Topics on Electronics

Electronics is the field of manipulating electrical currents and
voltages using passive and active components that are connected
together to create circuits. Electronic circuits range from a simple
load resistor that converts a current to a voltage, to computer
central-processing units (CPUs) that can contain more than a million
transistors. The following indices and documents provide a basic
reference for understanding electronic components, circuits, and
applications.

http://electronicstopics.blogspot.co...ectronics.html

Pure spam plus a lot of nonsense, e.g. this statement: "resistors convert a
current to a voltage"

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:11:16 +0100, "Pegasus \(MVP\)"
wrote:

Pure spam plus a lot of nonsense, e.g. this statement: "resistors convert a
current to a voltage"

Another orphan (subject changed) post.

Don'tcha think most people know "spam" when they see it?

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

Unfortunately no!
"DDW" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:11:16 +0100, "Pegasus \(MVP\)"
wrote:

Pure spam plus a lot of nonsense, e.g. this statement: "resistors convert
a
current to a voltage"

Another orphan (subject changed) post.

Don'tcha think most people know "spam" when they see it?

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:12:08 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

Unfortunately no!

Well, if they're using a newsreader, changing the subject to "Spam"
ain't gonna do anything to help that. The offending post is off
somewhere else, not to be seen.

Changing the subject and posting something about the unquoted poster
does absolutely nothing. At least quote the email address of the
offender, huh???


"DDW" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:11:16 +0100, "Pegasus \(MVP\)"
wrote:

Pure spam plus a lot of nonsense, e.g. this statement: "resistors convert
a
current to a voltage"

Another orphan (subject changed) post.

Don'tcha think most people know "spam" when they see it?

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please


DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

"DDW" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:12:08 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

Unfortunately no!

Well, if they're using a newsreader, changing the subject to "Spam"
ain't gonna do anything to help that. The offending post is off
somewhere else, not to be seen.

Changing the subject and posting something about the unquoted poster
does absolutely nothing. At least quote the email address of the
offender, huh???

Flagging a spammer's post serves a purpose: It defaces his post which makes
it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly when
they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Spammers don't quote valid EMail addresses - they give site URLs that they
want you to visit. Quoting these URLs would be doing them a favour.

: it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly when
: they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Oh for cryin' out loud. How many spammers do you think actually come back
and see their spam message? Where do you get the five minutes? Do you
think the spammers actually care that someone calls it spam?

Naive.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:52:42 -0600, "Tom [Pepper] Willett"
wrote:


: it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly when
: they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Oh for cryin' out loud. How many spammers do you think actually come back
and see their spam message? Where do you get the five minutes? Do you
think the spammers actually care that someone calls it spam?

Naive.

Thank you.

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

it's a matter of low IQ trying to prove to others it is intelligent.

thinking that the correct spelling of SPAM will do it.





"DDW" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:12:08 -0600, "Unknown"
wrote:

Unfortunately no!

Well, if they're using a newsreader, changing the subject to "Spam"
ain't gonna do anything to help that. The offending post is off
somewhere else, not to be seen.

Changing the subject and posting something about the unquoted poster
does absolutely nothing. At least quote the email address of the
offender, huh???


"DDW" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:11:16 +0100, "Pegasus \(MVP\)"
wrote:

Pure spam plus a lot of nonsense, e.g. this statement: "resistors convert
a
current to a voltage"

Another orphan (subject changed) post.

Don'tcha think most people know "spam" when they see it?

DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please


DDW
--
Reply via this group
No email please

Tom [Pepper] Willett wrote:
it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly when
they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Oh for cryin' out loud. How many spammers do you think actually come back
and see their spam message?

Zero.

Where do you get the five minutes? Do you
think the spammers actually care that someone calls it spam?

Nope.

in fact labeling it as SPAM will cause MORE people to check it out just to see.






"Bill in Co." wrote in message ...
Tom [Pepper] Willett wrote:
it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly when
they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Oh for cryin' out loud. How many spammers do you think actually come back
and see their spam message?

Zero.

Where do you get the five minutes? Do you
think the spammers actually care that someone calls it spam?

Nope.

People who feel compelled to label it as SPAM to assist the rest of us less
fortunates, have too much non-productive time on their hands.

"mikeyhsd" wrote in message
...
in fact labeling it as SPAM will cause MORE people to check it out just to
see.






"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Tom [Pepper] Willett wrote:
it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly
when
they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Oh for cryin' out loud. How many spammers do you think actually come
back
and see their spam message?

Zero.

Where do you get the five minutes? Do you
think the spammers actually care that someone calls it spam?

Nope.

"Tom [Pepper] Willett" wrote in message
...
People who feel compelled to label it as SPAM to assist the rest of us
less
fortunates, have too much non-productive time on their hands.

To substantiate the term "non-productive time", please type the following
strings into a Google search box:

"Tom [Pepper] Willett" 2008
and
"pegasus (MVP)" 2008

Now let's stop this silly bickering.

Replies in line
"Tom [Pepper] Willett" wrote in message
...

: it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly when
: they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Oh for cryin' out loud. How many spammers do you think actually come back
and see their spam message?
Do you know? Any statistics?
Where do you get the five minutes? Do you
think the spammers actually care that someone calls it spam?
Absolutely. Particularly those try to sell something such as a registry
cleaner or virus program.


Naive.

Cheeeeeese---You got two out of two incorrect. Think man, think.
"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
Tom [Pepper] Willett wrote:
it unattractive to potential readers. Most spammers give up quickly when
they see their spam message defaced within five minutes of posting.

Oh for cryin' out loud. How many spammers do you think actually come
back
and see their spam message?

Zero.

Where do you get the five minutes? Do you
think the spammers actually care that someone calls it spam?

Nope.