George M. Middius wrote:

Margaret von B. said:


The less subjective an experience is, the
closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines himself
to inhabit.



FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
refuses to discuss it... :-)


A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
of others.

Please do recommend some speakers and amps for us. I am sure Fremer and
Dudley and everyone else you fellate would have whispered something in
your ear.

Since you had so much trouble with 'trite', here's another vocabulary
exercise for you: charlatan.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charlatan

Sally Ann said:

FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
refuses to discuss it... :-)

A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

And you are a closet homosexual (according to what I've read here).

Silly girl. I'm completely out. You need to lower the octane on your
Cluelessnes Potion.

What do they say about birds of a feather? ;-)

Scheduled a pilgrimage to Michigan yet? ;-)

St. Beatrice the Newly Unbonked said:

A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
of others.

I do declare, I believe you're trying to be funny. Or if not, then of what
are you babbling now?

Please do recommend some speakers and amps for us. I am sure Fremer and
Dudley and everyone else you fellate would have whispered something in
your ear.

Since you had so much trouble with 'trite', here's another vocabulary
exercise for you: charlatan.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charlatan

You seem a little thin-skinned today. I would call Krooger a charlatan
except that he tries to recruit people, not sell them something. Does that
make me a despot?

Schizoid Man a écrit :
George M. Middius wrote:

Margaret von B. said:


The less subjective an experience is, the
closer it seems to lie to the pseudo-objective state he imagines
himself to inhabit.




FYI, he's been spotted wearing Marigo dots after hours but stubbornly
refuses to discuss it... :-)



A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(


Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
of others.


Do you really think that George has time to waste with such
pecadillo ?

He is speaking in the name of "the overwhelming consensus
opinion of wine connoisseurs".

:-D

Schizoid Man asked "George":


snipped


Has the Stereophile staff not been feeding you
?


http://tinyurl.com/a6wrd

Atkinson keeps his attack dogs lean. ;-)

George M. Middius wrote:
St. Beatrice the Newly Unbonked said:

A closet subjectivist, indeed. :-(

Interesting how this comes from a person who recommended a wine that he
himself had never tasted, but based this recommendation on the opinion
of others.

I do declare, I believe you're trying to be funny. Or if not, then of what
are you babbling now?

Please do recommend some speakers and amps for us. I am sure Fremer and
Dudley and everyone else you fellate would have whispered something in
your ear.

Since you had so much trouble with 'trite', here's another vocabulary
exercise for you: charlatan.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=charlatan


Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!


How much money did you make today, dickless?

Surf said:

little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

I heard he's been mugging the kids who sell candy bars door to door.
Probably scores ten bucks two or three times a week.

Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup accorting to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
of deceit for a price is justified.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
of deceit for a price is justified.


He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of snake-oil audio,
while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.

wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
kind
of deceit for a price is justified.

He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
snake-oil audio,
while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.

Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.

Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup accorting to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
of deceit for a price is justified.



Are you ****ed off because you can't get paid for yours?



Scott Wheeler

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
kind
of deceit for a price is justified.

He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
snake-oil audio,
while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.

Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.



"If irony killed."






Scott Wheeler

Scott said:

Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.

Arnii, you tickle me. What on earth can you mean by "large-scale Middius dupes"?
I think your Paranoa™Borg juice is running too thick.

"If irony killed."

Now now. I'm sure you realize that neither Arnii nor the Kroobitch have any
"riches". Remember how flummoxed Turdy got at the thought of a $78K salary? To
him, "riches" probably means enough money to take an overseas vacation once
every three years.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any kind
of deceit for a price is justified.


He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of snake-oil audio,
while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.


As opposed to lubing bicycle chains.... :-)


Cheers,

Margaret

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
kind
of deceit for a price is justified.

He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
snake-oil audio,
while he's flogging real estate for his wife's firm.

Interesting that we've had two large-scale Middius dupes on
RAO whose full-time career was managing their wife's riches.


Actually, managing wealth is a career, and a lucrative one. Operating a
couple of slide projectors at a church is not a career. And it most
certainly isn't a "managerial job" as you have claimed.


Cheers,

Margaret

Margaret von B. said to ****-for-Brains:

Actually, managing wealth is a career, and a lucrative one. Operating a
couple of slide projectors at a church is not a career. And it most
certainly isn't a "managerial job" as you have claimed.

Are you saying Arnii has overstated his "professional" responsibilities? That he
has deliberately tried to mislead RAO about his value in the world? That's
surprising in light of Mr. ****'s history of being candid and forthcoming about,
uh, everything.

Arnii, for shame. Go get your Christian suit cleaned and pressed. You've got
some church time coming. ;-)

Margaret von B. wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
kind
of deceit for a price is justified.


He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
snake-oil
audio, while he's flogging real estate for his wife's
firm.


As opposed to lubing bicycle chains.... :-)

Well Maggie given what you are always having to lube to turn
a buck...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Margaret von B. wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
Surf wrote:
little torrie****s whispers:

Hmmm..."A flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts
customers
with
tricks".....a perfect description of Atkinson!!!!!

How much money did you make today, dickless?

Yup according to Tom, get enough money for it and any
kind
of deceit for a price is justified.


He probably dreams of being John Atkinson, kingpin of
snake-oil
audio, while he's flogging real estate for his wife's
firm.


As opposed to lubing bicycle chains.... :-)

Well Maggie given what you are always having to lube to turn
a buck...


Exactly what do you mean by the above statement, Mr. Krueger? Please explain
to me and others here who are not familiar with the lifestyle of the Krueger
family. Thank you.

Margaret

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"jeffc" said:


I am of the school of thought that if a cable requires a break-in
period,
then it is a defective cable.

Maybe you feel the same way about internal combustion engines? It occurs
to
me that someone who will only accept DBTs as a valid testing method must
be
very insecure in your ability to hear.


To be honest, an internal combustion engine is an entire different
mechanism.

Ya think? That wasn't really the point. The point is, we mock and fear
what we don't understand. And frankly, I've never heard of anyone who
really understands audio. Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.
So much for science (and I am a scientist by profession by the way).

jeffc said:

Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.

The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.


I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

George M. Middius wrote:

jeffc said:


Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.


The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.


I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
funny or clever for that? ;-))

However, remembering grade-school physics I'm not entirely sure gravity
makes the electron stay in its orbit. IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot
be applied to quantum particles.

SchizTwerp said:

The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.

I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
funny or clever for that? ;-))

Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........

In , George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote :



jeffc said:

Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.

The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.

YOur knowledge in physics is as poor has your knowledge of about wines,
George...
Even not popularization for elementary school pupils.


I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

A bad start yes. As usual. ;-)

Schizoid Man wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:

jeffc said:


Nor has anyone found a unified theory of physics.


The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.


I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
funny or clever for that? ;-))

However, remembering grade-school physics



You took physics in grade school? wow.



I'm not entirely sure gravity
makes the electron stay in its orbit.



That's a good one.



IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot
be applied to quantum particles.



I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.




Scott Wheeler

La Salope gets her panties in a bunch.

The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.

YOur knowledge in physics is as poor has your knowledge of about wines,
George...

Still better than your "knowledge" of English, Slut.

Even not popularization for elementary school pupils.

Thank you for the daily dose of gibberish.


Now a harlot's a difficult student
Her wit will run toward the impudent
Teach her to write?
Go fly a kite!
But boffing would not be imprudent. ;-)

Scott said:

I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.

Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.

George M. Middius wrote:

SchizTwerp said:


The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.


I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
funny or clever for that? ;-))


Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........

A joke, dear Georgie.

Little Bo Peep muttered:

I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
funny or clever for that? ;-))

Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........

A joke, dear Georgie.

I think you're still smarting from Scott's breezy dismissal of your own leaden
attempts at humor, and you're acting out by imitating him.

I could be wrong, but I'm not.

George Middius wrote:

Scott said:

I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.

Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.

I would never be so stupid as to associate one's "knowledge" with the
number of degrees that one possesses.

Twain said, correctly IMO, that one should never let school intefere
with one's education.

wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:



I'm not entirely sure gravity

makes the electron stay in its orbit.


That's a good one.


IIRC, in order for gravity to make the electron stay in orbit the
electron would have to have mass, right?

Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?

IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot

be applied to quantum particles.

I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.

George Middius a écrit :
La Salope gets her panties in a bunch.


The nucleus connected to the 'lectrons
The 'lectrons connected to the magnetism
The magnetism connected to the nucleus
And gravity makes it all go 'round.


YOur knowledge in physics is as poor has your knowledge of about wines,
George...


Still better than your "knowledge" of English, Slut.


Three days ago George was writing :

"No fair. I killfiled Slut so I had no chance to get fluent
in her dialect."

LOL, what a doggedness...

http://smsc.cnes.fr/Fr/physique_fonda.htm
This will give you also an occasion to improve your, French
idiot. ;-)

In , George Middius wrote :


Little Bo Peep muttered:

I realize my meter & rhythm are a little off, but it's a start, right?

I'm not entirely sure whether the above is a joke (doesn't it need to be
funny or clever for that? ;-))

Isums feewings still hurt? Awwwwwwww........

A joke, dear Georgie.

I think you're still smarting from Scott's breezy dismissal of your own
leaden attempts at humor, and you're acting out by imitating him.

I could be wrong, but I'm not.

Yesterday I was writing :

"Apologies to George aren't necessary but prove that you are a kind guy...
Just for laugh and to confirm that you wasn't so wrong, I bet that if John
hadn't posted before, George's answer would have been totally different. Do
you see what I mean ? ;-)"

George is really TOO predictable... :-D

Schizoid Man said:

Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.

I would never be so stupid as to associate one's "knowledge" with the
number of degrees that one possesses.

I'm not ragging on your excess of education now. That was yesterday.

Twain said, correctly IMO, that one should never let school intefere
with one's education.

De Mille said the only part of movies he didn't like is actors.

George M. Middius wrote:

Schizoid Man said:


Sluttie and Schizo are both hung up on the "knowledge" thing. But now that we
know about their extremely thin skins, best not to rub their noses in their
humorlessness. Doing so will only undermine their rickety perch on reality.

I would never be so stupid as to associate one's "knowledge" with the
number of degrees that one possesses.


I'm not ragging on your excess of education now. That was yesterday.


Twain said, correctly IMO, that one should never let school intefere
with one's education.


De Mille said the only part of movies he didn't like is actors.

He had the hots for Liz Taylor, right?

Schizoid Man wrote:
wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:



I'm not entirely sure gravity

makes the electron stay in its orbit.


That's a good one.


IIRC, in order for gravity to make the electron stay in orbit the
electron would have to have mass, right?


Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.





Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?


To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
small.





IIRC, celestial mechanics cannot

be applied to quantum particles.

I guess you did forget some of your grade school physics.

Perhaps. Then again, perhaps not.


If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
Gravity does work on all quanta.



Scott Wheeler

wrote:

Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.

Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same thing.

Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.

Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 × 10^-31
kilograms, making its gravitational force completely negligible.

Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
educational (layman's terms):
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00858.htm

To quote from it:
"The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
subatomic particles."

Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?

To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
small.

Not true. Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
Newtonian mechanics, which led to the development of of quantum physics
in the first place.

If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.

If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
Gravity does work on all quanta.

It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear that.

Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)

Schizoid Man wrote:
wrote:

Weren't you being funny? You do actually know that it is elecromagnetic
force at work with electrons and their orbits in atoms don't you? But
to answer your question, no an electron does not require mass to have
gravity work on it. But alas, an electron does have mass.

Firstly, electromagnetic force and gravitation force are not the same thi=
ng.


Who said otherwise?




Secondly, the gravitational force that one entity exerts on another
anywhere in the universe is a function of mass.


But *gravitational force* acts on everything in the universe with or
without mass.




Thirdly, an electron does have mass. It is 9.10938188 =D7 10^-31
kilograms,



Perhaps you missed this part of my post. "But alas, an electron does
have mass."


making its gravitational force completely negligible.




No. It makes it small but not negligable.





Here's a link from Argonne National Laboratory that you might find
educational (layman's terms):
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...0/phy00858.htm




Old news. I suggest you read my post more carefully. I think you will
find all the info I gave you to be dead on.






To quote from it:
"The force of gravity depends upon the masses of the objects. Electrons
and atomic particles have such small masses gravity has a negligible
effect on their behavior under ordinary conditions. Electromagnetic
forces and quantum mechanics determine the behavior of atomic and
subatomic particles."


But alas, everything is made up of quanta and the effects of of gravity
on quanta can be seen quite clearly in the cosmos. I find that effect
hard to classify as negligable.





Furthermore, electrons would need to actually exist outside a
probabilistic orbital model. Heisenberg's principle, Wheeler?

To be affected by gravity? No. Gravity works on all things big and
small.

Not true.


Wrong. Gravity does work on all things big and small.



Sub-atmoic particles behave in strange ways that defy
Newtonian mechanics,


Who said anything about Newtonian physics? Ever heard of general
reletivity?



which led to the development of of quantum physics
in the first place.


No, the conflict between the actual behavior of black body radiation
and the predicted behavior of black body radiation from a Newtonian
stand point lead to quantum physics. Quite sublime. Worth reading
about.







If they did, then the charge of the electron (which, unlike its mass, is
not negligible) would just cause the electron to collapse into the
positively charged nucleus without any orbit whatsoever.


Well sorta. It is true that the various energy levels and their
reletive orbits of electrons are governed by quantum mechanics but that
was not what lead to quantum theories. It was the problem of black body
radiation that started it all.





If you think gravity does not act on quanta you forgot or didn't know.
Gravity does work on all quanta.

It's too bad that Bohr, Schrodinger or Feynman aren't around to hear that.


They knew it.





Where did you say you did grade-school physics, Wheeler? :-)



I didn't learn physics in grade school. I learned it in college. That
would be Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Again, I suggest you read my posts
more carefully. I also suggest you read your own sources more
carefully. You won't find anything that claims gravity does not act on
quanta.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

http://smsc.cnes.fr/Fr/physique_fonda.htm
This will give you also an occasion to improve your, French idiot. ;-)

This will help you improve your English.
"At least" it can't hurt it.
http://www.fisher-price.com/us/fun/games/abc/



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Schizoid Man said:

De Mille said the only part of movies he didn't like is actors.

He had the hots for Liz Taylor, right?

Twain liked to drink. Your point?