Re: OT: Typical Globlist

On 20/01/2025 5:45 am, john larkin wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
 

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
[...]

The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.

>
In that case, what spread the fire?

>
Airborne embers I would guess.

>
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when
that seaside strip burned.

>
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?

  I think by definition, since it means wind coming from the direction
of Santa Ana.
 We call the wind from the east here The Diablo Winds, since they blow
on us from the direction of Mt Diablo.
 

>

Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
with his theories.

>
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.

 I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about
electronic design, which is highly improbable.

What's even more improbable is that John Larkin would pay any attention to it if it happened. He's here to harvest praise for his own insights, and feels hurt when he doesn't get it. He doesn't take part in our little squabbles about circuit design.
<snip>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney