On Mon, 28 Mar 2022 17:17:54 +1000, keithr0 wrote:

> On 19/03/2022 12:23 am, Clocky wrote:
>> On 18/03/2022 2:07 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 12/03/2022 11:17 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 12/03/2022 7:18 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>> On 11/03/2022 8:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 6:32 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 5:42 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 9:27 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/03/2022 1:04 am, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOL, keith, mate... you seem to have a very high opinion of
>>>>>>>>>> yourself as a programmer - so successful and highly paid that
>>>>>>>>>> you could afford such prestige vehicles as a Cordia Turbo and
>>>>>>>>>> Miata. You must have been ace to be able to afford those two
>>>>>>>>>> examples of motoring excellence... :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> he claims he worked at NASA as a programmer but has no formal
>>>>>>>>> qualifications, and was in a senior position there, iirc. can
>>>>>>>>> you imagine what the competition to be employed at NASA would be
>>>>>>>>> like? they would only be interested in the very best and
>>>>>>>>> brightest; the most qualified and capable. me thinketh that
>>>>>>>>> maybe, just maybe, something is rotten in Denmark! :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong as usual felix. I worked for NASA and I worked as a
>>>>>>>> programmer but I didn't work as a programmer for NASA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oh, I'm expected to take such interest in you that I'm expected to
>>>>>>> know such details am I, fukwit. but of course you didn't, you're
>>>>>>> no where good enough
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can't be bothered to get it s\right, you should STFU
>>>>>> otherwise you just look stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> by telling us about your incredible programming talent and skills,
>>>>> and THEN saying you worked for NASA, you created the impression that
>>>>> you were employed by them as a programmer. but we now know you just
>>>>> emptied rubbish bins at NASA and probably just programmed a
>>>>> Commodore 64 for the kids. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> keith preferred this
>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair-ZX81.png
>>>> to a real computer.
>>>>
>>>> The Z80 uses twice as many cycles (4 on average) to execute an opcode
>>>> compared to 2 cycles on average for the a 6502 (6510/8500 in the C64,
>>>> same core). The Z80 is inefficient and slow, like keith.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ROTFL, I've never owned a Sinclair, or a Commodore games machine, I've
>>> preferred real computers.
>>
>> Nope, no evidence to support that claim so...
>>
> <yawn> how much evidence do you have of anything that you've ever done?

A Thought keith.

If you're not trying to big yourself here, then why are you banging on and
on about NASA and "real computers" in a cars ng?

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 29/03/2022 3:08 pm, Clocky wrote:

> Yeah but *you* never heard of Amigas at NASA and you claimed to have
> worked there! Perhaps you were just told to be careful sweeping up
> around those things... I guess we will never know.

I had a look on the interwebs about Amigas at NASA, all the information
seems to have come from one person, an Amiga freak who got a trip to
Kennedy SFC and an invite to Hangar AE. It would appear from his report
that among the thousands of computers that NASA has/had, they had, count
them, 13 Amigas, all in the one place, the launch telemetry group. If
you asked NASA employees about them, 99% would never have heard of them.
In fact, I visited Kennedy SFC in 2002, did the full tour, but none of
the guides mentioned Amigas in use - pretty strange if they were so
important. In fact, from the articles, they were doing a pretty simple
job, extracting particular data points from the telemetry stream and
passing the data to users who in all likelihood had no idea that the
data was coming via an Amiga, and cared even less.

Of course this is all irrelevant since I left NASA's employ in 1973 some
12 years before the Amiga came out, so perhaps you'd care to explain how
I could have been aware of something that didn't even exist at the time.

On 4/04/2022 6:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 3:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Yeah but *you* never heard of Amigas at NASA and you claimed to have
>> worked there! Perhaps you were just told to be careful sweeping up
>> around those things... I guess we will never know.
>
> I had a look on the interwebs about Amigas at NASA, all the information
> seems to have come from one person, an Amiga freak who got a trip to
> Kennedy SFC and an invite to Hangar AE. It would appear from his report
> that among the thousands of computers that NASA has/had, they had, count
> them, 13 Amigas, all in the one place, the launch telemetry group. If
> you asked NASA employees about them, 99% would never have heard of them.
> In fact, I visited Kennedy SFC in 2002, did the full tour, but none of
> the guides mentioned Amigas in use - pretty strange if they were so
> important. In fact, from the articles, they were doing a pretty simple
> job, extracting particular data points from the telemetry stream and
> passing the data to users who in all likelihood had no idea that the
> data was coming via an Amiga, and cared even less.

In other words, they were doing routine crap that could have been done
on anything else. I mean, it's not like Amiga's were serious number
crunchers, and I doubt NASA was relying on them for anything critical,
right? :)

> Of course this is all irrelevant since I left NASA's employ in 1973 some
> 12 years before the Amiga came out, so perhaps you'd care to explain how
> I could have been aware of something that didn't even exist at the time.

Given that NASA employed *thousands* of people both directly and
indirectly, unless you worked in the specific area that actually used
the 13 Amiga machines it would be highly unlikely that you or any of the
other thousands of NASA staff who weren't directly connected with them
would have ever known of their existence.

On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone what you
did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
you knew about anything, really.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 4/04/2022 4:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 3:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>> Yeah but *you* never heard of Amigas at NASA and you claimed to have
>> worked there! Perhaps you were just told to be careful sweeping up
>> around those things... I guess we will never know.
>
> I had a look on the interwebs about Amigas at NASA, all the information
> seems to have come from one person, an Amiga freak who got a trip to
> Kennedy SFC and an invite to Hangar AE.

I actually quoted someone from NASA.

They thought they were real enough to use them at NASA.

<snip irrelevant waffle>

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:

>
> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone what you
> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
> you knew about anything, really.

Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get the year
consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!

alvey

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone what you
>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
>> you knew about anything, really.
>
> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get the year
> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>
>
>
> alvey
>

Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone what you
>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>
>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get the year
>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>
>> alvey
>>
>
> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...

Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone what you
>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>
>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get the year
>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>
>>> alvey
>>>
>>
>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>
> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>

Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:06:17 +0800, Clocky wrote:

> On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone what you
>>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
>>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>>
>>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get the year
>>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>>
>>>> alvey
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>>
>> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>>
>
> Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...

fx: drumroll.

He can't even remember what height he is!

fx: Boom tish

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 5/4/2022 10:06 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone
>>>>> what you
>>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
>>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>>
>>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get
>>>> the year
>>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>>
>>>> alvey
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>>
>> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>>
>
> Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...
>
Or when he did 3 apprenticeships he couldn't legally sign up to.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 5/04/2022 9:09 am, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:06:17 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>
>> On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone what you
>>>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how much
>>>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get the year
>>>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>>>
>>>>> alvey
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>>>
>>> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>>>
>>
>> Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...
>
> fx: drumroll.
>
> He can't even remember what height he is!
>
> fx: Boom tish
>

Or... or how many times he had diabetes before he never did!

[fx: crowd goes wild]

--
keith on the 7 Oct 2021 wrote;
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if
it is unproven, he is lying."

On 5/4/2022 1:19 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 5/04/2022 9:09 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:06:17 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone
>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even get
>>>>>> the year
>>>>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> alvey
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>>>>
>>>> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...
>>
>> fx: drumroll.
>>
>> He can't even remember what height he is!
>>
>> fx: Boom tish
>>
>
> Or... or how many times he had diabetes before he never did!
>
> [fx: crowd goes wild]
>
>
>
It's the *neverending (bullshit) story*!!!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 29/03/2022 2:21 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 3:38 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 19/03/2022 12:18 am, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2022 2:31 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 14/03/2022 10:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Nope the stuff that I write is built from the ground up.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wank.
>>>>
>>>> Stop it or you'll go blind
>>>>
>>>>> No copying
>>>>>> required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who gives a fuck? Even if I took up this insane and deranged
>>>>> challenge of yours and completed it all you would do is say I copy
>>>>> and pasted it so it's not valid before wanking off about how good
>>>>> you are without ever providing any proof. It's your standard tired
>>>>> and boring old MO keith. Nobody is interested in your
>>>>> self-aggrandising wank.
>>>>
>>>> Insane and deranged?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>   That's clocky code for "It's all too hard for me".
>>>
>>> *I* never claimed to be a programmer. I described a process which
>>> anyone here could do. You took that as a personal affront to your
>>> manhood or something.
>>> Tough.
>>>
>>>> Since, unlike you, I am not an obsessed and narrow minded person,
>>>> I'd look at what you had produced with an open mind, and there isn't
>>>> much that you could copy anyway. I just want you to try and prove
>>>> your assertion that "Anybody could do it" because I don't think that
>>>> you could.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hey dickhead, *nobody* claimed to be able to program from scratch.
>>> Nobody claimed to be a programmer. I described a process that works
>>> for countless people that don't consider themselves to be programmers
>>> to achieve the results *they* are looking for. Not some stupid test
>>> to achieve something *you* want to do which, knowing you, even if
>>> completed, you would reject anyway.
>>>
>>>>> Well, except maybe Jonz but he's the "village idiot" in every group
>>>>> he posts in so...
>>>>
>>>> You have sunk really far over the years, your obsession is eating
>>>> you away.
>>>
>>> Truth is my defense.
>>>
>>>   Once, I had regard for you, you used to post reasonably
>>>> interesting and relevant stuff, now it's just petty insults. Sad
>>>> really.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh go away you twit. You're never provided any evidence for any of
>>> your claims and you have always come across as a complete tosser.
>>
>>   And what proof have you ever provided about your activities?
>
> Which activities specifically? I keep most almost all of my activities
> out of this group and barely if ever mention them.
>
> What proof have *you* provided for any of yours aside from your garden
> art assembly pics? You're always creaming your pants and belittling
> others but where is the evidence to support your claims?

What sort of "Evidence" do you require?

> Like I
>> said, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.
>
> Not insults, observations.

You have a totally warped mind, obsession does that to people. Like I
said, sad really once you were a reasonable person.

On 28/03/2022 8:06 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 6:15 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 18/03/2022 7:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> Your interest in this is really weird, it's unbelievable that you
>>>> give a shit whether I make a fool of myself or not, or that you're
>>>> trying to defend clocky's honour, but you still had to dive in
>>>> bovver boots and all. So what has spooked you has it hit some sort
>>>> of sore spot?
>>>
>>> Interesting statement. Let's analyse it, shall we?
>>>
>>> In the first instance I'm not defending anyone. What I'm actually
>>> doing is disagreeing with you, and the fact that you can't seem to
>>> make the distinction is very telling.
>>
>> Yearh right.
>
> Of course the irony here is that in holding this view you are adopting
> the very view that you've spent the last few months criticising the FLC
> for holding :)
>
>>> In the second instance, you're free to make as much of an absolute
>>> *twat* of yourself as you like and don't need anyone's permission to
>>> do that, but what I found to be absolutely astonishing about your
>>> "Challenge" is that you'd achieved nothing other than doing a
>>> complete 180 degree turn where you moved from criticising people for
>>> following a particular course of action to doing *precisely* what
>>> they've done and somehow thinking that it's perfectly fine if *you*
>>> do it.
>>>
>>> Lastly, and if we're going to be honest here, your "challenge" had
>>> nothing to do with testing anyone's integrity but rather was a poorly
>>> devised opportunity for you to position yourself as the group's
>>> resident authority where you could sit in judgement of whoever you
>>> liked and make yourself feel superior.
>>
>> "Groups resident authority"? There are a number of self ordained
>> resident authorities around here including yourself.
>
> And you're feeling a bit left out apparently....
>
>>> How sad, and *utterly* ridiculous.
>>>
>>>> I looked at the sketch that you so cleverly modified to suit your
>>>> needs,
>>>
>>> What "sketch"?
>>
>> The little program to to make your switches click on click off. On
>> Arduinos, programs are know as sketches for some reason.
>
> Right. I never published anything relating to what I did, so I don't
> know what you looked at.
>
>>>> it's about as basic as it gets, it does what it says but it is
>>>> pretty badly written, and changing a couple of values in it is to
>>>> programming what changing a spark plug is to being a motor mechanic.
>
> And this is your problem *right* here, Keefy.
>
> Your comments are utterly ridiculous, as the code is *not* badly written
> at all. In fact it is written exactly the way it needs to be in order to
> make the events occur that need to occur, and it needs to be no more
> elaborate or "fancy" than that. It's not about being complicated, but
> rather about being simple, basic code that is easy to follow and you do
> not need years of programming experience to pick it up and make use of
> it. I'm no programmer and had never used Arduino before in my life, but
> I was able to set it up easily and get it working reliably without any
> hassle at all, which to me is a testament of the ease in which it can be
> made to work.
>
> Moreover, what you have done here in criticising it for it's basic
> structure is actually proved Clocky's comments to be true in that it
> *is* very basic and indeed anyone *can* do it, and had you not been so
> keen to portray yourself as being superior with your silly little
> "challenge" you might have been able to see that.
>
> Perhaps next time you might look first and *then* shoot.
>
Like I said, anybody can change a spark plug so does that make them a
mechanic?

On 28/03/2022 7:49 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 6:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 18/03/2022 7:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2022 5:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have
>>>>> taken flight?
>>>>
>>>> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
>>>> been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.
>>>
>>> What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?
>>
>> Flight experiments.
>
> Did you go to a special school to learn to be this vague? :)
>
Vague?, so, if you want the whole story, I made modifications to
auto-pilots related to automatic landing that brains greater than mine
requested. I then went up in a rather elderly aircraft to check the
results, crunched the data and reported it back to the brains. Explicit
enough?

An example of the aircraft that we used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_Varsity#/media/File:Vickers_Varsity_T.1_WJ907_Q_AAITS_WFD_26.06.71_edited-2.jpg

On 29/03/2022 1:47 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 3:05 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 18/03/2022 7:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 18/03/2022 5:58 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2022 7:59 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How many of the planes you have bolted and riveted together have
>>>>> taken flight?
>>>>
>>>> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I had
>>>> been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.
>>>
>>> What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?
>>
>> Flight experiments.
>>
>
>
> Ah, so you were were the crash test dummy.
>
> That explains a lot.

When was it that you turned into a nasty little shit?

On 5/04/2022 5:30 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 2:21 pm, Clocky wrote:

>> Like I
>>> said, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.
>>
>> Not insults, observations.
>
> You have a totally warped mind, obsession does that to people. Like I
> said, sad really once you were a reasonable person.

A long time ago. It all went down hill for him about the time he started
his "career" as a mud flap fitter.

Boy, that "License" really comes in handy there, huh? :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 5/04/2022 12:01 am, Clocky wrote:
> On 4/04/2022 4:01 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 29/03/2022 3:08 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah but *you* never heard of Amigas at NASA and you claimed to have
>>> worked there! Perhaps you were just told to be careful sweeping up
>>> around those things... I guess we will never know.
>>
>> I had a look on the interwebs about Amigas at NASA, all the
>> information seems to have come from one person, an Amiga freak who got
>> a trip to Kennedy SFC and an invite to Hangar AE.
>
> I actually quoted someone from NASA.

What quote?

> They thought they were real enough to use them at NASA.
>
> <snip irrelevant waffle>

They did a specific job in one small section, they used them because one
of the members of that section was an Amiga freak and introduced them.
In this day and age, in similar circumstances, they'd probably use
Raspberry Pis, more powerful, cheaper and smaller.

You still haven't specified how I could have known of them when they
didn't come out until 13 years after I left NASA - strange that.

On 5/04/2022 2:06 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 5/4/2022 1:19 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 5/04/2022 9:09 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:06:17 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>>>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone
>>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of how
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even
>>>>>>> get the year
>>>>>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> alvey
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>>>>>
>>>>> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...
>>>
>>> fx: drumroll.
>>>
>>> He can't even remember what height he is!
>>>
>>> fx: Boom tish
>>>
>>
>> Or... or how many times he had diabetes before he never did!
>>
>> [fx: crowd goes wild]
>>
>>
>>
> It's the *neverending (bullshit) story*!!!
>
It must be groundhog day.

On 5/04/2022 5:32 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 8:06 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Moreover, what you have done here in criticising it for it's basic
>> structure is actually proved Clocky's comments to be true in that it
>> *is* very basic and indeed anyone *can* do it, and had you not been so
>> keen to portray yourself as being superior with your silly little
>> "challenge" you might have been able to see that.
>>
>> Perhaps next time you might look first and *then* shoot.
>>
> Like I said, anybody can change a spark plug so does that make them a
> mechanic?

This is probably *the* most ridiculous comment you've come up with in
this entire nonsensical argument. The fact that changing a spark plug is
an easy task that anyone _can_ do without needing to be a mechanic is
*precisely* the point he was making.

Anyone *can* use Arduino without needing to be a programmer. That was
his point all along which is one that I entirely agree with after having
used it myself, and you've demonstrated rather perfectly here that
you've whipped yourself up into such a ridiculous frenzy over this
rubbish that you've completely lost sight of what the original point was
all about and now clearly have no idea what you're on about.

Seriously. Think about it all for a moment.....

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 5/4/2022 5:41 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 5/04/2022 5:30 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 29/03/2022 2:21 pm, Clocky wrote:
>
>>> Like I
>>>> said, now it's just petty insults. Sad really.
>>>
>>> Not insults, observations.
>>
>> You have a totally warped mind, obsession does that to people. Like I
>> said, sad really once you were a reasonable person.
>
> A long time ago. It all went down hill for him about the time he started
> his "career" as a mud flap fitter.
>
> Boy, that "License" really comes in handy there, huh? :)
>
>
P-R-O-J-E-C-T-I-O-N from the trades assistant himself!!!!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 5/4/2022 5:52 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 5/04/2022 5:32 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 28/03/2022 8:06 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Moreover, what you have done here in criticising it for it's basic
>>> structure is actually proved Clocky's comments to be true in that it
>>> *is* very basic and indeed anyone *can* do it, and had you not been
>>> so keen to portray yourself as being superior with your silly little
>>> "challenge" you might have been able to see that.
>>>
>>> Perhaps next time you might look first and *then* shoot.
>>>
>> Like I said, anybody can change a spark plug so does that make them a
>> mechanic?
>
> This is probably *the* most ridiculous comment you've come up with in
> this entire nonsensical argument. The fact that changing a spark plug is
> an easy task that anyone _can_ do without needing to be a mechanic is
> *precisely* the point he was making.
>
> Anyone *can* use Arduino without needing to be a programmer. That was
> his point all along which is one that I entirely agree with after having
> used it myself, and you've demonstrated rather perfectly here that
> you've whipped yourself up into such a ridiculous frenzy over this
> rubbish that you've completely lost sight of what the original point was
> all about  and now clearly have no idea what you're on about.
>
> Seriously. Think about it all for a moment.....
>
Seriously. Think about it all for a moment. You're being wedged into a
corner and forced to *defend* someone you hate! Oh the irony! ;-)

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 5/04/2022 5:40 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 7:49 pm, Noddy wrote:

>>>>> None recently, but way back several flew with auto-pilots that I
>>>>> had been fiddling with. Interesting days - well to me at least.
>>>>
>>>> What did you do on them? Vacuum the carpet?
>>>
>>> Flight experiments.
>>
>> Did you go to a special school to learn to be this vague? :)
>>
> Vague?,

Yes, remarkably so. It's as if you have your own secret code.

> so, if you want the whole story, I made modifications to
> auto-pilots related to automatic landing that brains greater than mine
> requested. I then went up in a rather elderly aircraft to check the
> results, crunched the data and reported it back to the brains. Explicit
> enough?

That's fine, thanks. Context is everything, don't you think?

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 5/04/2022 5:48 pm, keithr0 wrote:
> On 5/04/2022 2:06 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 5/4/2022 1:19 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 5/04/2022 9:09 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:06:17 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>>>>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let alone
>>>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of
>>>>>>>>> how much
>>>>>>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even
>>>>>>>> get the year
>>>>>>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> alvey
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...
>>>>
>>>> fx: drumroll.
>>>>
>>>> He can't even remember what height he is!
>>>>
>>>> fx: Boom tish
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or... or how many times he had diabetes before he never did!
>>>
>>> [fx: crowd goes wild]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It's the *neverending (bullshit) story*!!!
>>
> It must be groundhog day.

It always is around here. I don't make a post for a few days and there's
nothing, but I make one post that has nothing whatsoever to do with any
of these fucktards and that's *all* they need to start their attacks.

But apparently they're *not* fixated mental cases and *I'm* the bully :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 5/4/2022 8:27 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 5/04/2022 5:48 pm, keithr0 wrote:
>> On 5/04/2022 2:06 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2022 1:19 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>> On 5/04/2022 9:09 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 08:06:17 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/04/2022 7:29 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:25:04 +0800, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/04/2022 5:44 am, DavidW wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:54:19 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I don't recall you mentioning your dates of
>>>>>>>>>> employment in any of this recent "NASA" conversations let
>>>>>>>>>> alone what you
>>>>>>>>>> did for them, making it impossible for anyone to be aware of
>>>>>>>>>> how much
>>>>>>>>>> you knew about anything, really.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very much like yourself then Fraudster. Crikey! You can't even
>>>>>>>>> get the year
>>>>>>>>> consistent of when you sold the fabulous NAoA!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> alvey
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or when he was supposedly offered the "One of one" P76 wagon...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or when he worked at a Honda dealership...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or when he owned an IBM PC/XT...
>>>>>
>>>>> fx: drumroll.
>>>>>
>>>>> He can't even remember what height he is!
>>>>>
>>>>> fx: Boom tish
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or... or how many times he had diabetes before he never did!
>>>>
>>>> [fx: crowd goes wild]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's the *neverending (bullshit) story*!!!
>>>
>> It must be groundhog day.
>
> It always is around here. I don't make a post for a few days and there's
> nothing, but I make one post that has nothing whatsoever to do with any
> of these fucktards and that's *all* they need to start their attacks.
>
> But apparently they're *not* fixated mental cases and *I'm* the bully :)
>
Well, yes, you were and are, you and your *FLCJC gang*. It is, however,
quite apparent that even they do not believe your bullshit stories any
more. How utterly unsurprising!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)