On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:46:50 -0800, "Dana" wrote in :
Ah ... now I understand ... you're harboring some very old grudge, and will seize any opportunity to attack me, even though you admit you don't know what you're talking about. Thanks for making that clear -- I'll try not to waste any more time on you.
Nope, I did not even know you in the 90's, but a quick search of Google shows that you gave bad info on modems during the 90's and a lot of people complained about the very same behavior you still exhibit today.
NO, he has that dead on.
I guess he tried to change the subject to something that he thought he knew something about, then tried to claim that the two were somehow related. FWIW, I was designing PCI network cards and motherboards with WOL capability years before the PCI bus spec was modified to add the pins for wake on lan and Vstby. We had to have a connector on the NIC that jumpered over to a connector on compatible motherboards. It was a pseudo-standard that was agreed upon by several of the large motherboard and network card manufacturers, along with the SBLINK connector to get around interrupt issues on PCI sound cards.
I have seen those.
I did a liitle looking into on old John here, seems he has been like this since at least 95 according to the google archives I was able to drag up. Seems back then he was a know it all on modems. I will say some of the stuff he posts is ok, like the article he posted eariler today about a MFG making 1Gb devices for home use.
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:45:41 -0700, SMS wrote in :
That's nonsense. Properly designed machines recover in a secure state.
So you say. Yet you've clearly been ignorant of many of the hardware design factors until I bring them up; e.g., RIPL and WOL over PCI.
You're describing yourself.
Again, you're describing yourself.
Another example of John butting in without a clue as to what is being discussed.
John, you have not bought anything up except your ignorance.
No, John, WOL was not the topic being discussed. No matter how hard you try to say it was.
Actually he is describing you quite well.
Many people here know that already, the solution is to killfile him. Entering into long discussions with him is counterproductive.
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:33:51 +0100, Mark McIntyre wrote in :
How childish.
Sad but true. It seems we had about a week's reprieve here without Navas. Now he's back and making the usual ass of himself.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:56:08 -0400, "Bill Kearney" wrote in :
FYI, all that does is make you look like what you're saying about me.
Actually it shows that more than one person has observed the same behavior from you.
Not really John, you have a noted inability to admit when you've screwed the pooch!
Telling that fellow in ibm.ibmpc.thinkpad to purchase an iPod 80GB HD for his X4X machine is a case in point and I can't wait to read what excuse you come up with for that very bad information.
In _this_ thread, rather than posting a simple "oops, sorry" you resort to obfuscation and ad hominem attacks.
GTFU!
Yep, and it's not just in these two newsgroups. Fortunately the group members can work around his noise by helping each other. And sometimes that help includes calling nitwits like Navas to task.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:43:51 -0800, "Dana" wrote in :
It actually shows that thugs run in gangs.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:14:46 -0400, "Bill Kearney" wrote in :
Again, all that does is make you look like the nitwit.
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:21:20 GMT, "JHEM" wrote in :
Same to you.
If that makes you feel better
Oh that reminds me, ever seen a Wisconsin street gang before?
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:18:57 -0500, "BillW50" wrote in :
LOL -- I love it!
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required