hello everyone,

some small-d condensers like Earthworks have *really* small diaphragms.
and other "measurement" mics are also often very small in this way.

i would think those small mics would lose bass response. because in a
loudspeaker, you need a big woofer to produce the low end.

so how does a tiny little mic like that capture low end? the spec
sheets show that those things measure flat way down into the 30hz range
or even down to 10hz. i just don't understand the physics of it.

wrote:

some small-d condensers like Earthworks have *really* small diaphragms.
and other "measurement" mics are also often very small in this way.

Yes, especially if they are pressure microphones.

i would think those small mics would lose bass response. because in a
loudspeaker, you need a big woofer to produce the low end.

No, with a loudspeaker, you need a lot of area to move air. With a
microphone, you're only detecting the position of the air, you don't
have to actually move anything.

The only thing you lose with a tiny diaphragm (on an omni) is S/N.

so how does a tiny little mic like that capture low end? the spec
sheets show that those things measure flat way down into the 30hz range
or even down to 10hz. i just don't understand the physics of it.

For the most part, the low end corner on any pressure mike is just due
to the electronics. My old B&K 2615 mikes are flat down to 2 Hz, and
they'd be flatter yet if the electronics could deal with it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:

some small-d condensers like Earthworks have *really* small diaphragms.
and other "measurement" mics are also often very small in this way.

Yes, especially if they are pressure microphones.

i would think those small mics would lose bass response. because in a
loudspeaker, you need a big woofer to produce the low end.

No, with a loudspeaker, you need a lot of area to move air. With a
microphone, you're only detecting the position of the air, you don't
have to actually move anything.

The only thing you lose with a tiny diaphragm (on an omni) is S/N.

so how does a tiny little mic like that capture low end? the spec
sheets show that those things measure flat way down into the 30hz range
or even down to 10hz. i just don't understand the physics of it.

For the most part, the low end corner on any pressure mike is just due
to the electronics. My old B&K 2615 mikes are flat down to 2 Hz, and
they'd be flatter yet if the electronics could deal with it.

It's not usually that the electronics "can't" handle extreme LF, but
that they are *designed* not to. This is so that microphones don't pass
super LF energy that can't be heard but creats havoc later in the
signal chain.

Also, most microphone capsules are vented one way or the other (a small
pinhole, or through a specifically designed mechanical component that
"leaks" air). This is so the characteristics of the capsule don't
change with barometric pressure or a change in altitude (the same
thing). This is only true of pressure mics, since directional mics by
nature are already vented.

Only a few specific measurement mic capsules (B&K, MG, etc.) go below a
few hertz but there are some that go down to .5 Hz... and they use the
same electronics as the units that go "only" down to 10Hz.

Karl Winkler
Lectrosonics, Inc.
http://www.karlwinkler.com

some small-d condensers like Earthworks have *really* small diaphragms.
and other "measurement" mics are also often very small in this way.

i would think those small mics would lose bass response. because in a
loudspeaker, you need a big woofer to produce the low end.


** That is a completely false comparison: A microphone diaphragm responds
by moving in sympathy with the air pressure variations going on at the spot
WHERE it is positioned !!! It does not have to create sound energy or
project sound waves into the environment !!


so how does a tiny little mic like that capture low end? the spec
sheets show that those things measure flat way down into the 30hz range
or even down to 10hz. i just don't understand the physics of it.


** In the case of a condenser mic's *capsule*, the diaphragm's excursion
about its rest position translates directly into output voltage. IOW -
output voltage at any instant is proportional to the diaphragm's
displacement from zero. The movement is not frequency dependant but follows
only the actual SPL at the surface on the ultra light diaphragm.

( Note: I said *capsule* - since the following pre-amp will have a low
frequency response limit of its own. )

This is quite unlike a bass loudspeaker where the cone's excursion must
become greater and greater as the frequency gets lower ( four times for each
octave ) in order for the radiated SPL to remain constant. This is why
larger cones make more bass, they do not have to move as far for the same
SPL output as a smaller one.

For a dynamic mic, diaphragm excursion increases as the frequency goes
lower, however it only doubles for each octave - but the diaphragm no
longer moves in sympathy with the air pressure variations below the resonant
frequency created by the diaphragm's mass/stiffness and the air volume it
encloses. So dynamics have an inherent low frequency roll off.





........... Phil

wrote:

i would think those small mics would lose bass response. because in a
loudspeaker, you need a big woofer to produce the low end.

so how does a tiny little mic like that capture low end?

Why don't you need a huge radio to receive the signal from
WABC, or WLS, or KMOX, or KFI?

The answer is in there...(sort of a skewed analogy, but
along the same lines.)



TM

"T Maki"


so how does a tiny little mic like that capture low end?

Why don't you need a huge radio to receive the signal from
WABC, or WLS, or KMOX, or KFI?

The answer is in there...(sort of a skewed analogy, but
along the same lines.)



** Or even more appropriate:

How big is a tympani ??

How big is your ear drum ??




............ Phil

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 13:03:59 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** In the case of a condenser mic's *capsule*, the diaphragm's excursion
about its rest position translates directly into output voltage. IOW -
output voltage at any instant is proportional to the diaphragm's
displacement from zero. The movement is not frequency dependant but follows
only the actual SPL at the surface on the ultra light diaphragm.

( Note: I said *capsule* - since the following pre-amp will have a low
frequency response limit of its own. )

For a dynamic mic, diaphragm excursion increases as the frequency goes
lower, however it only doubles for each octave - but the diaphragm no
longer moves in sympathy with the air pressure variations below the resonant
frequency created by the diaphragm's mass/stiffness and the air volume it
encloses. So dynamics have an inherent low frequency roll off.

Perhaps a better way to say it is that output voltage is related
linearly to displacement in condenser mics and to velocity in
dynamic mics. So, linear translation of pressure into voltage
occurs for condenser mics with their mass/compliance resonance
above their working range, and for dynamic mics below their
working range.

In both cases, the diaphram must accurately follow instantaneous
pressure differentials across itself. Diaphragm excursion
is *not* related to frequency per se, or to generator characteristics.

Chris Hornbeck

"Chris Hornbeck" = a KING SIZE criminal public menace


Phil Allison

** In the case of a condenser mic's *capsule*, the diaphragm's excursion
about its rest position translates directly into output voltage. IOW -
output voltage at any instant is proportional to the diaphragm's
displacement from zero. The movement is not frequency dependant but
follows
only the actual SPL at the surface on the ultra light diaphragm.

( Note: I said *capsule* - since the following pre-amp will have a low
frequency response limit of its own. )

For a dynamic mic, diaphragm excursion increases as the frequency goes
lower, however it only doubles for each octave - but the diaphragm no
longer moves in sympathy with the air pressure variations below the
resonant
frequency created by the diaphragm's mass/stiffness and the air volume it
encloses. So dynamics have an inherent low frequency roll off.


Perhaps a better way to say it is that output voltage is related
linearly to displacement in condenser mics and to velocity in
dynamic mics.


** The average punter has no concept of "velocity" when it comes to audio
frequencies.

Answers must only contain ideas familiar to the audience.


So, linear translation of pressure into voltage
occurs for condenser mics with their mass/compliance resonance
above their working range, and for dynamic mics below their
working range.


** Never say "linearity" when you really mean "linear frequency response" .

Only a posturing **** does that.


In both cases, the diaphragm must accurately follow instantaneous
pressure differentials across itself.


** Utterly ambiguous.


Diaphragm excursion
is *not* related to frequency per se,


** It ****ing well is you posturing, autistic, bloody imbecile.


or to generator characteristics.


** Spew inducing gobbledegook.





............ Phil






Chris Hornbeck

In article .com writes:

some small-d condensers like Earthworks have *really* small diaphragms.
and other "measurement" mics are also often very small in this way.

i would think those small mics would lose bass response. because in a
loudspeaker, you need a big woofer to produce the low end.

so how does a tiny little mic like that capture low end?

A nice, flexible suspension. What they lose is amplitude because there
isn't a lot of surface area for the moving air to push on, which is
why 1/4" diaphragm mics (the typical size for a "measurment mic") tend
to be a bit noisy.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

thanks, Mr. Rivers.

is the noise typically a broadband "hiss" or is it more of a hum?

i'm going to be getting either a pair of DPA's or Earthworks or Schoeps
(if they make a small-d omni), just wondering what the typical noise
culprit is for these mic types.

In article .com,
wrote:

i'm going to be getting either a pair of DPA's or Earthworks or Schoeps
(if they make a small-d omni), just wondering what the typical noise
culprit is for these mic types.

That's a VERY broad range of prices and quality there.

There are basically two noise sources at work here... the noise of the
FET itself, which is 1/f noise and so mostly low-end rumble, and the
Brownian noise of the air molecules knocking around inside the capsule.
The Brownian noise is Gaussian.

As the capsule gets smaller, Brownian noise problems get more significant
but so does the 1/f noise. These days the Brownian noise gets worse faster,
though.

Mikes with cheap FET-IC front ends have another noise source... they use
the leakage of a diode fabricated on the surface of the FET in place of
an expensive and large leak resistor. With those mikes, the leakage noise
is often the most significant noise source. Almost anything with a
cheap prepackaged electret capsule with an integral FET will have this problem.
This noise is more irregular-sounding than Gaussian noise... in some way
it kind of sounds to me like bias rocks on a tape recorder.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article .com writes:

thanks, Mr. Rivers.
is the noise typically a broadband "hiss" or is it more of a hum?

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about (or what I was talking
about). Please quote a bit of the original message if the subject of
the question isn't obvious.

If we're talking about microphone self-noise that you'll hear when
using a lot of gain, it's hiss. Hum means there's something wrong with
the cable.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

"Chris Hornbeck" = a KING SIZE criminal public menace


Phil Allison

** In the case of a condenser mic's *capsule*, the diaphragm's
excursion
about its rest position translates directly into output voltage. IOW -
output voltage at any instant is proportional to the diaphragm's
displacement from zero. The movement is not frequency dependant but
follows
only the actual SPL at the surface on the ultra light diaphragm.

( Note: I said *capsule* - since the following pre-amp will have a low
frequency response limit of its own. )

For a dynamic mic, diaphragm excursion increases as the frequency goes
lower, however it only doubles for each octave - but the diaphragm no
longer moves in sympathy with the air pressure variations below the
resonant
frequency created by the diaphragm's mass/stiffness and the air volume it
encloses. So dynamics have an inherent low frequency roll off.


Perhaps a better way to say it is that output voltage is related
linearly to displacement in condenser mics and to velocity in
dynamic mics.


** The average punter has no concept of "velocity" when it comes to audio
frequencies.

Answers must only contain ideas familiar to the audience.

So who said you were the audience?


So, linear translation of pressure into voltage
occurs for condenser mics with their mass/compliance resonance
above their working range, and for dynamic mics below their
working range.


** Never say "linearity" when you really mean "linear frequency response"
.

Only a posturing **** does that.

'scuse me? I can't see the word "linearity" in what was written - perhaps
you should go and get tested for dyslexia?

In both cases, the diaphragm must accurately follow instantaneous
pressure differentials across itself.


** Utterly ambiguous.

Actually, it's a little idealised (it assumes a massless diaphragm, rather
like "assume a perfectly spherical cow" or an inexensible string), but
reflects the behaviour of a diaphragm in a variant pressure environment.

Diaphragm excursion
is *not* related to frequency per se,


** It ****ing well is you posturing, autistic, bloody imbecile.

Certainly it's related to absolute sound pressure, not frequency *alone* -
otherwise there'd be no difference in excursion with SPL?


or to generator characteristics.


** Spew inducing gobbledegook.


Well, I've gone trippy-trap, trippy-trap across your bridge, I suppose I'd
better tell you that the next billy goat gruff is bigger and fatter and
tastier than me )


Dave H.
(Who used to develop studio mic's for a living once upon a time, in a land
far, far away)



........... Phil

On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 05:33:26 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote:

Perhaps a better way to say it is that output voltage is related
linearly to displacement in condenser mics and to velocity in
dynamic mics. So, linear translation of pressure into voltage
occurs for condenser mics with their mass/compliance resonance
above their working range, and for dynamic mics below their
working range.

In both cases, the diaphram must accurately follow instantaneous
pressure differentials across itself. Diaphragm excursion
is *not* related to frequency per se, or to generator characteristics.

After correction by my betters, I need to revise my wording:

Output voltage is related linearly to displacement in condenser
mics and to velocity in dynamic mics. Two models give frequency-
invariant pressure-voltage response: pressure sensitive condenser
mics with their mass/compliance resonance above their working range,
and velocity sensitive dynamic mics with their fundamental
resonance below their working range.

Many real mics find either extreme too tough a criterion, and
have fundamental resonances within the working range. Life's
a bear; then it eats you.

And, for completeness, diaphragm excursion is *not* related to
frequency in any way, or to any characteristics of the electrical
generating mechanism. It ain't a speaker.

Thanks for the Insurrection, and now back to the freeway, which
is already in progress.........

Chris Hornbeck

"Dave H." = ****ing meathead

"Phil Allison"
"Chris Hornbeck" = a KING SIZE criminal public menace


Phil Allison

** In the case of a condenser mic's *capsule*, the diaphragm's
excursion
about its rest position translates directly into output voltage. IOW -
output voltage at any instant is proportional to the diaphragm's
displacement from zero. The movement is not frequency dependant but
follows
only the actual SPL at the surface on the ultra light diaphragm.

( Note: I said *capsule* - since the following pre-amp will have a low
frequency response limit of its own. )

For a dynamic mic, diaphragm excursion increases as the frequency goes
lower, however it only doubles for each octave - but the diaphragm no
longer moves in sympathy with the air pressure variations below the
resonant
frequency created by the diaphragm's mass/stiffness and the air volume
it
encloses. So dynamics have an inherent low frequency roll off.


Perhaps a better way to say it is that output voltage is related
linearly to displacement in condenser mics and to velocity in
dynamic mics.


** The average punter has no concept of "velocity" when it comes to
audio frequencies.

Answers must only contain ideas familiar to the audience.

So who said you were the audience?


** No-one - you asinine dickwad.

The OP is the "audience".


So, linear translation of pressure into voltage
occurs for condenser mics with their mass/compliance resonance
above their working range, and for dynamic mics below their
working range.


** Never say "linearity" when you really mean "linear frequency
response" .

Only a posturing **** does that.

'scuse me? I can't see the word "linearity" in what was written -


** The term " liner translation " = linearity - you boring,
autistic ass.


In both cases, the diaphragm must accurately follow instantaneous
pressure differentials across itself.


** Utterly ambiguous.

Actually, it's a little idealised


** It is "ambiguous" in context since it is off on some tangent to the
subject.


Diaphragm excursion
is *not* related to frequency per se,


** It ****ing well is you posturing, autistic, bloody imbecile.

Certainly it's related to absolute sound pressure, not frequency *alone* -
otherwise there'd be no difference in excursion with SPL?


** Irrelevant crap.



Well, I've gone trippy-trap, trippy-trap across your bridge,


** You had nothing to contribute - **** off, you schizo turd.





................ Phil

Chris Hornbeck

After correction by my betters, I need to revise my wording:


** You need a revised brain - ASSHOLE !!!


( snip old hat stuff)


And, for completeness, diaphragm excursion is *not* related to
frequency in any way,


** The only thing complete about that claim is how COMPLETELY ASININE it is
!!!!!!


or to any characteristics of the electrical
generating mechanism. It ain't a speaker.


** The relationship is one of simple fact.

Because dynamic mics use an electo magnetic voltage generator, diaphragms
must excurt proportionally more at lower frequencies to maintain the same
output.

Conderser mic ( capsules) use diaphragm position sensing via varying
capacitance, so output voltage replicates the excursions made by the
diaphragm.


Chris Hornbeck


** Do the planet a big favour Hornbeck - top yourself now.




................ Phil

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:30:06 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

Because dynamic mics use an electo magnetic voltage generator, diaphragms
must excurt proportionally more at lower frequencies to maintain the same
output.

Have you heard of the term "ex post facto"? If not, you're
going to love it.


Conderser mic ( capsules) use diaphragm position sensing via varying
capacitance, so output voltage replicates the excursions made by the
diaphragm.

Yeah, sure.

Not following you here...


** Do the planet a big favour Hornbeck - top yourself now.

The colloquilism is lost on me; sorry. Would be very interested
in your alternative model, though.

This is 101 stuff. Extraordinary claims otherwise really
should include some detail.

Chris Hornbeck
1700? Impeach.

"Scott Dorsey"

i'm going to be getting either a pair of DPA's or Earthworks or Schoeps
(if they make a small-d omni), just wondering what the typical noise
culprit is for these mic types.


There are basically two noise sources at work here... the noise of the
FET itself, which is 1/f noise and so mostly low-end rumble,


** WRONG - noise generated by a FET is only partly 1/f and mostly plain
white noise.

The circa 1 Gohm resistors used for DC polarising and to bias the FET's gate
are far and away the MAIN source of noise in a condenser mic pre-amp. This
is good old " Johnson " noise that every resistor has - and it is also
WHITE noise.

The capacitance of the mic's capsule filters the noise generated by these
resistors - with a 6 dB / octave slope - converting it into RED
oise - not to be confused with 1/f noise from the FET's gate junction.

So, the noise spectrum from a condenser mic pre-amp is RED at low and mid
frequencies becoming WHITE at high frequencies where FET generated WHITE
noise takes over from Gohm resistor noise.



and the
Brownian noise of the air molecules knocking around inside the capsule.


** Air molecule noise is a minor contributor to total condenser mic noise -
easily proved by placing one in a vacuum.


As the capsule gets smaller, Brownian noise problems get more significant
but so does the 1/f noise.


** As the capsule gets smaller, so does its capacitance and output voltage
level. The smaller capacitance filters the Gohm resistor noise less well and
the lower output further diminishes the mic's s/n ratio.


These days the Brownian noise gets worse faster,
though.


** Huh - air is noisier than it once was ??

You really have to stop confabulating garbage like this Dorsey.

You are just as bad as that Stamler ASS - with his phoney capacitor
measurements.



............... Phil

Karl Winkler wrote:
It's not usually that the electronics "can't" handle extreme LF, but
that they are *designed* not to. This is so that microphones don't pass
super LF energy that can't be heard but creats havoc later in the
signal chain.

When I get live remote feeds this happens all the time, low energy
I can't hear in my audio room making the compressor/limiter pump in a
way that does not help intelligibility. And analog filters aren't
perfect in slicing out the energy below the roll off point either....

Will Miho
NY Music and TV Audio Guy
Staff Audio/Fox News/M-AES
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"Chris Horn"


A schizophrenic as well as an autistic moron.


Get to hell and stay there !!!!



.................. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

................. Phil

http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fu=ADn/fsckhead.html

Or you could just look that term up in the dictionary and see Phil's
picture.

VB

(gotta admit though that Phil's "go to hell and stay there" reply did
make me giggle.... usually just going to hell is harsh enough.)

On 6/20/05 2:05 AM, in article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

Get to hell and stay there !!!!

Phil, in future, when you write a post like this, hit 'delete' just before
you hit 'send'.
Thanks!

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...



Perhaps a better way to say it is that output voltage is related
linearly to displacement in condenser mics and to velocity in
dynamic mics.


** The average punter has no concept of "velocity" when it comes to
audio frequencies.

Answers must only contain ideas familiar to the audience.

So who said you were the audience?


** No-one - you asinine dickwad.

The OP is the "audience".


So, linear translation of pressure into voltage
occurs for condenser mics with their mass/compliance resonance
above their working range, and for dynamic mics below their
working range.


** Never say "linearity" when you really mean "linear frequency
response" .

Only a posturing **** does that.

'scuse me? I can't see the word "linearity" in what was written -


** The term " liner translation " = linearity - you boring,
autistic ass.


In both cases, the diaphragm must accurately follow instantaneous
pressure differentials across itself.


** Utterly ambiguous.

Actually, it's a little idealised


** It is "ambiguous" in context since it is off on some tangent to the
subject.


Diaphragm excursion
is *not* related to frequency per se,


** It ****ing well is you posturing, autistic, bloody imbecile.

Certainly it's related to absolute sound pressure, not frequency
*alone* - otherwise there'd be no difference in excursion with SPL?


** Irrelevant crap.



Well, I've gone trippy-trap, trippy-trap across your bridge,


** You had nothing to contribute - **** off, you schizo turd.





............... Phil

LOL - the quality of trolls has really fallen, hasn't it? At least my
contribution wasn't the ravings of a foul-mouthed fool without even a chance
of contributing anything meaningful or useful to the thread - not that I've
ever seen anything meaningful or useful contributed by your fair hand (it is
your *hand* you type with, isn't it?).

I must say that your language isn't likely to convince anyone that you have
any contribution to make to intelligent discourse (whereas Chris certainly
has), serving only to warn other posters and readers that you must be a
little lacking in knowledge of the subject at hand (' Never say "linearity"
when you really mean "linear frequency response" ' you said - the poster
wasn't discussing frequency response, but the transfer function between
sound pressure and voltage - may I suggest you enroll for a course of
Physics 101 and at least try to find out a little about the subject?).

You come across as someone who has a lot of deep-seated anger, which I can
only assume is a result of your intense self-loathing, and you seem to enjoy
haranguing your betters from the safety of your PC - I wonder if you're as
unpleasant in person; if you are I anticipate that the gene-pool is safe, as
you've no chance of breeding and spreading your inadequacy.

Honestly, it hurts just to try to think down to your level.

Regards
Dave H.

P.S. You might consider therapy, you'd be a far happier person without the
outpourings of bile, and living in Hell as you do must make every day a
living misery.

Phil Allison wrote:

you boring, autistic ass.

Anyone catch the recent Salon article on autism and thimerosal?

When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused
autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data
-- and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in
the epidemic. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/

Dave H. wrote:

P.S. You might consider therapy, you'd be a far happier person without the
outpourings of bile, and living in Hell as you do must make every day a
living misery.

Actually the more recent thinking on the
sociopathic/psychopatic personality disorder is that the
person truly does believe in their superiority, that their
abusive behavior is honest contempt rather than a
compensation for feelings of inadequacy, that they have a
pathologically large ego rather than one screaming for
existence, that they are quite satisfied with themselves and
that their anger derives from frustration with the inability
of others to acknowledge their clear superiority.

That's the reason it is an untreatable disorder. The last
thing such an individual wants is to be cured of his/her
superiority.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Dave H." = yet another cretinous, autistic moron

"Phil Allison"


** You had nothing to contribute - **** off, you schizo turd.


LOL - the quality of trolls has really fallen, hasn't it?


** You have nothing to contribute - **** off.

If you want to suck Chris Hornbeck's cock - do so privately.






................ Phil

"SSJVCmag"



** Get to hell and stay there !!!!




............. Phil

In article ,
"Phil Allison" wrote:

"SSJVCmag"

** Get to hell and stay there !!!!

............ Phil


Not getting any, huh, Phil?

You know, you might have a vicious circle kind of thing going there. On
the other hand, it might keep your DNA out of the gene pool, for the
benefit of future generations...

--
Brendan Doyle

Was it something I said, Sweety?
Kiss and make up?

Chris Hornbeck
1700? Impeach.

"Brendan Doyle"



** Another Hornbeck cock sucker comes out of the woodwork.




............ Phil

Bob Cain wrote in
:

Actually the more recent thinking on the
sociopathic/psychopatic personality disorder is that the
person truly does believe in their superiority, that their
abusive behavior is honest contempt rather than a
compensation for feelings of inadequacy, that they have a
pathologically large ego rather than one screaming for
existence, that they are quite satisfied with themselves and
that their anger derives from frustration with the inability
of others to acknowledge their clear superiority.

That's the reason it is an untreatable disorder. The last
thing such an individual wants is to be cured of his/her
superiority.

One can only wonder why you have such a personal preoccupation with
sociopathic/psychopathic personality disorder, and why it is your
defamatory accusation of choice. Perhaps these and other psychological
disorders which you attribute to others are in fact a bit closer to home
than you would care to admit.

Bob Cain wrote in
:


http://thingy.apana.org.au/~fun/fsckhead.html

Bob

Looks to me like a pretty good portrait of you, Bob.

On 6/20/05 7:12 PM, in article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"SSJVCmag"



** Get to hell and stay there !!!!

Well Phil I have to refuse you on that one.
Not going to happen.
Not going there.
Not today.
Nope
No
Voluntarily anyway.
I also doubt you have the ability to force the issue in any way so it's
pretty futile of you to wish for things over which you have no control.
Pretty much leads to self-dissapointment and that's not something I;d wish
on anybody.
Sorry I can;t help you on this one.
Take care!

Wow, Bob, you have a whacko stalker. I'm impressed; that's
real Hollywood street cred.

All I get is this T-shirt drool.

Way to be,

Chris Hornbeck
1700? Impeach.

"SSJVCmag"


** Another ****ing schizoid.

The studio business is crawling with them.




............ Phil

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
Wow, Bob, you have a whacko stalker. I'm impressed; that's
real Hollywood street cred.

All I get is this T-shirt drool.

Way to be,

Yeah, I'm a made man. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

bobfan wrote:

One can only wonder why you have such a personal preoccupation with
sociopathic/psychopathic personality disorder,

Well, I have this wingnut stalker who once went by the name
Gary Sokolich. That has given me the motivation to put some
time into learning more about it. It's pretty easy to spot
when you know what to look for.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:09:46 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Yeah, I'm a made man. :-)

"A man needs a made" -Neil Young (hope he forgives me)

Chris Hornbeck
"'Cause secretly I'm timid." -Liz Phair

On 6/20/05 8:28 PM, in article , "Phil Allison"
wrote:

"Brendan Doyle"
** Another Hornbeck cock sucker comes out of the woodwork.


OK, is Phil always a real person making these posts, or is there some
auto-response insult-generator he turns on when he sleeps?