Subject: Re: 24 VAC to 9VDC supply
Date: 16 Dec 2002 14:25:15 -0600
References: <92E2E93F1roma@18.104.22.168> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:19:55 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (John Fields)
>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:09:02 GMT, Zeus wrote:
>>On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 01:09:36 GMT, email@example.com (John Fields)
>>>As painful as it is to have to confront the village idiots of the
>>>world, it's a necessary exercise in that they need to be made aware
>>>of the fact that they _are_ idiots, and therein lies the problem.
>>>Dealing with someone possessing limited intelligence who, because of
>>>their actions, needs to be convinced of their handicap is difficult
>>>because they're just not smart enough to understand that they are,
>>>in fact, stupid.
>>>IMO, I think the quality of usenet has increased as more and more
>>>knowledgeable contributors have jumped on board. However, I do
>>>agree that the signal to noise ratio has decreased. Perhaps, if we
>>>make it painful for the idiots to gather here they'll either smarten
>>>up or leave?
>>So he don't believe in the same religion you do. That certainly does
>>not make him stupid.
>You may notice, if you re-read my post, that I made no mention of a
>specific person. Who are you talking about?
>> Although I don't agree with his views with the
>>same degree of conviction, his arguments were reasonable and thought
>>provoking. He said the concept of faith is stupid. That is not a
>I disagree. If I find that you believe something that I don't and I
>say that what you believe in is stupid, then by extension you're
>stupid for believing in it.
I guess you fon't know English. The word "stupid" is an adjective,
which is a word that describes a noun. The noun in that sentence was
"faith". It's describing "faith", NOTHING ELSE.
That "extension" was something that was not stated, not meant, and
existed nowhere but in the mind of the reader.
> A much better way to present a
>differing _opinion_ is to say something like "I understand that you
>believe in that thing. However, I don't and here's why..." That
>way no one is put on the defensive and perhaps some common ground
>can be found through discussion.
>>I do not understand why some people go ballistic when their beliefs
>Some, I'm sure, do so because their belief system is built on such a
>flimsy foundation that if it's threatened its defense and
>maintenance becomes instantly the most important thing in the world
>so, since under those conditions the best defense is a good offense,
>they lash out.
>>No topic should be too sensitive for open discussion
>>for the truly intelligent.
>I couldn't agree more. :-)
>Professional circuit designer