In article RILLe.4079$Ji.3253@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article 2nKLe.4068$Ji.2339@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article uQyLe.2988$Ji.1771@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

I've let you slide on your continual insults, so why are you so
sensitive?

Interested to see what statements of mine you found personally
insulting.

Well, most all of them. However, I refuse to take them seriously. Do you
want a list?

Not really.... I try to let your posts generally speak for themselves
and consider your evidence. If I don't agree with the post
or don't feel it is relevant... I say so. You, in contrast,
have chosen to make personal assessments.

*I've* gone personal? Maybe you need to reread the progression of the
thread.

Good advice for me, too. Lessee, you started by making highly insulting
personal assessments of Cindy Sheehan, who has never said a word to you.
Furthermore, your "evidence" is out of context quoting amplified by the
right-wing noise machine. You upped the ante, accusing her of
"sedition," which you then accused me of by implication. I showed you
the proper context and asked why you were so insulting and if you could
discuss the subject without accusations of treason.

You rejected my evidence, misquoting Sheehan and misrepresenting her
views, and opened the subject to include Vietnam. You introduced
"evidence" to support your view of Sheehan: an opinion piece that simply
said the more or less the same thing you did based on the same out of
context quotes; and Michelle Malkin, who went beyond distorting real
evidence to making it up out of whole cloth by putting words in the
mouth of Sheehan's dead son. I responded to the first but let the second
go by.

Back to Vietnam, I cited a scholarly opinion piece that represented my
views and was relatively even-handed in dealing with opposite extremes
on the subject.

You accused me of adopting a "what if context outside of reality," when
I didn't answer your insulting hypothetical question directly. You
dismissed my opinion piece as "subjective" and "irrelevant," and brought
up a controversial Vietnam scenario: that the North Vietnamese were on
the verge of surrender until heartened by the anti-war movement,
especially Walter Cronkite. There was also something about treaties that
I ignored and you didn't defend.

I responded with a scholarly overview that showed your contention was
out of the mainstream history of the war and asked you for your
evidence. You found fault with the language of the overview and brought
up links that reposted a WSJ interview that was the source of some of
your views against the anti-war movement, but, oddly, didn't support the
specific statements you had made about the Tet aftermath, Cronkite, etc.

I investigated further and found that the "surrender/Cronkite" story is
likely a phony (the source cited has never been found), and that Bui Tin
is far from a reliable source. I wrote you a sincere reply, including my
opinion that you can't make the distinction that dissent isn't
necessarily active aid to the enemy.

You took offense, and questioned my integrity.

IMO, resorting to this is the real sign of intellectual capitulation
in every debate. You, in effect, have played the equivalent of
the nazi claim. I have no interest in further discourse at that level
with you. You are capable of more.

You started the debate at that level by playing the "aid to the enemy"
card. There's some other stuff not in this thread: I asked why a
self-proclaimed skeptic as yourself seems so easily swayed by the
right-wing media. It's still a fair question I hope you'll consider away
from RAO.

In contrast, and fyi, Weil doesn't seem to be able to refrain from
resorting to that level.. ever.

You've been horribly insulting to him, so it might take some time before
he's inclined to cut you any slack.

I hope you can appreciate the difference and why I may appear
to be dealing with people on different levels.
Of course you can further contrast that with George who clearly is
only interested in exchanging jabs.

Since you've equated me with George with that "blame it on Arny" remark
and shown that you can't get along with dave, something I've never had a
problem with despite the occasional difference of opinion, I don't see
that you really are dealing with people on different levels.

Stephen

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:12:09 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:51:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:57:30 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


"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 ???

Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?

The problem is that too many newbies have been mis-educated
by high end ragazines with the lie that analog has infinite
resolution. I wonder how many times that lie has been
published in say Stereophile or TAS?

Harry tell lies? Say it ain't so! :-)

Gratuitous insult / slander duly noted.

Not *you*, you insignificant self-important cretin, the *real* Harry!
Didn't you see the TAS reference?


Actually, I was in a hurry and didn't....particularly since the thread was
mainly about Stereophile.

As for my significance, I'll allow posterity to judge that. I suggest you
think about the same.

snip, irrelevant

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I'd gladly live in Austin.

Nah, Houston's where it's at. Especially Rice.

Performance cars on Houston freeways!

Stephen

Drunkie whined:

You really are a sad sack of ****.

Score!

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:19:52 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article pLLLe.4080$Ji.998@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article zlLLe.4076$Ji.2515@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

Staying on topic was never one of your strong suits.
and exactly why are you butting into this thread, hypocrite?

This seems kind of insulting.

Exchanges with Dave are rarely more than trading insults.

Trying holding back for a while and see what happens.

In this case, I threw the first bomb. I really DID think that his
comments about anti-war activists motivating our current enemy was
stupid and indicative of a non-understanding of the conflict that we
are currently engaging in. It's thinking that is stuck in the past.

And everything is more complicated that it seems.

Stephen

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:06:24 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:30:20 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:22:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

CLS55, S55 and S65 are saloons.

But they are not *sports* saloons - even for fat Texans........

CLS55 is the most sporting of them all. Even for drunken british twits.
The
fact that *you* cannot afford it, does not disqualify it.

Are you *nuts*? The CLS55 is just a quirky styling exercise to make an
S-class saloon *look* sporty. OTOH, I do have a few shares left in the
most fabulous bridge - even nicer than the one your idiot cousin in
Arizona bought by mistake.


I think what you need is a few shares in a rehab facility.

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

Horse****. They come with Mercedes VIN's. It is that simple.

others are supercharged rather than turbocharged,

Irrelevant. Neither is normally aspirated.

But as noted, they're not *sports* saloons by any reasonable standard.

What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

Faster than most Mercs on real roads, in point of fact.......

Only if you drive on sidewalks. OTOH drunk drivers are prone to do that too.


and the RS6 is no
longer made.

The replacement due in 2006 will not be normally aspirated either.

Perhaps, but it will be using an old engine. The *new* 'cutting edge'
angines are normally aspirated. Good luck in your desperate flailing
to defend a lost position. But there always something fundamentally
pathetic about dolls with balls..........

"Cutting edge" is a figment of your imagination. Definitions by a nobody
like you don't count.

Back at ya, ladyboy!


Even Arny can do better than that.

Bottom line - *all* the desirable new 'cutting edge' motors by
*anyone's* definition are naturally aspirated and have specific
outputs of 100BHP per litre or more.

You're better suited defining DT, Stoopi.

How conveniently you edited out all that VIN stuff...too drunk to figure out
yet another helping of horse****?

Hope you have head-on collision with a H-1!


Cheers,

Margaret

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:43:38 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article tgKLe.4066$Ji.968@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

Horse****, there was *zero* terrorism in Iraq before

I guess when the dictator is doing he killing it isn't called terrorism.

That's correct.

As for Israel, and of course America - but Americans like to keep
their terrorism and torture offshore.......................

Ironic that The Land of the Free keeps its favourite illegal torture
site on Cuba. The original George must be doing about 3,000 rpm in his
grave.................................

What? No applause from out resident drunken nazi?

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:12:09 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:51:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:57:30 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


"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 ???

Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?

The problem is that too many newbies have been mis-educated
by high end ragazines with the lie that analog has infinite
resolution. I wonder how many times that lie has been
published in say Stereophile or TAS?

Harry tell lies? Say it ain't so! :-)

Gratuitous insult / slander duly noted.

Not *you*, you insignificant self-important cretin, the *real* Harry!
Didn't you see the TAS reference?


Actually, I was in a hurry and didn't....particularly since the thread was
mainly about Stereophile.

As for my significance, I'll allow posterity to judge that. I suggest you
think about the same.


We all know organ donations are "off" in Stoopi's case. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:14:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:50:05 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:06:24 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 12:30:20 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:22:31 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

CLS55, S55 and S65 are saloons.

But they are not *sports* saloons - even for fat Texans........

CLS55 is the most sporting of them all. Even for drunken british twits. The
fact that *you* cannot afford it, does not disqualify it.

Are you *nuts*? The CLS55 is just a quirky styling exercise to make an
S-class saloon *look* sporty. OTOH, I do have a few shares left in the
most fabulous bridge - even nicer than the one your idiot cousin in
Arizona bought by mistake.

And strictly speaking, they are AMGs, not Mercs. A fine distinction,
to be sure.

Horse****. They come with Mercedes VIN's. It is that simple.

others are supercharged rather than turbocharged,

Irrelevant. Neither is normally aspirated.

But as noted, they're not *sports* saloons by any reasonable standard.

What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

Faster than most Mercs on real roads, in point of fact.......

and the RS6 is no
longer made.

The replacement due in 2006 will not be normally aspirated either.

Perhaps, but it will be using an old engine. The *new* 'cutting edge'
angines are normally aspirated. Good luck in your desperate flailing
to defend a lost position. But there always something fundamentally
pathetic about dolls with balls..........

"Cutting edge" is a figment of your imagination. Definitions by a nobody
like you don't count.

Back at ya, ladyboy!

Bottom line - *all* the desirable new 'cutting edge' motors by
*anyone's* definition are naturally aspirated and have specific
outputs of 100BHP per litre or more.

Glad to see that Ford has a cutting edge motor in play.

Shame that you know nothing about cars. No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:35:33 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

I'd gladly live in Austin.

Nah, Houston's where it's at. Especially Rice.

Performance cars on Houston freeways!

What, you mean to say that a free man can't do whatever he likes in
Texas, if it harms no other man? Shock, horror!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:05:48 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:12:09 -0400, "Harry Lavo"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:51:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:57:30 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:


"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 ???

Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?

The problem is that too many newbies have been mis-educated
by high end ragazines with the lie that analog has infinite
resolution. I wonder how many times that lie has been
published in say Stereophile or TAS?

Harry tell lies? Say it ain't so! :-)

Gratuitous insult / slander duly noted.

Not *you*, you insignificant self-important cretin, the *real* Harry!
Didn't you see the TAS reference?


Actually, I was in a hurry and didn't....particularly since the thread was
mainly about Stereophile.

As for my significance, I'll allow posterity to judge that. I suggest you
think about the same.

Unlike you. I don't think about it........................

We all know organ donations are "off" in Stoopi's case. :-)

Damn right! Ain't nobody on this group even close to deserving access
to *my* body parts! Mind you, many have suggested wanting access via
cold steel.... :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:40:54 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:

Drunkie whined:

You really are a sad sack of ****.

Score!

Not even a dog-end saved from the spitoon, let alone a Cohiba......
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:00:17 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:06:24 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

Faster than most Mercs on real roads, in point of fact.......

Only if you drive on sidewalks. OTOH drunk drivers are prone to do that too.

Bring it on! I'll take any Merc below the MacMerc on any non-motorway
road (i.e. not dead straight three-lane) within 50 miles of my home.
If it's raining, don't even bother turning up................

Careful now - already demonstrated the point to an SL55......... :-)

"Cutting edge" is a figment of your imagination. Definitions by a nobody
like you don't count.

Back at ya, ladyboy!

Even Arny can do better than that.

Yeah, but nothing more is necessary for you.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message ...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point
is that the 'objectivists' are well aware that
*everyone* has expectation bias. That's why it needs to
be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.

DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Neither does sighted evaluation.

What comes down to that DBT is enough work that a person has
to be pretty hard-headed to avoid getting caught up in the
moment and listen hard and carefully to make the best
possible showing. Hope springs eternal.

Of course, being so proud of having zero personal experience
with DBT Art, you know nothing about this.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


you never designed an ashtray for an Omni.

Nor have I.

OTOH, I've never been the editor of what many believe to the
largest single perpetrator of audio snake oil in the world.
So, I have to admit that Atkinson has that *advantage* on
me.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

I have little doubt you could successfully tell the
difference between two Brendel performances of the
same work, in a DBT, even if you lacked knowledge of
the 'arcana'.

Am I overestimating you?

But can you understand the meaning of the differences?

Straw man, since the knowing the meaning of the
differences is outside the scope of the discussion.

You agreed that chord balance was inside the scope of
the discussion when you claimed you could more precisely
balance a chord using eq than a musician could do in
performing on an instrument.

Wrong, because I was talking about changing chord
balance as a technical exercise, which can be done
without knowing what chord balance is musically speaking.


Commas are cheap these days. Try
buying some.

Cow brains are cheap these days Art, try buying some to
replace yours obviously defective ones.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



Yes, that is exactly what they say. Of course, this can
be true. But they go beond that...they claim any sighted
difference *IS* the result of imagination.

That would be another of your lies, Harry. We have no
problems with the potential correctness of sighted
evaluations of things that actually sound different, like
loudspeakers. For example, Nousaine does quite a large
number of sighted evaluations of car audio systems.

They thus
leave science (and common sense) and enter the realm of
propaganda for their cause.

Yet another of your lies, Harry. BTW it's very nice of you
to go on a lying jag like this so soon after Mr. Pinkerton
pointed out your habitual problems with telling the truth.

Of course, he can't explain why my Onkyo preamp, with
actually superior "specs" for the most part, sounds far
less "real" in my system thtn does my Audio Research
preamp.

Sighted evaluation? Harry's ears are tained by way too much
listening to vinyl? A broken Onkyo preamp?

I haven't done an ABX, so of course my "claim"
can't be taken seriously.

Well there's this little problem with you and the truth,
Harry. I believe that it is well known that mentioning your
name in conjunction with the truth is a well-known example
of an oxymoron.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:19:52 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article pLLLe.4080$Ji.998@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article zlLLe.4076$Ji.2515@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

Staying on topic was never one of your strong suits.
and exactly why are you butting into this thread, hypocrite?

This seems kind of insulting.

Exchanges with Dave are rarely more than trading insults.

Trying holding back for a while and see what happens.

In this case, I threw the first bomb. I really DID think that his
comments about anti-war activists motivating our current enemy was
stupid and indicative of a non-understanding of the conflict that we
are currently engaging in. It's thinking that is stuck in the past.

And everything is more complicated that it seems.

Declaring history irrelevant destines one to repeat mistakes.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message



Yes, that is exactly what they say. Of course, this can
be true. But they go beond that...they claim any sighted
difference *IS* the result of imagination.

That would be another of your lies, Harry. We have no
problems with the potential correctness of sighted
evaluations of things that actually sound different, like
loudspeakers. For example, Nousaine does quite a large
number of sighted evaluations of car audio systems.


Thanks for revealing, Arny, that you decide "a priori" what might be
different and what not.


They thus
leave science (and common sense) and enter the realm of
propaganda for their cause.

Yet another of your lies, Harry. BTW it's very nice of you
to go on a lying jag like this so soon after Mr. Pinkerton
pointed out your habitual problems with telling the truth.


pot - kettle - black (x2)


Of course, he can't explain why my Onkyo preamp, with
actually superior "specs" for the most part, sounds far
less "real" in my system thtn does my Audio Research
preamp.

Sighted evaluation? Harry's ears are tained by way too much
listening to vinyl? A broken Onkyo preamp?


Lack of meaningful answer noted.


I haven't done an ABX, so of course my "claim"
can't be taken seriously.

Well there's this little problem with you and the truth,
Harry. I believe that it is well known that mentioning your
name in conjunction with the truth is a well-known example
of an oxymoron.

Yearh, Arny, I "don't tell the truth" because I remember John as saying the
hump was in the "midrange", versus the "upper-midrange"? Get real.

Arny has no real answer in response to the potential flaws off his beloved
abx, nor any real interest in checking the premises or validating the test,
so he resorts to slander and insults. Some "scientist:".

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
(paul packer) wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Sorry mate, it's simply not *possible* to offend an okker........

Please explain.

Anything you say about an okker just *has* to be a compliment.

The alt.tasteless group koan reads:

"How does one achieve tastelessness?"
"One can be born tasteless, one can grow to be tasteless,
or one can be Australian."


Francois.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

I'm not interested in endlessly debating obvious gross perceptual
differences.
If you insist in feeling insulted by the very core of my premises
there is little I can do about it.

You can either deal with it.. or turn it into the usual **** slinging fest.
I'm actually trying to give you "the choice" rather than making
it for you. I'm honestly not trying to be personally insulting.


You took offense, and questioned my integrity.

IMO, resorting to this is the real sign of intellectual capitulation
in every debate. You, in effect, have played the equivalent of
the nazi claim. I have no interest in further discourse at that level
with you. You are capable of more.

You started the debate at that level by playing the "aid to the enemy"
card.

That was the whole premise. Sorry if you find that insulting.
I find the left often has difficulty with any meaningful
self examination but consider trying to refrain from the usual
reactionary attack response. It just degrades any dialogue.

There's some other stuff not in this thread: I asked why a
self-proclaimed skeptic as yourself seems so easily swayed by the
right-wing media. It's still a fair question I hope you'll consider away
from RAO.

I disagree. I try to consider many sources.... I also don't accept your
material characterizations.. much of what you call mainstream
isn't IMO.


In contrast, and fyi, Weil doesn't seem to be able to refrain from
resorting to that level.. ever.

You've been horribly insulting to him,

Why am I not feeling any guilt?

so it might take some time before
he's inclined to cut you any slack.

I hope you can appreciate the difference and why I may appear
to be dealing with people on different levels.
Of course you can further contrast that with George who clearly is
only interested in exchanging jabs.

Since you've equated me with George with that "blame it on Arny" remark

equated? No... vaguely resembling with one remark is more like it.
Please don't jump to conclusions.

and shown that you can't get along with dave, something I've never had a
problem with despite the occasional difference of opinion,

You're both lefties..

I don't see
that you really are dealing with people on different levels.

I hoped you could appreciate the difference but I will accept that you
can't.

ScottW

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Shame that you know nothing about cars. No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

When are you going to take torque curves (the true measure of a cars
performance) into consideration instead of banging endlessly on HP/liter?

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

ScottW

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:00:17 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:06:24 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

Faster than most Mercs on real roads, in point of fact.......

Only if you drive on sidewalks. OTOH drunk drivers are prone to do that
too.

Bring it on! I'll take any Merc below the MacMerc on any non-motorway
road (i.e. not dead straight three-lane) within 50 miles of my home.
If it's raining, don't even bother turning up................

Careful now - already demonstrated the point to an SL55......... :-)


Really? Where was it parked?

This really sounds like more fiction from the bottle. Try again after you
defeat Clarkson.

"Cutting edge" is a figment of your imagination. Definitions by a nobody
like you don't count.

Back at ya, ladyboy!

Even Arny can do better than that.

Yeah, but nothing more is necessary for you.
--

Stoopi, you are soooo average!

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


you never designed an ashtray for an Omni.

Nor have I.

OTOH, I've never been the editor of what many believe to the largest
single perpetrator of audio snake oil in the world.

Considering that even the most basic language eludes you ...

So, I have to admit that Atkinson has that *advantage* on me.

Yes, Atkinson is an elephant in the world of audio. And you are a dung
beetle, Arny.


Cheers,

Margaret

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

What exactly is it that you have done that qualifies you
as an expert of any sort?

What qualifies you to judge my answer to this question,
sockpuppet?

Thanks Arny for admitting your complete lack of
credentials.

Actually Maggie, you just did exactly that. You have no valid credentials
for judging my credentials.


Poor Maggie didn't get to attend Oakland U



----== 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 =----

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...

Slavs have always been the dregs of the entire planet, which is no
doubt why the borders of the Balkan region keep changing. Personally,
I haven't the foggiest idea why Germany wasn't delighted to get shot
of that half of the country for good.
--


not enough sheep farmers down there.



----== 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 =----

"Margaret von B." wrote in message
.. .

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


you never designed an ashtray for an Omni.

Nor have I.

OTOH, I've never been the editor of what many believe to the largest
single perpetrator of audio snake oil in the world.

Considering that even the most basic language eludes you ...

So, I have to admit that Atkinson has that *advantage* on me.

Yes, Atkinson is an elephant in the world of audio. And you are a dung
beetle, Arny.


and a tasty morsel for Mikey



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

I have little doubt you could successfully tell the
difference between two Brendel performances of the
same work, in a DBT, even if you lacked knowledge of
the 'arcana'.

Am I overestimating you?

But can you understand the meaning of the differences?

Straw man, since the knowing the meaning of the
differences is outside the scope of the discussion.

You agreed that chord balance was inside the scope of
the discussion when you claimed you could more precisely
balance a chord using eq than a musician could do in
performing on an instrument.

Wrong, because I was talking about changing chord
balance as a technical exercise, which can be done
without knowing what chord balance is musically speaking.


Commas are cheap these days. Try
buying some.

Cow brains are cheap these days Art, try buying some to replace yours
obviously defective ones.

Get some periods, too, while you're at it.
You can trade in a spare 's' for one.



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


you never designed an ashtray for an Omni.

Nor have I.

OTOH, I've never been the editor of what many believe to the largest
single perpetrator of audio snake oil in the world. So, I have to admit
that Atkinson has that *advantage* on me.


nor have I collected $20,000 worth of sound cards.



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in
message ...

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point
is that the 'objectivists' are well aware that
*everyone* has expectation bias. That's why it needs to
be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.

DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Neither does sighted evaluation.

What comes down to that DBT is enough work that a person has to be pretty
hard-headed to avoid getting caught up in the moment and listen hard and
carefully to make the best possible showing. Hope springs eternal.

Of course, being so proud of having zero personal experience with DBT Art,
you know nothing about this.


Listening is easy. If it gets hard, it just isn't worth doing.
I don't listen to music just to get
hernias in my ears.



----== 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 =----

In article sGOLe.4087$Ji.1225@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

I'm not interested in endlessly debating obvious gross perceptual
differences.
If you insist in feeling insulted by the very core of my premises
there is little I can do about it.

You can either deal with it.. or turn it into the usual **** slinging fest.
I'm actually trying to give you "the choice" rather than making
it for you. I'm honestly not trying to be personally insulting.

You might ease off on blanket condemnations of "the left" "liberals"
etc. You crossed the line of "personally insulting" in your first post
to me.

As for "the choice," I will respond pretty much as I always do: low-key,
but responding in kind.

You took offense, and questioned my integrity.

IMO, resorting to this is the real sign of intellectual capitulation
in every debate. You, in effect, have played the equivalent of
the nazi claim. I have no interest in further discourse at that level
with you. You are capable of more.

You started the debate at that level by playing the "aid to the enemy"
card.

That was the whole premise. Sorry if you find that insulting.

Surely equating dissent with sedition is an extreme view. As an
American, freedom of speech is important to me.

Do you know anything about Vacaville? It's a formerly rural wide spot in
the road between Sacramento and the Bay Area that's turning into a
bedroom community. It's filled with the same kind of people I remember
from my Northern California days and I assure you it's no hotbed of
treason. Travis Air Force Base contributes a military presence, too.

I find the left often has difficulty with any meaningful
self examination but consider trying to refrain from the usual
reactionary attack response. It just degrades any dialogue.

Attacks from you are okay, but a defense from me degrades the dialogue?
If anything, the left is crippled by too much self-examination.

There's some other stuff not in this thread: I asked why a
self-proclaimed skeptic as yourself seems so easily swayed by the
right-wing media. It's still a fair question I hope you'll consider away
from RAO.

I disagree. I try to consider many sources.... I also don't accept your
material characterizations.. much of what you call mainstream
isn't IMO.

I don't know what you're talking about. Forget 'mainstream,' (I didn't
use the word), define "right-wing media" as the right-wing newspapers,
cable channels, websites, blogs, email lists, etc.

In contrast, and fyi, Weil doesn't seem to be able to refrain from
resorting to that level.. ever.

You've been horribly insulting to him,

Why am I not feeling any guilt?

Lack of self-reflection.

so it might take some time before
he's inclined to cut you any slack.

I hope you can appreciate the difference and why I may appear
to be dealing with people on different levels.
Of course you can further contrast that with George who clearly is
only interested in exchanging jabs.

Since you've equated me with George with that "blame it on Arny" remark

equated? No... vaguely resembling with one remark is more like it.
Please don't jump to conclusions.

If you meant it, why shouldn't I? If you didn't, why'd you say it?

and shown that you can't get along with dave, something I've never had a
problem with despite the occasional difference of opinion,

You're both lefties..

Oh, that's all it takes.

I don't see
that you really are dealing with people on different levels.

I hoped you could appreciate the difference but I will accept that you
can't.

Why is it better that you treat other people worse than you treat me?
I'm concerned with how I'm treated. I've honestly investigated your
claims and followed your links, trying to ignore your implied insults.

RAO already has a battalion of sensitive tanks. Don't join it.

Stephen

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 07:52:13 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


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

Steven Sullivan wrote:
In rec.audio.opinion wrote:
Let us hope that the lady patiently waiting in
the ditch in Crawford, TX has more success.

I had no idea that anyone in Crawford, much less a whore in a
ditch, cared about anything related to science.

I was talking about Cindy Sheehan, who is trying to shame
the president into acting honorably.


Abandoning millions to Sadamists and violent Islamists is
NOT honorable.

Horse****, there was *zero* terorism in Iraq before the last slaughter
(you couldn't call it a war), and Saddam was only there because George
Senior lacked the balls to follow through in the first conflict.


We are talking about withdrawal vs staying the course.
Stay focused, if you can.



----== 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 =----

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:06:39 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..

Typical dishonest strawman from Harry. The whole point is that the
'objectivists' are well aware that *everyone* has expectation bias.
That's why it needs to be disabled by the test protocol - DBT.


DBT does 'NOT' disable the expectation
that things will sound the same.

Sure it does - why wouldn't it?

Use some logic and common sense, boy.
Your expectation is that
there would be no difference, either sighted or blind.


Besides, why would anyone *not*
expecting difference even bother to take such a test?


The irony of it all!!
Those are the ones who spend more time and effort
taking those tests.



You really are a braindead clown.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



----== 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 =----

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
ego.......
In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:


Yeah, someone called 'Jenn', claiming to be a conductor, already
tried that on r.a.h-e - it wasn't convincing then, either, except as
yet another demonstration of musos

Gee, Stewart, I'm very fond of you...no need to...ah never mind.


You do stand out from among the herd.

That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me all day. Thanks!

Not if you saw the herd.



----== 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 =----

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article sGOLe.4087$Ji.1225@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

I'm not interested in endlessly debating obvious gross perceptual
differences.
If you insist in feeling insulted by the very core of my premises
there is little I can do about it.

You can either deal with it.. or turn it into the usual **** slinging
fest.
I'm actually trying to give you "the choice" rather than making
it for you. I'm honestly not trying to be personally insulting.

You might ease off on blanket condemnations of "the left" "liberals"
etc.
You crossed the line of "personally insulting" in your first post
to me.

Yet in that post... I neither implied nor directly criticized you.
If you find that post personally insulting there is nothing I
can do about it.

As for "the choice," I will respond pretty much as I always do: low-key,
but responding in kind.

I'll have to disagree that this is low key or in kind
"you are not emotionally equipped to understand"


You took offense, and questioned my integrity.

IMO, resorting to this is the real sign of intellectual capitulation
in every debate. You, in effect, have played the equivalent of
the nazi claim. I have no interest in further discourse at that
level
with you. You are capable of more.

You started the debate at that level by playing the "aid to the enemy"
card.

That was the whole premise. Sorry if you find that insulting.

Surely equating dissent with sedition is an extreme view.

Don't extrapolate. I never said all dissent is sedition
and they are therefore... not equal.

As an
American, freedom of speech is important to me.

It isn't a blanket freedom and can be abused.
I posted a couple of historical sedition acts.


Do you know anything about Vacaville? It's a formerly rural wide spot in
the road between Sacramento and the Bay Area that's turning into a
bedroom community. It's filled with the same kind of people I remember
from my Northern California days and I assure you it's no hotbed of
treason. Travis Air Force Base contributes a military presence, too.

and many in Vacaville don't agree with Cindy Sheehan.


I find the left often has difficulty with any meaningful
self examination but consider trying to refrain from the usual
reactionary attack response. It just degrades any dialogue.

Attacks from you are okay, but a defense from me degrades the dialogue?

defense doesn't equate to reactionary attack response.
Defense is using facts and logic to refute the case made.

If anything, the left is crippled by too much self-examination.

Simply cannot agree with this one. I've been trying to listen to
Air America for some time to get a leftist perspective and read a
few leftist blogs. Most of what they do is a hate Bush or hate
republicans or hate religion campaign. I really struggle to find
what they support and beyond the real nuts who want no
borders and scream rascist at minutemen and at all who attended
a local immigration forum... I don't know what they stand for.
Half the dems demand a pullout schedule and the other half are
screaming there aren't enough troops.


There's some other stuff not in this thread: I asked why a
self-proclaimed skeptic as yourself seems so easily swayed by the
right-wing media. It's still a fair question I hope you'll consider
away
from RAO.

I disagree. I try to consider many sources.... I also don't accept
your
material characterizations.. much of what you call mainstream
isn't IMO.

I don't know what you're talking about. Forget 'mainstream,' (I didn't
use the word), define "right-wing media" as the right-wing newspapers,
cable channels, websites, blogs, email lists, etc.

I'll take factual information wherever I can find it. Right Left Center.
I don't care.



In contrast, and fyi, Weil doesn't seem to be able to refrain from
resorting to that level.. ever.

You've been horribly insulting to him,

Why am I not feeling any guilt?

Lack of self-reflection.

Sorry.. that's not it. If Dave wants to have an insult free
conversation... all he has to do is say so.


so it might take some time before
he's inclined to cut you any slack.

I hope you can appreciate the difference and why I may appear
to be dealing with people on different levels.
Of course you can further contrast that with George who clearly is
only interested in exchanging jabs.

Since you've equated me with George with that "blame it on Arny" remark

equated? No... vaguely resembling with one remark is more like it.
Please don't jump to conclusions.

If you meant it, why shouldn't I? If you didn't, why'd you say it?

I meant what I said, nothing more.


and shown that you can't get along with dave, something I've never had
a
problem with despite the occasional difference of opinion,

You're both lefties..

Oh, that's all it takes.

Clearly there are agendas and alliances often at play here.
I don't care... I'm strictly independent.


I don't see
that you really are dealing with people on different levels.

I hoped you could appreciate the difference but I will accept that you
can't.

Why is it better that you treat other people worse than you treat me?

I didn't mean it was better. I just said it is so. I was hoping you would
understand and not let it influence our dialogue.

I'm concerned with how I'm treated. I've honestly investigated your
claims and followed your links, trying to ignore your implied insults.

Not trying to imply insults. If it helps, I can be more direct .


RAO already has a battalion of sensitive tanks. Don't join it.

Actually expressing my disappointment at the direction of the dialogue
was mostly because I found it interesting. If I didn't .. I wouldn't
be sensitive.

ScottW

In article 5MSLe.4273$Ji.3127@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article sGOLe.4087$Ji.1225@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

I'm not interested in endlessly debating obvious gross perceptual
differences.
If you insist in feeling insulted by the very core of my premises
there is little I can do about it.

You can either deal with it.. or turn it into the usual **** slinging
fest.
I'm actually trying to give you "the choice" rather than making
it for you. I'm honestly not trying to be personally insulting.

You might ease off on blanket condemnations of "the left" "liberals"
etc.
You crossed the line of "personally insulting" in your first post
to me.

Yet in that post... I neither implied nor directly criticized you.

"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?"

Rather a pointed question, don't you think? There's no connection
between "some people are too blind to realize" and "I won't do
anything...will you?"?

If you find that post personally insulting there is nothing I
can do about it.

Just a neutral question to which I chose to take offense? That's a
copout.

As for "the choice," I will respond pretty much as I always do: low-key,
but responding in kind.

I'll have to disagree that this is low key or in kind
"you are not emotionally equipped to understand"

It's at length but still low key. Not in kind? Perhaps not. Maybe it's
easier for me because you're so far off the mark.

You took offense, and questioned my integrity.

IMO, resorting to this is the real sign of intellectual capitulation
in every debate. You, in effect, have played the equivalent of
the nazi claim. I have no interest in further discourse at that
level
with you. You are capable of more.

You started the debate at that level by playing the "aid to the enemy"
card.

That was the whole premise. Sorry if you find that insulting.

Surely equating dissent with sedition is an extreme view.

Don't extrapolate. I never said all dissent is sedition
and they are therefore... not equal.

Extrapolate? Where did I say "all dissent"?

As an
American, freedom of speech is important to me.

It isn't a blanket freedom and can be abused.
I posted a couple of historical sedition acts.

Sheehan doesn't qualify.

Do you know anything about Vacaville? It's a formerly rural wide spot in
the road between Sacramento and the Bay Area that's turning into a
bedroom community. It's filled with the same kind of people I remember
from my Northern California days and I assure you it's no hotbed of
treason. Travis Air Force Base contributes a military presence, too.

and many in Vacaville don't agree with Cindy Sheehan.

Most in Ft. Hood probably don't either, but some do.

I find the left often has difficulty with any meaningful
self examination but consider trying to refrain from the usual
reactionary attack response. It just degrades any dialogue.

Attacks from you are okay, but a defense from me degrades the dialogue?

defense doesn't equate to reactionary attack response.
Defense is using facts and logic to refute the case made.

I don't understand what you mean by "reactionary," which makes me think
of Birchers or other right-wing crazies. If you mean an emotional
response, you've contributed a fair share to this exchange.

If anything, the left is crippled by too much self-examination.

Simply cannot agree with this one. I've been trying to listen to
Air America for some time to get a leftist perspective and read a
few leftist blogs. Most of what they do is a hate Bush or hate
republicans or hate religion campaign. I really struggle to find
what they support and beyond the real nuts who want no
borders and scream rascist at minutemen and at all who attended
a local immigration forum... I don't know what they stand for.
Half the dems demand a pullout schedule and the other half are
screaming there aren't enough troops.

Shows the futility of referring to a monolithic left. I don't recognize
your characterization of Air America (except for Randi Rhoads as a
Bush-hater). Since the Dems are so far out of power, they've pursued a
strategy of accommodation, thinking that staying in the game will
mitigate the effects of Republican changes. This isn't working. Social
Security is a good example of this. Every Democrat should support the
system as it is, with whatever small changes are necessary to keep it
solvent. The temptation for leadership would be to try to play for half
a loaf, to say "we'll agree to radical change so long as we can keep it
from changing even more." Fortunately for the Dems, the Republican
'non-proposals' were so politically unpopular that they found themselves
on the winning side for once despite themselves.

Since they aren't in charge of anything, and can't get their proposals
recognized in Congress, it's hard to present a good picture of what the
left stands for these days. Of course, the mighty Wurlitzer is playing
away: "Bush-haters" "obstructionists" etc.

There's some other stuff not in this thread: I asked why a
self-proclaimed skeptic as yourself seems so easily swayed by the
right-wing media. It's still a fair question I hope you'll consider
away
from RAO.

I disagree. I try to consider many sources.... I also don't accept
your
material characterizations.. much of what you call mainstream
isn't IMO.

I don't know what you're talking about. Forget 'mainstream,' (I didn't
use the word), define "right-wing media" as the right-wing newspapers,
cable channels, websites, blogs, email lists, etc.

I'll take factual information wherever I can find it. Right Left Center.
I don't care.

Be careful where those facts are coming from.

In contrast, and fyi, Weil doesn't seem to be able to refrain from
resorting to that level.. ever.

You've been horribly insulting to him,

Why am I not feeling any guilt?

Lack of self-reflection.

Sorry.. that's not it. If Dave wants to have an insult free
conversation... all he has to do is say so.

I don't think you should wait.

so it might take some time before
he's inclined to cut you any slack.

I hope you can appreciate the difference and why I may appear
to be dealing with people on different levels.
Of course you can further contrast that with George who clearly is
only interested in exchanging jabs.

Since you've equated me with George with that "blame it on Arny" remark

equated? No... vaguely resembling with one remark is more like it.
Please don't jump to conclusions.

If you meant it, why shouldn't I? If you didn't, why'd you say it?

I meant what I said, nothing more.

Why would I blame this on Arny? Now that you say you meant it, what did
you mean?

and shown that you can't get along with dave, something I've never had
a
problem with despite the occasional difference of opinion,

You're both lefties..

Oh, that's all it takes.

Clearly there are agendas and alliances often at play here.
I don't care... I'm strictly independent.

As am I.

I don't see
that you really are dealing with people on different levels.

I hoped you could appreciate the difference but I will accept that you
can't.

Why is it better that you treat other people worse than you treat me?

I didn't mean it was better. I just said it is so. I was hoping you would
understand and not let it influence our dialogue.

You brought it up. It doesn't influence me.

I'm concerned with how I'm treated. I've honestly investigated your
claims and followed your links, trying to ignore your implied insults.

Not trying to imply insults. If it helps, I can be more direct .

Questioning my integrity over a difference of opinion is insulting. You
can't get more personal than that.

RAO already has a battalion of sensitive tanks. Don't join it.

Actually expressing my disappointment at the direction of the dialogue
was mostly because I found it interesting. If I didn't .. I wouldn't
be sensitive.

That's odd, you seem to favor the emotionally charged direction of the
dialogue, based on what you choose to reply to and what you choose to
edit out.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article 5MSLe.4273$Ji.3127@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article sGOLe.4087$Ji.1225@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...

I'm not interested in endlessly debating obvious gross perceptual
differences.
If you insist in feeling insulted by the very core of my premises
there is little I can do about it.

You can either deal with it.. or turn it into the usual **** slinging
fest.
I'm actually trying to give you "the choice" rather than making
it for you. I'm honestly not trying to be personally insulting.

You might ease off on blanket condemnations of "the left" "liberals"
etc.
You crossed the line of "personally insulting" in your first post
to me.

Yet in that post... I neither implied nor directly criticized you.

"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?"

Rather a pointed question, don't you think? There's no connection
between "some people are too blind to realize"

No... if I specifically meant you I would I would have said so.

and "I won't do
anything...will you?"?

A legit question. I had no firm idea of where you stood on the subject.

If you find that post personally insulting there is nothing I
can do about it.

Just a neutral question to which I chose to take offense?

Its just a question. Try to take them literally.

That's a
copout.

Then don't believe me.



As for "the choice," I will respond pretty much as I always do:
low-key,
but responding in kind.

I'll have to disagree that this is low key or in kind
"you are not emotionally equipped to understand"

It's at length but still low key. Not in kind? Perhaps not. Maybe it's
easier for me because you're so far off the mark.

I'm trying to not be denigrating. The only comment I recall where
I directly challenged your actions was in bringing up what I perceived
to be irrelevant material.


You took offense, and questioned my integrity.

IMO, resorting to this is the real sign of intellectual
capitulation
in every debate. You, in effect, have played the equivalent of
the nazi claim. I have no interest in further discourse at that
level
with you. You are capable of more.

You started the debate at that level by playing the "aid to the
enemy"
card.

That was the whole premise. Sorry if you find that insulting.

Surely equating dissent with sedition is an extreme view.

Don't extrapolate. I never said all dissent is sedition
and they are therefore... not equal.

Extrapolate? Where did I say "all dissent"?

Then be specific. You didn't say "some dissent but not all".
You simply said dissent. If not all then what dissent?


As an
American, freedom of speech is important to me.

It isn't a blanket freedom and can be abused.
I posted a couple of historical sedition acts.

Sheehan doesn't qualify.

Actually... I think she would in another time.


Do you know anything about Vacaville? It's a formerly rural wide spot
in
the road between Sacramento and the Bay Area that's turning into a
bedroom community. It's filled with the same kind of people I remember
from my Northern California days and I assure you it's no hotbed of
treason. Travis Air Force Base contributes a military presence, too.

and many in Vacaville don't agree with Cindy Sheehan.

Most in Ft. Hood probably don't either, but some do.

I find the left often has difficulty with any meaningful
self examination but consider trying to refrain from the usual
reactionary attack response. It just degrades any dialogue.

Attacks from you are okay, but a defense from me degrades the dialogue?

defense doesn't equate to reactionary attack response.
Defense is using facts and logic to refute the case made.

I don't understand what you mean by "reactionary," which makes me think
of Birchers or other right-wing crazies. If you mean an emotional
response, you've contributed a fair share to this exchange.

I mean ignoring the message and attacking the messenger.


If anything, the left is crippled by too much self-examination.

Simply cannot agree with this one. I've been trying to listen to
Air America for some time to get a leftist perspective and read a
few leftist blogs. Most of what they do is a hate Bush or hate
republicans or hate religion campaign. I really struggle to find
what they support and beyond the real nuts who want no
borders and scream rascist at minutemen and at all who attended
a local immigration forum... I don't know what they stand for.
Half the dems demand a pullout schedule and the other half are
screaming there aren't enough troops.

Shows the futility of referring to a monolithic left.

or a monolithic right. Still there are many views and only
one reality.

I don't recognize
your characterization of Air America (except for Randi Rhoads as a
Bush-hater).

She's definitely out there.. the local AM drive time guy
Stacey Taylor is also just anti bush anti war.
I'd love them to discuss in a speculative way what would
happen if they got their way, immediate withdrawal etc.
Instead they just indulge in shallow attacks and the callers
are incredibly lame. Half of 'em sound wasted.
The local conservative Rick Roberts is almost as bad on the
right. He does have the occasional knowledgeable quest on
local stuff. Left to himself he pretty much just rants too.
Franken is better but I don't get to catch him much.
I kind of like Medved.. he at least spends time on a subject.
Hewitt is also pretty good although way too hung up on the
SCOTUS.


Since the Dems are so far out of power, they've pursued a
strategy of accommodation, thinking that staying in the game will
mitigate the effects of Republican changes. This isn't working. Social
Security is a good example of this. Every Democrat should support the
system as it is, with whatever small changes are necessary to keep it
solvent.

I don't support Bush's program. Its simply the first step to means tests
or other benefit reductions. He stood in front of the trust fund
a practically called it a worthless pile of paper.
Still, I haven't heard a democratic proposal that actually comes
to grips with the fact that the trust fund is nothing but IOU.
Every independent economist I've heard has pretty much said there
is no way we can pay back those debts.
The average savings numbers of Americans is a joke and people
need to plan to take care of themselves.


The temptation for leadership would be to try to play for half
a loaf, to say "we'll agree to radical change so long as we can keep it
from changing even more." Fortunately for the Dems, the Republican
'non-proposals' were so politically unpopular that they found themselves
on the winning side for once despite themselves.

Domestically I'm not happy with Bush. Energy bill is a joke.. he should
vetoed it and force them to remove the tax breaks for big oil.
I'll be interested to see if his tax plan can get out of the advisory
committe thing going on.


Since they aren't in charge of anything, and can't get their proposals
recognized in Congress, it's hard to present a good picture of what the
left stands for these days.

Isn't that what the DNC should be doing? Forming an agenda?
I hear they keep talking about needing one but I guess they're
waiting for Hillary to form one for her campaign.

Of course, the mighty Wurlitzer is playing
away: "Bush-haters" "obstructionists" etc.

There's some other stuff not in this thread: I asked why a
self-proclaimed skeptic as yourself seems so easily swayed by the
right-wing media. It's still a fair question I hope you'll consider
away
from RAO.

I disagree. I try to consider many sources.... I also don't accept
your
material characterizations.. much of what you call mainstream
isn't IMO.

I don't know what you're talking about. Forget 'mainstream,' (I didn't
use the word), define "right-wing media" as the right-wing newspapers,
cable channels, websites, blogs, email lists, etc.

I'll take factual information wherever I can find it. Right Left
Center.
I don't care.

Be careful where those facts are coming from.

And you as well.


In contrast, and fyi, Weil doesn't seem to be able to refrain from
resorting to that level.. ever.

You've been horribly insulting to him,

Why am I not feeling any guilt?

Lack of self-reflection.

Sorry.. that's not it. If Dave wants to have an insult free
conversation... all he has to do is say so.

I don't think you should wait.

He freely admitted he entered this thread with an insult.
I don't think we'll ever agree on this as he has somehow
rationalized personal attacks on the basis of his perception
of the "stupidity" of the position.
I don't care if he attacks the message, attacking the
messenger has become the RAO game.

so it might take some time before
he's inclined to cut you any slack.

I hope you can appreciate the difference and why I may appear
to be dealing with people on different levels.
Of course you can further contrast that with George who clearly is
only interested in exchanging jabs.

Since you've equated me with George with that "blame it on Arny"
remark

equated? No... vaguely resembling with one remark is more like it.
Please don't jump to conclusions.

If you meant it, why shouldn't I? If you didn't, why'd you say it?

I meant what I said, nothing more.

Why would I blame this on Arny? Now that you say you meant it, what did
you mean?

I meant people in a general sense, not just you, can't blame your personal
insults
as being inspired by Arny. A plug at George and others who claim Arny is
the
reason for all lack of civil discourse on this group.
I think Arny has become their excuse for lack of civil discourse.
Anyway... thats way off topic and I regret bringing it up.

and shown that you can't get along with dave, something I've never
had
a
problem with despite the occasional difference of opinion,

You're both lefties..

Oh, that's all it takes.

Clearly there are agendas and alliances often at play here.
I don't care... I'm strictly independent.

As am I.

Cool... and Sander makes 3

I don't see
that you really are dealing with people on different levels.

I hoped you could appreciate the difference but I will accept that
you
can't.

Why is it better that you treat other people worse than you treat me?

I didn't mean it was better. I just said it is so. I was hoping you
would
understand and not let it influence our dialogue.

You brought it up. It doesn't influence me.

I'm concerned with how I'm treated. I've honestly investigated your
claims and followed your links, trying to ignore your implied insults.

Not trying to imply insults. If it helps, I can be more direct .

Questioning my integrity over a difference of opinion is insulting. You
can't get more personal than that.

Look back. It wasn't the difference of opinion.. it was the personal
attack that inspired me. I can accept a difference of opinion.
In a strange way... I seek it. People who always agree with
me aren't very enlightening.

RAO already has a battalion of sensitive tanks. Don't join it.

Actually expressing my disappointment at the direction of the dialogue
was mostly because I found it interesting. If I didn't .. I wouldn't
be sensitive.

That's odd, you seem to favor the emotionally charged direction of the
dialogue, based on what you choose to reply to and what you choose to
edit out.

Maybe I'm drawn to energy... the heat of the debate. When I edit stuff
its usually because either I feel we have exhausted the topic or we have
achieved substantive agreement.
and I hate a really long post with no new content.

There's an early report that Sheehan's husband has filed for divorce.
Even if true and motivated by disagreement on her protest, I find
it sad.
Worse is the question I see on the code pink page where
Cindy is asking "if the cause is so just why don't you send your twins?"
This comment really ignores the voluntary heroism of our military.

ScottW

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:44:04 -0700, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .

Shame that you know nothing about cars. No normally aspirated Ford (or
Ford-owned) stock engine is even close to 100 BHP/litre output.

When are you going to take torque curves (the true measure of a cars
performance) into consideration instead of banging endlessly on HP/liter?

Typical braindead Yank thinking.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

Interesting that you cite an article which proves that you are flat
out wrong! To take the closing quote, mentioned twice in that article:
"It is better to make torque at high rpm than at low rpm, because you
can take advantage of *gearing*."

Torque at high rpm = *power*.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:05:38 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:00:17 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:06:24 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

Faster than most Mercs on real roads, in point of fact.......

Only if you drive on sidewalks. OTOH drunk drivers are prone to do that
too.

Bring it on! I'll take any Merc below the MacMerc on any non-motorway
road (i.e. not dead straight three-lane) within 50 miles of my home.
If it's raining, don't even bother turning up................

Careful now - already demonstrated the point to an SL55......... :-)

Really? Where was it parked?

About fifty feet from my rear bumper, and increasing.....

It was a wet and twisty road, but he thought he could take me. Wrong.

This really sounds like more fiction from the bottle. Try again after you
defeat Clarkson.

I wonder if he's up for that around his test track? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

What do you all think? Is Pinkerton's heroic story about a car race,
starring himself, fact or fiction? Is he really capable of outrunning a 500
hp AMG Mercedes with his little Audi?


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:05:38 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:00:17 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:06:24 GMT, "Margaret von B."
wrote:

What would that make your moped then? Oh, I said it...

Faster than most Mercs on real roads, in point of fact.......

Only if you drive on sidewalks. OTOH drunk drivers are prone to do that
too.

Bring it on! I'll take any Merc below the MacMerc on any non-motorway
road (i.e. not dead straight three-lane) within 50 miles of my home.
If it's raining, don't even bother turning up................

Careful now - already demonstrated the point to an SL55......... :-)

Really? Where was it parked?

About fifty feet from my rear bumper, and increasing.....

It was a wet and twisty road, but he thought he could take me. Wrong.

This really sounds like more fiction from the bottle. Try again after you
defeat Clarkson.

I wonder if he's up for that around his test track? :-)

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering