Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Firearms was Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war
of
Independance?

not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the
rage.
Come
in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the
bison

**Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during
the
Civil
War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of
sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and
it's
manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so complete
destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the
hands
of
the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small
part,
for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time in
US
history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans
seem
to
think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals,
despite
the
very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right.

**Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated
militia.."

Separate clause.

**The meaning is clear enough.


Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."


**As part of a well regulated militia.


The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence.
"Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the convenience
of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the
State is why explicit protections are stated.


**And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The Patriot
Act.


The people ---- which universally means the people both individually
and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to
assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects.


**With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course.



The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
militia" as part of the rights to gun ownership.


It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights declaration is
explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."


**I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions of the
2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is clear
that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed militia.



American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment.

Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read
English, such as "the right of the people..."

**And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part.


Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood.


**I just deal in facts.



They also understand the origin of the right, common law precedents,
the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government
established by the Constitution, and U.S. history.

**They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of the
law
by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers.


You are not 'the law'


**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
behalf of the gun pushers.



They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.

Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text had
no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008.

**Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to reflect
the
reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that
Amendment,
given the situation which exists today:


What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
intended.


**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people. It would
seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what is
truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.


* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.


And it wasn't in 1789 either.


**It was still under threat. The US military was in it's infancy. The
British armed forces were substantial.


* Savage natives no longer present a threat.


Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self
defense?


**It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force, along
with an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither
existed several hundred years ago.

Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?


**People are free to defend themselves. I do, however, challenge the
delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st Century.
In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each year,
whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs). It
would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around 10,000
must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull over.


* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded.


As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well.


**Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and funded
back then.


In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the militia,
arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies
exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for
'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already
provided for.

In
fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable of
obliterating every armed force on the planet.


Good.


**Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is.


* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.


Your choice.


**Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority of
Americans.


Freedom means someone else has their choice.


**Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed nations have
the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they are
more than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is.
That is a nice freedom to have.


* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of
seconds.


Good.

* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to
those
available several hundred years ago.


Good.

* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.


They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily available',
virtually everyone had them.


**They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are. Nor
as reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more
importantly, no where near as deadly.



Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities of
life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully provided a
method for this to be accomplished.


That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of B.S.
about what the existing text means.


**The existing text seems clear enough to most people. They refer to a
"well regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys
wandering around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape.

Trevor Wilson


Discussion a bit off topic don't you think?



  #42   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Guns, guns and more guns was Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
Mpffffff... Here is the 2nd Amendment in full, as written:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.

What with three commas, it may be parsed in any number of ways. Keep
in mind also that at the time, "arms" consisted of single-shot muzzle
loading pistols, rifles and cannon, the very best shooters could get
off perhaps three shots in a minute (fewer if accuracy counted). And,
as it happened, "people" consisted of male property owners... all of
whom were technically eligble for the "Militia".

Actually, it is my personal belief as a gun owner that any individual
ought to be able to own any weapon whatsoever right up to tactical
nukes - provided that they insure them appropriately. Much as about
any individual may own about any vehicle they choose - as long a they
insure it appropriately. I own several weapons (one of which does
happen to be a functional muzzle-loader), all properly insured, and
all of them carrying a policy that covers me should they be stolen and
used in a crime. A few bucks a year additional on our property
insurance but it does give peace-of-mind.

But about every Swiss household has a fully automatic weapon in it.
Canada has a higher per-capita ownership level (fewer guns per capita,
but more individuals owning them), they are simply less prone to using
them badly, it seems. And Americans (the home of the Hummer) just like
doing things in a big way, even if that big-way is eventually just
stupid.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


Exactly how does your insurance help me if you or someone else uses your
gun to kill me?


Anyone wanna midday meet for a shoot out at the city limits?



  #43   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Mark[_4_] Mark[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-
regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who
the 10,000 dead are.


And a large number of those 10,000 are American school children, shot in
school, buy one of their classmates who had access to a sub-machine gun.


A slight exaggeration, even in the US, sub machine guns are hard to come
by. Semi automatic pistols however are not in many states (gun laws in the
US are state matters and there is a huge difference between states).


Um, dude.. didn't you miss the point just a tiny, tiny little bit?

Do you really think it makes any difference to any one of those HUNDREDS of
dead school children, if the child killer had to pull the trigger more than
once to kill them?

LOL, are you worried about the high incidence of RSI in the trigger finger
of American school children using Glock 17's?

Why don't you get real! ..but then you wouldn't have your toys to play with,
would you?

the deaths however are accidents and not a few suicides too.


Yeah, well sure.

If I had to grow up in Yank land, I'd shoot my ****ing brains first.


I did once hire a Thompson sub machine gun at a range in Las Vagas, but I
wasn't allowed to handle it other than to actually fire it down the range.
Very cathartic actually filling a large sheet of paper with holes with
bits of brass flying everywhere. Beats gambling any day.


Toy.


Keith



  #44   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
WindsorFox[_3_] WindsorFox[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 240
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
You are not 'the law'


**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on behalf
of the gun pushers.


They protect our Constitutional right against people who would
remove them, like people from other countries who don't really understand.


What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
intended.


**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people. It would
seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what is
truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.


By ultra Liberal Socialists who would have total power over all.
Russia comes to mind.


Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?


**People are free to defend themselves. I do, however, challenge the
delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st Century.
In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each year,
whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs). It
would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around 10,000
must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull over.


That's the idiotic, blind Liberal POV. How is it that all the
pounding can not seem to make you understand that by removing the guns
from those 200 lawful owners who protected themselves is *NOT* going to
stop the 10,000 murdered by criminals? (I doubt those numbers, but the
point still works.) If anything by making guns illegal for lawful owners
then only the criminals will have them and the 10,000 will rise. By
making laws against guns you will *NOT* stop a criminal from owning a
gun, it's already illegal and they ignore the law. That's why we call
them criminals.


--


"I wonder how much deeper the ocean would be without sponges?" -- TazAMD
  #45   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Road Deaths was Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Alan Rutlidge wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Peter Wieck wrote:

I would bet that a significant segment of the British population simply
does not own a motor-vehicle.


Well, from what I found, there are 25 million cars registered here and 136
million in the USA

That's 41% vs 45%. Hardly a huge difference.



Don't you guys think the discussion is just a tad off topic?


Far better than Joot's insane ramblings about his ego.

Graham




  #46   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mar 19, 3:33 am, Patrick Turner wrote:
Iain Churches wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Patrick Turner wrote:


But how many Americans die on the roads each year?


About 45,000. A shocking rate. It's a little over 1/3 the US rate per head
of
population here in the UK.


I have never driven in the US, but even in various
countries in the EU the difference in the driving
standard is quite marked.


Despite the high level of traffic density, the
British are still very polite, and very flexible
road users. Even though they still insist on
driving on the wrong side, at speeds measured
in mph, I enjoy driving there very much.


Iain


Tehran is where its really exciting to drive they say.

The death rate from motor accidents is one of the highest in the world.

They put their trust in Allah, and as you should know Allah akbah!

Its the kinda place I would not be seen dead on a bicycle.

India and China are getting more wheels, and as they do the hospitals
are filling up....

Patrick Turner.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Patrick:

I have driven in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A few small points: The term is
"in'sh'Allah" meaning "God Willing". I will make this left turn from
the right hand lane in'sh'Allah. I will get through this intersection
against traffic in'sh'Allah - you get the picture. I would put driving
in Riyadh the equal of anywhere in the world based on the white-
knuckle factor. The UAE, Jordan, and Bahrain are distant seconds,
Istanbul is a piece-of-cake. New York City is a pleasure by
comparison.

The in-city highway speed limit is 120kph (75mph for those still on
the old currency). The most popular vehicle in Saudi is the US-made
Chevy Suburban a massive SUV. Women are not permitted to drive.
Traffic signals and stop signs are optional, lane markers are
meaningless. Merge or die. Desert highway speeds are catch-me-if-you-
can.

One needs to put American driving in perspective as well. All of
Europe could fit inside the US east of the Mississippi. Picking one
example, my state:

" The total area of Pennsylvania is 45,308 sq mi (117,348 sq km), of
which land occupies 44,888 sq mi (116,260 sq km) and inland water 420
sq mi (1,088 sq km). The state extends 307 mi (494 km) E-W and 169 mi
(272 km) N-S. Pennsylvania is rectangular in shape, except for an
irregular side on the E and a break in the even boundary in the NW
where the line extends N-E for about 50 mi (80 km) along the shore of
Lake Erie. "

This is about half the size of England, and is the 33rd largest state
of 50.

http://www.wisegeek.com/how-big-are-...in-america.htm gives
you more detail.

Accordingly, Americans who do not live in the very few cities where
personal cars are truly a luxury (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia
(barely), Washington DC and a handful of others) drive A LOT.
Typically, I drive ~24,000 miles a year (38,400km), of which 2/3 is
business. My wife drives about 10,000 (16,000km) miles per year, very
little on business. And by US standards we are very conservative in
our habits.

So, if accidents are a function of being in harm's way, and measured
in per-mile-driven rather than per-capita, I would posit that the US
accident rate is rather low by comparison. Right now, per NHTSA (as of
2002) fatalities + reportable injuries are running under 2/100,000
(160,000km) miles driven and trending down. Similarly in England, but
their rate (also 2002) is just over 2, close-but-below France and so
forth. Most of the rest of the world is several orders-of-magnitude
higher.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA


I think Oz is nearly as large as all the US in area, but we have many
fewer states,
and only about 21 million ppl, so imagine Carlifornia spread out
over all of the US....
Some cattle stations ( ranches to you ) are, or were the size of all
England.
The car is the main form of transport.
Most ppl drive the sort of distances you mention above.
I have a home based business where ppl bring gear to me for repairs, so
I drive only maybe 5,000km per annum.
I ride about 7,000km pa on the bicycle.
I should be very dead.

I don't know our rate of fats+injs per 160,000km.

But it was far higher in the old days when policing was very poor,
seat belts and motorcycle helemts were not compulsory, and drink driving
was extremely common before random breath testing came in, and roads
were bleedin awful.
Here in Canberra we have mobile vans fitted with radar, and they move
around every 1/2 hour.
One never knows when you'll get caught speeding.

Before the vans came in, speed was death defying everywhere.
But when everyone realised they'd get caught sooner rather than later or
never,
the whole road culture changed and its a LOT safer for everyone here,
including for me when I am out on the bicycle.

But there is still a too large number of ppl here with ruined lives due
to
motoring.

Gun deaths are low here, and I am happy to live here
and don't wanna move to the US.

And I sure don't want to move to the ME, or South Africa.

Patrick Turner.
  #47   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Mark[_4_] Mark[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.

Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.

It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK MORONS!!!


There...now I feel better.

"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Mark" wrote in message
...

At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-
regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who
the 10,000 dead are.


And a large number of those 10,000 are American school children, shot in
school, buy one of their classmates who had access to a sub-machine gun.


A slight exaggeration, even in the US, sub machine guns are hard to come
by. Semi automatic pistols however are not in many states (gun laws in the
US are state matters and there is a huge difference between states). A lot
of the deaths however are accidents and not a few suicides too.

I did once hire a Thompson sub machine gun at a range in Las Vagas, but I
wasn't allowed to handle it other than to actually fire it down the range.
Very cathartic actually filling a large sheet of paper with holes with
bits of brass flying everywhere. Beats gambling any day.

Keith



  #48   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 1:03 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message



Rifle regiments? With repeaters?


No. Single shot. The British army rifle started out as a
version of the venerable Brown Bess musket with a rifled
barrel introduced about 1830.

There had been several British Army rifles before this
dating from as early as 1776 (Ferguson) Then came
the Baker, and Brunswick.

By 1851 the British Army Ordnance factory at Enfield
was producing the Enfield Rifle.


During the American Revolution, the British ran into problems with the
American "amateur" soldiers. First they mostly had rifles vs. smooth-
bores, second they mostly were ex-hunters and actually aimed. There
are some descriptions of the charges at Breeds Hill (AKA "the Battle
of Bunker Hill) where the trees and branches above the battlefield on
the revolutionary side were shredded as most of the shots from the
British went over the heads of the entrenched Americans. Also,
Americans often used "buck and ball" meaning typically four pieces of
buckshot per ball. A wounded soldier took two healthy ones to carry
him off the field. A tactic that is still used today, shoot to wound
or AP mines designed to damage, not kill. Nothing new under the sun.


Infantry tactics were changing fast, and the British were unused to
facing small groups of fast moving skirmishers. The traditional British
square, three deep, which had been used so successfully against
Napoleon's infantry and heavy cavalry also, was only practical in
set-piece engagements.

I will say that shooting black powder is a blast (pun intended). The
significant delay between the hammer release and the *BANG* together
with a 9 pound piece makes aiming a trip.


Yes I have fired black powder too.

At one stage, I was set on a military career. My grandfather,
father and brother had all served as officers in the British Army.
I was interested in military tactics and history. Did you know
that it was exceedingly difficult to make a cavalry horse charge
an infantry square? They knew instinctively what would happen.
Maybe it was the bayonets glistening in the sunlight?

But what has all this to do with Tube/Valve amp Noise???

Cheers
Iain




  #49   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Iain Churches wrote:

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 1:03 pm, "Iain Churches" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Rifle regiments? With repeaters?


No. Single shot. The British army rifle started out as a
version of the venerable Brown Bess musket with a rifled
barrel introduced about 1830.

There had been several British Army rifles before this
dating from as early as 1776 (Ferguson) Then came
the Baker, and Brunswick.

By 1851 the British Army Ordnance factory at Enfield
was producing the Enfield Rifle.

During the American Revolution, the British ran into problems with the
American "amateur" soldiers. First they mostly had rifles vs. smooth-
bores, second they mostly were ex-hunters and actually aimed. There
are some descriptions of the charges at Breeds Hill (AKA "the Battle
of Bunker Hill) where the trees and branches above the battlefield on
the revolutionary side were shredded as most of the shots from the
British went over the heads of the entrenched Americans. Also,
Americans often used "buck and ball" meaning typically four pieces of
buckshot per ball. A wounded soldier took two healthy ones to carry
him off the field. A tactic that is still used today, shoot to wound
or AP mines designed to damage, not kill. Nothing new under the sun.


Infantry tactics were changing fast, and the British were unused to
facing small groups of fast moving skirmishers. The traditional British
square, three deep, which had been used so successfully against
Napoleon's infantry and heavy cavalry also, was only practical in
set-piece engagements.

I will say that shooting black powder is a blast (pun intended). The
significant delay between the hammer release and the *BANG* together
with a 9 pound piece makes aiming a trip.


Yes I have fired black powder too.

At one stage, I was set on a military career. My grandfather,
father and brother had all served as officers in the British Army.
I was interested in military tactics and history. Did you know
that it was exceedingly difficult to make a cavalry horse charge
an infantry square? They knew instinctively what would happen.
Maybe it was the bayonets glistening in the sunlight?

But what has all this to do with Tube/Valve amp Noise???


You too have to be very certain of an outcome before
charging into the underside of a tube amp chassis.

Patrick Turner.

Cheers
Iain

  #50   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Alan Rutlidge Alan Rutlidge is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 84
Default Road Deaths was Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Alan Rutlidge wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Peter Wieck wrote:

I would bet that a significant segment of the British population
simply
does not own a motor-vehicle.

Well, from what I found, there are 25 million cars registered here and
136
million in the USA

That's 41% vs 45%. Hardly a huge difference.



Don't you guys think the discussion is just a tad off topic?


Far better than Joot's insane ramblings about his ego.

Graham

Hmmmm.... maybe a car might knock him off his bicycle?




  #51   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

On Mar 19, 6:47*pm, "keithr" wrote:

Exactly how does your insurance help me if you or someone else uses your gun
to kill me?


You would go out with a nice funeral - and not knowing off-hand what
you do for a living, possibly your family would be better off
financially.

Flipness aside, part of the insurance requirements includes meaningful
locks and separate ammuntion storage. And no, I do not keep hand-guns
other than a decorative but functional very vintage black powder
revolver. The only reasonable home defense weapon is a shotgun - which
has a certain amount of terror-factor as well as greatly reduced
potential for collateral damage. Makes a good club too.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

  #52   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



flipper wrote:

People do killing, not inanimate objects.


Guns make it FAR easier and less 'messy'.

Try strangling someone or knifing them to death as opposed to shooting them.


Graham

  #53   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


Iain Churches wrote:

At one stage, I was set on a military career. My grandfather,
father and brother had all served as officers in the British Army.
I was interested in military tactics and history. Did you know
that it was exceedingly difficult to make a cavalry horse charge
an infantry square? They knew instinctively what would happen.
Maybe it was the bayonets glistening in the sunlight?

But what has all this to do with Tube/Valve amp Noise???


You too have to be very certain of an outcome before
charging into the underside of a tube amp chassis.



Especially a stainless steel one, glinting in the sunlight.
I just knew there would be a connection if we looked
hard enough:-)

Iain



  #54   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
Peter Wieck Peter Wieck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,418
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

On Mar 20, 3:58*am, "Iain Churches" wrote:

But what has all this to do with Tube/Valve amp Noise???


I have found that a gunshot is extremely difficult to reproduce. The
spectrum is roughly 10Hz - 40kHz, with low caliber rifles being more
towards the high end, and large caliber pistols or shotguns being
somewhat more towards the low end. Further, supersonic projectiles add
yet more "color" to the reports. The entirety lasts about 25ms but
depends on several factors, a very brief moment.

So, if you can get a combination of microphone, recording medium,
amplifier and speaker that can do this with some accuracy, that is no
small thing.

Further to this, anyone exposed to a variety of gunshots will never be
fooled by a backfire, fire-cracker or similar devices. Even blank
rounds sound quite different than real shots for a variety of fairly
obvious reasons. There are exceptions, of course - sub-sonic rounds is
one of them.

So, there is some link, however remote.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA
  #55   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
John Byrns John Byrns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,441
Default What is the NRA? (was: Tube/Valve Amp Noise)

In article ,
"Trevor Wilson" wrote:

**Of course the rest of the world (and a handful of thinking Americans) can
see how the NRA manipulates the political system and the minds of the
majority of Americans into thinking that sane gun control is a bad thing.
They fail to note the outstanding success of recent gun controls here in
Australia, however. The really sad thing, is that the NRA was once a rather
proud and noble organisation, which actually was helpful in forcing
political change in the US in the first half of last Century. Sometime in
the 1960s, however, their purpose was subverted by gun and ammunition
manufacturers for a darker purpose. Profit.


So what is this "NRA" you speak of? As far as I know it was one of
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal agencies, the "National
Recovery Administration", which was charged with implementing monetary
inflation and a planned economy in the US. What is the connection
between the NRA and guns? Here is a link to the emblem of the agency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NewDealNRA.jpg


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/


  #56   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



flipper wrote:

On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:28:26 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:12:54 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



flipper wrote:

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:27:10 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:



Trevor Wilson wrote:

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


SNIP

More about noise and its causes is in RDH4, and because j-fets were not
invented in 1953
when RDH4 was being written, I suggest interested ppl search on the net
and read many books to put themselves
in touch with what makes a quiet preamp.

**Thanks for all that, Patrick. As always, very interesting. Just a minor
nit-pick though. FETs have actually been around for a long time. A very long
time. Here's a few patent references:

http://v3.espacenet.com/origdoc?DB=E...d3915900a7771e

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=GB439457

Of course, neither device was commercially available. Imagine if people had
paid attention to this technology back in the 1930s. Having said all that,
practical FETs did not arrive until around 1958. Long after RDH4 was
written.

It has been said by some folks that had someone been able to make a
reliable and
useful and saleable j-fet or mosfet devices before the germanium
transistor was
invented then nobody would have bothered with germanium.

The operative phrase is "had someone been able to make (it)"

Germanium transistors were rather awful creatures and every real tubeman
laughed at them.

At the time, germanium was the only crystalline semiconductor material
that could be made pure enough to work

Then came the silicon variety, and nobody laughed any more, they cried
instead.

Everybody had known that silicon would be a better material but it was
Texas Instruments discovering a way to make silicon pure enough that
made them possible.

People way underestimate, like generally ignore, the contribution of
materials and manufacturing technology to a 'great idea'.

The consecutive discoveries only became important when there was an
application,

There is seldom a 'shortage' of applications. The problem is usually
in being able to make whatever it is.

For example, almost all of the automobile's mechanical devices we
consider 'modern' were tried within a decade or two of the
automobile's invention. But 'automatic transmissions' made with
leather belts don't last very long and turbochargers made with the
crude metallurgy of the day burned up, not to mention the problem of
how you keep the heads and seals on the block with that much power in
the cylinder.

Same kind of problem with the gasoline engine itself. People thought
it would be a good idea but no one could make cylinders and pistons
accurate enough to contain the explosive force and the steam engine's
solution of leather seals just didn't cut it.

and now developments spur applications, and applications spur
development,
and as a species we have learnt to develop many things just for the heck
of it because a
good use will come along soon enough and money can be made.

The reason people 'make money' is because other people find their
idea/invention useful. This is called a 'good thing'.

And its called a good thing even when the result is bloody misery for
many and only good
for a few, like the invention of the atomic bomb.

The 'atom bomb' is only one incarnation of particle physics that also
includes everything from x-ray machines to cancer radiation therapy to
nuclear power generation.


Think of the "better" purposes that the expenses wasted on arms world
wide could have been
spent on.

Like the 'better purpose' of being enslaved? Because the Hitlers,
Tojos, Stalins, Ho Chi Minhs and Maos of the world think you even
sillier than I do.


Hang on, the western allies were always able to outspend and out bomb
the nazis or nationalists without an A bomb.


As usual you pull switcheros. You said "expenses wasted on arms."
That's 'everything', pal.

Did anyone seriously consider stopping Mao?


Who are you to ask, Mr, "Arms are a waste?"


Arms spending is a waste, simply because its productivity down the
drain.

War is waste, destroying cities and rebuilding them is waste.

Nuclear war would be a monumental waste.

The more time money and effort spent on arms and wars means
a lower standard of living for those spending the money.

And what immense sums have been spent with so little to show for it.

Iraq is the relevant case of GROSS WASTE, 3 trillions so far,
of YOUR money.



He killed about 70 million of his own countries ppl and what did we do
to stop him?


The U.S. tried backing Chiang Kai-shek but wasn't prepared to segue
straight from WWII into WWIII with the Soviet Union.

I get the feeling the western leaders were happy to see a Chinese leader
reducing China's ""threat"" by reducing its population murderously.


Oh, of course you do and we can always count on you to invent the most
heinous motives to everyone.. no matter how patently absurd it is.


Absurd, yeah, but that's what the world is.
Its absurd, in 1,001 ways.

Plenty of people would like to see every muslim dead, and every chinese
dead.

That'd leave more world for us to enjoy.

Ppl don't SAY **** like that, but its in their dark subconsious
thoughts.
And when the oil runs real low and greenhouse looks impossible to fix,
then the dark side comes up front and a global war could very easily
happen.



China was not a 'threat' and, in fact, we shed a fair amount of blood
aiding China in WWII, till Stalin's puppet loon you claim we were
'happy to see' took power. And a damn good case could be made we ended
up in WWII as a result of refusing to provide supplies for Japan's
ongoing rape of China.


We helped Stalin beat the Germans, and then by 1955,
Germany was back to making more steel than the UK.

Winners become losers, allies become enemies, oh what fun were
having.....



Anyway, atomic war knowhow was inevitable.


Of course it was.

Some things very unpleasant wait in the closits of un-utilised ideas,
and
then suddenly someone works it out and the closit door is opened;
if not some defecting German boffins in the 30s and 40s, then
most certainly by someone else, maybe Russians, Chinese if not the
Russians,
and so on.

So we have this silly scene where trillions are spent by the tribes on
sharpening their spears
but nobody is game to use them.


So your 'complaint' is there aren't more wars to play with the new
toys, eh?


I'm being cynical.

I'd much prefer no large war happens.

The US might loose.

In the longer term, say over the next 50 years,
I reckon the US power will decline like the UK power after WW2.

Don't ask me where we might be heading then. I'll be dead.



An invention is what man makes of it but 'it', the invention, is
neither immoral or moral.


So is invention amoral?


Is a rock "amoral?"

Usually good uses are defined as being initially useful to the military,
so its all a sham anyway.....

There are infinitely more things invented for peaceful purposes, such
as Franklin's lightning rod to prevent house fires, the steam engine
for pumping water out of mines, the steamboat for passenger and
freight service, the telephone coming from Bell's work with the deaf,
the vacuum tube triode for telephone repeater service, and the
transistor coming from a search for a better telephone 'relay' switch.

Wars hustled the whole inventionality along at a great rate of knots,
no?

Inventions don't 'stop' during a war but that doesn't alter the fact
that infinitely more are done outside of war.


Gee I thought the US became very inventive in war years....


What is it about A B that you don't get?


What is it about M N that you don't get?

This is off topic BS, and I don't care what argument you make.

There ain't no winners, losers. Everyone has a different idea
or perception, and I can't and won't be serious about what I cannot
control or affect in any way.



The US was the only country who had a rising standard of living during
WW2.


I don't know how you come up with that but even if it's true what's
the point?


War's been good for the US.

WW2 finally coaxed the US economy out of the lingering doldrums after
the depression.

Right now though, The Iraq fiasco is draining the US economy.

Not by a huge amount, but certainly it is crook.

No win in sight.


You expect the U.S. to feel 'guilty for being incredibly
productive? Or are we to feel guilty because Germany was closer to
England than North America so they had a better shot at bombing it to
hell and back?


Probably Robert McNamara could not feel guilty
about obliterating japanese cities and burning millions alive.

Back then guilt wasn't publically felt. People were hardened.

But could anyone propose that the US now carpet bombs all of Iraq?
But killing vast numbers of unarmed ppl was the style of the allies in
WW2.
Hitler started it of course, and we just replied in kind and then some.

But now nukes are involved, the scale of destruction is so much greater,
and if the US lost 50 cities, and took out 500 from around the globe,
then all economies would collapse for awhile, and its all a monumental
waste.

The Vietnam war was a waste. Oz lost 500 men, and for what?

Should have let em turn as red as they ever wanted to.

No problems. Then when the US gets its arse kicked by barefoot gooks in
pyjamas
they get all spiteful and won't deal with the winners, nor pay the
innocents for compensation for the agent orange and landmines.

The US has now sown a lot of depleted urnaium all around the ME.

This will blossom into a terrible helth problem in years to come.

I sure know why the US is hated so well in many places.

Its also loved in a few places.

Not many though.

I used to get Beyshlag resistors for 10c each from an Oz disributer.
Along comes some ****ing yank company and buys out the distributor,
and no more small quantities of R. ****ing Beyshlag gets bought out,
and the resistor price rises 400% in a year.

Greed rules, OK!!

I won't eat in McDonald's restaurants. Garbage food it is.


This was efficient business at work for Mr and Mrs Worker.
and the US became rather High and Mighty as a result.


The 'high and mighty" U.S. you despise so much is who insisted the
Allies defend Australia when Churchill said it wasn't strategic nor
worth the effort.


The US business interest in Oz was very high. The US saw that of course
Oz had to be saved. Oz would bring huge profits to the US after the war.

Churchill was up to his neck in one damn thing after another.

We just kicked out the guy who took us into Iraq.

We'd like to be really independant, and not hang off the US coat tails,
and not be fed lies and BS as reasons to justify wars of fortune,
which is what Iraq is all about; its about stealing oil.

Gunboat diplomacy with a few gunshots.



There is good and bad involved in this process and this isn't the group
where I would want to discuss it all in detail.


I didn't bring it up, you did.


But your pedling your view anyway, and I find I can't swallow it.




Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war of
Independance?

I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of 'southern' comment
or just have your American wars mixed up.

The 'American war of Independence was circa 1776. The Henry repeating
rifle was circa 1860.


The American Civil war is what I was talking about.

If you're a Northerner, the conflict beginning in 1861 was the
(American) "Civil War." If you're a hard core Southerner it was the
"War of Northern Aggression." If you're neutral is was the "War
Between the States."


Here in Oz, the war between Union North States and southern Confederates
which killed a million men so stupidly


Which side was 'stupid'? The South that just wanted to be left alone
or the North that wanted to keep the 'whole' Union?


Both sides were stupid, stubborn, murderous, idiotic, crazy, out of
hand,
out of control, how else do you want me to put it?



is known as the American Civil
War.


That's because you get your history from the side that won.


We got the history from both sides of the event.

Well, one side prevailed, the other didn't.

The South is fulla losers who didn't like losing.

Like the ppl who say the US won in Vietnam.
They say that because the US killed 3 million asians, and only lost
50,000
of their own.

This is stark raving madness.

All those poor screaming victims, and for what reason?

The whole viet war, one of the worst most grandiose mistakes ever made.



Thousands more than necessary were shot because of it

That's just plain silly.


Indeed it was silly so many were shot.


Your statement was silly.

The war was another case of Grand Stubborness.


Yep. all it takes is for one side or the other to bow, yield, kneel.

The 'shooting' stops when one or the other, or both, side(s) have had
enough of it. Till then it's 'necessary'.


Its stupid until it stops. Absurd, ridiculous, and vain.


If you want to be a slave then so be it but there are others who don't
think freedom is so "Absurd, ridiculous, and vain."

But you're 'debating' with the wrong person. For starters, go give Bin
Laden a talk to and once you've got him smoking peace pipes get back
to me.

The object is to have the other side decide 'first' with the least
damage to yours. Lives are actually saved... yours.

and because
men didn't know how to resolve issues peacefully.

You have a point. Things can usually be resolved 'peacefully' if
you're willing to bow low enough, kneel on command, and kiss enough
ass. Well, unless you get someone like Hitler who just wants 'your
kind' dead to begin with. In which case dying will resolve it
'peacefully' and NAZI ovens were full of 'peaceful' Jews.


A premptive strike on Germany in 1933 mighta done some good.


Oh? What happened to "Its stupid until it stops. Absurd, ridiculous,
and vain?" Now you're talking about *starting* it.

But the means for that to be accurate enough to take out the right
guys wasn't perfected.


Oh, "Germany" is a big enough target they could have hit it even back
then.

Today there are conflicts still going on with stubborns refusing to give
in.
And agressors continue to agress.

Then the US invades Iraq because of its oil.


Damn lie.

Sure wasn't because of
brocoli.


That's right, it wasn't because of broccoli. And it wasn't because of
oil either.

Plenty worse dictators than Saddam have been left alone by the US or its
allies.


How many of them started two regional wars, attempted genocide, tried
to assassinate a President, declared they were at war with the U,S.
even after singing a cease fire, lobbed missiles into non combatant
countries, funded terrorists, were developing WMD, and failed to
comply with any of over a dozen mandatory U.N.. resolutions for 10
years? Just to mention a few 'highlights' of his illustrious reign.


Gee, such a record sounds bad like like the US record.
The US has always done lots of **** around the globe.

Boy, and by golly the US sure has a lotta weapons of mass distruction.

Nobody else is allowed to have them.

Iran is big enough to get real independant, and thumb its nose at the
US.

It might not be good being done by Iran though, and the US response
isn't good
either.


They spent up big setting up Saddam, then had to bring him down.
They backed the rebels in Afghanistan, to make sure the Russians lost.
and then they had to be removed, because of 9-11.

Evil by so many people of all persuasions.

Last year Afghanistan had a record harvest of drugs.

The war against the Taliban could easily be lost....

The US looks so **** week, does it know what its doing?

The US had a terrible record at manipulating governments and getting rid
of elected leaders of countries
in the 1950s and 1960s and 70s, with CIA doing all sorts of nasties.

The US is just another country and the morals of its foreign policies
are
as questionable as many other countries' foreign policies.

The US happens to be a very powerful country, because of its weapons of
mass destruction.

If the US didn't have these there would be little US influence around
the world.

Its a US century.

Rome was a large power once but it faded, and empires and influences
come and go.

The US power cannot be forever.




about 3 trillion bucks have been spent by US taxpayers


Get your B.S. propaganda right. The 'claim' is it will eventually cost
3 trillion.


Even a single trillion is a BS expense.

Maybe it goes to 10 trillion.

Its only money.

The idea was to spend 5 billion on making Iraq democratic.

Then the oil companies would move in and spend 20 billion
to build infrastructure to exploit the vast oil reserves over the next
20 years.

Oh how the money would roll in, and the US would have first bite at the
cherry
of the oil in Iraq.

Its ****ing people could rot though.

The insurgents and freedom fighters and nationalists didn't quite agree
with being robbed so easy and so blind, so they've killed 4,000 US men
and
mained lord know how many more, while losing maybe 500,000 ppl of their
own kind.
2 million have moved from the country.

Splitting up the country into kurds, sunni and shiite could lead to even
more
blood letting because there will be losers, and the Oil wealth share is
worth fighting for.


So the original plan the US had didn't work out, and the US taxpayer is
the big loser.

Haliburton is doin OK.



Besides that number being B.S. the GDP over the same time period
exceeds 300 trillion, making 'the war' less than 1%.

and if the US
left
tommorow, Iraq would become a bloodbath while they sorted out amoung
themselves
what to do about who has the power and of course the ****ing oil.


The problem in Iraq is primarily Al Qaeda and Iran.


And the millions who'd like the US to just **** off.

And now the US can't raise a good enough force to take on Iran.
Western nation young men don't like fighting much.

Anyway, I doubt the US will declare war on Iran.
They will wait until Iran steps right out of line, like maybe with a
nuke on
Israel.


Well, of course. We just spent 60 years supporting Israel so now, just
like China, we'll be 'happy' to see an ally blown to hell.


Yeah, finally the Palestinians get their land back.
maybe a bit radioactive, maybe it glows in the dark....

Then stand well back, for the sparks will fly; it will be very unknown
territory
into which humanity descends IMHO.

There isn't a darn thing I can do to solve the middle east problems,
but if the main oil fields become radioactive, then we'll all
have to get used to less oil.


Aw. come on. You can do better doom and gloom than that. Like, how
about a nuke exploding the entire underground oil reserves blowing the
whole planet to bits?


Well Saddam tried to burn all the oil on the spot after he lost in 1991.

Not enough weapons of mass destruction though. Just a few cases of
dynamite.

He wanted more, and I think he eventually felt foolish for wanting what
he didn't have,
because the US said he DID have them, but he didn't.....oh what a nice
circus
it was.




I've had most of my life, so whether I am right or wrong in my
perceptions about
what the world is coming to just does not matter one iota because I
can't change it a bit,
and its why I don't waste hours and hours arguing on line, and
why I don't feel a need to be right about the issues.


You take every opportunity to spout that stuff.


And you? are you not trotting out all that junk
about how it makes you right all the time.



Michael Moore is a lying ass.


Yeah, and whoever said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction were lying
their ass off as well.


You need to get a dictionary and learn what words mean.


The US and its allies lied to their people, ie, to you and me re weapons
of mass destruction.

There was not the slightest threat to the West from Iraqs WMDs.


Being mistaken is not a lie but, even more to the point, the war was
not to 'find stockpiles'. It was about Saddam's refusal to comply with
the terms of cease fire and the over a dozen mandatory U.N.
resolutions. Without which it was impossible to know if he 'had' WMD,
had turned over all documentation, and had terminated the WMD programs
that could be restarted in months.


All ****ing bull****.

Sure, Saddam's regime tried to fight its way around constraints
imposed by foreign governments, If you ran a country like Iraq, you'd
try to do the same
under the circumstances.

The US is the one with all the WMD.

The whole WMD was a giant redherring of a lie.

Bush wanted to get even with Saddam when his father failed to get rid of
Saddam ater '91,
and after 9-11 Bush wanted a ME fall guy.

Saddam was the man to fall, They'd failed to find Osama in afghanistan,
and even if they had won in Afghansistan, what was it they won?
****in nothin much, just an empty land with horrid people.
Iraq all looked wonderful and easy and sweet
and the US companies would grow fabulously wealthy when the oil began to
flow cheaply.

OIL was the lubricant, the glittering irresistable corrupting prize that
justified all the lies and utter BS about WMD and
some impossible to do idea about democracy in a few months.

Its difficult to force feed democracy from the barrel of a gun.
Mao tried it, he said it works, but finally China breathed a lot easier
when Mao died. The US has tried the same idea in Iraq, and the results
are well known.

Many people try it.

Here in Oz we've never neededto have a civil war.
We talk about things with each other, and come to a concensus,
and life goes on, without pools of blood and screams.

Now China has gone all capitalist for business, communist
for social control, and how long that lasts is not known,
but they won't stay like it forever.




Go find a transcript of Colin Powell's U.N. presentation. No where
does he say Iraq "has" WMD. He points to all the things known, but
unaccounted for, and how much that means he 'could' have. Then add on
top if that the things that aren't known, because he won't comply.

The 'lies' are from the people who scream 'liar'.

Un-truth abounds.


And you lap it up.


I never thought Iraq had any WMD.

I knew the US would wipe out Saddam's forces fast.

But of course the Iraqis naturally addopted the guerilla war tactics.

It ****s up a big countries army efforts far worse than fighting up
front.

Bog em down and pick em off, because we got no WMD, and that's how the
Iraqi tries to win his war against the invader.

You'd fight the same way to save the US against some invader with
invincible WMDs.


The story of WMD was a deliberate attempt to make the allied governments
of the day
be seen to be doing something good against evil, not perpetuating evil
and incompetent
policies.


Someone lamented the fact that the horse **** was knee deep in big
cities
in 1890.

But they were already up to their armpits in bull****.

Gee, you don't have to look far, and there's another pile of bull****
trotted out as facts.


You got plenty of them.

snip

I just plain got tired of going through the never ending B.S.



The world is fulla BS. Its been trowlled on like plaster over every
available surface,
and there's so much of it nobody has any real answers any more.

Patrick Turner.
  #57   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

On Mar 20, 7:40*am, "Mark" wrote:
Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.

Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.

It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other kids..
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK MORONS!!!

There...now I feel better.


You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.

Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:

*****
On Mar 19, 1:54*am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:

The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term: "...well regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun loons
each and every year.

Trevor Wilson


At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-
regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who
the 10,000 dead are.

Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****

Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?

If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:

"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.

"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.

"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.

School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those arms
legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.

It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.

I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called MarkS to blame me
for dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for stupidity
without ever mentioning the children.

Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent presumptions
you hold.

Andre Jute
No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT
  #58   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
roughplanet roughplanet is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" wrote:

Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.

Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come
out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.

It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK
MORONS!!!

There...now I feel better.


You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.

Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:

*****
On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:

The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term:
"...well
regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.

Trevor Wilson


At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-regulating
militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000 dead
are.

Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****

Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?

If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:

"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.

"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.

"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.

School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those arms
legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.

It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.

I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called MarkS to blame me
for dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for stupidity
without ever mentioning the children.

Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent presumptions
you hold.

Andre Jute
No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT

Yep, he's correct whether you like it or not. Assumptions are just the
extension of our own egos, therefore there are literally billions of them on
any given subject.

The saying 'Assume makes an ass out of u and me' is right on the money,
closely followed by 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

Usenet is one place where you WILL be called to account for your lack of
comprehension, ill-founded assumptions, guesswork, BS or any other illogical
or asinine nonsense that people attempt to pass off for valid comment on
this & most other newsgroups.

The phrase 'Look before you leap' is a most apt summation of the rules of
Usenet.
Failure to adhere to same can only result in a painful & possibly
embarrassing public dressing down.

ruff


  #59   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"WindsorFoxSS" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
You are not 'the law'


**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
behalf of the gun pushers.


They protect our Constitutional right against people who would remove
them, like people from other countries who don't really understand.


**Nope. The NRA acts solely on behalf of the gun manufacturers. It's sole
reason to exist is to ensure that as many guns are sold to Americans (and
others) as is possible. The NRA cares not one whit for the proliferation of
guns to violent individuals. Their actions prove this to be so. IF the NRA
cared about people (other than those who profit form guns), then it would
support sane, strong and homogeneous gun control laws. Since it does not do
so, it is clear where their allegiances lie.



What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
intended.


**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people. It would
seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what is
truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.


By ultra Liberal Socialists who would have total power over all. Russia
comes to mind.


**Rhetoric notwithstanding, we all live in societies which have laws. Some
societies have different laws to others. The US has (in most jurisdictions)
comparatively liberal, lax, stupid and haphazard gun control laws, in
comparison to all the other Western, developed nations. The result is an
obscenely high homicide rate, via gunshot. Some European nations have
relatively lax drug laws, compared to the US. We're all different. The BIG
difference with the US is that poor gun control legislation appears to be
causing the needless deaths of 10,000 Americans each and every year.



Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?


**People are free to defend themselves. I do, however, challenge the
delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st
Century. In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot
each year, whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses'
(DGUs). It would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year,
around 10,000 must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians
to mull over.


That's the idiotic, blind Liberal POV.


**It's just the truth. I understand that you don't like, nor appreciate the
truth when it is presented to you.

How is it that all the
pounding can not seem to make you understand that by removing the guns
from those 200 lawful owners who protected themselves is *NOT* going to
stop the 10,000 murdered by criminals?


**Because a large chunk of those 10,000 were murdered by legal gun owners.
In any case, gun control laws (in Australia and most other Western,
developed nations) actively seek to limit the availability of guns to bad
people.

(I doubt those numbers, but the
point still works.)


**Doubt all you wish. The US FBI list them quite succinctly:

Total homicides, broken down by weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offe...rtable_07.html

Total justifiable homicides, broken down by weapon:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offe...rtable_14.html

If anything by making guns illegal for lawful owners
then only the criminals will have them and the 10,000 will rise.


**Please cite where _I_ stated that lawful citizens whould not be allowed to
own guns. Be precise in your answer.

By
making laws against guns you will *NOT* stop a criminal from owning a gun,
it's already illegal and they ignore the law. That's why we call them
criminals.


**Wrong. In 1996 the Australian federal government pursuaded the states to
adopt a uniforn set of gun control laws, in order to deal with the problem
of mass murder, committed via the use of guns. Additionally, the laws also
sought to limit the chances that criminals could easily buy guns, or steal
guns. Since 1997, several things have occured:

* Mass murder, committed via the use of guns, has fallen from an average of
one incident per year to zero. That's right: ZERO, nada, none, zip. Not one
mass murder has been committed in Australia, by an offender using a firearm,
since 1996.
* Gun thefts, from civilians have dropped dramatically (down to around 25%
of the figure, before 1997).
* Homicide via gunshot has fallen.
* Robbery committed with guns has fallen.
* Attempted murder, via the use of guns has fallen.
* It is now, due to the checks and balances, virtually impossible to sell a
legally owned gun to a criminal (without being caught).

These are all very positive moves and Australians (gun owners and non-gun
owners) can be justly proud of these excellent figures.

Trevor Wilson


  #60   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

On Mar 21, 2:38*am, "roughplanet"
wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" wrote:

Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.


Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come
out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.


It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK
MORONS!!!


There...now I feel better.


You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.

Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:

*****
On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" *wrote:

*The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term:
"...well
regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.


Trevor Wilson


At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-regulating
militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000 dead
are.

Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****

Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?

If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:

"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.

"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.

"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.

School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those arms
legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.

It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.

I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called MarkS to blame me
for dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for stupidity
without ever mentioning the children.

Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent presumptions
you hold.

Andre Jute
No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT


Roughplanet then comments:
Yep, he's correct whether you like it or not. Assumptions are just the
extension of our own egos, therefore there are literally billions of them on
any given subject.

The saying 'Assume makes an ass out of u and me' is right on the money,
closely followed by 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

Usenet is one place where you WILL be called to account for your lack of
comprehension, ill-founded assumptions, guesswork, BS or any other illogical
or asinine nonsense that people attempt to pass off *for valid comment on
this & most other newsgroups.

The phrase 'Look before you leap' is a most apt summation of the rules of
Usenet.
Failure to adhere to same can only result in a painful & possibly
embarrassing public dressing down.

ruff


Never expected to find you standing up for me, Ruff. You'd better say
quickly that you're just standing up for the truth, that you hate me
doubletime for being right just this once. Being found agreeing with
me is a sure way to ruin your street cred with this gang of wrongoes.

Andre Jute
People are always the most surprising element


  #61   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:58:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
news:23s0u3tenhrh3hs2qrv2bjc1l4uur5kjkg@4ax. com...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American war
of
Independance?

not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the
rage.
Come
in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the
bison

**Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during
the
Civil
War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of
sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and
it's
manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so
complete
destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the
hands
of
the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no small
part,
for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time
in
US
history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many Americans
seem
to
think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals,
despite
the
very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right.

**Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated
militia.."

Separate clause.

**The meaning is clear enough.

Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."


**As part of a well regulated militia.


The operative word is "people" and it is the same "people" who have
the right to peaceably assemble and be secure in their persons, homes,
and effects.

You also confound militia, select militia, and organized militia. See
George Mason, below.


**No, I do not. The US FFs' ONLY mentioned " well regulated militia". No
other qualifiers were used.


The 'militia' clause may be informative, or even a 'reason', for which
there may be multiple interpretations, but the rights declaration is
absolute and is not dependent.

Take a simple example. The dean of a university issues a written
statement to the students of a class "the teacher being ill, class is
canceled."

Nothing about the 'ill' clause alters the command declaration of class
being canceled. If the teacher called in sick to watch a football
game, but is not ill at all, class is still canceled. If someone took
the message wrong, class is still canceled. If someone got the
teacher's names mixed up, the class is still canceled. If the teacher
experiences a miracle cure and is now well, class is still canceled.
If the dean flat out lied about his reason, or had 25 other reasons in
addition to the one mentioned, class is still canceled. No matter
what the status of the 'ill' clause may be, good, bad, current, or
obsolete, class is canceled.

Now, you can argue all day long that the dean didn't know what he was
doing, or there were substitute teachers available, or that the
students could teach themselves, or any other 'modern' ideas you dream
up, but the fact of the matter is "class is canceled" and the only
thing that can alter "class is canceled" would be a new declaration,
an 'amendment', so to speak..

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."

The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence.
"Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the convenience
of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the
State is why explicit protections are stated.


**And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The Patriot
Act.


False.


**Er, no. The Patriot Act subverts several parts of the US Constitution.


The search and seizure clause specifically says "unreasonable," not
"any" or "all."


The people ---- which universally means the people both individually
and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to
assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects.


**With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course.


List one rather than babbling unsubstantiated accusations.

Even if you could, however, one infringement does not justify or
excuse another.

The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
militia" as part of the rights to gun ownership.

It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights declaration is
explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."


**I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions of the
2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is clear
that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed militia.


What's 'clear' is you haven't bothered to read a thing the people 'of
the times' wrote on the subject because, if you had, it would be
'clear' they considered arms an individual right of the people
irrespective of any organized militia.


**And yet, they chose to deliberately include the term: "well regulated
militia" in the same Amendment. Not separate, but within it. In fact, within
the same sentence.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
the Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
Papers, 334

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention



American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment.

Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read
English, such as "the right of the people..."

**And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part.

Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood.


**I just deal in facts.


Clearly false


They also understand the origin of the right, common law precedents,
the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government
established by the Constitution, and U.S. history.

**They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of the
law
by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers.

You are not 'the law'


**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
behalf
of the gun pushers.


You imply yourself 'the law' by hysterically shrieking 'subversion'
simply because they have a different opinion than yours.


**Nope. The NRA is on record for opposing laws which would limit the
availability of guns to criminals. There is no sane, nor good reason for
doing so. UNLESS the NRA does actually happen to be working for the gun
manufacturers. THe NRA has no interest in the greater good. It acts solely
to lobby and promote the sale of more and more guns. Fostering paranoia
amongst Americans is it's most useful weapon to date.


The NRA has no power to 'subvert' the law. They can only speak and
lobby on behalf of their constituents and the 'power' they do have
comes from 1. their arguments having merit and 2. representing a large
constituency. All of which is well protected under the right of free
speech and of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the
government.


**Indeed. Therein lies the problem. The NRA effectively lobbies to ensure
that real gun control laws never see the light of day.



They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.

Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text had
no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008.

**Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to reflect
the
reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that
Amendment,
given the situation which exists today:

What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
intended.


**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people.


Mostly by those who substitute their own 'desires' over the clear and
profuse writings by those who lived at the time, wrote, and ratified
the Constitution.

It would
seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what is
truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.


Good luck. But I believe you'll discover your expectation of what's
"desired by the people" to be fantasy.


**A few more school massacres should do it. Sadly, it seems to reached
epidemic proportions in the US.



* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.

And it wasn't in 1789 either.


**It was still under threat.


By who? Those who signed the Peace Treaty?


**Of course.


The US military was in it's infancy. The
British armed forces were substantial.


And on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.

The fact is you said "occupied by a vicious foreign power" and that
was factually false.


**Indeed. I should have said "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a vicious foreign
power". Happy?


* Savage natives no longer present a threat.

Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self
defense?


**It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force, along
with
an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither existed
several hundred years ago.


The police are there to string yellow tape around the dead bodies and,
one hopes, find who done it.


**If you imagine that is all the police are charged to do, then you are
sadly mistaken.


That is not "defense."


**Indeed. And your description of the functions of a modern police force is
utterly simplistic.



Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?


**People are free to defend themselves.


You just want to take away the best means of doing so.


**Do I? Prove it. Whilst you are at it, prove that a gun is the best means
of self defence.


I do, however, challenge the
delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st Century.


Give me a gun, you come at me with a knife, and we'll see.


**You'll be dead. Of that you can have no doubt. The element of surprise
will trump whatever weapon you happen to be holding.


Care to place bets?


**Since I am not a murderer, it is moot. I should, however, remind you of
how many armed police officers are killed, largely because their gun is in
it's holster. The element of surprise trumps whatever weapon is held,
regardless of the training of the individual. There's a good reason why
soldiers and poilce officers carry their guns in a very specific manner,
when entering a potentially dangerous situation. Civilians rarely have such
luxury.


In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each year,
whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs). It
would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around 10,000
must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull over.


As Mark Twain, I think it was, said: there are lies, damn lies, and
then there are statistics.


**I cited the facts. Nothing more.


The 'trick' to those statistics is the underlying false premise that a
crime has not been thwarted, or a life saved, unless the defender
killed the perpetrator.


**I _only_ listed those killed. I did not list those injured. The figure
could be as high as 60,000 - 100,000. By remaining with deaths, the figures
cannot by fudged.


The fact of the matter is the vast majority of 'gun defense' occurs
from simply brandishing with the perpetrator exercising his own
instinct for self preservation in retreating.


**Prove it. Cite your evidence. Police reports, FBI data or reputable media
reports will be adequate proof.

Not to mention the
obvious case of wounding, but not killing, and firing with no hit (as,
perhaps, a warning shot), and those who simply avoid persons, or
premises, they know/suspect are armed.


**See above.



* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded.

As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well.


**Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and funded
back
then.


The point is the Constitution provides for the military so there was
no need to add an 'amendment' to provide for that which was already
provided.


**And yet, with the addition of the words: "well regulated militia" that is
exactly what was done.



In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the militia,
arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies
exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for
'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already
provided for.

In
fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable of
obliterating every armed force on the planet.

Good.


**Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is.


Would be nice if the bad guys figure it's 'overkill' too and, so,
exercise good judgment and avoid being the object of the 'overkill'.


**What makes you think that the US is always a "good guy"? Care to discuss:
* Grenada.
* Nicaragua.
* Iraq.
* Etc.



* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.

Your choice.


**Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority of
Americans.


Everyone has choice. I thought I made that clear in the "freedom"
comment.


**You did. And _I_ am merely making the comment that had the US FFs known
what kind of a society the US would become, they may well have made some
adjustments to their words. In fact, they did forsee such things, by
ensuring that there was a mechanism to alter the US Constitution.



Freedom means someone else has their choice.


**Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed nations have
the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they are
more
than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is. That is
a
nice freedom to have.


"Shot?" Are you trying to make a case that being stabbed or beaten to
death is a good thing?


**Nope. I'm trying to make the case that Americans are more than 10 times
more likely to be shot to death than the citizens of any other Western,
developed nation.


People do killing, not inanimate objects.


**Strawman. Sensible gun control laws have been shown to reduce the
likelihood of several gun related crimes (here in Australia). Guns (per se)
are not the problem. The lack of sensible controls over those guns, in the
US, is the problem.



* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of
seconds.

Good.

* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to
those
available several hundred years ago.

Good.

* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.

They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily available',
virtually everyone had them.


**They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are. Nor
as
reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more importantly,
no
where near as deadly.


The framers of the Constitution didn't believe in the right to bear
arms on the theory they weren't deadly.


**Indeed. They weren't able to predict the future, either. Which is why they
allowed for alterations to the Constitution.



Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities of
life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully provided
a
method for this to be accomplished.

That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of B.S.
about what the existing text means.


**The existing text seems clear enough to most people.


And "most people" recognize it means an individual right, just as the
framers intended and said.


**As part of a well regulated militia.


They refer to a "well
regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys wandering
around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape.


They didn't need to refer to 'good ole boys'. In fact, the Federalists
argued they didn't need to mention anything at all, militia, press,
speech, or otherwise, because the Federal government has NO powers not
granted and there are NO powers granted to ban or confiscate firearms,
or to prohibit speech, or to close down newspapers.

In fact, they argued it was damn dangerous to include the Bill of
Rights because, they predicted, some future idiots might get the
stupid notion that anything not mentioned wasn't a right.

They lost that debate when the others argued NO one could EVER be THAT
dumb... but we'll add the 9'th and 10'th 'just in case'.

It seems the Federalists were correct, 9'th and 10'th notwithstanding.


**Oh, and that pesky Patriot Act.

Trevor Wilson


  #62   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
roughplanet roughplanet is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...

On Mar 21, 2:38 am, "roughplanet"
wrote:

On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" wrote:

Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.
Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really
got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come
out with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.


It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK
MORONS!!!
There...now I feel better.


You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.
Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:

*****
On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:

The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term:
"...well regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons each and every year.

Trevor Wilson


At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-regulating
militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000
dead
are.

Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****

Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?

If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:

"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.

"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.

"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.

School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those arms
legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.

It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.

I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called MarkS to blame me
for dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for stupidity
without ever mentioning the children.

Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent presumptions
you hold.

Andre Jute
No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT


Roughplanet then comments:

Yep, he's correct whether you like it or not. Assumptions are just the
extension of our own egos, therefore there are literally billions of them
on
any given subject.

The saying 'Assume makes an ass out of u and me' is right on the money,
closely followed by 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

Usenet is one place where you WILL be called to account for your lack of
comprehension, ill-founded assumptions, guesswork, BS or any other
illogical
or asinine nonsense that people attempt to pass off for valid comment on
this & most other newsgroups.

The phrase 'Look before you leap' is a most apt summation of the rules of
Usenet.
Failure to adhere to same can only result in a painful & possibly
embarrassing
public dressing down.

ruff


Never expected to find you standing up for me, Ruff. You'd better say
quickly that you're just standing up for the truth, that you hate me
doubletime for being right just this once. Being found agreeing with
me is a sure way to ruin your street cred with this gang of wrongoes.

Andre Jute
People are always the most surprising element

Andre, I don't have any 'street cred' that I'm aware of, and I really don't
care what people may or may not think about me, or the values I hold, which
incidentally include placing a high price on the truth, no matter from whom
it emanates. And I don't suffer fools gladly either, and have never
pretended otherwise.

ruff


  #63   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Mark[_4_] Mark[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" wrote:
Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.

Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really
got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come
out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.

It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK MORONS!!!

There...now I feel better.


You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.


OK Tosser, gloves off.

Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:


*****
On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:


The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term:
"...well regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.

Trevor Wilson


At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-
regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who
the 10,000 dead are.


Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****


Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?


By implication. The "10,000 dead Americans", murdered by gun loons every
year MUST include the children slaughtered in numerous American high school
massacres.

Trevor didn't try to exclude the children from the body-count but it is
clear that you would (now) like too conveniently exclude them from your
statement that it "depends on who the 10,000 dead are".

If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:


Yep, there you go.

As a matter of fact, you may or may not have been speaking of adults when
you spoke of a "well self-regulated [militia]", it isn't clear and it isn't
important.

WHY?

Because you're trying to confuse two distinct groups in Trevor's statement.

The "10,000 dead Americans" (murdered by "other gun loons") and the
"American gun loons" (who regularly ignore the part of the 2nd Amendment
that speaks of a "well regulated militia")

"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.


Oh dude! You think you are sooooo cleaver; but you're trying to exlcude the
children from the WRONG group.

The school children are members of the group labelled "10,000 dead
Americans" murdered each year.

The perpititrators of these crimes are members of the group labelled "other
gun loons"

As a matter of fact. "other gun loons" may or may not be members of a
"...well regulated militia.." and may or may not be children themselves.

"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.


LOOK, Tosser!

In Trevor's statement, he said that the group called "other gun loons" are
doing the murdering of a group called "10,000 dead Americans".

Now, we KNOW for a FACT that this group includes American school children
and lots of them.

Your statement that a "*well* SELF-regulated [militia] depends on WHO the
10,000 dead are" is therefore apparently IGNORANT (and not a bit
insensitive) of the fact that the group he labelled "10,000 dead Americans"
includes rather a lot of murdered school children.

There isn't any question about it and it does not "depend" (as you claimed)
on who the 10,000 dead are. Nominate ANY group of 10,000 (to murder) and the
term "*well* self-regulated" DOES NOT APPLY.

Ipso facto.

"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.


That is such a cleverly crafted bit of deceit, even despite the fact that
you want to talk about the WRONG group.

In my statement, the school children are members of a group called "10,000
dead Americans". I didn't claim that they were in any group called
"regulated militia".

I don't care if the are or aren't (in that group). It makes no difference to
the basis of my objection about your statement claiming that a "*well*
self-regulated [militia] depends on who the 10,000 dead are."

As a matter of fact, American school children may or may not be a member of
a "regulated militia", may or may not be a member of a group called "other
gun loons", may or may not be a member of a group called "10,000 dead
Americans". It could happen.

But instead, you want to confuse the issue and argue something about school
children not being the "officers of any militia".

That statement may be wrong also, but it's correctness or otherwise isn't
relevant to my objection.

School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those
arms legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.


Wrong. You said "whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the
10,000 dead are."

School children are members of the group "the 10,000 dead". So in fact, you
DID say something that RELATED to a group that INCLUDED school children.

So what are you going to say now? Maybe: "I didn't know about the school
children being included in the 10,000 murders each year!"

BULL**** YOU DIDN'T. YOU COULD NOT KNOW.

All this talk of children not being part of a "regulated militia" is not
only false (historically and probably generally) but is also intended to
OBSCURE the fact of which group the school children are included in.

It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.


The reason for the apology was simply my assumption that his post was in
support of yours.

Upon re-reading it, I realized that the more likely explanation was that
Keith was a gun enthusiast (and most probably also an apologist for the gun
lobby) BUT his objection was a FAIR qualification of the rather colourful
language I used regarding the the type of weapon typically used in the
massacre of American school children.

It is true that a Glock 17 and other semi-automatic weapons are not classed
as sub-machine guns. So, for the sake of accuracy, I had to bow to his
objection and I did so for no other reason. Respect for accuracy, not
"thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards" motivated me.

No matter how many times a re-read Keith's post, I can't find fault with it.
Unless he makes further statements about his position on the state if gun
control in the US, I have nothing to add and stand corrected.

I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called MarkS to blame me for
dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for
stupidity without ever mentioning the children.


Finally, you show me your true colour. It is the colour of a thoughtless
idiot. That exactly what I thought you meant.

The SAME law that alows 'gun nuts' to murder each other also alows them to
murder school children, mothers, homeless, drug users, whatever.

One problem is that they are all ILLEGAL deaths and it does not matter in
the least "WHO the 10,000 are" (as you have consistently maintained) because
the entire edifice of your argument relies on the unequal application of the
law.

Your second problem is that if we are to alow 'gun nuts' to murder each
other then SOMEONE must decide who is a gun nut and who isn't.

That would usually be the person doing the shooting (in the absence of some
regulatory authority to identify 'gun nuts') So your position could be
restated as "gun nuts can identify other gun nuts and then discriminate on
who they should kill on that basis".

Then the problem becomes how do they identify other gun nuts? Some 'gun
nuts' would probably reason that anyone carrying a gun is at least a
candidate for a member of that group (the 'gun nuts'). So then what you have
is a considerable incentive for 'gun nuts' to shoot other 'gun nuts' before
they themselves are shot. Very quickly, it's shoot first or risk death.
There is little hope that this scenario will not spiral into total anarchy
and lawlessness, with very many unarmed, innocent people being shot dead.

So, to surmise, once you allow the unequal application of law, you can not
reasonably expect the lawlessness to contain itself to any particular class
of person (or gene pool).

So, is that clear enough:

You can only make the claim that it "depends on who the 10,000 dead are"
based on the unrealistic presumption that the murders are isolated amongst
'gun nuts' and you can only make that claim if you ignore the deaths of
school children, mothers, brothers and countless other unarmed innocents
that currently contribute to that statistic.

Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent
presumptions you hold.


Andre Jute.


You might as well have signed that "Andre Jute. Liar & Idiot".

No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT



  #64   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Mark[_4_] Mark[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 2:38 am, "roughplanet"
wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...

On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" wrote:

Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.


Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really
got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come
out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.


It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK
MORONS!!!


There...now I feel better.


You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.

Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:

*****
On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:

The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term:
"...well
regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.


Trevor Wilson


At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-regulating
militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000
dead
are.

Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****

Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?

If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:

"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.

"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.

"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.

School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those arms
legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.

It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.

I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called MarkS to blame me
for dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for stupidity
without ever mentioning the children.

Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent presumptions
you hold.

Andre Jute
No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT


Roughplanet then comments:
Yep, he's correct whether you like it or not. Assumptions are just the
extension of our own egos, therefore there are literally billions of them
on
any given subject.

The saying 'Assume makes an ass out of u and me' is right on the money,
closely followed by 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'.

Usenet is one place where you WILL be called to account for your lack of
comprehension, ill-founded assumptions, guesswork, BS or any other
illogical
or asinine nonsense that people attempt to pass off for valid comment on
this & most other newsgroups.

The phrase 'Look before you leap' is a most apt summation of the rules of
Usenet.
Failure to adhere to same can only result in a painful & possibly
embarrassing public dressing down.

ruff


Never expected to find you standing up for me, Ruff. You'd better say
quickly that you're just standing up for the truth, that you hate me
doubletime for being right just this once. Being found agreeing with
me is a sure way to ruin your street cred with this gang of wrongoes.


I can't see anyone agreeing with your substantive position that it all
depends on WHO gets murdered.

It might happen, sure.

As for anyone standing up for you, I don't see anyone doing that either.

Don't try to hide behind others, mate.

Andre Jute
People are always the most surprising element



  #65   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
After a bit of to and fro with the mouthfoamer anonymous Mark, we
arrive at my solution to the gun loon problem: Appoint an official Cun
Nut Licensing Commissioner. You can buy a gun freely, but unless you
can show the GNLC a truly demented stare, it will be a felony to call
yourself a "gun nut".
****

Oh dear. Poor Mark clearly never heard of Edmund Burke's admonition to
debaters: Policies, not personalities.

On Mar 21, 4:45*pm, "Mark" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" wrote:
Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.


Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really
got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come
out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.


It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK MORONS!!!


There...now I feel better.

You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.


OK Tosser, gloves off.


That's all right, Mark. I think I still owe you a few licks from way
back. I imagine you understand that gratuitously confronting me will
do your case more harm than if you apologized for abusing me and
backed away. Hotheads like you do the best causes great harm, sink
perfectly worthwhile causes by their intemperance, and kill off the
unworthy by their ill-mannered offensiveness to those they need to
persuade.

Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:
*****
On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" *wrote:
*The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term:
"...well regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.


Trevor Wilson

At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-
regulating militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who
the 10,000 dead are.
Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****
Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?


By implication. The "10,000 dead Americans", murdered by gun loons every
year MUST include the children slaughtered in numerous American high school
massacres.


No "MUST" (your shouting caps, not mine) about it. I didn't know about
the schoolchildren and, if I did, I would have made the same joke
because Trevor and I were both talking about those adults who claim
they are the men the Founding Fathers had in mind as potential
gunowners. None of this includes schoolchildren, except in your
overheated imagination, Mark.

Trevor didn't try to exclude the children from the body-count


Oh yes, he did. He said the :the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by
other gun loons", which again means to ma those who buy and collect
guns, I wasn't aware schoolchildren are permitted to buy guns in the
States and, even if they were, I was still talking about the "loons"
licensed by the Second Amendment, which clearly does not include
children.

but it is
clear that you would (now) like too conveniently exclude them from your
statement that it "depends on who the 10,000 dead are".


Children were never even considered. You're crazy to try pinning this
crap on me, Mark. It won't wash.

If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:


Yep, there you go.


Exactly.

As a matter of fact, you may or may not have been speaking of adults when
you spoke of a "well self-regulated [militia]", it isn't clear and it isn't
important.


But I wasn't speaking of a "well self-regulated [militia]" as you try
to claim, I was asking if 10,000 dead made such a militia,
Constitutionally permitted on condition that it be "well-regulated",
indeed "well-regulated", and therefore within the terms of the
Constituion. It is clearly a concept too subtle for you, Mark.

WHY?


You're shouting again, sonny.

Because you're trying to confuse two distinct groups in Trevor's statement..

The "10,000 dead Americans" (murdered by "other gun loons") and the
"American gun loons" (who regularly ignore the part of the 2nd Amendment
that speaks of a "well regulated militia")


Excellent. You admit I was talking about a "well-regulated militia".
That well-regulated militia, it should be clear even to a clown like
you, doesn't include children, doesn't include killing children.

"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.


That's what I said.

Oh dude! You think you are sooooo cleaver; but you're trying to exlcude the
children from the WRONG group.


Duh. I wasn't speaking about children at all. I didn't even know about
the children until you started screeching about them. They are
irrelevant to my subtle little joke even now that I know about them.

The school children are members of the group labelled "10,000 dead
Americans" murdered each year.


No, they're not, as you admit in your next maniacal little wriggle:

The perpititrators of these crimes are members of the group labelled "other
gun loons"


As a matter of fact. "other gun loons" may or may not be members of a
"...well regulated militia.." and may or may not be children themselves.


Holy ****, and you expect us to take you seriously, anonymous Mark?
Grow up, man. This sort of kindergarten debating trick doesn't impress
even Arny Krueger.

"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.


LOOK, Tosser!


You're shouting again, Mark, and we're just laughing in embarrassment
at your mindless stupidity. You've already failed to make this point
three times.

In Trevor's statement, he said that the group called "other gun loons" are
doing the murdering of a group called "10,000 dead Americans".


A fourth try to make the same spurious point.

Now, we KNOW for a FACT that this group includes American school children
and lots of them.


A fifth try to make the same spurious point. Which group is this now,
Mark? The 10,000 gun nuts murdered by other gun loons or who shot
themselves (we shouldn't forget their good work either!)?

Your statement that a "*well* SELF-regulated [militia] depends on WHO the
10,000 dead are" is therefore apparently IGNORANT (and not a bit
insensitive) of the fact that the group he labelled "10,000 dead Americans"
includes rather a lot of murdered school children.


Let's take this agglommeration of false connections and dumb
conclusions apart:

Your statement that a "*well* SELF-regulated [militia] depends on WHO the
10,000 dead are"


That's not what I said. What I said is entirely different, starting
with the word "whether to turn it into a question, not the statement
of fact you try to lie I made: "whether it is *well* self-regulated
depends on who the 10,000 dead are." You're a liar, Mark.

is therefore apparently IGNORANT


I don't see how a question can be "IGNORANT" -- or why it needs to be
shouted out by you. You're still making zero impression on me, Mark;
you're making a fool of yourself in front of people you need to
persuade.

(and not a bit
insensitive)


Should I care that a fool like you considers me insensitive?

of the fact that the group he labelled "10,000 dead Americans"
includes rather a lot of murdered school children.


First of all, we have already established several times over that I
was talking about *adult* gun nuts: "loons". We've established that I
didn't even know about the murdered schoolchildren. We've established
that the murdering schoolchildren are neither gun buyers nor
collectors. I don't see what the schoolchildren have to do with my
little joke on gun nuts, except in your fevered and increasingly
disconnected mind. Get a grip on yourself, sonny.

There isn't any question about it


About what now, Mark? Your shouting? That some schoolchildren are
dead? That they were killed by guns originally bought by adults? What
does any of this have to do with a militia, by definition adult?

and it does not "depend" (as you claimed)
on who the 10,000 dead are.


That's a lie. It is not what said and you know it. What I said, for
the umpteenth time, is "whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on
who the 10,000 dead are". Not the "whether" -- a question you are not
trying to turn into a statement of fact by misquotation. In short,
you're lying again, Mark.

Nominate ANY group of 10,000 (to murder) and the
term "*well* self-regulated" DOES NOT APPLY.


Why not? If people who insist on their right to bear arms then use
them to kill each other, the weakest will not survive, and the strong
can then be put in the militia to defend the nation, precisely as the
Founding Fathers intended. That, taken with strong officers to enforce
discipline, would in fact make for a "well" self-regulating militia,
just as I said. Whether that describes a modern possibility is another
matter. In any event, it is a theoretical political question I turned
into an absurdist joke too subtle for a mouthfoamer like you. It has,
ipso facto, nothing to do with children murdered by other children.

Ipso facto.


Oh dear. You shouldn't use words you don't know the meaning of, Mark.

"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.


That is such a cleverly crafted bit of deceit, even despite the fact that
you want to talk about the WRONG group.


Yawn. Is this the ninth or the tenth time you've tried to this false
point. Grow up, Mark.

In my statement, the school children are members of *a group called "10,000
dead Americans". I didn't claim that they were in any group called
"regulated militia".


Perhaps you're confusing what I said to Trevor and what you wrote in
reply. I didn't know about the children when I wrote to Trevor. The
children are irrelevant to what I said to Trevor. I don't care where
you think the children belong. They're a late addition by you to an
argument in which they have no place.

I don't care if the are or aren't (in that group). It makes no difference to
the basis of my objection about your statement claiming that a "*well*
self-regulated [militia] depends on who the 10,000 dead are."


You can object to that statement all you like, Mark. It isn't my
statement. I said something entirely different, a question rather than
a statement: "whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the
10,000 dead are". And, frankly, even if you were quoting me correctly
(and you're not, you're lying about both my actions and my intentions)
I wouldn't care **** what you think. You're hostile, you're excitable,
you're stupid -- these are not the qualities that make me value
people's judgements.

As a matter of fact, American school children may or may not be a member of
a "regulated militia", may or may not be a member of a group called "other
gun loons", may or may not be a member of a group called "10,000 dead
Americans". It could happen.


Okay, Mark, anything you say. Just put your arms in this comfortable
jacket in stylish white with the highly fashionable lacing up the
back.

But instead, you want to confuse the issue and argue something about school
children not being the "officers of any militia".


No, don't struggle. It will only be a little prick as the needle goes
in. You will soon feel much more sedate.

That statement may be wrong also, but it's correctness or otherwise isn't
relevant to my objection.


But if the schoolchildren aren't included in your objection, what is
your objection?

School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those
arms legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.


Wrong. You said "whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the
10,000 dead are."

School children are members of the group "the 10,000 dead". So in fact, you
DID say something that RELATED to a group that INCLUDED school children.


Quite unwittingly. There's no need to shout about it. I admit there
may be a few school children in "the 10,000 dead". But they weren't
killed by gun loons, they were killed by other children if I
understand correctly.

So what are you going to say now? Maybe: "I didn't know about the school
children being included in the 10,000 murders each year!"

BULL**** YOU DIDN'T. YOU COULD NOT KNOW.


Well, I know better than you do what I know. As I pointed out before,
your assumption that I slob in front of the television like you do
deeply offensive. Your parochial assumption that American domestic
news is of consuming interest to people elsewhere is rather touchingly
innocent. Look, sonny, I write for the media, I don't consume them; I
leave that to people like you; I don't find out what the news is until
some editor decides he wants my opinion on it, at which point he sends
a few high points off the ticker or a researcher calls me to tell me
some interesting tidbits.

All this talk of children not being part of a "regulated militia" is not
only false (historically and probably generally) but is also intended to
OBSCURE the fact of which group the school children are included in.


Twelve, thirteen. Counting.

It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.


The reason for the apology was simply my assumption that his post was in
support of yours.

Upon re-reading it, I realized that the more likely explanation was that
Keith was a gun enthusiast (and most probably also an apologist for the gun
lobby) BUT his objection was a FAIR qualification of the rather colourful
language I used regarding the the type of weapon typically used in the
massacre of American school children.


Yeah, right, Keith is okay and Andre Jute is a bogeyman. You dumb,
dumb, dumb moron, my joke, subtle and over your head as it may have
been, was in support of the general case you were making. If I had
known about the children, I would have been as outraged as you, though
I would would have been a lot more effective in my advocacy than you
can ever be with a jerkup attitude like yours.

It is true that a Glock 17 and other semi-automatic weapons are not classed
as sub-machine guns. So, for the sake of accuracy, I had to bow to his
objection and I did so for no other reason. Respect for accuracy, not
"thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards" motivated me.


"Thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards" motivated you to
assualt me instead without making any effort to discover what I meant,
just because Andre Jute is the bogeyman to the scum you run with.

No matter how many times a re-read Keith's post, I can't find fault with it.



  #66   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Andre Jute Andre Jute is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,661
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

On Mar 21, 5:30*pm, "Mark" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message

...
On Mar 21, 2:38 am, "roughplanet"
wrote:



"Andre Jute" wrote in message


...


On Mar 20, 7:40 am, "Mark" wrote:


Actually sorry for jumping on you Keith.


Andre's original post, that 'it depends' on who the 10,000 are, really
got
me riled. Considering all the publicity surrounding the proliferation of
school massacres in the US, I just don't understand how anyone can come
out
with a statement as hugely ignorant as that.


It doesn't depend at all on which kids are killed in schools by other
kids.
CHANGE THE ****ING CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS, YANK
MORONS!!!


There...now I feel better.


You're a piece of work, Mark, and a very unsavoury one at that.


Here is my entire exchange with Trevor Wilson:


*****
On Mar 19, 1:54 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:


The clear wording [in the American Constitution] involves the term:
"...well
regulated militia.."
American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment. They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other gun
loons
each and every year.


Trevor Wilson


At the very least, Trevor, you must admit that it is a *self*-regulating
militia; whether it is *well* self-regulated depends on who the 10,000
dead
are.


Andre Jute
Darwin's little helper
****


Where does it say anything about "school children" either specifically
or by implication?


If you had actually read what I wrote, instead of kneejerking, you
would have discovered I was clearly speaking of adults:


"Militia" implies adults and excludes school children.


"other gun loons" are gun nuts permitted to buy arms under the Second
Amendment; they do not include school children.


"regulated militia" tells you again I was speaking about adults; the
officers of any militia are not school children.


School children who shoot their schoolmates didn't come by those arms
legally. Nothing in what I said relates to school children except in
your over-heated mind, Mark.


It is typical of the thoughtlessness and hypocritical double standards
on RAT that you apologize to fascist scum like Keith Richardson while
attempting to blame me for your stupid incomprehension.


I repeat, I said it is no loss to the gene pool if gun nuts murder
each other or shoot themselves. I said nothing about their children
taking guns to school and murdering their classmates. It is simply
unbelievable for some some anonymous clown called MarkS to blame me
for dead schoolchildren because I condemn their parents for stupidity
without ever mentioning the children.


Finally, your assumption that I knew about the schoolyard massacres is
entirely incorrect. I don't read the papers or watch television, and I
doubt those events even made the news here. Your presumption that
other people live as you do, do what you do, think like you do, is not
only stupidly parochial but deeply offensive, especially when you
accuse them of being callous on hand of these impertinent presumptions
you hold.


Andre Jute
No longer surprised by the foolishness of the clowns on RAT


Roughplanet then comments:



Yep, he's correct whether you like it or not. Assumptions are just the
extension of our own egos, therefore there are literally billions of them
on
any given subject.


The saying 'Assume makes an ass out of u and me' is right on the money,
closely followed by 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'.


Usenet is one place where you WILL be called to account for your lack of
comprehension, ill-founded assumptions, guesswork, BS or any other
illogical
or asinine nonsense that people attempt to pass off for valid comment on
this & most other newsgroups.


The phrase 'Look before you leap' is a most apt summation of the rules of
Usenet.
Failure to adhere to same can only result in a painful & possibly
embarrassing public dressing down.


ruff
Never expected to find you standing up for me, Ruff. You'd better say
quickly that you're just standing up for the truth, that you hate me
doubletime for being right just this once. Being found agreeing with
me is a sure way to ruin your street cred with this gang of wrongoes.


Anonymous Mark then chipped in:
I can't see anyone agreeing with your substantive position that it all
depends on WHO gets murdered.


That's not what I said at all, Mark, and you know it. You're a liar.

It might happen, sure.


What might happen?

As for anyone standing up for you, I don't see anyone doing that either.


Oh, I think the handful of wannabe flame warriors on RAT overestimate
their importance. The posters and lurkers who measure a fellow-RAT by
what he says and does, rather then by what some little gang of loud
nobodies claims, make up the vast majority of the membership.

Don't try to hide behind others, mate.


Yeah, the moron Mark is coming for me. I shiver in my boots.

Andre Jute
People are always the most surprising element


Unsigned out of contempt for a fool
  #67   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:38:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:58:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
m...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:59:40 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
news:nus0u3d7gbfn3dtcstiuk18rthnhicjpca@4ax. com...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:54:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"flipper" wrote in message
news:23s0u3tenhrh3hs2qrv2bjc1l4uur5kjkg@4a x.com...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:46:44 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:


"keithr" wrote in message
...

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...

Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the American
war
of
Independance?

not really it hadn't been invented then - muskets were all the
rage.
Come
in useful for killing indians though and all but wiping out the
bison

**Correct. The Springfield Rifle was invented by the North, during
the
Civil
War. It was arguably the first really mass produced item, built of
sophisticated mechanical equipment. So important was this item and
it's
manufacturing system, that the factory was booby trapped, so
complete
destruction would occur, if it had any chance of falling into the
hands
of
the South. The Springfield Rifle was credited as being, in no
small
part,
for the fact that the North prevailed during that, very dark, time
in
US
history. It has also left it's mark on the US psyche. Many
Americans
seem
to
think that gun owning is both sane and a right for individuals,
despite
the
very clear wording in the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, the very clear wording of an individual right.

**Wrong. The clear wording involves the term: "...well regulated
militia.."

Separate clause.

**The meaning is clear enough.

Yes, it is. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."

**As part of a well regulated militia.

The operative word is "people" and it is the same "people" who have
the right to peaceably assemble and be secure in their persons, homes,
and effects.

You also confound militia, select militia, and organized militia. See
George Mason, below.


**No, I do not.


Yes, you do. And do so again while denying it.

The US FFs' ONLY mentioned " well regulated militia". No
other qualifiers were used.


And since "No other qualifiers were used" why do you perpetually refer
to select and organized militia in your bogus arguments?


**Because the words: "well regulated militia" are used in the 2nd Amendment.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
the Constitution

Not to mention I explained the English syntactical construction
showing "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed" is not dependent on anything else.

Of course, as is typical of gun control zealots, you summarily ignored
the words of the founding fathers as to the intent, as well as the
clear English of it.



The 'militia' clause may be informative, or even a 'reason', for which
there may be multiple interpretations, but the rights declaration is
absolute and is not dependent.

Take a simple example. The dean of a university issues a written
statement to the students of a class "the teacher being ill, class is
canceled."

Nothing about the 'ill' clause alters the command declaration of class
being canceled. If the teacher called in sick to watch a football
game, but is not ill at all, class is still canceled. If someone took
the message wrong, class is still canceled. If someone got the
teacher's names mixed up, the class is still canceled. If the teacher
experiences a miracle cure and is now well, class is still canceled.
If the dean flat out lied about his reason, or had 25 other reasons in
addition to the one mentioned, class is still canceled. No matter
what the status of the 'ill' clause may be, good, bad, current, or
obsolete, class is canceled.

Now, you can argue all day long that the dean didn't know what he was
doing, or there were substitute teachers available, or that the
students could teach themselves, or any other 'modern' ideas you dream
up, but the fact of the matter is "class is canceled" and the only
thing that can alter "class is canceled" would be a new declaration,
an 'amendment', so to speak.


Your deafening silence noted.


"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not
be infringed."

The right ---- an explicit acknowledgement of it's pre-existence.
"Rights" are inherent to the people and not subject to the convenience
of the State. In fact, that rights are usually INconvenient to the
State is why explicit protections are stated.

**And yet, the state may alter those protections. Witness: The Patriot
Act.

False.


**Er, no. The Patriot Act subverts several parts of the US Constitution.


Repeating an unsubstantiated falsehood is still a falsehood.


**The Patriot Act is not a falsehood. That the Patriot Act violates several
parts of the US Constitution is not a falsehood.

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general...g20030320.html


All you do is parrot unsubstantiated accusations, as evidenced by your
inability to mention a single thing of substance.


The search and seizure clause specifically says "unreasonable," not
"any" or "all."


The people ---- which universally means the people both individually
and collectively, as in the right of "the people" peaceably to
assemble or the right of "the people" to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects.

**With the exception of those subject to the Patriot Act, of course.

List one rather than babbling unsubstantiated accusations.

Even if you could, however, one infringement does not justify or
excuse another.

The US Foers refer to a "well regulated
militia" as part of the rights to gun ownership.

It is 'referred to' in a separate clause but the rights declaration is
explicit. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed."

**I'm afraid it is not that clear. There are two different versions of
the
2nd Amendment. Given the times that the Amendment was written, it is
clear
that the Founding Fathers referred to the necessity of an armed militia.

What's 'clear' is you haven't bothered to read a thing the people 'of
the times' wrote on the subject because, if you had, it would be
'clear' they considered arms an individual right of the people
irrespective of any organized militia.


**And yet, they chose to deliberately include the term: "well regulated
militia" in the same Amendment. Not separate, but within it. In fact,
within
the same sentence.


A fact that you have no clue about because, I repeat, " you haven't
bothered to read a thing the people 'of the times' wrote on the
subject."


**The words in the 2nd Amendment are clear enough. They refer to a "well
regulated militia".



"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a
few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of
the Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they
be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of
conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which
Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with
arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson
Papers, 334

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in
full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention


Your deafening silence noted.

American gun loons regularly ignore this part of the 2nd Amendment.

Nope, they don't 'ignore' it at all. They just know how to read
English, such as "the right of the people..."

**And yet they ignore the well regulated militia part.

Repeating a falsehood is still a falsehood.

**I just deal in facts.

Clearly false


They also understand the origin of the right, common law precedents,
the Federalist Papers writing on the matter, the form of government
established by the Constitution, and U.S. history.

**They should understand the consistent and constant subversion of the
law
by groups like the NRA, who act on behalf of the gun pushers.

You are not 'the law'

**I never said I was. I said that the NRA was subverting the law, on
behalf
of the gun pushers.

You imply yourself 'the law' by hysterically shrieking 'subversion'
simply because they have a different opinion than yours.


**Nope.


Yep.

The NRA is on record for opposing laws which would limit the
availability of guns to criminals.


They're on record for having a different opinion than yours but, as I
pointed out, you are not 'the law' and your opinion is not 'the law'.

There is no sane, nor good reason for
doing so.


In your opinion, irrational though it be.


**What is irrational about holding the opinion that flawed US gun control
laws do little to prevent legal gun owners from selling their guns to
criminals?


UNLESS the NRA does actually happen to be working for the gun
manufacturers. THe NRA has no interest in the greater good. It acts solely
to lobby and promote the sale of more and more guns. Fostering paranoia
amongst Americans is it's most useful weapon to date.


Just as you ignore the writings of the founding fathers, the meaning
of militia (in it's various forms), and English syntax you ignore the
obvious in order to construct your loony 'conspiracies'. And the
obvious here is that it's likely the NRA bothered to read the writings
of the founding fathers, knows the meaning of militia (in it's various
forms), and understands English syntax, so it is not terribly
surprising they have a different opinion than you.

That doesn't make them infallible but it's a decided edge.


**Nonsense. The NRA has opposed legislation which would seek to limit the
availability of guns to criminals. The NRA has opposed the Brady Bill,
Washington DC's gun control laws (despite a clear desire for DC citizens for
tough gun controls) and many other laws.


The NRA has no power to 'subvert' the law. They can only speak and
lobby on behalf of their constituents and the 'power' they do have
comes from 1. their arguments having merit and 2. representing a large
constituency. All of which is well protected under the right of free
speech and of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the
government.


**Indeed.


Glad we got the 'subversion' bit put to bed.


**Nope. The NRA subverts the desires of many Americans, in preference for
the gun manufacturers' desires.


Therein lies the problem.


Only if 'problem' is defined as someone having a different opinion
than yours. But, then, we've already established that you aren't 'the
law' and neither is your opinion.

The NRA effectively lobbies to ensure
that real gun control laws never see the light of day.


The NRA effectively lobbies against 'subverting' the meaning and
intent of the Second Amendment and they do so by pointing to the
writings of the founding fathers, the meaning of militia (in it's
various forms), and English syntax that you ignore.


**Nope. The NRA, like you, prefers to ignore the words: "well regulated
militia" when interpreting the actual meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Ignoring
those words will not make them go away.


It's called freedom of speech, debate, the right of the people to
petition the government and, in general, democracy.


**Sure. And it is also the righs of DC residents, for instance, to want
tough, sane gun control laws. Laws that the NRA opposes, despite the desires
of the clear majority of DC residents.


They
also manage to ignore the 10,000 dead Americans, murdered by other
gun
loons
each and every year.

Even if that were true it's irrelevant as the authors of the text
had
no crystal balls with which to peer into 2008.

**Of course. Which is why the US Constitution can be altered to
reflect
the
reality of life. I suspect the Founding Fathers might alter that
Amendment,
given the situation which exists today:

What you think they 'might do' is also irrelevant. The fact of the
matter is they wrote it and unless amended it's meaning stands as
intended.

**The meaning is under some considerable debate by many people.

Mostly by those who substitute their own 'desires' over the clear and
profuse writings by those who lived at the time, wrote, and ratified
the Constitution.

It would
seem that the time has come to re-write that Amendment to reflect what
is
truly meant and, indeed, desired by the people.

Good luck. But I believe you'll discover your expectation of what's
"desired by the people" to be fantasy.


**A few more school massacres should do it. Sadly, it seems to reached
epidemic proportions in the US.


I suspect 'the people' may prefer a different means of addressing
crime than 'subverting' the Constitution and surrendering their
rights.


**Your suspicion is duly noted. Perhaps those people could look to Australia
and all the other Western, developed nations. They may alter their stance,
when confronted with some facts, rather than NRA rhetoric.


Btw, good work on the hysterics. That's how people get the false
impression crime is up when it's down and that schools are dangerous
when more children die at the hands of their own parents and more
people die from lightning strikes.


**I just deal in facts. Gun related homicides are up. Not down. Your attempt
to deflect discussion, by introducing a strawman (lightning deaths) is duly
noted. Just because more people _may_ be killed by lightning strikes, does
not mean that reducing the incidence of other deaths is not a desirable
thing to do. Reducing the chances to being killed by lightning, is something
which can be done by most people. Reducing the likelohood of being shot to
death is usually beyond the victim's control.


* The US is no longer occupied by a vicious foreign power.

And it wasn't in 1789 either.

**It was still under threat.

By who? Those who signed the Peace Treaty?


**Of course.


Interesting how glibly "of course" rolls off your lips when the
historical fact is they weren't.


The US military was in it's infancy. The
British armed forces were substantial.

And on the other side of the Atlantic ocean.

The fact is you said "occupied by a vicious foreign power" and that
was factually false.


**Indeed. I should have said "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a vicious foreign
power". Happy?


I'm always 'happy' when people say truthful things rather than false
things.

Although, it's a bit problematic to say "PREVIOUSLY occupied by a
vicious foreign power" when, prior to the 'revolution', that power
was, by the standards of the time. the 'legitimate' governing power
and not ' foreign' nor 'occupying'.

Jefferson would likely have disagreed but that's because he formulated
a rather radical new idea that 'legitimate power' originates with the
people. But then he also believed in the natural right of self defense
and the individual right to arms, even to revolution, so you're
between a rock and a hard place in cherry picking which bits you like
and which to ignore.

And even to 'recreation'.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I
advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body
and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your
constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.


* Savage natives no longer present a threat.

Does the 'natural origin' of the attacker make a difference to self
defense?

**It does, when there is a well funded, well armed police force, along
with
an even better funded and armed military force available. Neither
existed
several hundred years ago.

The police are there to string yellow tape around the dead bodies and,
one hopes, find who done it.


**If you imagine that is all the police are charged to do, then you are
sadly mistaken.


Poor attempt at a strawman. I didn't say "all the police are charged
to do," but the fact remains they are not personal 'defense'.


**By using a gross over-simplification, that is EXACTLY what you did. I
suggest you try a lot harder, when attempting to minimise the capacity of
police to limit crime.



That is not "defense."


**Indeed.


Glad we got that part agreed to.

And your description of the functions of a modern police force is
utterly simplistic.


No, but your implied argument that the police are a substitute for
self defense is absurd and they'll tell you that themselves.


**Cite where I stated such a thing. Be precise in your answer.



Why, in your world, is someone 'free' to defend themselves
from "savage natives" but not from savage anyone else?

**People are free to defend themselves.

You just want to take away the best means of doing so.


**Do I? Prove it.


You do that well enough on your own.


**Lack of proof duly noted.


Whilst you are at it, prove that a gun is the best means
of self defence.


I don't need to 'prove' a gun is "the best means of self defense."


**You made this statement:

"You just want to take away the best means of doing so."

Here's where you go it wrong:

You made two, faulty assumptions:

1) That I wanted to "take away" guns (from unspecified people).
2) That a gun is the best means of self defence.

I note that you cannot justify that statement, on either of your faulty
assumptions. I accept that, unless you can prove that statement, that you
will either admit you are wrong, or you will withdraw the statement. Which
is it?

The
natural right of self defense leaves that determination and choice to
the individual.


**You made this statement:

"You just want to take away the best means of doing so."

You specifically refer to guns. Please confine your response to our present
discussion. Do you now withdraw your faulty statement?


It is also moot as long as the Second Amendment stands because it
unequivocally protects "the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms."


**As part of a "well regulated militia", yes.


I do, however, challenge the
delusion that a gun is a useful means of self defence in the 21st
Century.

Give me a gun, you come at me with a knife, and we'll see.


**You'll be dead. Of that you can have no doubt. The element of surprise
will trump whatever weapon you happen to be holding.


ROTFLOL

Convenient how you preordain your 'element of surprise'.


**Nope. As the murderer, I get to make the decision of where and when.
You'll be dead, long before you can use any of your guns. I'll bring to your
attention these two sets of data:

* Number of Americans who are murdered via attackers using guns each year -
10,000.
* Number of Americans who kill their attackers, via the use of guns each
year - 200.

Clearly, using guns for self defence puposes is largely a mythical exercise
for the vast majority of Americans. It works in a vanishingly tiny and
statistically insignificant number of instances. Despite the protestations
of the NRA and other hysterical groups, bent on fostering paranoia amongst
Americans.


Certainly rules out any 'police defense', don't it?


**Pretty much. The police use guns, like murderers do, as first strike
weapons. It is this, where a gun is most effective.


Care to place bets?


**Since I am not a murderer, it is moot.


The 'debate' was whether a gun is a useful weapon for defense.


**In a statistically insignificant number of events, it is.

Granted, an absurd debate because it obviously is, but then you have a
habit of ignoring the obvious.


**The obvious fact, is that murderers will use the element of surprise in
almost all cases. Remember the data:
10,000 vs. 200.


I should, however, remind you of
how many armed police officers are killed, largely because their gun is in
it's holster.


The police are restricted as to when they may draw a weapon and their
job routinely places them in the position of confronting someone they
have no means to know if they are a threat or just another of the
vastly more common 'peaceful citizen', which, of course, is the reason
for the restrictions.


**Indeed. The police are charged with obeying the law and they must
challenge suspects first. They are trained to do this, along with weapons
training. All these things may not be part of the training for civilians.
Which is why civilians should not carry guns in public. They usually lack
the training (though they may not).


The element of surprise trumps whatever weapon is held,


It may or may not. Depends on how well you execute it, whether you
achieve it at all, what your purpose was in the 'surprise'; and, if
the victim is not disabled or dead, whether they can retaliate
nonetheless..


**10,000 vs. 200.


In short, your comical presumption that all crime is an overwhelming
'surprise' with no possible recourse by the victim is patently absurd
as you declare by it that any criminal is automatically 'the winner'
and no defense whatsoever is possible.


**10,000 vs. 200.


It is, however, a good argument against the 'unloaded, locked, gun'
notion since you're adding to the potential success of the criminal at
the expense of the victim.


**10,000 vs. 200.


regardless of the training of the individual. There's a good reason why
soldiers and poilce officers carry their guns in a very specific manner,
when entering a potentially dangerous situation. Civilians rarely have
such
luxury.


I seriously suggest you not try out that theory with a gun owner.


**I have little interest in doing so.


Or, at least, consult an 'expert' first, such as...

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons
incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and
Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been
"scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69%
said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said
that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or
"regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and
57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about
meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."
---James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A
Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]


**I'm pleased that Prof Wright trusts criminals so much. After all, I'm sure
they never tell lies.



In the US, for instance, 10,000 people are murdered via gunshot each
year,
whilst around 200 are killed in so-called 'Defensive Gun Uses' (DGUs).
It
would seem that in order to save around 200 lives each year, around
10,000
must die. I'll hand that equation over to the statisticians to mull
over.

As Mark Twain, I think it was, said: there are lies, damn lies, and
then there are statistics.


**I cited the facts. Nothing more.


The evidence is you ignore the facts.


**Nope. Facts are facts. They cannot be ignored. Like these facts:

10,000 vs. 200.


And you apparently don't understand Twain's point. That statistics are
'facts', easily constructed to suit almost any purpose, is what makes
them such a grand lie.


**I am familiar with the analogy. Are you?


The 'trick' to those statistics is the underlying false premise that a
crime has not been thwarted, or a life saved, unless the defender
killed the perpetrator.


**I _only_ listed those killed. I did not list those injured. The figure
could be as high as 60,000 - 100,000. By remaining with deaths, the
figures
cannot by fudged.


I didn't say you 'fudged' the figures. It's simply that the 'figures',
whether fudged or not, are inappropriate to the irrational conclusion.
To wit, it may be rational to judge the 'effectiveness' of a murderer
by the number of deaths he inflicts but it is not indicative of
'defense' because 'death' is not the goal.


The fact of the matter is the vast majority of 'gun defense' occurs
from simply brandishing with the perpetrator exercising his own
instinct for self preservation in retreating.


**Prove it. Cite your evidence. Police reports, FBI data or reputable
media
reports will be adequate proof.


http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html


**We're discussing FACTS, not the wet dream of some gun hugging idiot. Let
me re-cap for you:

Police reports, FBI data or REPUTABLE media reports will be adequate proof.
Wet dreams are not proof. Nor are the equivalent of Penthouse Letters to the
Editor. Hard data is the only stuff of interest.



Not to mention the
obvious case of wounding, but not killing, and firing with no hit (as,
perhaps, a warning shot), and those who simply avoid persons, or
premises, they know/suspect are armed.


**See above.


Are you seriously suggesting you can't grasp the notion that wounding
someone is not a killing?


**Sure. How many Americans are are wounded each year by gunshot? 50,000,
100,000, more? Those data are difficult to come by. Deaths are not. We know,
with a good deal of certainty, how many people are murdered each year. We
know, from FBI investigations, how many people use guns in self defence
actions each year. 10,000 and 200 respectively. More on each side will be
wounded. How many more, the FBI don't state. It is, therefore, appropriate
to consider deaths, as these figures are well tabulated. We don't need to
rely on some clown's wet dream, as a substitute for actual data.



* Police and military forces are well equipped, organised and funded.

As provided for by the Constitution that was in play in 1789 as well.

**Except that they were not, by any standards, well equipped and funded
back
then.

The point is the Constitution provides for the military so there was
no need to add an 'amendment' to provide for that which was already
provided.


**And yet, with the addition of the words: "well regulated militia" that
is
exactly what was done.


LOL. No, it's just more evidence that wasn't done because it's
inherently irrational.


**And yet, those are the words used.


In fact, that the Constitution provides for calling forth the militia,
arming the militia, and the maintenance of Armies and Navies
exemplifies the folly of suggesting an 'amendment' was needed for
'arming' the (organized) militia that the Constitution already
provided for.

In
fact, the US military is the most potent on the planet. It is capable
of
obliterating every armed force on the planet.

Good.

**Seems like overkill to me, but it is what it is.

Would be nice if the bad guys figure it's 'overkill' too and, so,
exercise good judgment and avoid being the object of the 'overkill'.


**What makes you think that the US is always a "good guy"?


Comparative observation with the 'other guy'.


**Big mistake. It could be argued that the present US leadership is riddled
with criminals. The US has committed attrocities, in the name of being a
"good guy". Torture, the killing of innocents and fraud are all tactics of
the Bush regime. The US has managed to acquire a poor reputaion in recent
years as a consequence.


Care to discuss:
* Grenada.
* Nicaragua.
* Iraq.
* Etc.


No, because you'd, no doubt, exhibit the same irrationality,
construction of fantasy and dismissal of fact you've exhibited on
this topic. And then there's the matter of it being utterly irrelevant
to the clear meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.


**I remind you that _you_ brought up the notion that the US was a "good
guy". I merely listed clear evidence of criminal acts perpetrated by various
US governments.


* Supermarkets supply the vast quantity of animal protein.

Your choice.

**Not only mine. It is the overwhelming choice of the vast majority of
Americans.

Everyone has choice. I thought I made that clear in the "freedom"
comment.


**You did.


Thank you.

And _I_ am merely making the comment that had the US FFs known
what kind of a society the US would become, they may well have made some
adjustments to their words. In fact, they did forsee such things, by
ensuring that there was a mechanism to alter the US Constitution.


What you 'imagine' the FF 'might' have thought or done, had they a
crystal ball, is irrelevant. And, since you have so much trouble
figuring out what they actually did, doubly so.


Freedom means someone else has their choice.

**Indeed. The inhabitants of all the other Western, developed nations
have
the freedom to walk the streets, secure in the knowledge that they are
more
than 10 times less likely to be shot to death than an American is. That
is
a
nice freedom to have.

"Shot?" Are you trying to make a case that being stabbed or beaten to
death is a good thing?


**Nope. I'm trying to make the case that Americans are more than 10 times
more likely to be shot to death than the citizens of any other Western,
developed nation.


You keep restricting to 'shot' when the real issue is murder and
crime.


**When discussing gun controls, the real issues are GUN crimes and GUN
deaths. Here in Australia, since 1996, both have fallen.

And while the U.S. murder rate is higher than some, and lower
than others, there is no evidence that it rises or falls with the
number of guns.


**Nope. The US has, by a very wide margin, the highest level of gunshot
murder rate of any Western, developed nation. It is, for instance more than
10 times higher than Australia's. 20 times higher than that of the UK. Many
times higher than Germany's, Holland's, Italy's, et al.


In fact, from 1973 to 1993 U.S. handgun ownership increased 110%
(73.3% increase in guns of all types) but the murder rate fell 9.5%.


**Strawman. We're discussing GUN CONTROLS, not overall gun ownership.



People do killing, not inanimate objects.


**Strawman.


No, it's a fact.


**Nope. It's a strawman. We're discussing GUN CONTROLS.

And if it were the case that 'guns cause murders'
then the above murder rate should have risen, not fallen, with a 110%
increase in what you argue is the 'cause'.


**It would, if we were discussing ownership rates. We're not. We're
discussing gun control laws.


Sensible gun control laws have been shown to reduce the
likelihood of several gun related crimes (here in Australia). Guns (per
se)
are not the problem. The lack of sensible controls over those guns, in the
US, is the problem.


In the first place, you cherry pick your, so called, 'facts' (like
claiming 'no defense' occurs unless the victim kills the perpetrator)
while ignoring others less convenient to your preordained conclusion.


**OK then, provide some data to support your notion that guns are an
effective means of self defence. Remember:
Police reports, FBI data and/or REPUTABLE media reports will be adequate
proof. Wet dreams will be discarded as, well, wet dreams.


Second, Australia is not the U.S. and data for the country in question
(U.S.) indicate exactly the opposite of what you claim. The murder
rate, more often than not, goes up with more gun restrictions and
drops without them.


**And yet, that is PRECISELY what has not occured in Australia. However,
let's look at your claim in more detail. Examine the gun control laws in
these two cities:
NYC
Miami

Now look at the homicide rates, via gunshot. Which city is worse?


Btw, this report indicates no statistically significant effect one way
or the other in Australia. They simply lost some rights for,
essentially, nothing.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html


**Oh please! You've just presented information which is 7 YEARS out of date!
I suggest you examine the actual data, which clearly shows the following has
occured:

* Mass murder via gunshot has fallen to dramatically.
* Gun thefts from civilians has fallen by around 75%.
* Murder via gunshot has fallen.
* Attempted murder via the use of guns has fallen.
* Robbery via the use fo guns has fallen.



* Guns have reload times measured in milliseconds, rather than tens of
seconds.

Good.

* Accuracy of modern, high power weapons is significantly superior to
those
available several hundred years ago.

Good.

* Concealable weapons are cheap, plentiful and readily available.

They fought a war with them in 1776 and, as for 'readily available',
virtually everyone had them.

**They weren't by any stretch as concealable as modern handguns are. Nor
as
reliable, fast to reload, nor as accurate and, possibly more
importantly,
no
where near as deadly.

The framers of the Constitution didn't believe in the right to bear
arms on the theory they weren't deadly.


**Indeed. They weren't able to predict the future, either. Which is why
they
allowed for alterations to the Constitution.


As I said before, you're free to propose an Amendment but not free to
alter the meaning of the one that's there.


**I'm altering nothing. I am merely pointing out the words which are already
there.


Perhaps it is time to re-visit the 2nd Amendment, given the realities
of
life in the 21st Century. The US Founding Fathers thoughtfully
provided
a
method for this to be accomplished.

That would be the proper approach rather than inventing a pile of B.S.
about what the existing text means.

**The existing text seems clear enough to most people.

And "most people" recognize it means an individual right, just as the
framers intended and said.


**As part of a well regulated militia.


The people, whether subject to call or a member of any 'organization',
are the 'militia',

[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all
promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind
that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly
anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to
practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true
republicans are for carefully guarding against it.
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

They refer to a "well
regulated militia". They do not refer to some good ole boys wandering
around in 4X4s shooting up the landscape.

They didn't need to refer to 'good ole boys'. In fact, the Federalists
argued they didn't need to mention anything at all, militia, press,
speech, or otherwise, because the Federal government has NO powers not
granted and there are NO powers granted to ban or confiscate firearms,
or to prohibit speech, or to close down newspapers.

In fact, they argued it was damn dangerous to include the Bill of
Rights because, they predicted, some future idiots might get the
stupid notion that anything not mentioned wasn't a right.

They lost that debate when the others argued NO one could EVER be THAT
dumb... but we'll add the 9'th and 10'th 'just in case'.

It seems the Federalists were correct, 9'th and 10'th notwithstanding.


**Oh, and that pesky Patriot Act.


Only 'pesky' for terrorists.


**Except that the Patriot Act has caused far more problems for law abiding
Americans than any terrorists.

Trevor Wilson


  #68   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message


Was not the repeating rifle a boon the North in the
American war of Independance?


Not really. While a practical repeating rifle had been invented and had been
in volume production since about 10 years earlier, the Northern army's top
brass were agin' it.

Such repeating rifles as were in use were bought by the individual soldier,
who had to be pretty rich when inducted, because they cost about a month's
pay.

In fact the Army still wasn't buying repeating rifles in volume even 10
years later, when Custer's soldiers were armed with single-shots, and the
indians were armed with repeating rifles.


  #69   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
keithr keithr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:30:27 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:



flipper wrote:

People do killing, not inanimate objects.


Guns make it FAR easier and less 'messy'.

Try strangling someone or knifing them to death as opposed to shooting
them.


Poisoning is neater and beating someone to death is handier, you don't
even need to buy ammo. But a gun removes the 'brawn' advantage and
gives, for example, women a fighting chance.

Btw, since the only time I'd be 'trying' one of your proposed methods
is in self defense I much prefer the '"FAR easier and less 'messy'"
alternative.


Poisoning is kind of slow, it takes a long lasting hate. Pulling a trigger
is infinitely easier that beating someone to death, and thats the problem
with guns it is so darned easy for a simple argument to escalated to a body
on the floor. At which point of course quite often the person with the
smoking gun realises that that is not what they intended at all, one person
is dead and another has their life ruined just because it was so easy. The
majority of murders are not commited by "Baddies" but by family members or
others with close ties to the deceased.

Keith


  #70   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
keithr keithr is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 182
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Mar 19, 6:47 pm, "keithr" wrote:

Exactly how does your insurance help me if you or someone else uses your
gun
to kill me?


You would go out with a nice funeral - and not knowing off-hand what
you do for a living, possibly your family would be better off
financially.

Flipness aside, part of the insurance requirements includes meaningful
locks and separate ammuntion storage. And no, I do not keep hand-guns
other than a decorative but functional very vintage black powder
revolver. The only reasonable home defense weapon is a shotgun - which
has a certain amount of terror-factor as well as greatly reduced
potential for collateral damage. Makes a good club too.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

If people could be relied upon to do the right thing there would be no
problem. I have friends, a couple, who are into the sport (hobby?) of wild
west shooting. They have spent a small fortune on the proper clothes and
weapons, I think that have a half dozen pistols, a couple of shotguns, and a
Winchester repeating rifle, They also have a gun safe that would do justice
to a small bank with two keys that they individually keep, so it takes both
of them to unlock it.

The problem comes when people are too lazy to implement a proper
arrangement, or keep a gun for self defence. By definition, if you keep a
weapon for self defence, it has to be ready for instant action ie. loaded
and at hand. That is when things get dangerous. It is when children find the
gun and start to play with it. It is when accidents happen, an ex-workmate
used to keep a loaded shotgun over his firesplace, lifting it down to show
it to another workmate he managed to blow the crap out of his collection of
classical LPs. The man was, of course, a fool, but then there are so many
fools in this world, and, in the US at least, too many are armed.

Keith

BTW a baseball or cricket bat are much better clubs than a shottie, the
grips are so much better.




  #71   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:46:57 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip of repeated babble

Ok, so we've established you can't comprehend English even after the
structure has been broken down and explained in detail.

As such, there's no useful purpose in trying to communicate with you
in English.

Class is still canceled

and now, so is this discussion.


**LOL! Of course it is. I note your inability to refute facts and data.

Trevor Wilson


  #72   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:46:57 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip of repeated babble

Ok, so we've established you can't comprehend English even after the
structure has been broken down and explained in detail.

As such, there's no useful purpose in trying to communicate with you
in English.

Class is still canceled

and now, so is this discussion.


**LOL! Of course it is. I note your inability to refute facts and data.

Perhaps he might do so when you actually present data and facts other
than the masses of personal bull****e and occasional outright lie you
have presented thus far ?

Trevor Wilson


  #73   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"atec77" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:46:57 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip of repeated babble

Ok, so we've established you can't comprehend English even after the
structure has been broken down and explained in detail.

As such, there's no useful purpose in trying to communicate with you
in English.

Class is still canceled

and now, so is this discussion.


**LOL! Of course it is. I note your inability to refute facts and data.

Perhaps he might do so when you actually present data and facts other
than the masses of personal bull****e and occasional outright lie you have
presented thus far ?


**WTF are you smoking? Feel free to list the data I presented which is not
correct. I won't hold my breath. Your ability to argue logically, coherently
and without rancour is extremely limited. Non-existent, actually.

Trevor Wilson


  #74   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Trevor Wilson wrote:
"atec77" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:46:57 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip of repeated babble

Ok, so we've established you can't comprehend English even after the
structure has been broken down and explained in detail.

As such, there's no useful purpose in trying to communicate with you
in English.

Class is still canceled

and now, so is this discussion.
**LOL! Of course it is. I note your inability to refute facts and data.

Perhaps he might do so when you actually present data and facts other
than the masses of personal bull****e and occasional outright lie you have
presented thus far ?


**WTF are you smoking? Feel free to list the data I presented which is not
correct. I won't hold my breath. Your ability to argue logically, coherently
and without rancour is extremely limited. Non-existent, actually.

Trevor Wilson


So answer the question twevy
when are you going to admit senility has you by the shorts ?
  #75   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"atec77" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"atec77" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:46:57 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip of repeated babble

Ok, so we've established you can't comprehend English even after the
structure has been broken down and explained in detail.

As such, there's no useful purpose in trying to communicate with you
in English.

Class is still canceled

and now, so is this discussion.
**LOL! Of course it is. I note your inability to refute facts and data.
Perhaps he might do so when you actually present data and facts other
than the masses of personal bull****e and occasional outright lie you
have presented thus far ?


**WTF are you smoking? Feel free to list the data I presented which is
not correct. I won't hold my breath. Your ability to argue logically,
coherently and without rancour is extremely limited. Non-existent,
actually.

Trevor Wilson

So answer the question twevy
when are you going to admit senility has you by the shorts ?


**Thanks for confirming EXACTLY what I stated.

* Your list has not been presented.
* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly noted.

Trevor Wilson




  #76   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
atec77[_2_] atec77[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise

Trevor Wilson wrote:

So answer the question twevy
when are you going to admit senility has you by the shorts ?


**Thanks for confirming EXACTLY what I stated.

nothing is as you claimed

* Your list has not been presented.

you made the claim you prove otherwise
* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.

liar , your barely able to connect three words coherently let alone
remember which untruths you told
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.

pot kettle black you sop
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly noted.

your a ****** twevy , pure and very simple ****** .
Np wonder your business is feckless

Thanks to those offering supporting email but how about some of you
fill his inbox ?
Trevor Wilson (The grand Poobah of ******s)


  #77   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Patrick Turner Patrick Turner is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,964
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



Trevor Wilson wrote:

"atec77" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"atec77" wrote in message
...
Trevor Wilson wrote:
"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:46:57 +1000, "Trevor Wilson"
wrote:

snip of repeated babble

Ok, so we've established you can't comprehend English even after the
structure has been broken down and explained in detail.

As such, there's no useful purpose in trying to communicate with you
in English.

Class is still canceled

and now, so is this discussion.
**LOL! Of course it is. I note your inability to refute facts and data.
Perhaps he might do so when you actually present data and facts other
than the masses of personal bull****e and occasional outright lie you
have presented thus far ?

**WTF are you smoking? Feel free to list the data I presented which is
not correct. I won't hold my breath. Your ability to argue logically,
coherently and without rancour is extremely limited. Non-existent,
actually.

Trevor Wilson

So answer the question twevy
when are you going to admit senility has you by the shorts ?


**Thanks for confirming EXACTLY what I stated.

* Your list has not been presented.
* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly noted.

Trevor Wilson


Trevor, you are full of bull****.

Get together with Peter Stein and DO something ****ing useful,
like preparing manuals for ME amps.

Patrick Turner.
  #78   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Iain Churches[_2_] Iain Churches[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,719
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise



"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain


  #79   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
TT TT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 716
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain

Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer alike. I
would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and make more money
because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of the
box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak and
dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers could be
appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for new product
and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.

Cheers TT


  #80   Report Post  
Posted to aus.hi-fi,rec.audio.tubes
Trevor Wilson[_2_] Trevor Wilson[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 724
Default Tube/Valve Amp Noise


"TT" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
news


"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


Trevor wrote to Atec:

* Your admission that you lied, is duly noted.
* Instead of presenting actual facts, you resort to rancour.
* Your inability to discuss anything logically and coherently is duly
noted.


Trevor instead of all this "duly noting" you could serve
mankind better by writing these ME manuals for
which the world clamours :-)

Iain

Wouldn't it then be like "open source code" for software applications?
Everyone could then see how they work, propose modifications, upgrades,
tweaks etc and then there would be *free* product development.

I would see it as win/win situation for customers and manufacturer alike.
I would envisage that PS and TW would actually get busier and make more
money because of it.

Imagine how many idiots would start tinkering and let the smoke out of the
box or buy relics off fleabay in the hope of repairing them themselves?

All this "Secret Squirrel" **** is a PITA IMHO. Please keep the cloak and
dagger stuff for mystery novels? ;-)

And from a purely selfish POV a very good product is going to end up
devaluing because no one will want it anymore :-(

Also *IF* the manuals were available surely State (or OS) repairers could
be appointed and even, heavens forbid, actually create demand for new
product and a new manufacturing facility could eventuate.


**Let me re-state the situation:

* Peter Stein is supporting and servicing products he manufactured. I am
servicing and supporting ME and other products.
* There are others who service and support ME products. Due to the careful
matching of semiconductors in all ME products, servicing the output stages
by anyone other than PS (or his appointed successor/s) is a real bad idea.
* Supplying schematics to anyone calling themselves a 'tech', in the case of
ME, may be a very bad idea. Techs who are unable to perform even basic
fault-finding, can end up doing far more damage to the amplifier.
* In the case of most ME models, the output stages are modular in format.
This makes removal and replacement a quick, simple exercise. Peter Stein
(and his appointed successors) can effect service to those output modules
and the modules posted back, safely, inexpensively and easily. Freighting
amplifiers around the nation is not required. All that is required, is a
competent tech.
* I have seen many ME amplifiers which have been worked on by incompetent
techs. The result is not pretty, nor cheap to rectify.
* Poorly serviced ME amplifiers reflect badly on the product's reputation.

Trevor Wilson


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tube/valve amp kit question Ian Liston-Smith Vacuum Tubes 19 August 2nd 05 08:30 PM
Tube (valve) bases? John Perry Vacuum Tubes 3 May 12th 05 07:54 AM
Calibrating an AVO tube/valve tester Johnny C Vacuum Tubes 5 November 18th 03 02:37 PM
Valve Art KT100?? Can I use this tube? Patrick Turner Vacuum Tubes 1 September 29th 03 12:55 AM
Valve/Tube Tester on U.K. Ebay Theo Vacuum Tubes 0 August 18th 03 09:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"