Re: Who is this John Fields ***?

On 26 mei, 18:02, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 07:48:49 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 mei, 13:20, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 26 May 2008 00:58:27 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On 26 mei, 02:32, John Fields <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 25 May 2008 14:42:56 -0700, "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"John Fields" <jfie...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:t9gj34tjuem4m1dvve0lc1g3jehgmm4h3q@xxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

<snip>

If you're not, then be prepared to have to slog through Bill Sloman's
at least equally dreary spelling and grammar error ridden dialogue,
even though he's married to a linguist. ;)

John Fields gets it wrong again. Technically speaking, my wife isn't a
linguist, though she does know a lot about the subject.

---
Good try, but that doesn't change the fact that your dreary dialogue
is replete with grammar and spelling errors.

In your dreams. I make the usual number of typos, and don't catch them
all when I check what I've written before sending it, which scarcely
makes my prose "replete" with grammar and spelling errors.

I imagine you do find it dreary, since you aren't interested in the
technical content - your enthusiasm for the 555 seems to have a lot to
do with the obvious fact that you can't understand anything more
complicated.

---
You rail when I call you a liar, and then prove me right every chance
you get, LOL!

The concept of "proof" does seem to be one of the many complicated
ideas that you don't understand.

Would you like to come up with an example of a complicated idea that
you think you have understood?

I'll be happy to prove you wrong ...

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Quantcast