has lee proposed even a single revision or update for the faq?

does lee have any ideas for additions to the faq?

can lee suggest a motive for his theft of the faq other than drawing
traffic to his website?

has lee ever contributed anything to rec.audio.car?

can lee explain why our contributions to rec.audio.car should serve as
content for his website?

does lee have the sac to do without us?

he surely hasn't done anything FOR us...
--
sancho
head of the 'r.a.c.-lee separation committee'

has lee proposed even a single revision or update for the faq?

does lee have any ideas for additions to the faq?

Yes he has! Here are a couple of his gems:

CAF comment: We at CarAudioForum.com do not agree with the general idea
that stiffening caps are all that beneficial for issues regarding current
demand on large systems. We suggest auxiliary (2nd) batteries and/or
upgraded alternators -- but this has more to do with large power systems.

Addendum: A common installation problem that can cause this is a poor
connection to ground. With greater resistance to ground you get less voltage
to your equipment; less voltage means the equipment will try and make up for
that by drawing more current. [lh]

Should I bother telling him why he's wrong?

i even tried to be nice to him and offered to help him do something
other than FAQ THEFT.... But he wont reply to my questions...

IAN,
Shall I send you the name of my trademark attourney!
he is great with all kinds of copyright violations and helped
me when the *******s tried to steal my Tx4x4 name and
goodies from my offroad web site...! Shut those guys down
fast as lightning!

Eddie Runner

sancho wrote:

has lee proposed even a single revision or update for the faq?

does lee have any ideas for additions to the faq?

can lee suggest a motive for his theft of the faq other than drawing
traffic to his website?

has lee ever contributed anything to rec.audio.car?

can lee explain why our contributions to rec.audio.car should serve as
content for his website?

does lee have the sac to do without us?

he surely hasn't done anything FOR us...
--
sancho
head of the 'r.a.c.-lee separation committee'

Your post is reminiscent of a horse wearing blinders...
(and one with a hostile bent, at that)

Your post is ignorant to the very fundamental fact that a forum is no
a single minded entity...
A forum is comprised of many members (in CAF's case, 24,817 members.
how many have you here?), each with an opinion of their own...

It seems that you haven't so much as done a single search regardin
capacitor discussions on CAF, or you wouldn't arrive at such a singula
conclusion.

Here's an example that might amuse you...
This thread specifically discusses Richard Clark's original tests tha
- in conjunction with the single-track mentalities (such as you displa
here) - have spawned the very lemming mentality that you seem t
dislike.
Ironic?

http://tinyurl.com/368qh

If you like, you can review other threads:
http://tinyurl.com/22q6o
I can only vouch for threads that I've participated in
-
geolemo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17783

Your post is reminiscent of a horse wearing blinders...
(and one with a hostile bent, at that)

Your post is ignorant to the very fundamental fact that a forum is not
a single minded entity...
A forum is comprised of many members (in CAF's case, 24,817 members..
how many have you here?), each with an opinion of their own...

Thanks for the interesting ****ing contest. There aren't any members of
rec.audio.car. It's a usenet forum, where those who post don't need to
bother with any inane registration crapola. That is, unless they're
registered without their permission (like I was).

It seems that you haven't so much as done a single search regarding
capacitor discussions on CAF, or you wouldn't arrive at such a singular
conclusion.

I really have no interest in other web forums. I've perused several,
including CAF, and didn't find them interesting. I think Clark's forum is
actually one of the only web-based forum that's interesting, but the format
stinks.

Here's an example that might amuse you...
This thread specifically discusses Richard Clark's original tests that
- in conjunction with the single-track mentalities (such as you display
here) - have spawned the very lemming mentality that you seem to
dislike.

So what single-track mentality have I displayed? Care to elaborate?

geolemon wrote:
A forum is comprised of many members (in CAF's case, 24,817 members..

I'm calling bull****.

geolemon

Learn to quote, ya fuggin idgit.

--
thelizman "I didn't steal the FAQ either"

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than usenet without the express written permission of the author
is forbidden.

that was part of my discussion with HIM being
good enough to write the FAQ without filling
it full of common myths..

MZ wrote:

has lee proposed even a single revision or update for the faq?

does lee have any ideas for additions to the faq?

Yes he has! Here are a couple of his gems:

CAF comment: We at CarAudioForum.com do not agree with the general idea
that stiffening caps are all that beneficial for issues regarding current
demand on large systems. We suggest auxiliary (2nd) batteries and/or
upgraded alternators -- but this has more to do with large power systems.

Addendum: A common installation problem that can cause this is a poor
connection to ground. With greater resistance to ground you get less voltage
to your equipment; less voltage means the equipment will try and make up for
that by drawing more current. [lh]

Should I bother telling him why he's wrong?

geolemon wrote:

Your post is ignorant to the very fundamental fact that a forum is not
a single minded entity...

your post is ignorant to the very fundamental fact that rec.audio.car is
not a part of the forum you posted on and many people here could have no
earthly idea what you are going on about if you don't quote the message
to which you are replying...

i'd be surprised if your 'entity' contained the equivalent cognitive
capacity of a 'single mind'...
--
sancho
getting irritated

Originally posted by thelizman:
Learn to quote, ya fuggin idgit.

Originally posted by Sancho:
many people here could have no
earthly idea what you are going on about
if you don't quote the
message to which you are replying...

If the mechanism that you are viewing "your own" threads here with (yo
do seem to be very protective of them, not wishing outsiders t
participate) is as fundamentally and technologically inferior as yo
state here, in your own words e then maybe you have also answered your own question that started thi
thread:

Originally posted by Sancho:
has lee ever contributed anything to rec.audio.car?

Because the only means I have, only means I know of, for viewin
rec.audio.car threads is through CAF:
http://tinyurl.com/2orx7

And if you take a look there...
What do you know - you can actually view a DISCUSSION...
In the form of a continuous THREAD...
Which means discussions can be had that maintain context.
You can use this yourself... who said the best things in life aren'
free?

Relying on trimmed quotations for maintenance of a discussion?
I can't think of any better means of misquoting and taking words ou
of context.. particularly if it is effectively promoted via th
vehicle you are reading with.
So, hence, I assumed that wasn't a problem for you.
I assumed your interface was more logical.
Obviously (as assumptions always risk), I was wrong.

As I assumed, I thought you had better means, better interface
better organization.
However, if you do not... take note that Lee has provided one.
I think that's a pretty good contribution.


Originally posted by Sancho:
...fundamental fact that rec.audio.car is
not a part of the forum you posted on

No, and it's clearly stated as such, as you have to click through
link clearly labeled "UseNet Gateway".
It's not a part of the CAF forum by any means... even to a visitor o
CAF.


Originally posted by Sancho:
can lee suggest a motive for his theft of the faq
other than drawing
traffic to his website?

I think this is backwards thinking...
Bear in mind, Lee added a link pointing TO rec.audio.car... as
stated above, Lee added a "UseNet Gateway" link bringing traffic t
this forum...
I don't believe there is any mechanism in place to brin
rec.audio.car traffic to CAF.

Nor would Lee wish for more traffic, I'm su
As it stands, CAF is one of the largest forums on the web, with (as
stated before) 24,817 members.
The traffic through CAF is tremendous enough as it is that peopl
often voice displeasure regarding their threads falling off the rada
screen, down to the fourth or fifth page, within the course of
single afternoon, if there aren't enough replies on their thread t
keep it afloat.

Also, since Lee doesn't profit from CAF, and in fact needs to incu
significant expense to keep things going, increasing traffic throug
CAF would be nothing more than increased expense for Lee.
Just not logical thinking, on your part.

Originally posted by thelizman:
geolemon wrote:
A forum is comprised of many members
(in CAF's case, 24,817 members..

I'm calling bull****.

thelizman... don't call BS on what you could easily confirm yourself

http://tinyurl.com/2a7zn

At any rate, my main point here...
Is simply that there's been some real aggression, and worse - som
ill-conceived assumptions - about Lee's intent...
...when I think your real concern is probably more in line with som
techincal issues. Waaaay different ballpark
-
geolemo
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17783

geolemon wrote:


If the mechanism that you are viewing "your own" threads here with (you
do seem to be very protective of them, not wishing outsiders to
participate) is as fundamentally and technologically inferior as you
state here, in your own words e then maybe you have also answered your own question that started this
thread:

my newsreader is not flawed... many people choose to view newsgroups
without threading, and even with threading that forum asses up which
posts are being replied to and makes quoting problematic apparently...

Because the only means I have, only means I know of, for viewing
rec.audio.car threads is through CAssF:

that doesn't make it right

And if you take a look there...
What do you know - you can actually view a DISCUSSION...
In the form of a continuous THREAD...
Which means discussions can be had that maintain context.
You can use this yourself... who said the best things in life aren't
free?

usenet threads... properly...

the forum you are posting from does not...

Relying on trimmed quotations for maintenance of a discussion?
I can't think of any better means of misquoting and taking words out
of context.. particularly if it is effectively promoted via the
vehicle you are reading with.
So, hence, I assumed that wasn't a problem for you.
I assumed your interface was more logical.
Obviously (as assumptions always risk), I was wrong.

you are wrong about many things it seems...

As I assumed, I thought you had better means, better interface,
better organization.
However, if you do not... take note that Lee has provided one.
I think that's a pretty good contribution.

i do and he hasn't

No, and it's clearly stated as such, as you have to click through a
link clearly labeled "UseNet Gateway".
It's not a part of the CAssF forum by any means... even to a visitor of
CAssF.

correct the usenet is not a part of the forum... and should be
completely seperate...


Originally posted by Sancho:
can lee suggest a motive for his theft of the faq
other than drawing
traffic to his website?

I think this is backwards thinking...
Bear in mind, Lee added a link pointing TO rec.audio.car... as I
stated above, Lee added a "UseNet Gateway" link bringing traffic to
this forum...
I don't believe there is any mechanism in place to bring
rec.audio.car traffic to CAssF.

lee provided a way for his forum users to spam this newsgroup... with
advertisements for his website in poorly formatted messages...

Nor would Lee wish for more traffic, I'm su
As it stands, CAssF is one of the largest forums on the web, with (as I
stated before) 24,817 members.
The traffic through CAssF is tremendous enough as it is that people
often voice displeasure regarding their threads falling off the radar
screen, down to the fourth or fifth page, within the course of a
single afternoon, if there aren't enough replies on their thread to
keep it afloat.

Also, since Lee doesn't profit from CAssF, and in fact needs to incur
significant expense to keep things going, increasing traffic through
CAssF would be nothing more than increased expense for Lee.
Just not logical thinking, on your part.

then tell him to kill the 'gateway' save him all the trouble of the
increased traffic...


--
geolemon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAssioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!
View this thread: http://www.carassioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=177834

^^^ SEE THAT? THAT'S LEE'S BENEVOLENT CONTRIBUTION TO R.A.C. - SPAM!!!

btw, it was a huge pain in the ass to sort out all your ill quoted responses
--
sancho
this post was intended for usenet, if you are reading this post on a
webforum it is because someone has STOLEN it to use as content to draw
traffic to his site... please acquire a proper newsreader if you want to
access rec.audio.car and rethink your patronage of said site...