Maybe Feddie had it right........

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

Well, folks, I think Fed Up may have had it right. Looking at
what's been posted the last few days, it seems as if this group is, in
Feddie's immortal words, "knackered",

After all these yeats of Kroo**** chasing people away, it's
come to this: a few desultory insults hardly worth the effort to
either read or write, and a Krueger who has been, at last,
emasculated.

Since cutting his balls off was, essentially, the primary goal
of the dwindling ranks of RAOers, what's left?

2pid, for all his squalid arguments and contradictory
presentations, is at least sane albeit boring, but no real discussion
about audio, or anything else, for that matter, is genuinely possible.
It somehow always comes down to ideology.

One would think there would be much audio to discuss as
convergence accelerates, but so far very little about audio here
except the usual analog fiends having a ball discussing some esoteric
cartridge or perhaps a dysplastic arm or three.

IOW, gentle RAOers, it may be time to ride off into that
glorious sunset and go back to real life, wkith its exploding banks,
deflating economies, and the general sucking sound of the known world
sinking into disorder.

As the old Chinese curse would have it: we live in interesting
times, just not here in RAO.

Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:18:00 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> wrote:

>On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> * * * * Well, folks, I think Fed Up may have had it right. Looking at
>> what's been posted the last few days, it seems as if this group is, in
>> Feddie's immortal words, "knackered",
>
> How long did it take you to figure that out...

Not very long. I've just been reluctant to say it out loud
>>
>> * * * * After all these yeats of Kroo**** chasing people away,
>
> LoL. Kroo chased Singh away? I think not.

Actually, yes....in a way....more on this in a bit
>Kroo chased Zip away?....no, he died.

OK. I'll give you Zip

>I guess we can give him credit for Marc but I really don't understand
>why Marc felt the need to leave. Clearly many told
>his boss what Arny was like. I wonder if they told him to knock off
>the flamewars as it only brings attacks on their work.

My point, Scott, is that Arnold's endless destruction of every
discussion he ever entered chased everyone away eventually except for
the few who who for whatever reason, decided to stay and give battle,
whether out of neurosis or principle. Those fights, and the dichotomy
they caused, chased away the few others who dropped in unaware of what
takes place here. Without Arnold, none of this happens....literally.

The fight between preference and audible claims against credible
testing would have continued, of course, and probably with no quarter
given, but most of the participants could eventually find means to
tolerate. Not Arnold......
>
>Anyway, who chased away Paul Wagner?

Don't know. I knew Paul personally, but have no idea why he left RAO
since I lefgt before he did.
>
>
>> it's
>> come to this: a few desultory insults hardly worth the effort to
>> either read or write, and a Krueger who has been, at last,
>> emasculated.
>
> What an accomplishment. You think the scorched earth
>policy necessary was worth it?

Wrong choice of words. I honestly don't think there was any choice.
People react to insults badly, you know, when they come out of left
field. The stuff that goes on between combatant here is not the same
thing.

Arnold literally attacks any newcomer and tried to dominate. If no
agreement, he insults and tries to humiliate. People rightfully fight
back, some tougher than others.

I've no quarrel with George and Ssssshhhhhh. Well, truthfully, they're
friends of long-standing, but I agreed with their stance before I
became friendly with each of them.
>
>>
>> * * * * Since cutting his balls off was, essentially, the primary goal
>> of the dwindling ranks of RAOers, what's left?
>
> Shhtards good looks? Well, ok, so that subject isn't very appealing.
>But it's really all he has to offer.

Tell it to Sssssshhhhhh, not to me. I like and respect the guy.
>
<usual boring insult exchange snipped>

>> * * * * One would think there would be much audio to discuss as
>> convergence accelerates,
>
> Convergence of what? As I see it the problem is literally one
> of nothing new to discuss.

Could be. You might be right. No one's offered much. I coould speak to
how I manage almlost 4TB of lossless-compressed music, but after that
my wad would be truly shot.

>Servers and such are factors of
>convenience
>but don't have an audio impact to me.

You wouldn't say that if the server kept crashing, or if you couldn't
manage your database properly.



>Since building the Orions I come
>to
>agree that my vinyl rig isn't up to realistic reproduction and I
>certainly
>am not willing to chase that probable canard.

Jeebus. We agree on something.........

> I picked up one of the supposedly new generation DACs and compared it
>to my old Panasonic DVD...no difference IMO which was disappointing.
>Should I conclude that while performance differences can be measured,
>audible ones cannot?

Maybe, but probably not the real question. I suspect at some point
betterment just had no value to you when compared to other factlors in
your life


>Since I've reached the conclusion that the recording is now without
>doubt the weakest link in audio reproduction in my home I find myself
>less interested in audio gear.

I don't record. Rip? Hell, yeah. Record? No way. I have nothing to
record except my bad guitar playing with arthritic hands. Hell, state
governments talk to me ablout using my playing as a substitute for
lethal injections.


>Why spend big $$ on small gains in
>this part of the envelop when that single big piece is out of my
>control. Anyway, that bug has faded before only to return.

I don't think it's going to return for me. I'm quite happy with my
various set-ups
>
>> but so far very little about audio here
>> except the usual analog fiends having a ball discussing some esoteric
>> cartridge or perhaps a dysplastic arm or three.
>
>So Mr. digital domain... Do you think there is an exemplary DAC
>of clearly audible differences to be had over any decent player?
>Just curious. What pieces of gear led you to your conclusion?

Not for me, anyway. Speakers make far more of a difference than any
source player for me since I don't use analog (where real betterment
is possible, albeit at terrible cost).

In the end it was more about behavior than audio. Where I listen to
music changed and the way I listened changed, plus I use my main
set-up as a home theater as well.

Because of that, more and more of my listening is at my desk, where I
have a pair of Joseph RM7+ speakers as sort of giant headphones hooked
into Bel Canto Dac/preamp and Bel Canto amp (bought because of looks
and low weight more than anything else. (I'm long past paying 46
gazillion dollars for an amp). I love Joseph speakers....always have,
and have had several pairs over the years both small and huge.

The sound, to me, anyway, is spectacular. My only source is my music
server. I have no discs whatsoever, and I've no desire to change
anything. Well.....I might eventually change the Bel Canto Dac, not
because it performs badly, because it performs brilliantly, but I'm
always struggling for more real estate around my work area, and I
might move that Dac elsewhere and get a small Benchmark or Apogee dac
because they're so much smaller.

In fact, I could probably scatch the dac altogether and just go analog
out of my computers (a big Vista Server box and a 1 year old Mac Pro
running 16 GB of Ram and 4 TB of storage internally) but my stupid
brain keeps thinking it's better to get the sound out optically away
from the noisy innards. Probably right, but who knows?


Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 18, 9:18*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:

> > * * * * Since cutting his balls off was, essentially, the primary goal
> > of the dwindling ranks of RAOers, what's left?
>
> *Shhtards good looks? *Well, ok, so that subject isn't very appealing..

Your cute when your jealous. ;-)

> But it's really all he has to offer.

I had dinner tonight with a concert violinist and his wife who is a
doctor. They's disagree with you, but then again they have brains,
2pid. Poor you. LoL.

> > * * * * 2pid, for all his squalid arguments and contradictory
> > presentations,
>
> The school marm argument rises again.
> I'm sorry if out of the box confuses you.

Why do you insist on pretending that "stupid" and "vapid" equals
"original" and "out-of-the-box"?

And how do you explain your "differing POV" that only "school marms"
are capable of rational thought and well-written cogent arguments? LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 18, 11:50*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 8:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 9:18*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > > * * * * Since cutting his balls off was, essentially, the primary goal
> > > > of the dwindling ranks of RAOers, what's left?
>
> > > *Shhtards good looks? *Well, ok, so that subject isn't very appealing.
>
> > Your cute when your jealous. ;-)
>
> *Insert Eddie Murphy quote here.

OK: "Hercules! Hercules!"

> > > But it's really all he has to offer.
>
> > I had dinner tonight with a concert violinist and his wife who is a
> > doctor. They's disagree with you, but then again they have brains,
> > 2pid.
>
> *I bet they's do. You on the other hand....

LoL. A blown IKYABWAI.

Poor 2pid.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 18, 10:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:

> Arnold literally attacks any newcomer and tried to dominate. If no
> agreement, he insults and tries to humiliate. People rightfully fight
> back, some tougher than others.

One small correction: even if there is agreement GOIA insults.

> I've no quarrel with George and Ssssshhhhhh. Well, truthfully, they're
> friends of long-standing, but I agreed with their stance before I
> became friendly with each of them.

And the chicks dig me too, Mr. President. ;-)

> > Shhtards good looks? *Well, ok, so that subject isn't very appealing.
> >But it's really all he has to offer.
>
> Tell it to Sssssshhhhhh, not to me. I like and respect the guy.

Thank you, Mr. President. The feeling is mutual.

But please don't send 2pid my way. He are a imbecile.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> But please don't send 2pid my way. He are a imbecile.

Your jealous of Scotties long shiney coat.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 18, 11:14*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 7:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:

> > I've no quarrel with George and Ssssshhhhhh. Well, truthfully, they're
> > friends of long-standing, but I agreed with their stance before I
> > became friendly with each of them.
>
> *So sssshhh must be a reincarnation of someone to be "longstanding".
> Figures.

You can call me "Paula". LoL.

> They are often intolerant assholes and incapable of sustaining a
> discussion.
> They, like you, often insist on agreement and can't hold their water
> in
> the face of unrelenting differing opinion.

Um, 2pid, let's briefly recap: I won't agree with your "differing POV"
on military matters. If you weren't such a moron you'd see what
everybody else sees. I've *more* than "held my water" there (unless
you think the current orders on "proportional force", for example, are
incorrect).

I don't tolerate your "differing POV" on racism.

Most of your "unrelenting differing POVs" are nothing more than
regurgitated right-wing blogs or talk radio 'points'. Your MO (proven
again and again in the past two days) is to blurt out some lonk from a
blog and say "So there!" There *is* no rational discussion with you.

So let's call it what it is: once you've been told how to think
there's no amount of evidence that will shake you from it. Hence the
dog and bone analogies. LoL.

> > >> * * * * Since cutting his balls off was, essentially, the primary goal
> > >> of the dwindling ranks of RAOers, what's left?
>
> > > Shhtards good looks? *Well, ok, so that subject isn't very appealing.
> > >But it's really all he has to offer.
>
> > Tell it to Sssssshhhhhh, not to me. I like and respect the guy.
>
> *I know. But beauty is only skin deep.

Are you implying that the President "respects" my beauty? LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 19, 12:25*am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > But please don't send 2pid my way. He are a imbecile.
>
> Your jealous of Scotties long shiney coat.

A serious question: is mange shiny?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > But please don't send 2pid my way. He are a imbecile.
> >
> > Your jealous of Scotties long shiney coat.
>
> A serious question: is mange shiny?

You might as well ask whether turds stink.

[Herbert Hoover]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:14:29 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> wrote:

>On Feb 18, 7:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:18:00 -0800 (PST), ScottW
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> >> * * * * Well, folks, I think Fed Up may have had it right. Looking at
>> >> what's been posted the last few days, it seems as if this group is, in
>> >> Feddie's immortal words, "knackered",
>>
>> > How long did it take you to figure that out...
>>
>> Not very long. I've just been reluctant to say it out loud
>
>Why?

Think about it, Scott. Some things shouldn't require explication.
>>
>>
<snipped for brevity>
>>
>> My point, Scott, is that Arnold's endless destruction of every
>> discussion he ever entered chased everyone away
>
>BS. Arny is easily ignored to anyone with the slightest of
>balls.

No. He's not. You miss the point here. Most of your conversations,
AFAIK, are with ASrnold's sworn enemies. IOW, you respond to us the
way we respond to Arnold.


>It's the fools who've been owned
>by Arny all these years responding to his every turd, trampling
>any attempt at any form of discussion by out ridiculing each
>other that causes the greater damage IMO.

Noted, but only half-accurate. No doubt the battles created collateral
casualties. To many of us, though, the choice was (is) to fight or
leave. Just because the neighborhopod thug isn't attacking you, Scott,
doesn't mean that others should be as tolerant.

Most of us are *not* pacifists.

>
>> eventually except for
>> the few who who for whatever reason, decided to stay and give battle,
>
> They like it.

That says nothing other than the obvious, and if you want to
understand, you need to examine further and be more empathic. That's
you being a combatant. too.
>
>> whether out of neurosis or principle. Those fights, and the dichotomy
>> they caused, chased away the few others who dropped in unaware of what
>> takes place here. Without Arnold, none of this happens....literally.
>
>or without "the resistance". 2 sides of the same coin IMO.
>I side professes to be sane or "normal".
>Then act like it I would say.

No. They're not except in so far as both sides become combatants.
>
>>
>> The fight between preference and audible claims against credible
>> testing would have continued, of course, and probably with no quarter
>> given,
>
> Look at most audio domains. They either engage that debate
>or completely disdain it and pursue pure subjectivism.

Such sites aren't RAO and are their own filter. If you want civilized
discussion go there, Scott. RAO's culture is different.

>Trouble with those sites is they often also disdain any technical
>knowledge as contra to their subjectivism. It's quite a strange
>phenom IMO.
>Seems like analog took that path for a bit as many high end
>carts and arms don't provide enough info to determine a poor
>match which is a trivial exercise given the basic data.

It's about - God bless - ice cream flavors. If you like the sound of
analog, and it's associated processes and rituals (in the best sene)
give pleasure, why not? Not for me, though.
>
>> but most of the participants could eventually find means to
>> tolerate. Not Arnold......
>
> I don't understand why so many can't accept that his fault
>is an inability to admit fault. Once you know that, tolerating him
>is easy.

Sure, as long as he doesn't corrupt every thread one enters.
>>
>> >Anyway, who chased away Paul Wagner?
>>
>> Don't know. I knew Paul personally, but have no idea why he left RAO
>> since I lefgt before he did.
>
> I suspect he grew tired of being called Paula.

I doubt it, and if you knew (saw) Paul, you'd doubt it, too.
>
>>
>> >> *it's
>> >> come to this: a few desultory insults hardly worth the effort to
>> >> either read or write, and a Krueger who has been, at last,
>> >> emasculated.
>>
>> > What an accomplishment. *You think the scorched earth
>> >policy necessary was worth it?
>>
>> Wrong choice of words. I honestly don't think there was any choice.
>
>I always think there are choices. How one deals with Arny is an
>easy choice.

No, it's not. It may have been easy for you. That doesn't mean others
won't see it differently. At the heart of this, Scott, you are
remarkably intolerant.....at least as intolerant as any of the other
combatants.

>I find those who resort to constant ridicule even more destructive
>than Arny and Middiot sets the bar in that domain.


You're entitled to your opinion. IMV, the differences between you and
George are political, not Arnold. If you and he shared the same
politics, things might be different. It's that dichotomy that deepens
the abyss.

>I've seen many a newb stumble in, find themselves the brunt of his
>humor
>and quickly depart wondering how people tolerate that.

Admittedly an analogue of Arnold, but George long ago figured out what
RAO was (and is). He doesn't bring that to other groups. He's a
combatant acting like a combatant. I have a lot of respect for his
stance and his writing.

RAO *is* about the insults. That's the fun of it here. Those who want
something more "civilized" have their choice of many other groups.
>
>> People react to insults badly, you know, when they come out of left
>> field. The stuff that goes on between combatant here is not the same
>> thing.
>
> It sets a standard of behavior that doesn't attract rational people.
>If you walked into a party where the level of discourse was everyday
>RAO,
>how long would you stay? It would definitely depend on the quality of
>drink IMO.

Absolutely. Some like scotch and some like bourbon....this is, at the
end, about preference. Why do you stay here, Scott?

Take a longer look inwards..........
>>
>> Arnold literally attacks any newcomer and tried to dominate. If no
>> agreement, he insults and tries to humiliate. People rightfully fight
>> back, some tougher than others.
>
> Arnold is far from the only one. Most people either come here asking
>almost painfully repititious naive questions which are often ignored,
>or
>try to make/prove a point. Some few had the technical chops to do it,
>most don't. Glen Z. comes to mind and why he felt so compelled to
>try to force Arny into admitting what his affliction won't allow him
>to is
>somewhat beyond me.

Actually, my point entirely. You don't understand why we give battle
with Arnold.


> But I'm sure most conversations about
>audio here bored him to tears anyway.

Not every obne. There have been various fine audio talents here. RAO,
though, is about relationships, not audio, IMHO.
>>
>> I've no quarrel with George and Ssssshhhhhh. Well, truthfully, they're
>> friends of long-standing, but I agreed with their stance before I
>> became friendly with each of them.
>
> So sssshhh must be a reincarnation of someone to be "longstanding".
>Figures.
>They are often intolerant assholes and incapable of sustaining a
>discussion.
>They, like you, often insist on agreement and can't hold their water
>in
>the face of unrelenting differing opinion.

Right. You are most perceptive, Scott.

<groan> <faint> <SPlaatttttTTT>

<really boring audio stuff snipped>

> I think an external with it's own power is prudent and not at all
>cost prohibitive. My PC at work certainly
>puts a HD related chatter out faintly on the analog listening with
>headphones.
>My old gamer machine (which I gave up as too time consuming) doesn't
>nor does my office machine that I can tell.
>None of 'em are quiet enough to be in my listening room during serious
>listening, so a slingbox type arrangement would be my choice if
>I went that route.


My server is not next to the Home Theater/primary setup. It's
connected by wire, not (never! wirelessly)
>
>Anyway, take care.

You, too.


Herbert

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
Herbert Hoover <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:14:29 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> > wrote:
>
> >On Feb 18, 7:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:18:00 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> >>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> >> >> * * * * Well, folks, I think Fed Up may have had it right. Looking at
> >> >> what's been posted the last few days, it seems as if this group is, in
> >> >> Feddie's immortal words, "knackered",
> >>
> >> > How long did it take you to figure that out...
> >>
> >> Not very long. I've just been reluctant to say it out loud
> >
> >Why?
>
> Think about it, Scott. Some things shouldn't require explication.
> >>
> >>
> <snipped for brevity>
> >>
> >> My point, Scott, is that Arnold's endless destruction of every
> >> discussion he ever entered chased everyone away
> >
> >BS. Arny is easily ignored to anyone with the slightest of
> >balls.
>
> No. He's not. You miss the point here. Most of your conversations,
> AFAIK, are with ASrnold's sworn enemies. IOW, you respond to us the
> way we respond to Arnold.

Scott has consistently failed to recognize this. Several times he has
been critical of me responding to Arny. I ask him what the difference
is between me responding to Arny and him responding to Shhh and George;
people who call him stupid. He doesn't seem to have an answer.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:03:55 -0800, Jenn > wrote:

<snipped for brevity>

>> >
>> >BS. Arny is easily ignored to anyone with the slightest of
>> >balls.
>>
>> No. He's not. You miss the point here. Most of your conversations,
>> AFAIK, are with ASrnold's sworn enemies. IOW, you respond to us the
>> way we respond to Arnold.
>
>Scott has consistently failed to recognize this. Several times he has
>been critical of me responding to Arny. I ask him what the difference
>is between me responding to Arny and him responding to Shhh and George;
>people who call him stupid. He doesn't seem to have an answer.

Spot on, Jenn.

Might as well admit you've got that small bit of tar on your face when
the whole world can see it anyway....


Herbert

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 19, 9:13*am, Herbert Hoover <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:14:29 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> > wrote:

> > *It sets a standard of behavior that doesn't attract rational people.
> >If you walked into a party where the level of discourse was everyday
> >RAO,
> >how long would you stay? *It would definitely depend on the quality of
> >drink IMO.
>
> Absolutely. Some like scotch and some like bourbon....this is, at the
> end, about preference. Why do you stay here, Scott?
>
> Take a longer look inwards..........

I recall when JFK also asked the impossible. He wanted to put a man on
the moon.

One major difference between him and 2pid was that JFK would listen to
the smart people advising him.

> > So sssshhh must be a reincarnation of someone to be "longstanding".
> >Figures.
> >They are often intolerant assholes and incapable of sustaining a
> >discussion.
> >They, like you, often insist on agreement and can't hold their water
> >in
> >the face of unrelenting differing opinion.
>
> Right. You are most perceptive, Scott.
>
> * * * * <groan> * * <faint> * * * <SPlaatttttTTT>

And now you see one major difference between 2pid and JFK in 2pid's
own words. LoL. :-)

[Herbert Hoover]

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:43:29 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
Reason!" > wrote:

>> > So sssshhh must be a reincarnation of someone to be "longstanding".
>> >Figures.
>> >They are often intolerant assholes and incapable of sustaining a
>> >discussion.
>> >They, like you, often insist on agreement and can't hold their water
>> >in
>> >the face of unrelenting differing opinion.
>>
>> Right. You are most perceptive, Scott.
>>
>> * * * * <groan> * * <faint> * * * <SPlaatttttTTT>
>
>And now you see one major difference between 2pid and JFK in 2pid's
>own words. LoL. :-)


Scott, in his intransigence, can't see how his own words "They, like
you,......................face of unrelenting opinion" apply not only
to Arnold but preceisely to him as well.

Scott's like the guy holding a machine gun spraying bullets everywhere
(as long as they're directed only gto the chosen few) while decrying
to the world he's not a combatant but only a hopelessly trapped
civilian.

He'd make a great contributing member of Hezbollah.



Herbert

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scottie spots a mailman!

> > Scott has consistently failed to recognize this. *Several times he has
> > been critical of me responding to Arny.

> I've been YAPYAPYAP! of your foolish WOOF! BARK-BARK-BARKETY-BARK!
> You've ROWF! come around to my way of BARK-WOOF-WOOF-BARK! YAPYAPYAP!

How are we to "interpret" this round of idiotic yapping, Witless? You sound
angry and defensive, but of course that's an interpretation rooted in a
human frame of reference. As you've instructed us many times, it's useless
to infer any particular meaning from the specific phonemes you choose to
bark at any chosen time.


--

"It is you who are completely unaware of what I perceive until
I choose to tell you. I rarely do."
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel, RAO, Feb. 3 2009

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Feb 19, 9:03*am, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Herbert Hoover <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:14:29 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> > > > wrote:
> >
> > > >On Feb 18, 7:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:18:00 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > >> >> * * * * Well, folks, I think Fed Up may have had it right. Looking
> > > >> >> at
> > > >> >> what's been posted the last few days, it seems as if this group is,
> > > >> >> in
> > > >> >> Feddie's immortal words, "knackered",
> >
> > > >> > How long did it take you to figure that out...
> >
> > > >> Not very long. I've just been reluctant to say it out loud
> >
> > > >Why?
> >
> > > Think about it, Scott. Some things shouldn't require explication.
> >
> > > * *<snipped for brevity>
> >
> > > >> My point, Scott, is that Arnold's endless destruction of every
> > > >> discussion he ever entered chased everyone away
> >
> > > >BS. Arny is easily ignored to anyone with the slightest of
> > > >balls. *
> >
> > > No. He's not. You miss the point here. Most of your conversations,
> > > AFAIK, are with ASrnold's sworn enemies. IOW, you respond to us the
> > > way we respond to Arnold.
> >
> > Scott has consistently failed to recognize this. *Several times he has
> > been critical of me responding to Arny.
>
> I've been critical of your foolish expectations. You've apparently
> come around to my way of thinking.
> If you can't deal with Arny's inevitable snot, don't bother.
> I've had exchanges with him and he usually if not always resorts to
> form where it's conversation over. No big deal.
> Actually, my "conversations" with Shhhtard often end the same way and
> sometimes even quicker than with Arny.
>
> > *I ask him what the difference
> > is between me responding to Arny and him responding to Shhh and George;
>
> Your expecations is number one.
>
> > people who call him stupid. *He doesn't seem to have an answer.
>
> You remain oblivious to the obvious.

Oh, OK. Well, enjoy your conversations.

[The One]

On Feb 19, 2:53*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Feb 18, 9:26*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 11:14*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 7:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > > I've no quarrel with George and Ssssshhhhhh. Well, truthfully, they're
> > > > friends of long-standing, but I agreed with their stance before I
> > > > became friendly with each of them.
>
> > > *So sssshhh must be a reincarnation of someone to be "longstanding"..
> > > Figures.
>
> > You can call me "Paula". LoL.
>
> *Is that what they call you in your karaoke bar?
>
>
>
> > > They are often intolerant assholes and incapable of sustaining a
> > > discussion.
> > > They, like you, often insist on agreement and can't hold their water
> > > in
> > > the face of unrelenting differing opinion.
>
> > Um, 2pid, let's briefly recap: I won't agree with your "differing POV"
> > on military matters. If you weren't such a moron you'd see what
> > everybody else sees. I've *more* than "held my water" there
>
> *Like all your factually incorrect claims on the F-22?

Why don't you remind me of those mistaken "facts", 2pid? Are you going
to gnaw on the fact I mistakenly said the Chinese had a bunch of
MiG-17s when it was a different very obsolete MiG they have? OK, I
admit it: the Chinese have a pile of a different model of obsolete
aircraft.

Revising history shows a remarkable lack of integrity.

Now, you never did show any other scenario that requires the F-22. I
showed you how if the Chinese attacked Taiwan we could not get enough
F-22s there to matter, so your one single scenario "requiring" a $350
million plus aircraft was faulty. Leave out 5500 NATO F-35s...again.

Gahead, 2pid: show me your military "chops". Teach me.

Imbecile.

> Yeah..right...lol.

I wouldn't laugh about your imbecility, but you have a "differing
POV". LoL.

> > (unless
> > you think the current orders on "proportional force", for example, are
> > incorrect).
>
> *I know the Israeli doctrine of requiring their soldiers to put their
> own lives
> at risk to reduce the risk of non-combatants is the kind of crap that
> leads to
> 50-year wars.

Lessening the risk to civilians is "crap". I see.

You were never a soldier, were you? LoL.

>* When are the palestinians responsible for putting
> Hamas in power?

So you propose not worrying about dead children. Wonderful. Let's
shift targets on to schools and hospitals.

Imbecile.

> Why do they get a pass in armed conflict? Hamas has no real army to
> defeat on a battle, they're unlawful combatants hiding among the
> civilians to wage unlawful guerrilla war. *Why should "noncombatant"
> civilians get a pass on that?

Duh.

> > I don't tolerate your "differing POV" on racism.
>
> *You're ability to comprehend my POV on racism
> is in the words our illustrious AG, cowardly.

2pid, I can base your position on what you write. However you recently
admitted that you don't believe what you write, so you may be correct.
LoL.

> > Most of your "unrelenting differing POVs" are nothing more than
> > regurgitated right-wing blogs or talk radio 'points'. Your MO (proven
> > again and again in the past two days) is to blurt out some lonk from a
> > blog and say "So there!"
>
> *It does leave you usually stunned and unable to muster a single
> factual
> rebuttal. *Perhaps if you were capable of that rather than the
> slobbering insults of an infant some rational discussion might take
> place.
> Unfortunately all the discussion is rather one-sided.

LoL. Been there, done that.

> > There *is* no rational discussion with you.
>
> *Easy to say, but reality is another matter.

Let's go back to the fact that you want the military to kill
civilians. Let's start there, shall we? Rationally explain why that's
a better position than General McKiernan's orders of proportional
response.

That, order, BTW, shoots down your 500 lb bombing of a sniper
position. Just like I said over two years agom dum-dum. LoL.

> > So let's call it what it is: once you've been told how to think
> > there's no amount of evidence that will shake you from it.
>
> LoL. *So you're just mad that once I've been "told" how to
> think you can't tell me different.
> I wonder why that is? *Could it be you're often just wrong?

I am glad you're coming around to agreeing that there is no military
solution in Afghanistan. As I said, better three years late than
never.

> > *Hence the
> > dog and bone analogies. LoL.

Tacit admission of this statement's truth noted.

> > > > >> * * * * Since cutting his balls off was, essentially, the primary goal
> > > > >> of the dwindling ranks of RAOers, what's left?
>
> > > > > Shhtards good looks? *Well, ok, so that subject isn't very appealing.
> > > > >But it's really all he has to offer.
>
> > > > Tell it to Sssssshhhhhh, not to me. I like and respect the guy.
>
> > > *I know. But beauty is only skin deep.
>
> > Are you implying that the President "respects" my beauty? LoL.
>
> *Maybe it's the color of your skin you were bragging about recently.

And maybe you is a imbecile.

[The One]

On Feb 19, 2:59*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:03*am, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > *Herbert Hoover <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:14:29 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > >On Feb 18, 7:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:18:00 -0800 (PST), ScottW
>
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >On Feb 18, 5:51*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > >> >> * * * * Well, folks, I think Fed Up may have had it right. Looking at
> > > >> >> what's been posted the last few days, it seems as if this group is, in
> > > >> >> Feddie's immortal words, "knackered",
>
> > > >> > How long did it take you to figure that out...
>
> > > >> Not very long. I've just been reluctant to say it out loud
>
> > > >Why?
>
> > > Think about it, Scott. Some things shouldn't require explication.
>
> > > * *<snipped for brevity>
>
> > > >> My point, Scott, is that Arnold's endless destruction of every
> > > >> discussion he ever entered chased everyone away
>
> > > >BS. Arny is easily ignored to anyone with the slightest of
> > > >balls. *
>
> > > No. He's not. You miss the point here. Most of your conversations,
> > > AFAIK, are with ASrnold's sworn enemies. IOW, you respond to us the
> > > way we respond to Arnold.
>
> > Scott has consistently failed to recognize this. *Several times he has
> > been critical of me responding to Arny.
>
> *I've been critical of your foolish expectations. *You've apparently
> come around to my way of thinking.

So you expect what, 2pid?

Or are you (as I've said before) only interested in the 30-second
sound bites for your propaganda? LoL.

> If you can't deal with Arny's inevitable snot, don't bother.
> I've had exchanges with him and he usually if not always resorts to
> form where it's conversation over. *No big deal.
> Actually, my "conversations" with Shhhtard often end the same way and
> sometimes even quicker than with Arny.

That's 'discussions', 2pid. You have 'discussions'.

> > **I ask him what the difference
> > is between me responding to Arny and him responding to Shhh and George;
>
> Your expecations is number one.

Are your 'expectations' met when you post your sophmoric and poorly-
thought-out drivel?

Do you enjoy being stupid?

> > people who call him stupid. *He doesn't seem to have an answer.
>
> *You remain oblivious to the obvious.

I think Jenn must be fully aware at this point of precisely how stupid
you are. If she wasn't I'd have to question her intelligence.

[The One]

On Feb 19, 12:05*pm, Herbert Hoover <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:43:29 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
>
> Reason!" > wrote:
> >> > So sssshhh must be a reincarnation of someone to be "longstanding".
> >> >Figures.
> >> >They are often intolerant assholes and incapable of sustaining a
> >> >discussion.
> >> >They, like you, often insist on agreement and can't hold their water
> >> >in
> >> >the face of unrelenting differing opinion.
>
> >> Right. You are most perceptive, Scott.
>
> >> * * * * <groan> * * <faint> * * * <SPlaatttttTTT>
>
> >And now you see one major difference between 2pid and JFK in 2pid's
> >own words. LoL. :-)
>
> Scott, in his intransigence, can't see how his own words "They, like
> you,......................face of unrelenting opinion" apply not only
> to Arnold but preceisely to him as well.

I think I'll start responding to his propagande with: "What a dumb
POV. Mine differs." LoL.

> Scott's like the guy holding a machine gun spraying bullets everywhere
> (as long as they're directed only gto the chosen few) while decrying
> to the world he's not a combatant but only a hopelessly trapped
> civilian.

2pid is not smart enough to operate an automatic weapon. I like your
analgogy, but it's more like a pea-shooter or a cap gun or spitballs.

> He'd make a great contributing member of Hezbollah.

Isn't that ironic? LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

aka Shhhh said:

> > *You remain oblivious to the obvious.
>
> I think Jenn must be fully aware at this point of precisely how stupid
> you are. If she wasn't I'd have to question her intelligence.

Isn't it amazing how long Mistress has been trying to reason with Witless?
It's obvious he hates it when she treats him civilly.

Jenn doesn't seem to care how stupid Scottie is. Her approach is to keep on
trying to get through the interference and resistance. Once a teacher,
always a teacher.



--

"More Yapping and Less Thinking -- Vote Republican!"
-- Scottie Witlessmongrel's vision
for a better Amerika

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 20, 3:33*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> aka Shhhh said:

I don't know why Google did that. It's lying to you.

> > > *You remain oblivious to the obvious.
>
> > I think Jenn must be fully aware at this point of precisely how stupid
> > you are. If she wasn't I'd have to question her intelligence.
>
> Isn't it amazing how long Mistress has been trying to reason with Witless?
> It's obvious he hates it when she treats him civilly.

She's also generally civil to GOIA. Perhaps she's just a nice person?

> Jenn doesn't seem to care how stupid Scottie is. Her approach is to keep on
> trying to get through the interference and resistance. Once a teacher,
> always a teacher.

Yes, but has she ever taught English to a brick before? ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 20, 8:32*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Feb 20, 1:02*pm, The One > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 19, 2:53*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 18, 9:26*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Feb 18, 11:14*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 7:21*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > > > > I've no quarrel with George and Ssssshhhhhh. Well, truthfully, they're
> > > > > > friends of long-standing, but I agreed with their stance before I
> > > > > > became friendly with each of them.
>
> > > > > *So sssshhh must be a reincarnation of someone to be "longstanding".
> > > > > Figures.
>
> > > > You can call me "Paula". LoL.
>
> > > *Is that what they call you in your karaoke bar?
>
> > > > > They are often intolerant assholes and incapable of sustaining a
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > > They, like you, often insist on agreement and can't hold their water
> > > > > in
> > > > > the face of unrelenting differing opinion.
>
> > > > Um, 2pid, let's briefly recap: I won't agree with your "differing POV"
> > > > on military matters. If you weren't such a moron you'd see what
> > > > everybody else sees. I've *more* than "held my water" there
>
> > > *Like all your factually incorrect claims on the F-22?
>
> > Why don't you remind me of those mistaken "facts", 2pid? Are you going
> > to gnaw on the fact I mistakenly said the Chinese had a bunch of
> > MiG-17s when it was a different very obsolete MiG they have? OK, I
> > admit it: the Chinese have a pile of a different model of obsolete
> > aircraft.
>
> *And you keep ignoring their rapid acquisition of modern aircraft
> superior
> to the F-15s and 16s which we can't even get to theater in great
> numbers.

I think the number you seek is 200. So we cannot get enough F-22s or
enough of any other type there fast enough to make a difference. And
yet according to you this supports your argument that we need even
more of them. LoL.

> > Revising history shows a remarkable lack of integrity.
>
> LoL. *I think you should consider remembering history first.
> (snip the same old BS).

Speaking of great numbers. will they be able to stand off 5500 F-35s
and the 188 F-22s we already have, numbskull? IIRC when I pointed out
the number of F-35s on order you bailed out of the 'discussion'.
Perhaps you can find your response and prove me wrong about that. LoL.

LoL. Same old bull**** indeed. Here, 2pid, is why 'discussing' things
with you is a waste of time.

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 22, 11:24*am, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 9:41*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 8:32*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 20, 1:02*pm, The One > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 19, 2:53*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 18, 9:26*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > > > > > Um, 2pid, let's briefly recap: I won't agree with your "differing POV"
> > > > > > on military matters. If you weren't such a moron you'd see what
> > > > > > everybody else sees. I've *more* than "held my water" there
>
> > > > > *Like all your factually incorrect claims on the F-22?
>
> > > > Why don't you remind me of those mistaken "facts", 2pid? Are you going
> > > > to gnaw on the fact I mistakenly said the Chinese had a bunch of
> > > > MiG-17s when it was a different very obsolete MiG they have? OK, I
> > > > admit it: the Chinese have a pile of a different model of obsolete
> > > > aircraft.
>
> > > *And you keep ignoring their rapid acquisition of modern aircraft
> > > superior
> > > to the F-15s and 16s which we can't even get to theater in great
> > > numbers.
>
> > I think the number you seek is 200. So we cannot get enough F-22s or
> > enough of any other type there fast enough to make a difference. And
> > yet according to you this supports your argument that we need even
> > more of them. LoL.
>
> > > > Revising history shows a remarkable lack of integrity.
>
> > > LoL. *I think you should consider remembering history first.
> > > (snip the same old BS).
>
> > Speaking of great numbers. will they be able to stand off 5500 F-35s
> > and the 188 F-22s we already have, numbskull?
>
> *You're seriously losing it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II
>
> "As of 5 January 2009, six F-35s are complete, including AF-1 and
> AG-1, and 17 are in production. "Thirteen of the 17 in production are
> pre-production test aircraft, and all of those will be finished in
> 2009," said John R. Kent, acting manager of F-35 Lightning II
> Communications at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company. "The other four
> are the first production-model planes, and the first of those will be
> delivered in 2010 to the U.S. Air Force, and will go to Eglin."

Really? I'm losing it? LoL.

F-35 orders remain a matter of debate, but current plans call for the
US and UK to purchase approximately 2,600 aircraft. The US Air Force
originally planned for 2,036 F-35A aircraft but reduced its
requirement to 1,763 in 1997. This total remains the offical
requirement though the Air Force has unofficially indicated its order
will be reduced to between 1,000 and 1,300 aircraft. Some number of
these may also be F-35B models as the Air Force has expressed a
requirement for up to 250 STOVL aircraft for close air support
missions. Such a purchase would likely assist in reducing unit cost
and improving the stability of the STOVL program, which has often been
targeted for possible cancellation.

The US Navy and Marine Corps have also begun closer joint operations
of their combat aircraft wings in part to reduce the need for new
aircraft. The Marines originally requested 642 F-35B models while the
Navy wanted 300 F-35C variants. In 1997, these figures were refined to
609 for the Marines and 480 for the Navy for a total of 1,089 F-35
aircraft. As of 2004, that total had been reduced to 680 aircraft
including 350 F-35B variants and 330 F-35C models. The services have
yet to determine how those aircraft will be allocated since the
Marines may recieve a mixture of both CV and STOVL aircraft. Likewise,
the Royal Navy may split its order between the F-35 STOVL and F-35 CV
models since the F-35C models could potentially be operated aboard the
UK's large aircraft carriers due to enter service in the 2010s. The
total UK order has shrunk from 150 to 138 aircraft.

The United Kingdom planned to acquire 138 F-35Bs as of December 2006
[63] for the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy.[64]
Italy plans to acquire a total of 131 F-35s, of which 74 are F-35As
and 57 are F-35Bs.[70
The Netherlands has plans to acquire 85 F-35As and options on another
15 F-35A for the Royal Netherlands Air Force.
The Turkish Air Force is planning to initially order 116[78][79] F-35A
"CTOL/Air Force versions"
Australia is participating in the F-35's development, but has not yet
placed an order for the aircraft. It is expected that some 75 to 100
F-35As will be ordered to replace the Royal Australian Air Force's
(RAAF's) F/A-18 Hornet aircraft

This leaves out Canada, Singapore, and a host of others. And it
doesn't address the 188 F-22s already in service.

Let's look at China's Air Force (the one you're so afraid of):

The current inventory is composed primarily of third- and fourth-
generation fighters and fighter-bombers, including 800~1,000 J-7
(MiG-21 Fishbed) and J-8II fighters, 76 Russian-built Su-27 fighters,
95~116 Chinese-assembled J-11 fighters, 76 Russian Su-30MKK multirole
fighters, and some 60~80 Chinese indigenous J-10 multirole fighters.

MiG-21 Fishbed:

Early versions are considered second-generation jet fighters, while
later versions are considered to be third-generation jet fighters.
Some 50 countries over four continents have flown the MiG-21, and it
still serves many nations a half-century after its maiden flight.

(PS, 2pid: even though supersonic, this is an obsolete Korean-war-era
aircraft. So as you see, my position that the PLAAF is mostly obsolete
is proven true...again. Once again, my *sincere* apologies for
shooting from memoory and mistakenly saying MiG-17 instead of the
*far* more capable MiG-21. LoL.)

J-8II:

The J-8II entered full-scale development in September 1980. The first
J-8II prototype was completed in March 1984, and was test flown for
the first time on 12 June. The aircraft was certified for design
finalisation in October 1988 after completing its test flights.
However, the initial operational capability was delayed due to the
aircraft’s trouble-prone avionics and the slow progress in the
development of the semi-active radar-homing MRAAM.

Su-27:

Complementing the smaller MiG-29, its closest American counterpart is
the F-15 Eagle.
(See this, 2pid? LoL)

J-11:

The Shenyang J-11 (JianJi-11) is an advanced 4th-generation fighter in
the People's Liberation Army Air Force. It is a copy of the Russian
Sukhoi Su-27 SK air-superiority fighter aircraft built by Shenyang
Aircraft Corporation (SAC). (i.e. see above)

Su-30:

The Sukhoi Su-30 (NATO reporting name "Flanker-C") is a twin-engine
military aircraft developed by Russia's Sukhoi Aviation Corporation
and introduced into operational service in 1996. It is a multi-role
strike fighter that can perform both air superiority and ground attack
missions. The strike fighter is a two-seated, dual-role strike fighter
for all-weather, air-to-air and air-to-surface deep interdiction
missions; very comparable to F-15E Strike Eagle.

J-10:

Known in the West as the "Vigorous Dragon",[5] the J-10 is designed to
be a Single-engine, single-seater multirole fighter capable for
interception, air superiority, and ground attack missions. It is to be
equally useful in both the fighter and light bomber roles and is
optimized for all-weather day/night operation.

People's Liberation Army Air Force - Over 100 in service; it is
rumoured that a total of 300 may be produced.

Go find a picture of the J-10, 2pid. It looks a lot like an F-16. ;-)

> Hanging out in Karaoke bars is going to your head.

Tell me again why we need to order more F-22s. This proves (again) my
initial premises: We don't need any more F-22s and you is a imbecile.

Around and around, 2pid chases his tail and wonders why there aren't
more serious 'discussions' over his 'points'. Can you see what a waste
of time you are, 2pid? Everybody else can. LoL.

LoL.