Yo, Pinkerton:

Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to
tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607
messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and
pettily.

If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read
the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070
minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other
people's glee in their hobby

What's your excuse?

Andre Jute

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Yo, Pinkerton:

Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your
expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your
total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube
conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing
maliciously and pettily.

If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to
find and read the post you responded to, to type and send
you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50
hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their
hobby

What's your excuse?

No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of hype and false
claims.

The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post
fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates:

"Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to believe that tubes
automatically impart some kind of magic fairy dust, so manufacturers
exploit that."

All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps could be invested in
making good sounding (SS) amps.

The time could be spent other audio projects that are forward-looking as
opposed to backward-looking.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Yo, Pinkerton:

Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your
expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your
total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube
conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing
maliciously and pettily.

If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to
find and read the post you responded to, to type and send
you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50
hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their
hobby

What's your excuse?

No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of hype and false
claims.

Only the most monumentally stupid and the most monumentally arrogant
people ever have such certainty in their own judgement as you and
Pinkerton exhibit, Krueger. Your determination to control through your
public nastiness the activities of people even in their harmless
hobbies is sociopathic.

I have already proved that you, Arnold Krueger, are so keen to make
yourself appear more important than you are that you will lash out
denigration to a group of people who did you no harm before the group
is even specified. This very post above to which you are responding
proves that Stewart Pinkerton is so keen to lash out pain to others
that he spends a quarter of his working life ruining the pleasure in
their hobby of posters to a tube conference where Pinkerton has
absolutely no business, where it has been repeatedly made clear to him
that he isn't wanted, where his attempt to prove that his way is better
(his dumb KISASS design) ended in a humilating failure, where his lies
are constantly exposed, where no secret is made of the fact that he is
despised for being scum to a greater extent even than you are.

The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post
fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates:

Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may follow?

"Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to believe that tubes
automatically impart some kind of magic fairy dust, so manufacturers
exploit that."

So what? It's their business and their money. Why is it so disturbing
to you little control freaks that people hear something different from
you?

What has manufacturing hype to do with the DIYers on RAT? How does what
manufacturers do justify Pinkerton's foul manners and destructive
lunging around other people's hobbies? Or yours, for that matter,
Krueger?

It is truly sick for grown men to justify their existence (as you,
Arnold Krueger, and Stewart Pinkerton, repeatedly do, as you done again
above) by the disruption they bring to other people's innocent
pleasure.

All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps could be invested in
making good sounding (SS) amps.

Who appointed you UberFuhrer of people's hi-fi?

The time could be spent other audio projects that are forward-looking as
opposed to backward-looking.

And approved by you and the equally arid, useless, uncultured, slimy,
ignorant, crude, unmannered, loutish, uncreative, dull, etc, Pinkerton?
No doubt after months of formfilling in quadriplicate and delays, you
will refuse to sanction even a little opamp gainclone if it is likely
to give anyone any pleasure. Thanks, but no thanks. We saw your sort of
control freaks in charge in the Soviet Union already; they ground it to
a halt. You and Pinkerton are harbingers of death, not of light and
life. You two, and your trail of goosestepping "engineers" and
hangerson, are a walking, talking nightmare to those of us who do hi-fi
for pleasure.

We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by law is
expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And all the better for
it.

You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger, Pinkerton, and all the
other control freak "engineers" on a crusade. So **** off.

Andre Jute

We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by law is
expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And all the better for
it.

Mr. McCoy:

So, does Ireland have a written constitution? England does not. In the
US, you would be referring to the 9th and 10th amendments (the "Bill of
Rights"). The issue being your use of the word "expressly" which
requires an explicit reference. But you are referring only to societies
based on English Law, vs. those based on Roman Law. So, those here from
France or Spain, and certain Parishes in Louisiana (US) and elsewhere
are subject to Roman Law, where the derivation of power is from the
state, and not from the people. You do come up with remarkably ignorant
analogies.

However, within Usenet, we almost all do have the privilege of calling
it as we see it. You do have a great deal of time on your hands and
have a lot of bile to spew. Enjoy. It must do you some good even if you
are entirely unconcerned over any collateral damage. I suppose a rich
and full fantasy life is marginally better than no life at all, but I
do pity you.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com
Yo, Pinkerton:

Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which
is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your
expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your
total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube
conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing
maliciously and pettily.

If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to
find and read the post you responded to, to type and
send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or
over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee
in their hobby

What's your excuse?

No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of
hype and false claims.

Only the most monumentally stupid and the most
monumentally arrogant people ever have such certainty in
their own judgement as you and Pinkerton exhibit,
Krueger.

Training in the hard sciences may tend to increase one's propensities in
that direction. Learning that some things definately don't work, and others
definately do has this effect on one's thinking. That which is clear becomes
obvious.

Your determination to control through your
public nastiness the activities of people even in their
harmless hobbies is sociopathic.

Control??? Surely you Jest! I just post opinions like everybody else,
yourself included. People read or not, believe or not, act or not based on
their own thinking.

I have already proved that you, Arnold Krueger, are so
keen to make yourself appear more important than you are
that you will lash out denigration to a group of people
who did you no harm before the group is even specified.

Whatver that means.

This very post above to which you are responding proves
that Stewart Pinkerton is so keen to lash out pain to
others that he spends a quarter of his working life
ruining the pleasure in their hobby of posters to a tube
conference where Pinkerton has absolutely no business,
where it has been repeatedly made clear to him that he
isn't wanted, where his attempt to prove that his way is
better (his dumb KISASS design) ended in a humilating
failure, where his lies are constantly exposed, where no
secret is made of the fact that he is despised for being
scum to a greater extent even than you are.

Next time, you might not hold your feelings back!

The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty
pathetic, as this post fragment from rec.audio.pro
illustrates:

Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may
follow?

I have no such position, so no appointment is necessary.

"Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to
believe that tubes automatically impart some kind of
magic fairy dust, so manufacturers exploit that."

So what? It's their business and their money.


Right, so when people encounter diverse opinons, they can do their business
and spend their money as those diverse opinions affect their personal
opinions or not.

As we say in the US: "It's a free country". Of course we're not totally free
in the sense of anarchism, but we do have a fair amount of lattitude.

Why is it
so disturbing to you little control freaks that people
hear something different from you?

Disturbed? I'm sitting here smiling while you are obviously, again as we say
in the US: "Dancing on the ceiling".

What has manufacturing hype to do with the DIYers on RAT?

They appear to be customers for manufactured goods such as tubes,
transformers, and other electronic parts.

How does what manufacturers do justify Pinkerton's foul
manners and destructive lunging around other people's
hobbies? Or yours, for that matter, Krueger?

There's no need to justify that which we do not do.

It is truly sick for grown men to justify their existence
(as you, Arnold Krueger, and Stewart Pinkerton,
repeatedly do, as you done again above) by the disruption
they bring to other people's innocent pleasure.

Just the facts, ma'm. ;-)

All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps
could be invested in making good sounding (SS) amps.

Who appointed you UberFuhrer of people's hi-fi?

No appointment is required for a position that I do not fill.

The time could be spent other audio projects that are
forward-looking as opposed to backward-looking.

And approved by you and the equally arid, useless,
uncultured, slimy, ignorant, crude, unmannered, loutish,
uncreative, dull, etc, Pinkerton?

There are no such persons, except in your fevered little mind, Jute or
whatever your name really is.

No doubt after months
of formfilling in quadriplicate and delays, you will
refuse to sanction even a little opamp gainclone if it is
likely to give anyone any pleasure.

Huh?

I did no such thing.

Thanks, but no
thanks. We saw your sort of control freaks in charge in
the Soviet Union already; they ground it to a halt. You
and Pinkerton are harbingers of death, not of light and
life. You two, and your trail of goosestepping
"engineers" and hangerson, are a walking, talking
nightmare to those of us who do hi-fi for pleasure.

What's wrong with doing hifi for pleasure in the context of modern
technology?

We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by
law is expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And
all the better for it.

Works for me. One of the things that is not forbidden is posting my opinions
on various newsgroups. It's comforting to know that what I do is expressly
permitted by constitution and usage.


You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger,
Pinkerton, and all the other control freak "engineers" on
a crusade. So **** off.

You seem upset Mr. Jute. Are we having a bad day? ;-)

Andre Jute said to ****-for-Brains:

The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post
fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates:

Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may follow?

Indeed. We do know some of the Krooborg's hobbies. For one, he spends most
of his waking hours inventing rationalizations for his consuming envy. The
Beast is envious of other people's material success (witness his whining
about being attacked by "millionaires"). He's also envious of others'
education, as shown by his compulsive "debating trade" hyping of his own
half-assed version of a BSEE. And when it comes to professional
accomplishments, one need only examine Turdborg's expletive-loaded attacks
on John Atkinson, Paul Bamborough, Glenn Zelniker, and Jim Johnston to see
how depraved Mr. **** is.

Even so, one might consider Krooger's conflagrations of envy to be just a
personality flaw, or perhaps a manifestation of his mental illness. To that
objection, I would counter that an even more inane hobby Mr. **** indulges
in is his crack-brained, phoney religiosity. On the one hand, he professes
to be a "Christian", but on the other, his behavior is as un-Christian as
you can get without commiting violent crimes. And what, I'd also ask, does
Krooger's devotion to superstition and flummery say about his professed
love of "science"? Actually I wouldn't ask because I already know.

Somebody recently suggested a few prescription drugs that might help
Krooger deal with his decayed mental faculties. Maybe Turdy can tell us if
he asked his doctor about them and whether he plans to get any
prescriptions that will enable him to move a little closer to the real
world.

Peter Wieck said:

the 9th and 10th amendments (the "Bill of Rights")
[snip]
You do come up with remarkably ignorant analogies.

Once again, from the top, please.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states
respectively, or to the people.

There it is, George. In writing and not in Mr. McCoy's inflamed
imagination. No sin not to know this, most Americans don't, for sure.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Wiecky whined:

Amendment IX
Amendment X
There it is, George. In writing and not in Mr. McCoy's inflamed
imagination. No sin not to know this, most Americans don't, for sure.

The Bill of Rights is not just the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's all of the
first 10, i.e. I through X. This is the second time I've quibbled with your
half-assed phrasing, and here you are, again, denying that you said what
Google shows you did say.

Could it be that the irascible and temperamental Jute is right about you?

Mr. Middius:

Mr. McCoy referred to a specific aspect of the rights of the people.
Those aspects in the AMERICAN constitution are described in the 9th and
10th amendments. There are no such words in the non-written British
constitution, of course. I have no clue as to the Irish constitution.
These rights are NOT protected in France amongst many other countries
under Roman Law.

The Bill of Rights, being amendments 1-10 go over some specifics, of
course. But the critical and continuing protections We Americans are
privileged to are far more protected by 9 and 10 than by 1-8. It is 9
and 10 that cover that critical aspect of English Law: What is not
forbidden is permitted. Which is what Mr. McCoy alluded to in his
blanket statement albeit with far too many adjectives. Sadly, in 'real
life' that statement applies to about 15% of the world's population, or
less, and not even across the English Channel.

So, don't attempt to hang your hat on 1-8, as those are *specific*
protections and of an entirely different nature than the last two. If
all that existed were 1-8, then the Federal Government would have the
right to invade privacy, legislate morality, limit movement, property
rights and various other quite personal issues as they would *not
necessarily* be protected a-priori. DO once read the US Constitution
for content. It is a fascinating document. Well, you don't read anyway,
even the words of your Idol, so go ahead and develop a few more months
of 100% attack-mutt posts. Mr. McCoy must be proud of you as you are
most useful to him.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Andre Jute wrote:

Yo, Pinkerton:

Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is
rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to
tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607
messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact
negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and
pettily.

If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read
the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070
minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other
people's glee in their hobby

What's your excuse?

Andre Jute

I doubt he has any excuse, and asking for an apology won't get us a
result.

He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to
make blankets,
and soaking wet blankets at that.

Was it 4,607 messages?

Who cares? if he'd posted 4,607,000 messages it will not change the fact
that
tube amps are here to stay because people prefer them and nothing,
abolutely nothing,
Oinkerton sqeals about will change this fact.

I cannot think of one single contribution that Oinkerton has made to this
group to further tubecraft.

What he has succeeded in doing is establish that people like him have ZERO
credibility
with regard to audio design, and his credibility was permanently
dis-established
when he had the utter supidity to promote the idea that you could build a
solid state amp with
as few parts as the 300B SET and without any NFB, at about the time you
propsed a simple 300B amp
could be had using a 300B and a single 417 driver/input tube and an OPT.
When we did allow him to use 12dB of NFB since that is about how much
there is internally within
a 300B when loaded, he still came up with ZERO worth building.

He did rattle on about some supposedly simple design, but then proceeded
to NEVER BUILD IT
OR TEST IT, and only those who persue their convictions and demonstrate to
all
the viability of their designs will ever gain my respect, or the respect
of anyone else I suspect.

Don't worry Andre, Oinkerton is a fool I can ignore so easily!
Months go by and there isn't anything he says which I feel i need to
discuss with him.

I have no wish to stifle those who would challenge pet theories expressed
here if only they would
remain scholarly and intellectual about it.

When they don't conduct themselves towards the technical issues raised
then i find there is a lot
I can ignore.

And when they are here to merely sling mud and bellittle people to make
themselves look grand
in their own eyes ( but fools in the eyes of all really intelligent ppl
here then ) then
I hope they don't mind our disdain.

Patrick Turner.

He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to
make blankets, and soaking wet blankets at that.

Patrick:

Much as I agree with you on Mr. Pinkerton being well over the edge in
his irrational reaction to Mr. McCoy, it is a bit more like him going
into rec.quiltmakers and railing against an individual attempting to
dominate the forum by demanding that all participants use only a
specific type of thread, cloth and stitch pattern. The brute fact of
the matter is that Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pinkerton richly deserve each
other and require each other in order to be fulfilled. If that were not
the case, Mr. McCoy would not start thread after thread chasing his
personal demons, and Mr. Pinkerton would ignore the entirety, much less
start threads of his own.

The latest threads have suggested strongly that neither of them is
worth a damn as a technician, neither of them is worth a damn as a
designer, and I expect both of them would be entirely lost without a
cookbook. Now, and at the same time, writing for myself, I am not a
designer (nor have I ever claimed to be), my predilections are to
repairing and upgrading of existing equipment... A LOT of understanding
of faults both initial and eventual come out of this experience, as
well as the correction thereof... permanent correction, not just
replacement of burnt parts until the next failure. So, my comments on
the techniques and designs of others are based on the results
as-reported over claims-made. I expect that most *any* one in this
venue could do a creditable job of following a cookbook-design, or even
modify-with-guidance such a design. But in the case of these two, there
is a whole bunch of smoke-and-mirrors, exaggerated claims and dubious
results.

I would go so far as to believe that Mr. McCoy might at one time have
take great pleasure from his hobby, and even have something to offer
were it not delivered from the Burning Bush and were he not to expect
us to accept it as "received wisdom". I expect that Mr. Pinkerton took
or takes no such pleasure. And apart from their mutual dislike and
various pathologies, shared and individual, both of them are
desparately unhappy individuals.

If they would both get off their bully pulpits and get on with the
enjoyment of tubes (and about anything else audio), life would be
infinitely better for them certainly. Maybe even for us, even though a
constant source of darkly amusing silliness would be removed from our
lives.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

On 24 Feb 2006 05:19:13 -0800, " wrote:

He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to
make blankets, and soaking wet blankets at that.

Patrick:

Much as I agree with you on Mr. Pinkerton being well over the edge in
his irrational reaction to Mr. McCoy, it is a bit more like him going
into rec.quiltmakers and railing against an individual attempting to
dominate the forum by demanding that all participants use only a
specific type of thread, cloth and stitch pattern. The brute fact of
the matter is that Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pinkerton richly deserve each
other and require each other in order to be fulfilled. If that were not
the case, Mr. McCoy would not start thread after thread chasing his
personal demons, and Mr. Pinkerton would ignore the entirety, much less
start threads of his own.

Hmmm A point well made. Time to stop feeding the trolls.

The latest threads have suggested strongly that neither of them is
worth a damn as a technician, neither of them is worth a damn as a
designer, and I expect both of them would be entirely lost without a
cookbook.

That's fightin' talk, pilgrim! I have no idea how you come to that
conclusion about me, but I'd be interested to debate design specifics
if you have a problem with anything I've said.

I expect that most *any* one in this
venue could do a creditable job of following a cookbook-design, or even
modify-with-guidance such a design. But in the case of these two, there
is a whole bunch of smoke-and-mirrors, exaggerated claims and dubious
results.

Never used smoke and mirrors in my life, and I've been producing
original designs (and getting paid for it) for more than 35 years.

I would go so far as to believe that Mr. McCoy might at one time have
take great pleasure from his hobby, and even have something to offer
were it not delivered from the Burning Bush and were he not to expect
us to accept it as "received wisdom". I expect that Mr. Pinkerton took
or takes no such pleasure.

Your expectation is incorrect.

And apart from their mutual dislike and
various pathologies, shared and individual, both of them are
desparately unhappy individuals.

Not me, sunbeam, I just don't suffer fools like Jute.

If they would both get off their bully pulpits and get on with the
enjoyment of tubes (and about anything else audio), life would be
infinitely better for them certainly.

Ah well, I'm afraid that my audio life would be much worse with tubes,
it's known as progress..........
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Not me, sunbeam, I just don't suffer fools like Jute.

If you stop chasing McCoy, he will have no choice but to rant in a
vacuum. Whatever your past accomplishments may have been as an
engineer, technician or designer, they are now lost in the flames and
smoke. That forces a casual observer into believing that the two of you
are cut from the same cloth and trained on the same knee.

If this is not the case, you will stop chasing your personal white
whale and get on with your life. And as this is rec.audio.tubes, you
will generally have to have some respect for the medium if you wish to
participate in a positive way. Again, writing for myself, I have a
pretty broad array of equipment that includes three separate tube amps,
three tube tuners, two tube pre-amps, and a couple of oddballs like a
multiplex decoder. Tubes are unabashedly good fun. Their action is
"visible" and there is a certain appeal somewhere between Flash Gordon
and Rube Goldberg in their use.

Would I transport a tube system to provide sound in a critical
application? Not hardly. I have solid-state amps that I can toss
against the wall, pretty much abuse in any way except soaking for that.
But can it be very relaxing to sit with the cat on my lap, reading a
good (but not very engaging) book and listening to Mozart on equipment
that is nearly as old as I am and still sounds wonderful....? you bet
it is, especially with a fire going, my wife on the other end of the
couch and a glass of single-malt beside me.

Progress is a variable taken by choice, not an absolute requirement to
live.

And, on an absolute scale, our erstwhile least controlled fulminator
here, Mr. Allison has managed to cool his jets lately and even be
helpful on occasion. So, do you wish to align with the 'dark side' and
provide Mr. McCoy with the energy he needs to live, or simply ignore
the silly little git and get on with it?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Wiecky said:

So, do you wish to align with the 'dark side' and
provide Mr. McCoy with the energy he needs to live, or simply ignore
the silly little git and get on with it?

We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't unanimous, so his jones kept
him going. Maybe you have some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on
an unmoderated group?

We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't unanimous, so his jones kept
him going. Maybe you have some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on
an unmoderated group?

Well, Steve Dinius is no longer a plague at rec.antiques.radio+phono. I
cannot write for other groups, but he did spread himself.

Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny the blood, the
tick will die. The term "freezing out" assumes active participation,
any activity requires energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore
the pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually leave, to go
somewhere else to get the energy they need to survive.

One more thing required for this to work... the impetus will not come
from another silly little git with a 100% without exception record of
attack-mutt posts going back 4 or more months. Such an individual may
well be the target, not the marksman.

Peter WIeck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
oups.com

Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny
the blood, the tick will die. The term "freezing out"
assumes active participation, any activity requires
energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore the
pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually
leave, to go somewhere else to get the energy they need
to survive.

Not true at RAO.

For example, I haven't responded to any posts by Dave Weil for a number of
years, but he still routinely attacks me here.

For example, a number of us includeing Pinkerton banded together and vowed
to not respond to any posts by Middius.We held firm for maybe over a year.
Note that Middius is still posting here quite vigorously.

Difficulties at first blush:

I.... but he still.....

A number..... is still....

Ticks feed on blood. They are pretty much indiscriminate as to whose
blood it might be. If not your blood, someone else's. So. Just let it
not be you that feeds them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
oups.com
Difficulties at first blush:

I.... but he still.....

A number..... is still....

Ticks feed on blood. They are pretty much indiscriminate
as to whose blood it might be. If not your blood, someone
else's. So. Just let it not be you that feeds them.

Ticks feed each other, and thus can live forever no matter what you
personally or even a small group of people do.

That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved.

That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved.

You don't read so well do you? If it's not your blood involved why
should you care? Writing for myself, if I am burnt in effigy and I am
entirely unaware of it, I could care less. If I am burnt in effigy and
there is no direct or indirect threat to me and my family, I might
care... for about a hummingbird heartbeat. This is USENET, not a tea
room. Individuals write and claim to do things here that they would
never do in public view, and in many cases never did anyway. They use
the keyboard to make up for their poor, lonely, spavined little lives
as they can be anything they want on the other side of the screen.

So, let these ticks suck on each other. That will leave the rest of us
able to enjoy the hobby and the parts and pieces that go with it... in
the real world. Put another way, since you won't control them, it
leaves you only with the option of controlling yourself. And if you
can't do that, you are no better than the worst.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
oups.com

That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved.

You don't read so well do you?

a little frustrated eh?

unable to take responsibility for what you just said, eh?

If it's not your blood
involved why should you care?

Because it is my blood that is involved. the ticks entertain themselves with
stories about how horrible of a person that I am.

Writing for myself, if I am
burnt in effigy and I am entirely unaware of it, I could
care less.

When a once-productive newsgroup is turned into a field of ticks, its a bit
sad.

If I am burnt in effigy and there is no direct
or indirect threat to me and my family, I might care...
for about a hummingbird heartbeat. This is USENET, not a
tea room. Individuals write and claim to do things here
that they would never do in public view, and in many
cases never did anyway. They use the keyboard to make up
for their poor, lonely, spavined little lives as they can
be anything they want on the other side of the screen.

Totally agreed. You've explained Middius to a t.

So, let these ticks suck on each other. That will leave
the rest of us able to enjoy the hobby and the parts and
pieces that go with it... in the real world.

The real world is mostly elswhere.

Put another
way, since you won't control them, it leaves you only
with the option of controlling yourself. And if you can't
do that, you are no better than the worst.

The good news is that RAO is not the only audio newsgroup. But you were
telling us how we could save the world by not feeding ticks, and that
doesn't always work. You were painting a very simplistic picture of
newsgroup pathologies.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Wiecky stamps his pointy little feet.

We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't
unanimous, so his jones kept him going. Maybe you have
some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on an
unmoderated group?

Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny
the blood, the tick will die. The term "freezing out"
assumes active participation, any activity requires
energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore the
pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually
leave, to go somewhere else to get the energy they need
to survive.

I done told you, we tried that already, but it wasn't a
unified effort.

It couldn't be, because I wasn't the problem and enough people could see
that.

The problem is you, Middius. You're completely non-productive.

Andre Jute wrote:

[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. Fortunately in
Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a
friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but
you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern
cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS,
traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the
difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all
you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit".

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:18:25 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is
always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the
truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc.

For example:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

I don't believe he has ever objected to such a view, given that it is
an expression of personal preference. In terms of what constitutes a
better amplifier - that is another matter. A good amplifier is one
which amplifies and does not screw with the signal in any other way.
In general solid state amps beat valve amps, although there are some
good valve amps which are a match for SS.

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

A possibility that is worthy of examination, although it is equally
possible that the hearing damage occurred at a later stage. Hearing
damage of some kind is more or less implied because only thus can one
explain the inability to hear all the crap that comes along with the
music from vinyl.

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

Given a high enough bit rate, quite true. I have never been able to -
and I have never known anyone else who could - distinguish a 320k MP3
from the CD original.

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. Fortunately in
Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a
friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but
you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern
cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS,
traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the
difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all
you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit".


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for
much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you
can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it.

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.


Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

I believe you are mistaken about the Pinkerton point of view - not
surprising as what you have presented here is not a summary of his
views, but of those claimed for him by his enemies. His views are
genuinely held, and reasonably presented in the face of a great deal
of stupid arrogance from a few well known sources. He does have a
rather short fuse, though, and doesn't suffer fools anything like as
long as - say - Jim Lesurf or me.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.

No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that
doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion.

You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with
me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall
you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton.
And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults
and name-calling.

The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without
****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in
the group.

Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
Andre Jute wrote:

[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped]

Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks
of nature who is always right, even when he's been proved
wrong. "Never let the truth/facts get in the way of a
good argument", etc etc.
For example:

If you can hear a difference between two
interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying",
"arrogant" or "stupid".

Or merely a dupe. However, that's actually often a consequence of
"arrogant" and "stupid".

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state,
you're a "cloth-eared idiot".

Or merely a dupe.

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've
"suffered severe hearing damage at birth".

Or merely a dupe.

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or
uncompressed WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

On the best of all days and with high bitrates that can be true.

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

Oh come on - that's the essence of any disagreement. How many times do you
see people arguing that they both agree with each other?

Fortunately in Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from
that camp, although I do have a friend who's a close
second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but you're
wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi,
apparently modern cars are "too powerful", and have "too
many safety devices fitted" (ABS, traction control,
stability control, the stuff that often makes the
difference between a near miss and a crash). And
according to him, all you need to do to be safe is "stay
within the speed limit".

Depends on how you interpret "spped limit". I interpret that as "driving in
accordance with the conditions".

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994
Astra diesel estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm
in a 3-year-old A4 Quattro... which could stop from 60mph
faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Really good brakes have been the undoing of many an over-confident driver. I
have good reason to believe that there are a wide range of brakes that stop
in about the same distance on ice or wet pavement, sophisiticated braking
technologies notwithstanding.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's
almost a less extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Good job of misrepresenting Mr. Pinkerton - it seems like today is "beat up
an objectivist" day around here.

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
Don Pearce wrote:

I think you will find he has always presented - quite
correctly - an alternative option. You are mistaken.
There are certain individuals for whom he has moved
towards the "liar" option, with justification.

No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts
something that doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of
opinion.

Something that no subjectivist has ever done, ever. ;-)

You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You
may disagree with me that cables make a difference to the
sound, for example (as I recall you did), but you do so
in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton. And, most
importantly, you do it without resorting to personal
insults and name-calling.

In many cases you may be looking at just the recent activity related to a
long-running controversy. If the person Pinkerton is addressing isn't
insulting him this week, that's not to say that they didn't insult him last
week.

The end result of which is that you can have a sensible
debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an
unknown number of lurkers) in the group.

Not at all. Just about any time I want to I can repeatedly challenge a
subjectivist in a perfectly civil way, no abuse, name-calling or anything
like it, and just watch time pass and postings pass until the explosion of
abuse. I call it "The prerequisite subjectivist personal attack". ;-)

Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from.

What we've all learned is that the most extreme behavior around here has
come from the so-called subjectivst side of the debate.

"Arny Krueger" said:


If you can hear a difference between two
interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying",
"arrogant" or "stupid".


Or merely a dupe. However, that's actually often a consequence of
"arrogant" and "stupid".


Thanks for keeping 3 newsgroups civil and on-topic again, Arny.

Are you really sure that Middius made you do it this time, and that
you're not part of the problem? ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:15:27 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:58:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

snip

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for
much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you
can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it.


Funny you should use that as an example because, according to the
story, there was once at least one state legislature in the good ole
USA that did just that: decided pi was ridiculous and passed a law
defining it shall be 3.

If I remember correctly they immediately reversed themselves after the
bill's sponsor, having made whatever point it was, explained you can't
do that.

It was Indiana, home of the Hoosiers:

From 'The Straight Dope'

"Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it
did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen
county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of
Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and
amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some
accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2,
as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able
to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend
the rest of your natural life in Indiana.

Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the
speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record
apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number.
"Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails
to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading
in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead,
mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the
following formulae:

(1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4
to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2

(2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4
the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we
see that pi must be equal to 4.

(3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a
segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi
equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23.

There may have been other values for pi as well; the bill was so
confusingly written that it's impossible to tell exactly what Goodwin
was getting at. Mathematician David Singmaster says he found six
different values in the bill, plus three more in Goodwin's other
writings and comments, for a total of nine.

Lord knows how all this was supposedly to clarify pi or anything else,
but as we shall see, they do things a little differently in Indiana.
Bill #246 was initially sent to the Committee on Swamp Lands. The
committee deliberated gravely on the question, decided it was not the
appropriate body to consider such a measure and turned it over to the
Committee on Education. The latter committee gave the bill a "pass"
recommendation and sent it on to the full House, which approved it
unanimously, 67 to 0.

In the state Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on
Temperance. (One begins to suspect it was silly season in the Indiana
legislature at the time.) It passed first reading, but that's as far
as it got. According to The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and
Interesting Numbers, the bill "was held up before a second reading due
to the intervention of C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics [at
Purdue] who happened to be passing through." Waldo, describing the
experience later, wrote, "A member [of the legislature] then showed
the writer [i.e., Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him
if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He
declined the courtesy with thanks, remarking that he was acquainted
with as many crazy people as he cared to know."

The bill was postponed indefinitely and died a quiet death. According
to a local newspaper, however, "Although the bill was not acted on
favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was
anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who
spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of
the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for
legislation."

As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to
confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle."
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:59:59 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an
alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals
for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification.

No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that
doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion.

Not at all - only when they attempt to support their bull**** with
lies and ignorance. You are of course a perfect case in point, which
is no doubt why you've now crawled out of the woodwork.

You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with
me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall
you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton.
And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults
and name-calling.

The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without
****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in
the group.

I don't worry about ****ing off stupid, lying, ******s like you. Clear
enough for you?

Don's right, Jim has the patience of a saint, and Don's a pretty
laid-back guy himself. I'm of a more combative nature. Always nice to
have a cross-section of personalities in any discussion forum.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:18:25 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables,
you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid".

In your case, the evidence is overwhelming for all three.......

If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a
"cloth-eared idiot".

Not something I've ever said, but when did you ever let the facts get
in the way of a good story?

If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe
hearing damage at birth".

Again, you'd have to define 'better'.

Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed
WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc).

Indeed it can be, given an adequate bitrate. AAC is even better.

Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade.

In your case, invariably true.

Fortunately in
Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a
friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but
you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern
cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS,
traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the
difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all
you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit".

Clearly, you associate with idiots. Why am I not surprised?

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:15:27 -0600, flipper wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:58:13 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

snip

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for
much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you
can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it.


Funny you should use that as an example because, according to the
story, there was once at least one state legislature in the good ole
USA that did just that: decided pi was ridiculous and passed a law
defining it shall be 3.

If I remember correctly they immediately reversed themselves after the
bill's sponsor, having made whatever point it was, explained you can't
do that.

It was Indiana, home of the Hoosiers:

From 'The Straight Dope'

"Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it
did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen
county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of
Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and
amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some
accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2,
as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able
to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend
the rest of your natural life in Indiana.

Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the
speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record
apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number.
"Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails
to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading
in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead,
mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the
following formulae:

(1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4
to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2

(2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4
the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we
see that pi must be equal to 4.

(3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a
segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi
equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23.

There may have been other values for pi as well; the bill was so
confusingly written that it's impossible to tell exactly what Goodwin
was getting at. Mathematician David Singmaster says he found six
different values in the bill, plus three more in Goodwin's other
writings and comments, for a total of nine.

Lord knows how all this was supposedly to clarify pi or anything else,
but as we shall see, they do things a little differently in Indiana.
Bill #246 was initially sent to the Committee on Swamp Lands. The
committee deliberated gravely on the question, decided it was not the
appropriate body to consider such a measure and turned it over to the
Committee on Education. The latter committee gave the bill a "pass"
recommendation and sent it on to the full House, which approved it
unanimously, 67 to 0.

In the state Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on
Temperance. (One begins to suspect it was silly season in the Indiana
legislature at the time.) It passed first reading, but that's as far
as it got. According to The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and
Interesting Numbers, the bill "was held up before a second reading due
to the intervention of C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics [at
Purdue] who happened to be passing through." Waldo, describing the
experience later, wrote, "A member [of the legislature] then showed
the writer [i.e., Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him
if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He
declined the courtesy with thanks, remarking that he was acquainted
with as many crazy people as he cared to know."

The bill was postponed indefinitely and died a quiet death. According
to a local newspaper, however, "Although the bill was not acted on
favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was
anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who
spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of
the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for
legislation."

As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to
confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle."

Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:18:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


The end result of which is that you can have a sensible
debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an
unknown number of lurkers) in the group.

Not at all. Just about any time I want to I can repeatedly challenge a
subjectivist in a perfectly civil way, no abuse, name-calling or anything
like it, and just watch time pass and postings pass until the explosion of
abuse. I call it "The prerequisite subjectivist personal attack". ;-)

It's just a shame that even though you *can*, you *don't*. Anyone can
look at your exchanges with Jenn to see your abuse pattern. It's a
classic case study in Kruegerkultur.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

You need to get yourself a Cobra.

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

You need to get yourself a Cobra.

It would fall apart. You need a Ford Falcon to cope with the rough roads of
Leicestershire.

--
Eiron

There's something scary about stupidity made coherent - Tom Stoppard.

In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Harry Lavo" wrote:


Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

Let's call the whole thing off .....

Good one! :-)

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:04:36 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel
estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4
Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph.

Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less
extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view.

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

You need to get yourself a Cobra.

A guy in the next village has one, a 'girly' 289 that he dare not take
out when the roads are wet! I may have 'only' 250 galloping horses
under my bonnet, but I can apply all of them to wet or muddy
tarmac........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:05:26 -0500, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

about legislating the value of PI

As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to
confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle."

Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe.

I see that Harry is as fact-challenged as ever - it was potato(e).

Tomato is an urban myth, just like the supposed superiority of
long-term monadic testing in audio ....
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 20:01:32 +0000, Eiron wrote:

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic
driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds.

You need to get yourself a Cobra.

It would fall apart. You need a Ford Falcon to cope with the rough roads of
Leicestershire.

Ain't that the truth! :-(

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering