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

The QSC just needed a couple filter caps, so repair is a perfectly
reasonable option.


Huh? How old is that amp?

I'm sorry, I don't own a QSC I meant the Acoustat.
I don't really know how old it is, as I said I bought it used.

Providing proper ventilation and no voltage surges, 'lytics should
survive at least 10 years before problems may be expected.

I have had over 10 years now.

If you can get them, try BHC components electros, they have a good rep
for longevity (both with me and some other amp builders).
While you're at it, select a value and voltage that's a tad higher
than specified.



A look inside this puppy will tell you that it is over built in the first
place, but I know bigger caps giveyou a bit more headroom.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...


You're the one telling us its 'great'

It is. If I told you all the brand names, no matter what they are, it
would open up a whole new set of attacks, so there's no point in
naming
them. Some of it has already been mentioned, namely the amp,
(Acoustat)
and the CD player (Rotel), so there's no way to hide them, and they
are
both recognized as very good by any subjectivist rag you care to read.


Why did you spend so much, mass market cd players and
amps are just as good, you know. Looks like
you got hoodwinked, to me.

The amp was second hand and as affordable as any other amp with that much
power.
The CD player was becuase I knew of Rotel's build quality form prior
experience.

I now have 3 DVD players 2 of which were free and CD's sound exactly the
same on all 3.

If you can't tell the difference between an Acoustat and a QSC amp, you
have
a very serious hearing problem.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you. The fact is in a blind comparison,
you couldn't do it either. Naturally being the coward you are, you would
never subject yourself to that kind of failure.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 05:54:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Mikey, there's a spurious comma in the above sentence.

Yes, but you have to admit that Mike's post on the whole demonstrates
a modicum of intelligence. Use of the words "efficacy" and "protocol"
(both correctly spelt) are definitely good signs. I think, along with
chastisement for errors, praise for effort should be applied.
Otherwise other posters might get the idea you don't appreciate the
attempts of a creature like the Mckelphibian to raise itself on the
evolutionary ladder, which might indicate that you yourself missed a
rung on the way up. Fair's fair, Robert. :-)

Paul, the talent of the mckelviphibian for mimicry has been noted by
amphibian biologists. While further research should be conducted, I am
inclined to think that the verbiage you have noted is part of the Arny
Krueger phrasebook. However, I support the desire of all of God's
creatures
to better themselves, so here, rewritten, appears the sentence as it
should
have in the first place:
"Your denial of the efficacy and reliability of the ABX protocol is
indicative of your skeptical nature."
And (as Churchill would say) with that, I could not agree more.

I didn't mean that the sentence made sense or was well written, just
that Mike is trying to disprove your poor opinion of him, and is thus
interested in "self improvement", a sure spur to evolutionary
progress. I was just hoping you might acknowledge his efforts.

Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing
and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.

Mikey, your vocabulary is small. Your grammar is poor. And yes, your
spelling is also poor, but it is the least of your problems. You cannot
blame your poor writing on forgetfulness. Writing exhibits the quality of
the mind. You have shown us nothing.


Blah, blah, blah.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign, my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times before
you actually type a response before you hit send.

" said:

Acoustat


A look inside this puppy will tell you that it is over built in the first
place, but I know bigger caps giveyou a bit more headroom.


I'm familiar with the TNT200, one of the best amps of the era if you
ask me. Good build quality as well, except for the internal wiring.

However, watch out for too many uFs after the rectifier, the charge
current needed may overload the rect. bridge and/or the transformer!

A higher specified voltage will in general lengthen the life of
electros by several years.

If you're not sure about your rectfier and tranny capable of handling
the higher cap values, put a 0.1 ohm/10 watt WW resistor in each
supply rail to the filter caps to avoid high current peaks during the
charge period (8.3 mS for your 60 Hz mains frequency).

--

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

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign, my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times before
you actually type a response before you hit send.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign, my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times before
you actually type a response before you hit send.

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign, my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times before
you actually type a response before you hit send.

Really? Do I do that?

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

Acoustat


A look inside this puppy will tell you that it is over built in the first
place, but I know bigger caps giveyou a bit more headroom.


I'm familiar with the TNT200, one of the best amps of the era if you
ask me. Good build quality as well, except for the internal wiring.

However, watch out for too many uFs after the rectifier, the charge
current needed may overload the rect. bridge and/or the transformer!

A higher specified voltage will in general lengthen the life of
electros by several years.

If you're not sure about your rectfier and tranny capable of handling
the higher cap values, put a 0.1 ohm/10 watt WW resistor in each
supply rail to the filter caps to avoid high current peaks during the
charge period (8.3 mS for your 60 Hz mains frequency).

--

Thanks Sander, useful information as always, but the fact is the cap values
are already known and I never try to reverse engineer, especially something
that IIRC was designed by Nelson Pass.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign,
my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times
before you actually type a response before you hit send.

Really? Do I do that?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign,
my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times
before you actually type a response before you hit send.

Really? Do I do that?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign,
my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times
before you actually type a response before you hit send.

Really? Do I do that?



Sometimes.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:14:36 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


I didn't mean that the sentence made sense or was well written, just
that Mike is trying to disprove your poor opinion of him, and is thus
interested in "self improvement", a sure spur to evolutionary
progress. I was just hoping you might acknowledge his efforts.

Paul, r.a.o. is not a place that rewards generosity of spirit.

Of course it is. Look what a generous spirit George is, and he gets
his reward every day just posting here. :-)

If I throw
the cur a bone, it will bite me.

You've proved this? It's not good science to make unproven statements.

However, out of respect for you,
Mikey, congratulations on the improvement in self expression. I commend to
you, for further improvement, the classic "Elements of Style", by William
Strunk.

Hmmm. No, please say it again, nicely, and look him in the eye this
time. :-)

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 15:49:30 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

ABX has been proven worthless,

Guffaw.

" said:

Thanks Sander, useful information as always, but the fact is the cap values
are already known and I never try to reverse engineer, especially something
that IIRC was designed by Nelson Pass.


If your type 120 is a light version of the TNT200, the design is most
likely from Jim Strickland, who did things a bit better than Pass
IMHO.

But remember, higher voltage ratings don't hurt.

--

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

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...


You're the one telling us its 'great'

It is. If I told you all the brand names, no matter what they are,
it
would open up a whole new set of attacks, so there's no point in
naming
them. Some of it has already been mentioned, namely the amp,
(Acoustat)
and the CD player (Rotel), so there's no way to hide them, and they
are
both recognized as very good by any subjectivist rag you care to
read.


Why did you spend so much, mass market cd players and
amps are just as good, you know. Looks like
you got hoodwinked, to me.

Mikey is a complete hypocrite. Not long ago, he stated that he was
getting
rid of the Acoustat. Now he keeps it, while still in denial about the
crappy
QSC amp he can't or won't ditch.

The QSC just needed a couple filter caps, so repair is a perfectly
reasonable option.
The only one in denail about the QSC amps is you, until you do a DBT to
prove it sounds different from another amp of your shoice, you can't
reasonably say it sounds bad. But then you have proven that you are not
reasonable.

The QSC is trash. Heave it.

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...


You're the one telling us its 'great'

It is. If I told you all the brand names, no matter what they are,
it
would open up a whole new set of attacks, so there's no point in
naming
them. Some of it has already been mentioned, namely the amp,
(Acoustat)
and the CD player (Rotel), so there's no way to hide them, and they
are
both recognized as very good by any subjectivist rag you care to
read.


Why did you spend so much, mass market cd players and
amps are just as good, you know. Looks like
you got hoodwinked, to me.

The amp was second hand and as affordable as any other amp with that
much
power.
The CD player was becuase I knew of Rotel's build quality form prior
experience.

I now have 3 DVD players 2 of which were free and CD's sound exactly
the
same on all 3.

If you can't tell the difference between an Acoustat and a QSC amp, you
have
a very serious hearing problem.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you. The fact is in a blind
comparison,
you couldn't do it either. Naturally being the coward you are, you would
never subject yourself to that kind of failure.

QSC amps sound like pure crap. I can stand one for about 30 seconds, before
it drives me out of the room

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:14:36 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


I didn't mean that the sentence made sense or was well written, just
that Mike is trying to disprove your poor opinion of him, and is thus
interested in "self improvement", a sure spur to evolutionary
progress. I was just hoping you might acknowledge his efforts.

Paul, r.a.o. is not a place that rewards generosity of spirit.

Of course it is. Look what a generous spirit George is, and he gets
his reward every day just posting here. :-)

If I throw
the cur a bone, it will bite me.

You've proved this? It's not good science to make unproven statements.

However, out of respect for you,
Mikey, congratulations on the improvement in self expression. I commend
to
you, for further improvement, the classic "Elements of Style", by William
Strunk.

Hmmm. No, please say it again, nicely, and look him in the eye this
time. :-)

Paul, you can kiss my Pass amplifier

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...



Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.


Wrong eye hem knot tying two prove anything, mien vocabulary is feign,
my
tie ping and forgetfulness bout spill Czech king is another problem

Not all that different from the fact that it takes you 2 or 3 times before
you actually type a response before you hit send.

Just a reminder, Mikey: QSC amplifiers are terrible sounding equipment. Good
for garage bands, PA, but certainly not hifi.

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

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

Here you can find the article I was trying to find earlier.
I forgot I posted the whole thing a while back under the tread
title,
"A
bit
form the BBC."

You can find the entire article he

http://www.allaudios.org/detail-10016725.html

I haven't found a specific reference to ABX yet, ( I may have
misremember
that bit) but at least one to double blind testing.



Is that BBC report as reliable as their documentaries about Iraq?
:-)


They seem to do better with things that aren't political.
Smart ass. :-)

Dumb ass.

Shouldn't there be a message to go along with your sig.

It is not a signature line, Mikey. It is a comment about you.

So you're back to being a liar as well as a fool.

Yawn.

And QSC amps are still bad sounding, and you are still "special".

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 05:54:16 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Mikey, there's a spurious comma in the above sentence.

Yes, but you have to admit that Mike's post on the whole
demonstrates
a modicum of intelligence. Use of the words "efficacy" and
"protocol"
(both correctly spelt) are definitely good signs. I think, along
with
chastisement for errors, praise for effort should be applied.
Otherwise other posters might get the idea you don't appreciate the
attempts of a creature like the Mckelphibian to raise itself on the
evolutionary ladder, which might indicate that you yourself missed
a
rung on the way up. Fair's fair, Robert. :-)

Paul, the talent of the mckelviphibian for mimicry has been noted by
amphibian biologists. While further research should be conducted, I
am
inclined to think that the verbiage you have noted is part of the
Arny
Krueger phrasebook. However, I support the desire of all of God's
creatures
to better themselves, so here, rewritten, appears the sentence as it
should
have in the first place:
"Your denial of the efficacy and reliability of the ABX protocol is
indicative of your skeptical nature."
And (as Churchill would say) with that, I could not agree more.

I didn't mean that the sentence made sense or was well written, just
that Mike is trying to disprove your poor opinion of him, and is thus
interested in "self improvement", a sure spur to evolutionary
progress. I was just hoping you might acknowledge his efforts.

Wrong, I am not trying to prove anything, my vocabulary is fine, my
typing
and forgetfulness bout spell check is another problem entirely.

Mikey, your vocabulary is small. Your grammar is poor. And yes, your
spelling is also poor, but it is the least of your problems. You cannot
blame your poor writing on forgetfulness. Writing exhibits the quality
of
the mind. You have shown us nothing.


Blah, blah, blah.

Mikey, you have a weak mind.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 02:46:18 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


Hmmm. No, please say it again, nicely, and look him in the eye this
time. :-)

Paul, you can kiss my Pass amplifier

I'll Pass on that, thanks.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote
in message
link.net...


You're the one telling us its 'great'

It is. If I told you all the brand names, no matter
what they are, it would open up a whole new set of
attacks, so there's no point in naming
them. Some of it has already been mentioned, namely
the amp, (Acoustat)
and the CD player (Rotel), so there's no way to hide
them, and they are
both recognized as very good by any subjectivist rag
you care to read.


Why did you spend so much, mass market cd players and
amps are just as good, you know. Looks like
you got hoodwinked, to me.

The amp was second hand and as affordable as any other
amp with that much power.
The CD player was becuase I knew of Rotel's build
quality form prior experience.

I now have 3 DVD players 2 of which were free and CD's
sound exactly the same on all 3.

If you can't tell the difference between an Acoustat
and a QSC amp, you have
a very serious hearing problem.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you. The fact is in
a blind comparison, you couldn't do it either.
Naturally being the coward you are, you would never
subject yourself to that kind of failure.

QSC amps sound like pure crap. I can stand one for about
30 seconds, before it drives me out of the room

They can't be all bad, then!

QSC amps = how to clear the room of idiots.

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Robert Moron" wrote:

QSC amps sound like pure crap. I can stand one for about
30 seconds, before it drives me out of the room

They can't be all bad, then!

LOL

QSC amps = how to clear the room of idiots.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...


You're the one telling us its 'great'

It is. If I told you all the brand names, no matter what they are,
it
would open up a whole new set of attacks, so there's no point in
naming
them. Some of it has already been mentioned, namely the amp,
(Acoustat)
and the CD player (Rotel), so there's no way to hide them, and they
are
both recognized as very good by any subjectivist rag you care to
read.


Why did you spend so much, mass market cd players and
amps are just as good, you know. Looks like
you got hoodwinked, to me.

The amp was second hand and as affordable as any other amp with that
much
power.
The CD player was becuase I knew of Rotel's build quality form prior
experience.

I now have 3 DVD players 2 of which were free and CD's sound exactly
the
same on all 3.

If you can't tell the difference between an Acoustat and a QSC amp, you
have
a very serious hearing problem.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you. The fact is in a blind
comparison,
you couldn't do it either. Naturally being the coward you are, you would
never subject yourself to that kind of failure.

QSC amps sound like pure crap. I can stand one for about 30 seconds,
before
it drives me out of the room

I recommend everybody get themselves a Morein repellent.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in
message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote
in message
link.net...


You're the one telling us its 'great'

It is. If I told you all the brand names, no matter
what they are, it would open up a whole new set of
attacks, so there's no point in naming
them. Some of it has already been mentioned, namely
the amp, (Acoustat)
and the CD player (Rotel), so there's no way to hide
them, and they are
both recognized as very good by any subjectivist rag
you care to read.


Why did you spend so much, mass market cd players and
amps are just as good, you know. Looks like
you got hoodwinked, to me.

The amp was second hand and as affordable as any other
amp with that much power.
The CD player was becuase I knew of Rotel's build
quality form prior experience.

I now have 3 DVD players 2 of which were free and CD's
sound exactly the same on all 3.

If you can't tell the difference between an Acoustat
and a QSC amp, you have
a very serious hearing problem.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you. The fact is in
a blind comparison, you couldn't do it either.
Naturally being the coward you are, you would never
subject yourself to that kind of failure.

QSC amps sound like pure crap. I can stand one for about
30 seconds, before it drives me out of the room

They can't be all bad, then!

QSC amps = how to clear the room of idiots.
Bingo.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

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

Here you can find the article I was trying to find earlier.
I forgot I posted the whole thing a while back under the tread
title,
"A
bit
form the BBC."

You can find the entire article he

http://www.allaudios.org/detail-10016725.html

I haven't found a specific reference to ABX yet, ( I may have
misremember
that bit) but at least one to double blind testing.



Is that BBC report as reliable as their documentaries about Iraq?
:-)


They seem to do better with things that aren't political.
Smart ass. :-)

Dumb ass.

Shouldn't there be a message to go along with your sig.

It is not a signature line, Mikey. It is a comment about you.

So you're back to being a liar as well as a fool.

Yawn.

And QSC amps are still bad sounding, and you are still "special".

Assuming you are using the common vernacular, where "bad" means "good" then
for once you are correct.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...


You're the one telling us its 'great'

It is. If I told you all the brand names, no matter what they are,
it
would open up a whole new set of attacks, so there's no point in
naming
them. Some of it has already been mentioned, namely the amp,
(Acoustat)
and the CD player (Rotel), so there's no way to hide them, and they
are
both recognized as very good by any subjectivist rag you care to
read.


Why did you spend so much, mass market cd players and
amps are just as good, you know. Looks like
you got hoodwinked, to me.

Mikey is a complete hypocrite. Not long ago, he stated that he was
getting
rid of the Acoustat. Now he keeps it, while still in denial about the
crappy
QSC amp he can't or won't ditch.

The QSC just needed a couple filter caps, so repair is a perfectly
reasonable option.
The only one in denail about the QSC amps is you, until you do a DBT to
prove it sounds different from another amp of your shoice, you can't
reasonably say it sounds bad. But then you have proven that you are not
reasonable.

The QSC is trash. Heave it.

I don't own a QSC amp.

If I were to purchase one I'd have to replace the fan in it, since it has a
noisy fan.

There are other pro audio amps with quieter fans that i might consider for
driving my subwoofer, in bridged mono opreation. Nothing like 600 plus
watts for bass impact, IMO.

Until you have done a blind bias controlled comparison of any QSC amp
against any other amp of your choice, your comments on the sound qualitiy of
QSC amps are like you, meaningless.

" wrote in
message
ink.net

Until you have done a blind bias controlled comparison of
any QSC amp against any other amp of your choice, your
comments on the sound qualitiy of QSC amps are like you,
meaningless.

Morein just rags on QSC amps to try to troll me.

In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Morein just rags on QSC amps to try to troll me.

Very true, Mr. Krueger. He can't stop masquerading as a "scientist". He
has nothing else to do.

As he told the newspaper when they interviewed him, ""I don't really have a
replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very gnawing thing." Now he's
gnawing on you and your group.

Think about it. . . My one and only son has lived in the same room, in the
same house, in MY house, since the early 1950's. He's never had a job.
NEVER. He always impressed everyone as a "smart guy", although I know now
he's just a bull**** artist. SURE he's "smart" - he went to college for
almost 20 years on my dime!

His room is filled with electronics, computers, wires, empty beer cans, and
all nature of trash. He rarely leaves the house, but spends hours in the
basement "inventing". Do you know how many times we've had police, FBI,
Secret Service, and other investigators here? They won't charge him because
he's mentally ill.

$100,000 to the first person that can get this 53 year old into a job, any
job, and out of my house.

Sylvan Morein, DDS

PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Robert Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Sylvan Morein, DDS wrote:
In article , "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Morein just rags on QSC amps to try to troll me.

Very true, Mr. Krueger. Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah. Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah. Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah. Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah. Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah. Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah. Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.Blah.etc Please stop posting this inane crap.

Ayn Marx beseeched:

McLardo wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Morein just rags on QSC amps to try to troll me.

Very true, Mr. Krueger. Blah.Blah..Please stop posting this inane crap.

You do realize your admonishments will only have the exact opposite effect.
BTW, what are you, a commie capitalist or something?


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:
Ayn Marx beseeched:

McLardo wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

Morein just rags on QSC amps to try to troll me.

Very true, Mr. Krueger. Blah.Blah..Please stop posting this inane crap.

You do realize your admonishments will only have the exact opposite effect.
BTW, what are you, a commie capitalist or something?


No, a lesbian poofta who finds Rands epistemology worthy of
consideration but the mistaken extension of her ethic to justify
economic 'rationalism' obscene.

Yusuf Jesus' Gospels interpretation :


Very true, Mr. Krueger. Blah.Blah..Please stop posting this inane crap.

You do realize your admonishments will only have the exact opposite
effect.

The lesson also apply to you Geogag.

BTW, what are you, a commie capitalist or something?

BTW Geogag, you are the only IS engineer who doesn't know how to trace an IP
address. :-)

Ayn Marx declared:

BTW, what are you, a commie capitalist or something?

No, a lesbian poofta who finds Rands epistemology worthy of
consideration but the mistaken extension of her ethic to justify
economic 'rationalism' obscene.

Uhm, like thanks for sharing ... far more than I wanted to know.


GeoSynch

Froggy leapt:

You do realize your admonishments will only have the exact opposite
effect.

The lesson also apply to you Geogag.

You're quite the little irritant, responding to everything I post, whether it
concerns you or not. But what's usenet without a ****ant or two.

BTW, what are you, a commie capitalist or something?

BTW Geogag, you are the only IS engineer who doesn't know how to trace an IP
address. :-)

You might as well milk it for all it's worth, seeing how it provides a little
sparkle of
light in your otherwise dreary life.


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:
Ayn Marx declared:

BTW, what are you, a commie capitalist or something?

No, a lesbian poofta who finds Rands epistemology worthy of
consideration but the mistaken extension of her ethic to justify
economic 'rationalism' obscene.

.... far more than I wanted to know.

But you don't.

Stynchblob is quivering at the thought of Judgment Day arriving before he's
massacred his quota of sinners.

Uhm, like thanks for sharing ... far more than I wanted to know.

Female muff-divers on motorcycles! Drag queens marching down the boulevards and
avenues! Homos teaching school, leading churches, and joining the Boy Scouts!
God's wrath is churning, and the Apocalypse is nigh!

Yusuf Jesus wrote :

You're quite the little irritant

Yes, but OTOH Jesus is with you.

GeoStink a écrit :

Ayn Marx declared:


BTW, what are you, a commie capitalist or something?


No, a lesbian poofta who finds Rands epistemology worthy of
consideration but the mistaken extension of her ethic to justify
economic 'rationalism' obscene.


Uhm, like thanks for sharing ... far more than I wanted to know.

Too bad, now you will need to wash your brain with blessed water.