Carts and arms vs. carts and phono stages

[Bret L]

It isn't a matter of "versus", but a matter of electrical and
mechanical/resonance compatibility.

No one ever really points out that most of the subjective blather in
non-testing (non-measuring that is) comparisons is really useless
because you have these variables lfoating around. And the vast
majority of the high end sales and reviewers are not only wholly
ignorant of the issue, and have no METHODOLOGY to deal with it, but
DON'T KNOW, and DON'T CARE, that they are wholly ignorant.

Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.

But if you suggest these same people are therefore not to be taken
seriously,,,,oh boy do they get upset.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:

> and have no METHODOLOGY

> *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.

Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 1, 8:12*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.

Like arms and cartridges, it's very easy to find a phono preamp from
$600 to $1000 that will handle virtually every cartridge on the
market. At this price point, go for the preamp that lets you make
adjustments via knobs on the front vs. internal dip switches.

[Bret L]

On Jun 1, 8:12*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.

I actually don't have a methodology or a fixed procedure. But at
least I KNOW I am lacking this important information (and seek to
correct this deficiency) whereas the high enders both lack it and the
knowledge that it is necessary.

As for "any modern pre will work", yes, after a fashion it will.

Permanently soldered components-the right ones once you know what
they are-are an advantage over DIP or panel rotary, or even the relays
used for remote controlled settings. That's why optimum results mean
you have to be able to solder. Optimum, means the best possible.
Consumerized solutions can approach but never achieve it since they
have to accomodate all contingencies.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 2, 4:06*pm, Bret L > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 8:12*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > > *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> > Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.
>
> *I actually don't have a methodology or a fixed procedure. But at
> least I KNOW I am lacking this important information (and seek to
> correct this deficiency) *whereas the high enders both lack it and the
> knowledge that it is necessary.
>
> *As for "any modern pre will work", yes, after a fashion it will.
>
> *Permanently soldered components-the right ones once you know what
> they are-are an advantage over DIP or panel rotary, or even the relays
> used for remote controlled settings. That's why optimum results mean
> you have to be able to solder. Optimum, means the best possible.
> Consumerized solutions can approach but never achieve it since they
> have to accomodate all contingencies.

And yet the best-sounding phono preamps tend to have all the user
conveniences as well, so you can have your cake and eat it too.

Your comments mirror the fact that the best speaker wire connections
are ones that are hardwired inside the speakers. Too bad it can't be
approved by UL. But if you DIYers want to set your houses on fire, go
ahead.

[Bret L]

On Jun 2, 8:01*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:06*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 8:12*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > > > *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> > > Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY..
>
> > *I actually don't have a methodology or a fixed procedure. But at
> > least I KNOW I am lacking this important information (and seek to
> > correct this deficiency) *whereas the high enders both lack it and the
> > knowledge that it is necessary.
>
> > *As for "any modern pre will work", yes, after a fashion it will.
>
> > *Permanently soldered components-the right ones once you know what
> > they are-are an advantage over DIP or panel rotary, or even the relays
> > used for remote controlled settings. That's why optimum results mean
> > you have to be able to solder. Optimum, means the best possible.
> > Consumerized solutions can approach but never achieve it since they
> > have to accomodate all contingencies.
>
> And yet the best-sounding phono preamps tend to have all the user
> conveniences as well, so you can have your cake and eat it too.
>
> Your comments mirror the fact that the best speaker wire connections
> are ones that are hardwired inside the speakers. Too bad it can't be
> approved by UL. But if you DIYers want to set your houses on fire, go
> ahead.

UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.

Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
products are not UL approved.

EU countries require a different approval.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 3, 8:18*pm, Bret L > wrote:
> On Jun 2, 8:01*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 2, 4:06*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 8:12*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > > > > *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> > > > Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.
>
> > > *I actually don't have a methodology or a fixed procedure. But at
> > > least I KNOW I am lacking this important information (and seek to
> > > correct this deficiency) *whereas the high enders both lack it and the
> > > knowledge that it is necessary.
>
> > > *As for "any modern pre will work", yes, after a fashion it will.
>
> > > *Permanently soldered components-the right ones once you know what
> > > they are-are an advantage over DIP or panel rotary, or even the relays
> > > used for remote controlled settings. That's why optimum results mean
> > > you have to be able to solder. Optimum, means the best possible.
> > > Consumerized solutions can approach but never achieve it since they
> > > have to accomodate all contingencies.
>
> > And yet the best-sounding phono preamps tend to have all the user
> > conveniences as well, so you can have your cake and eat it too.
>
> > Your comments mirror the fact that the best speaker wire connections
> > are ones that are hardwired inside the speakers. Too bad it can't be
> > approved by UL. But if you DIYers want to set your houses on fire, go
> > ahead.
>
> UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> products are not UL approved.
>
> *EU countries require a different approval.

I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.

[Bret L]

> > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > products are not UL approved.
>
> > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.

I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 4, 8:51*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 3, 7:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> * That's because UL is not a requirement and Boon is an ignorant
> idiot.
>
> UL certification is not a regulatory requirement in any country
> including the US.
>
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/viewpoint/products...
>
> *"the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency
> responsible for protecting consumers from serious injury and death,
> have no specific federal safety standards. Instead, the CPSC relies
> heavily on voluntary standards developed by organizations such as the
> American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International, and
> Underwriters Laboratories (UL). "
>
> Note the key word..."voluntary".
>
> Eu requirements are documented in numerous IEC standards.
>
> Obviously Boon is lying when he quotes anonymous engineers and
> behavior therapists.
> Thats why he lives on usenet, reality rarely rarely intrudes on his
> delusions.

Oh, Jesus Christ you're dumb.

UL approval is based upon safety standards that are approved by OSHA.
A UL Certification mark is an important aspect of any consumer
product, and most manufacturers of electrical products strive to meet
those standards so that consumers will know that their products are
safe.

You know, I'm looking at all my equipment, and every single one has a
UL Certification mark on the back. I was told by at least one of those
three years that a UL Certification is company policy.

Now, show me how how you have disproven any of this. That will be
another apology you owe me for lying about me. And I will collect one
day.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 3, 9:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
> > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.

This went over your head, I see.

Where did I say the cables would be hardwired? INSIDE THE AMP.

It would be the amp that would not recive UL certification.

Understand now?

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 4, 12:30*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 8:51*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 7:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections..
>
> > > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > * That's because UL is not a requirement and Boon is an ignorant
> > idiot.
>
> > UL certification is not a regulatory requirement in any country
> > including the US.
>
> >http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/viewpoint/products...
>
> > *"the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency
> > responsible for protecting consumers from serious injury and death,
> > have no specific federal safety standards. Instead, the CPSC relies
> > heavily on voluntary standards developed by organizations such as the
> > American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International, and
> > Underwriters Laboratories (UL). "
>
> > Note the key word..."voluntary".
>
> > Eu requirements are documented in numerous IEC standards.
>
> > Obviously Boon is lying when he quotes anonymous engineers and
> > behavior therapists.
> > Thats why he lives on usenet, reality rarely rarely intrudes on his
> > delusions.
>
> Oh, Jesus Christ you're dumb.
>
> UL approval is based upon safety standards that are approved by OSHA.
> A UL Certification mark is an important aspect of any consumer
> product, and most manufacturers of electrical products strive to meet
> those standards so that consumers will know that their products are
> safe.
>
> You know, I'm looking at all my equipment, and every single one has a
> UL Certification mark on the back. I was told by at least one of those
> three years

I meant engineers.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 4, 12:32*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 3, 9:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> This went over your head, I see.
>
> Where did I say the cables would be hardwired? INSIDE THE AMP.

Actually, I said the speakers, but it would be the amp that would not
receive UL approval.

>
> It would be the amp that would not receive UL certification.
>
> Understand now?

[Bret L]

On Jun 4, 1:29*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 12:32*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 9:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections..
>
> > > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > This went over your head, I see.
>
> > Where did I say the cables would be hardwired? INSIDE THE AMP.
>
> Actually, I said the speakers, but it would be the amp that would not
> receive UL approval.
>
>
>
> > It would be the amp that would not receive UL certification.
>
> > Understand now?

I don't know if there would be a UL rule against a mfr. hardwiring
speaker cables to the amplifier, or not. I have never had the urge to
do it, and can't imagine there would really be a benefit vs. a good
terminal connection, although the present day terminals COULD be
improved on. It is true that modifying an existing amplifier might
void its UL certification. Whether that would matter is a matter of
conjecture and any agreements, restrictions or ordinances the end user
might be party to.

IN US domestic use likely no one would give a ****.

Some building codes DO require UL approval or other specific
approvals for installed equipment, usually for commercial but that can
be residential too. Installed, means that: built in to a structure.

There are also other approvals some specific commercial equipment
needs. Altec PA amplifiers were specifically approved by fire boards
for use in emergency fire alarm systems, and I am sure someone makes
an equivalent now.

Companies whose policies require UL certification do so generally for
product liability reasons.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 4, 4:08*pm, Bret L > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 1:29*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 12:32*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 3, 9:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > > This went over your head, I see.
>
> > > Where did I say the cables would be hardwired? INSIDE THE AMP.
>
> > Actually, I said the speakers, but it would be the amp that would not
> > receive UL approval.
>
> > > It would be the amp that would not receive UL certification.
>
> > > Understand now?
>
> *I don't know if there would be a UL rule against a mfr. hardwiring
> speaker cables to the amplifier, *or not. I have never had the urge to
> do it, and can't imagine there would really be a benefit vs. a good
> terminal connection, although the present day terminals COULD be
> improved on. It is true that modifying an existing amplifier might
> void its UL certification. Whether that would matter is a matter of
> conjecture and any agreements, restrictions or ordinances the end user
> might be party to.

Well, I do admit to making that mistake. I thought I had said
hardwired into the amp, not the speaker. No wonder you were confused.
So I apologize for that. Scott, however, is not off the hook for his
out-of-line comments.

One hi-fi manufacturer, someone who had a Ph.D. in electrical
engineering, said that he had hardwired his amplification at home on
both ends (in the amp and in the speaker), and it was by far the best
method for terminating speaker cable. He said he wished he could do it
in his products, but he couldn't get a UL approval if he did. Another
engineer in the room nodded in agreement. So what this tells me is
that an UL approval is a highly desirable thing in the elctronics
market, and it makes the difference between doing something one way,
or doing it another.

Scott's strange, disconnected comments don't seem to address this at
all, but rather reveal another one of his mindless audio vendettas
against me. Too bad he's now 0 for 7. I wonder what it's like going
through life wrong about EVERYTHING.

>
> *IN US domestic use likely no one would give a ****.
>
> *Some building codes DO require UL approval or other specific
> approvals for installed equipment, usually for commercial but that can
> be residential too. Installed, means that: built in to a structure.

Agreed.

>
> *There are also other approvals some specific commercial equipment
> needs. Altec PA amplifiers were specifically approved by fire boards
> for use in emergency fire alarm systems, and I am sure someone makes
> an equivalent now.
>
> *Companies whose policies require UL certification do so generally for
> product liability reasons.

That, and marketing as well.

By the way, I know someone who works for th Border Patrol in Southern
California. Her assignment is to find counterfeit merchandise (i.e.
batteries, electronics, etc.) in local stores. She always looks for
two things: the UL certification, and whether or not words are
misspelled on the packaging. She showed me a package of "Everedy" AA
batteries to illustrate her point. It was also missing the UL stamp.

So UL approval is much more important than Scott thinks, not that he
would notice if he was using Energiser batteries or not.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 10:02*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 7:53*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 4:08*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 4, 1:29*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 4, 12:32*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 3, 9:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > > > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try..
>
> > > > > > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > > > > This went over your head, I see.
>
> > > > > Where did I say the cables would be hardwired? INSIDE THE AMP.
>
> > > > Actually, I said the speakers, but it would be the amp that would not
> > > > receive UL approval.
>
> > > > > It would be the amp that would not receive UL certification.
>
> > > > > Understand now?
>
> > > *I don't know if there would be a UL rule against a mfr. hardwiring
> > > speaker cables to the amplifier, *or not. I have never had the urge to
> > > do it, and can't imagine there would really be a benefit vs. a good
> > > terminal connection, although the present day terminals COULD be
> > > improved on. It is true that modifying an existing amplifier might
> > > void its UL certification. Whether that would matter is a matter of
> > > conjecture and any agreements, restrictions or ordinances the end user
> > > might be party to.
>
> > Well, I do admit to making that mistake. I thought I had said
> > hardwired into the amp, not the speaker. No wonder you were confused.
> > So I apologize for that. Scott, however, is not off the hook for his
> > out-of-line comments.
>
> > One hi-fi manufacturer, someone who had a Ph.D. in electrical
> > engineering, said that he had hardwired his amplification at home on
> > both ends (in the amp and in the speaker), and it was by far the best
> > method for terminating speaker cable. He said he wished he could do it
> > in his products, but he couldn't get a UL approval if he did. Another
> > engineer in the room nodded in agreement. So what this tells me is
> > that an UL approval is a highly desirable thing in the elctronics
> > market,
>
> As a marketing tool it has little value.

And yet I see "UL approved" on marketing copy everywhere.

*You noted yourself that you
> had to look and see if the UL symbol was on your gear.

So? You had to look up "UL approval" to make sure you wouldn't screw
this up. And yet you still did.

>
> >and it makes the difference between doing something one way,
> > or doing it another.
>
> *You're really an idiot. As a "business owner" you should have some
> experience selling something but you obviously don't.

I obviously do. Just saying "you're really an idiot" just doesn't cut
it. There seems to be a big gap between what's in your head and what
you post. Is it the Aspergers, or just stupidity?

> *Have you ever had to obtain product liability insurance?
> *You probably never met the min stds of an insurer for sales volume
> but if you did, you'd find UL tied to the insurance companies. *Not US
> regulatory requirements.

I've never said otherwise, idiot!

> Do you find value in your UL stamp? They aren't cheap but I'm sure
> they're the only thing that keeps you from burning your house down.

That makes no sense in English, Lionel...er, I mean Scott.

I still can't quite figure out why someone like you, who can't express
what he's thinking into written words, still spends so much time
posting on Usenet. It's like you're in your own little world where
everything makes sense to you, and everyone else should know what's in
your pointed little head. At least Bret had reasonable issues with
what I said. You, on the other hand, seem to be manufacturing some
abstract argument that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

And you think you don't have Aspergers? ROTFLMAO!

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 9:47*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 4, 10:34*am, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 12:30*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 4, 8:51*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 3, 7:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > > > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > > > * That's because UL is not a requirement and Boon is an ignorant
> > > > idiot.
>
> > > > UL certification is not a regulatory requirement in any country
> > > > including the US.
>
> > > >http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/viewpoint/products...
>
> > > > *"the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency
> > > > responsible for protecting consumers from serious injury and death,
> > > > have no specific federal safety standards. Instead, the CPSC relies
> > > > heavily on voluntary standards developed by organizations such as the
> > > > American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International, and
> > > > Underwriters Laboratories (UL). "
>
> > > > Note the key word..."voluntary".
>
> > > > Eu requirements are documented in numerous IEC standards.
>
> > > > Obviously Boon is lying when he quotes anonymous engineers and
> > > > behavior therapists.
> > > > Thats why he lives on usenet, reality rarely rarely intrudes on his
> > > > delusions.
>
> > > Oh, Jesus Christ you're dumb.
>
> > > UL approval is based upon safety standards that are approved by OSHA.
> > > A UL Certification mark is an important aspect of any consumer
> > > product, and most manufacturers of electrical products strive to meet
> > > those standards so that consumers will know that their products are
> > > safe.
>
> > > You know, I'm looking at all my equipment, and every single one has a
> > > UL Certification mark on the back. I was told by at least one of those
> > > three years
>
> > I meant engineers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> *Bret :Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in
> the US
>
> *Marc: I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> *The truth: UL is not required by any US law.

That's not what Bret said. Idiot. If he had, I would have phrased my
statement differently. Why can't you read English?

>
> *I will also note how Boon has difficulty counting to 3.

How's that? Because I only mentioned 2 in that particular sentence?
Could it be that another engineer made the same comment in an entirely
different incident? Why yes, Scott, it could mean that! In fact, as I
wrote that, I wondered if you would be stupid enough to make this
mistake. And yes, I was right.

I'm getting really tired of having to explain everything to you.
You're illiterate. Why are you wasting everyone's time here? Take some
remedial English courses at the local high school, and then come back
when you can properly read and write in English.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 2, 4:06*pm, Bret L > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 8:12*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > > *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> > Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.
>
> *I actually don't have a methodology or a fixed procedure. But at
> least I KNOW I am lacking this important information (and seek to
> correct this deficiency) *whereas the high enders both lack it and the
> knowledge that it is necessary.

So you know you don't have what you're whning about and you don't have
the knowledge to create one.

Yup, that's one superior position you're in alright.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 11:03*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 8:47*am, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 10:02*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 4, 7:53*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 4, 4:08*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 4, 1:29*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 4, 12:32*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 3, 9:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > > > > > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > > > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > > > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > > > > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > > > > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > > > > > > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > > > > > > This went over your head, I see.
>
> > > > > > > Where did I say the cables would be hardwired? INSIDE THE AMP..
>
> > > > > > Actually, I said the speakers, but it would be the amp that would not
> > > > > > receive UL approval.
>
> > > > > > > It would be the amp that would not receive UL certification.
>
> > > > > > > Understand now?
>
> > > > > *I don't know if there would be a UL rule against a mfr. hardwiring
> > > > > speaker cables to the amplifier, *or not. I have never had the urge to
> > > > > do it, and can't imagine there would really be a benefit vs. a good
> > > > > terminal connection, although the present day terminals COULD be
> > > > > improved on. It is true that modifying an existing amplifier might
> > > > > void its UL certification. Whether that would matter is a matter of
> > > > > conjecture and any agreements, restrictions or ordinances the end user
> > > > > might be party to.
>
> > > > Well, I do admit to making that mistake. I thought I had said
> > > > hardwired into the amp, not the speaker. No wonder you were confused.
> > > > So I apologize for that. Scott, however, is not off the hook for his
> > > > out-of-line comments.
>
> > > > One hi-fi manufacturer, someone who had a Ph.D. in electrical
> > > > engineering, said that he had hardwired his amplification at home on
> > > > both ends (in the amp and in the speaker), and it was by far the best
> > > > method for terminating speaker cable. He said he wished he could do it
> > > > in his products, but he couldn't get a UL approval if he did. Another
> > > > engineer in the room nodded in agreement. So what this tells me is
> > > > that an UL approval is a highly desirable thing in the elctronics
> > > > market,
>
> > > As a marketing tool it has little value.
>
> > And yet I see "UL approved" on marketing copy everywhere.
>
> *Sure you do. Its so diluted it has no marketing value but since they
> paid big $$ for it, they'll use it.
>
>
>
> > **You noted yourself that you
>
> > > had to look and see if the UL symbol was on your gear.
>
> > So? You had to look up "UL approval" to make sure you wouldn't screw
> > this up. And yet you still did.
>
> *LoL. *I simply provided a valid reference proving you wrong.
> All we get from you is ignorant BS spin.
>
>
>
> > > >and it makes the difference between doing something one way,
> > > > or doing it another.
>
> > > *You're really an idiot. As a "business owner" you should have some
> > > experience selling something but you obviously don't.
>
> > I obviously do. Just saying "you're really an idiot" just doesn't cut
> > it.
>
> LoL. *Hypocrisy noted. *Maybe if I added Jesus it would be more
> meaningful.
>
> > There seems to be a big gap between what's in your head and what
> > you post. Is it the Aspergers, or just stupidity?
>
> > > *Have you ever had to obtain product liability insurance?
> > > *You probably never met the min stds of an insurer for sales volume
> > > but if you did, you'd find UL tied to the insurance companies. *Not US
> > > regulatory requirements.
>
> > I've never said otherwise, idiot!
>
> * LoL. *How quickly you're forced to deny your own words.
>
>
>
> > > Do you find value in your UL stamp? They aren't cheap but I'm sure
> > > they're the only thing that keeps you from burning your house down.
>
> > That makes no sense in English, Lionel...er, I mean Scott.
>
> *Everything has to be spelled out to a moron.
> *Think back to your DIYer comment and we'll see if that obvious hint
> is enough for you. *I doubt it.
>
> Same 'ol boring boon bs on RAO.

Same old evasions from Scott after his ass has been handed to him.
What don't you just admit you made a mistake? Everyone else here feels
that you make an inordinate amount of them for a single human being.
If you showed a little backbone once in a while and said you were
wrong, you wouldn't be such an embarrassment to yourself.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 11:05*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:02*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 4:06*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 1, 8:12*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 1, 5:40*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > > > > *Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> > > > Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.
>
> > > *I actually don't have a methodology or a fixed procedure. But at
> > > least I KNOW I am lacking this important information (and seek to
> > > correct this deficiency) *whereas the high enders both lack it and the
> > > knowledge that it is necessary.
>
> > So you know you don't have what you're whning about and you don't have
> > the knowledge to create one.
>
> > Yup, that's one superior position you're in alright.
>
> Oh look, I mention the sockpuppet and poof...he appears. *Are you and
> boon bethrothed yet? *I wonder if you're joined at the hip or the
> cortex. *LoL.

Arny had this same delusion. You're so lovable that it's impossible
for more than one person to dislike you. Must be sockpuppets.

No, Scott...you're an idiot, a court jester. We poke fun at you
because you're so obtuse. You make it even better by remaining here
and absorbing the abuse. If you had any dignity, you would have left
years ago.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 11:24*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 8:54*am, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:47*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 4, 10:34*am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 4, 12:30*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 4, 8:51*am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 3, 7:38*pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > > > > > > *Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > > > > > *EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > > > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > > > > > *I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > > > > > * That's because UL is not a requirement and Boon is an ignorant
> > > > > > idiot.
>
> > > > > > UL certification is not a regulatory requirement in any country
> > > > > > including the US.
>
> > > > > >http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/mission/viewpoint/products...
>
> > > > > > *"the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the federal agency
> > > > > > responsible for protecting consumers from serious injury and death,
> > > > > > have no specific federal safety standards. Instead, the CPSC relies
> > > > > > heavily on voluntary standards developed by organizations such as the
> > > > > > American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ASTM International, and
> > > > > > Underwriters Laboratories (UL). "
>
> > > > > > Note the key word..."voluntary".
>
> > > > > > Eu requirements are documented in numerous IEC standards.
>
> > > > > > Obviously Boon is lying when he quotes anonymous engineers and
> > > > > > behavior therapists.
> > > > > > Thats why he lives on usenet, reality rarely rarely intrudes on his
> > > > > > delusions.
>
> > > > > Oh, Jesus Christ you're dumb.
>
> > > > > UL approval is based upon safety standards that are approved by OSHA.
> > > > > A UL Certification mark is an important aspect of any consumer
> > > > > product, and most manufacturers of electrical products strive to meet
> > > > > those standards so that consumers will know that their products are
> > > > > safe.
>
> > > > > You know, I'm looking at all my equipment, and every single one has a
> > > > > UL Certification mark on the back. I was told by at least one of those
> > > > > three years
>
> > > > I meant engineers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > *Bret :Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in
> > > the US
>
> > > *Marc: I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > *The truth: UL is not required by any US law.
>
> > That's not what Bret said. Idiot. If he had, I would have phrased my
> > statement differently. Why can't you read English?
>
> Do you need the whole thing repeated for your weak mind? *Ok.
>
> Brett:
> Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> products are not UL approved.
>
> EU countries require a different approval.
>
> Moron:
> I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> How many times do I have to repaste this before you can recognize your
> own stupidity? * Never mind. *It's obvious you never will.

There was never a question of what was written. There is a question of
your addled perception what was written.

How many times do I have to repeat this before you can recognize your
own stupidity? Since you're autistic, the answer is obvious.

Just quit posting on Usenet groups and give the smart people a break,
okay?

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 11:27�am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:10�am, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 11:03�am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 8:47�am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 5, 10:02�am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 4, 7:53�pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 4, 4:08�pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jun 4, 1:29�pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 12:32�pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 9:38�pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > UL approval applies to mains connections, not speaker connections.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > �Even then UL approval is not required for consumer products in the US
> > > > > > > > > > > > except under certain conditions. Many high end audio commercial
> > > > > > > > > > > > products are not UL approved.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > �EU countries require a different approval.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I've had three separate engineers tell me otherwise. Nice try.
>
> > > > > > > > > > �I don't see UL symbols on speaker cables or speakers.
>
> > > > > > > > > This went over your head, I see.
>
> > > > > > > > > Where did I say the cables would be hardwired? INSIDE THE AMP.
>
> > > > > > > > Actually, I said the speakers, but it would be the amp that would not
> > > > > > > > receive UL approval.
>
> > > > > > > > > It would be the amp that would not receive UL certification.
>
> > > > > > > > > Understand now?
>
> > > > > > > �I don't know if there would be a UL rule against a mfr. hardwiring
> > > > > > > speaker cables to the amplifier, �or not. I have never had the urge to
> > > > > > > do it, and can't imagine there would really be a benefit vs. a good
> > > > > > > terminal connection, although the present day terminals COULD be
> > > > > > > improved on. It is true that modifying an existing amplifier might
> > > > > > > void its UL certification. Whether that would matter is a matter of
> > > > > > > conjecture and any agreements, restrictions or ordinances the end user
> > > > > > > might be party to.
>
> > > > > > Well, I do admit to making that mistake. I thought I had said
> > > > > > hardwired into the amp, not the speaker. No wonder you were confused.
> > > > > > So I apologize for that. Scott, however, is not off the hook for his
> > > > > > out-of-line comments.
>
> > > > > > One hi-fi manufacturer, someone who had a Ph.D. in electrical
> > > > > > engineering, said that he had hardwired his amplification at home on
> > > > > > both ends (in the amp and in the speaker), and it was by far the best
> > > > > > method for terminating speaker cable. He said he wished he could do it
> > > > > > in his products, but he couldn't get a UL approval if he did. Another
> > > > > > engineer in the room nodded in agreement. So what this tells me is
> > > > > > that an UL approval is a highly desirable thing in the elctronics
> > > > > > market,
>
> > > > > As a marketing tool it has little value.
>
> > > > And yet I see "UL approved" on marketing copy everywhere.
>
> > > �Sure you do. Its so diluted it has no marketing value but since they
> > > paid big $$ for it, they'll use it.
>
> > > > ��You noted yourself that you
>
> > > > > had to look and see if the UL symbol was on your gear.
>
> > > > So? You had to look up "UL approval" to make sure you wouldn't screw
> > > > this up. And yet you still did.
>
> > > �LoL. �I simply provided a valid reference proving you wrong.
> > > All we get from you is ignorant BS spin.
>
> > > > > >and it makes the difference between doing something one way,
> > > > > > or doing it another.
>
> > > > > �You're really an idiot. As a "business owner" you should have some
> > > > > experience selling something but you obviously don't.
>
> > > > I obviously do. Just saying "you're really an idiot" just doesn't cut
> > > > it.
>
> > > LoL. �Hypocrisy noted. �Maybe if I added Jesus it would be more
> > > meaningful.
>
> > > > There seems to be a big gap between what's in your head and what
> > > > you post. Is it the Aspergers, or just stupidity?
>
> > > > > �Have you ever had to obtain product liability insurance?
> > > > > �You probably never met the min stds of an insurer for sales volume
> > > > > but if you did, you'd find UL tied to the insurance companies. �Not US
> > > > > regulatory requirements.
>
> > > > I've never said otherwise, idiot!
>
> > > � LoL. �How quickly you're forced to deny your own words.
>
> > > > > Do you find value in your UL stamp? They aren't cheap but I'm sure
> > > > > they're the only thing that keeps you from burning your house down.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 5, 11:30�am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:13�am, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 11:05�am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 5, 9:02�am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 2, 4:06�pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 1, 8:12�pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 1, 5:40�pm, Bret L > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > and have no METHODOLOGY
> > > > > > > �Clear and concise procedures are no where to be found.
>
> > > > > > Go ahead. Post the "clear and concise" procedures and the METHODOLOGY.
>
> > > > > �I actually don't have a methodology or a fixed procedure.. But at
> > > > > least I KNOW I am lacking this important information (and seek to
> > > > > correct this deficiency) �whereas the high enders both lack it and the
> > > > > knowledge that it is necessary.
>
> > > > So you know you don't have what you're whning about and you don't have
> > > > the knowledge to create one.
>
> > > > Yup, that's one superior position you're in alright.
>
> > > Oh look, I mention the sockpuppet and poof...he appears. �Are you and
> > > boon bethrothed yet? �I wonder if you're joined at the hip or the
> > > cortex. �LoL.
>
> > Arny had this same delusion. You're so lovable that it's impossible
> > for more than one person to dislike you. Must be sockpuppets.
>
> > No, Scott...you're an idiot, a court jester. We poke fun at you
> > because you're so obtuse.
>
> Ah yes...the wee minded and their puppets.
>
> Sort of like the democrats and latino voters.
>
> Whoosh....Boon doesn't even need to duck for that one. LoL.

Don't try to infuse your simple-minded, naive politics into the
discussion. You're always spamming. This was a thread about phono
components and now you're trying to hijack it toward some racist rant
about Latinos. **** off and leave the group now. Your post will be
reported both as spam and as containing racist content.

[GeoSynch]

Boon wrote:

> Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> where i claimed to handle someone's ass.

That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
> Boon wrote:
> > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.

And I know that firsthand.

[GeoSynch]

Boon wrote:

>> > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
>> > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.

> > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.

> And I know that firsthand.

Maybe the chicks up in Minnesota don't mind having their frostbitten buns groped
and warmed up by the likes of Jilly and other pervs.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
> Boon wrote:
> > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.

Those weren't "gropes".

They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.

[GeoSynch]

Jilly got cheeky:

> > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.

> Those weren't "gropes".
> They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.

So, the Austin broads were groping Jilly's butt at the same time she was groping
theirs?

What was playing on the jukebox - "Dancing Cheek To Cheek"?

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 7, 8:11*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
> Jilly got cheeky:
>
> > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
> > Those weren't "gropes".
> > They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.
>
> So, the Austin broads were groping Jilly's butt at the same time she was groping
> theirs?

You're slipping. You probably meant to say "Austin dudes".

> What was playing on the jukebox - "Dancing Cheek To Cheek"?

It was a club with live music. I think they were playing "Body and
Soul".

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 7, 10:32*am, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > Boon wrote:
> > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> And I know that firsthand.

So now you're claiming that I "handled your ass"? LMAO!

The meltdown continues...

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 7, 9:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 10:32*am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > Boon wrote:
> > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > And I know that firsthand.
>
> So now you're claiming that I "handled your ass"? LMAO!
>
> The meltdown continues...

Nope. I claim you handed my ass.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 7, 9:42*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 9:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 10:32*am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > And I know that firsthand.
>
> > So now you're claiming that I "handled your ass"? LMAO!
>
> > The meltdown continues...
>
> Nope. I claim you handed my ass.

That's not what you said at all. Now you're sounding like 2pid.

I remember you doing that in Austin. Then you'd stare off into space.
At first I thought you were looking to see if they had the Bushmill's
you were craving but now I know the real reason.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 7, 9:51�pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 9:42�pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:11�pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 10:32�am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 6, 11:56�pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > > And I know that firsthand.
>
> > > So now you're claiming that I "handled your ass"? LMAO!
>
> > > The meltdown continues...
>
> > Nope. I claim you handed my ass.
>
> That's not what you said at all. Now you're sounding like 2pid.
>
> I remember you doing that in Austin. Then you'd stare off into space.
> At first I thought you were looking to see if they had the Bushmill's
> you were craving but now I know the real reason.

I saw a bottle of 21-year-old Bushmill's tonight for $165. I thought
of you and you're inexperience with fine liqcour.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 8, 12:08*am, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 9:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 9:42 pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 7, 9:11 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 7, 10:32 am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 6, 11:56 pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > > > And I know that firsthand.
>
> > > > So now you're claiming that I "handled your ass"? LMAO!
>
> > > > The meltdown continues...
>
> > > Nope. I claim you handed my ass.
>
> > That's not what you said at all. Now you're sounding like 2pid.
>
> > I remember you doing that in Austin. Then you'd stare off into space.
> > At first I thought you were looking to see if they had the Bushmill's
> > you were craving but now I know the real reason.
>
> I saw a bottle of 21-year-old Bushmill's tonight for $165. I thought
> of you and you're inexperience with fine liqcour.

I have a bottle of 30-year-old Boone's Farm I'll sell you for half
that.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 7, 6:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > Boon wrote:
> > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> Those weren't "gropes".
>
> They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.

For the record, I felt no passion when you clawed at my ripped
physique and I pushed you away, disgusted.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 8, 12:20*am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 12:08*am, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 9:51 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 9:42 pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 7, 9:11 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 7, 10:32 am, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 11:56 pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > > > > And I know that firsthand.
>
> > > > > So now you're claiming that I "handled your ass"? LMAO!
>
> > > > > The meltdown continues...
>
> > > > Nope. I claim you handed my ass.
>
> > > That's not what you said at all. Now you're sounding like 2pid.
>
> > > I remember you doing that in Austin. Then you'd stare off into space.
> > > At first I thought you were looking to see if they had the Bushmill's
> > > you were craving but now I know the real reason.
>
> > I saw a bottle of 21-year-old Bushmill's tonight for $165. I thought
> > of you and you're inexperience with fine liqcour.
>
> I have a bottle of 30-year-old Boone's Farm I'll sell you for half
> that.

Just wipe the vomit off the label first.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 8, 10:09*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 7, 6:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > Boon wrote:
> > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > Those weren't "gropes".
>
> > They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.
>
> For the record, I felt no passion when you clawed at my ripped
> physique and I pushed you away, disgusted.

Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket.
That must be it.

[GeoSynch]

Jilly gargled:

> Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket. That must
> be it.

Does that solve the mystery of the metallic taste in your mouth, old girl?

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 8, 11:07*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 10:09*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 6:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > Those weren't "gropes".
>
> > > They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy..
>
> > For the record, I felt no passion when you clawed at my ripped
> > physique and I pushed you away, disgusted.
>
> Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket.
> That must be it.

Being too close to you definitely results in some major shrinkage.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 8, 11:12*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
> Jilly gargled:
>
> > Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket. That must
> > be it.
>
> Does that solve the mystery of the metallic taste in your mouth, old girl?

Scabs don't taste metallic, old girl.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 8, 11:34*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:07*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 10:09*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 7, 6:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > > Those weren't "gropes".
>
> > > > They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.
>
> > > For the record, I felt no passion when you clawed at my ripped
> > > physique and I pushed you away, disgusted.
>
> > Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket.
> > That must be it.
>
> Being too close to you definitely results in some major shrinkage.

Hm. "Rock hard" and "shrinkage".

The two don't seem to go together.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 8, 11:46*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:34*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 11:07*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 10:09*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 7, 6:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > > > Those weren't "gropes".
>
> > > > > They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.
>
> > > > For the record, I felt no passion when you clawed at my ripped
> > > > physique and I pushed you away, disgusted.
>
> > > Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket.
> > > That must be it.
>
> > Being too close to you definitely results in some major shrinkage.
>
> Hm.

No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 9, 5:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:46*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 11:34*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 11:07*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 8, 10:09*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 7, 6:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > > > > Those weren't "gropes".
>
> > > > > > They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.
>
> > > > > For the record, I felt no passion when you clawed at my ripped
> > > > > physique and I pushed you away, disgusted.
>
> > > > Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket.
> > > > That must be it.
>
> > > Being too close to you definitely results in some major shrinkage.
>
> > Hm.
>
> No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.

Then quit begging. That was really embarrassing.

Also, please stop calling me "honey". We're not an "item".

Sheesh.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 9, 6:17*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 5:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 11:46*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 11:34*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 8, 11:07*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 8, 10:09*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 7, 6:11*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jun 6, 11:56*pm, "GeoSynch" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Boon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ass handling? None, imbecile. I challenge you to come up with an instance
> > > > > > > > > where i claimed to handle someone's ass.
>
> > > > > > > > That form of groping perversion is Jilly's specialty.
>
> > > > > > > Those weren't "gropes".
>
> > > > > > > They were mutually passionate embraces which explains Boon's jealousy.
>
> > > > > > For the record, I felt no passion when you clawed at my ripped
> > > > > > physique and I pushed you away, disgusted.
>
> > > > > Yes, I'm sure that you always have a roll of dimes in your pocket..
> > > > > That must be it.
>
> > > > Being too close to you definitely results in some major shrinkage.
>
> > > Hm.
>
> > No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.
>
> Then quit begging. That was really embarrassing.
>
> Also, please stop calling me "honey". We're not an "item".

I was calling you "homey." What a douche.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 9, 7:45*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 9, 6:17*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 5:45*pm, Boon > wrote:

> > > No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.
>
> > Then quit begging. That was really embarrassing.
>
> > Also, please stop calling me "honey". We're not an "item".
>
> I was calling you "homey." What a douche.

"Homey" and douches and poop jokes.

Your worthlessness is only exceeded by your alimony receipts. Get back
to me when you have some of the integrity you clearly and obviously
lack.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 10, 5:35�am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 7:45�pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 9, 6:17�pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 9, 5:45�pm, Boon > wrote:
> > > > No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.
>
> > > Then quit begging. That was really embarrassing.
>
> > > Also, please stop calling me "honey". We're not an "item".
>
> > I was calling you "homey." What a douche.
>
> "Homey" and douches and poop jokes.
>
> Your worthlessness is only exceeded by your alimony receipts. Get back
> to me when you have some of the integrity you clearly and obviously
> lack.

You're Usenet resume is sorely lacking. A newsgroup dies. RIP.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 10, 6:19*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 5:35 am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 7:45 pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 9, 6:17 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 9, 5:45 pm, Boon > wrote:
> > > > > No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.
>
> > > > Then quit begging. That was really embarrassing.
>
> > > > Also, please stop calling me "honey". We're not an "item".
>
> > > I was calling you "homey." What a douche.
>
> > "Homey" and douches and poop jokes.
>
> > Your worthlessness is only exceeded by your alimony receipts. Get back
> > to me when you have some of the integrity you clearly and obviously
> > lack.
>
> You're Usenet resume is sorely lacking. A newsgroup dies. RIP.

My Usenet resume is longer than yours is, as is my firehose.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jun 10, 8:16*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Jun 10, 6:19*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 5:35 am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Jun 9, 7:45 pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 9, 6:17 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 9, 5:45 pm, Boon > wrote:
> > > > > > No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.
>
> > > > > Then quit begging. That was really embarrassing.
>
> > > > > Also, please stop calling me "honey". We're not an "item".
>
> > > > I was calling you "homey." What a douche.
>
> > > "Homey" and douches and poop jokes.
>
> > > Your worthlessness is only exceeded by your alimony receipts. Get back
> > > to me when you have some of the integrity you clearly and obviously
> > > lack.
>
> > You're Usenet resume is sorely lacking. A newsgroup dies. RIP.
>
> My Usenet resume is longer than yours is, as is my firehose.

Since your firehose is a useless Usenet resume, whatever.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 10, 9:17*pm, Boon > wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:16*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 6:19*pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 10, 5:35 am, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On Jun 9, 7:45 pm, Boon > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 9, 6:17 pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Jun 9, 5:45 pm, Boon > wrote:
> > > > > > > No no no. No more hummers. Stop offering.
>
> > > > > > Then quit begging. That was really embarrassing.
>
> > > > > > Also, please stop calling me "honey". We're not an "item".
>
> > > > > I was calling you "homey." What a douche.
>
> > > > "Homey" and douches and poop jokes.
>
> > > > Your worthlessness is only exceeded by your alimony receipts. Get back
> > > > to me when you have some of the integrity you clearly and obviously
> > > > lack.
>
> > > You're Usenet resume is sorely lacking. A newsgroup dies. RIP.
>
> > My Usenet resume is longer than yours is, as is my firehose.
>
> Since your firehose is a useless Usenet resume, whatever.

I have references including Marilyn Monroe.