Jim Carr, Porky & Bob Cain...three of the stupidest ****s on the planet (my opinion)

[The Ghost]

Assuming that even one of you three stupid ****s has a serious
interest in the outcome of measurements aimed at testing the only
viable theory of Doppler distortion in a tube that has been proposed
thus far, it would seem to make more sense to show appropriate respect
for the person who volunteered his unpaid time to set up and make the
measurements. Instead you three stupid ****s went on a crusade of
disrespect, slander and character assassination of the only person who
volunteered do set up and make the measurements and to provide you
with a definitive answer on the issue. Well, the three of you stupid
****s can go to hell, because you are not going to get an answer
anytime soon and you are not going to get squat from me ever. And
before you say that I am fraud and/or don't really have the
measurement capability that I have claimed, I suggest that you hold
your tongues, because when the comparison of theory with measurement
results appears in print, I will be even further justified in
referring to you as three of the stupidest ****s on the planet.

[Porky]

"The Ghost" > wrote in message
om...
> Assuming that even one of you three stupid ****s has a serious
> interest in the outcome of measurements aimed at testing the only
> viable theory of Doppler distortion in a tube that has been proposed
> thus far, it would seem to make more sense to show appropriate respect
> for the person who volunteered his unpaid time to set up and make the
> measurements.

In the first place, the original discussion was about Doppler
"distortion" in a speaker when a speaker was reproducing a complex musical
passage. Doppler shift in a tube came up later as an attempt to simplify the
issue, but it only applies if the piston in the tube is driven in the same
way a speaker cone is, by a complex single motive source containing all the
frequencies to be reproduced. Your posts that contained anything other than
insults so far have had to do with separate motive sources for each tone,
which would tend to show that you have no understanding or the real issue,
Doppler shift in a speaker. That being the case, why would anyone have
reason to think that you were capable of setting up the experiment properly?

?Instead you three stupid ****s went on a crusade of
> disrespect, slander and character assassination of the only person who
> volunteered do set up and make the measurements and to provide you
> with a definitive answer on the issue.

You are the one who attaacked Jim and me just because we made comments that
could be construed as being in Bob Cain's defense. As far as respect goes,
you have earned none here, as for slander, here's one for you, you have no
character to assassinate. Maybe you should sue us for definition of
character. (Yes, I meant "definition", not "defamation". :-)) I think
everyone here knows you had no intention of setting up any experiment, and
considering that you've shown no sign of understanding the issue, no one
would have expected your results to be relevant even if you did an
experiment.

>Well, the three of you stupid
> ****s can go to hell, because you are not going to get an answer
> anytime soon and you are not going to get squat from me ever.

We never expected anything of value from you, and we haven't been
disappointed yet.

>And
> before you say that I am fraud and/or don't really have the
> measurement capability that I have claimed, I suggest that you hold
> your tongues, because when the comparison of theory with measurement
> results appears in print, I will be even further justified in
> referring to you as three of the stupidest ****s on the planet.

There is one more stupid than the three of us, and that is you. If
stupidity were an olympic event, you would not only win the gold medal, you
would set a world's record that would stand forever! At least we don't have
to worry about you procreating and continuing your line of stupidity....

[Porky]

"The Ghost" > wrote in message
om...
> Assuming that even one of you three stupid ****s has a serious
> interest in the outcome of measurements aimed at testing the only
> viable theory of Doppler distortion in a tube that has been proposed
> thus far, it would seem to make more sense to show appropriate respect
> for the person who volunteered his unpaid time to set up and make the
> measurements.

In the first place, the original discussion was about Doppler
"distortion" in a speaker when a speaker was reproducing a complex musical
passage. Doppler shift in a tube came up later as an attempt to simplify the
issue, but it only applies if the piston in the tube is driven in the same
way a speaker cone is, by a complex single motive source containing all the
frequencies to be reproduced. Your posts that contained anything other than
insults so far have had to do with separate motive sources for each tone,
which would tend to show that you have no understanding or the real issue,
Doppler shift in a speaker. That being the case, why would anyone have
reason to think that you were capable of setting up the experiment properly?

?Instead you three stupid ****s went on a crusade of
> disrespect, slander and character assassination of the only person who
> volunteered do set up and make the measurements and to provide you
> with a definitive answer on the issue.

You are the one who attaacked Jim and me just because we made comments that
could be construed as being in Bob Cain's defense. As far as respect goes,
you have earned none here, as for slander, here's one for you, you have no
character to assassinate. Maybe you should sue us for definition of
character. (Yes, I meant "definition", not "defamation". :-)) I think
everyone here knows you had no intention of setting up any experiment, and
considering that you've shown no sign of understanding the issue, no one
would have expected your results to be relevant even if you did an
experiment.

>Well, the three of you stupid
> ****s can go to hell, because you are not going to get an answer
> anytime soon and you are not going to get squat from me ever.

We never expected anything of value from you, and we haven't been
disappointed yet.

>And
> before you say that I am fraud and/or don't really have the
> measurement capability that I have claimed, I suggest that you hold
> your tongues, because when the comparison of theory with measurement
> results appears in print, I will be even further justified in
> referring to you as three of the stupidest ****s on the planet.

There is one more stupid than the three of us, and that is you. If
stupidity were an olympic event, you would not only win the gold medal, you
would set a world's record that would stand forever! At least we don't have
to worry about you procreating and continuing your line of stupidity....

[Porky]

"The Ghost" > wrote in message
om...
> Assuming that even one of you three stupid ****s has a serious
> interest in the outcome of measurements aimed at testing the only
> viable theory of Doppler distortion in a tube that has been proposed
> thus far, it would seem to make more sense to show appropriate respect
> for the person who volunteered his unpaid time to set up and make the
> measurements.

In the first place, the original discussion was about Doppler
"distortion" in a speaker when a speaker was reproducing a complex musical
passage. Doppler shift in a tube came up later as an attempt to simplify the
issue, but it only applies if the piston in the tube is driven in the same
way a speaker cone is, by a complex single motive source containing all the
frequencies to be reproduced. Your posts that contained anything other than
insults so far have had to do with separate motive sources for each tone,
which would tend to show that you have no understanding or the real issue,
Doppler shift in a speaker. That being the case, why would anyone have
reason to think that you were capable of setting up the experiment properly?

?Instead you three stupid ****s went on a crusade of
> disrespect, slander and character assassination of the only person who
> volunteered do set up and make the measurements and to provide you
> with a definitive answer on the issue.

You are the one who attaacked Jim and me just because we made comments that
could be construed as being in Bob Cain's defense. As far as respect goes,
you have earned none here, as for slander, here's one for you, you have no
character to assassinate. Maybe you should sue us for definition of
character. (Yes, I meant "definition", not "defamation". :-)) I think
everyone here knows you had no intention of setting up any experiment, and
considering that you've shown no sign of understanding the issue, no one
would have expected your results to be relevant even if you did an
experiment.

>Well, the three of you stupid
> ****s can go to hell, because you are not going to get an answer
> anytime soon and you are not going to get squat from me ever.

We never expected anything of value from you, and we haven't been
disappointed yet.

>And
> before you say that I am fraud and/or don't really have the
> measurement capability that I have claimed, I suggest that you hold
> your tongues, because when the comparison of theory with measurement
> results appears in print, I will be even further justified in
> referring to you as three of the stupidest ****s on the planet.

There is one more stupid than the three of us, and that is you. If
stupidity were an olympic event, you would not only win the gold medal, you
would set a world's record that would stand forever! At least we don't have
to worry about you procreating and continuing your line of stupidity....

[Don Cooper]

This stuff seems much more vicious than politics.

[Don Cooper]

This stuff seems much more vicious than politics.

[Don Cooper]

This stuff seems much more vicious than politics.

[zz zzzz]

****ing Engineers have to have a meeting about taking a ****.


In article >, Porky
> wrote:

> "The Ghost" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Assuming that even one of you three stupid ****s has a serious
> > interest in the outcome of measurements aimed at testing the only
> > viable theory of Doppler distortion in a tube that has been proposed
> > thus far, it would seem to make more sense to show appropriate respect
> > for the person who volunteered his unpaid time to set up and make the
> > measurements.
>
> In the first place, the original discussion was about Doppler
> "distortion" in a speaker when a speaker was reproducing a complex musical
> passage. Doppler shift in a tube came up later as an attempt to simplify the
> issue, but it only applies if the piston in the tube is driven in the same
> way a speaker cone is, by a complex single motive source containing all the
> frequencies to be reproduced. Your posts that contained anything other than
> insults so far have had to do with separate motive sources for each tone,
> which would tend to show that you have no understanding or the real issue,
> Doppler shift in a speaker. That being the case, why would anyone have
> reason to think that you were capable of setting up the experiment properly?
>
> ?Instead you three stupid ****s went on a crusade of
> > disrespect, slander and character assassination of the only person who
> > volunteered do set up and make the measurements and to provide you
> > with a definitive answer on the issue.
>
> You are the one who attaacked Jim and me just because we made comments that
> could be construed as being in Bob Cain's defense. As far as respect goes,
> you have earned none here, as for slander, here's one for you, you have no
> character to assassinate. Maybe you should sue us for definition of
> character. (Yes, I meant "definition", not "defamation". :-)) I think
> everyone here knows you had no intention of setting up any experiment, and
> considering that you've shown no sign of understanding the issue, no one
> would have expected your results to be relevant even if you did an
> experiment.
>
> >Well, the three of you stupid
> > ****s can go to hell, because you are not going to get an answer
> > anytime soon and you are not going to get squat from me ever.
>
> We never expected anything of value from you, and we haven't been
> disappointed yet.
>
> >And
> > before you say that I am fraud and/or don't really have the
> > measurement capability that I have claimed, I suggest that you hold
> > your tongues, because when the comparison of theory with measurement
> > results appears in print, I will be even further justified in
> > referring to you as three of the stupidest ****s on the planet.
>
> There is one more stupid than the three of us, and that is you. If
> stupidity were an olympic event, you would not only win the gold medal, you
> would set a world's record that would stand forever! At least we don't have
> to worry about you procreating and continuing your line of stupidity....
>
>

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

[zz zzzz]

****ing Engineers have to have a meeting about taking a ****.


In article >, Porky
> wrote:

> "The Ghost" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Assuming that even one of you three stupid ****s has a serious
> > interest in the outcome of measurements aimed at testing the only
> > viable theory of Doppler distortion in a tube that has been proposed
> > thus far, it would seem to make more sense to show appropriate respect
> > for the person who volunteered his unpaid time to set up and make the
> > measurements.
>
> In the first place, the original discussion was about Doppler
> "distortion" in a speaker when a speaker was reproducing a complex musical
> passage. Doppler shift in a tube came up later as an attempt to simplify the
> issue, but it only applies if the piston in the tube is driven in the same
> way a speaker cone is, by a complex single motive source containing all the
> frequencies to be reproduced. Your posts that contained anything other than
> insults so far have had to do with separate motive sources for each tone,
> which would tend to show that you have no understanding or the real issue,
> Doppler shift in a speaker. That being the case, why would anyone have
> reason to think that you were capable of setting up the experiment properly?
>
> ?Instead you three stupid ****s went on a crusade of
> > disrespect, slander and character assassination of the only person who
> > volunteered do set up and make the measurements and to provide you
> > with a definitive answer on the issue.
>
> You are the one who attaacked Jim and me just because we made comments that
> could be construed as being in Bob Cain's defense. As far as respect goes,
> you have earned none here, as for slander, here's one for you, you have no
> character to assassinate. Maybe you should sue us for definition of
> character. (Yes, I meant "definition", not "defamation". :-)) I think
> everyone here knows you had no intention of setting up any experiment, and
> considering that you've shown no sign of understanding the issue, no one
> would have expected your results to be relevant even if you did an
> experiment.
>
> >Well, the three of you stupid
> > ****s can go to hell, because you are not going to get an answer
> > anytime soon and you are not going to get squat from me ever.
>
> We never expected anything of value from you, and we haven't been
> disappointed yet.
>
> >And
> > before you say that I am fraud and/or don't really have the
> > measurement capability that I have claimed, I suggest that you hold
> > your tongues, because when the comparison of theory with measurement
> > results appears in print, I will be even further justified in
> > referring to you as three of the stupidest ****s on the planet.
>
> There is one more stupid than the three of us, and that is you. If
> stupidity were an olympic event, you would not only win the gold medal, you
> would set a world's record that would stand forever! At least we don't have
> to worry about you procreating and continuing your line of stupidity....
>
>

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com