-reviewed literature.
<ÿÿ https://sci-hub.sidesgame.com/10.1109/jssc.1969.1050006 >
2SD2704 ( BF=2300 ) is about as super-beta as you can buy.
If you find sth. better, I'm all ears.
And yes, the circuit will require some compensation for stability.
At f > 1.5 MHz the input impedance turns negative.
( real part of (input voltage / input current), top trace )
Paralleling more transistors does not bring the noise further down.
More standing current does, but that hurts, also.
The top left corner of the circuit provides a noisy VCC. Noise
level can be set directly by E1 in nV/rt Hz to check amplifier
Vcc noise suppression. The slight offset provided by V3
prevents a div by 0 somewhere in LTspice.
<
https://www.flickr.com/photos/137684711@N07/55506297412/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ ÿ>
I used the LM308 from time to time - it is a very neat op amp for
monitoring high impedance current sources. John Larkin may have
managed to miss it.
Your posts would be more interesting without the constant venom.
But then it takes 2 2 tango.
John Larkin does seem to experience it (and anything else that isn't
fulsome flattery) as venom. It was more an expression of bewilderment on
my part.
You are obsessed with me. You need a hobby.
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to any of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view.
Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant.
How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
This is one of those "facts" that you have chosen to invent, perhaps like the thread where Waldek Hebisch allegedly admonished me.
Or more likely a selective memory.
if (input = criticism) then delete() or attack();
Like pretty much everybody else I'm much better at remembering stuff that can be organised into a coherent whole. Your organising
principle seems to be to distort what you remember to get it to fit into what you'd like to believe.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to any of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view.
Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant.
How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out. https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
This is one of those "facts" that you have chosen to invent, perhaps like the thread where Waldek Hebisch allegedly admonished me.
Or more likely a selective memory.
if (input = criticism) then delete() or attack();
Like pretty much everybody else I'm much better at remembering stuff that can be organised into a coherent whole. Your organising
principle seems to be to distort what you remember to get it to fit into what you'd like to believe.
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view.
Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant.
How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that doesn't seem
to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
This is one of those "facts" that you have chosen to invent, perhaps like the thread where Waldek Hebisch allegedly admonished
me.
Or more likely a selective memory.
if (input = criticism) then delete() or attack();
Like pretty much everybody else I'm much better at remembering stuff that can be organised into a coherent whole. Your
organising
principle seems to be to distort what you remember to get it to fit into what you'd like to believe.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view.
Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant.
How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that doesn't seem
to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must. https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to
any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view.
Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant.
How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that doesn't
seem
to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
Nobody seems to know who "John+Gabriel"math might be. Asserting that my behaviour resembles his is a rather pointless insult in
this context.
We know you are thick as brick.
You don't have to labor the point.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant. >>>>>>
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to
any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view. >>>>>>>
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that doesn't
seem to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
Nobody seems to know who "John+Gabriel"math might be. Asserting that my behaviour resembles his is a rather pointless insult in
this context.
We know you are thick as brick.
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
You don't have to labor the point.
Neither do you. No-one cares anyway.
I can provide a list of similarities between you and John Gabriel if you wish.
I'm not saying you're a perfect match.
The major difference between him and you is that you do mostly make
technical sense, but that's as far as it goes.
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant. >>>>>>>
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to
any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view. >>>>>>>>
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be
even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that doesn't
seem to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
Nobody seems to know who "John+Gabriel"math might be. Asserting that my behaviour resembles his is a rather pointless insult in
this context.
We know you are thick as brick.
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if >> it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
You don't have to labor the point.
Neither do you. No-one cares anyway.
I can provide a list of similarities between you and John Gabriel if you wish.
I'm not saying you're a perfect match.
The major difference between him and you is that you do mostly make
technical sense, but that's as far as it goes.
That's quite a difference. I'd even be flattered if I though that you had a better grasp of what might constitute "technical
sense".
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant. >>>>>>>>
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react to
any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view. >>>>>>>>>
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be
even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that doesn't
seem to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
Nobody seems to know who "John+Gabriel"math might be. Asserting that my behaviour resembles his is a rather pointless insult in
this context.
We know you are thick as brick.
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
You don't have to labor the point.
Neither do you. No-one cares anyway.
I can provide a list of similarities between you and John Gabriel if you wish.
I'm not saying you're a perfect match.
The major difference between him and you is that you do mostly make
technical sense, but that's as far as it goes.
That's quite a difference. I'd even be flattered if I though that you had a better grasp of what might constitute "technical
sense".
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant. >>>>>>>>>
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react
to
any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view. >>>>>>>>>>
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be
even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that
doesn't
seem to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
Nobody seems to know who "John+Gabriel"math might be. Asserting that my behaviour resembles his is a rather pointless insult
in
this context.
We know you are thick as brick.
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to respond to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising.
As it is, it is just a rather inept insult.
You don't have to labor the point.
Neither do you. No-one cares anyway.
I can provide a list of similarities between you and John Gabriel if you wish.
I'm not saying you're a perfect match.
The major difference between him and you is that you do mostly make
technical sense, but that's as far as it goes.
That's quite a difference. I'd even be flattered if I though that you had a better grasp of what might constitute "technical
sense".
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant. >>>>>>>>>>
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react
to
any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view. >>>>>>>>>>>
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people.
I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would be
even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that
doesn't
seem to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
Nobody seems to know who "John+Gabriel"math might be. Asserting that my behaviour resembles his is a rather pointless insult
in
this context.
We know you are thick as brick.
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to respond to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...I don't like making statements like that. It's hard to provide objective support for that particular statement. It would
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...How convenient. Strange that you haven't taken the chance to specify which thread you did mean.
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:Therefore it should be obvious that that's not the thread I meant. >>>>>>>>>>>
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman:
On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM
<sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
In much the same way as you should recalibrate your opinion of what computers can do.
I've never seen you go so quiet so quick when Professor Hebisch told you that.
And in which thread was that?
It looks as if it would have been the "Re: Le Tout Nouveau Testament" thread, but Waldek Hebisch didn't directly react
to
any
of
my posts there, and does seem to roughly share my point of view. >>>>>>>>>>>>
I suppose I can blame your capacity to misread what you see, but it's still an odd claim.
You can blame anything you like but the facts are that you have a very short memory.
I have an unusually good memory.
More characteristics like this guy are coming out.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
He's unusually good at maths, or so he likes to tell people. >>>>>>>>>
be
even
harder for you to provide any objective evidence for your claim the I have a "very short memory" but detail like that
doesn't
seem to worry you.
Do keep on arguing by tossing in imagined "facts" - it just emphasises that you don't know what you are talking about.
Keep behaving like this guy if you must.
https://www.google.com/search?q="John+Gabriel"math
It emphasises your personality.
Nobody seems to know who "John+Gabriel"math might be. Asserting that my behaviour resembles his is a rather pointless insult
in
this context.
We know you are thick as brick.
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to >> know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design and I do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice.
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to
know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design and I do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice.
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
Nothing further can be done without an appointment.
The idea is from the days when JFETs were unsuitable for a differential amplifier.ÿ Tektronix got much farther with its bootstrapping and JFET linearization techniques.
On 10/09/2026 3:45 am, someone wrote:
The idea is from the days when JFETs were unsuitable for a
differential amplifier.ÿ Tektronix got much farther with its
bootstrapping and JFET linearization techniques.
Actually the charm of super-beta transistors was that the base current
went up a lot less with temperature than JFET leakage currents - it
actually decreases slightly.
On 10/09/2026 4:27 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
We know you are thick as brick.
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to
respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to
know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design and I
do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice. >>>
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
Nothing further can be done without an appointment.
If that means that Edward Rawde will stop pestering me with his ridiculous delusions, it is welcome news. If he were silly enough
to expect me to take him seriously, he may be disappointed, but I don't think that he is quite that silly.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117tmkl$1pprg$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 4:27 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
We know you are thick as brick.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to
respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising. >>>>>
know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design and I
do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice. >>>>
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
Nothing further can be done without an appointment.
If that means that Edward Rawde will stop pestering me with his ridiculous delusions, it is welcome news. If he were silly enough
to expect me to take him seriously, he may be disappointed, but I don't think that he is quite that silly.
I'd recommend "Poisonous People" by Leanne ten Brinke, but like all
such books it is a set of words which can be interpreted differently
by different people.
On 11/09/2026 12:58 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117tmkl$1pprg$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 4:27 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
We know you are thick as brick.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to
respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising. >>>>>>
know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design and
I
do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice. >>>>>
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
Nothing further can be done without an appointment.
If that means that Edward Rawde will stop pestering me with his ridiculous delusions, it is welcome news. If he were silly
enough
to expect me to take him seriously, he may be disappointed, but I don't think that he is quite that silly.
I'd recommend "Poisonous People" by Leanne ten Brinke, but like all
such books it is a set of words which can be interpreted differently
by different people.
It doesn't seem to have given you any insight into your own behavior.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:11809fm$2kpki$5@dont-email.me...
On 11/09/2026 12:58 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117tmkl$1pprg$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 4:27 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
We know you are thick as brick.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to
respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible.
If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising. >>>>>>>
know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design and
I
do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice. >>>>>>
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
Nothing further can be done without an appointment.
If that means that Edward Rawde will stop pestering me with his ridiculous delusions, it is welcome news. If he were silly
enough
to expect me to take him seriously, he may be disappointed, but I don't think that he is quite that silly.
I'd recommend "Poisonous People" by Leanne ten Brinke, but like all
such books it is a set of words which can be interpreted differently
by different people.
It doesn't seem to have given you any insight into your own behavior.
Your response was entirely predictable but no-one cares.
On 12/09/2026 12:52 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:11809fm$2kpki$5@dont-email.me...
On 11/09/2026 12:58 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117tmkl$1pprg$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 4:27 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
We know you are thick as brick.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to
respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of
advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising. >>>>>>>>
know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design
and
I
do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par
with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in
the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice.
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
Nothing further can be done without an appointment.
If that means that Edward Rawde will stop pestering me with his ridiculous delusions, it is welcome news. If he were silly
enough
to expect me to take him seriously, he may be disappointed, but I don't think that he is quite that silly.
I'd recommend "Poisonous People" by Leanne ten Brinke, but like all
such books it is a set of words which can be interpreted differently
by different people.
It doesn't seem to have given you any insight into your own behavior.
Your response was entirely predictable but no-one cares.
So why didn't you predict it?
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:11818kr$31htb$2@dont-email.me...
On 12/09/2026 12:52 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:11809fm$2kpki$5@dont-email.me...
On 11/09/2026 12:58 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117tmkl$1pprg$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 4:27 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
We know you are thick as brick.
It is true that I'm not a mental health professional but I do know enough to
Which is a rather pointless insult which would make a tiny bit more sense if
it said "I" not "We" but no-one cares.
True. You do chance on the occasional technical insight, so we do keep reading your posts.
There's that "we" again bill. It should be "I".
It would be if I were talking about my own reactions as opposed to the collective reactions of the people who bother to
respond
to
your posts.
Please see a mental health professional as soon as possible. >>>>>>>>>>If you were a mental health professional, that might be advice worth taking - though they wouldn't give that sort of
advice
without a face-to-face meeting with the patient they were advising. >>>>>>>>>
know that trying to get a mentally ill individual to see that they are mentally
ill is a waste of time.
It's even more difficult to get somebody who isn't mentally ill to do it. I do have a life outside sci.electronics.design
and
I
do
have friends who would sort me out if I did show signs of mental instability. Your diagnostic skills do seem to be on par
with
your electronic design skills.
So please make that appointment as soon as you can.
The medical professionals I do hang out with aren't mental health specialists, but at least they have had more training in
the
area than you have. I'll wait until one of them starts giving me advice.
Taking advice on mental health from a random nutcase posting on a user group would strike me as clear evidence of lunacy.
Nothing further can be done without an appointment.
If that means that Edward Rawde will stop pestering me with his ridiculous delusions, it is welcome news. If he were silly
enough
to expect me to take him seriously, he may be disappointed, but I don't think that he is quite that silly.
I'd recommend "Poisonous People" by Leanne ten Brinke, but like all
such books it is a set of words which can be interpreted differently >>>>> by different people.
It doesn't seem to have given you any insight into your own behavior.
Your response was entirely predictable but no-one cares.
So why didn't you predict it?
In my online experience of more than 30 years, any individual who thought that
they were being "pestered" would simply block or ignore the other individual.
I find it hilarious that you are unable to do that.
Sane people would not bother responding to this post.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 12/09/2026 12:52 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:11809fm$2kpki$5@dont-email.me...
On 11/09/2026 12:58 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117tmkl$1pprg$1@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 4:27 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s68v$1b85t$2@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 3:00 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117s2fi$19toq$3@dont-email.me...
On 10/09/2026 12:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117r0aq$rnn9$6@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 3:59 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117pfrp$a5b6$7@dont-email.me...
On 9/09/2026 12:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117p62i$7the$2@dont-email.me...
On 7/09/2026 2:15 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117j24k$24j88$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/09/2026 1:36 am, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117h8du$1ifp4$1@dont-email.me...
On 5/09/2026 3:55 pm, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/09/2026 3:31 am, Edward Rawde wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message news:117eiid$maeg$1@dont-email.me...
On 4/09/2026 6:15 pm, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 04.09.26 um 08:09 schrieb Bill Sloman: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/09/2026 12:20 pm, john larkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:27:00 +0100, JM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <sunaecoNoChoppedPork@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2026 12:53:33 -0700, john larkin <jl@htigct.com> wrote:
<snip>
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 497100:49:31 |
| Calls: | 182 |
| Files: | 744 |
| D/L today: |
38 files (5,920K bytes) |
| Messages: | 73,594 |