[Andre Jute]

The Neanderthals were blond and tall and rather handsome. Some of
their women took pity on the Cro Magnon, who were dark and a bit squat
but had bigger brains (even bigger, relatively speaking than ours).
That is where modern blondes come from. Yet, despite the higher
estrogen levels of their blonde women, the Neanderthals became
extinct.

I won't bother you with references; the semi-literate among you can
get your teenagers to show you Google; the literate already know where
the university library is and have anyway long since discovered that I
am always right. You're looking for traces of the doomsday gene the
Neanderthals apparently passed to modern wreckers like the Luddites
and the environmental creeps through the wiles of their blonde women.
(That's they layman's shorthand, of course; the truth is always more
complicated.)

So what was wrong with the handsome Neanderthals? Actually, it has
become clear that they were doomsayers, decrying the clever Cro Magnon
driving herds of bison over cliffs to eat a few, forecasting
extinction of whole species, followed by extinction of homo sapiens
(of whom Cro Magnon was the earliest recognizable ancestor), serious
damage to the clean-living, conservationist, indeed reactionary
Neanderthals' environment.

The Neanderthals made plain tools and few of them, fearing exhausting
the world stock of flint. They were enraged by Cro Magnon artists
making decorated tools and lots of them. To the Neanderthals the Cro
Magnon cave paintings were worse than graffiti.

So guess who was right, the reactionary Neandethals or the progressive
Cro Magnon? Any of you guys out there descended from Neanderthals? The
doomsayers in the recent discussion of Hardin's hilariously mistaken
Tragedy of the Commons surely sounded more Neanderthal than merely
Luddite, and even Greens shouldn't be that numbingly incompetent with
well-known statistical verities that destroyed Malthus's little stolen
idea (1) several generations ago.

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey.

(1) From his equally gloomy penpal, David Ricardo, to whom, as
diverting trivia, the underpinnings for the phrase "property is theft"
can easily be traced by even junior economic historians, and whose
analysis of land rents, perversely (Ricardo was a conservative to the
bone), is equally directly responsible for communism -- check who
cited Ricardo or his followers (Ricardo himself is a hard and
depressing read: no style, no humour, no glee; grimmer even than
Kierkegaard in a foreign language) as their main influences.

[Dersu Uzala]

So what was wrong with the handsome Neanderthals? Actually, it has
become clear that they were doomsayers, decrying the clever Cro Magnon
driving herds of bison over cliffs to eat a few, forecasting
extinction of whole species, followed by extinction of homo sapiens
(of whom Cro Magnon was the earliest recognizable ancestor), serious
damage to the clean-living, conservationist, indeed reactionary
Neanderthals' environment.

What, you are unfamiliar with Pleistocene Megafauna Extinction Theories?
Also, it is a matter of debate whether Neanderthals should be H. Sapiens
Neanderthal or Homo Neanderthal. They did breed with Cro-magnon, so they were
the same species by some definitions.



The Neanderthals made plain tools and few of them, fearing exhausting
the world stock of flint. They were enraged by Cro Magnon artists
making decorated tools and lots of them. To the Neanderthals the Cro
Magnon cave paintings were worse than graffiti.

So guess who was right, the reactionary Neandethals or the progressive
Cro Magnon? Any of you guys out there descended from Neanderthals?

I am. I am a redhead.
"London - Red hair may be the genetic legacy of Neanderthals, according to a
new study by British scientists. Researchers at the John Radcliffe Institute
of Molecular Medicine in Oxford were quoted by The Times as saying the
so-called "ginger gene" which gives people red hair, fair skin and freckles
could be up to 100 000 years old. They claim that their discovery points to
the gene having originated in Neanderthal man who lived in Europe for 200 000
years before Homo sapien settlers, the ancestors of modern man, arrived from
Africa about 40 000 years ago. "



The
doomsayers in the recent discussion of Hardin's hilariously mistaken
Tragedy of the Commons surely sounded more Neanderthal than merely
Luddite, and even Greens shouldn't be that numbingly incompetent with
well-known statistical verities that destroyed Malthus's little stolen
idea (1) several generations ago.

The main point of "The Tragedy of the Commons" is that resources held in
common, such as fisheries, aquifers, even common grazing land, are over used
to the point of destruction, due to the reasons laid out in the essay.

Perhaps the Neolithic was just a big mistake.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

Dersu Uzala wrote:

So what was wrong with the handsome Neanderthals? Actually, it has
become clear that they were doomsayers, decrying the clever Cro Magnon
driving herds of bison over cliffs to eat a few, forecasting
extinction of whole species, followed by extinction of homo sapiens
(of whom Cro Magnon was the earliest recognizable ancestor), serious
damage to the clean-living, conservationist, indeed reactionary
Neanderthals' environment.

What, you are unfamiliar with Pleistocene Megafauna Extinction Theories?

Duh? Theories, Theories, Shmeories. It's in the name, pal. Prove it.

Also, it is a matter of debate whether Neanderthals should be H. Sapiens
Neanderthal or Homo Neanderthal. They did breed with Cro-magnon, so they were
the same species by some definitions.

No, they were not the same species. There was some miscegenation.
(This is a joke, in case you didn't catch it.) A few genes were
carried forward but the Neanderthals as a distinct species died out.

The Neanderthals made plain tools and few of them, fearing exhausting
the world stock of flint. They were enraged by Cro Magnon artists
making decorated tools and lots of them. To the Neanderthals the Cro
Magnon cave paintings were worse than graffiti.

So guess who was right, the reactionary Neandethals or the progressive
Cro Magnon? Any of you guys out there descended from Neanderthals?

I am. I am a redhead.

Okay, okay. My hair was reddish blonde once too and I am very fair-
skinned, as you should be able to tell merely from my name. But that
doesn't make me a Viking, nor a Neanderthal. Or, if it does, I have
overcome the heritage of my genes to become progressive, forward-
looking, not a wrecker.

"London - Red hair may be the genetic legacy of Neanderthals, according to a
new study by British scientists. Researchers at the John Radcliffe Institute
of Molecular Medicine in Oxford were quoted by The Times as saying the
so-called "ginger gene" which gives people red hair, fair skin and freckles
could be up to 100 000 years old. They claim that their discovery points to
the gene having originated in Neanderthal man who lived in Europe for 200 000
years before Homo sapien settlers, the ancestors of modern man, arrived from
Africa about 40 000 years ago. "

That must be the version from the Star or page 3 of the Daily Mail.
Genes work in groups. To say that there is "a gene for xyz purpose" is
a solecism a real scientist will never permit himself.

The
doomsayers in the recent discussion of Hardin's hilariously mistaken
Tragedy of the Commons surely sounded more Neanderthal than merely
Luddite, and even Greens shouldn't be that numbingly incompetent with
well-known statistical verities that destroyed Malthus's little stolen
idea (1) several generations ago.

The main point of "The Tragedy of the Commons" is that resources held in
common, such as fisheries, aquifers, even common grazing land, are over used
to the point of destruction, due to the reasons laid out in the essay.

"The reasons laid out in the essay" are a Malthusian population
explosion and individual psycho-economic cost-benefit analysis of the
crudest possible kind. The Malthusian population explosion thesis has
been a joke for a century or more, and was again conclusively trounced
in a big thread on RAT recently. The individual psycho-economic cost-
benefit thesis so necessary for Hardin's comic conclusion has long
since been proved mallable under democratic pressure (1). Hardin's
reasons don't stand up, therefore his conclusion is false. I've also
shown in an analysis still standing on this board that Hardin's silly
conclusion is politically inspired by marxism, and presently revived
by the same sort of wreckers (in many cases the same disgraced
marxists wearing new hats) as a tool of anti-globalization strategy

If you want to believe in conclusively disproven crap as an article of
faith, you are of course entitled to to make a fool of yourself. But
you musn't bring your religion here and try to pretend it is a
rational argument; people will be rude to you.

Perhaps the Neolithic was just a big mistake.

Now you're getting the tone of my piece. Monday was cancelled for lack
of interest, if it's Tuesday this must be Belgium, the Neolithic was
just a big mistake -- let's bury it!

Andre Jute
Visit Andre at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

(1) And John Rawls of Harvard has in any event shown the basic premise
of selfishness underlying the entire analysis doesn't hold water. You
should familiarize yourself with Rawls's Veil of Ignorance concept.
Furthermore, experimenters have shown that even animals do not act
exclusively selfishly

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 2 May 2007 06:25:37 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

(1)
Furthermore, experimenters have shown that even animals do not act
exclusively selfishly

You would definitely enjoy, if not, like me, have your life
view changed by, Richard Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_ which
is actually about almost everything other than the obvious
conclusion to be drawn from the title. 1976. It's as
important as Darwin and Mendel and a lot more interesting;
no ****.

He was here in God's Country last week and spoke to an audience
that twice outgrew available spaces. He was finally moved to
a convention center, seating of over a thousand, and there were
folks standing at the back. I was so proud of my little burg
I'm teary right now remembering it.

Dawkins came to discuss his current book _The God Delusion_, which
I couldn't finish (too obvious), but his appearance's political
overtones, in my country bedeviled by religious fundamentalists,
were a breath of real air.


_The Selfish Gene_ examines ideas like game theory and genetic
relatedness. Most significantly it explores *exactly WHAT* is
operated upon by natural selection. It's not actually us
critters, which is the cool part. Trust me; you'll love it.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

[Andre Jute]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 2 May 2007 06:25:37 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

(1)
Furthermore, experimenters have shown that even animals do not act
exclusively selfishly

You would definitely enjoy, if not, like me, have your life
view changed by, Richard Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_ which
is actually about almost everything other than the obvious
conclusion to be drawn from the title. 1976. It's as
important as Darwin and Mendel and a lot more interesting;
no ****.

I was about to say I read it when it first came out, but I think I
read it before, in manuscript. Can't remember precisely why now.
Something about whether crude computer drawings would be adequate. I
don't think Darwin and Mendel need to look to the security of their
laurels. Dawkins is a second-class philosopher and anthropologist and
a first class self-publicist. I don't quite understand why so many
outside Oxbridge, where what he says has been common currency since
Russell's time (and that generation got it from the previous one!),
think he says something new.

He was here in God's Country last week and spoke to an audience
that twice outgrew available spaces. He was finally moved to
a convention center, seating of over a thousand, and there were
folks standing at the back. I was so proud of my little burg
I'm teary right now remembering it.

They were measuring him for a coffin.

Dawkins came to discuss his current book _The God Delusion_, which
I couldn't finish (too obvious), but his appearance's political
overtones, in my country bedeviled by religious fundamentalists,
were a breath of real air.

Muslims? Baptists? I wasn't aware that Baptists blew up tall buildings
full of innocents. If you guys don't like preachers mixing it in
politics, you can vote them out. Count your blessings.

There was a hilarious television special (or maybe a short series of
pieces) with Dawkins travelling the world, explaining fundamentalism
to us. He didn't explain ****, but it was brilliant entertainment as
he was given the bum's rush by some fundy preacher with an enclave of
his own and hulking bodyguards -- and that's in America! Then, in
Israel, this refined don was confronted by a Jew converted to Islam
who wanted Dawkins to "control your women"; Dawkins seemed lost for
argument, bemused; afterwards I made a couple of calls and was told
Dawkins, while not perhaps henpecked, is not a raging chauvinist
either.

_The Selfish Gene_ examines ideas like game theory and genetic
relatedness. Most significantly it explores *exactly WHAT* is
operated upon by natural selection. It's not actually us
critters, which is the cool part. Trust me; you'll love it.

I did. But I knew that stuff already. Every properly trained
statistician does. It's basic training. It is a mistake to think of me
primarliy as an economist or a pscyhologist, or an applied big
business version of either; all three are just statisticians with
class and originality to set them apart from the technician-
statisticians. Dawkins's great skill is not originality but to make
all that technical stuff and tricky anti-intuitive concepts visible,
almost physically tangible, to Everyman -- well, to the chattering
classes subdivision of Everyman, because the fundies are fundamentally
incapable of understanding anything. I remember trying to explain the
math on which strip malls are placed, first developed by Richard L
Nelson in 1936 and refined by me in the 1960s, to
property developers as "a demographic formula" and seeing their eyes
glaze over; ditto for calling it "simple statistics that will make you
rich"; so I dressed it up as "how sexy young mothers choose where to
spend hubby's money" and the next bunch of neon-minds were all over
me.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

Constable, I wasn't even there when it happened. -- Andre Jute as a
student

Andre Jute
"Noted vacuum tube hi-fi designer, cyclist, music collector and
critic, author, economist, psychologist, soldier and advisor to
statesmen worldwide has made his home in the vicinity for many years."
-- from his hometown's website

[ccr]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
Dawkins came to discuss his current book _The God Delusion_, which
I couldn't finish (too obvious), but his appearance's political
overtones, in my country bedeviled by religious fundamentalists,
were a breath of real air.

Muslims? Baptists? I wasn't aware that Baptists blew up tall buildings
full of innocents. If you guys don't like preachers mixing it in
politics, you can vote them out. Count your blessings.

Maybe you also aren't aware that Baptists have blown up small buildings and
shot doctors here?

[Peter Wieck]

On May 2, 9:28 pm, Chris Hornbeck


_The Selfish Gene_ examines ideas like game theory and genetic
relatedness. Most significantly it explores *exactly WHAT* is
operated upon by natural selection. It's not actually us
critters, which is the cool part. Trust me; you'll love it.


Natural Selection stopped in Humans the moment that they started
caring for their ill and damaged. At that point "selection" certainly
occured, but not natural by any means.

Diabetic, blind, diseased, slow, otherwise defective animals simply do
not survive to reproduce, so the genes prone to such defects are
culled out pretty fast. Occasional sports will live to reproduce and
if the genes they add are positive or no worse than neutral, they will
move on. Negative, they will fail. Note that "positive" and
"negative" have only to do with reproduction, not length or even
quality of life. Some "reproductively desireable" genes have a
negative effect on survival... witness peacocks. The Hens prefer
large, bulky tails that affect speed, duration and control during
flight. Heavily antlered deer will have a larger harem but are
preferred by hunters...

Nature simply does not care about intelligence.

This brings to mind the Charles Addams cartoon... the last two one-
celled animals at the bottom of the last bit of water at the end of a
nuclear war are deciding whether to start over.... The caption is:
"Only this time, no brains".

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Patrick Turner]

Peter mentioned..

Nature simply does not care about intelligence.

How wrong can a man be? the increase in intelligence
in our species enabled it to survive far better in the hard
natural world from where intelligence evolved.
Smarter men eat better, and **** more women,
and care for their offspring better to ensure they survive.
They do it all better than their dumber brothers, so their genes tend to
be
passed on.

We are so darn "successful" as a species, we now dominate the Earth to
such an extent that it is warming up, and Nature will turn against us.
Nature cares alright, and reacts to circumstances....

Maybe in another million years we will be long gone, but I really don't
know.

Patrick Turner.

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 3 May 2007 13:16:55 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

I was about to say I read it when it first came out, but I think I
read it before, in manuscript. Can't remember precisely why now.
Something about whether crude computer drawings would be adequate.

Then you didn't read it.

There was a hilarious television special (or maybe a short series of
pieces) with Dawkins travelling the world, explaining fundamentalism
to us. He didn't explain ****, but it was brilliant entertainment as
he was given the bum's rush by some fundy preacher with an enclave of
his own and hulking bodyguards -- and that's in America! Then, in
Israel, this refined don was confronted by a Jew converted to Islam
who wanted Dawkins to "control your women"; Dawkins seemed lost for
argument, bemused; afterwards I made a couple of calls and was told
Dawkins, while not perhaps henpecked, is not a raging chauvinist
either.

He's married to Lalla Ward, the second Romana from the Tom Baker
era of Doctor Who. Worse things could happen.


I did. But I knew that stuff already. Every properly trained
statistician does.

You didn't. It's not what you're thinking about.

But it's just a recommendation. Get over it. If you don't value
the recommendation, don't act on it. Simple enough.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 3 May 2007 14:04:35 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:

Nature simply does not care about intelligence.

Actually very far from true. Dawkins' various books
or alternatively Colin Tudge's are quite accessable
for us civilians. But _The Selfish Gene_ is special.

Audio tie-in: the guy who (quite surprisingly, given
the man's very business persona) turned me on to it,
owns and runs a loudspeaker company that sells
(wonderful) speakers that cost more than my house,
Nearfield Acoustics.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

"ccr" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Dawkins came to discuss his current book _The God Delusion_, which
I couldn't finish (too obvious), but his appearance's political
overtones, in my country bedeviled by religious fundamentalists,
were a breath of real air.

Muslims? Baptists? I wasn't aware that Baptists blew up tall buildings
full of innocents. If you guys don't like preachers mixing it in
politics, you can vote them out. Count your blessings.

Maybe you also aren't aware that Baptists have blown up small buildings and
shot doctors here?

And the mass murder of millions by Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot
el all, were, no doubt, due to their 'fundamentalist religious
fervor'.

No.

Your point was ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
"ccr" wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote
Chris Hornbeck wrote:

Dawkins came to discuss his current book _The God Delusion_, which
I couldn't finish (too obvious), but his appearance's political
overtones, in my country bedeviled by religious fundamentalists,
were a breath of real air.

Muslims? Baptists? I wasn't aware that Baptists blew up tall buildings
full of innocents. If you guys don't like preachers mixing it in
politics, you can vote them out. Count your blessings.

Maybe you also aren't aware that Baptists have blown up small buildings and
shot doctors here?

And the mass murder of millions by Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot
el all, were, no doubt, due to their 'fundamentalist religious
fervor'.

No.

Your point was ?

Work on it.

I'm not playing your silly guessing games.

You said it, now what exactly did you mean by it ?

Graham

[Prune]

Patrick Turner wrote in
:



Peter mentioned..

Nature simply does not care about intelligence.

How wrong can a man be? the increase in intelligence
in our species enabled it to survive far better in the hard
natural world from where intelligence evolved.
Smarter men eat better, and **** more women,
and care for their offspring better to ensure they survive.
They do it all better than their dumber brothers, so their genes tend
to
be
passed on.

We are so darn "successful" as a species, we now dominate the Earth to
such an extent that it is warming up, and Nature will turn against us.
Nature cares alright, and reacts to circumstances....

Maybe in another million years we will be long gone, but I really
don't
know.

Patrick Turner.


There is plenty of energy to be had--breeder reactors and several
extensions such as the waste transmuter developed at CERN allow most
nuclear waste to be reprocessed for more fuel. As uranium mines wind
down a thorium-based fuel cycle will provide plenty of long term energy
supply, far more than is needed for the offspring of the multibillion
dollar international ITER project to have begun operation. However, the
greens insist on inadequate sources like solar and wind power because
those things force conservation and that way they restrict progress.
Environmentalists are at best Luddites and at worst fanatical
misanthropes.

As for climate change...
Gore + global warming = PROFIT
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...e_exposed.html

Then the global warming fraudsters have yet to explain, if the sun is
not to blame, why are other planets wraming too?

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

"Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists"
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html

"Global Warming Detected on Triton"
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199...runc_sys.shtml

"New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change"
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

[Dersu Uzala]

In article ,
says...

As for climate change...
Gore + global warming = PROFIT
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...e_exposed.html

Is it Queen Elizabeth II's fault? (LaRouch says Liz sells heroin)




Then the global warming fraudsters have yet to explain, if the sun is
not to blame, why are other planets wraming too?

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

"Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists"
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ng_021009.html

"Global Warming Detected on Triton"
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199...runc_sys.shtml

"New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change"
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...04_red_jr.html

See
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...solar-induced/

[Andre Jute]

ccr wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
Dawkins came to discuss his current book _The God Delusion_, which
I couldn't finish (too obvious), but his appearance's political
overtones, in my country bedeviled by religious fundamentalists,
were a breath of real air.

Muslims? Baptists? I wasn't aware that Baptists blew up tall buildings
full of innocents. If you guys don't like preachers mixing it in
politics, you can vote them out. Count your blessings.

Maybe you also aren't aware that Baptists have blown up small buildings and
shot doctors here?

That makes the Baptists a small nuisance, not a bedevilling
influence. Get some perspective, man.

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey.

[Andre Jute]

Interesting, Chris. You studiedly practice the plainsman's courtesy --
except when your two religions of atheism and conservationism are
attacked, then you turn peevish. Most interesting.

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
On 3 May 2007 13:16:55 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

I was about to say I read it when it first came out, but I think I
read it before, in manuscript. Can't remember precisely why now.
Something about whether crude computer drawings would be adequate.

Then you didn't read it.

My copy of The Blind Watchmaker turned up on my desk while I was out
cycling on Friday. The Selfish Gene will also be found; I have 8000
books so it might take a while, but it will be found. The Blind
Watchmaker contains computer drawings but the ones I spoke about were
an earlier generation, much cruder.

the Tom Baker era of Doctor Who.

The Doctor doesn't practice real science, you understand?

I did. But I knew that stuff already. Every properly trained
statistician does.

You didn't. It's not what you're thinking about.

Eh? Applied statistics is precisely the art of extracting profitable
or other useful pattern from iterative combinations and permutations,
akin to evolution. In the market these permutations and combinations
of events are out of your control and you discover about them
afterwards from observing the results. Sound familiar?

But it's just a recommendation. Get over it. If you don't value
the recommendation, don't act on it. Simple enough.

Hmm. I read 128 pages of The Blind Watchmaker in my bath Friday night.
I'll have another look at The Selfish Gene when my copy turns up. I'm
sorry if my lack of enthusiasm upsets you. Your attitude is like that
of a missionary who presses his HOLY BOOK into your hands and expects
you to light up like an electric globe. Why is it that militant
atheists need to go on a mission? Surely the key thing about their
belief -- that God doesn't exist -- cannot be proved, and therefore
should not be proselytized.

The Country Library here asked everyone for a list of their favourite
novels, and the books that most influenced them. It came to me that
the most influential book I ever read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT, including from
the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the attention
span). I don't expect you to share my enthusiasm. I merely note that
in my top ten are two further novels by Rand, The Fountainhead and We
the Living, the latter as fine a condemnation of those who want to
coerce their fellows under pretense of protecting the Common as one
can hope to find anywhere.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

Andre Jute
"Whenever I watch TV and see those poor starving kids all over the
world, I can't help but cry. I mean I'd love to be skinny like that
but not with all those flies and death and stuff."
--- Mariah Carey.

[John Byrns]

In article m,
Andre Jute wrote:

The Country Library here asked everyone for a list of their favourite
novels, and the books that most influenced them. It came to me that
the most influential book I ever read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT, including from
the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the attention
span).

Andre, you are wrong in your assessment that Atlas Shrugged will get
"nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT". You won't get any sneers or
jeers from me as Atlas Shrugged is one of two books that had a strong
influence on me in my formative years. I need to find a copy of Atlas
Shrugged, as I don't have one in my library, and it's time to read it
again.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 5 May 2007 18:43:20 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

Interesting, Chris. You studiedly practice the plainsman's courtesy --
except when your two religions of atheism and conservationism are
attacked, then you turn peevish. Most interesting.

True enough. Although I intended no discourtesy, I'm no less
defensive of my religion than anyone else is of theirs. That my
particular religion discludes *some* conventional attributes doesn't
remove the element of faith at its core. Science is fundamentally
based in a particular faith in a particular procedure, a winnowing
process of discovering a possibly unattainable "truth". That's
pretty religious, fersure.

Hmm. I read 128 pages of The Blind Watchmaker in my bath Friday night.
I'll have another look at The Selfish Gene when my copy turns up. I'm
sorry if my lack of enthusiasm upsets you. Your attitude is like that
of a missionary who presses his HOLY BOOK into your hands and expects
you to light up like an electric globe. Why is it that militant
atheists need to go on a mission? Surely the key thing about their
belief -- that God doesn't exist -- cannot be proved, and therefore
should not be proselytized.

You live in a civilized country. When your country has been
overwhelmed (perhaps too strong a term, perhaps not) by
religious fundamentalists, causing war and ongoing war crimes,
you may feel differently. I'm a US Army Veteran and I'm not
happy about things. Sorry to be parochial and blunt, but the
time for touchy-feely bunny rabbit talk is long past here.

The Country Library here asked everyone for a list of their favourite
novels, and the books that most influenced them. It came to me that
the most influential book I ever read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT, including from
the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the attention
span). I don't expect you to share my enthusiasm. I merely note that
in my top ten are two further novels by Rand, The Fountainhead and We
the Living, the latter as fine a condemnation of those who want to
coerce their fellows under pretense of protecting the Common as one
can hope to find anywhere.

Yeah, I was raised on Ayn Rand too. For the last fifteen years I've
been writing my play (hey, I'm not much of a writer, ya know?)
based on Rand's only (to my knowledge) play. It'll be called
_Salem_ and will incorporate the idea of a staged trial, with
audience members forming a jury and different scripted outcomes
for different verdicts. The trial is to be about the Little
Rascals Daycare case in North Carolina many years ago, but
the title has an additional meaning in America.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

[Andre Jute]

John Byrns wrote:

In article m,
Andre Jute wrote:

The Country Library here asked everyone for a list of their favourite
novels, and the books that most influenced them. It came to me that
the most influential book I ever read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT, including from
the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the attention
span).

Andre, you are wrong in your assessment that Atlas Shrugged will get
"nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT". You won't get any sneers or
jeers from me as Atlas Shrugged is one of two books that had a strong
influence on me in my formative years. I need to find a copy of Atlas
Shrugged, as I don't have one in my library, and it's time to read it
again.


Regards,

John Byrns

Actually, I fully expected that like thinkers on RAT would be familiar
with such a formative book as Atlas Shrugged. I just expressed myself
poorly. I should have left off the comma and the word "including" so
the sentence read, "I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on
RAT from the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the
attention span)."

I could probably name each individual on RAT who read Atlas Shrugged
and was impressed; if asked, I would certainly have named you and
Chris. In fact, it is a good test of someone's background and
sincerity to ask them about Atlas Shrugged; those who vomit out the
kneejerk "liberal" sneer don't even know what the word "liberal"
means, are badly educated, and have minds so poor that they parrot
what they hear without investigating for themselves; they're
impressionable fashion victims, fodder for my virtual motivational
laboratory. Asking about Atlas Shrugged is a cheap sieve of wannabe
trendies. It would be easy to make a good argument that Rand was the
most influential novelist of the 20th century: her ideas, which were
delivered against the trend and hysterically denounced by almost the
entire intellectual establishment (which was then solidly marxist),
from Thatcher and Reagan forwards shaped the world we live in.

What was the other book that had a strong influence on your formative
years?

Andre Jute
Habit is the nursery of errors. -- Victor Hugo

[Andre Jute]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On 5 May 2007 18:43:20 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

Interesting, Chris.
snip

Science is fundamentally
based in a particular faith in a particular procedure, a winnowing
process of discovering a possibly unattainable "truth". That's
pretty religious, fersure.

Wasn't Reason for a while the official religion of France under The
Directorate? Pretty murderous sort of reason, that was.

I prefer to think of science as a logical spiralling in on truth,
which takes it as given that the truth of physics is unattainable,
that the smallest unit will never be discovered, that the guys who've
been building a Large Hadron Collider in Geneva for twenty years will
start it up in November and in December will be asking for funding for
another twenty-year project to get even nearer to the Big Bang, an
endless quest. It's a good thing too; keeps all these hardly-
socialized Ph.Ds from building weapons. I leave certainties to
engineers and other mental mechanics of equally short sight.

The truth of morality is a different matter. So many of its
constituent parts -- liberty for instance -- are indivisible that we
may as well take morality as set at "Whatever does least harm to your
fellows". Of course, the point in this thread is how to answer the
question "What does least harm to your fellows?"

The Country Library here asked everyone for a list of their favourite
novels, and the books that most influenced them. It came to me that
the most influential book I ever read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT, including from
the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the attention
span). I don't expect you to share my enthusiasm. I merely note that
in my top ten are two further novels by Rand, The Fountainhead and We
the Living, the latter as fine a condemnation of those who want to
coerce their fellows under pretense of protecting the Common as one
can hope to find anywhere.

Yeah, I was raised on Ayn Rand too. For the last fifteen years I've
been writing my play (hey, I'm not much of a writer, ya know?)
based on Rand's only (to my knowledge) play. It'll be called
_Salem_ and will incorporate the idea of a staged trial, with
audience members forming a jury and different scripted outcomes
for different verdicts. The trial is to be about the Little
Rascals Daycare case in North Carolina many years ago, but
the title has an additional meaning in America.

I put on a production of Miller's play many moons ago, when I still
had patience to work with actors. I directed it like a Feydeau farce,
with the characters in 1950's widebottom suits. The audience roared
with laughter (it's pretty funny once you use embarrassingly absurd
near-present reality to disconnect the context from the even older
history of the play). The serious critics unsmilingly saw an attack on
American anti-communist imperialism (this was in the Vietnam age). I
thought, Those guys have wanked themselves blind.

There was a case in the UK a few years ago where hysterical social
workers took away the children of an entire island community on the
pretext that the parents abused the children in Satanic rituals, the
social workers having convinced first themselves and then the children
by suggestion of the reality of crimes committed only in the minds of
the social workers. This travesty was obvious to everyone yet the
parents had to go to court to recover their children; the doctor who
drove this abuse of power wasn't even censured until much, much later.
I thought of dramatizing the events for television but decided it was
too depressing a subject to give a month of my life to; I didn't know
any producers who would let me turn it into farce (all too frightened
of the political correct lobbies). I don't know anything about the
Little Rascals Daycare case but your audience-as-jury (with a phone-in
of the votes) would've been a solution to keeping the audience
interested.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

Andre Jute
"The noted vacuum tube hi-fi designer, cyclist, music collector and
critic, author, economist, psychologist, soldier and advisor to
statesmen worldwide has made his home in the vicinity for many years."
-- from his hometown's website

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 6 May 2007 09:30:08 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

I don't know anything about the
Little Rascals Daycare case

It's almost exactly like the UK case that you described.
There's something universal about hysteria, maybe.

but your audience-as-jury (with a phone-in
of the votes) would've been a solution to keeping the audience
interested.

That's the part stolen intact from Ayn Rand's play. Hers
is named (some date, but I can't remember what).

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[John Byrns]

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

John Byrns wrote:

In article m,
Andre Jute wrote:

The Country Library here asked everyone for a list of their favourite
novels, and the books that most influenced them. It came to me that
the most influential book I ever read was Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.
I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT, including from
the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the attention
span).

Andre, you are wrong in your assessment that Atlas Shrugged will get
"nothing but sneers and jeers on RAT". You won't get any sneers or
jeers from me as Atlas Shrugged is one of two books that had a strong
influence on me in my formative years. I need to find a copy of Atlas
Shrugged, as I don't have one in my library, and it's time to read it
again.

Actually, I fully expected that like thinkers on RAT would be familiar
with such a formative book as Atlas Shrugged. I just expressed myself
poorly. I should have left off the comma and the word "including" so
the sentence read, "I bet that gets nothing but sneers and jeers on
RAT from the peanut gallery who haven't read it (they don't have the
attention span)."

I could probably name each individual on RAT who read Atlas Shrugged
and was impressed; if asked, I would certainly have named you and
Chris. In fact, it is a good test of someone's background and
sincerity to ask them about Atlas Shrugged; those who vomit out the
kneejerk "liberal" sneer don't even know what the word "liberal"
means, are badly educated, and have minds so poor that they parrot
what they hear without investigating for themselves; they're
impressionable fashion victims, fodder for my virtual motivational
laboratory. Asking about Atlas Shrugged is a cheap sieve of wannabe
trendies. It would be easy to make a good argument that Rand was the
most influential novelist of the 20th century: her ideas, which were
delivered against the trend and hysterically denounced by almost the
entire intellectual establishment (which was then solidly marxist),
from Thatcher and Reagan forwards shaped the world we live in.

What was the other book that had a strong influence on your formative
years?

The other book, which interestingly was published at about the same time
as Atlas Shrugged, is Man of High Fidelity and is probably more familiar
to the readers of this newsgroup. This book had a double effect on me.
I discovered it on the shelf of the school library probably the same day
the librarian had first placed it there back in 1956. After reading the
book as a youth I was greatly impressed by the story of Armstrong's
life, and it greatly increased my interest in the technology of radio,
that was the first effect it had on me.

Some years later I came to realize that the author of this book had put
a definite, and very strong, spin on the story he told in the book. I
realized that this book was probably at the root of the hatred people
today seem to have for David Sarnoff of RCA, a man who probably
contributed considerably more to the development of the Radio &
Electronics Industry in the U.S. than Armstrong ever did. Man of High
Fidelity taught me to always take a careful look at the other side of a
story before deciding which is correct.

Not to diminish Armstrong's greatness, the trouble between the two men
seems to have started after Armstrong assumed it was his God given right
that Sarnoff should build and finance for him the FM radio network he
dreamed of. Sarnoff of course was a man of far broader vision and was
pouring the effort's of the RCA into Television which he saw as the
future of radio, to Sarnoff FM was a distraction which would use
resources that could more profitably be directed toward the development
of Television. Sarnoff's failure to finance Armstrong's FM dream seems
to have seriously embittered Armstrong. Armstrong could have probably
further increased his reputation as a technologist if at that point he
had forgotten about FM, and instead had brought his inventive ability to
bear on Television developments. Unfortunately Armstrong choose to
continue to push his dream of FM broadcasting on his own, with
predictable results. History shows us which man had the more accurate
vision of the future, the public quickly embraced Television and turned
a deaf ear towards FM for many years to come.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Peter Wieck]

On May 3, 8:48 pm, Patrick Turner wrote:

Smarter men eat better, and **** more women,
and care for their offspring better to ensure they survive.
They do it all better than their dumber brothers, so their genes tend to
be
passed on.

OK... then explain, please why the birth rate-by-actual measure does
not support that contention whatsoever?

Nature supports intelligence inasmuch as it helps the _species_ (as
distinct from the individual) reproduce more effectively. But nature
will allow that same species to reproduce to near-extinction... as the
sole-and-only goal of nature as expressed in any specific species is
to make more of it.

I would point you to: "The Marching Morons", a science fiction short
story written by Cyril M. Kornbluth

Look it up. Pretty fascinating and eerily parallel to some pretty
shocking present-day demographics.

Repeat: Nature doesn't give a tinker's dam about intelligence.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[west[_3_]]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
On 2 May 2007 06:25:37 -0700, Andre Jute wrote:

(1)
Furthermore, experimenters have shown that even animals do not act
exclusively selfishly

You would definitely enjoy, if not, like me, have your life
view changed by, Richard Dawkins' _The Selfish Gene_ which
is actually about almost everything other than the obvious
conclusion to be drawn from the title. 1976. It's as
important as Darwin and Mendel and a lot more interesting;
no ****.

He was here in God's Country last week and spoke to an audience
that twice outgrew available spaces. He was finally moved to
a convention center, seating of over a thousand, and there were
folks standing at the back. I was so proud of my little burg
I'm teary right now remembering it.

Dawkins came to discuss his current book _The God Delusion_, which
I couldn't finish (too obvious), but his appearance's political
overtones, in my country bedeviled by religious fundamentalists,
were a breath of real air.


_The Selfish Gene_ examines ideas like game theory and genetic
relatedness. Most significantly it explores *exactly WHAT* is
operated upon by natural selection. It's not actually us
critters, which is the cool part. Trust me; you'll love it.

Much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck
"If you're doing this as a volunteer, don't."
- Paul Stamler

Dawkins is a furtive disciple of Nietzsche. Cosmology has made a quantum
leap in knowledge since the mid 70s. The Selfish Gene is nevertheless a
riveting and compelling book of fiction.

west

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:48:40 GMT, "west" wrote:

Dawkins is a furtive disciple of Nietzsche.

Proving only a Cliff Notes knowledge of either. Content
value: zero. Entertainment value: one.

Cosmology has made a quantum
leap in knowledge since the mid 70s.

Triple contradiction! Much valued in what currently
passes for higher education! Content value: zero.
Entertainment value: three (for humor and lack of
self-respect, both much valued here).

The Selfish Gene is nevertheless a
riveting and compelling book of fiction.

Irony! Very original. If you could work in some
pathos about your deprived childhood, you might
have a paper.

Chris Hornbeck

[west[_3_]]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 04:48:40 GMT, "west" wrote:

Dawkins is a furtive disciple of Nietzsche.

Proving only a Cliff Notes knowledge of either. Content
value: zero. Entertainment value: one.

Cosmology has made a quantum
leap in knowledge since the mid 70s.

Triple contradiction! Much valued in what currently
passes for higher education! Content value: zero.
Entertainment value: three (for humor and lack of
self-respect, both much valued here).

The Selfish Gene is nevertheless a
riveting and compelling book of fiction.

Irony! Very original. If you could work in some
pathos about your deprived childhood, you might
have a paper.

Chris Hornbeck

I never directly meshed with you before so I always wondered why some of our
more esteemed posters hold you to utter contempt. I never read Cliff Notes
but did read the book and gave my honest opinion. You OTOH attacked me
personally. You don't know me, so how can you draw a conclusion about my
childhood? The only plausible answer is that you projected about your
childhood, in a brief moment of angry candor.. In summary, your raw
crudeness ASA your undisciplined tongue, casts your opinion as N/A.

west

[Peter Wieck]

On May 8, 4:19 pm, "west" wrote:

Various twitterings snipped.

You are such a twit. Chris just happens to be one of the most neutral
individuals in this group, so for him to be deliberately insulting
(which he wasn't, just sharply observant) would be entirely out of
character.

And, you need to keep a couple of things in what passes for your mind.

a) you write only for yourself. Lose the "our" when you describe
"esteemed posters". Those that you "esteem" tend to be either the
curdled scum scraped off the top of the soup stock or the leas left at
the bottom of a good Port, which ever applies. In either case unfit
for human consumption or interaction.

b) Conclusions drawn about your childhood would be based on your own
written words... starting off with the fairly recent phrase "raised in
a ghetto".

You need to get a surgical separation from your manipulator and
attempt to relate to the world without the need to defend its
idiocies, opinions or otherwise. There comes a point where one either
chooses to be an individual or not. As things progress, you are more
and more the sock-puppet and less and less yourself.

Oh, I note with interest your post on the high-end group for base
information for Infinity speakers. With respect, are you actually "For
Real"? I cannot imagine a simpler item to derive based on desired
results than such items. Even to making them easily adjustable. If you
wish, I will answer that question in that venue... even pleasantly as
Dave is a sensitive soul.

Do you make these posts just for attention? Are you so benighted that
you believe that any such attention is "good"? Do you even have the
least spark of self-motivation or are you so insecure that you need
validation each time you have to wipe your nose... on the presumption
that young professional sock-puppets raised in the ghetto have noses?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[west[_3_]]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 8, 4:19 pm, "west" wrote:

Various twitterings snipped.

You are such a twit. Chris just happens to be one of the most neutral
individuals in this group, so for him to be deliberately insulting
(which he wasn't, just sharply observant) would be entirely out of
character.

And, you need to keep a couple of things in what passes for your mind.

a) you write only for yourself. Lose the "our" when you describe
"esteemed posters". Those that you "esteem" tend to be either the
curdled scum scraped off the top of the soup stock or the leas left at
the bottom of a good Port, which ever applies. In either case unfit
for human consumption or interaction.

b) Conclusions drawn about your childhood would be based on your own
written words... starting off with the fairly recent phrase "raised in
a ghetto".

You need to get a surgical separation from your manipulator and
attempt to relate to the world without the need to defend its
idiocies, opinions or otherwise. There comes a point where one either
chooses to be an individual or not. As things progress, you are more
and more the sock-puppet and less and less yourself.

Oh, I note with interest your post on the high-end group for base
information for Infinity speakers. With respect, are you actually "For
Real"? I cannot imagine a simpler item to derive based on desired
results than such items. Even to making them easily adjustable. If you
wish, I will answer that question in that venue... even pleasantly as
Dave is a sensitive soul.

Do you make these posts just for attention? Are you so benighted that
you believe that any such attention is "good"? Do you even have the
least spark of self-motivation or are you so insecure that you need
validation each time you have to wipe your nose... on the presumption
that young professional sock-puppets raised in the ghetto have noses?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Always trying to bring me down to your pathetic level. OK... you win this
time. If I were Ludwig or Allison, my answer to you would be ..."Peter,
suck my weick."

[Peter Wieck]

On May 8, 5:33 pm, "west" wrote:


Always trying to bring me down to your pathetic level. OK... you win this
time. If I were Ludwig or Allison, my answer to you would be ..."Peter,
suck my weick."


But you cannot achieve even their levels of competence. Both of them
are wretched examples of humanity. But both of them can crawl circles
around you in terms of knowledge, basic competence and, as it happens,
value to this group.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 08 May 2007 20:19:12 GMT, "west" wrote:

I never directly meshed with you before so I always wondered why some of our
more esteemed posters hold you to utter contempt. I never read Cliff Notes
but did read the book and gave my honest opinion. You OTOH attacked me
personally. You don't know me, so how can you draw a conclusion about my
childhood? The only plausible answer is that you projected about your
childhood, in a brief moment of angry candor.. In summary, your raw
crudeness ASA your undisciplined tongue, casts your opinion as N/A.

FWIW, I've been on this newsgroup for over a decade, posting
under my real name. I'm in the Little Rock phone book. Assuming
that you're a male (because no self-respecting female would
waste her time here) let me just add that that's the way
grown men act.

And also, speaking personally, I find that the most valuable
part of any (including especially Usenet because of the quality
and breadth of possible response) discussions is the possibility
to find oneself *wrong*. It's really the only way adults get
to learn anything. It's certainly true for me.

I could mention several examples, Patrick's and Ian I's correction
of my split-load phase inverter model (although they moved the
goal post... still, a great lesson) or Graham and "flipper"'s
correction of my polemic WRT filament heating voltages. (Haven't
been able to duplicate our agreed model's predictions; don't
mean it weren't right; but I'm re-puzzled).

A newsgroup is a public forum, subject to and (if you're really,
really lucky) eliciting, honest criticism. Your, and all of our,
best efforts are demanded. No slacking off, no bull****.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

[west[_3_]]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On May 8, 5:33 pm, "west" wrote:


Always trying to bring me down to your pathetic level. OK... you win
this
time. If I were Ludwig or Allison, my answer to you would be ..."Peter,
suck my weick."


But you cannot achieve even their levels of competence. Both of them
are wretched examples of humanity. But both of them can crawl circles
around you in terms of knowledge, basic competence and, as it happens,
value to this group.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

It appears Weik that you spend an awful amount of time on me if I I'm so
valueless. Why do I interest you so? Why do I usually receive a fair amount
of replies to my posts if I'm so valueless? Your replies are usually ad
hominem and childish. Have you read the book in question? No. Why do you
comment on a discussion regarding it? Let's admit it that you are a bitter
old man, way past your prime, who realizes that.."I blew it." West may have
some of the qualities at his relatively young age, that I wish I had. He's
probably more successful at his age than I could ever hope for. Why must
these inferior idiots make more money than me, have nicer homes, successful
families, etc.,etc. How could this little snot nose twit figure me out so
well? I believe several ppl in this NG could sense these transparent
emotions in you. It all adds up. Otherwise you wouldn't be so morbidly
interested in my personal life and what I always have to say, even though I
don't know you from a hole-in-the-wall ... until now. I throw out little
pieces of artificial bait and you always get hooked and run with it.
i.e."born in the ghetto" ... bait... you made about 3 or 4 comments on me
and the ghetto. Fool! I consider you the real sicko, not Allison. He's
simply has an unfortunate affliction that affects millions. It's not his
fault. There but for the grace of G-d, go I. Your family OTOH must really
suffer, not from your mental affliction, but your obvious personality
disorder. I hope you get some help soon, at least for their sake. Another
point ...a person's value is not measured by how much he knows about tube
electronics. There has to be some Chiefs and some Indians. I'm an Indian and
proud one because I'm very comfortable in who I'll say it again: This is a
relatively new HOBBY for me. It's NOT my life.

west

[Peter Wieck]

On May 8, 10:49 pm, "west" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ps.com...





On May 8, 5:33 pm, "west" wrote:

Always trying to bring me down to your pathetic level. OK... you win
this
time. If I were Ludwig or Allison, my answer to you would be ..."Peter,
suck my weick."

But you cannot achieve even their levels of competence. Both of them
are wretched examples of humanity. But both of them can crawl circles
around you in terms of knowledge, basic competence and, as it happens,
value to this group.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

It appears Weik that you spend an awful amount of time on me if I I'm so
valueless. Why do I interest you so? Why do I usually receive a fair amount
of replies to my posts if I'm so valueless? Your replies are usually ad
hominem and childish. Have you read the book in question? No. Why do you
comment on a discussion regarding it? Let's admit it that you are a bitter
old man, way past your prime, who realizes that.."I blew it." West may have
some of the qualities at his relatively young age, that I wish I had. He's
probably more successful at his age than I could ever hope for. Why must
these inferior idiots make more money than me, have nicer homes, successful
families, etc.,etc. How could this little snot nose twit figure me out so
well? I believe several ppl in this NG could sense these transparent
emotions in you. It all adds up. Otherwise you wouldn't be so morbidly
interested in my personal life and what I always have to say, even though I
don't know you from a hole-in-the-wall ... until now. I throw out little
pieces of artificial bait and you always get hooked and run with it.
i.e."born in the ghetto" ... bait... you made about 3 or 4 comments on me
and the ghetto. Fool! I consider you the real sicko, not Allison. He's
simply has an unfortunate affliction that affects millions. It's not his
fault. There but for the grace of G-d, go I. Your family OTOH must really
suffer, not from your mental affliction, but your obvious personality
disorder. I hope you get some help soon, at least for their sake. Another
point ...a person's value is not measured by how much he knows about tube
electronics. There has to be some Chiefs and some Indians. I'm an Indian and
proud one because I'm very comfortable in who I'll say it again: This is a
relatively new HOBBY for me. It's NOT my life.

west- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All of this supports my actual contention that you are attempting to
build a legend such that eventually you too may be come an "advisor to
statesment worldwide", raconteur, bon-vivant and self-style expert in
all things real and imagined. When we start hearing stories of you
walking with the rich and famous four years after their death, we will
know you have achieved your goal.

McCoy has been pursuing his legend for many years now. He has you
whipped, proving in the immortal words of George Hull: There's a
sucker born every minute.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[west[_3_]]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 8, 10:49 pm, "west" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ps.com...





On May 8, 5:33 pm, "west" wrote:

Always trying to bring me down to your pathetic level. OK... you win
this
time. If I were Ludwig or Allison, my answer to you would be
...."Peter,
suck my weick."

But you cannot achieve even their levels of competence. Both of them
are wretched examples of humanity. But both of them can crawl circles
around you in terms of knowledge, basic competence and, as it happens,
value to this group.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

It appears Weik that you spend an awful amount of time on me if I I'm so
valueless. Why do I interest you so? Why do I usually receive a fair
amount
of replies to my posts if I'm so valueless? Your replies are usually ad
hominem and childish. Have you read the book in question? No. Why do
you
comment on a discussion regarding it? Let's admit it that you are a
bitter
old man, way past your prime, who realizes that.."I blew it." West may
have
some of the qualities at his relatively young age, that I wish I had.
He's
probably more successful at his age than I could ever hope for. Why must
these inferior idiots make more money than me, have nicer homes,
successful
families, etc.,etc. How could this little snot nose twit figure me out
so
well? I believe several ppl in this NG could sense these transparent
emotions in you. It all adds up. Otherwise you wouldn't be so morbidly
interested in my personal life and what I always have to say, even
though I
don't know you from a hole-in-the-wall ... until now. I throw out little
pieces of artificial bait and you always get hooked and run with it.
i.e."born in the ghetto" ... bait... you made about 3 or 4 comments on
me
and the ghetto. Fool! I consider you the real sicko, not Allison. He's
simply has an unfortunate affliction that affects millions. It's not his
fault. There but for the grace of G-d, go I. Your family OTOH must
really
suffer, not from your mental affliction, but your obvious personality
disorder. I hope you get some help soon, at least for their sake.
Another
point ...a person's value is not measured by how much he knows about
tube
electronics. There has to be some Chiefs and some Indians. I'm an Indian
and
proud one because I'm very comfortable in who I'll say it again: This is
a
relatively new HOBBY for me. It's NOT my life.

west- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All of this supports my actual contention that you are attempting to
build a legend such that eventually you too may be come an "advisor to
statesment worldwide", raconteur, bon-vivant and self-style expert in
all things real and imagined. When we start hearing stories of you
walking with the rich and famous four years after their death, we will
know you have achieved your goal.

McCoy has been pursuing his legend for many years now. He has you
whipped, proving in the immortal words of George Hull: There's a
sucker born every minute.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

AJ is not my guru. I'll confess that I made some T-Shirts with that portrait
logo on the first page of his Web site. I did it not because I'm a blind
follower, but because I think that pix looks really cool. When I wear the
shirt, my family and friends are asking "who is Andre Jute." I tell them but
some of them find it hard to believe that one man could have all those
experiences. Be a sport and put down the gauntlet and I'll mail you a shirt.
Don't forget to include the size requirements.

Cordially,
west

[west[_3_]]

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 08 May 2007 20:19:12 GMT, "west" wrote:

I never directly meshed with you before so I always wondered why some of
our
more esteemed posters hold you to utter contempt. I never read Cliff
Notes
but did read the book and gave my honest opinion. You OTOH attacked me
personally. You don't know me, so how can you draw a conclusion about my
childhood? The only plausible answer is that you projected about your
childhood, in a brief moment of angry candor.. In summary, your raw
crudeness ASA your undisciplined tongue, casts your opinion as N/A.

FWIW, I've been on this newsgroup for over a decade, posting
under my real name. I'm in the Little Rock phone book. Assuming
that you're a male (because no self-respecting female would
waste her time here) let me just add that that's the way
grown men act.

And also, speaking personally, I find that the most valuable
part of any (including especially Usenet because of the quality
and breadth of possible response) discussions is the possibility
to find oneself *wrong*. It's really the only way adults get
to learn anything. It's certainly true for me.

I could mention several examples, Patrick's and Ian I's correction
of my split-load phase inverter model (although they moved the
goal post... still, a great lesson) or Graham and "flipper"'s
correction of my polemic WRT filament heating voltages. (Haven't
been able to duplicate our agreed model's predictions; don't
mean it weren't right; but I'm re-puzzled).

A newsgroup is a public forum, subject to and (if you're really,
really lucky) eliciting, honest criticism. Your, and all of our,
best efforts are demanded. No slacking off, no bull****.

All good fortune,

Chris Hornbeck

Thanks Chris for your follow-through. You are one of the nicer Rodents. I
actually enjoy criticism, mainly because of what you alluded to, it's how
one learns. If Weick had insulted my childhood, it wouldn't of meant
anything to me. I was, however, somewhat shocked when a nice guy like you
made a derogatory remark about my childhood. The other disagreement was
fine. It was more who said it than what was said. I think I may be a tad too
sensitive for this NG. So many fine tubies left and so many stay away so I
reckon there are many sensitive people.

Cordially,
west

[Sander deWaal]

"west" said:


Thanks Chris for your follow-through. You are one of the nicer Rodents. I
actually enjoy criticism, mainly because of what you alluded to, it's how
one learns. If Weick had insulted my childhood, it wouldn't of meant
anything to me. I was, however, somewhat shocked when a nice guy like you
made a derogatory remark about my childhood. The other disagreement was
fine. It was more who said it than what was said. I think I may be a tad too
sensitive for this NG. So many fine tubies left and so many stay away so I
reckon there are many sensitive people.


Just don't let them get to you.

Ignore the noise, contribute to the tube threads only.

It works.

now working on a PP 300B amp

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -