Arnii "Spelling is for loosers" Krooborg makes a hash of common
English words.

thermonic

No such word.

electromechical

No such word.

sockpppet.

No such word.

anythhing.

No such word.



Too bad your church defunded the position of Sunday school jester.

Arnii "Spelling is for loosers"

I love that. Hahahaha. "Loosers."

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"MINe 109" wrote in message

Website AWOL, check;

Never happened for most of the web.
Only person reporting: JA.

So why then, Mr. Krueger, are you arguing with another poster in another
thread over the fact that they couldn't access the page?

I guess it must be hard for you to keep track of what you have said
to different people at different times. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Just because Arny consistently tells lies doesn't mean he tells consistent
lies.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 08:00:29 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 14:12:10 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 19:56:50 +0000 (UTC), (Stewart
Pinkerton) wrote:

On an LP, of course there *is* no difference. Why would there be?

Because the velocity is constant, but the distance travelled per
revolution gets smaller and smaller the closer to the center?

So what? The rpm remains the same.

This is the sticking point for me, I guess. It's hard for me to see
why the rpm stays the same at all points of the disk.

It's just one of those mental blocks I guess. I see a constant speed
but a different distance travelled at diferent points of the disk.

shrug

RPM is conmstant, speed for any particular point on the radius is NOT.
Don't confuse RPM with speed.
The speed, in inches per second, varies with the distance from the center.
Your confusion lied not with the principles, of which I am sure you
understand, but iinstead lies with the semantics.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:13:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Yet another example of your basic wired-in blockheadedness, Weil. What
sort
of a regimen of which drugs gets a normal teenager to your current mental
state?

What an asshole. I hope that Mr. Wheeler takes you for as much as he
can.

What is it in *your* heredity that has hard-wired you to be such a
mess?

Cheap capacitors.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm
refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it
would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3.

You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc.
There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm.

CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc,
not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end
of the album.
--


You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed variation
over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed.
By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular
point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius from
the center, the
longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point.
Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius from
the center travels
farther, thus has a greater speed.

This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly
take RPM to be the speed. Example: The speed for a point one inch away form
the center
is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute. For a point two inches out
from the center, it
is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational 'rate'
of 33.33 RPM's




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Arnii "Spelling is for loosers" Krooborg makes a hash of common
English words.

thermonic

No such word.

electromechical

No such word.

sockpppet.

No such word.

anythhing.

No such word.



Too bad your church defunded the position of Sunday school jester.

Kroo**** is all too willing to perform on a voluntary basis.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article ,
George M. Middius writes:


dave weil said:

BTW, it *still* doesn't really make sense, but I guess I'm stupid for
admitting that. Or human.

It doesn't? Hmmm.....

You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm
refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it
would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3.

If that's true then why don't turntables have a different setting for
different size records?

The "R" in RPM stands for revolutions, not feet or inches. It means
it spins 33 1/3 times around per minute. If you were to suspend a
string from the center of the platter to the edge and then draw a
point anywhere on the platter, the point would cross the line 33 1/3
times each minute no matter where you drew it. It's a rotational or
angular speed, not a linear speed. The linear speed is proportional
to the angular speed times the distance from the center.

You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc.
There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm.

George is indeed mistaken here and Dave does seem to be suffering from some
sort of block. I bet by the end of the day they will both have things figured
out. Will you still be a prick at the end of the day or will you have learned
something too?

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm
refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it
would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3.

You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc.
There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm.

CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc,
not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end
of the album.
--


You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed variation
over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed.

Seems like you're the one who is really confused. Read the posts
carefully. They all say speed of rotation, or rotational speed. It's
perfectly OK to state rotational speed in rpm.

By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular
point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius from
the center, the
longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point.
Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius from
the center travels
farther, thus has a greater speed.

This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly
take RPM to be the speed.

You're the only one who's mistaken, it seems, as the following shows.

Example: The speed for a point one inch away form
the center
is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute.

Circumference = 2*pi*r. Not really that hard to remember.

For a point two inches out
from the center, it
is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational 'rate'
of 33.33 RPM's


The linear speed is proportional to radius, or distance to center of
circle. Not really that hard to remember. At 2 inches away, linear speed
should be *twice* the value at 1 inch away.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

chung a écrit :

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm
refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it
would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3.

You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc.
There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm.

CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc,
not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end
of the album.
--


You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed
variation
over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed.


Seems like you're the one who is really confused. Read the posts
carefully. They all say speed of rotation, or rotational speed. It's
perfectly OK to state rotational speed in rpm.

By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular
point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius
from
the center, the
longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point.
Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius from
the center travels
farther, thus has a greater speed.

This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly
take RPM to be the speed.


You're the only one who's mistaken, it seems, as the following shows.

Example: The speed for a point one inch away form

the center
is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute.


Circumference = 2*pi*r. Not really that hard to remember.

For a point two inches out

from the center, it
is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational
'rate'
of 33.33 RPM's


The linear speed is proportional to radius, or distance to center of
circle. Not really that hard to remember. At 2 inches away, linear speed
should be *twice* the value at 1 inch away.


You should try to explain them why on grindstone you must install a
speed adjustement. I know that they like nice knifes perhaps it will be
easier than with music. ;-)

On 6 Jan 2004 23:28:31 GMT, Mr. Physics wrote:

In article ,
George M. Middius writes:


dave weil said:

BTW, it *still* doesn't really make sense, but I guess I'm stupid for
admitting that. Or human.

It doesn't? Hmmm.....

You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm
refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it
would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3.

If that's true then why don't turntables have a different setting for
different size records?

The "R" in RPM stands for revolutions, not feet or inches. It means
it spins 33 1/3 times around per minute. If you were to suspend a
string from the center of the platter to the edge and then draw a
point anywhere on the platter, the point would cross the line 33 1/3
times each minute no matter where you drew it. It's a rotational or
angular speed, not a linear speed. The linear speed is proportional
to the angular speed times the distance from the center.

Thank you Mr. Physics.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

Dave said


What an asshole. I hope that Mr. Wheeler takes you for as much as he
can.

Arny said


I think he will. ;-)


Interesting prediction. The court limmit is 25,000 plus costs.

Good thing that there is no such thing as a "limmit".

Dave Weil wrote:


On 6 Jan 2004 23:28:31 GMT, Mr. Physics wrote:

In article ,
George M. Middius writes:


dave weil said:

BTW, it *still* doesn't really make sense, but I guess I'm stupid for
admitting that. Or human.

It doesn't? Hmmm.....

You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm
refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it
would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3.

If that's true then why don't turntables have a different setting for
different size records?

The "R" in RPM stands for revolutions, not feet or inches. It means
it spins 33 1/3 times around per minute. If you were to suspend a
string from the center of the platter to the edge and then draw a
point anywhere on the platter, the point would cross the line 33 1/3
times each minute no matter where you drew it. It's a rotational or
angular speed, not a linear speed. The linear speed is proportional
to the angular speed times the distance from the center.

Thank you Mr. Physics.








He definitely doeesn't live in Detroit or one of its suburbs.






Bruce J. Richman

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


RPM is conmstant,

Nothing is "conmstant".

speed for any particular point on the radius is NOT.

In the real world intelligent people speak of rotational speed and linear
speed.

The rotational speed of a LP is supposed to be 33 1/3 rpm. However the
linear speed of the groove referenced to the stylus varies with the tracking
radius.

Don't confuse RPM with speed.

Since rotational speed is a legitimate concept, RPM and speed can be
synonymous.

The speed, in inches per second, varies with the distance from the
center.

That would be linear speed.

Your confusion lied not with the principles, of which I am
sure you understand, but iinstead lies with the semantics.

There is nothing that is "iinstead".

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans, but you also
haven't got a clue about the generally-accepted semantics for this topic.

"chung" wrote in message
rvers.com...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm
refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it
would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3.

You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc.
There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm.

CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc,
not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end
of the album.
--


You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed
variation
over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed.

Seems like you're the one who is really confused. Read the posts
carefully. They all say speed of rotation, or rotational speed. It's
perfectly OK to state rotational speed in rpm.

By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular
point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius
from
the center, the
longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point.
Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius
from
the center travels
farther, thus has a greater speed.

This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly
take RPM to be the speed.

You're the only one who's mistaken, it seems, as the following shows.

Example: The speed for a point one inch away form
the center
is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute.

Circumference = 2*pi*r. Not really that hard to remember.

For a point two inches out
from the center, it
is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational
'rate'
of 33.33 RPM's


The linear speed is proportional to radius, or distance to center of
circle. Not really that hard to remember. At 2 inches away, linear speed
should be *twice* the value at 1 inch away.


oops I squared it




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


RPM is conmstant,

Nothing is "conmstant".

speed for any particular point on the radius is NOT.

In the real world intelligent people speak of rotational speed and linear
speed.

The rotational speed of a LP is supposed to be 33 1/3 rpm. However the
linear speed of the groove referenced to the stylus varies with the
tracking
radius.

Don't confuse RPM with speed.

Since rotational speed is a legitimate concept, RPM and speed can be
synonymous.

The speed, in inches per second, varies with the distance from the
center.

That would be linear speed.

Your confusion lied not with the principles, of which I am
sure you understand, but iinstead lies with the semantics.

There is nothing that is "iinstead".

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans, but you also
haven't got a clue about the generally-accepted semantics for this topic.



I can't type worth beans, and neither can you.
that is why I don't bother to point out
all of your errors. Another reason is that it
is much more important to focus on your orther shortcomings,
such as your being an ignoramus, a liar, and an asshole.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Marc "formerly Andrew Z. MacGowan" Phillips wrote

Richard Malesweski said:

Hmm...

http://tinyurl.com/2pr2o

Confused, Porky? :-)

Scott "I'm smart, just ask me" Wheeler scrawled:


Congradulations

and

explination

and then, again

explination?

ESL, Scotty? ;-)

And yet it's okay when Arny does it, right, Internet geek?


And it's okay when Bruce "Quackenbush" Richman does it, right, Porky Boy?

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

Good thing that there is no such thing as a "limmit".

I guess Arny thinks my spelling errors will shield him from the courts. But he
does have a lot of goofy ideas.

torresists, an anonymous scumbag who oozes out from the sewer every so often to
infest RAO spews his happy horse**** as follows:


Marc "formerly Andrew Z. MacGowan" Phillips wrote

Richard Malesweski said:

Hmm...

http://tinyurl.com/2pr2o

Confused, Porky? :-)

Scott "I'm smart, just ask me" Wheeler scrawled:


Congradulations

and

explination

and then, again

explination?

ESL, Scotty? ;-)

And yet it's okay when Arny does it, right, Internet geek?


And it's okay when Bruce "Quackenbush" Richman does it, right, Porky Boy?








Actually, with the exception of this delusional scumbag and Krueger, nobody
really cares very much about typographical errors in RAO posts. But for an
anonymous, nonentity like torresists who has no name, no credentials, and no
credibility, parroting of a McKelvy slander is about the best he can come up
with. His mindless stupidity fully justifies his need to hide his identity.



Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
What a maroon.

Yes he's probably red in the face by now with embarsment at his stupidity.
Then again he's probably too stupid to realise it.

One of many. Gosh Weil, I wish I would have figured out you were this
stupid
and block-headed 3 years ago.

That's a sad admission in itself Arny.

TonyP.

=(8888)= a écrit :
"Arny Krueger" emitted :


1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the
magazine's circulation is shrinking?


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!


Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!

So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000?


Not in any significant way.

I don't know about England but sometime plants are closed for less than
that ! :-(

=(8888)= a écrit :

"Michael McKelvy" emitted :


1994: 71,040
1995: 79,332
1996: 85,808
1997: 87,219
1998: 83,921
1999: 85,224
2000: 91,384
2001: 84,987
2002: 82,932
2003: 81,668

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's
circulation is shrinking?


you are wrong.

Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384

Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ!

LOL!


Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!!
LOL!

It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers
are clearly falling.


The average over the ten year period is 83352. The current readership
is a mere ~2% down on that average. Negligible. In the last 8 years
the fluctuation has been between +10% and -2%. Apparently you are more
than eager to point out a meager and insignificant tailing off, but
failed to notice the more important spurt in growth from the mid to
late 1990's onwards.

Here's a plot of the data with linear and polynomial (3rd order) trend
lines, forecasting thru 2005. [JA, hope you don't mind.. :-S]

http://home.clara.net/media/CAP1.jpg

To say that the readership is "shrinking" is hyperbole. The readership
has remained pretty steady. Indeed, the linear trend line indicates an
overall increase in readers across the data period.

Same plot extended thru 2007

http://home.clara.net/media/CAP2.jpg


Magistral demonstration ! Yes sincerely.
This pure statistical analyze stick to a media make me think to an
attempt to learn about furtur in a cristal bowl.

It's looks like that Stereophile has some problems to anchor about 10%
of its potential readership.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap
newsreaders that lack spell-checkers.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 04:30:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap
newsreaders that lack spell-checkers.

Actually you *don't* make a heck of a lot less typos than anyone. You
made quite a few yesterday, you know.

Besides, who are you talking about when you refer to "bozos" that use
"cheap" newsreaders that lack spell-checkers? You certainly couldn't
be talking about me. Or Yustabe. Or Stephen. Or George. Or Paul
Dormer.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap
newsreaders that lack spell-checkers.



So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist?
Run out of ideas, Arny?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:02:13 +1100, "Tony Pearce"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
What a maroon.

Yes he's probably red in the face by now with embarsment at his stupidity.
Then again he's probably too stupid to realise it.

I guess I am. I'm too stupid to realize that there's no shame in
trying to find out things that I don't know. Thing is, I wish more
people around here did it, instead of trying to hide their gaps in
knowledge.

One of many. Gosh Weil, I wish I would have figured out you were this
stupid
and block-headed 3 years ago.

That's a sad admission in itself Arny.

shrug

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:02:13 +1100, "Tony Pearce"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
What a maroon.

Yes he's probably red in the face by now with embarrassment at his
stupidity. Then again he's probably too stupid to realize it.

I guess I am. I'm too stupid to realize that there's no shame in
trying to find out things that I don't know.

That's not it Weil.

First off, you could have researched this one yourself. we quickly gave you
a number of acronyms and words that you could have used quite profitably at
google. Or perhaps, you really aren't that good at searching with google?

Secondly, a bunch of different people who had no reason to lie to you, told
you almost exactly the same thing. Even Middius and I agreed for a while
until he got weird again.

Thirdly, this is a stupid simple issue. How did you graduate from High
School without learning this? How do you live life without seeing this
simple physical rule operate right before your eyes? How have you gone this
long without knowing why LPs are played at 33 1/3 rpm and what that really
means?

Thing is, I wish more
people around here did it, instead of trying to hide their gaps in
knowledge.

Thing is Weil, you've got a long track record of doing the same thing on any
number of other topics. Admittedly some of them were not so clear-cut. But
many of them were almost this simple. I guess we didn't think how to search
low enough to find the limits of your inability to learn simple things.

One of many. Gosh Weil, I wish I would have figured out you were
this stupid and block-headed 3 years ago.

That's a sad admission in itself Arny.

Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were more
educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic success becomes
startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people, and you can't admit it
to even yourself.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap
newsreaders that lack spell-checkers.



So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist?
Run out of ideas, Arny?

Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd try a
little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet?

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:38:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's a sad admission in itself Arny.

Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were more
educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic success becomes
startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people, and you can't admit it
to even yourself.

I didn't say this. In fact, I shrugged it off, but you deleted that.
Was this a mistake or was it an intentional attempt to say that I said
this about you? I'd like for you to explain this, if you would would.

IRT the rest of the post, I simply kept asking questions about things
that were unclear to me. I'm sorry that you find this strange. I think
it shows self-confidence for someone to do that in a public forum. Why
you turned on me is an issue that you'll have to deal with.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:39:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap
newsreaders that lack spell-checkers.



So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist?
Run out of ideas, Arny?

Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd try a
little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet?

You still didn't answer my question about newsreaders. Could that
blather about "cheap newsreaders with no spellchecker" have been your
own variation of the above juvenile phrase that you routinely employ?
Is that cake on your face, or just egg?

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:38:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's a sad admission in itself Arny.

Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were
more educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic
success becomes startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people,
and you can't admit it to even yourself.

I didn't say this.

True, you didnt'. But its the sort of thing that you would say.

In fact, I shrugged it off, but you deleted that.

Shrugging off is one of those things you do very well Weil, and that's a
relevant point. You're trying to shrug the cosmic meaning of this experience
you've been going through for several days.

Was this a mistake or was it an intentional attempt to say that I said
this about you? I'd like for you to explain this, if you would would.

Asked and answered at this point.

IRT the rest of the post, I simply kept asking questions about things
that were unclear to me.

I guess that's what it is like inside the head of a person who is pretty
much unteachable.

I'm sorry that you find this strange.

You should be happy for me. Unlike you, I'm a pretty quick learn.

I think it shows self-confidence for someone to do that in a public
forum.

Weil, your self-confidence far over-reaches your grasp of how things really
are, especially in the so-called scientific world. What's sorely lacking is
the step where you realize that you are almost impossible to teach things
to, even things that are easily observed in day-to-day life, even things
that have been generally-agreed upon for ages.

Why you turned on me is an issue that you'll have to deal with.

I didn't turn on you Weil. I just had one of those "Eureka" realizations. I
suspect that what I've leaned about you also applies to many in your clique,
the sockpuppet twins for sure. Essentially what I do here is to teach a few
little things about consumer audio. You're never going to get it because of
the fact that you are one, more unteachable than the next.

I mean look at the sockpuppet twins. They've just had their current houses
of lies collapse right in front of their faces, one w/r/t my house and one
w/r/t my main stereo. They didn't skip a beat. Facts mean nothing.
Intentional false statements they gratuitously make aren't lies. It's all a
head game, nothing more, nothing less.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:39:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "dave weil" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the
cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers.



So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist?
Run out of ideas, Arny?

Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd
try a little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet?

You still didn't answer my question about newsreaders. Could that
blather about "cheap newsreaders with no spellchecker" have been your
own variation of the above juvenile phrase that you routinely employ?
Is that cake on your face, or just egg?

Clear example of "debating trade trick number one". I talk about
spell-checkers and suddenly the topic changes to typing skills.

I'm out of this subthread unless you start making sense, Weil.

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:34:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:38:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

That's a sad admission in itself Arny.

Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were
more educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic
success becomes startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people,
and you can't admit it to even yourself.

I didn't say this.

True, you didnt'. But its the sort of thing that you would say.

That's *two* apostrophe errors in one sentence. Well done!

In fact, I shrugged it off, but you deleted that.

Shrugging off is one of those things you do very well Weil, and that's a
relevant point. You're trying to shrug the cosmic meaning of this experience
you've been going through for several days.

No I haven't. I've been quite upfront with not only my questions but
with my willingness to ask questions.

Was this a mistake or was it an intentional attempt to say that I said
this about you? I'd like for you to explain this, if you would would.

Asked and answered at this point.

Actually you didn't. Was it intentional or accidential? And why do you
"mindread", which is something that you decry? Just curious...

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:36:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:39:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "dave weil" wrote in message

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans

Well, you can't either. What's yer point?

That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the
cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers.



So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist?
Run out of ideas, Arny?

Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd
try a little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet?

You still didn't answer my question about newsreaders. Could that
blather about "cheap newsreaders with no spellchecker" have been your
own variation of the above juvenile phrase that you routinely employ?
Is that cake on your face, or just egg?

Clear example of "debating trade trick number one". I talk about
spell-checkers and suddenly the topic changes to typing skills.

Why are 8you* changing the subject. I said nothing about typing
skills. I asked you a question previously, but apparently you are too
afraid to answer it.

I'm out of this subthread unless you start making sense, Weil.

I simply want to know who you were talking about when you said "That
I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap
newsreaders that lack spell-checkers". Specifically, who has cheap
newsreaders that lack spell-checkers?

Can you answer the question or are you going to continue babbling
about cake?

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?







The velocity speed is constant. (The velocity is constantly changing but don't
think about velocity here it will only complicate things. The speed of each
point is constant *but* the speed is constantly *different for points that are
different distances from the center. Just lok at the constant speed of any
point on the label and look at the constant speed of the edge of the LP.The
distance traveled by each point in relation to the speed at which it travels
equals the same time to make a rotation. You see the speed and the distance
travelled vary in proportion to the distance from the center of the disc. Like
the arm of a clock comes around at the same time so do points on a disc that
are lined up from the center of the disc even though the outside of the disc is
traveling both faster and farther than the inner points.

S888Wheel a écrit :

I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why
this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but
the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics
would also be reduced. What am I missing?








The velocity speed is constant. (The velocity is constantly changing but don't
think about velocity here it will only complicate things. The speed of each
point is constant *but* the speed is constantly *different for points that are
different distances from the center. Just lok at the constant speed of any
point on the label and look at the constant speed of the edge of the LP.The
distance traveled by each point in relation to the speed at which it travels
equals the same time to make a rotation. You see the speed and the distance
travelled vary in proportion to the distance from the center of the disc. Like
the arm of a clock comes around at the same time so do points on a disc that
are lined up from the center of the disc even though the outside of the disc is
traveling both faster and farther than the inner points.

Eh hop, one more... :-)

Lionel wrote in message ...
=(8888)= a écrit :
"Michael McKelvy" emitted :
It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers
are clearly falling.

The average over the ten year period is 83352. The current readership
is a mere ~2% down on that average. Negligible. In the last 8 years
the fluctuation has been between +10% and -2%. Apparently you are more
than eager to point out a meager and insignificant tailing off, but
failed to notice the more important spurt in growth from the mid to
late 1990's onwards.

Here's a plot of the data with linear and polynomial (3rd order) trend
lines, forecasting thru 2005. [JA, hope you don't mind.. :-S]

Not at all. Much appreciated.

http://home.clara.net/media/CAP1.jpg

To say that the readership is "shrinking" is hyperbole. The readership
has remained pretty steady. Indeed, the linear trend line indicates an
overall increase in readers across the data period.

Same plot extended thru 2007
http://home.clara.net/media/CAP2.jpg

Magistral demonstration ! Yes sincerely.
This pure statistical analyze stick to a media make me think to an
attempt to learn about furtur in a cristal bowl.

Hi Lionel, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The extrapolations
_are_ interesting. However, as I have said, there are so many factors that
affect a magazine's total circulation that any number of futures are possible.
A bounding resurgence in the US economy might make things a lot better;
another war will make things worse. All I have tried to do is provide the
historical data so that people's arguments will have more of a basis in
fact.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile




It's looks like that Stereophile has some problems to anchor about 10%
of its potential readership.

Eh hop, one more... :-)


Trying to keep pace with Arny in today's stupidity dash?