[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 4:39*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Based on having worked in the audio industry at the
factory, retail *and wholesale level, GOIA.

Been there, done that. *But I'm not going to believe that you're not lying
unless you give names and dates.

I don't care if you do not believe me. Anyone in the industry will
look at what's been written and know it's true.

Krooger is apparently envious of your experience as a manufacturing drone
and a salesdroid. I'm reminded of when Turdy threw a major envy fit over
Sacky's huge salary.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/24ce5fc99c37cf82...

I see GOIA's 'logic' now: since he lies all of the time, everybody
else must be too. ;-(

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:


If not, are they all worthless?

For identifying stuff on the market? no.
For finding equipment in your price range, desired feature set, etc?
no.
For performance evaluations, no, the data fills a gap.
For subjective evaluations? yes.

Please clarify this comment. As a rule, DBTs are experimental
audio testing with the sole purpose of determining presence or
absence of subtle sound differences. All personal preferences
and subjective *opinions* must be put aside.

Providing the *opinion* that there is NO detectable sound difference
during the test does not and will not proved the absence of positive
sound differences.

But it is interesting if the reviewer who just raved about the sound
of something was not really able to detect a difference from a std.

What type of a response is that ? You should counter with something
like... what about those that detect differences when there is, in fact,
differences...


C'mon man !


But first, could you cite any who detected positive difference in a
DBT that were properly designed using strict protocols that real
scientist follows ?



So, concerning your comment above, who is, or what is the subject
that is subjected for evaluations ?

The reviewer.

!!

Your bitterness towards audio reviewers is showing again.

You mean to tell Rao'ers that the subject of the DBT audio testing
are the reviewers i.e. the participants and not whether there are
detectable sound differences between the units?

And that the purpose of DBT is to determine whether the reviewers
(or participants) hears sounds differences *regardless of* whether
it can be proven if they are right or wrong when deciding whether
there are any sound differences between the DUT ?

You are a bitter disappointment today because that is a disgusting
scientific endeavor.

Shame, shame, shame... for crying out loud.



ScottW

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Based on having worked in the audio industry at the
factory, retail *and wholesale level, GOIA.

Been there, done that. *But I'm not going to believe that you're not lying
unless you give names and dates.

I don't care if you do not believe me. Anyone in the industry will
look at what's been written and know it's true.

Krooger is apparently envious of your experience as a manufacturing drone
and a salesdroid. I'm reminded of when Turdy threw a major envy fit over
Sacky's huge salary.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/24ce5fc99c37cf82...

I see GOIA's 'logic' now: since he lies all of the time, everybody
else must be too. ;-(

THank's Mr. SHiitrl for, admitting Mr. Shhhhs that you are only to willing
too do Aktinsin's biddnig M.r Shirty.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:



The reviewer.

ScottW


You are a disgusting pig.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

Shhhh! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:




So, concerning your comment above, who is, or what is
the subject that is subjected for evaluations ?

The reviewer.

So your list of bitter enemies this past day include:

JA
Monster Cable
Stereophile
Audio Reviewers
Home Depot
Radio Shack

Get a life, 2pid. LOL!

LoL also! Does Scott actually realized the nature and the
implication of this responses?

He should give these whole thing a once-over.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 9:03*pm, "JBorg, Jr." wrote:
ScottW wrote:
*The reviewer.

ScottW

You are a disgusting pig.

You forgot dumb. 2pid loves recognition.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message

On May 8, 4:51 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


I don't care if you do not believe me.

Then why did you bother writing it?

Short answer:

Because what I wrote is what I in my delusional state think is true, my
master.

There, there now, little ****R. Ask your doctor for more effective
treatments for your problems.

[TT]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?

BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed from your mouth?

Your creditability is still zero!

TT (the real abused one)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 6:44*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

On May 8, 4:51 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


I don't care if you do not believe me.

Then why did you bother writing it?
Short answer:
Because what I wrote is what I in my delusional state think is true, my
master.

There, there now, little ****R. I've asked my doctor for *more Viagra
so that I can whack off more often while thinking of you.

TMI, GOIA.

Isn't this fun? And so adult. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 7:07*am, "TT" wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

. ..

I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?

BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed from your mouth?

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong. They either disappear for a while and then pretend nothing
happened, ignore the error that they made and continue posting yet
more errors, or use some other avoidance technique. Admission of error
is a sign of weakness to them.

In 2pid's case, stupidity is the culprit. In GOIA's case, a mental
condition commonly referred to as "insanity" is to blame.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 6:44*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

On May 8, 4:51 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


I don't care if you do not believe me.

Then why did you bother writing it?
Short answer:
Because what I wrote is what I in my delusional state think is true, my
master.

Please sleep with me, ****R. My wife is a frigid, shrivelled prune.
I now find I prefer men to little boys. I've ask my doctor for ED teatment..
I want to masturbate thinking of you several times per day.

Aw, gee, GOIA. I didn't think you cared. ;-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Time to air the Idiot's Point Of View.

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 3:50*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 10:42*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 7:07*am, "TT" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...

I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?

BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed from your mouth?

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You have, for example, underwhelmed me with your military 'expertise'.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 4:47*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Time to air the Idiot's Point Of View.

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

You're asking 2pid for critical thinking skills he does not, and that
he never will, possess.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

You're asking 2pid for critical thinking skills he does not, and that
he never will, possess.

I know that. I was mocking him.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 5:22*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

You're asking 2pid for critical thinking skills he does not, and that
he never will, possess.

I know that. I was mocking him.

You're asking 2pid to comprehend humor, a thing he can not, and will
not, ever be able to do.

He's too bitter.

[TT]

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


Time to air the Idiot's Point Of View.

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

Arny is still the only person I have seen that quotes himself as the
authority to (try) prove a point.

Cheers TT

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

You're asking 2pid for critical thinking skills he does not, and that
he never will, possess.

I know that. I was mocking him.

You're asking 2pid to comprehend humor, a thing he can not, and will
not, ever be able to do.

I wasn't expecting Yapper to "comprehend" anything. Surely you jest!

He's too bitter.

That reminds of Scottie's shrill whining when I called Gregipus
"Mommy****er". Another pinched nerve?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

TT said:

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

Arny is still the only person I have seen that quotes himself as the
authority to (try) prove a point.

I hope you're not klaiming eckthpurteez in the "debating trade".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 6:52*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

You're asking 2pid for critical thinking skills he does not, and that
he never will, possess.

I know that. I was mocking him.

You're asking 2pid to comprehend humor, a thing he can not, and will
not, ever be able to do.

I wasn't expecting Yapper to "comprehend" anything. Surely you jest!

He's too bitter.

That reminds of Scottie's shrill whining when I called Gregipus
"Mommy****er". Another pinched nerve?

Something has put him on another morality jag recently.

I think the pinched nerve is in his ass.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 9, 6:21*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 3:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 9, 3:50*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 10:42*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 7:07*am, "TT" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...

I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?

BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed from your mouth?

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You have, for example, underwhelmed me with your military 'expertise'.

Still waiting to know how we'll get a 1000 *F-16s over the Taiwan
straits.

Still wondering if we would declare all-out war on the Chinese going
against all of our published policies.

This (of course) begs the question of how we'd these aircraft there,
since according the the USAF they're what shoots down enemy aircraft
even WITH the F-22.

LoL.

Me too.

As I said, your 'expertise' underwhelms me.

[TT]

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


TT said:

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You've said the same thing about John, dave, Jenn, Lionel, me, and
virtually all of the Normals who prove you wrong. Doesn't your inner
"scientist" want to re-examine the hypothesis? ;-)

Arny is still the only person I have seen that quotes himself as the
authority to (try) prove a point.

I hope you're not klaiming eckthpurteez in the "debating trade".


No point. Just ask Arny, according to him, I am just a "mindless idiot" and
worse.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:


If not, are they all worthless?

For identifying stuff on the market? no.
For finding equipment in your price range, desired feature set, etc?
no.
For performance evaluations, no, the data fills a gap.
For subjective evaluations? yes.

Please clarify this comment. As a rule, DBTs are experimental
audio testing with the sole purpose of determining presence or
absence of subtle sound differences. All personal preferences
and subjective opinions must be put aside.

Providing the opinion that there is NO detectable sound difference
during the test does not and will not proved the absence of positive
sound differences.

But it is interesting if the reviewer who just raved about the sound
of something was not really able to detect a difference from a std.

What type of a response is that ? You should counter with something
like... what about those that detect differences when there is, in fact,
differences...


C'mon man !


YooHoooo ! Pizza ! Pizza ! Scott where are you ??

Knock...knock...knock... YooHooo !!

I'm sorry that I have decided to slap your wrist again, but this time
more than usual. It's high time that you and Krooger come out
clean regarding the dishonesty embedded with your DBTs.

It is time to discuss the shady side of your beloved dbt.
The outrageous mis-used and mis-direction of your test
methodology.





So, concerning your comment above, who is, or what is the subject
that is subjected for evaluations ?

The reviewer.

!!

Your bitterness towards audio reviewers is showing again.

You mean to tell Rao'ers that the subject of the DBT audio testing
are the reviewers i.e. the participants and not whether there are
detectable sound differences between the units?

And that the purpose of DBT is to determine whether the reviewers
(or participants) hears sounds differences regardless of whether
it can be proven if they are right or wrong when deciding whether
there are any sound differences between the DUT ?

You are a bitter disappointment today because that is a disgusting
scientific endeavor.

Shame, shame, shame... for crying out loud.



ScottW

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On May 8, 1:13*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On May 7, 6:57*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 7, 11:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
*It's easier to say what of my gear did I thoroughly audition before
buying. *My Quads, my Advents.

Everything else was paid for before hearing in any meaningful fashion,
much of it I didn't hear at all.

Did you select these items based on reviews?

Each would have it's story. My cart for example was purchased
after determining it was probably the best compliance match
my arm.
The Legacy's after reading numerous owner and independent
comments. I even got a listen at a local "rep"...Legacy products
weren't sold through dealers. One opened very briefly and closed
just as quickly in San Diego. The listening room was a converted
office are complete with dropped panel ceiling and horrific
dimensions.
It was awful. Unfortunately I had to discount that experience as
completely useless.

If "yes", based on whose
review?

None that were compensated for in any way that I know of.

By this do you mean "not compensated" by a magazine etc. or "not
compensated" by a purchase discount, long-term loan, etc. by a
manufacturer?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 11:16*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 9, 6:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 9, 6:21*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 3:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 3:50*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 10:42*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 7:07*am, "TT" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...

I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?

BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed from your mouth?

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You have, for example, underwhelmed me with your military 'expertise'.

Still waiting to know how we'll get a 1000 *F-16s over the Taiwan
straits.

Still wondering if we would declare all-out war on the Chinese going
against all of our published policies.

This (of course) begs the question of how we'd these aircraft there,

* I suspect it was you who conveyed our sentiments to Sadam
on his plans for Kuwait.

since according the the USAF they're what shoots down enemy aircraft
even WITH the F-22.

*But 1000s aren't required with the F-22.
Why do these simple little dots all lined up in a tidy little
row remain disconnected in your silly little brain?

Go back and reread the study that you posted, 2pid. That's exactly
what the USAF said. The F-22 can *track* a large amount of aircraft
but cannot *attack* them. It "increases the efficiency" of current
aircraft. You still need all of those other aircraft, 2pid, at least
according to the USAF study that *you* posted.

Duh.

An F-22 can carry a maximum of eight air-to-air missiles. We have
about 200 F-22s. Whether we will get any more is in doubt for now.
That's 1600 air-to-air missiles, assuming all 200 aircraft are on
station during the attack, which is not likely, and assuming a 100%
kill ratio, again not very likely.

And this against the vast numbers of aircraft China has and which you
are so worried about.

We've been all through this, 2pid. And you never did come up with a
reason that we'd go against our "Taiwan is China" policies.

Bark bark bark. Yap yap yap.

LoL.

Me too.

As I said, your 'expertise' underwhelms me.

Yes, that's the way it always is with egotistical
ignorant arrogant people. *They just don't listen
very well if at all.

Irony bites 2pid in the ass...again.

Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 2:32*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 12:14*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 10, 11:16*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 6:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 6:21*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 3:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 3:50*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 10:42*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 7:07*am, "TT" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...

I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?

BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed from your mouth?

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You have, for example, underwhelmed me with your military 'expertise'.

Still waiting to know how we'll get a 1000 *F-16s over the Taiwan
straits.

Still wondering if we would declare all-out war on the Chinese going
against all of our published policies.

This (of course) begs the question of how we'd these aircraft there,

* I suspect it was you who conveyed our sentiments to Sadam
on his plans for Kuwait.

since according the the USAF they're what shoots down enemy aircraft
even WITH the F-22.

*But 1000s aren't required with the F-22.
Why do these simple little dots all lined up in a tidy little
row remain disconnected in your silly little brain?

Go back and reread the study that you posted, 2pid. That's exactly
what the USAF said. The F-22 can *track* a large amount of aircraft
but cannot *attack* them. It "increases the efficiency" of current
aircraft. You still need all of those other aircraft, 2pid, at least
according to the USAF study that *you* posted.

*But not nearly as many as without the F-22...
a position you advocate which is not feasible as you won't be
able to get that many aircraft to the battlefield in question.

So we come full-circle: we have spent well over $200 to develop an
aircraft for one unlikely scenario. That was the question you were
asked. You never did come up with another scenario, even granting this
unlikely one, which requires it.

Yap yap yap.

Duh.

An F-22 can carry a maximum of eight air-to-air missiles. We have
about 200 F-22s. Whether we will get any more is in doubt for now.
That's 1600 air-to-air missiles, assuming all 200 aircraft are on
station during the attack, which is not likely, and assuming a 100%
kill ratio, again not very likely.

* Your position started out...the enemy has no answer for the F-16.

No, it was that an F-16 is entirely capable against the aircraft we
are likely to face. There's a difference.

When that was thoroughly debunked you

That hasn't been. Don't forget the majority of the teeming hordes of
Chinese aircraft are primarily of Korean war vintage. MiG-17s and the
like.

morphed into the enemy has no answer for 1000 F-16s ignoring that
we can't get 1000 F-16s to the battlefield, but with a combination
of F-16s and F-22s a much smaller number of aircraft is a
significantly
more credible deterrent.

For a very unlikely scenario.

The argument I made, and which you are too dumb to see (still), is
that it would be better to have five times as many F-16s over fewer
F-22s. We are no longer in the cold war. It is far more likely that we
will be confronted with several smaller conflicts rather than one
large one.

But then again, you advocated that we start developing yet another
generation of fighter now, showing how far up your ass your head
is. ;-)

Do you have a pet door, or does somebody have to let you outside to
poop?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 11:50*am, ScottW wrote:
On May 8, 7:03*pm, "JBorg, Jr." wrote:

ScottW wrote:
*The reviewer.

ScottW

You are a disgusting pig.

Ahhh....an intellectual argument if Sssshhhtard ever saw one.

I did not write that.

Whether I agree with the statement is my own opinion, whether the
writer was compensated for saying it or not. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Mai, 16:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

So we come full-circle: we have spent well over $200 to develop an
aircraft for one unlikely scenario.

I can't get a coach seat to New York for that!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 6:05*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 10 Mai, 16:01, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

So we come full-circle: we have spent well over $200 to develop an
aircraft for one unlikely scenario.

I can't get a coach seat to New York for that!

Good catch. That should have been $200 billion, of course. :-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 10, 11:11*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 10, 1:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 10, 2:32*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 10, 12:14*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 10, 11:16*am, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 6:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 6:21*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 3:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 3:50*pm, ScottW wrote:

On May 9, 10:42*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 9, 7:07*am, "TT" wrote:

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

...

I'm glad you're online, how's my apology coming?

BTW was it painful when you had both your feet removed from your mouth?

People like GOIA and 2pid suffer no embarassment when they are proven
dead-wrong.

Shhhtards idea of proof is anything he says.

You have, for example, underwhelmed me with your military 'expertise'.

Still waiting to know how we'll get a 1000 *F-16s over the Taiwan
straits.

Still wondering if we would declare all-out war on the Chinese going
against all of our published policies.

This (of course) begs the question of how we'd these aircraft there,

* I suspect it was you who conveyed our sentiments to Sadam
on his plans for Kuwait.

since according the the USAF they're what shoots down enemy aircraft
even WITH the F-22.

*But 1000s aren't required with the F-22.
Why do these simple little dots all lined up in a tidy little
row remain disconnected in your silly little brain?

Go back and reread the study that you posted, 2pid. That's exactly
what the USAF said. The F-22 can *track* a large amount of aircraft
but cannot *attack* them. It "increases the efficiency" of current
aircraft. You still need all of those other aircraft, 2pid, at least
according to the USAF study that *you* posted.

*But not nearly as many as without the F-22...
a position you advocate which is not feasible as you won't be
able to get that many aircraft to the battlefield in question.

So we come full-circle: we have spent well over $200 to develop an
aircraft for one unlikely scenario. That was the question you were
asked. You never did come up with another scenario, even granting this
unlikely one, which requires it.

Yap yap yap.

Duh.

An F-22 can carry a maximum of eight air-to-air missiles. We have
about 200 F-22s. Whether we will get any more is in doubt for now.
That's 1600 air-to-air missiles, assuming all 200 aircraft are on
station during the attack, which is not likely, and assuming a 100%
kill ratio, again not very likely.

* Your position started out...the enemy has no answer for the F-16.

No, it was that an F-16 is entirely capable against the aircraft we
are likely to face. There's a difference.

When that was thoroughly debunked you

That hasn't been. Don't forget the majority of the teeming hordes of
Chinese aircraft are primarily of Korean war vintage. MiG-17s and the
like.

morphed into the enemy has no answer for 1000 F-16s ignoring that
we can't get 1000 F-16s to the battlefield, but with a combination
of F-16s and F-22s a much smaller number of aircraft is a
significantly
more credible deterrent.

For a very unlikely scenario.

The argument I made, and which you are too dumb to see (still), is
that it would be better to have five times as many F-16s over fewer
F-22s.

I does no good to have a bunch of planes you can't get to the
battle field. *We need technical superiority.

We cannot get the technically-superior aircraft to the battlefield any
easier than any other one, and (according to the USAF and the study
you provided) we still need large numbers of other aircraft to do the
killing.

Do you know what was in mind when the F-22 was initially conceived,
2pid? The Cold War:

"The Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program had its origins in
numerous US Air Force air combat studies carried out in the late 1970s
and early 1980s, when intelligence revealed the Soviets' early flight
testing of the Fulcrum and Flanker. From the observed geometry of the
airframes it was clear that both types would have the vortex lift
performance to challenge existing US aircraft such as the F-15 in
turning dogfights. Hoever, both Soviet fighters would be handicapped
by their geometry in both supersonic maneuver and low observability
performance."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...22-history.htm

In case you haven't read about it, the Cold War is over. It was in all
the newspapers.

And..as you pointed out, Chinese manufacturing capacity is
growing rapidly. *They already match us in numbers
and soon will in technology if we stand still.

If we can't fear Communism, we have to fear something. Is China the
new thing we must fear in order to justify spending more than the rest
of the world combined? You conservatives are like a bunch of
frightened old ladies.

Here's a hint, 2pid: we can be technologically-superior to the Chinese
all that we want. If they want to arm a few hundred million soldiers,
which they could do and we couldn't, we can mass all of our M-1 tanks,
and all of NATO's Leopard IIs, and all the F-22 Raptors, and still
lose.

We are no longer in the cold war. It is far more likely that we
will be confronted with several smaller conflicts rather than one
large one.

*How useful is an F-16 in Sadr City?
*Why not go back to A-10s?

If you'll recall, I said exactly that during the initial 'discussion'.
I also advocated more AH-64 longbows, which are even more appropriate.
We used up $200 billion develpping and fielding about 200 aircraft.

I'm glad you finally caught up. ;-)

But then again, you advocated that we start developing yet another
generation of fighter now, showing how far up your ass your head
is. ;-)

* You're not going to generate the next generation fighter via
startup companies. *We nearly need to go off shore to get
the tanker we want today. *If you don't keep enough work in the R&D
pipeline, there will be no competent US supplier to respond to
the next fighter RFP.

You're exactly the type of person Eisenhower had in mind when he
issued his famous (and prescient) warning.

Now go back to your kennel.