HELP WITH DUAL PRE/PRO CONNECTION

[Amit Roy]

I have a Sony TAE 9000ES and a Parasound AVC 2500 pre/pro that is lying
around. I am wondering if it is possible to connect the two together? The
Sony manual says it allows connection to another processor i.e. I can change
the output level down to 250mV (the normal output level being 1V) to do
that. But the question to you is how do I physically connect the wires?
From what output to what input? Your help and advice would be much
appreciated.

Regards,

Rom

[Amit Roy]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Amit Roy" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>I have a Sony TAE 9000ES and a Parasound AVC 2500 pre/pro that is lying
>>around. I am wondering if it is possible to connect the two together?
>>The Sony manual says it allows connection to another processor i.e. I can
>>change the output level down to 250mV (the normal output level being 1V)
>>to do that. But the question to you is how do I physically connect the
>>wires? From what output to what input? Your help and advice would be much
>>appreciated.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rom
>
> You don't really have to change the output levels. I have a Sony
> TA-E1000ES that I buffer with a preamp. It actually works better than
> using the 1000 to directly drive an amp.
>
> Connect from Sony outputs to the Parasound 5.1 analog input. Page
> http://www.parasound.com/vintage/avc2500u.php notes that "Please remember
> the 5.1 analog inputs require an optional 5.1 VC volume control card to
> adjust volume with the main AVC-2500u volume knob. No Longer Available."
>
> If you don't have the option card, don't proceed, because there will be no
> way to keep the 9000 outputs in balance.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
_________________

Bob,

Thanks for your reply. No, I do not have the Parasound optional card so I
am thinking........can I do the reverse? Meaning, since the Parasound
requires the card, can I connect the Parasound to the Sony instead? Does
the Sony have an input option?

Regards,

Amit

[Amit Roy]

>> Bob,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply. No, I do not have the Parasound optional card so
>> I am thinking........can I do the reverse? Meaning, since the Parasound
>> requires the card, can I connect the Parasound to the Sony instead? Does
>> the Sony have an input option?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Amit
> Amit,
> That is easier for you than me to answer. Look on the back of the
> 9000, and see if there is a set of inputs labeled "5.1."
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
___________

Unfortunately no, it does not have 5.1 inputs. :-(

[Amit Roy]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Amit Roy" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your reply. No, I do not have the Parasound optional card
>>>> so I am thinking........can I do the reverse? Meaning, since the
>>>> Parasound requires the card, can I connect the Parasound to the Sony
>>>> instead? Does the Sony have an input option?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Amit
>>> Amit,
>>> That is easier for you than me to answer. Look on the back of the
>>> 9000, and see if there is a set of inputs labeled "5.1."
>>>
>>> Bob Morein
>>> (310) 237-6511
>> ___________
>>
>> Unfortunately no, it does not have 5.1 inputs. :-(
> Amit, I have a similar problem, which I solved in a low-tech fashion. Glue
> two of these to a board, and you'll have a 5.1 switch:
> http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=180-932
> or
> http://www.familysafemedia.com/4_device_audio__video___game_s.html
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
_________________

Bob,

This is interesting so please help me understand the connection better.
Let's take the one from Parts Express. The unit has 4 inputs but one
output. So if I glued two of them I would get 8 audio ins and 2 outs.
Let's take an example of me trying to connect the Sony to the Parasound.
How would I go about it?

Bob, I really appreciate you helping me out.

Regards,

Amit

[Amit Roy]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Amit Roy" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> "Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Amit Roy" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your reply. No, I do not have the Parasound optional card
>>>>>> so I am thinking........can I do the reverse? Meaning, since the
>>>>>> Parasound requires the card, can I connect the Parasound to the Sony
>>>>>> instead? Does the Sony have an input option?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amit
>>>>> Amit,
>>>>> That is easier for you than me to answer. Look on the back of the
>>>>> 9000, and see if there is a set of inputs labeled "5.1."
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob Morein
>>>>> (310) 237-6511
>>>> ___________
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately no, it does not have 5.1 inputs. :-(
>>> Amit, I have a similar problem, which I solved in a low-tech fashion.
>>> Glue two of these to a board, and you'll have a 5.1 switch:
>>> http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=180-932
>>> or
>>> http://www.familysafemedia.com/4_device_audio__video___game_s.html
>>>
>>> Bob Morein
>>> (310) 237-6511
>> _________________
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> This is interesting so please help me understand the connection better.
>> Let's take the one from Parts Express. The unit has 4 inputs but one
>> output. So if I glued two of them I would get 8 audio ins and 2 outs.
>> Let's take an example of me trying to connect the Sony to the Parasound.
>> How would I go about it?
>>
>> Bob, I really appreciate you helping me out.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Amit
>>
> The switches are intended to avoid the need to connect one to the other.
> And it just occurred to me it might not work. I was thinking of the case
> where all the amplifiers are external "basic" amplifiers. This could also
> work if the Parasound internal amplifiers have jumpers on the back panel.
> Otherwise, sorry.
>
> Does the Parasound have internal amplifiers?
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
________________

No, the Parasound does not have any jumpers at the back. This is what the
back looks like:
http://www.parasound.com/pdfs/vintage/avc2500connect.pdf

Oh well, we tried at least. Thanks!

Amit

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Aug, 23:28, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> Path:
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx 02.iad01.newshosting.com!*newshosting.com!post01.i ad01!news.buzzardnews.com!not-for-mail
> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122
> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:54:35 +1000
>
> Amit, the above is a forgery, posted from Buzzard News. I post only from
> Giganews. If you've read this group, you may be aware that I have a stalker,
> one Brian L. McCarty. Don't post your number here. I would not want you to
> be bothered by this individual.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

Of course, you forgot to mention'your own internet stalking of both
Arny and Boon.
You wrote letters to Arny's pastor, and you
wrote letters to Boon's employer.
Amit, don't **** of Bob, don't disagree with him, don't even dare
question his "expertise", or he might go after you, too,
by trying to hurt or embarass you in front of
people important in your private life.
Whatever you do, do not divulge any personal
information to Bob.
see:
http://robertmorein.blogspot.com/
for details

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 00:58, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On 2 Aug, 23:28, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Amit, I'm sorry. This group is not being very helpful to you.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

It's Arny and Boon tht you should be apologizing to

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> It's Arny and Boon tht you should be apologizing to

I'll handle the apology for Mr. ****:

Arnii, I'm terribly, terribly sorry that you're a huge piece of crap. If you
need some help interpreting the Detroit bus schedule, I'm there for you.

OK, Sacky? Now you can apologize to the group for Scottie.

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 10:33, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > It's Arny and Boon tht you should be apologizing to
>
> I'll handle the apology for Mr. ****:
>
> Arnii, I'm terribly, terribly sorry that you're a huge piece of crap. If you
> need some help interpreting the Detroit bus schedule, I'm there for you.
>
> OK, Sacky? Now you can apologize to the group for Scottie.

No instead I will apologize for a bunch of long dead white Americans
who I am not related
to nor have anything to do with for enslaving a bunch of Africans 150
to 350 years ago.
While I am at it, I will also apologize for a bunch of German Nazis
who I
am not related to not have anythig to do with for murdering millions,
and
apologive for for the leadership clique in The USSR for murdering
millions more.
I apologize for Pol Pot's regime, Mao Tse Tsung's, and also for the
Pharoahs who made a bunch of slaves lift all those
heavy rocks to build the pyramids.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> I apologize for Pol Pot's regime, Mao Tse Tsung's, and also for the
> Pharoahs who made a bunch of slaves lift all those
> heavy rocks to build the pyramids.

I'm sure Morein will be delighted to learn you've let him off the hook.

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 12:30, "Soundhaspriority" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:81lb94dog9agmvnauum8totanqvftvek6n@4ax .com...
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> >> I apologize for Pol Pot's regime, Mao Tse Tsung's, and also for the
> >> Pharoahs who made a bunch of slaves lift all those
> >> heavy rocks to build the pyramids.
>
> > I'm sure Morein will be delighted to learn you've let him off the hook.
>
> It would be nice if someone would step in to help Amit Roy.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

I did, I warned him about your internet stalking.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> I did, I warned him about your internet stalking.

Did anybody warn him about your poor judgment in character assessment?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 10:16*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> No instead I will apologize for a bunch of long dead white Americans
> who I am not related
> to nor have anything to do with for enslaving a bunch of Africans 150
> to 350 years ago.

I would suppose that neither did Bratzi, but the mentality and ideals
are alive and well in him.

> While I am at it, I will also apologize for a bunch of German Nazis
> who I
> am not related to not have anythig to do with for murdering millions,
> and
> apologive for for the leadership clique in *The USSR for murdering
> millions more.

See above.

> I apologize for Pol Pot's regime, Mao Tse Tsung's, and also for the
> Pharoahs who made a bunch of slaves lift all those
> heavy rocks to build the pyramids.

Are you making the same mistake that 2pid does?

2pid 'thinks' that when you fight prejudice and discrimination you do
so because you feel 'guilty' for being a straight white male. 2pid
'thinks' that when you look at the effects on a group or culture that
centuries of oppression and discrimination have had, you only do so
because of your 'guilt'.

Oh well. Since I didn't personally participate in the attempted
eradication of Jews (nor was I involved in their enslavement in
Egypt), I'm sure you'll understand why I tell all Jews to now **** off
and shut up about the Holocaust. I'm personally sick of hearing about
it. I had nothing to do with it.

It's funny how after over 60 years Jews can't get over it. They should
just let it go, as should the blacks who had to ride in the back of
the bus and use separate facilities a decade after the Holocaust was
over.

When you digest and understand what I've just said, we can move on to
discussing issues concerning gays.

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 14:35, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:16*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > No instead I will apologize for a bunch of long dead white Americans
> > who I am not related
> > to nor have anything to do with for enslaving a bunch of Africans 150
> > to 350 years ago.
>
> I would suppose that neither did Bratzi, but the mentality and ideals
> are alive and well in him.
>
> > While I am at it, I will also apologize for a bunch of German Nazis
> > who I
> > am not related to not have anythig to do with for murdering millions,
> > and
> > apologive for for the leadership clique in *The USSR for murdering
> > millions more.
>
> See above.

Bratzi suer has a lot of issues!

>
> > I apologize for Pol Pot's regime, Mao Tse Tsung's, and also for the
> > Pharoahs who made a bunch of slaves lift all those
> > heavy rocks to build the pyramids.
>
> Are you making the same mistake that 2pid does?
>

No

> 2pid 'thinks' that when you fight prejudice and discrimination you do
> so because you feel 'guilty' for being a straight white male. 2pid
> 'thinks' that when you look at the effects on a group or culture that
> centuries of oppression and discrimination have had, you only do so
> because of your 'guilt'.
>

LOL!!! that's a mistake a lot of liberals make.

> Oh well. Since I didn't personally participate in the attempted
> eradication of Jews (nor was I involved in their enslavement in
> Egypt), I'm sure you'll understand why I tell all Jews to now **** off
> and shut up about the Holocaust. I'm personally sick of hearing about
> it. I had nothing to do with it.
>

Ok, but that's a lot different sentiment than 'not apologizing'
for it. I don't expect yout to apologize for that.
If you did apologize, I culd only take that as an empty gesture
of your trying to erase youe unfounded guilt over
such matters.

> It's funny how after over 60 years Jews can't get over it. They should
> just let it go, as should the blacks who had to ride in the back of
> the bus and use separate facilities a decade after the Holocaust was
> over.
>

Your constant mistake here is that if someone disagrees with your
extreme views, you assume that person hold the opposite extreme view
as you. There is a lot of room near the middle.

I just believe that an apology is to admit wrong and ask forgivenes
for an act one actually commits. It is useless and meaningless folly
to apologize for the acts of others.

> When you digest and understand what I've just said, we can move on to
> discussing issues concerning gays.

you mean 'agree'. good, we don't agree.
Byeeee!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 1:56*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 3 Aug, 14:35, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 10:16*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > No instead I will apologize for a bunch of long dead white Americans
> > > who I am not related
> > > to nor have anything to do with for enslaving a bunch of Africans 150
> > > to 350 years ago.
>
> > I would suppose that neither did Bratzi, but the mentality and ideals
> > are alive and well in him.
>
> > > While I am at it, I will also apologize for a bunch of German Nazis
> > > who I
> > > am not related to not have anythig to do with for murdering millions,
> > > and
> > > apologive for for the leadership clique in *The USSR for murdering
> > > millions more.
>
> > See above.
>
> Bratzi suer has a lot of issues!

I agree.

> > > I apologize for Pol Pot's regime, Mao Tse Tsung's, and also for the
> > > Pharoahs who made a bunch of slaves lift all those
> > > heavy rocks to build the pyramids.
>
> > Are you making the same mistake that 2pid does?
>
> No

I think so.

> > 2pid 'thinks' that when you fight prejudice and discrimination you do
> > so because you feel 'guilty' for being a straight white male. 2pid
> > 'thinks' that when you look at the effects on a group or culture that
> > centuries of oppression and discrimination have had, you only do so
> > because of your 'guilt'.
>
> LOL!!! that's a mistake a lot of liberals make.

I personally believe that has more to do with intelligence than
political viewpoints, but I agree that in general liberals are far
smarter than conservatives.

> > Oh well. Since I didn't personally participate in the attempted
> > eradication of Jews (nor was I involved in their enslavement in
> > Egypt), I'm sure you'll understand why I tell all Jews to now **** off
> > and shut up about the Holocaust. I'm personally sick of hearing about
> > it. I had nothing to do with it.
>
> Ok, but that's a lot different sentiment than 'not apologizing'
> for it. I don't expect yout to apologize for that.

It's not all that different, Clyde. Using your logic, you should be
advocating that Germany remove all of the laws they about not
displaying swastikas, etc. They're punishing a generation that had
nothing to do with the Holocaust.

And would an apology from the government of Croatia to the Jews for
what happened there be an "empty gesture"? Would, say, the government
of Israel tell them "Thanks, but no thanks. Most of the Ustasha are
either dead or octagenarians. Those concentration camps are all closed
now and have been for years!"

What do you think of this?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1215331137160

> If you did apologize, I culd only take that as an empty gesture
> of your trying to erase youe unfounded guilt over
> such matters.

So it is not possible to be ashamed of how the US government has
historically treated Native Americans without having "unfounded
guilt".

I disagree. Using your model, we'd never learn from anything and no
wrongs would ever be righted.

> > It's funny how after over 60 years Jews can't get over it. They should
> > just let it go, as should the blacks who had to ride in the back of
> > the bus and use separate facilities a decade after the Holocaust was
> > over.
>
> Your constant mistake here is that if someone disagrees with your
> extreme views, you assume that person hold the opposite extreme view
> as you. There is a lot of room near the middle.

Please describe this "middle" to me.

So who should not "let it go"? The Jews, or the Blacks? Or should they
both forget about it?

> I just believe that an apology is to admit wrong and ask forgivenes
> for an act one actually commits. It is useless and meaningless folly
> to apologize for the acts of others.

Not necessarily true. An act of a government, for example, can be
apologized for by the government, even if the administration has
changed. A company who has fired its CEO for theft or environmental
damage (for example) can apologize to stockholders (or whomever) even
if the CEO is gone.

Would it be wrong for Obama to apologize to the rest of the world for
the wreckage left behind by bushie? I don't think so. I hope he does.

> > When you digest and understand what I've just said, we can move on to
> > discussing issues concerning gays.
>
> you mean 'agree'. good, we don't agree.

No, I meant exactly what I said. "Digest and understand". And you
didn't digest or understand what I said.

> Byeeee!

Byeeeee!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > Your constant mistake here is that if someone disagrees with your
> > extreme views, you assume that person hold the opposite extreme view
> > as you. There is a lot of room near the middle.
>
> Please describe this "middle" to me.

I'm not saying Sacky is as dumb as Scottie, but I can give you a perfect of
example of his journeys into the uncharted "middle" zone. Remember when
Sacky recently stated his weasely "opinion" about Gays serving in the
military? He kept saying he "doesn't know" if that would create a "problem".
We, as rational people, know the "problem" is the prejudices of bigots and
homophobes. But Sacky refused to admit he was implicitly embracing that
obvious fact. Instead, he said "I don't know" over and over. Sacky's
"middle" ground is the coward's turf: He claims to abhor the viewpoint he
implicitly embraces.

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 15:35, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
> What do you think of this?
>
>
> Byeeeee!-

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 15:49, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > Your constant mistake here is that if someone disagrees with your
> > > extreme views, you assume that person hold the opposite extreme view
> > > as you. There is a lot of room near the middle.
>
> > Please describe this "middle" to me.
>
> I'm not saying Sacky is as dumb as Scottie, but I can give you a perfect of
> example of his journeys into the uncharted "middle" zone. Remember when
> Sacky recently stated his weasely "opinion" about Gays serving in the
> military? He kept saying he "doesn't know" if that would create a "problem".
> We, as rational people, know the "problem" is the prejudices of bigots and
> homophobes. But Sacky refused to admit he was implicitly embracing that
> obvious fact. Instead, he said "I don't know" over and over. Sacky's
> "middle" ground is the coward's turf: He claims to abhor the viewpoint he
> implicitly embraces.

I also don't know if F-22's are better or worse than F-16's
there are probably other things in military affiars I don't know.
I will identify them as I become aware of them

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 3:22*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 3 Aug, 15:49, George M. Middius > wrote:

> > I'm not saying Sacky is as dumb as Scottie, but I can give you a perfect of
> > example of his journeys into the uncharted "middle" zone. Remember when
> > Sacky recently stated his weasely "opinion" about Gays serving in the
> > military? He kept saying he "doesn't know" if that would create a "problem".
> > We, as rational people, know the "problem" is the prejudices of bigots and
> > homophobes. But Sacky refused to admit he was implicitly embracing that
> > obvious fact. Instead, he said "I don't know" over and over. Sacky's
> > "middle" ground is the coward's turf: He claims to abhor the viewpoint he
> > implicitly embraces.
>
> I also don't know if F-22's are better or worse than F-16's
> there are probably other things in military affiars I don't know.
> I will identify them as I become aware of them

I wasn't aware there were "girl" F-22s and "guy" F-22s, or "gay"
F-22s. Likewise the F-16 or any other aircraft.

Even if there are aircraft sexes and sexual orientations, I don't see
what "problem" that could possibly have on their flight
characteristics or weapons delivery systems.

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 3:22*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 3 Aug, 15:49, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > > I'm not saying Sacky is as dumb as Scottie, but I can give you a perfect of
> > > example of his journeys into the uncharted "middle" zone. Remember when
> > > Sacky recently stated his weasely "opinion" about Gays serving in the
> > > military? He kept saying he "doesn't know" if that would create a "problem".
> > > We, as rational people, know the "problem" is the prejudices of bigots and
> > > homophobes. But Sacky refused to admit he was implicitly embracing that
> > > obvious fact. Instead, he said "I don't know" over and over. Sacky's
> > > "middle" ground is the coward's turf: He claims to abhor the viewpoint he
> > > implicitly embraces.
>
> > I also don't know if F-22's are better or worse than F-16's
> > there are probably other things in military affiars I don't know.
> > I will identify them as I become aware of them
>
> I wasn't aware there were "girl" F-22s and "guy" F-22s, or "gay"
> F-22s. Likewise the F-16 or any other aircraft.
>
> Even if there are aircraft sexes and sexual orientations, I don't see
> what "problem" that could possibly have on their flight
> characteristics or weapons delivery systems.

like I say, I am no expert on military affairs.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 6:11*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 3:22*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > > I also don't know if F-22's are better or worse than F-16's
> > > there are probably other things in military affiars I don't know.
> > > I will identify them as I become aware of them
>
> > I wasn't aware there were "girl" F-22s and "guy" F-22s, or "gay"
> > F-22s. Likewise the F-16 or any other aircraft.
>
> > Even if there are aircraft sexes and sexual orientations, I don't see
> > what "problem" that could possibly have on their flight
> > characteristics or weapons delivery systems.
>
> like I say, I am no expert on military affairs.

And obviously you are also incapable of rational thought as well. You
cannot even come up with one single reason to disallow gay service
that isn't based on bias.

What opinions do you have that you feel are valid? Why do you insist
on the chicken**** way out on all matters pertaining to gays, with the
sole exception of gay marriage?

Things that make you go "Hmmmm".

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 21:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:11*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 3:22*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > I also don't know if F-22's are better or worse than F-16's
> > > > there are probably other things in military affiars I don't know.
> > > > I will identify them as I become aware of them
>
> > > I wasn't aware there were "girl" F-22s and "guy" F-22s, or "gay"
> > > F-22s. Likewise the F-16 or any other aircraft.
>
> > > Even if there are aircraft sexes and sexual orientations, I don't see
> > > what "problem" that could possibly have on their flight
> > > characteristics or weapons delivery systems.
>
> > like I say, I am no expert on military affairs.
>
> And obviously you are also incapable of rational thought as well. You
> cannot even come up with one single reason to disallow gay service
> that isn't based on bias.
>
> What opinions do you have that you feel are valid? Why do you insist
> on the chicken**** way out on all matters pertaining to gays, with the
> sole exception of gay marriage?
>
> Things that make you go "Hmmmm".

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 21:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:11*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 3 Aug, 18:34, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 3:22*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > I also don't know if F-22's are better or worse than F-16's
> > > > there are probably other things in military affiars I don't know.
> > > > I will identify them as I become aware of them
>
> > > I wasn't aware there were "girl" F-22s and "guy" F-22s, or "gay"
> > > F-22s. Likewise the F-16 or any other aircraft.
>
> > > Even if there are aircraft sexes and sexual orientations, I don't see
> > > what "problem" that could possibly have on their flight
> > > characteristics or weapons delivery systems.
>
> > like I say, I am no expert on military affairs.
>
> And obviously you are also incapable of rational thought as well. You
> cannot even come up with one single reason to disallow gay service
> that isn't based on bias.
>

I never came up with any reason, biased or unbiased. I never said that
I know of any specific reason. I hope there would be none.
And what happened to you? Did you sign up for Scotts's reading
comprehension
correspondence course? I NEVER said I had any reason. I said that I
favor gays in the military
as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
functions. I hope
that there are no issues that would impair our military in this regard
and I hope that gays
would be able to serve. I have said in the recent
past that I understand that some gays want to serve their country
and/ or partake of the benefits that the military has to offer as a
career.
Hopefully, they will be able to do that.


> What opinions do you have that you feel are valid? Why do you insist
> on the chicken**** way out on all matters pertaining to gays, with the
> sole exception of gay marriage?
>
> Things that make you go "Hmmmm".

ok, as long as you are in tune.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> I said that I favor gays in the military as long as it would not
> harm the military from carrying out its functions.

How could allowing Gays to serve possibly do that? Please explain.

[Signal[_2_]]

George M. Middius > wrote:

>> I said that I favor gays in the military as long as it would not
>> harm the military from carrying out its functions.
>
>How could allowing Gays to serve possibly do that? Please explain.

Trouble arming mortars due to limp wrists?





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Signal said:

> >> I said that I favor gays in the military as long as it would not
> >> harm the military from carrying out its functions.
> >
> >How could allowing Gays to serve possibly do that? Please explain.
>
> Trouble arming mortars due to limp wrists?

Not the dykes, surely....

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 9:46*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 3 Aug, 21:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > And obviously you are also incapable of rational thought as well. You
> > cannot even come up with one single reason to disallow gay service
> > that isn't based on bias.
>
> I never came up with any reason, biased or unbiased. I never said that
> I know of any specific reason. I hope there would be none.

And what might some of those reasons potentially be? Let your
imagination go wild! I see Signal wondering if limp wrists might be a
hinderance in arming fuzes. Do you have anything else to add?

(And Signal was no doubt kidding.)

> And what happened to you? Did you sign up for Scotts's reading
> comprehension
> correspondence course? I NEVER said I had any reason. I said that I
> favor gays in the military
> as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
> functions. I hope
> that there are no issues that would impair our military in this regard
> and I hope that gays
> would be able to *serve. I have said in the recent
> past that I understand that some gays want to serve their country
> and/ or partake of the benefits that the military has to offer as a
> career.
> Hopefully, they will be able to do that.

You have reservations though. You foresee some possible "harm" that
could possibly occur, or you wouldn't keep bringing up that you're in
favor "as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
functions."

I'm asking for some kind (*any* kind) of example of what "harm" might
be done to the military if gays were allowed to openly serve. As a
hint, you can check the "harm" that has been visited on most other
militaries.

And as I said, let your imagination run wild!

> > What opinions do you have that you feel are valid? Why do you insist
> > on the chicken**** way out on all matters pertaining to gays, with the
> > sole exception of gay marriage?
>
> > Things that make you go "Hmmmm".
>
> ok, as long as you are in tune.

I'm always in tune. And I'm still going "Hmmmm".

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 3, 10:47*pm, Signal > wrote:
> George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> >> *I said that I favor gays in the military as long as it would not
> >> harm the military from carrying out its functions.
>
> >How could allowing Gays to serve possibly do that? Please explain.
>
> Trouble arming mortars due to limp wrists?

Mortars do not get "armed". :-)

[Clyde Slick]

On 3 Aug, 22:56, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > *I said that I favor gays in the military as long as it would not
> > harm the military from carrying out its functions.
>
> How could allowing Gays to serve possibly do that? Please explain.

I don't know if it could or could not.
Hopefully it will have no effect.

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 Aug, 01:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 9:46*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 3 Aug, 21:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > And obviously you are also incapable of rational thought as well. You
> > > cannot even come up with one single reason to disallow gay service
> > > that isn't based on bias.
>
> > I never came up with any reason, biased or unbiased. I never said that
> > I know of any specific reason. I hope there would be none.
>
> And what might some of those reasons potentially be? Let your
> imagination go wild! I see Signal wondering if limp wrists might be a
> hinderance in arming fuzes. Do you have anything else to add?
>
> (And Signal was no doubt kidding.)
>
> > And what happened to you? Did you sign up for Scotts's reading
> > comprehension
> > correspondence course? I NEVER said I had any reason. I said that I
> > favor gays in the military
> > as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
> > functions. I hope
> > that there are no issues that would impair our military in this regard
> > and I hope that gays
> > would be able to *serve. I have said in the recent
> > past that I understand that some gays want to serve their country
> > and/ or partake of the benefits that the military has to offer as a
> > career.
> > Hopefully, they will be able to do that.
>
> You have reservations though. You foresee some possible "harm" that
> could possibly occur, or you wouldn't keep bringing up that you're in
> favor "as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
> functions."
>
> I'm asking for some kind (*any* kind) of example of what "harm" might
> be done to the military if gays were allowed to openly serve. As a
> hint, you can check the "harm" that has been visited on most other
> militaries.
>
> And as I said, let your imagination run wild!
>
> > > What opinions do you have that you feel are valid? Why do you insist
> > > on the chicken**** way out on all matters pertaining to gays, with the
> > > sole exception of gay marriage?
>
> > > Things that make you go "Hmmmm".
>
> > ok, as long as you are in tune.
>
> I'm always in tune. And I'm still going "Hmmmm".

don't let your face turn blue.

[Signal[_2_]]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

>> >> *I said that I favor gays in the military as long as it would not
>> >> harm the military from carrying out its functions.
>>
>> >How could allowing Gays to serve possibly do that? Please explain.
>>
>> Trouble arming mortars due to limp wrists?
>
>Mortars do not get "armed". :-)

Ooooh.. well slap my wrists.. :)





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Signal[_2_]]

George M. Middius > wrote:

>> >> I said that I favor gays in the military as long as it would not
>> >> harm the military from carrying out its functions.
>> >
>> >How could allowing Gays to serve possibly do that? Please explain.
>>
>> Trouble arming mortars due to limp wrists?
>
>Not the dykes, surely....

I shouldn't think it's a problem for butch-fems.





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 4, 7:32*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 4 Aug, 01:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 9:46*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 3 Aug, 21:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > And obviously you are also incapable of rational thought as well. You
> > > > cannot even come up with one single reason to disallow gay service
> > > > that isn't based on bias.
>
> > > I never came up with any reason, biased or unbiased. I never said that
> > > I know of any specific reason. I hope there would be none.
>
> > And what might some of those reasons potentially be? Let your
> > imagination go wild! I see Signal wondering if limp wrists might be a
> > hinderance in arming fuzes. Do you have anything else to add?
>
> > (And Signal was no doubt kidding.)
>
> > > And what happened to you? Did you sign up for Scotts's reading
> > > comprehension
> > > correspondence course? I NEVER said I had any reason. I said that I
> > > favor gays in the military
> > > as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
> > > functions. I hope
> > > that there are no issues that would impair our military in this regard
> > > and I hope that gays
> > > would be able to *serve. I have said in the recent
> > > past that I understand that some gays want to serve their country
> > > and/ or partake of the benefits that the military has to offer as a
> > > career.
> > > Hopefully, they will be able to do that.
>
> > You have reservations though. You foresee some possible "harm" that
> > could possibly occur, or you wouldn't keep bringing up that you're in
> > favor "as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
> > functions."
>
> > I'm asking for some kind (*any* kind) of example of what "harm" might
> > be done to the military if gays were allowed to openly serve. As a
> > hint, you can check the "harm" that has been visited on most other
> > militaries.
>
> > And as I said, let your imagination run wild!
>
> > > > What opinions do you have that you feel are valid? Why do you insist
> > > > on the chicken**** way out on all matters pertaining to gays, with the
> > > > sole exception of gay marriage?
>
> > > > Things that make you go "Hmmmm".
>
> > > ok, as long as you are in tune.
>
> > I'm always in tune. And I'm still going "Hmmmm".
>
> don't let your face turn blue.

I see you can't even make up a potential "harm".

A rational person would, at this point, drop the qualification. I'm
glad to see you now fully support gays openly serving in the US
military!

That wasn't so hard, was it?

[Clyde Slick]

On Aug 4, 3:28*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 7:32*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Aug, 01:28, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Aug 3, 9:46*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 3 Aug, 21:43, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > And obviously you are also incapable of rational thought as well. You
> > > > > cannot even come up with one single reason to disallow gay service
> > > > > that isn't based on bias.
>
> > > > I never came up with any reason, biased or unbiased. I never said that
> > > > I know of any specific reason. I hope there would be none.
>
> > > And what might some of those reasons potentially be? Let your
> > > imagination go wild! I see Signal wondering if limp wrists might be a
> > > hinderance in arming fuzes. Do you have anything else to add?
>
> > > (And Signal was no doubt kidding.)
>
> > > > And what happened to you? Did you sign up for Scotts's reading
> > > > comprehension
> > > > correspondence course? I NEVER said I had any reason. I said that I
> > > > favor gays in the military
> > > > as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
> > > > functions. I hope
> > > > that there are no issues that would impair our military in this regard
> > > > and I hope that gays
> > > > would be able to *serve. I have said in the recent
> > > > past that I understand that some gays want to serve their country
> > > > and/ or partake of the benefits that the military has to offer as a
> > > > career.
> > > > Hopefully, they will be able to do that.
>
> > > You have reservations though. You foresee some possible "harm" that
> > > could possibly occur, or you wouldn't keep bringing up that you're in
> > > favor "as long as it would not harm the military from carrying out its
> > > functions."
>
> > > I'm asking for some kind (*any* kind) of example of what "harm" might
> > > be done to the military if gays were allowed to openly serve. As a
> > > hint, you can check the "harm" that has been visited on most other
> > > militaries.
>
> > > And as I said, let your imagination run wild!
>
> > > > > What opinions do you have that you feel are valid? Why do you insist
> > > > > on the chicken**** way out on all matters pertaining to gays, with the
> > > > > sole exception of gay marriage?
>
> > > > > Things that make you go "Hmmmm".
>
> > > > ok, as long as you are in tune.
>
> > > I'm always in tune. And I'm still going "Hmmmm".
>
> > don't let your face turn blue.
>
> I see you can't even make up a potential "harm".
>
> A rational person would, at this point, drop the qualification. I'm
> glad to see you now fully support gays openly serving in the US
> military!
>
> That wasn't so hard, was it?-

Sure, I do support it, but I leave it up to
the experts to figure it out. All I am
saying is that the military is different than
civilian society, and that the primary goal
is to have a military that can do the job.
This has to do with a whole host of isssues,
far beyond the scope of gays in the military.
The justice sytem, procurement, logistics, organization, personnel,
all of these need to work to facilitate military efficieny (an
oxymoon!).