On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:40:42 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Stewart Pinkerton said:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Only reason Cosworth still exists is because of Ford.

So what? The US has plenty of cash, just not much engineering
talent.....................

Pukey, I think somebody has pushed your buttons and you're steaming.

When you say "good cars", don't you mean cars that you like? Specifically,
don't you mean cars that are designed to be fun to drive, responsive
rather than cushy?

For me to drive, yes. But I include well-made, quiet and comfortable
saloons/sedans, such as Lexus make.

And isn't it true that the characteristics of cars made by American
companies are determined by marketers and accountants, not by engineers?

That's true of all companies that are still in business.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "John Atkinson" wrote
: in message
:
: But also, from my experience of having taken part in some
: of those tests as
: a listener, it is because the proctor wanted to introduce
: an element of confusion into the scoring, thus increasing
: the possibility of a null result.
:
: Yet another example of Atkinson's paranoia.
:
hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, there were
definite incentives to get the sample size and rate as low as possible:
to get an adequate duration with the limitations of the technically &
economically viable solution available in 1980.
that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
Rudy

nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit linear coded format.
Sony upped that to 16....come on, 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin?
Listening tests ???

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right.

As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting
the UK, I'm knocking the US.

Let's remind people why it's good to be a two Jaguar family.

They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques
they got from Mazda.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton said:

So what? The US has plenty of cash, just not much engineering
talent.....................

And isn't it true that the characteristics of cars made by American
companies are determined by marketers and accountants, not by engineers?

That's true of all companies that are still in business.

Thank you for recanting your previous stupid claim.

Stewart Pinkerton said:

They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques
they got from Mazda.

Are you praising Mazda, knocking Ford, or some other permutation?

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 14:08:55 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

dave weil said:

Let's remind people why it's good to be a two Jaguar family.


Well, nowadays Jaguars are rebadged Fords, so.... :-)

Which is why you don't NEED a spare any more.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep
throwing up engines that aren't British.

I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is
*not* where good cars are made.

Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right.

As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting
the UK, I'm knocking the US.

And what YOU fail to understand is the fact that I'm not defending US
cars here but knocking British cars, many of which historically are
cute little cars that you pray start in the morning (but see below).

What you also fail to take into account is the more benign usage and
environmental conditions that European cars are subject to (in an
overall sense) as opposed to American cars. American cars in general
aren't as "edgy" as their European counterparts, partly because
America (ironically, I think) has taken the lead in being strict on
emissions standards, which robs an engine of its maximum performance
(as well as mandating sometimes ridiculous "safety standards" which
adds weight and bulk to the car. I'm referring mostly to those
over-the-top body prodection requirements of the 70s - 90s). They also
have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of
environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes,
I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one
would hardly call "cutting edge performance").

Having said all that, I think that the US car segment is seriously
out-of-whack and only recently has actually tried to market some
interesting and capable cars. It's pretty easy to take a mid 70s
Arny-era Chrysler product and hold it up to ridicule. Heck, I'll even
play that game. Corinthian leather indeed.

One of my favorite days in the UK was visiting Malvern Link. It was
fun watching tinsmiths banging away at fenders and seeing row after
row of ash (?) frames just waiting for their Rover engines...a
marvelous day walking through the factory.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


MINe 109 said:

The vast majority of which think this women would be better
served by a rubber room than a meeting with the president.

Do you listen to yourself? Don't you think there might be something
wrong in such bilious personal attacks fueled by partisan politics?

Scottie seems to think that if a bunch of soldiers all agree on something,
that's the last word on the subject.

There are ways to oppose the war without inspiring the enemy.
It amazes me that so many on the left simply don't seem to care
about that. Makes one wonder what their real motives
for getting themselves onto the 6PM news are.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article h6iLe.358$Ji.303@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article UL9Le.333$Ji.291@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

George M. Middius wrote:
John Atkinson said:
I was talking about Cindy Sheehan, who is trying to shame
the president into acting honorably.

Isn't it too late for the honorable part? Even if he were to
admit he lied about his motivation for invading Iraq, the
promises he made to the American people are broken.

Paying her the respect of meeting with her, talking with her,
would be a step in the right direction, even if, as I admit,
it changes nothing.

How many times does he have to meet with this wacko
to make you happy?

What difference does that make?

Just explain the true context of her demand..
one in which she already met and praised the president
and now she has changed her tune.

Her hometown paper disputes that view. This article is from June, 2004:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

Reality check. This is the article that describes her feelings after
she met with the President.
Contrast this article comment,
"but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked
the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something."

with her current tirades "Bush, why did you kill my son?".

Tell us again she hasn't changed her tune since that article.



Her own family

In-laws.

has tagged her as an embarrassment and
disrespectful of the memory of her own son.
Military around here (of which there are many) are calling this
women a whore who pimps the dead.

Dissent can't be tolerated.

This is sedition. Know the difference.

No, it isn't. And likewise.

snip

The vast majority of which think this women would be better
served by a rubber room than a meeting with the president.

Do you listen to yourself? Don't you think there might be something
wrong in such bilious personal attacks fueled by partisan politics?

This woman puts our soldiers at greater risk.

"Bring it on," someone said.

She is aiding the enemy, fueling their propaganda.
The soldiers know it but won't step out of line to say it.

Some leftie blogs have been discussing the hallmarks of fascism lately,
inspired by the recent Rumsfield announcement of a military-sponsored
mass demonstration in favor of the war.

Its sad that some people are too blind to realize the consequences
of what they do. I won't do anything that aids the enemy when
our soldiers are at risk.
Will you?

I would have kept our soldiers out of risk in Iraq.

Your congress thought different.


Are you capable of discussing the subject without accusations of treason
for anyone who disagrees with you?

Absolutely... until they begin advocating actions that aid the enemy.
Study the Vietnam antiwar movement and its consequences.
A repeat of history is not in our interests.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


MINe 109 said:

Dissent can't be tolerated.

This is sedition. Know the difference.

No, it isn't. And likewise.

Did Scottie say asking the Prez to explain his lies is "sedition"? I just
want to be clear about this. I always thought sedition is conspiring to
disrupt or destroy government using illegal means.

A little history.

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/usspy.html

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/sedact.html


ScottW

"Ruud Broens" said:

holy malony
what's an alleged anamoly ?
maybe jclause can tell
Sander can sure as hell
wonder oly ?

R.


Levertraan.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" said:
:
: holy malony
: what's an alleged anamoly ?
: maybe jclause can tell
: Sander can sure as hell
: wonder oly ?
:
: R.
:
:
: Levertraan.
:
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Hmm, that sig file is now starting to look like a RIP inscription :-)

Dum-dum-dummyborg is at it again.

Scottie seems to think that if a bunch of soldiers all agree on something,
that's the last word on the subject.

There are ways to oppose the war without inspiring the enemy.
It amazes me that so many on the left simply don't seem to care
about that.

It takes a special kind of insight to interpret political dissent in this
way.

Makes one wonder what their real motives
for getting themselves onto the 6PM news are.

A lot of things make you wonder. Just a week or so ago, you kept repeating
that you didn't understand a joke I made despite several clues to help you
figure it out.

Do you have ADD or some other organic problem?

"ScottW" wrote in message
newsOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article h6iLe.358$Ji.303@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article UL9Le.333$Ji.291@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

George M. Middius wrote:
John Atkinson said:
I was talking about Cindy Sheehan, who is trying to shame
the president into acting honorably.

Isn't it too late for the honorable part? Even if he were to
admit he lied about his motivation for invading Iraq, the
promises he made to the American people are broken.

Paying her the respect of meeting with her, talking with her,
would be a step in the right direction, even if, as I admit,
it changes nothing.

How many times does he have to meet with this wacko
to make you happy?

What difference does that make?

Just explain the true context of her demand..
one in which she already met and praised the president
and now she has changed her tune.

Her hometown paper disputes that view. This article is from June, 2004:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

Reality check. This is the article that describes her feelings after
she met with the President.
Contrast this article comment,
"but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked
the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something."

with her current tirades "Bush, why did you kill my son?".

Tell us again she hasn't changed her tune since that article.

Even the Washinton Post today admits she is changing her tune:

"After the meeting, [Cindy Sheehan] was quoted by the
newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying
that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she
has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting."

http://tinyurl.com/86dxn

ScottW

In article DOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

How many times does he have to meet with this wacko
to make you happy?

What difference does that make?

Just explain the true context of her demand..
one in which she already met and praised the president
and now she has changed her tune.

Her hometown paper disputes that view. This article is from June, 2004:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

Reality check. This is the article that describes her feelings after
she met with the President.

And her feelings before she met with the president.

Contrast this article comment,
"but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked
the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something."
with her current tirades "Bush, why did you kill my son?".

That's not her 'tirade.' Her question, "for what cause did my son die?"
isn't that different from "make her son's sacrifice count for something."

Tell us again she hasn't changed her tune since that article.

She hasn't changed her tune since the article.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article DOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

How many times does he have to meet with this wacko
to make you happy?

What difference does that make?

Just explain the true context of her demand..
one in which she already met and praised the president
and now she has changed her tune.

Her hometown paper disputes that view. This article is from June, 2004:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

Reality check. This is the article that describes her feelings after
she met with the President.

And her feelings before she met with the president.

Contrast this article comment,
"but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked
the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something."
with her current tirades "Bush, why did you kill my son?".

That's not her 'tirade.' Her question, "for what cause did my son die?"
isn't that different from "make her son's sacrifice count for something."

Tell us again she hasn't changed her tune since that article.

She hasn't changed her tune since the article.

Lots of evidence to the contrary. Even some liberal
sources.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamies..._robert13.html


conservative view but lots of data... follow the links.
http://michellemalkin.com/

The fundamental problem I always run up against with
the left. Their willingness to deny reality and ignore
consequence in pursuit of an agenda.

ScottW

In article DOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

I won't do anything that aids the enemy when
our soldiers are at risk.
Will you?

I would have kept our soldiers out of risk in Iraq.

Your congress thought different.

You asked about me.

Are you capable of discussing the subject without accusations of treason
for anyone who disagrees with you?

Absolutely... until they begin advocating actions that aid the enemy.
Study the Vietnam antiwar movement and its consequences.

I have, and don't agree with argument that the anti-war did anything but
turn public opinion against a lost cause.

A repeat of history is not in our interests.

And yet, here we are.

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0108.200006.g...rtunities.html

Regarding the Vietnam protest movement, there are really two major
myths... (one) the myth that since the war was unwinnable, protests did
the United States no harm and much good, and were in fact effective in
ending the war. The other myth is the flip side of that view; namely,
that the war could have and would have been won had it not been for
protests that undermined popular support and led first the Johnson and
then the Nixon administration to pull punches.

.... What proponents of this hard hat myth have in mind is that the
United States should have used more firepower, not more brainpower. The
belief that the United States was fighting with one hand tied behind its
back is completely wrong, of course. Doing more of the same would not
have won the war; it would only have killed more people but the result
would have been the same, because the Vietnamese communists (and
nationalists) were more willing to be killed than the United States as a
society was willing to pay a price to kill them. And that is why, when
you hear someone today say that the war was unwinnable because the enemy
was willing to take such appalling casualties, you know that that
persons thinking has not advanced beyond William Westmorelands own
views, circa 1968...

....As John Mueller put it..., the American people basically followed
their leaders into war, and then, when the leadership changed its mind,
followed them back out again.
__

End quote

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...

Poor sniveling George pouts RAO is his litterbox...


Dum-dum-dummyborg is at it again.

Scottie seems to think that if a bunch of soldiers all agree on
something,
that's the last word on the subject.

There are ways to oppose the war without inspiring the enemy.
It amazes me that so many on the left simply don't seem to care
about that.

It takes a special kind of insight to interpret political dissent in this
way.

Nothing special about recognizing the reality of consequences.
What is special is the new lefts willingness to ignore them.


Makes one wonder what their real motives
for getting themselves onto the 6PM news are.

A lot of things make you wonder. Just a week or so ago, you kept repeating
that you didn't understand a joke I made despite several clues to help you
figure it out.
Do you have ADD or some other organic problem?

Poor George, still struggling to understand why he gets no serious
attention. It's ok... Margi still loves you.

ScottW

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article DOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

I won't do anything that aids the enemy when
our soldiers are at risk.
Will you?

I would have kept our soldiers out of risk in Iraq.

Your congress thought different.

You asked about me.

I didn't assume a what if context outside of reality.


Are you capable of discussing the subject without accusations of
treason
for anyone who disagrees with you?

Absolutely... until they begin advocating actions that aid the enemy.
Study the Vietnam antiwar movement and its consequences.

I have, and don't agree with argument that the anti-war did anything but
turn public opinion against a lost cause.

A repeat of history is not in our interests.

And yet, here we are.

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0108.200006.g...rtunities.html

Regarding the Vietnam protest movement, there are really two major
myths... (one) the myth that since the war was unwinnable, protests did
the United States no harm and much good, and were in fact effective in
ending the war. The other myth is the flip side of that view; namely,
that the war could have and would have been won had it not been for
protests that undermined popular support and led first the Johnson and
then the Nixon administration to pull punches.

... What proponents of this hard hat myth have in mind is that the
United States should have used more firepower, not more brainpower. The
belief that the United States was fighting with one hand tied behind its
back is completely wrong, of course. Doing more of the same would not
have won the war; it would only have killed more people but the result
would have been the same, because the Vietnamese communists (and
nationalists) were more willing to be killed than the United States as a
society was willing to pay a price to kill them. And that is why, when
you hear someone today say that the war was unwinnable because the enemy
was willing to take such appalling casualties, you know that that
persons thinking has not advanced beyond William Westmorelands own
views, circa 1968...

...As John Mueller put it..., the American people basically followed
their leaders into war, and then, when the leadership changed its mind,
followed them back out again.

You sure dredge up a lot of irrelevant and rather subjective content.
Anyway this piece fails to address the fact that North Vietnamese
military leaders have now
revealed they were willing to accept a negotiated peace after their
defeat in the Tet offensive but changed their minds upon seeing
the media coverage of the anti-war movement and particularly
a Cronkite characterization of the battle as a disaster for America.

America forgets what the rest of the world does not. The outcome
of the Vietnam War was due to America failing to abide by treaty and
failing to enforce treaty. The consequences of that will be lasting.

ScottW

In article pjrLe.379$Ji.362@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article DOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

Tell us again she hasn't changed her tune since that article.

She hasn't changed her tune since the article.

Lots of evidence to the contrary. Even some liberal
sources.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamies..._robert13.html

That's not evidence, that's a partisan opinion piece that repeats
Drudge's willful out-of-context quoting and throws in a good helping of
name-calling.

conservative view but lots of data... follow the links.
http://michellemalkin.com/

The fundamental problem I always run up against with
the left. Their willingness to deny reality and ignore
consequence in pursuit of an agenda.

If your standard for "reality" is similar to your standard for
"evidence," I don't wonder that I disagree with you.

Stephen

In article , says...

"jclause" wrote in message

In article ,
says...

"jclause" wrote in message

This may be of interest. I once owned an Audio Research
SP-8 preamp, and a "magic brick". It was felt the brick
made a slight difference - nothing dramatic - when
placed on the SP-8 in sighted listening.

A friend had a brand x of about the same cost. We
compared the two (sighted comparison)and there was no
question but what brand X was "warmer" and "had more
ambience". Now we placed the magic brick on brand X and
felt sure it was now doing its "thing" and making a
difference. Investigation showed the SP-8 to have a much
smaller circuit board for the RIAA phono stage, in fact
brand X had one large board about 7x14 inches with all
the circuitry on that one board except a cut-out in one
corner for the power transformer.

The board was flexible, and we suspected the input tubes
were acting as microphones and creating "ambience" from
the delayed sound waves vibrating them. We staunched up
the board, listened and that "warm" and ambient sound
was no longer there in comparison with the SP-8. The
boards on both preamps were then braced and damping
placed around the tubes themselves, and we then felt
the SP-8 had a little more detail (sighted listening
again). Both however sounded good and we were both
content with our preamps.

Now a question.. would ABX or tests into a dummy load
have shown up the difference?

That there was an audible difference, is a speculative
hypothesis, not a fact.

That the audible difference was due to microphonics is a
speculative hypothesis, not a fact.

How deep do you want to stack your speculative
hypotheses?

Are you implying the effect of a microphonic tube is
not audible?

It all depends.

On what?


Also your lack of reply to the question is noted.

No reasonable question has been asked.


The question rephrased:
Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

JC the elder

In article CXqLe.377$Ji.92@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message
newsOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02...

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article h6iLe.358$Ji.303@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article UL9Le.333$Ji.291@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

George M. Middius wrote:
John Atkinson said:
I was talking about Cindy Sheehan, who is trying to shame
the president into acting honorably.

Isn't it too late for the honorable part? Even if he were to
admit he lied about his motivation for invading Iraq, the
promises he made to the American people are broken.

Paying her the respect of meeting with her, talking with her,
would be a step in the right direction, even if, as I admit,
it changes nothing.

How many times does he have to meet with this wacko
to make you happy?

What difference does that make?

Just explain the true context of her demand..
one in which she already met and praised the president
and now she has changed her tune.

Her hometown paper disputes that view. This article is from June, 2004:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

snip

Even the Washinton Post today admits she is changing her tune:

'Admit' doesn't mean much on RAO.

"After the meeting, [Cindy Sheehan] was quoted by the
newspaper in her hometown of Vacaville, Calif., as saying
that the president seemed sympathetic. Subsequently, she
has said that Bush treated her callously during the meeting."

http://tinyurl.com/86dxn

For one thing, he didn't bother to get her name. I suppose someone might
find that 'callous.'

She also found his form condolence letter impersonal. However, if she
had changed her views completely that still wouldn't invalidate her
current protest.

Stephen

"jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased:

Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

No... the test does not. Exposing a tube to acoustic vibration can but this
would happen in the course of normal use & a test.

If you want to insure microphonics aren't at play with your amp in a test,
you either seperate the amp and speakers or use a simulated load and
headphones. I suggest the former.

ScottW

In article CNrLe.383$Ji.289@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article DOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

I won't do anything that aids the enemy when
our soldiers are at risk.
Will you?

I would have kept our soldiers out of risk in Iraq.

Your congress thought different.

You asked about me.

I didn't assume a what if context outside of reality.


Are you capable of discussing the subject without accusations of
treason
for anyone who disagrees with you?

Absolutely... until they begin advocating actions that aid the enemy.
Study the Vietnam antiwar movement and its consequences.

I have, and don't agree with argument that the anti-war did anything but
turn public opinion against a lost cause.

A repeat of history is not in our interests.

And yet, here we are.

http://www.fpri.org/ww/0108.200006.g...rtunities.html

Regarding the Vietnam protest movement, there are really two major
myths... (one) the myth that since the war was unwinnable, protests did
the United States no harm and much good, and were in fact effective in
ending the war. The other myth is the flip side of that view; namely,
that the war could have and would have been won had it not been for
protests that undermined popular support and led first the Johnson and
then the Nixon administration to pull punches.

... What proponents of this hard hat myth have in mind is that the
United States should have used more firepower, not more brainpower. The
belief that the United States was fighting with one hand tied behind its
back is completely wrong, of course. Doing more of the same would not
have won the war; it would only have killed more people but the result
would have been the same, because the Vietnamese communists (and
nationalists) were more willing to be killed than the United States as a
society was willing to pay a price to kill them. And that is why, when
you hear someone today say that the war was unwinnable because the enemy
was willing to take such appalling casualties, you know that that
persons thinking has not advanced beyond William Westmorelands own
views, circa 1968...

...As John Mueller put it..., the American people basically followed
their leaders into war, and then, when the leadership changed its mind,
followed them back out again.

You sure dredge up a lot of irrelevant and rather subjective content.

It's exactly relevant and better reasoned than the opinion pieces you
cited.

Anyway this piece fails to address the fact that North Vietnamese
military leaders have now
revealed they were willing to accept a negotiated peace after their
defeat in the Tet offensive but changed their minds upon seeing
the media coverage of the anti-war movement and particularly
a Cronkite characterization of the battle as a disaster for America.

America forgets what the rest of the world does not. The outcome
of the Vietnam War was due to America failing to abide by treaty and
failing to enforce treaty. The consequences of that will be lasting.

Here's what I would consider a 'mainstream' view:

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/...ise/viet8.html

I looked at a bunch of similar textbook/encyclepedia/course outline
articles and found no reference to your assertion.

What is your source for your view?

Stephen

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:52:43 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


MINe 109 said:

The vast majority of which think this women would be better
served by a rubber room than a meeting with the president.

Do you listen to yourself? Don't you think there might be something
wrong in such bilious personal attacks fueled by partisan politics?

Scottie seems to think that if a bunch of soldiers all agree on something,
that's the last word on the subject.

There are ways to oppose the war without inspiring the enemy.
It amazes me that so many on the left simply don't seem to care
about that. Makes one wonder what their real motives
for getting themselves onto the 6PM news are.

You really think that this woman is inspiring al-Quaidaesque partisans
to blow themselves up?

If so, you're nuts.

Maybe this woman wished her progeny dead so that she could get on the
news.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article pjrLe.379$Ji.362@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article DOpLe.370$Ji.227@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

http://www.thereporter.com/search/ci_2923921

Tell us again she hasn't changed her tune since that article.

She hasn't changed her tune since the article.

Lots of evidence to the contrary. Even some liberal
sources.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamies..._robert13.html

That's not evidence,

agreed.... it's his perception with some rehashed statements.

that's a partisan opinion piece

Partisan? I'm not familiar with Jamieson so that I don't know.

that repeats
Drudge's willful out-of-context quoting and throws in a good helping of
name-calling.

conservative view but lots of data... follow the links.
http://michellemalkin.com/

The fundamental problem I always run up against with
the left. Their willingness to deny reality and ignore
consequence in pursuit of an agenda.

If your standard for "reality" is similar to your standard for
"evidence," I don't wonder that I disagree with you.

I have no standard for reality. It simply exists.
I seek to find & understand it. All evidence,
even false evidence contributes to that understanding.

Plenty of evidence.. mostly Sheehan's own words tell me she has
changed her tune since her meeting with the President.
In fact she has admitted it herself due to frustrations with plans or
lack thereof to withdraw from Iraq.

ScottW

In article o9sLe.386$Ji.29@lakeread02, says...


"jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased:

Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

No... the test does not.


Then the ABX test could be misleading, especially to someone
with a tube preamp, who was unaware of the test's limitation.
Unless of course AK has noted this limitation on his web site.

JC the elder

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

Here's what I would consider a 'mainstream' view:

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/...ise/viet8.html


In the very first paragraph the writer makes me wary with

"In its eagerness to make the situation look hopeful,"

which attributes motive that the author makes no attempt to support with
facts.

I guess I don't care if it is "mainstream view" or not. I care if it is
accurate.
Still to some degree it jives with much of what I have read.

Look into the writings and interviews of Colonel Bui Tin

http://www.lcompanyranger.com/weapon...buitinpage.htm

http://www.viet-myths.net/buitin.htm

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:52:43 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:


"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote
in message ...


MINe 109 said:

The vast majority of which think this women would be better
served by a rubber room than a meeting with the president.

Do you listen to yourself? Don't you think there might be something
wrong in such bilious personal attacks fueled by partisan politics?

Scottie seems to think that if a bunch of soldiers all agree on
something,
that's the last word on the subject.

There are ways to oppose the war without inspiring the enemy.
It amazes me that so many on the left simply don't seem to care
about that. Makes one wonder what their real motives
for getting themselves onto the 6PM news are.

You really think that this woman is inspiring al-Quaidaesque partisans
to blow themselves up?

I think this kind of dissent inspires Zarkawi and others to continue with
their tactics. Bin Ladin himself has referred to American weakness and
referenced Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia as evidence.

If so, you're nuts.

Maybe this woman wished her progeny dead so that she could get on the
news.

Once again... Dave wanders aimlessly into Weilland.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
How many times has your test data showed some rather significant
shortcomings in a product that the reviewer praised?

Not that often, but here are two examples in the August issue
of Stereophile, our Tetra loudspeaker and Cyberlight cable reviews.
But my standing instruction to my writers is to report what they hear
regardless of what the measurements might subsequently show. I am
interested in their honest reaction to the sound, not what they
think they ought to hear, which is also why they don't see the
measurements until _after_ they have submitted their reports for
publication.

When there is a conflict, the question then becomes: did they hear
what they heard _because_ of the measured performance or _despite_ it?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"jclause" wrote in message
...
In article o9sLe.386$Ji.29@lakeread02, says...


"jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased:

Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration
to a microphonic tube?

No... the test does not.


Then the ABX test could be misleading, especially to someone
with a tube preamp, who was unaware of the test's limitation.
Unless of course AK has noted this limitation on his web site.

We have often pointed out the potential for masking in the listeners
playback system. Arny points to listener training tools to certify
the playback system as transparent. I don't think that is sufficiently
comprehensive myself.

ScottW

Scottie said:

You really think that this woman is inspiring al-Quaidaesque partisans
to blow themselves up?

I think this kind of dissent inspires Zarkawi and others to continue with
their tactics.

You mean you fantasize that in order to rationalize your irrational hatred
of all anti-Bush thoughts.

I'm guessing all this foaming at the mouth is because you're still made at
Jane Fonda. Right? Right? I knew it!

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
How many times has your test data showed some rather significant
shortcomings in a product that the reviewer praised?

Not that often, but here are two examples in the August issue
of Stereophile, our Tetra loudspeaker and Cyberlight cable reviews.
But my standing instruction to my writers is to report what they hear
regardless of what the measurements might subsequently show. I am
interested in their honest reaction to the sound, not what they
think they ought to hear, which is also why they don't see the
measurements until _after_ they have submitted their reports for
publication.

When there is a conflict, the question then becomes: did they hear
what they heard _because_ of the measured performance or _despite_ it?

I recognize ABX speakers is a bit of a task.... but the cables present
a perfect opportunity to at least validate there is some audible
difference against a standard which measurements may explain.

More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible
differences for which measurements cannot explain.
Alas.. the lack of reviewers routinely conducting such tests will leave
that opportunity missed

ScottW

In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:


More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible
differences for which measurements cannot explain.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is
impossible.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:


More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible
differences for which measurements cannot explain.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is
impossible.

I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Scottie said:

You really think that this woman is inspiring al-Quaidaesque partisans
to blow themselves up?

I think this kind of dissent inspires Zarkawi and others to continue with
their tactics.

You mean you fantasize that in order to rationalize your irrational hatred
of all anti-Bush thoughts.

Poor George.... lost in his fantasies of fantasies.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:uhtLe.393$Ji.278@lakeread02...
Look into the writings and interviews of Colonel Bui Tin

http://www.lcompanyranger.com/weapon...buitinpage.htm

http://www.viet-myths.net/buitin.htm


and another interesting read

http://www.pwhce.org/textvnhr.html

ScottW

FantasyBorg accidentally impales himself.

Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is
impossible.

I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect.

That's not what Nousiane and Krooger say. Are you trying to get yourself
branded as an apostate?

"EddieM" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote

The listener is not in competition with the ABX
equipment, if anything he's in competition with the
equipment under test.

Then why is the ABX box in between the listener and the
DUT ?

ABX boxes facilitate blind tests. Sighted tests are often
totally invalid.

So if the listener fail to detect, the ABX box is there
to justify that it will have no impact on the listener's
ability to discern sound differences, right?

No.

If the listener fails to detect it could well be that there
is nothing to detect.

ABX box is there to help ensure that the listener isn't just
reported his prejudices and biases.

Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add
'additional' variables of its own.

That can be determined.

Can you clarify ?

Sure, which equipment are you talking about?

What is the objective that the proctor wish to achieve
by incorporating such ABX equipment with regards to the
validity of the test ?

A more valid test for a given level of effort.

Therefore the listener must meet the same level of
performance and precision set forth by the ABX equipment,.

No, the listener must meet his own standard for his personal
best.


'cause if he
fail to detect, the resulting data at the end of the
experiment will be corroborated by the ABX equip. as
legitimate, no?

Its the corroboration of the listener's responses by the ABX
equipment that tells us whether the listener's responses are
legitimate or just random guessing.

The listener must be absolutely precise in his decision.
No guessing, right ?

If the listener is just guessing, then the ABX equipment
will help identify that.

How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with
regards to its capability to
expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect
and differentiate subtle sound differences ?

Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that
duplicate the results of tests done with ABX equipment,
supports the idea that the equipment isn't masking
differences that could otherwise be heard.

I'm not asking whether the ABX box is masking the
differences that otherwise could be heard, I'm asking how
does the box validly justify itself in exposing the
listener ability
to detect subtle differences.

The box is a simple mechanism with a simple function. If it
executes that simple function properly, then it will expose
whether or not the listener is detecting subtle differences.
Whether or not the box is executing its simple function can
be determined by doing a test whose outcome is obvious, such
as when one of the two pieces of equipment being compared is
turned off and not responding at all.

Let the subject have as long as is needed to make a
judgment and have unlimited opportunities to switch
back and forth until they're ready -- which is
obviously going to be very time consuming, but I don't
see any alternative to doing things whatever way is
likely to be most conducive to allowing differences to
be detected.


but I don't recall who, that the subject take more
time... over a period of day, ... then do a slow
switching in hour or days, or just take the whole day
for the trial. Then.... while you're at it, .... sit
back ! relax ! and
enjoy !

Been there, done that. It's doesn't help, if anything it
makes obtaining the most sensitive possible results
harder to do.

Good.


The obvious problem I see with these of course is that
it allow it to introduce another unacceptable variables
which are -- personal preferences and biases.

Yes, those are very serious unsolvable problems with
sighted tests - unacceptable variables which are --
personal preferences and biases.

We're not talking about sighted test, we're talkin about
long term, extended listening comparison under blind test
condition.

Then the listener's personal preferences and biases are
removed as influenced in the test by the proper use of the
ABX box to do a blind test.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Stewart Pinkerton said:

They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques
they got from Mazda.

Are you praising Mazda, knocking Ford, or some other permutation?


LOL!

Sounds like Stoopi is on crystal meth these days.


Cheers,

Margaret