Speakers are the weakest link

[RichA]

People spend alot of time discussion amps, preamps,
turntables, CD players, tubes, transistors and other
non-speaker items that effect the way a system
sounds. But look at speakers; They are the by
far the most important component consideration
an audiophile should have. The axiom that spending
$5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather than
spending the reverse couldn't be more true.
But if you look at speakers, there are not that
many "revolutions" in speaker design. The vast
majority still use cone drivers. To call the
technology "mature" is a vast understatement.
Most speaker companies concentrate only on refining cone
technology. If human voices, musical instruments
and sounds of all kinds owe their approximation to
reality and how accurate it is to the speaker, why
aren't there more revolutionary attempts at producing
speakers that can provide more accurate sound reproduction?
Innovation has been replaced in that field with refinement
techniques.

[Arny Krueger]

RichA wrote:
> People spend alot of time discussion amps, preamps,
> turntables, CD players, tubes, transistors and other
> non-speaker items that effect the way a system
> sounds. But look at speakers; They are the by
> far the most important component consideration
> an audiophile should have. The axiom that spending
> $5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather than
> spending the reverse couldn't be more true.

Totally agreed. However a big part of the speaker system is the room,
and how many people spends much tuning or changing that to optimize
sound quality? Well, the HT people do, and there are a few with
dedicated music listening rooms.

> But if you look at speakers, there are not that
> many "revolutions" in speaker design.

There have been at least a couple-three revolutions in speaker design,
but they have been a little stealthy.

(1) The use of Thiel-Small parameters to characterize woofer drivers
and design woofer and full-range speaker boxes.

(2) The recognition of Xmax as the primary woofer performance
parameter, along with cone diameter.

(3) The recognition of the relationship between and importance of,
both on-axis and off-axis speaker system response.

(4) New technology in crossover design, probably led off by
recognition of the benefits of Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.

> The vast majority still use cone drivers.

Really, not a problem. Also not true. 30-40 years ago there were a
lot of cone tweeters while domes were more the exception than the
rule. Today, dome tweeters are clearly the rule. Manufacturers can buy
really-pretty-good dome tweeters for less than $1 each in volume, and
they are almost universally used in systems with any pretense to
quality.

In high-volume applications horn-loaded compression driver systems are
the rule, and there has been a lot of refinement of horn designs.

I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems, and for good reason.
Life's changed since then.

> To call the technology "mature" is a vast understatement.

But to say it isn't maturing is also an understatement.

> Most speaker companies concentrate only on refining cone
> technology.

No. See the 4 points above.

>If human voices, musical instruments
> and sounds of all kinds owe their approximation to
> reality and how accurate it is to the speaker, why
> aren't there more revolutionary attempts at producing
> speakers that can provide more accurate sound reproduction?

I think that the basics have been so muddled in the past, that a lot
of time was needed and still is needed to straighten them out.

[andy]

> But if you look at speakers, there are not that
> many "revolutions" in speaker design. The vast
> majority still use cone drivers. To call the
> technology "mature" is a vast understatement.

It is very mature and like most mature sectors it is largely the cost
of suitable materials which drives the designs which are sold to the
mass market. Alternatives to the very well developed cone drivers in a
box are simply more expensive.

Most of the "revolutionary designing" occured around the 1930s when the
need to produce loudspeakers as we know them first occurred. What
prevented these designs being produced for the market was lack of
suitable materials and costs. Today the choices are pretty much
dominated by costs and, I guess, marketing considerations.

Perhaps the classic example is the electrostatic loudspeaker which
existed in various desperate designs for 20 or 30 years until the
arrival of materials like mylar in the 50s allowed it to be
commercially produced.

One the latest significant changes has been the recent big drop in the
price of strong magnetic material. This should favour less conventional
designs more than cones in a box. I would expect the unconventional
designs to grow in numbers at the expensive end of audio and, possibly,
creep into the top end of the consumer market.

I am afraid that how to produce sound is a very well understood field.
How to produce accurate sound is also very well understood. The
challenge lies in the engineering compromises: how big, how loud,
acceptable distortion and dominating everything how expensive. I am
afraid there is effectively zero chance of any revolutionary designs.

[andy]

> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,

30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).

> I think that the basics have been so muddled in the past, that a lot
> of time was needed and still is needed to straighten them out.

Can you provide some examples?

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> RichA wrote:
> > People spend alot of time discussion amps, preamps,
> > turntables, CD players, tubes, transistors and other
> > non-speaker items that effect the way a system
> > sounds. But look at speakers; They are the by
> > far the most important component consideration
> > an audiophile should have. The axiom that spending
> > $5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather than
> > spending the reverse couldn't be more true.
>
> Totally agreed. However a big part of the speaker system is the room,
> and how many people spends much tuning or changing that to optimize
> sound quality? Well, the HT people do, and there are a few with
> dedicated music listening rooms.
>
> > But if you look at speakers, there are not that
> > many "revolutions" in speaker design.
>
> There have been at least a couple-three revolutions in speaker design,
> but they have been a little stealthy.
>
> (1) The use of Thiel-Small parameters to characterize woofer drivers
> and design woofer and full-range speaker boxes.
>
> (2) The recognition of Xmax as the primary woofer performance
> parameter, along with cone diameter.
>
> (3) The recognition of the relationship between and importance of,
> both on-axis and off-axis speaker system response.
>
> (4) New technology in crossover design, probably led off by
> recognition of the benefits of Linkwitz-Riley crossovers.
>
Recently, I decided to renew my music education by teaching myself some
piano. With no goals other than to please myself, I bought a Fatar MIDI
keyboard controller with weighted keys, and the Steinberg VFX plugin called
"Grand Piano."

I was informed that in some cases (I'm not sure whether Steinberg's product
actually qualifies), digital samples are now provided by actual instrument
simulations in software, which produce an eerie, detailed reality of the
instrument. Not surprising, since everything electronic has at least the
possibility of getting better and better.

But this leads to the question of how to reproduce the sample via
loudspeakers. In the case of conventional recordings, the problem is so
complex as to defy solution, due to the wide variety of miking techniques.
But in the case of sampled sound, we start with something that is supposed
to be mathematically precise, which means there is a chance to make optimum
choices in reproduction.

Any guidelines?

[CacaPhonius]

"The axiom that spending $5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather
than spending the reverse couldn't be more true."

This is a myth. I'd rather have the $5000 amp and 500$ speakers every
time.
CacaPhonius


On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:34:31 -0400, RichA > wrote:

>People spend alot of time discussion amps, preamps,
>turntables, CD players, tubes, transistors and other
>non-speaker items that effect the way a system
>sounds. But look at speakers; They are the by
>far the most important component consideration
>an audiophile should have. The axiom that spending
>$5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather than
>spending the reverse couldn't be more true.
>But if you look at speakers, there are not that
>many "revolutions" in speaker design. The vast
>majority still use cone drivers. To call the
>technology "mature" is a vast understatement.
>Most speaker companies concentrate only on refining cone
>technology. If human voices, musical instruments
>and sounds of all kinds owe their approximation to
>reality and how accurate it is to the speaker, why
>aren't there more revolutionary attempts at producing
>speakers that can provide more accurate sound reproduction?
>Innovation has been replaced in that field with refinement
>techniques.

[George M. Middius]

CacaPhonius Shelleyed:

> "The axiom that spending $5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather
> than spending the reverse couldn't be more true."
>
> This is a myth. I'd rather have the $5000 amp and 500$ speakers every
> time.
> CacaPhonius

Thus is proven the 'borg mantra: "No matter how ****ty it sounds, somewhere
there's a bonehead who eats it up."

[Schizoid Man]

"CacaPhonius" > wrote in message

> "The axiom that spending $5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather
> than spending the reverse couldn't be more true."
>
> This is a myth. I'd rather have the $5000 amp and 500$ speakers every
> time.
> CacaPhonius

That is not altogether surprising, since you are clinically insane.

[Arny Krueger]

andy wrote:
>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,

> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).

So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
models?

>> I think that the basics have been so muddled in the past, that a
lot
>> of time was needed and still is needed to straighten them out.

> Can you provide some examples?

See the four items that I called revolutions. Each represented a
partial solution to long-term problems with speakers. None of the
issues have their final solutions.

[andy]

>>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,

>> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).

> So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
> models?

No. But I am saying they are more than adequate by current standards.
Had you left it at "allege the superiority" I would have fully agreed
with you. 30-50 years ago good designers did know what they were doing
and why but they did not have the quality of materials we have today.

The Quad 57 is an example where the materials have not developed
significantly and a modern day equivalent using the same design
approach would not be expected to sound substantially superior. I would
expect, however, that it sounded just a little bit better.

> See the four items that I called revolutions. Each represented a
> partial solution to long-term problems with speakers. None of the
> issues have their final solutions.

This I cannot agree with. The points you list may help a man in shed
putting cones in boxes but I fail to see them having much impact on a
trained engineer researching and developing loudspeakers in a well
equipped lab. This is not to say they have no relevance just that it is
being greatly overstated.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>andy wrote:
>>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
>
>> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
>
>So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
>models?

So much for Arnold's knowledge.

There's only one "later model".

[Joseph Oberlander]

Troll.

It sounds like some poorly written highschool paper on
audio. Obvuous troll attempt. Try better next time,
like baiting Middius or Kreuger, if you want a real
response.

[Robert Morein]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >andy wrote:
> >>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
> >>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
> >
> >> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
> >
> >So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
> >models?
>
> So much for Arnold's knowledge.
>
> There's only one "later model".

Notice how Arny's completely dodged the synthesizer question.
He really has mastered being a charlatan.

[Mike McKelvy]

Andy Sez:

>Had you left it at "allege the superiority" I would have fully agreed
>with you. 30-50 years ago good designers did know what they were doing

>and why but they did not have the quality of materials we have today.

How did they know what they were doing? Without T/S parameters, they
were mostly guessing.
Materials have been improved but one of the most popular materials is
still paper, which can sound very nice if done right.

>The points you list may help a man in shed
>putting cones in boxes but I fail to see them having much impact on a
>trained engineer researching and developing loudspeakers in a well
>equipped lab. This is not to say they have no relevance just that it
is
>being greatly overstated.

One cannot overstate the impact of T/S parameters, they make speaker
design a true science where prior to that it was mostly trial and
error.

Until and unless materials are produced that can be used in drivers
that won't prodcue any driver distortion, then the significance of
speakers on a hifi system can't be overstated. Everything else is
secondary.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Notice how Arny's completely dodged the synthesizer question.
> He really has mastered being a charlatan.

Ed Shane nailed it when he called Turdy a poltroon.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >andy wrote:
> >>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
> >>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
> >
> >> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
> >
> >So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
> >models?
>
> So much for Arnold's knowledge.
>
> There's only one "later model".

Or there are 3....

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

andy wrote:

> Arny wrote:

>> See the four items that I called revolutions. Each represented a
>> partial solution to long-term problems with speakers. None of the
>> issues have their final solutions.
>
> This I cannot agree with. The points you list may help a man in shed
> putting cones in boxes but I fail to see them having much impact on
a
> trained engineer researching and developing loudspeakers in a well
> equipped lab.

Simply not so.

(1) Even people in well-equipped labs refer to Thiel/Small parameters.

(2) Everybody suffered when high-Xmax speakers were not availble, and
they all benefitted when they become common. Very few people design
woofers from scratch.

(3) Well-equipped labs are exactly what is needed to study and design
the relationships between on-axis and off-axis response.

(4) Ditto for the major improvements in crossover design

> This is not to say they have no relevance just that it is being
greatly overstated.

OK, so what's your list?

[CacaPhonius]

It's true. I tend to be much more sensitive to bad electronics than
bad speakers, within limits.



On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:00:18 -0700, "Schizoid Man" >
wrote:

>
>"CacaPhonius" > wrote in message
>
>> "The axiom that spending $5000 on speakers and $500 on an amp rather
>> than spending the reverse couldn't be more true."
>>
>> This is a myth. I'd rather have the $5000 amp and 500$ speakers every
>> time.
>> CacaPhonius
>
>That is not altogether surprising, since you are clinically insane.
>

[Schizoid Man]

"CacaPhonius" > wrote in message

> It's true. I tend to be much more sensitive to bad electronics than
> bad speakers, within limits.

Really? And how exactly do you accomplish such a feat? By looking at them?

[dizzy]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:38:52 -0400, CacaPhonius
> top posted:

>It's true. I tend to be much more sensitive to bad electronics than
>bad speakers, within limits.

Well, what can be expected from a top-poster?

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>andy wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>>>adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
>>
>>>30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
>>
>>So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
>>models?
>
>
> So much for Arnold's knowledge.
>
> There's only one "later model".

You can believe him...
Dave Weil knows in *full* details all the websites of all
audio device manufacturers... ;-)

Today Quad is selling the ESL 988 and the 989... at least
*two* models with different specifications.

Dave is losing,

Again.


:-D

[Arny Krueger]

Lionel wrote:
> dave weil a écrit :
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> andy wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>>>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
>>>
>>>> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
>>>
>>> So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
>>> models?

>> So much for Arnold's knowledge.

>> There's only one "later model".

> You can believe him...

At your own risk.

> Dave Weil knows in *full* details all the websites of all
> audio device manufacturers... ;-)

This is the same Dave Weil was unaware of the widespread distribution
of Revox open-reel tape recorders in the US during the late 1960s and
1970s.

> Today Quad is selling the ESL 988 and the 989... at least
> *two* models with different specifications.

So much for David's audio knowlege.

> Dave is losing,
>
> Again.

Agreed. Dave's always been an out-of-touch luddite loser, even going
back to the days when he denied the utility of computer hard drives as
large scale music storage devices.

[Lionel]

In >, Arny Krueger wrote :

> Lionel wrote:
>> dave weil a écrit :
>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> andy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>>>>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
>>>>
>>>>> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
>>>>
>>>> So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
>>>> models?
>
>>> So much for Arnold's knowledge.
>
>>> There's only one "later model".
>
>> You can believe him...
>
> At your own risk.
>
>> Dave Weil knows in *full* details all the websites of all
>> audio device manufacturers... ;-)
>
> This is the same Dave Weil was unaware of the widespread distribution
> of Revox open-reel tape recorders in the US during the late 1960s and
> 1970s.

What a failure !!!

:-D

>> Today Quad is selling the ESL 988 and the 989... at least
>> *two* models with different specifications.
>
> So much for David's audio knowlege.
>
>> Dave is losing,
>>
>> Again.
>
> Agreed. Dave's always been an out-of-touch luddite loser, even going
> back to the days when he denied the utility of computer hard drives as
> large scale music storage devices.

Dave is a famous prophesier. ;-)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:53:42 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>In >, Arny Krueger wrote :
>
>> Lionel wrote:
>>> dave weil a écrit :
>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> andy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>>>>>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
>>>>>
>>>>>> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
>>>>>
>>>>> So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
>>>>> models?
>>
>>>> So much for Arnold's knowledge.
>>
>>>> There's only one "later model".
>>
>>> You can believe him...
>>
>> At your own risk.
>>
>>> Dave Weil knows in *full* details all the websites of all
>>> audio device manufacturers... ;-)
>>
>> This is the same Dave Weil was unaware of the widespread distribution
>> of Revox open-reel tape recorders in the US during the late 1960s and
>> 1970s.
>
>What a failure !!!

If you believe this. Of course this is a lie. Arnold loves to lie. And
it's even funnier that he has to wait for someone to respond to my
posts before he can even do THAT in terms of anything that I say these
days.

>:-D
>
>>> Today Quad is selling the ESL 988 and the 989... at least
>>> *two* models with different specifications.
>>
>> So much for David's audio knowlege.

Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected. This is
something that Arnold has trouble doing, I note. And Lionel, you can't
do it either, cause you're an insecure little mouse.

>>> Dave is losing,
>>>
>>> Again.
>>
>> Agreed. Dave's always been an out-of-touch luddite loser, even going
>> back to the days when he denied the utility of computer hard drives as
>> large scale music storage devices.
>
>Dave is a famous prophesier. ;-)

Only if you you believe Arnold, which you do at your own risk. GHe is
lying here. I NEVER "denied the utility" of computer hard drives as
large scale music storage devices.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:06:13 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>andy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>>>>adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
>>>
>>>>30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
>>>
>>>So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
>>>models?
>>
>>
>> So much for Arnold's knowledge.
>>
>> There's only one "later model".
>
>You can believe him...
>Dave Weil knows in *full* details all the websites of all
>audio device manufacturers... ;-)

At least I don't steal from their website like one famous author did.

[ScottW]

dave weil wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:53:42 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
> >In >, Arny Krueger wrote :
> >
> >> Lionel wrote:
> >>> dave weil a =E9crit :
> >>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> >> >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> andy wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or
even
> >>>>>>> adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and
later
> >>>>> models?
> >>
> >>>> So much for Arnold's knowledge.
> >>
> >>>> There's only one "later model".
> >>
> >>> You can believe him...
> >>
> >> At your own risk.
> >>
> >>> Dave Weil knows in *full* details all the websites of all
> >>> audio device manufacturers... ;-)
> >>
> >> This is the same Dave Weil was unaware of the widespread
distribution
> >> of Revox open-reel tape recorders in the US during the late 1960s
and
> >> 1970s.
> >
> >What a failure !!!
>
> If you believe this. Of course this is a lie. Arnold loves to lie.
And
> it's even funnier that he has to wait for someone to respond to my
> posts before he can even do THAT in terms of anything that I say
these
> days.
>
> >:-D
> >
> >>> Today Quad is selling the ESL 988 and the 989... at least
> >>> *two* models with different specifications.
> >>
> >> So much for David's audio knowlege.
>
> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected. This is
> something that Arnold has trouble doing, I note. And Lionel, you
can't
> do it either, cause you're an insecure little mouse.

Yet the 988 is really identical to the '63 with a 5 degree tilt added.
The US monitor and its beefier frame is a more significant model
change IMO. Its something the consumer cant implement.

ScottW

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 12:53:42 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>
>>In >, Arny Krueger wrote :
>>
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:51:43 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>andy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm really critical of people who allege the superiority or even
>>>>>>>>adequacy of 30 to 50 year old speaker systems,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>30-50 year old Quad 57? (a repaired one).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, you're saying that Quad 57s are better than the 63s and later
>>>>>>models?
>>>
>>>>>So much for Arnold's knowledge.
>>>
>>>>>There's only one "later model".
>>>
>>>>You can believe him...
>>>
>>>At your own risk.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Weil knows in *full* details all the websites of all
>>>>audio device manufacturers... ;-)
>>>
>>>This is the same Dave Weil was unaware of the widespread distribution
>>>of Revox open-reel tape recorders in the US during the late 1960s and
>>>1970s.
>>
>>What a failure !!!
>
>
> If you believe this. Of course this is a lie. Arnold loves to lie. And
> it's even funnier that he has to wait for someone to respond to my
> posts before he can even do THAT in terms of anything that I say these
> days.
>
>
>>:-D
>>
>>
>>>>Today Quad is selling the ESL 988 and the 989... at least
>>>>*two* models with different specifications.
>>>
>>>So much for David's audio knowlege.
>
>
> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected.


You are an idiot.
If someone would take care to verify all the things you
write on this NG this would result in 98% of stupid and
fruitless "I stand corrected".
"Hey everybody have you seen how I am courageous... I can
recognize one of my error on RAO !!!"

Error is human so everybody can do some errors, no problem.
*BUT* considering that the origin was a gratuitous attack
from you and that you have been too lazy and infatuated to
verify your information, the obvious conclusion is that you
are a pitiful cretin.

:-D



> This is
> something that Arnold has trouble doing, I note. And Lionel, you can't
> do it either, cause you're an insecure little mouse.

And you are a big fat elephant who is afraid by the little
mouse...

You lose,

Again.

;-)


>>>>Dave is losing,
>>>>
>>>>Again.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Dave's always been an out-of-touch luddite loser, even going
>>>back to the days when he denied the utility of computer hard drives as
>>>large scale music storage devices.
>>
>>Dave is a famous prophesier. ;-)
>
>
> Only if you you believe Arnold, which you do at your own risk. GHe is
> lying here. I NEVER "denied the utility" of computer hard drives as
> large scale music storage devices.

I know that you are a disgusting liar. :-(
You have already proven that in several occasions.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:19:46 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected.
>
>
>You are an idiot.
>If someone would take care to verify all the things you
>write on this NG this would result in 98% of stupid and
>fruitless "I stand corrected".
>"Hey everybody have you seen how I am courageous... I can
>recognize one of my error on RAO !!!"
>
>Error is human so everybody can do some errors, no problem.
>*BUT* considering that the origin was a gratuitous attack
>from you and that you have been too lazy and infatuated to
>verify your information, the obvious conclusion is that you
>are a pitiful cretin.

And here's an accordion award for you.

*And* an ad hominem award to boot.

[dave weil]

On 13 Apr 2005 09:46:31 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>>
>> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected. This is
>> something that Arnold has trouble doing, I note. And Lionel, you
>can't
>> do it either, cause you're an insecure little mouse.
>
> Yet the 988 is really identical to the '63 with a 5 degree tilt added.
> The US monitor and its beefier frame is a more significant model
>change IMO. Its something the consumer cant implement.

Still, it's a different model, so I still stand corrected.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:19:46 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected.
>>
>>
>>You are an idiot.
>>If someone would take care to verify all the things you
>>write on this NG this would result in 98% of stupid and
>>fruitless "I stand corrected".
>>"Hey everybody have you seen how I am courageous... I can
>>recognize one of my error on RAO !!!"
>>
>>Error is human so everybody can do some errors, no problem.
>>*BUT* considering that the origin was a gratuitous attack
>>from you and that you have been too lazy and infatuated to
>>verify your information, the obvious conclusion is that you
>>are a pitiful cretin.
>
> And here's an accordion award for you.

Agreed, most of your RAO interventions and discourses on RAO are as stupid
and fruitless than the "accordion" one.

You are a lazy infatuated cretin Dave this is what you are daily
demonstrating here.
In place of Howard you would have plagiarized 95% of the job.

> *And* an ad hominem award to boot.

"Hominem" is related to human being... I have just pointed out that you are
a despicable, servile and jealous animal. It's not a victory just a kick in
the bottom of a barking mangy dog.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>> And here's an accordion award for you.
>
>Agreed

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>> *And* an ad hominem award to boot.
>
>"Hominem" is related to human being... I have just pointed out that you are
>a despicable, servile and jealous animal.

<s******>

Shame you can't discuss things without freaking out.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On 13 Apr 2005 09:46:31 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected. This is
>>> something that Arnold has trouble doing, I note. And Lionel, you
>>can't
>>> do it either, cause you're an insecure little mouse.
>>
>> Yet the 988 is really identical to the '63 with a 5 degree tilt added.
>> The US monitor and its beefier frame is a more significant model
>>change IMO. Its something the consumer cant implement.
>
> Still, it's a different model, so I still stand corrected.

An other interesting manifestation of the unnatural alliance between the
scary petty reactionnary west coast employee and the former beatnick
mentally destabilized by obvious acid lysergic abuses.

;-)

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>Agreed, most of your RAO interventions and discourses on RAO are as stupid
>and fruitless than the "accordion" one.

And let's not forgot who made it an issue in the first place. I guess
you were bored that day. You were needing a stupid exchange, I guess.

And of course, you never admitted that you were wrong, so it's just
another example of your inability to be a man.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>> *And* an ad hominem award to boot.
>>
>>"Hominem" is related to human being... I have just pointed out that you
>>are a despicable, servile and jealous animal.
>
> <s******>
>
> Shame you can't discuss things without freaking out.

You never discuss, idiot, you're just trying to "win" debate.
Discussion need a minimum of ethic that you cannot offer.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:38:25 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> *And* an ad hominem award to boot.
>>>
>>>"Hominem" is related to human being... I have just pointed out that you
>>>are a despicable, servile and jealous animal.
>>
>> <s******>
>>
>> Shame you can't discuss things without freaking out.
>
>You never discuss, idiot, you're just trying to "win" debate.
>Discussion need a minimum of ethic that you cannot offer.

As I said, Lionel is simply a knee-jerk weil basher. He's not
interested in anything other than scoring points.

Fine with me.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:29:01 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On 13 Apr 2005 09:46:31 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected. This is
>>>> something that Arnold has trouble doing, I note. And Lionel, you
>>>can't
>>>> do it either, cause you're an insecure little mouse.
>>>
>>> Yet the 988 is really identical to the '63 with a 5 degree tilt added.
>>> The US monitor and its beefier frame is a more significant model
>>>change IMO. Its something the consumer cant implement.
>>
>> Still, it's a different model, so I still stand corrected.
>
>An other interesting manifestation

Not particularly interesting, except to Lionel, who's needing another
diversion from his family, I guess.

His odd hero worship of Arnold knows no bounds, it seems.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>Agreed, most of your RAO interventions and discourses on RAO are as stupid
>>and fruitless than the "accordion" one.
>
> And let's not forgot who made it an issue in the first place.

I perfectly remember that *you* have started the discussion.

> I guess
> you were bored that day. You were needing a stupid exchange, I guess.

Interesting how you can easily be a liar when you are cornered.
You are really disgusting. What do you use to reproach to Arnold Krueger ?


> And of course, you never admitted that you were wrong,

There's was nothing to admitted I answered to your impolite intervention
that I use to appreciate the sound of the bandoneon but not really the
accordion one. You have abruptly concluded by your famous "you lose,
again", pretending that accordion and bandoneon are the same instrument.

Is this what you call a discussion ? :-)

> so it's just
> another example of your inability to be a man.

;-)


PS : more music for elevators : Dino Saluzzi "Responsorium".

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:38:25 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> *And* an ad hominem award to boot.
>>>>
>>>>"Hominem" is related to human being... I have just pointed out that you
>>>>are a despicable, servile and jealous animal.
>>>
>>> <s******>
>>>
>>> Shame you can't discuss things without freaking out.
>>
>>You never discuss, idiot, you're just trying to "win" debate.
>>Discussion need a minimum of ethic that you cannot offer.
>
> As I said, Lionel is simply a knee-jerk weil basher. He's not
> interested in anything other than scoring points.

Says the "Accodion winner". :-D

Eh old man, it's not my fault if you are too lazy and too stupid to attack
Arnold Krueger with boomerang arguments

> Fine with me.

Sure since this is the only thing you can do. ;-)

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:29:01 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>> On 13 Apr 2005 09:46:31 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. I did forget about the 988. I stand corrected. This is
>>>>> something that Arnold has trouble doing, I note. And Lionel, you
>>>>can't
>>>>> do it either, cause you're an insecure little mouse.
>>>>
>>>> Yet the 988 is really identical to the '63 with a 5 degree tilt added.
>>>> The US monitor and its beefier frame is a more significant model
>>>>change IMO. Its something the consumer cant implement.
>>>
>>> Still, it's a different model, so I still stand corrected.
>>
>>An other interesting manifestation
>
> Not particularly interesting, except to Lionel, who's needing another
> diversion from his family, I guess.

Child are in bed my wife is reading, the stereo is playing "To Tulsa and
back" from JJ Cale.
I guess that you insist in this thread to divert you from your absence of
family...
One more time it's pure charity if I keep you company a little bit more. ;-)

> His odd hero worship of Arnold knows no bounds, it seems.

Worship ???? Is it this kind of behaviour that you unshamely manifest in
presence of George M. Middius or John Atkinson ?
IMHO it's a little bit humiliating and need more abnegation and servility
that I can offer. ;-)

I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:08:01 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>I guess that you insist in this thread to divert you from your absence of
>family...

Not something that I aspire to.

That choice is OK with you, right?

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:52:12 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Agreed, most of your RAO interventions and discourses on RAO are as stupid
>>>and fruitless than the "accordion" one.
>>
>> And let's not forgot who made it an issue in the first place.
>
>I perfectly remember that *you* have started the discussion.

No, I called a certain instrument an accordion and you disagreed. As I
subsquently proved, the name you used is a subset of the name that *I*
used, a member of the family name that I used.

So, while all accordions aren't bandoneons, all bandoneons ARE
accordions.

simple as that.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:52:12 +0200, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:
>
>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:21:19 +0200, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Agreed, most of your RAO interventions and discourses on RAO are as
>>>>stupid and fruitless than the "accordion" one.
>>>
>>> And let's not forgot who made it an issue in the first place.
>>
>>I perfectly remember that *you* have started the discussion.
>
> No, I called a certain instrument an accordion and you disagreed.

Are you answering *no* to "I perfectly remember that *you* have started the
discussion" ?
If so it's a lie. *You* have initiated the discussion with me.
You have initiated this discussion with me for the same reasons that you
have childly attacked Arnold Krueger with a wrong unverified argument...
Mainly because you are a *moron*.

> As I
> subsquently proved, the name you used is a subset of the name that *I*
> used, a member of the family name that I used.
>
> So, while all accordions aren't bandoneons, all bandoneons ARE
> accordions.
>
> simple as that.

This was *your* point. I wasn't and I still not be interested in the
intrument classification, I let this point to the hairsplitters. ;-)
My point was about the sound, the timbre, the color and the sensibility of
the instrument. I like a lot the bandoneon and not really the accordion...
At least the one which is not a Bandoneon.

:-D

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>

Not even the Harvey Potter,
the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?

http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>
>
> Not even the Harvey Potter,
> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>
> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm

I am not interested in US showBiz.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:08:01 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>I guess that you insist in this thread to divert you from your absence of
>>family...
>
> Not something that I aspire to.
>
> That choice is OK with you, right?

?????????????????????????

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>
>>
>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>
>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>
> I am not interested in US showBiz.

Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:40:39 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>I like a lot the bandoneon and not really the accordion...

Which accordion? Are you saying that you don't like ANY type of
accordion except the bandoneon? If so, I guess you don't like Cajun
music either.

A pity.

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:40:39 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>I like a lot the bandoneon and not really the accordion...

Since you have butchered my sentence I quote it correctly by myself :

" I like a lot the bandoneon and not really the accordion...
At least the one which is not a Bandoneon."

> Which accordion? Are you saying that you don't like ANY type of
> accordion except the bandoneon?

I don't know. I'm not a specialist of the accordions. ;-)
If you are so interested perhaps the following could help :
http://www.accordeon.com/
http://laue.ethz.ch/cm/band/bandoneon.html

Good luck !

> If so, I guess you don't like Cajun
> music either.

You seems to be a little bit perturbed, Old Dave. ;-)
Because of your ridiculous puerile *need* of revenge (lol) you start to make
the confusion between the music and the instrument...
Don't you thing that it would be better to stop this discussion here before
anger and frustration push you, one more time, to make an ass of yourself ?

> A pity.

That's true.
:-D

NB : congratulations you are now a proven *liar*. What do you use to
reproach to Arnold Krueger ?

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>>
>>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>>
>> I am not interested in US showBiz.
>
> Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.

May I understand that you prefer to swim in a large overcrowded cesspool ?

PS : you forgot to answer my question !!!
Do you feel better since you have abjured ?

:-D

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>>>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>>>
>>> I am not interested in US showBiz.
>>
>> Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.
>
> May I understand that you prefer to swim in a large overcrowded cesspool ?
>
> PS : you forgot to answer my question !!!
> Do you feel better since you have abjured ?
>


My yalmake is not for sale. You'll have to get one
somewhere else.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[dave weil]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:07:03 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>I don't know. I'm not a specialist of the accordions. ;-)

Then you shouldn't have gotten int this "argument".

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>>>>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>>>>
>>>> I am not interested in US showBiz.
>>>
>>> Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.
>>
>> May I understand that you prefer to swim in a large overcrowded cesspool
>> ?
>>
>> PS : you forgot to answer my question !!!
>> Do you feel better since you have abjured ?
>>
>
>
> My yalmake is not for sale. You'll have to get one
> somewhere else.

Oh I understand, you keep your yalmake but you sell off your pride. :-(

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:07:03 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>I don't know. I'm not a specialist of the accordions. ;-)
>
> Then you shouldn't have gotten int this "argument".

"Gotten int" ???

I never used any argument about accordion... I really don't see what you
mean.
I was just sharing my opinion about accordion with someone when you have
jumped in the discussion like an hysteric with full pages of internet
quotes (as usual) and you have finished bragging :
"you lose, again".

Dave you are a pitiful liar.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:18:56 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>In >, dave weil wrote :
>
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:07:03 +0200, Lionel >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know. I'm not a specialist of the accordions. ;-)
>>
>> Then you shouldn't have gotten int this "argument".
>
>"Gotten int" ???
>
>I never used any argument about accordion... I really don't see what you
>mean.
>I was just sharing my opinion about accordion with someone when you have
>jumped in the discussion like an hysteric with full pages of internet
>quotes (as usual) and you have finished bragging :
>"you lose, again".
>
>Dave you are a pitiful liar.

Your memory is faulty.

This is what started the whole thing:

dave weil Aug 9 2004, 2:40 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: dave weil > - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:40:06 -0500
Local: Mon,Aug 9 2004 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: The truth about the allegations against Arny Krueger
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:47:53 +0200, "Lionel" >
wrote:



>> BTW, I happen to like a good European-sounding accordion, especially
>> those cool sounding minor key French things or moody tango things,

>You are doing an error Dave most of the tango I know and I like are played
>with a bandoneon.

So whose lying now?

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>>>>>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not interested in US showBiz.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.
>>>
>>> May I understand that you prefer to swim in a large overcrowded cesspool
>>> ?
>>>
>>> PS : you forgot to answer my question !!!
>>> Do you feel better since you have abjured ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My yalmake is not for sale. You'll have to get one
>> somewhere else.
>
> Oh I understand, you keep your yalmake but you sell off your pride. :-(



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>>>>>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not interested in US showBiz.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.
>>>
>>> May I understand that you prefer to swim in a large overcrowded cesspool
>>> ?
>>>
>>> PS : you forgot to answer my question !!!
>>> Do you feel better since you have abjured ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> My yalmake is not for sale. You'll have to get one
>> somewhere else.
>
> Oh I understand, you keep your yalmake but you sell off your pride. :-(

No, I am selling off audio equipment, bass guitars, and guitar amps.
Also records and reel to reel tapes.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lionel]

In >, dave weil wrote :

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:18:56 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>>In >, dave weil wrote :
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:07:03 +0200, Lionel >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't know. I'm not a specialist of the accordions. ;-)
>>>
>>> Then you shouldn't have gotten int this "argument".
>>
>>"Gotten int" ???
>>
>>I never used any argument about accordion... I really don't see what you
>>mean.
>>I was just sharing my opinion about accordion with someone when you have
>>jumped in the discussion like an hysteric with full pages of internet
>>quotes (as usual) and you have finished bragging :
>>"you lose, again".
>>
>>Dave you are a pitiful liar.
>
> Your memory is faulty.
>
> This is what started the whole thing:
>
> dave weil Aug 9 2004, 2:40 pm show options
>
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> From: dave weil > - Find messages by this author
> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:40:06 -0500
> Local: Mon,Aug 9 2004 2:40 pm
> Subject: Re: The truth about the allegations against Arny Krueger
> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
> | Report Abuse
>
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:47:53 +0200, "Lionel" >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>> BTW, I happen to like a good European-sounding accordion, especially
>>> those cool sounding minor key French things or moody tango things,
>
>>You are doing an error Dave most of the tango I know and I like are played
>>with a bandoneon.
>
> So whose lying now?

Yes you are a liar Dave Weil you have started the discussion about the
"accordion".
2 days ago when I wrote "I perfectly remember that *you* have started the
discussion."
You answered *no*.

Do you pretend that Google is lying you ?

:-D

Perhaps you cannot remember your 2 days ago certitudes, eh Old Man ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
De :dave weil )
Objet :Re: The truth about the allegations against Arny Krueger
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2004-08-09 07:06:38 PST

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:00:55 +0200, "Lionel" >
wrote:

>You are a crybaby !

Sayeth the king of crybabies.

But don't worry, I won't make critical comments about your countries
beer anymore.

BTW, I happen to like a good European-sounding accordian, especially
those cool sounding minor key French things or moody tango things,
although I can see how you might be sick of it, since it's everywhere
you turn. Of course, I like Vanessa Paradis too, so I guess my tastes
can be questioned.

Oh yeah, They Might Be Giants use an accordian to good effect, as do
Cajun musicians. These are probably too much fun for you to enjoy
though, being the SERIOUS jazz guy that you are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Lionel]

In >, Clyde Slick wrote :

>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>
>>>
>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>>>>>>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not interested in US showBiz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.
>>>>
>>>> May I understand that you prefer to swim in a large overcrowded
>>>> cesspool ?
>>>>
>>>> PS : you forgot to answer my question !!!
>>>> Do you feel better since you have abjured ?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My yalmake is not for sale. You'll have to get one
>>> somewhere else.
>>
>> Oh I understand, you keep your yalmake but you sell off your pride. :-(
>
> No, I am selling off audio equipment, bass guitars, and guitar amps.
> Also records and reel to reel tapes.

In fact my question was a little bit more precise.
Why have you written ?

"I am not even religious"

Religious :
adjective - having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity (Example:
"A religious man")

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>
>>
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> In >, Clyde Slick wrote :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't any hero, even not a guitar one !
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not even the Harvey Potter,
>>>>>>>> the famous sewer inspector of Stroud Township, Pa?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.township.stroud.pa.us/whoswho.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not interested in US showBiz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, its best for you to be a big fish in a little cesspool.
>>>>>
>>>>> May I understand that you prefer to swim in a large overcrowded
>>>>> cesspool ?
>>>>>
>>>>> PS : you forgot to answer my question !!!
>>>>> Do you feel better since you have abjured ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My yalmake is not for sale. You'll have to get one
>>>> somewhere else.
>>>
>>> Oh I understand, you keep your yalmake but you sell off your pride. :-(
>>
>> No, I am selling off audio equipment, bass guitars, and guitar amps.
>> Also records and reel to reel tapes.
>
> In fact my question was a little bit more precise.
> Why have you written ?
>
> "I am not even religious"
>
> Religious :
> adjective - having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity
> (Example:
> "A religious man")

why am I not religious?

You might as well ask
Why are some others religious?
why are some others not religious?

I don't know why, Lionel.
It is just the way I am.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[dave weil]

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:50:44 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>>>I was just sharing my opinion about accordion with someone when you have
>>>jumped in the discussion like an hysteric with full pages of internet
>>>quotes (as usual) and you have finished bragging :
>>>"you lose, again".
>>>
>>>Dave you are a pitiful liar.
>>
>> Your memory is faulty.
>>
>> This is what started the whole thing:
>>
>> dave weil Aug 9 2004, 2:40 pm show options
>>
>> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
>> From: dave weil > - Find messages by this author
>> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:40:06 -0500
>> Local: Mon,Aug 9 2004 2:40 pm
>> Subject: Re: The truth about the allegations against Arny Krueger
>> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
>> | Report Abuse
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:47:53 +0200, "Lionel" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> BTW, I happen to like a good European-sounding accordion, especially
>>>> those cool sounding minor key French things or moody tango things,
>>
>>>You are doing an error Dave most of the tango I know and I like are played
>>>with a bandoneon.
>>
>> So whose lying now?
>
>Yes you are a liar Dave Weil you have started the discussion about the
>"accordion".
>2 days ago when I wrote "I perfectly remember that *you* have started the
>discussion."
>You answered *no*.

Boy are YOU confused.

I didn't START the "discussion" about the accordion. I simply made a
comment about liking the sound. You then started the discussion about
it. You of course had to jump in to bust me on a technical point,
which is your M.O. and I proved that you were full of **** a usual.

Then you said that the whole thing started when YOU were discussing
the accordion WITH SOMEONE ELSE when *I* jumped into the discussion. I
have proved you wrong there as well.

You're twirling so hard now, you don't even know which way is up at
this point. But keep flailing if you wish.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :

> Boy are YOU confused.

Boy you are a *liar* you were just attacking me, one more
time without any reason... ;-)

"BTW, I happen to like a good European-sounding accordian,
especially those cool sounding minor key French things or
moody tango things, although I can see how you might be sick
of it, since it's everywhere you turn. Of course, I like
Vanessa Paradis too, so I guess my tastes can be questioned.

Oh yeah, They Might Be Giants use an accordian to good
effect, as do Cajun musicians. These are probably too much
fun for you to enjoy though, being the SERIOUS jazz guy that
you are.

[ScottW]

PFM rocks with an accordian on Cook. The critics hate that album cuz
the Italian guys sang some songs in English for the American Tour.....
but after reading of your posts...I realize their English is quite
good, and the live version of songs from Photos of Ghosts still kick
ass.

Are Italians smarter than the French? It must be as their food, women,
wine, beer and music are all better than French.

Come to think of it... they only had to have their country invaded
once during WWII. You sorry pukes had to get steamrolled not just
once.. but twice. And you bitch about the means of your own
liberation.

Are ready to take our tired hungry and poor yet?

Have a nice weekend.

ScottW

[Lionel]

In om>, ScottW wrote :

> PFM rocks with an accordian on Cook. The critics hate that album cuz
> the Italian guys sang some songs in English for the American Tour.....
> but after reading of your posts...I realize their English is quite
> good, and the live version of songs from Photos of Ghosts still kick
> ass.
>
> Are Italians smarter than the French?

Possibly. Why not ?

> It must be as their food, women,
> wine, beer and music are all better than French.

I don't know their beer but I like their food and they also have very good
wines.

And what's your point Môron ?
I cannot understand why a "scary moronic west coast american" suddenly
advocates the merits of the Italian culture to a French guy.
80 % of my culture is coming from the Italian area, idiot...
....I'm already tired just at the idea to discuss history with you, Môron.

;-)

[ScottW]

Lionel wrote:
> In om>, ScottW
wrote :
>
> > PFM rocks with an accordian on Cook. The critics hate that album
cuz
> > the Italian guys sang some songs in English for the American
Tour.....
> > but after reading of your posts...I realize their English is quite
> > good, and the live version of songs from Photos of Ghosts still
kick
> > ass.
> >
> > Are Italians smarter than the French?
>
> Possibly. Why not ?

Just confirming your willingness to stereotype.

>
> > It must be as their food, women,
> > wine, beer and music are all better than French.
>
> I don't know their beer but I like their food and they also have very
good
> wines.
>
> And what's your point M=F4ron ?

That you had an Italian culture base and F'd it up silly french fool.
Thanks for making my point.

> I cannot understand why a "scary moronic west coast american"
suddenly
> advocates the merits of the Italian culture to a French guy.
> 80 % of my culture is coming from the Italian area, idiot...

80% was from Italy and still you F'd it up.
No matter... now 80% is from North Africa and the Middle East.
Let's see you F' up those cultures as well... oops too late.

> ...I'm already tired just at the idea to discuss history with you,
M=F4ron.

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath
free...

and I will deport them.

ScottW

[Lionel]

In . com>, ScottW wrote :

>
> Lionel wrote:
>> In om>, ScottW
> wrote :
>>
>> > PFM rocks with an accordian on Cook. The critics hate that album
> cuz
>> > the Italian guys sang some songs in English for the American
> Tour.....
>> > but after reading of your posts...I realize their English is quite
>> > good, and the live version of songs from Photos of Ghosts still
> kick
>> > ass.
>> >
>> > Are Italians smarter than the French?
>>
>> Possibly. Why not ?
>
> Just confirming your willingness to stereotype.

Which willingness to stereotype ?
Did I answer "yes" or "no" ?
"No I have answered possibly. Why not ?" Which means "If you want".
I cannot count your point, idiot.

>> > It must be as their food, women,
>> > wine, beer and music are all better than French.
>>
>> I don't know their beer but I like their food and they also have very
> good
>> wines.
>>
>> And what's your point Môron ?
>
> That you had an Italian culture base and F'd it up silly french fool.
> Thanks for making my point.

How many time have you spent visiting Firenze, Roma, Milano... ?
So I cannot count your point, idiot.


>> I cannot understand why a "scary moronic west coast american"
> suddenly
>> advocates the merits of the Italian culture to a French guy.
>> 80 % of my culture is coming from the Italian area, idiot...
>
> 80% was from Italy and still you F'd it up.
> No matter... now 80% is from North Africa and the Middle East.
> Let's see you F' up those cultures as well... oops too late.

Not only a scary Môron, you are also a ****ing racist and xenophobe
*******...
Digusting.

>> ...I'm already tired just at the idea to discuss history with you,
> Môron.
>
> Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath
> free...
>
> and I will deport them.

Idiot.

[dave weil]

On 15 Apr 2005 14:59:18 -0700, "ScottW" > wrote:

>PFM rocks with an accordian on Cook. The critics hate that album cuz
>the Italian guys sang some songs in English for the American Tour.....
>but after reading of your posts...I realize their English is quite
>good, and the live version of songs from Photos of Ghosts still kick
>ass.

I've got a vinyl copy of Photos of Ghosts, and the sound really sucks.
It's an Italian pressing, and my experience with Italian pressings has
been that they aren't very good to begin with (but my experience is
pretty limited). It's very muffled. It's really hard to evaluate the
quality of the songs, which I remembered as being a lot better, so
maybe it's just the pressing. Of course, the music is a bit dated as
well, but I'd be interested to hear live versions of the songs.

[ScottW]

Live versions of Celebration and Mr. Nine till Five are on Cook which I
think was rereleased in '89 at Live in the USA but I cant find a song
list for that album to be sure.

My Cook vinyl kicks butte over my Photos of Ghosts CD.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Lionel wrote:
> In . com>, ScottW
wrote :
>
> >
> > Lionel wrote:
> >> In om>, ScottW
> > wrote :
> >>
> >> > PFM rocks with an accordian on Cook. The critics hate that
album
> > cuz
> >> > the Italian guys sang some songs in English for the American
> > Tour.....
> >> > but after reading of your posts...I realize their English is
quite
> >> > good, and the live version of songs from Photos of Ghosts still
> > kick
> >> > ass.
> >> >
> >> > Are Italians smarter than the French?
> >>
> >> Possibly. Why not ?
> >
> > Just confirming your willingness to stereotype.
>
> Which willingness to stereotype ?
> Did I answer "yes" or "no" ?
> "No I have answered possibly.

But it is not possible unless you are willing to stereotype.
You lose.

You may have one slight cultural advantage over Africa, if you do your
job well, you keep your **** underground. Geez Lionel, I never
realized it before... but the last remnants of suprerior French culture
depends upon you! The responsibility must weigh heavily upon you.

ScottW

[Lionel]

In om>, ScottW wrote :

>
> Lionel wrote:
>> In . com>, ScottW
> wrote :
>>
>> >
>> > Lionel wrote:
>> >> In om>, ScottW
>> > wrote :
>> >>
>> >> > PFM rocks with an accordian on Cook. The critics hate that
> album
>> > cuz
>> >> > the Italian guys sang some songs in English for the American
>> > Tour.....
>> >> > but after reading of your posts...I realize their English is
> quite
>> >> > good, and the live version of songs from Photos of Ghosts still
>> > kick
>> >> > ass.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are Italians smarter than the French?
>> >>
>> >> Possibly. Why not ?
>> >
>> > Just confirming your willingness to stereotype.
>>
>> Which willingness to stereotype ?
>> Did I answer "yes" or "no" ?
>> "No I have answered possibly.
>
> But it is not possible unless you are willing to stereotype.

My exact answer was :
"No I have answered possibly. Why not ?" Which means "If you want".

> You lose.

Have already win something in your pitiful life, eh môron ?


> You may have one slight cultural advantage over Africa,


Your racism is disgusting.


> if you do your
> job well, you keep your **** underground. Geez Lionel, I never
> realized it before...

I'm not surprised you are not able to see farther than the limit of your
backyard.

> but the last remnants of suprerior French culture
> depends upon you! The responsibility must weigh heavily upon you.

"remnants", "suprerior" ???
LOL, I note that the preservation of the english language doesn't weigh
heavily upon you...

:-D

[ScottW]

Lionel wrote:
>
> > but the last remnants of suprerior French culture
> > depends upon you! The responsibility must weigh heavily upon you.
>
> "remnants", "suprerior" ???


Hey, you're half right, not bad for a Frenchman.

ScottW

[Lionel]

ScottW "The Môron" wrote :

>
> Lionel wrote:
>>
>> > but the last remnants of suprerior French culture
>> > depends upon you! The responsibility must weigh heavily upon you.
>>
>> "remnants", "suprerior" ???
>
>
> Hey, you're half right, not bad for a Frenchman.

Hey you are fully stupid, normal for a cretin.

:-D