> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Then it was irrational of you to start a pissing contest over
>>water temp monitoring.
>
>
> Hey, you get credit for that.
ROTFLOL
> I'm just sort of poking you with a stick to see how far you'll
> go with this. It's good for giggles.
>
David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>>News flash: when someone who was never in your previous
>>>discussion posts a new and different thread of their own with a
>>>new and different topic they are not 'continuing' your
>>>discussion and it is the height of irrational arrogance for you
>>>to claim so.
>> However, someone who was, *did*;
>
>No, 'someone' didn't. The thread was started by Stormrider and
>he wasn't in the thread you've said was 'the previous.'
If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
accurate. Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
stupid conclusions that don't match reality. (As I noted
previously, stormrider changed the subject header, and kony was
the one who continued the previous discussion.)
>However, Stormrider's last message included "The more I think
>about it the less I like the idea of leaks and the potential
>maintanence headaches of water cooling, so it will most likely
>be air cooled.
And who besides him ever mentioned that concept!
>I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
>And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time."
>
>You will note that custom air ducts and double sound padding is
>not "fan speed control" and if you were as much of an 'expert'
Of course, "custom air ducts and double sound padding" don't do
a whole lot of good if the fan speed isn't controlled too.
David you aren't getting anywhere with all of this blubbering
about being shown up as a fool. Go read the entire discussion,
learn something, and either be quiet or be polite.
>as you claim you'd know there are other methods and means to
>making a 'silent' PC, depending on what one means by 'silent'
>and what tradeoffs they're willing to make. Which is why "a
>silent air cooled computer project" and "fan control" are not
>synonyms, much less "water" and "air."
The only one who has tried to pretend any such thing is you.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:01:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
L. Davidson) wrote:
>If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
>accurate. Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
>stupid conclusions that don't match reality. (As I noted
>previously, stormrider changed the subject header, and kony was
>the one who continued the previous discussion.)
>
If you could read, you'd have noted that I _ONLY_ replied
after, to details you had already posted in the very same
thread, specifically:
"If there are components that will fry with no flow,
then a flow meter of some kind that will positively
indicate that flow is below a certain amount, and a
mechanism to shutdown the system, are essential for
unattended operation.
At which point the subtopic introduced by _you_ was
continued, by you.
>>You will note that custom air ducts and double sound padding is
>>not "fan speed control" and if you were as much of an 'expert'
>
>Of course, "custom air ducts and double sound padding" don't do
>a whole lot of good if the fan speed isn't controlled too.
Actually they Do, do a lot of good. They do significantly
lower escaped noise levels still, but alone are usually not
enough to result in a silent system. That doesn't mean
they're not doing a lot of good though, since they are still
one of several possible and effective measures for noise
reduction. In some cases/components a user cannot simply
turn off fans nor throttle them back to very low RPM. It is
a good target but one approached, not assumed.
>
>David you aren't getting anywhere with all of this blubbering
>about being shown up as a fool. Go read the entire discussion,
>learn something, and either be quiet or be polite.
I politely suggest that you don't even have a quiet AND
reliable system yourself, as you have so far not demonstated
the ability to implement it beyond any kind of
alpha-experimental stage. The phrase couch-chair
quarterback comes to mind.
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>>News flash: when someone who was never in your previous
>>>>discussion posts a new and different thread of their own with a
>>>>new and different topic they are not 'continuing' your
>>>>discussion and it is the height of irrational arrogance for you
>>>>to claim so.
>>>
>>>However, someone who was, *did*;
>>
>>No, 'someone' didn't. The thread was started by Stormrider and
>>he wasn't in the thread you've said was 'the previous.'
>
>
> If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
> accurate.
Making stupid accusations is useless gibberish so why do you bother?
> Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
> stupid conclusions that don't match reality.
Why don't YOU try reading what you write for a change?
I said someone who wasn't in your earlier discussion started this thread
and you replied "However, someone who was, *did*." That's utter nonsense.
> (As I noted
> previously, stormrider changed the subject header,
Stormrider didn't 'change' a damn thing. He started a thread titled "a
silent air cooled computer project".... period.
> and kony was
> the one who continued the previous discussion.)
And even if true you think that proves what?
>>However, Stormrider's last message included "The more I think
>>about it the less I like the idea of leaks and the potential
>>maintanence headaches of water cooling, so it will most likely
>>be air cooled.
>
> And who besides him ever mentioned that concept!
Which is irrelevant to the point of the thread not being solely about "fan
speed control" as you falsely claimed. And it's especially obvious since
he's the one who STARTED the thread and defined the topic.
>>I am playing with the idea of custom air ducts and double sound padding.
>>And thanks to Floyd the fans will be software controlled this time."
>>
>>You will note that custom air ducts and double sound padding is
>>not "fan speed control" and if you were as much of an 'expert'
>
>
> Of course, "custom air ducts and double sound padding" don't do
> a whole lot of good if the fan speed isn't controlled too.
Nonsense.
> David you aren't getting anywhere with all of this blubbering
> about being shown up as a fool. Go read the entire discussion,
> learn something, and either be quiet or be polite.
More humor from the fellah who claimed the title "a silent air cooled
computer project" 'proves' that water temp monitoring is required.
>>as you claim you'd know there are other methods and means to
>>making a 'silent' PC, depending on what one means by 'silent'
>>and what tradeoffs they're willing to make. Which is why "a
>>silent air cooled computer project" and "fan control" are not
>>synonyms, much less "water" and "air."
>
>
> The only one who has tried to pretend any such thing is you.
>
I don't 'pretend'. I simply reply to the nonsense you post.
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:01:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
> L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>
>
>>If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
>>accurate. Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
>>stupid conclusions that don't match reality. (As I noted
>>previously, stormrider changed the subject header, and kony was
>>the one who continued the previous discussion.)
>>
>
>
> If you could read, you'd have noted that I _ONLY_ replied
> after, to details you had already posted in the very same
> thread, specifically:
>
> "If there are components that will fry with no flow,
> then a flow meter of some kind that will positively
> indicate that flow is below a certain amount, and a
> mechanism to shutdown the system, are essential for
> unattended operation.
Yep, that's the one that started it here, in reply to Stormrider's concern
"What do you think about the pump stopping, though. First it will fry the
components" when Alceryes suggested water cooling.
That's also the topic which Flyod argued "Nobody has claimed that it has
*anything* to do with "system failure" and that "The topic has been how to
silence *fans*."
> At which point the subtopic introduced by _you_ was
> continued, by you.
>
>
>
>>>You will note that custom air ducts and double sound padding is
>>>not "fan speed control" and if you were as much of an 'expert'
>>
>>Of course, "custom air ducts and double sound padding" don't do
>>a whole lot of good if the fan speed isn't controlled too.
>
>
> Actually they Do, do a lot of good. They do significantly
> lower escaped noise levels still, but alone are usually not
> enough to result in a silent system. That doesn't mean
> they're not doing a lot of good though, since they are still
> one of several possible and effective measures for noise
> reduction. In some cases/components a user cannot simply
> turn off fans nor throttle them back to very low RPM. It is
> a good target but one approached, not assumed.
>
>
>
>>David you aren't getting anywhere with all of this blubbering
>>about being shown up as a fool. Go read the entire discussion,
>>learn something, and either be quiet or be polite.
>
>
> I politely suggest that you don't even have a quiet AND
> reliable system yourself, as you have so far not demonstated
> the ability to implement it beyond any kind of
> alpha-experimental stage. The phrase couch-chair
> quarterback comes to mind.
David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:01:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
>> L. Davidson) wrote:
>>
>>>If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
>>>accurate. Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
>>>stupid conclusions that don't match reality. (As I noted
>>>previously, stormrider changed the subject header, and kony was
>>>the one who continued the previous discussion.)
>>>
>> If you could read, you'd have noted that I _ONLY_ replied
>> after, to details you had already posted in the very same
>> thread, specifically:
>> "If there are components that will fry with no flow,
>> then a flow meter of some kind that will positively
>> indicate that flow is below a certain amount, and a
>> mechanism to shutdown the system, are essential for
>> unattended operation.
>
>Yep, that's the one that started it here, in reply to
>Stormrider's concern "What do you think about the pump stopping,
>though. First it will fry the components" when Alceryes
>suggested water cooling.
So you are pointing out that kony is taking something out of
context and claiming it is something that it is not. Good point...
>That's also the topic which Flyod argued "Nobody has claimed
>that it has *anything* to do with "system failure" and that "The
>topic has been how to silence *fans*."
And then you do exactly the same thing. Why not provide the
full context of what I said instead of trying to deceive.
Both of you seem to have egos, but no integrity.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
>> accurate.
>
>Making stupid accusations is useless gibberish so why do you bother?>
It's a statement of fact.
>> Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
>> stupid conclusions that don't match reality.
>
>Why don't YOU try reading what you write for a change?
>
>I said someone who wasn't in your earlier discussion started
>this thread and you replied "However, someone who was, *did*."
>That's utter nonsense.
Only because you didn't *read* it well enough.
>> and kony was
>> the one who continued the previous discussion.)
>
>And even if true you think that proves what?
That you are not able to follow logically...
[more pretentions snipped]
>I don't 'pretend'. I simply reply to the nonsense you post.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>kony wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:01:02 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
>>>L. Davidson) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
>>>>accurate. Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
>>>>stupid conclusions that don't match reality. (As I noted
>>>>previously, stormrider changed the subject header, and kony was
>>>>the one who continued the previous discussion.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>If you could read, you'd have noted that I _ONLY_ replied
>>>after, to details you had already posted in the very same
>>>thread, specifically:
>>> "If there are components that will fry with no flow,
>>> then a flow meter of some kind that will positively
>>> indicate that flow is below a certain amount, and a
>>> mechanism to shutdown the system, are essential for
>>> unattended operation.
>>
>>Yep, that's the one that started it here, in reply to
>>Stormrider's concern "What do you think about the pump stopping,
>>though. First it will fry the components" when Alceryes
>>suggested water cooling.
>
>
> So you are pointing out that kony is taking something out of
> context and claiming it is something that it is not.
No, he correctly pointed out that monitoring CPU temp is a better 'fault'
indicator than looking at water flow rate.
You, however, are so fixated on using water flow as control mechanism that
almost anything with the word 'water' in it gets turned into an argument
about it.
> Good point...
No, it's another example of your self serving misinterpretation of things.
>>That's also the topic which Flyod argued "Nobody has claimed
>>that it has *anything* to do with "system failure" and that "The
>>topic has been how to silence *fans*."
>
>
> And then you do exactly the same thing. Why not provide the
> full context of what I said instead of trying to deceive.
No sweat, and there is no 'deception' involved other than you changing
claims about who said what and 'the topic'.
-----------------
(from me and the CUT in mid sentence was YOURS)
>again, adds little to the task of detecting a general cooling
>>system failure.
Your reply
Nobody has claimed that it has *anything* to do with "system
failure".
-----------------
I was, of course, speaking of cooling failure because 'what happens if
water flow stops', was the question Stormrider had asked about (your reply
to it, suggesting that a flow meter is "essential", is quoted above in
Kony's post).
My description says "general cooling system failure" because that is
precisely the point, among others, of monitoring the cooled device (e.g.
CPU) that I, and Kony, was making: that ANY cooling system failure will be
detected by monitoring the cooled device and not just a 'no (or low) water
flow' condition. You may agree or disagree with that assessment but 'the
topic' there was what happens when water stops flowing and not "fan speed
control."
Note however, that something so simple as "cooling system failure" you
immediately change in your first sentence to "system failure," claiming
it's a 'quote', no less, even though it is not what I said nor is it the
same thing.
Same kind of nonsense you pulled by claiming Kony said 'every device' needs
to be monitored when what he really said was "the actual part(s) in
jeopardy" and while a rational person might ask for clarification of just
exactly which parts Kony considered 'in jeopardy' (which he did explain
later) you invent the most absurd thing you can conjure up and then claim
that fantasy is his.
And that's the difference between an honest discussion/debate about the
merits vs brow beating.
> Both of you seem to have egos, but no integrity.
That is a case, on your part, of what the psychology texts call "projecting."
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>If you could read, it sure would make your articles more
>>>accurate.
>>
>>Making stupid accusations is useless gibberish so why do you bother?>
>
>
> It's a statement of fact.
It is obviously not a 'fact' as it is obvious I can 'read'.
>>> Go back and *read* what I said instead of jumping to
>>>stupid conclusions that don't match reality.
>>
>>Why don't YOU try reading what you write for a change?
>>
>>I said someone who wasn't in your earlier discussion started
>>this thread and you replied "However, someone who was, *did*."
>>That's utter nonsense.
>
>
> Only because you didn't *read* it well enough.
If you mean for something to make sense then you should write something
that makes sense.
This is why grammar, composition, and clarity are important. People aren't
mind readers and what you write is what they see/hear regardless of what
you 'thought' or 'meant' to say.
>>>and kony was
>>>the one who continued the previous discussion.)
>>
>>And even if true you think that proves what?
>
>
> That you are not able to follow logically...
Then you failed.
>
> [more pretentions snipped]
>
>
>>I don't 'pretend'. I simply reply to the nonsense you post.
>
>
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>And that's the difference between an honest discussion/debate
>>about the merits vs brow beating.
>
>
> So when *are* you going to try engaging in any form of honest discussion.
>
> This business of pulling phrases out of context just doesn't get it.
You mean like what you just did? Pulling 2 sentences out of the entire
message and removing all context?
Yes, it "just doesn't get it" and I wish you'd stop doing it.
>>>Both of you seem to have egos, but no integrity.
>>
>>That is a case, on your part, of what the psychology texts call "projecting."
>
>
> You are the one doing it.
I did, at the beginning, because I always assume the other person is rational.
David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>
>>>And that's the difference between an honest discussion/debate
>>>about the merits vs brow beating.
>> So when *are* you going to try engaging in any form of honest
>> discussion.
> >
>> This business of pulling phrases out of context just doesn't get it.
>
>You mean like what you just did? Pulling 2 sentences out of the
>entire message and removing all context?
The difference, since you can't seem to notice details, is that
I did *not* cut context that changed it's meaning, and I make
no attempt at distorting what you say. (I don't need to!)
>>>That is a case, on your part, of what the psychology texts call "projecting."
>> You are the one doing it.
>
>I did, at the beginning, because I always assume the other person is rational.
>
>I seem to have been mistaken.
You've been projecting all along, and you have been mistaken all
along.
What else is new?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:44:46 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd
L. Davidson) wrote:
>So you are pointing out that kony is taking something out of
>context and claiming it is something that it is not. Good point...
>
I took it in the context you posted, replied to exactly what
you wrote. If you are writing things out of context (in
_your_ mind) then of course when we reply to these
out-of-context posts you make, the reply will be out of
original context but contextually consistent with what you
wrote.
kony, <spam@spam.com>, whose name means "gets burning sensations during
intercourse; annoying; has fathered six children, all retards; likes to call
his penis his 'jiggle bone'", inflected:
> I took it in the context you posted, replied to exactly what you wrote.
It's a fucking pain in the arse.
> If you are writing things out of context (in _your_ mind) then of course
> when we reply to these out-of-context posts you make, the reply will be
> out of original context but contextually consistent with what you wrote.
When you take care of things, you're taking care of yourself.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 05:38:52 -0600, pcbutts1
<pcbutts1@y00haww.org> wrote:
>kony, <spam@spam.com>, whose name means "gets burning sensations during
>intercourse; annoying; has fathered six children, all retards; likes to call
>his penis his 'jiggle bone'", inflected:
>
>> I took it in the context you posted, replied to exactly what you wrote.
>
>It's a fucking pain in the arse.
Thanks for your feedback on this, it will be very useful.
> David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>
>>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>David Maynard <nospam@private.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>And that's the difference between an honest discussion/debate
>>>>about the merits vs brow beating.
>>>
>>>So when *are* you going to try engaging in any form of honest
>>>discussion.
>>>
>>>This business of pulling phrases out of context just doesn't get it.
>>
>>You mean like what you just did? Pulling 2 sentences out of the
>>entire message and removing all context?
>
>
> The difference, since you can't seem to notice details, is that
> I did *not* cut context that changed it's meaning, and I make
> no attempt at distorting what you say. (I don't need to!)
ROTFLOL
I mean, that is REALLY funny.
>>>>That is a case, on your part, of what the psychology texts call "projecting."
>>>
>>>You are the one doing it.
>>
>>I did, at the beginning, because I always assume the other person is rational.
>>
>>I seem to have been mistaken.
>
>
> You've been projecting all along, and you have been mistaken all
> along.
>
> What else is new?
At least we agree on something. I was a mistake for me to assume you were
rational.
Re: a silent air cooled computer project 
Linear Mode
