[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 13, 5:25 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

More fulminations.

Well. Now.

As to lies.

Shall we start with your blather about Peter Drucker, the "Hungarian
Jew"?

Or "walking up the mountain" with a person 5-years dead?

Oh, yes... speeches to the Knesset at what? 19?

And that is just what I remember over a very short time. Imagine what
else might be out there.

Andre, with respect, you have a long way to go before mere rantings
and fulminations get you back what is long lost. So, start with the
little things and build on them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

Dickless Wieckless, stalker, Kutztown Space 323 aka Peter Wieck
wrote:

On Sep 13, 5:25 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

More fulminations.

I didn't write that. Worthless Peter Wieck forged it and now tries to
pretend I said it.

As to lies.

If you think I told a lie, you should prove it, Worthless Wiecky. in
two years of trying you haven't proved ****, except that you are an an
envious little netstalker.

Here we have some excellent examples of Worthless Wiecky's fascist
character assassination, provided by himself:

Shall we start with your blather about Peter Drucker, the "Hungarian
Jew"?

What about it? You may call anything I say "blather" -- and literate
and sophisticated people will chuckle when they compare what I write
with what you write.

But if you wish to call what I say a lie, then you must prove it a
lie. Not a mistake, not an error, not a literary liberty, not a flight
of fancy, not a passage incomprehensible to a moral and mental
defective such as you, but a deliberate untruth intended to deceive.

Or "walking up the mountain" with a person 5-years dead?

So I telescoped two events over half a century before when I was a
small boy. That's a glitch of memory, not a lie, you moron. It is a
mistake in the circumstances too small to apologize for, and none of
the civilized and decent people on RAT expected me to do anything
except say "Oops!". Only a piece of fascist slime like you, trying to
raise your profile to mere visibility by attacking your betters, would
even have the poor manners to mention it, never mind the extremely
poor form to call it a lie.

Oh, yes... speeches to the Knesset at what? 19?

This is an excellent example of the Magnequest Scum method of
character assassination. You are manufacturing a "claim" from the
whole cloth, ascribing it to me, and then demanding I defend it.
You're a proven forger and scum, Worthless Peter Wieck.

And that is just what I remember over a very short time. Imagine what
else might be out there.

The moon might be made of cheese. There might be 298 commies in the
State Department, just as Joe McCarthy said, the man whose methods of
character assassination you emulate so laboriously and transparently.

In two years despite your best efforts and hundreds of hysterical
messages from you, Worthless Peter Wieck, you have failed to prove
that I ever told a single lie. Wannabe character assassins have tried
before you, by the very act of putting themselves in my face
announcing themselves as lunch. From their hideyholes one can hear
them whine occasionally about how unfair it all is. But it isn't. They
tried to be players, as you are trying, in a game of which they didn't
have the moral and intellectual price, as you haven't.

Andre,

Since when is the janitor on first-name terms with me? Because I pull
your chain for students to observe your reactions, that isn't a
license for familiarity. Mr Jute will do.

with respect, you have a long way to go before mere rantings
and fulminations get you back what is long lost.

You really haven't the faintest idea of what an intellectual does, do
you, Worthless? It is quite clear just from the sentence above that
you confuse "intellectual" with "celebrity". You're an ignorant clown,
Worthless, besides being blustering scum.

So, start with the
little things and build on them.

That's good, sonny. I'm starting with stomping a little character
assassin, forger, plagiarist, thief and liar (every part of which I
have already proved) who is stalking me online. His name is Worthless
Peter Wieck. And why, here he is, presenting himself for another
kicking:

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Unsigned out of total contempt for fascist scum

PS Where's your proof about the Simca, Worthless Wiecky? We're
waiting. Or is it another of your lies that you cannot prove?

[Andre Jute]

So, Worthless Peter Wieck, where is your proof of your repeated claim
that the car in which Theo Sarapo drove the body of Edith Piaf to
Paris was *not* a Simca.

We've had lots of smoke and mirrors and ranting and handwaving from
you, and dark McCarthyite mutterings, and tearjerking tales of the end
of Piaf that Worthless Peter Wieck stole without acknowledgement from
record company flacks, but where's the beef, man, the proof, the
proof, oh where is the proof that it was *not* a Simca?

Or are you just lying again because you are immoral scum?

Lots of other unanswered claimsby Worthless Peter Wieck listed below,
too. Looks to me like Worthless Wiecky is running away again.

Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless. I made him by stuffing a cow's bladder with pig offal. --
CE Statement of Conformity

Andre Jute wrote:

On Sep 13, 9:06 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:



Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

*Everything* I wrote was snipped:

Peter Wieck then forged this and pretended I wrote it:

__________________________________________________ ___

In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain
and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down
during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of
operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second
husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six-
year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years
younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to
make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town
(Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she
fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of
47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo
discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on
October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend,
Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died.
The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of
her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October
14, 1963.
Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970
and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise.
__________________________________________________ ______

I did not write that wretched, illiterate piece. What I wrote is, in
its entirety:

"Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs
overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not
die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger
seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to
Paris. The car was a Simca V8."

The sad sack Peter Wieck then tried to condemn me on hand of his
forgery:

Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend
and falsehood to choke even 60 horses:

Nope, I didn't. The sad sack wannabe Peter Wieck is the one who
regurgitates the publicity puffery. He goes on with his deceit,
criticizing his own forgery, still trying to claim I wrote it:

The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to
stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards.

My single short paragraph stands. Everything else was invented by
Worthless Wiecky to insert himself in the conversations of his
betters.

And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story
straight. Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question.

Then prove I'm wrong, scumface.

Peter Wieck is a forger and a liar. He is scum.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

With complete contemp for a worthless netstalker.

Andre Jute- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you admit you forged that piece of crap and tried to pass it off on
me. Where is your apology, Peter Wieck, slimeball.

a) Piaf died of cancer. The "overdose" is as unlikely as the Simca.

Prove it, toilet slime.

b) That she may have been taking pain killers is quite likely. That
she died of an overdose is not. Her husband (lover too, one expects)
would not have permitted that.

All this, poor worthless Peter Wieck seems to believe, is *proved* by
puffery written by PR flacks at record companies with a monetary
interest in keeping Piaf's image Persil-white. It's a three-hanky
movie but it is totally irrelevant to Worthless Wiecky's total
inability to prove it wasn't a Simca V8, and that Piaf didn't die of
an overdose.

Edith Piaf's Death: Piaf died of cancer in 1963, near Cannes. The date
is disputed, it is said that she actually passed on October 10, but
her official date of death is October 11. Her husband, Theo Sarapo,
was with her at the time. Piaf is buried in Pere Lachaise Cemetery in
Paris. ( http://worldmusic.about.com/od/bands.../EdithPiaf.htm

Snivel, snivel, three bags of useless drivel.

Piaf and Sarapo sang together at the Bobino in early 1963, and Piaf
also made her final recording, "L'Homme de Berlin." Not long
afterward, Piaf slipped into a coma, brought on by cancer. Sarapo and
Simone Berteaut took Piaf to her villa in Plascassier, on the French
Riviera, to nurse her. She drifted in and out of consciousness for
months before passing away on October 11, 1963 -- the same day as
legendary writer/filmmaker Jean Cocteau. Her body was taken back to
Paris in secret, so that fans could believe she died in her hometown.
( http://www.starpulse.com/Music/Piaf,_Edith/Biography/ )

More tearjerking by publicity flacks. But where's the proof it wasn't
a Simca, Worthless Wiecky?

There is much more of course.

Of course there is. But where's the beef, Worthless Wiecky. The Simca,
man, the Simca. You promised to disprove it. You haven't. Smoke and
mirrors won't help you.

What Jute added was the unnecessary embellishment of "Lover" vs.
husband

Crap. Nothing stops a husband from being a lover as well.

and the outright lie

Prove it, Worthless Wiecky.

as a drug overdose being the cause of
death.

"the outright lie as a drug overdose being the cause of death" --
you're really not up to this, are you Worthless. The slightest stress
and your English starts slipping.


Death was inevitable, the drugs were at best a bit-
contributor.

How could you possibly know this?

Proof. OK.

No proof of anything whatsoever. Lots of tearjerking and puffery from
paid flacks with a commercial interest in Piaf's legend, but buggerall
proof of anything.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Lying, fraudulent scumbag, forger and netstalker.

Insigned out of contempt for a worthless janitor.

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 12, 8:00 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
"All American V8s are 90-degrees". Sure they are. Mr. Jute has
written, so it must be.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 138

So, Worthless Wiecky where are these American V8s that aren't 90-
degrees?

So far you've shown your ignorance by claiming the 454 Mercruiser
somehow between the GM production line and Mercruiser warped from 90
degees to 60. You've produced as Otto cycle American production
engines suitable for hotrod use a Diesel engine, a Yamaha made in
Japan engine, and an 18 litre tank engine whose fuel consumption is
measured in gallons per mile. One isn't American, one isn't an Otto
cycle engine, one is so unsuitable for hotrod use that only one
example could be found despite the fact that the Army is probably
desperate to give the engines away to clear the space, and of course,
having each failed on several parameters, *none* fit all the
requirements; none even fit more than half the requirements.

You've wasted our time with your ranting and your waffle and your
smoke and mirrors, all of it dull cut and paste stuff out off Google,
all of it irrelevant, and your dire ignorance as in the 454 marine
engine case.

So now I'm giving you another chance to produce an engine that is an
American V8 petrol engine in appreciable production so that a
hotrodder can acquire one.

If not, you owe me an apology for your impertinence. Let's see it
again:

"All American V8s are 90-degrees". Sure they are. Mr. Jute has
written, so it must be.

Precisely. See the appendix about V8 engine development, machining and
tuning in Andre Jute: "Designing and Building Special Cars", B T
Batsford, London; Bentley, Boston, etc; other proprietary editions;
usual translations.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's other books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 14, 1:00 am, flipper wrote:

I think you left out the most popular: " (The love of) Money is the root of all
evil."

Yep.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 14, 5:23 am, Andre Jute wrote:

PS Where's your proof about the Simca, Worthless Wiecky? We're
waiting. Or is it another of your lies that you cannot prove?

Never said the Simca story was untrue. Simply that with all the other
embelishments and lies added to it, the entirety of the representation
was in doubt.

Whereas had you simply said in far less than 53 words that Edith
Piaf's husband drove her body back to Paris after her death in a
Simca, that would have had some traction.

See, _Andre_, when you ring in "Glassgrey" as your spokespuppet, it is
pretty obvious that you have been caught out... defending your lies
with a lie, as it were.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 14, 1:00 am, flipper wrote:

Not true. A drug must have FDA approval to be sold/used commercially.

Yes. But unless a drug is listed in the "forbidden" Pharmacopia, it is
not illegal to make, use or possess it. There is no "sale weight" nor
any other limitation on it. And the "casual" selling and buying of it
as illegal acts becomes bogged down in whether it is defined as a
"controlled substance" or not.

Drug USE has nothing to do with its being illegal. The Billions and
Billions spent on illegal drug manufacture, distribution and use that
is a massive and intractable burden on Law Enforcement and society in
general would die overnight - just as bootlegging died overnight -
were things to change. And the United States did not instantly turn
into a nation of drunkards and sots when prohibition was lifted. There
is some evidence that alcohol consumption actually went down
thereafter. That may be anecdotal, but the appeal of the forbidden
fruit does factor in.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 9/13/07 11:43 AM:

In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.

Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it
later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This
is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so
I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in
another usenet newsgroup.


Regards,

John Byrns


John,

Your idol Jute is the very master of a variant this technique.

He makes up stuff about people and then repeats it as fact, ad nauseum.

But I realize that sometimes we are blinded to our loved one's failings . .
.. .

Jon

[bill ramsay]

isn't this getting rather tiresome?

give it a rest.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

[John Byrns]

In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

PS Where's your proof about the Simca, Worthless Wiecky? We're
waiting. Or is it another of your lies that you cannot prove?

I Wasn't paying attention to the Simca discussion in the "V8" thread.
What is the disagreement over the Simca all about?


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Andre Jute]

The garage vermin Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 9/13/07 11:43 AM:



In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.

Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it
later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This
is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so
I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in
another usenet newsgroup.

Regards,

John Byrns

John,

Your idol Jute is the very master of a variant this technique.

You should pay attention, Yaeger. John told us not long ago that his
beau ideal (John is too level-headed to have false gods, which is what
idols are) was the leader of the research lab at RCA in the early
years.

He makes up stuff about people and then repeats it as fact, ad nauseum.

This is a lie.

If you're referring to me calling you Garage Vermin, Yaeger, I didn't
make that up. You must thank the Master himself, Phil Allison, Elegant
Inventor of Incisive Invective. It was too apt a description of you
for me to bother inventing my own. I just borrowed it from Phil, with
his gracious permission and with grateful acknowledgement given at
suitable intervals (like now).

If you're referring to me calling you a Crooked Garage Trader, Yaeger,
you have many times admitted it, so it can't be made up. And even if
you hadn't admitted it, it wasn't made up, it was observed and then
tested in adversarial debate and proved when you publicly lied about
the quality of Magnequest transformers you were trying to sell to West
at the same time as you found them not good enough for yourself. At
the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public. That makes
you a Crooked Garage Trader, from observation and proof, as I say. No
invention required.

But I realize that sometimes we are blinded to our loved one's failings

Jon

AKA John and Jono when he needs a new name to hide behind when he's
ripping a newbie.

Remember this, Yaeger, you're the one who first assaulted me, when you
thought you had a gang behind you. You were a lot cockier then.

Unsigned out of contempt

[John Byrns]

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

isn't this getting rather tiresome?

give it a rest.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more
popular.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 5:00 am, bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:
isn't this getting rather tiresome?

You know, Ramsay, I don't see your slack snide arse in her complaining
when netstalking scum like Worthless Peter Wieck hound my every post,
so it is a difficult to believe you don't have some kind of an axe to
grind. When did I eat your lunch and why?

give it a rest.

When I finish.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

Okay, you want to discuss V8 motors with odd included angles. How
would you arrange the cylinders and/or balance a 112.7 degree V8?

And here, for those lost in the wasteland of the usenet 's wannabe
tallpoppyloppers, is my post which so upset poor Bill Ramsay that he
bestirred himself from daytime television with enough momentum to
reach his keyboard:

On Sep 12, 8:00 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
"All American V8s are 90-degrees". Sure they are. Mr. Jute has
written, so it must be.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 138

So, Worthless Wiecky where are these American V8s that aren't 90-
degrees?

So far you've shown your ignorance by claiming the 454 Mercruiser
somehow between the GM production line and Mercruiser warped from 90
degees to 60. You've produced as Otto cycle American production
engines suitable for hotrod use a Diesel engine, a Yamaha made in
Japan engine, and an 18 litre tank engine whose fuel consumption is
measured in gallons per mile. One isn't American, one isn't an Otto
cycle engine, one is so unsuitable for hotrod use that only one
example could be found despite the fact that the Army is probably
desperate to give the engines away to clear the space, and of course,
having each failed on several parameters, *none* fit all the
requirements; none even fit more than half the requirements.

You've wasted our time with your ranting and your waffle and your
smoke and mirrors, all of it dull cut and paste stuff out off Google,
all of it irrelevant, and your dire ignorance as in the 454 marine
engine case.

So now I'm giving you another chance to produce an engine that is an
American V8 petrol engine in appreciable production so that a
hotrodder can acquire one.

If not, you owe me an apology for your impertinence. Let's see it
again:

"All American V8s are 90-degrees". Sure they are. Mr. Jute has
written, so it must be.

Precisely. See the appendix about V8 engine development, machining and
tuning in Andre Jute: "Designing and Building Special Cars", B T
Batsford, London; Bentley, Boston, etc; other proprietary editions;
usual translations.

Andre Jute
Visit Andre's other books at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 3:35 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:23 am, Andre Jute wrote:

PS Where's your proof about the Simca, Worthless Wiecky? We're
waiting. Or is it another of your lies that you cannot prove?

Never said the Simca story was untrue. Simply that with all the other
embelishments and lies added to it, the entirety of the representation
was in doubt.

Yes, you claimed it was a lie. Now that claim stands alone because I
have already proved, and you have admitted by blowing stolen smoke and
failing to answer specific questions, that your claim of "other
embelishments and lies added to it" is as empty as your claim that it
wasn't a Simca. Your supporting evidence is as false as the main
claim.

So prove it wasn't a Simca, dickhead, or withdraw the statement and
all associated statements, or accept that if you accuse someone of
being a liar and you cannot prove it, you are the liar.

You are a liar, Worthless Peter Wieck. Because you're a malicious
liar, you are scum as well.

Whereas had you simply said in far less than 53 words that Edith
Piaf's husband drove her body back to Paris after her death in a
Simca, that would have had some traction.

Leave the literature to me, Worthless. We have already seen your
turgid efforts. Hundreds of dull words where I used 53 -- and now a
jumped-janitor wants to lecture me on brevity!

See, _Andre_, when you ring in "Glassgrey" as your spokespuppet, it is
pretty obvious that you have been caught out...

Oh, I have no control over Mr Glasser. He goes his own way. He ****ed
me off by asking about my familiarity with this tiny niche of popular
music, giving you a clue that would have let you escape the noose I
was tightening around your neck if you hadn't been too brainless to
grasp it.
Now it is too late; you've hung yourself, poor Worthless.

defending your lies
with a lie, as it were.

Then you must specify the lies and prove them, otherwise you are the
liar bringing false witness.

I'm here, doing what you want me so much to do that you have wasted
two years of your spare time, and much of your employer's money,
trying to attract my attention: I'm listening to every word you say,
and finding them all to be lies that you cannot you prove.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Here are some more lies you told, by accusing me of lying and then
failing to prove the accusation:

Dickless Wieckless, stalker, Kutztown Space 323 aka Peter Wieck
wrote:

On Sep 13, 5:25 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

More fulminations.

I didn't write that. Worthless Peter Wieck forged it and now tries to
pretend I said it.

As to lies.

If you think I told a lie, you should prove it, Worthless Wiecky. in
two years of trying you haven't proved ****, except that you are an an
envious little netstalker.

Here we have some excellent examples of Worthless Wiecky's fascist
character assassination, provided by himself:

Shall we start with your blather about Peter Drucker, the "Hungarian
Jew"?

What about it? You may call anything I say "blather" -- and literate
and sophisticated people will chuckle when they compare what I write
with what you write.

But if you wish to call what I say a lie, then you must prove it a
lie. Not a mistake, not an error, not a literary liberty, not a flight
of fancy, not a passage incomprehensible to a moral and mental
defective such as you, but a deliberate untruth intended to deceive.

Or "walking up the mountain" with a person 5-years dead?

So I telescoped two events over half a century before when I was a
small boy. That's a glitch of memory, not a lie, you moron. It is a
mistake in the circumstances too small to apologize for, and none of
the civilized and decent people on RAT expected me to do anything
except say "Oops!". Only a piece of fascist slime like you, trying to
raise your profile to mere visibility by attacking your betters, would
even have the poor manners to mention it, never mind the extremely
poor form to call it a lie.

Oh, yes... speeches to the Knesset at what? 19?

This is an excellent example of the Magnequest Scum method of
character assassination. You are manufacturing a "claim" from the
whole cloth, ascribing it to me, and then demanding I defend it.
You're a proven forger and scum, Worthless Peter Wieck.

And that is just what I remember over a very short time. Imagine what
else might be out there.

The moon might be made of cheese. There might be 298 commies in the
State Department, just as Joe McCarthy said, the man whose methods of
character assassination you emulate so laboriously and transparently.

In two years despite your best efforts and hundreds of hysterical
messages from you, Worthless Peter Wieck, you have failed to prove
that I ever told a single lie. Wannabe character assassins have tried
before you, by the very act of putting themselves in my face
announcing themselves as lunch. From their hideyholes one can hear
them whine occasionally about how unfair it all is. But it isn't. They
tried to be players, as you are trying, in a game of which they didn't
have the moral and intellectual price, as you haven't.

Andre,

Since when is the janitor on first-name terms with me? Because I pull
your chain for students to observe your reactions, that isn't a
license for familiarity. Mr Jute will do.

with respect, you have a long way to go before mere rantings
and fulminations get you back what is long lost.

You really haven't the faintest idea of what an intellectual does, do
you, Worthless? It is quite clear just from the sentence above that
you confuse "intellectual" with "celebrity". You're an ignorant clown,
Worthless, besides being blustering scum.

So, start with the
little things and build on them.

That's good, sonny. I'm starting with stomping a little character
assassin, forger, plagiarist, thief and liar (every part of which I
have already proved) who is stalking me online. His name is Worthless
Peter Wieck. And why, here he is, presenting himself for another
kicking:

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Unsigned out of total contempt for fascist scum

PS Where's your proof about the Simca, Worthless Wiecky? We're
[still] waiting. Or is it another of your lies that you cannot prove?

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/14/07 8:30 AM:

The garage vermin Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 9/13/07 11:43 AM:


Your idol Jute is the very master of a variant this technique.

You should pay attention, Yaeger. John told us not long ago that his
beau ideal (John is too level-headed to have false gods, which is what
idols are) was the leader of the research lab at RCA in the early
years.

He makes up stuff about people and then repeats it as fact, ad nauseum.

This is a lie.

If you're referring to me calling you Garage Vermin, Yaeger, I didn't
make that up. You must thank the Master himself, Phil Allison, Elegant
Inventor of Incisive Invective. It was too apt a description of you
for me to bother inventing my own. I just borrowed it from Phil, with
his gracious permission and with grateful acknowledgement given at
suitable intervals (like now).

*** You might be right. I've blocked Phil's posts for a long time. I have
no idea what he says, unless someone else quotes him.

If you're referring to me calling you a Crooked Garage Trader, Yaeger,
you have many times admitted it, so it can't be made up.

*** Nah. I've asked several times for people to come forward and provide
evidence that I was crooked, and no one ever has (except you to claim that
West thought I was "ripping him off)." But West has yet to back you up.

*** So, further proof about your fictional writing.


And even if
you hadn't admitted it, it wasn't made up, it was observed and then
tested in adversarial debate and proved when you publicly lied about
the quality of Magnequest transformers you were trying to sell to West
at the same time as you found them not good enough for yourself.

*** I never had any problem with the quality of these transformers. They
were well built and worked just fine. I have no idea what you are talking
about, but then, neither do you!

At
the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack.?

I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public. That makes
you a Crooked Garage Trader, from observation and proof, as I say. No
invention required.

*** I disagree. I said Henry designed it. He did the math each & every
component. The fact that it is a Williamson amplifier . . . well, the
provenance of just about every new amp today is a design from yesteryear.
Henry did build it from scratch. There is no debate that the design of the
layout was his. So WTF is your point, anyway?

But I realize that sometimes we are blinded to our loved one's failings

Jon

AKA John and Jono when he needs a new name to hide behind when he's
ripping a newbie.

*** I don't rip newbies. Just old assholes like yourself.

Remember this, Yaeger, you're the one who first assaulted me, when you
thought you had a gang behind you. You were a lot cockier then.

*** I've had better things to do lately. Sorry I haven't been giving you
the attention you crave.

Unsigned out of contempt

[Wolfgang Amadeus]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
At the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public.

The amplifiers I sold to Jon were a pair of monoblocks using a Williamson
style driver, 5881 outputs, and Dynaco replica output transformers wired in
ultralinear configuration. The power supply consisted of a 1000V transformer
with tube rectification and a choke-input filter with large electrolytic fiter caps,
yielding about 425-450V B+ depending on the AC mains voltage. The input
stage tube was a 6DJ8 and the driver tube was a 6SN7.

Jon subsequently modified the amplifiers to use KT88 output tubes, as I
recall.

You can see pictures and a schematic he

http://picasaweb.google.com/hap1128/5881Amplifier

This was the second amplifier implementation on these chassis. The
original amplifiers used a through-hole output transformer, the bias supply
board was mounted on standoffs (still visible) in the vicinity of the power
switch and IEC socket, and where the bias supply is located now (lower
left corner in the photo) there was originally a dual solid-state bias and B-
supply regulator, the circuit of which I adapted from a schematic published
by Erno Borbely. The driver circuit was a direct-coupled cascade differential
type, which sounded great but which I abandoned due to troubles maintaining
DC balance.

As you can see from the schematic, there is absolutely nothing original --
but neither is it proprietary -- about the design. I described these amplifiers
at length and in detail on the newsgroup long before ever meeting Jon. The
layout and mechanical design, the construction techniques, and so on,
were of my own choosing.

I thought the amplifiers worked extremely well in spite of their unfashionable
plainness. I hope this clears up any confusion about the "provenance" of my
amplifiers.

-Henry

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 5:28 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article .com,
Andre Jute wrote:

PS Where's your proof about the Simca, Worthless Wiecky? We're
waiting. Or is it another of your lies that you cannot prove?

I Wasn't paying attention to the Simca discussion in the "V8" thread.
What is the disagreement over the Simca all about?

Regards,

John Byrns

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

I told the story of how Edith Piaf's lover didn't think a national
icon should die anywhere but in Paris and drove her body from the Med
through the night to Paris, adding that the car was a Simca with the
small flathead Ford V8 engine you mentioned earlier.

Worthless Peter Wieck performed his usual Magnequest Scum act of
screeching hysterically that everything I say is a wrong, wrong,
wrong, a lie, a lie, a lie. Instead of letting it pass as I usually
do, because scum like Wieck aren't worth much effort, I decided this
time to nail his hide to the wall.

Now the little slimeball can't prove any of his claims and is
backpedalling madly, preparing to run away. Again. He really is much
of a man, or a human being.

Andre Jute
Creator of Worthless Wieckless TM. All Rights Reserved by McCoy-Jute
Exploitation. Patent Pending. Licences still available for North Korea
and Lesotho. Our Attorneys are Bigger than Your Shysters.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
At the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public.

The amplifiers I sold to Jon were a pair of monoblocks using a Williamson
style driver, 5881 outputs, and Dynaco replica output transformers wired in
ultralinear configuration.

Hi Henry,

It's good to see that you are still following the old newsgroup, even if
not contributing much, we all miss you here.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Andre Jute]

Thanks for the full description, Henry. The question is not whether
the circuit is propriety or whether you adapted it but whether it
started in a Gordon Rankin circuit. Or you might decide you'd rather
stay out of Yaeger's futile flame war.

I was saying just the other day that we miss you; even the flame wars
are of a much lower quality than when you were here. And Patrick is
always saying that there is not enough interesting discussion of
tubes.

Here, let's see if you're in a suitable frame of mind not to explode
on RAT within the week: Isn't Wolfie's monicker a bit presumptuous for
someone of your amateur standing on the piano?

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey

On Sep 14, 6:55 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...
At the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public.

The amplifiers I sold to Jon were a pair of monoblocks using a Williamson
style driver, 5881 outputs, and Dynaco replica output transformers wired in
ultralinear configuration. The power supply consisted of a 1000V transformer
with tube rectification and a choke-input filter with large electrolytic fiter caps,
yielding about 425-450V B+ depending on the AC mains voltage. The input
stage tube was a 6DJ8 and the driver tube was a 6SN7.

Jon subsequently modified the amplifiers to use KT88 output tubes, as I
recall.

You can see pictures and a schematic he

http://picasaweb.google.com/hap1128/5881Amplifier

This was the second amplifier implementation on these chassis. The
original amplifiers used a through-hole output transformer, the bias supply
board was mounted on standoffs (still visible) in the vicinity of the power
switch and IEC socket, and where the bias supply is located now (lower
left corner in the photo) there was originally a dual solid-state bias and B-
supply regulator, the circuit of which I adapted from a schematic published
by Erno Borbely. The driver circuit was a direct-coupled cascade differential
type, which sounded great but which I abandoned due to troubles maintaining
DC balance.

As you can see from the schematic, there is absolutely nothing original --
but neither is it proprietary -- about the design. I described these amplifiers
at length and in detail on the newsgroup long before ever meeting Jon. The
layout and mechanical design, the construction techniques, and so on,
were of my own choosing.

I thought the amplifiers worked extremely well in spite of their unfashionable
plainness. I hope this clears up any confusion about the "provenance" of my
amplifiers.

-Henry

[Wolfgang Amadeus]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
Thanks for the full description, Henry. The question is not whether
the circuit is propriety or whether you adapted it but whether it
started in a Gordon Rankin circuit. Or you might decide you'd rather
stay out of Yaeger's futile flame war.

No, Andre, the amplifiers I sold to Jon were a push-pull design based
loosely on Williamson. The Rankin circuit you are thinking of is the
"Baby Ongaku", a SE 2A3 design that I also adapted, built, and later
sold (but not to Jon Yaeger). There is no relationship between the
amps I sold to Jon and Gordon Rankin's published work, save that
they all use vacuum tubes.

I've added pictures of the 2A3 amplifiers to the Picasa web album so
you can see the difference.

I've explained all of this to you several times in the past and am a bit
puzzled why you keep repeating this misinformation. This seems to
be a pattern for you.

Here, let's see if you're in a suitable frame of mind not to explode
on RAT within the week: Isn't Wolfie's monicker a bit presumptuous
for someone of your amateur standing on the piano?

What I lack in professionalism at the piano, Andre, I make up in
earnestness. Although you haven't heard me play... I might be better
than you expect. Perhaps you should learn an instrument -- you would
find it rewarding and therapeutic, if only you could bring yourself to put
in the effort.

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry

[Jon Yaeger]

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry


Talk about a life's work, Henry . . . .

;-)

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 13, 11:24 pm, flipper wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:56:30 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:



More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:16:09 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:32:40 -0500, John Byrns
wrote:

Peter, the US production car example you found is more like the
exception that proves the rule, I think Andre essentially got it right.

That saying is the old meaning of "prove", ie to test. So it reads, to
test a rule, find an exception. Find it, and the rule is dead.

That is an extremely popular explanation but I don't think it's
correct.

The phrase originates from the Latin "'exceptio probat regulam in
casibus non exceptis," a legalism which says "exception proves the
rule in cases not excepted." Or, put another way, there would be no
need for a 'exception' if there were no rule to be exempted from so
that an 'exception' is stated proves the existence of the general
rule, for cases not excepted.

As to the prove-test theory, I've seen that same explanation given
even when the author quotes the Latin but they only half quote it,
saying "exceptio probat regulam," and then go into the 'change in
meaning' of 'prove'. But the second half of the Latin, "in cases not
excepted," disproves that interpretation.

That this conversation should be necessary strikes me as very odd
indeed. Even without Latin, an engineer who doesn't know that the
exception in fact proves the rule, since otherwise there would be no
need for an exception to be stated because in an homogenous closed
environment the rule wouldn't be required, should ask for his tuition
to be returned at whatever rule-of-thumb tech school educated him so
inadequately.

What aspect of engineering are you referring to?

All of it. Engineering is the applied arm of (classical, Newtonian)
physics. Classical physics is a low-precision exception to the real
state of everything: quantum physics.

That hard cutoff probably isn't quite the full story but it will have
to do. Halfway example: Considering ourselves or even the earth as
solid or at least impermeable is just a question of scale: look at it
from another perspective and we are just walking agglomerations of
gasses, and the earth hardly more congealed.

After all, I don't
think it's the case that Ohm's law was 'proved' by finding
'exceptions' to it.

I just use Ohm's Law; if I thought about it, and sucked up to
Pasternack a bit so that he helped out, I could no doubt come up with
a sophistry to "prove" you wrong. But no, I accept that applied
engineering physics must be consistent within itself.

That is what makes talking with most engineers such an ugly
experience, that these very intelligent men cannot see beyond their
trade, exactly like plumbers who dream of clogged pipes. (It is very
odd that many, many of the auto engineers I know are men of elegant
mind, and far too many of the electronics engineers, including the
audio engineers, are decidedly non-kulturny.)

(Btw, "homogenous closed environment" was a nifty
bit of techno speak.)

Not techno, humanities. PPE, politics, philosophy and economics was
once a proper education, before it became "a liberal arts education"
without anything liberal in it, just political correctness. The term
is from economics, where classical economics always starts out
assuming an undifferentiated closed system with perfect information.
We are now approaching that once unimaginable, strictly theoretical
ideal in the real world.

At any rate, for the vast majority of people things work in reverse.
as it does in math and the sciences. I.E. Someone makes a blanket
statement, critics then rush to point out an 'exception' and, ah hah,
you're wrong. The phrase is then, sometimes, improperly used as an
'excuse' for the 'exception'.

In addition, I think most people would consider the actual meaning to
be a deceptive 'trick'.

If we take one of the classic examples, the "No Parking (except on
Sundays)" sign, and reword it to (only) "Parking allowed on Sundays,"
and you then gave out tickets on Wednesday, I think most people would
wonder why the hell you didn't say so and dispute that "allowed on
Sundays" 'proves' the 'rule' there's no parking all other times.
Maybe everyone in the area normally allows parking, except on Sundays,
and the sign is telling you this place is different in allowing
parking 7 days a week. At the very least they'd argue it isn't
'obvious' and likely think it an intentionally deceptive 'trick' that
you weren't explicit.

So, considering it's rarity of application, I'm not surprised at all
there's confusion about it.

But that is no excuse for anyone with a university education not to
grasp the correct version instantly once it is explained. And an
engineer, as Don Pearce makes a point of claiming to be, in Britain
educationally, if not necessarily as a human being, belongs to an
elite, selected to consume quite a bit more of the taxpayers' money
for his education than lesser folk. That imposes a greater
expectation, which in Pearcey's case was sadly disappointed.

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain (and he wrote
that before Einstein did his thing!)

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 8:13 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...
Thanks for the full description, Henry. The question is not whether
the circuit is propriety or whether you adapted it but whether it
started in a Gordon Rankin circuit. Or you might decide you'd rather
stay out of Yaeger's futile flame war.

No, Andre, the amplifiers I sold to Jon were a push-pull design based
loosely on Williamson. The Rankin circuit you are thinking of is the
"Baby Ongaku", a SE 2A3 design that I also adapted, built, and later
sold (but not to Jon Yaeger). There is no relationship between the
amps I sold to Jon and Gordon Rankin's published work, save that
they all use vacuum tubes.

I've added pictures of the 2A3 amplifiers to the Picasa web album so
you can see the difference.

I've explained all of this to you several times in the past and am a bit
puzzled why you keep repeating this misinformation. This seems to
be a pattern for you.

Must be because I focus on this sort of reproach and worry about it,
and then the good information is spoilt and lost.

Here, let's see if you're in a suitable frame of mind not to explode
on RAT within the week: Isn't Wolfie's monicker a bit presumptuous
for someone of your amateur standing on the piano?

What I lack in professionalism at the piano, Andre, I make up in
earnestness. Although you haven't heard me play... I might be better
than you expect.

Of course you might. But I know how well you play because you told us
the last time you dropped in. See, I do remember when you don't
clutter your posts with superfluous hits.

Perhaps you should learn an instrument -- you would
find it rewarding and therapeutic, if only you could bring yourself to put
in the effort.

I cycle instead. Pretty ladies cycle with me. I do my own bike
mechanicking.

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

John will be disappointed.

-Henry

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 8:17 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry

Talk about a life's work, Henry . . . .

;-)

Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Andre Jute

[Wolfgang Amadeus]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
Must be because I focus on this sort of reproach and worry about it,
and then the good information is spoilt and lost.

Then I suggest you change your focus from constantly reproaching people,
and then you won't spoil and lose so much information.

Of course you might. But I know how well you play because you told us
the last time you dropped in. See, I do remember when you don't
clutter your posts with superfluous hits.

Could you point me to that posting please? I don't remember it.

I cycle instead. Pretty ladies cycle with me. I do my own bike
mechanicking.

Yes, so we've heard. I used to be a bicycle racer, Andre, and owned some
lovely and expensive hand-made equipment. I have a marvelous early
mountain bike with all fillet brazed lugs that was built by Tom Ritchey. My
road bike, sadly, has gone to a place where I can't get to it. But I don't ride
much anymore and don't really see the point of posting about it on an audio
newsgroup.

Still, as long as we're on the subject, I recently sold my last motorcyle,
my painstakingly restored 1974 BMW R75/6. I'm a skilled motor mechanic,
Andre. This one I rebuilt literally down to the last nut and bolt. But times
change, and I'm just too valuable to my family to put my life at risk at the
hands of other drivers. So rather than see the bike rot in the garage, I sold
it for a fraction of its value to a worthy soul, who will repay me by the
enjoyment he gets riding it:

http://picasaweb.google.com/hap1128/R756

Just the other day I gave away for the same reason a pair of Magneplanar
loudspeakers that were sitting unused in my closet. I got a nice bottle of
wine in exchange, and made a new friend. Life goes on, priorities change.

What is your excuse?

John will be disappointed.

Well, some things can't be avoided.

Andre, in the end, what matters is that we are true to others and to ourselves.
What we accomplish is not so important as how we go about accomplishing
it. How do you measure up in that regard?

-Henry

[Wolfgang Amadeus]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Jon and I discussed the design and construction of the amplifiers at length
prior to the sale. I am certain he knew exactly what he was getting and I
know he was very satisfied. There is no issue, and nothing I should have
done "sooner or better".

Nor is there anything here that concerns you, or is a matter of your business.

I trust I have made myself clear and that this is the last we will hear from you
on this subject, save for your apology for falsely questioning my integrity.

-Henry

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover,

You *really* should read the story of this engine. Rover had one hell of a
job persuading GM they were serious about buying it - and got it for
pennies. What was an expensive engine to make by the million was more than
ok to make in much smaller quantities for a different class of vehicle
which would be owned by people prepared to take care of it - by, for
example, always using the correct coolant rather than plain water as the
US owners appeared to want to do.

--
*Eschew obfuscation *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover,

You *really* should read the story of this engine. Rover had one hell of a
job persuading GM they were serious about buying it - and got it for
pennies. What was an expensive engine to make by the million was more than
ok to make in much smaller quantities for a different class of vehicle
which would be owned by people prepared to take care of it - by, for
example, always using the correct coolant rather than plain water as the
US owners appeared to want to do.

We only used plain water during the summer months, here in the Northern
states we always used antifreeze coolant in the depth of the winter
months to avoid a cracked block or a popped "freeze plug".


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[bill ramsay]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

isn't this getting rather tiresome?

give it a rest.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more
popular.


Regards,

John Byrns

that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish.

[John Byrns]

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:36:05 GMT, John Byrns
wrote:

In article ,
bill ramsay blah@blahdeblah wrote:

isn't this getting rather tiresome?

give it a rest.

who cares if it's 60, 90 or 112.7?

Someone must have cared or 60 & 112.7 degree V8s would have been more
popular.

that's not the point, this petty point scoring is just childish.

You are the one doing the point scoring, not me.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
In article ,
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
John Byrns wrote:
IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6
that they dumped on Rover,

You *really* should read the story of this engine. Rover had one hell
of a job persuading GM they were serious about buying it - and got it
for pennies. What was an expensive engine to make by the million was
more than ok to make in much smaller quantities for a different class
of vehicle which would be owned by people prepared to take care of it
- by, for example, always using the correct coolant rather than plain
water as the US owners appeared to want to do.

We only used plain water during the summer months, here in the Northern
states we always used antifreeze coolant in the depth of the winter
months to avoid a cracked block or a popped "freeze plug".

That's the problem. Aluminium engines need anti corrosion additives all
year round. Of course we're used to that these days - but then it was
expensive. But then it seems plenty wouldn't even pay for antifreeze in
the winter - but drain the water each night. Obviously not where the
winters were severe, though.

That's the story I've heard.

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.

No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the aluminum
90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile).

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/14/07 11:52 AM:

On Sep 14, 8:17 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry

Talk about a life's work, Henry . . . .

;-)

Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Andre Jute


What, the other stuff you fabricated about me?

No need to keep proving you a liar. I'll leave it to the others.

Jon

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover, and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.

Please note that my use of the term "aluminum V6" was a typo and it
should have read "aluminum V8".

No, the 90 degree V6 (Buick) was initially contemporaneous with the aluminum
90 degree V8 (Oldsmobile).

What does "initially contemporaneous" mean? It sounds like a bunch of
weasel words to me. My point was that the aluminum V8 came out before
the 90 degree V6, although their production did overlap if that is what
you mean by "initially contemporaneous".

The facts, which can be found on the Wikipedia, are that the Buick
aluminum V8 came out before the 90 degree iron V6 that was derived from
it. Wikipedia says the 61 model year for the aluminum V8 and the 1962
model year for the 90 degree V8. I well remember the events as GM was
recruiting new automotive engineering graduates from the college I
attended and they had a big display explaining the design, technology,
and production of their newly introduced V6. Not only did the V6
obviously follow the aluminum V8 to the market, meaning it came later,
but my memory is that GM presented it to the newly minted engineers as a
replacement for the ill stared aluminum V8.


Regards,

John Byrns

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

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 9:25 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...

And immediately Pasternack starts with his petty dishonesties by
selectively cutting to make the text say something that isn't true:

Must be because I focus on this sort of reproach and worry about it,
and then the good information is spoilt and lost.

Then I suggest you change your focus from constantly reproaching people,
and then you won't spoil and lose so much information.

Doesn't that just look like I'm admitting to "constantly reproaching
people"? Well, it's a forgery by Pasternack, committed by selective
cutting. Here is what really went down. First Pasternack wrote this
passage, which he since snipped:

I've explained all of this to you several times in the past and am a bit
puzzled why you keep repeating this misinformation. This seems to
be a pattern for you.

And I replied:

Must be because I focus on this sort of reproach and worry about it,
and then the good information is spoilt and lost.

Which clearly blames Pasternack's constant reproaches for the loss of
focus and information.

Nothing has changed, has it, Plodnick? You're the same dishonest jerk
as you ever were.

Big snip of some irrelevances, and then we come to the self-pitying
moralizing without which no post from Henry Pasternack is complete:

Andre, in the end, what matters is that we are true to others and to ourselves.
What we accomplish is not so important as how we go about accomplishing
it. How do you measure up in that regard?

I don't know, Plod. I'm too busy doing things to have time for keeping
score, for regrets, or for self-justification. All those strike me as
the excuses of failures. Drink the wine man and be grateful you have
it.

-Henry

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 10:31 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...
Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Jon and I discussed the design and construction of the amplifiers at length
prior to the sale. I am certain he knew exactly what he was getting and I
know he was very satisfied. There is no issue, and nothing I should have
done "sooner or better".

No one has suggested that you didn't explain to Yaeger. I merely
listed it as a possibility when Yeager turned reasonable requests for
information into a flame war which, predictably, he lost.

However, there is something you should have done "sooner or better",
and that was explain to me once Yaeger made the provenance of your
computer a matter of my integrity. I've remembered: you refused to do
so. The consequences aren't my problem.

Nor is there anything here that concerns you, or is a matter of your business.

Of course not. Yeager made them my business in one of his flamewars.

I trust I have made myself clear and that this is the last we will hear from you
on this subject,

What subject?

save for your apology for falsely questioning my integrity.

Your integrity is non-existent, Plod, and your reputation long gone.
See my other post where I expose a petty dishonesty by you on the day
I invite you back to RAT. As for an apology, I don't owe one: I didn't
on this occasion question your integrity but your silly refusal to put
the information on the table when Yaeger offered your computer for
public sale, in pieces. I questioned Yaeger's integrity, but that's a
separate matter, unless you two are Siamese twins.

-Henry

You should drop this, Henry, before your fragile equilibrium is once
more wrecked. It is quite clear that you still see me, see red, and
cannot stay out of my face. You know what happens next, inevitable as
the seasons.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 4:15 pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article om, Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/14/07 11:52 AM:



On Sep 14, 8:17 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry

Talk about a life's work, Henry . . . .

;-)

Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Andre Jute

What, the other stuff you fabricated about me?

No need to keep proving you a liar. I'll leave it to the others.

Jon

Real gracious of you, Yaeger, to be so ungracious as to remove from me
the onus of discovering if there is anything else I should apologize
for. You're your own worst enemy. -- Andre Jute

[Wolfgang Amadeus]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message oups.com...
[Deleted]

You're out of control, Andre. Go away and give the newsgroup a chance
to heal.

-Henry

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 14, 7:27 pm, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
[Deleted]

You're out of control, Andre. Go away and give the newsgroup a chance
to heal.

-Henry

Nah, Plod, it just looks like that to you because you bomb in here on
the day I decide that after ignoring your friend Worthless Wiecky's
two-year crusade against me, I'll take a turn and investigate some of
his "claims".

As for the newsgroup "healing", since you're the one who helped the
Magnequest Scum give it venereal disease -- and who stood by silently
while they threatened to wreck it if I wasn't excluded, an outright
attack on free speech and decency -- why, we'll believe in your
goodwill when you can spend a single week on RAT without making some
snide and stupid remark. It would also help our belief in your
conversion to decency if Stonehenge fell down that day, and there was
a simultaneous eclipse of the sun.

Unsigned out of contempt

[Wolfgang Amadeus]

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
[Deleted]

You are an inherently unreasonable person, Andre, so by definition no productive
purpose can come from trying to argue reasonably with you.

I'll say again: It's long past time (say, ten years) for your departure. I don't expect
you to agree, but it's the truth nonetheless.

-Henry