A suggestion for Scottieborg

[George M. Middius]

Buy a pair of trotsky's wonderful new speakers. According to dave
weil, they're not half bad. And there's a 30-day return policy, no
questions asked.

That'll show Krooger, won't it?

[trotsky]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Buy a pair of trotsky's wonderful new speakers. According to dave
> weil, they're not half bad. And there's a 30-day return policy, no
> questions asked.
>


45 day--you have to allow enough time for break-in, assuming one's
religion permits this.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:19:43 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Buy a pair of trotsky's wonderful new speakers. According to dave
>weil, they're not half bad. And there's a 30-day return policy, no
>questions asked.

And you won't just get half your money back if you don't llike them.

>That'll show Krooger, won't it?

He can compare them to his Quads...

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:19:43 -0400, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Buy a pair of trotsky's wonderful new speakers. According to dave
> >weil, they're not half bad. And there's a 30-day return policy, no
> >questions asked.
>
> And you won't just get half your money back if you don't llike them.
>
> >That'll show Krooger, won't it?
>
> He can compare them to his Quads...
>

Quads go for $1,500 to $2,000 used, so that might not be so far off.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:19:43 -0400, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Buy a pair of trotsky's wonderful new speakers. According to
dave
> >weil, they're not half bad. And there's a 30-day return
policy, no
> >questions asked.
>
> And you won't just get half your money back if you don't llike
them.
>
> >That'll show Krooger, won't it?
>
> He can compare them to his Quads...
>

I already have a sybilant ribbon tweeter. The Quads are so
silky smooth in ..... well, it's hard to call it a comparison.

ScottW

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:

> "dave weil" wrote in message
> ...
>
> >On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:19:43 -0400, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Buy a pair of trotsky's wonderful new speakers. According to
>
> dave
>
> >>weil, they're not half bad. And there's a 30-day return
>
> policy, no
>
> >>questions asked.
> >
> >And you won't just get half your money back if you don't llike
>
> them.
>
> >>That'll show Krooger, won't it?
> >
> >He can compare them to his Quads...
> >
>
>
> I already have a sybilant ribbon tweeter. The Quads are so
> silky smooth in ..... well, it's hard to call it a comparison.



That's not a cogent response, Scottie. In fact, it makes you sound like
an idiot--that's what I get for cutting you some slack.

>
>
>

[ScottW]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > I already have a sybilant ribbon tweeter. The Quads are so
> > silky smooth in ..... well, it's hard to call it a
comparison.
>
>
>
> That's not a cogent response, Scottie. In fact, it makes you
sound like
> an idiot--that's what I get for cutting you some slack.


Sorry, I guess I misunderstood this comment from Dave:

"If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this speaker
will exacerbate that
tendency slightly."

This description fits the Legacy Focus ribbon tweeter quite
well. But you called those speakers ****.
Could it be that, as was the case with my turntable, you were
again critical of equipment you haven't actually heard?

I hate having to be so blunt but with you, I have no chance.
You like to call people idiots. I simply show them to be what
they are.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:56:11 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> Sorry, I guess I misunderstood this comment from Dave:
>
>"If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this speaker
>will exacerbate that tendency slightly."

Apparently you did.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:56:11 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I guess I misunderstood this comment from Dave:
> >
> >"If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this
speaker
> >will exacerbate that tendency slightly."
>
> Apparently you did.
>
Backing away from his own words again. I won't bother trying to
figure out what you really meant as I am sure that too will be
subject to revision and redefinition.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:43:10 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:56:11 -0700, "ScottW"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Sorry, I guess I misunderstood this comment from Dave:
>> >
>> >"If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this
>speaker
>> >will exacerbate that tendency slightly."
>>
>> Apparently you did.
>>
> Backing away from his own words again. I won't bother trying to
>figure out what you really meant as I am sure that too will be
>subject to revision and redefinition.
>
> ScottW

No, don't bother.

However, maybe you can tell the difference between a "silibant
tweeter" and a tweeter that exacerbates SLIGHTLY silibance that's
present in source material.

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 18:43:10 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 16:56:11 -0700, "ScottW"
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Sorry, I guess I misunderstood this comment from Dave:
> >> >
> >> >"If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this
> speaker
> >> >will exacerbate that tendency slightly."
> >>
> >> Apparently you did.
> >>
> > Backing away from his own words again. I won't bother trying to
> >figure out what you really meant as I am sure that too will be
> >subject to revision and redefinition.
> >
> > ScottW
>
> No, don't bother.
>
> However, maybe you can tell the difference between a "silibant
> tweeter" and a tweeter that exacerbates SLIGHTLY silibance that's
> present in source material.

No clue what silibant means. But if you meant to say sibilant, I
would say that the difference between the two statements meaning is
something that people who like to get their semantic panties wadded
can really have fun with.

Bottom line - the speaker has an undesirable quality, the magnitude of
which is clearly a matter of individual perception.

In my personal experience, sibilance often is accompanied by a
characteristic of impressive brightness and clarity. Speakers have a
lively and sharp presence. Unfortunately, extended listening to
such speakers can be fatiguing to me.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On 30 Sep 2003 13:52:54 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:

>In my personal experience, sibilance often is accompanied by a
>characteristic of impressive brightness and clarity. Speakers have a
>lively and sharp presence. Unfortunately, extended listening to
>such speakers can be fatiguing to me.

Yes, when it's *creating* the sibilance. When the sibilance is already
present, then the question is, do you want the speaker to cover it up
because it's too dull already?

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Sep 2003 13:52:54 -0700, (ScottW)
wrote:
>
> >In my personal experience, sibilance often is accompanied by a
> >characteristic of impressive brightness and clarity. Speakers
have a
> >lively and sharp presence. Unfortunately, extended
listening to
> >such speakers can be fatiguing to me.
>
> Yes, when it's *creating* the sibilance. When the sibilance is
already
> present, then the question is, do you want the speaker to cover
it up
> because it's too dull already?

Nope, and I don't want it exacerbated either. Sibilance is
also something that I don't find controllable with room
positioning, or tone controls. It just is there or it isn't.
The Quads aren't sibilant at all, yet are very open and
revealing.

I've played my system with the Quads and the Legacy for some
average stereo type friends. Their initial impression is always
positive on the Legacy's. The dynamics and presence is
extraordinary. They can play so loud so effortlessly. However,
I find they have an edge (with a sibilance) that can be
fatiguing. I try to convince them to give the Quads a serious
listen and it's hard. They aren't as loud, they don't rock the
room and make air move - what they do is provide smooth balanced
wonderful sound.
If I can't convince them, I play Rennaissance with Annie Haslam.
As soon as she sings, their jaws open, I hear "Wow, I've never
heard vocals like that." Enough said. Some folks still prefer
the Legacy's after acknowledging the Quads. Those are people who
insist on live sound level rock. Thats fine once in a while, but
I still like Cadence and Cascade over Catfood.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On 30 Sep 2003 13:52:54 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:
>
>> In my personal experience, sibilance often is accompanied by a
>> characteristic of impressive brightness and clarity. Speakers have a
>> lively and sharp presence. Unfortunately, extended listening to
>> such speakers can be fatiguing to me.
>
> Yes, when it's *creating* the sibilance.

So Weil, how do you know if a speaker is creating sibilance or
over-emphasizing it, or portraying it like it is, or concealing it?

<This question should be especially difficult for Weil to answering
practice, since he really have no competent modern speakers of note of his
own to compare to, and the acoustics of his listening room is a gigantic
question mark.>

[dave weil]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:47:45 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 30 Sep 2003 13:52:54 -0700, (ScottW)
>wrote:
>>
>> >In my personal experience, sibilance often is accompanied by a
>> >characteristic of impressive brightness and clarity. Speakers
>have a
>> >lively and sharp presence. Unfortunately, extended
>listening to
>> >such speakers can be fatiguing to me.
>>
>> Yes, when it's *creating* the sibilance. When the sibilance is
>already
>> present, then the question is, do you want the speaker to cover
>it up
>> because it's too dull already?
>
> Nope, and I don't want it exacerbated either. Sibilance is
>also something that I don't find controllable with room
>positioning, or tone controls. It just is there or it isn't.
>The Quads aren't sibilant at all, yet are very open and
>revealing.
>
> I've played my system with the Quads and the Legacy for some
>average stereo type friends. Their initial impression is always
>positive on the Legacy's. The dynamics and presence is
>extraordinary. They can play so loud so effortlessly. However,
>I find they have an edge (with a sibilance) that can be
>fatiguing. I try to convince them to give the Quads a serious
>listen and it's hard. They aren't as loud, they don't rock the
>room and make air move - what they do is provide smooth balanced
>wonderful sound.
>If I can't convince them, I play Rennaissance with Annie Haslam.
>As soon as she sings, their jaws open, I hear "Wow, I've never
>heard vocals like that." Enough said. Some folks still prefer
>the Legacy's after acknowledging the Quads. Those are people who
>insist on live sound level rock. Thats fine once in a while, but
>I still like Cadence and Cascade over Catfood.

You won't get me arguing that the Quads are anything less than
brilliant. I also noted that these aren't Quads.

However, don't you find that if something is silibant, it's still
going to be silibant on the Quads?

Let me reemphaize that Greg's speakers, apparently unlike the Legacys,
aren't NORMALLY sibilant.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:56:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On 30 Sep 2003 13:52:54 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:
>>
>>> In my personal experience, sibilance often is accompanied by a
>>> characteristic of impressive brightness and clarity. Speakers have a
>>> lively and sharp presence. Unfortunately, extended listening to
>>> such speakers can be fatiguing to me.
>>
>> Yes, when it's *creating* the sibilance.
>
>So Weil, how do you know if a speaker is creating sibilance or
>over-emphasizing it, or portraying it like it is, or concealing it?
>
><This question should be especially difficult for Weil to answering
>practice, since he really have no competent modern speakers of note of his
>own to compare to, and the acoustics of his listening room is a gigantic
>question mark.>

It's not difficult to answer at all. There are certain albums that I
know have sibilance present since I have heard them many times on many
different systems.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:56:30 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On 30 Sep 2003 13:52:54 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In my personal experience, sibilance often is accompanied by a
>>>> characteristic of impressive brightness and clarity. Speakers
>>>> have a lively and sharp presence. Unfortunately, extended
>>>> listening to such speakers can be fatiguing to me.
>>>
>>> Yes, when it's *creating* the sibilance.
>>
>> So Weil, how do you know if a speaker is creating sibilance or
>> over-emphasizing it, or portraying it like it is, or concealing it?
>>
>> <This question should be especially difficult for Weil to answering
>> practice, since he really have no competent modern speakers of note
>> of his own to compare to, and the acoustics of his listening room is
>> a gigantic question mark.>
>
> It's not difficult to answer at all. There are certain albums that I
> know have sibilance present since I have heard them many times on many
> different systems.

Given the crap speakers you proudly listen to at home Weil, that's totally
meaningless. It also sheds no light on the room acoustics question.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:47:45 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> You won't get me arguing that the Quads are anything less than
> brilliant. I also noted that these aren't Quads.
>
> However, don't you find that if something is silibant, it's
still
> going to be silibant on the Quads?

Not to an annoying nor exacerbated degree. If anything, they
soften it slightly.
>
> Let me reemphaize that Greg's speakers, apparently unlike the
Legacys,
> aren't NORMALLY sibilant.

I thought I said exacerbating was a better description.
Like conversing with you is exacerbating. Do you speak
silibantly?

Anyway, the bottom line to your review of Greg's speakers isn't
surprising. With drivers and kits available today, it isn't hard
to come up with a speaker that sounds pretty decent. If
anything, your review supports Howard's contention that it
doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range speakers.
Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're listening to.

It's either that or it isn't hard to fool the naive.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:10:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> It's not difficult to answer at all. There are certain albums that I
>> know have sibilance present since I have heard them many times on many
>> different systems.
>
>Given the crap speakers you proudly listen to at home Weil, that's totally
>meaningless. It also sheds no light on the room acoustics question.

And which "crap speakers" are you referring to?

Also, which room are you referring to? And what questions do you have?
Was my description somehow deficient? Would you like to describe
*your* listening room/s at this point?

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:23:50 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:47:45 -0700, "ScottW"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> You won't get me arguing that the Quads are anything less than
>> brilliant. I also noted that these aren't Quads.
>>
>> However, don't you find that if something is silibant, it's
>still
>> going to be silibant on the Quads?
>
> Not to an annoying nor exacerbated degree. If anything, they
>soften it slightly.

Then that means that they aren't "accurate", right?

<s******>

>> Let me reemphaize that Greg's speakers, apparently unlike the
>Legacys,
>> aren't NORMALLY sibilant.
>
> I thought I said exacerbating was a better description.
> Like conversing with you is exacerbating. Do you speak
>silibantly?
>
> Anyway, the bottom line to your review of Greg's speakers isn't
>surprising. With drivers and kits available today, it isn't hard
>to come up with a speaker that sounds pretty decent.

<shrug>

> If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that it
>doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range speakers.
>Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're listening to.

How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s? Do you think
they have upwards of $10,000 in a pair of them?

I'm looking at Legacy Focuses and I don't see anywhere NEAR almost
$15,000 worth of drivers and cabinets.

To see you bitching about a $1500 loudspeaker is ridiculous.

Oh yeah, do you think that Howard was right about the Quads being
unacceptable speakers based on an off-handed remark by some Canadian?

>It's either that or it isn't hard to fool the naive.

Not as hard as selling someone at $15,000 @ retail speaker that's
*sibilant*. At least Greg's speaker has yours beat, even if it won't
go nearly as low or take up as much cubic footage in your comfortable
little hovel.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 01:38:27 +0100, Langis > wrote:

>dave weil said to Arnold:
>
>>Would you like to describe *your* listening room/s at this point?
>
>"Skip"
>
>http://www.nickpoole.com/skip.jpg

Looks a little on the bright side.

[George M. Middius]

Langis said:

> >Would you like to describe *your* listening room/s at this point?
>
> "Skip"
> http://www.nickpoole.com/skip.jpg


Well, look at that. Krooger went and cleaned up his yard.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:23:50 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:47:45 -0700, "ScottW"
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> You won't get me arguing that the Quads are anything less
than
> >> brilliant. I also noted that these aren't Quads.
> >>
> >> However, don't you find that if something is silibant, it's
> >still
> >> going to be silibant on the Quads?
> >
> > Not to an annoying nor exacerbated degree. If anything, they
> >soften it slightly.
>
> Then that means that they aren't "accurate", right?
>
> <s******>

S******? You think you accomplished something? Or simply
demonstrating your immaturity?
FWIW I don't think the Quads are all that "accurate". They
still sound great.
>
> >> Let me reemphaize that Greg's speakers, apparently unlike
the
> >Legacys,
> >> aren't NORMALLY sibilant.
> >
> > I thought I said exacerbating was a better description.
> > Like conversing with you is exacerbating. Do you speak
> >silibantly?
> >
> > Anyway, the bottom line to your review of Greg's speakers
isn't
> >surprising. With drivers and kits available today, it isn't
hard
> >to come up with a speaker that sounds pretty decent.
>
> <shrug>
>
> > If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that it
> >doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range speakers.
> >Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're listening
to.
>
> How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?

They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know
what R&D is?

> Do you think
> they have upwards of $10,000 in a pair of them?

Nope. And I don't know how much. I chose a used pair of 63's
over a new pair of 989s. Simple value call.
>
> I'm looking at Legacy Focuses and I don't see anywhere NEAR
almost
> $15,000 worth of drivers and cabinets.

Since they used to retail for $6,000 I can see why.
Since a new model replaced 'em I've seen 'em offered new for
$3K.

But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400 in
midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6 woofers, 2
ribbons, and 2 tweeters. The ribbon mahogany cabinetry is fine
furniture quality. Dave, you're an idiot for trying this
comparison.
>
> To see you bitching about a $1500 loudspeaker is ridiculous.

I see you don't know what bitching is.

>
> Oh yeah, do you think that Howard was right about the Quads
being
> unacceptable speakers based on an off-handed remark by some
Canadian?

Prejudiced against Canadians? I don't care what Howard thinks
and why. Why do you?
Obviously I find the Quads "acceptable" and that is what
matters to me.
>
> >It's either that or it isn't hard to fool the naive.
>
> Not as hard as selling someone at $15,000 @ retail speaker
that's
> *sibilant*. At least Greg's speaker has yours beat, even if it
won't
> go nearly as low or take up as much cubic footage in your
comfortable
> little hovel.

You are seriously factually challenged and have demonstrated
extreme (even for you) ignorance in this post.
Who else becomes factually challenged when shown to be in error?
Oh yeah, Arny.
Let me know if/when you can get your facts straight and have
gained an ability to sustain a rational conversation.
Till then... I have some albums to clean.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> Then that means that they aren't "accurate", right?
>>
>> <s******>
>
> S******? You think you accomplished something? Or simply
>demonstrating your immaturity?
> FWIW I don't think the Quads are all that "accurate". They
>still sound great.

You know, it's funny - that's the battle that I've been fighting all
along. If you can't understand that, well...

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> > If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that it
>> >doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range speakers.
>> >Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're listening
>to.
>>
>> How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?
>
> They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know
>what R&D is?

His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did. Quad has
amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.

<g>

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> Do you think
>> they have upwards of $10,000 in a pair of them?
>
> Nope. And I don't know how much. I chose a used pair of 63's
>over a new pair of 989s. Simple value call.

Well, maybe you'll be able to buy a pair of Greg's speakers for $300
in about 10 years.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> I'm looking at Legacy Focuses and I don't see anywhere NEAR
>almost
>> $15,000 worth of drivers and cabinets.
>
> Since they used to retail for $6,000 I can see why.
> Since a new model replaced 'em I've seen 'em offered new for
>$3K.

Sorry, I was looking at an australian site:

http://www.pymblehifi.com.au/Legacy%20Front.htm

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

> But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
>speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
>distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
>midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400 in
>midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6 woofers, 2
>ribbons, and 2 tweeters. The ribbon mahogany cabinetry is fine
>furniture quality. Dave, you're an idiot for trying this
>comparison.

No I'm not. But I'm not the one saying that the speaker has 4
tweeters. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the speaker only has 2
tweeters, the ribbons. or are you calling the midranges, tweeters?
They certainly *look* like tweeters...

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>Prejudiced against Canadians? I don't care what Howard thinks
>and why. Why do you?
> Obviously I find the Quads "acceptable" and that is what
>matters to me.

Yes, you came a little late to the party, but at least you came...

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> > But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
> >speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
> >distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
> >midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400 in
> >midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6 woofers, 2
> >ribbons, and 2 tweeters. The ribbon mahogany cabinetry is
fine
> >furniture quality. Dave, you're an idiot for trying this
> >comparison.
>
> No I'm not. But I'm not the one saying that the speaker has 4
> tweeters. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the speaker only
has 2
> tweeters, the ribbons. or are you calling the midranges,
tweeters?
> They certainly *look* like tweeters...

In one speaker there are 3 woofers, 2 Eton Midranges, 1 ribbon
tweeter, and 1 super tweeter.
In a pair of speakers, that makes 14 drivers vs Trotsky's 4.
One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.
and yes, you are.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:46:28 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
>> >speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
>> >distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
>> >midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400 in
>> >midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6 woofers, 2
>> >ribbons, and 2 tweeters. The ribbon mahogany cabinetry is
>fine
>> >furniture quality. Dave, you're an idiot for trying this
>> >comparison.
>>
>> No I'm not. But I'm not the one saying that the speaker has 4
>> tweeters. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the speaker only
>has 2
>> tweeters, the ribbons. or are you calling the midranges,
>tweeters?
>> They certainly *look* like tweeters...
>
> In one speaker there are 3 woofers, 2 Eton Midranges, 1 ribbon
>tweeter, and 1 super tweeter.
> In a pair of speakers, that makes 14 drivers vs Trotsky's 4.
>One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
>greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.
> and yes, you are.

For a speaker called Focus, this seems unfocused:

System Type: 7 driver, 4 way
Tweeter: Ribbon
Midrange: 1.25" dome
Midwoofer: (2) 7" KEVLAR® Hexacone
Subwoofer: (3) 12"

"The treble range of FOCUS is reproduced precisely by a specially
treated 1.25” woven dome tweeter with a magnet structure larger than
most woofers. The dome hands off to a 4” ribbon supertweeter for the
“airiest” highs possible. The bass range is controlled by three
long-throw 12” subwoofers with carbon impregnated cones. A vented 6th
order alignment provides the deepest extension with far less
distortion than conventional sealed box or ported systems. FOCUS is
endowed with low-frequency dynamic capabilities among the greatest
ever found in an audiophile speaker".

Hard to tell what's what with this rather "busy" "sibilant" speaker.
<chuckle>

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> >> > If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that
it
> >> >doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range
speakers.
> >> >Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're
listening
> >to.
> >>
> >> How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?
> >
> > They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know
> >what R&D is?
>
> His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did.

More per capita? How much do you think Trots has invested in
his R&D?
I'm sure you can handle dividing that by the capita count. Or...
maybe not.

> Quad has
> amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.

Maybe in basic technology of electrostats but the "new" Quad has
released new models which did require far more R&D than Trots
basic off the shelf speaker design.

>
> <g> exactly

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:46:28 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
> >> >speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
> >> >distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
> >> >midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400
in
> >> >midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6
woofers, 2
> >> >ribbons, and 2 tweeters. The ribbon mahogany cabinetry is
> >fine
> >> >furniture quality. Dave, you're an idiot for trying this
> >> >comparison.
> >>
> >> No I'm not. But I'm not the one saying that the speaker has
4
> >> tweeters. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the speaker
only
> >has 2
> >> tweeters, the ribbons. or are you calling the midranges,
> >tweeters?
> >> They certainly *look* like tweeters...
> >
> > In one speaker there are 3 woofers, 2 Eton Midranges, 1
ribbon
> >tweeter, and 1 super tweeter.
> > In a pair of speakers, that makes 14 drivers vs Trotsky's 4.
> >One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
> >greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.
> > and yes, you are.
>
> For a speaker called Focus, this seems unfocused:
>
> System Type: 7 driver, 4 way
> Tweeter: Ribbon
> Midrange: 1.25" dome
> Midwoofer: (2) 7" KEVLAR® Hexacone
> Subwoofer: (3) 12"
>
> "The treble range of FOCUS is reproduced precisely by a
specially
> treated 1.25" woven dome tweeter with a magnet structure larger
than
> most woofers. The dome hands off to a 4" ribbon supertweeter
for the
> "airiest" highs possible. The bass range is controlled by three
> long-throw 12" subwoofers with carbon impregnated cones. A
vented 6th
> order alignment provides the deepest extension with far less
> distortion than conventional sealed box or ported systems.
FOCUS is
> endowed with low-frequency dynamic capabilities among the
greatest
> ever found in an audiophile speaker".
>
> Hard to tell what's what with this rather "busy" "sibilant"
speaker.
> <chuckle>

I love it when a point is so thoroughly refuted the proponent
ceases all attempts to defend it. Total abdication.

Regardless of your weak attempt to denigrate a design you aren't
familiar with (I thought you recently claimed that wasn't your
style - are you reduced to hypocrisy as well?), your argument
that the material value content of these speakers is on a par
with Trotsky's remains thoroughly refuted. Give it up Dave.

ScottW

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:46:28 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> >
>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
>>>
>
>>>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
>>>>>speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
>>>>>distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
>>>>>midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400
>
> in
>
>>>>>midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6
>
> woofers, 2
>
>>>>>ribbons, and 2 tweeters. The ribbon mahogany cabinetry is
>>>
>>>fine
>>>
>>>>>furniture quality. Dave, you're an idiot for trying this
>>>>>comparison.
>>>>
>>>>No I'm not. But I'm not the one saying that the speaker has
>
> 4
>
>>>>tweeters. Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like the speaker
>
> only
>
>>>has 2
>>>
>>>>tweeters, the ribbons. or are you calling the midranges,
>>>
>>>tweeters?
>>>
>>>>They certainly *look* like tweeters...
>>>
>>>In one speaker there are 3 woofers, 2 Eton Midranges, 1
>
> ribbon
>
>>>tweeter, and 1 super tweeter.
>>>In a pair of speakers, that makes 14 drivers vs Trotsky's 4.
>>>One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
>>>greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.
>>>and yes, you are.
>>
>>For a speaker called Focus, this seems unfocused:
>>
>>System Type: 7 driver, 4 way
>>Tweeter: Ribbon
>>Midrange: 1.25" dome
>>Midwoofer: (2) 7" KEVLAR® Hexacone
>>Subwoofer: (3) 12"
>>
>>"The treble range of FOCUS is reproduced precisely by a
>
> specially
>
>>treated 1.25" woven dome tweeter with a magnet structure larger
>
> than
>
>>most woofers. The dome hands off to a 4" ribbon supertweeter
>
> for the
>
>>"airiest" highs possible. The bass range is controlled by three
>>long-throw 12" subwoofers with carbon impregnated cones. A
>
> vented 6th
>
>>order alignment provides the deepest extension with far less
>>distortion than conventional sealed box or ported systems.
>
> FOCUS is
>
>>endowed with low-frequency dynamic capabilities among the
>
> greatest
>
>>ever found in an audiophile speaker".
>>
>>Hard to tell what's what with this rather "busy" "sibilant"
>
> speaker.
>
>><chuckle>
>
>
> I love it when a point is so thoroughly refuted the proponent
> ceases all attempts to defend it. Total abdication.
>
> Regardless of your weak attempt to denigrate a design you aren't
> familiar with (I thought you recently claimed that wasn't your
> style - are you reduced to hypocrisy as well?), your argument
> that the material value content of these speakers is on a par
> with Trotsky's remains thoroughly refuted. Give it up Dave.
>
> ScottW
>
>
The guy entered in the bar, just for a coffee...
....3 days later he is still drinking beers, elucubrating and remaking
the world.
Back home he will find a registered letter from his wife's prefered lawyer.
RAO is really hell's anteroom ! ;-)

[Lionel]

Bob Morein wrote:

> On 10/2/03 14:46, in article Z4Oeb.10640$gi2.7354@fed1read01, "ScottW"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
>>greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.
>
>
> That has absolute no relevance, quality-wise.
>
> Bob
>

[Bob Morein]

On 10/2/03 14:46, in article Z4Oeb.10640$gi2.7354@fed1read01, "ScottW"
> wrote:

> One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
> greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.

That has absolute no relevance, quality-wise.

Bob

--
Bob Morein.
Failed student.
Failed Temple University
Ejected from Grad program after seven years
Ejected from Drexel University after dissertation judged "bull**** nonsense"
Sued Drexel and Lost
Filed appeal and Lost.
Appealed to US Supreme Court, and they laughed their asses off!
But I get even with studentsandthelaw.org my harassment site.
My poor jewish mother Jane Morein died with a broken heart, watching this
poor twisted loser fail at everything I've ever done.
Daddy Sylvan Morein, who studied hard and became a fair to middlin' dentist,
is now stuck at home with his loser son; unwanted by life.
But I've discovered at last my calling: INTERNET WACKO!



Man, am I a Loser!
Keywords: studentsandthelaw.org

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Langis said:
>
>>> Would you like to describe *your* listening room/s at this point?
>>
>> "Skip"
>> http://www.nickpoole.com/skip.jpg
>
>
> Well, look at that. Krooger went and cleaned up his yard.

Speaking of yards George, why don't you post your address so we can have
someone take a look at yours.

<Nobody should hold their breath for George to allow a fair compaison
between his whining about his betters and his actual miserable life>

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:

>
> But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
> speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
> distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
> midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400 in
> midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6 woofers, 2
> ribbons, and 2 tweeters. The ribbon mahogany cabinetry is fine
> furniture quality. Dave, you're an idiot for trying this
> comparison.
>


Dave, I don't agree with Scottie on that last point, but I think the
rest of it has a grain of truth. The people that buy Legacys don't have
a clue about sound quality, and hence go down the list of "I've got
expensive drivers in a furniture grade cabinet." These are the kind of
guys that think a Corvette is a high performance vehicle.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
> wrote:
>
>
> >>>If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that it
> >>>doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range speakers.
> >>>Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're listening
> >
> >to.
> >
> >>How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?
> >
> > They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know
> >what R&D is?
>
>
> His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did. Quad has
> amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.



Try 40. They've been refining the same design since 1963.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:

>
>
> In one speaker there are 3 woofers, 2 Eton Midranges, 1 ribbon
> tweeter, and 1 super tweeter.
> In a pair of speakers, that makes 14 drivers vs Trotsky's 4.
> One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
> greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.



Good reason to buy Quads, eh Scott? LOL!

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:

> "dave weil" wrote in message
> ...
>
> >On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
>
>
>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that
>
> it
>
> >>>>doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range
>
> speakers.
>
> >>>>Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're
>
> listening
>
> >>to.
> >>
> >>>How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?
> >>
> >> They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know
> >>what R&D is?
> >
> >His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did.
>
>
> More per capita? How much do you think Trots has invested in
> his R&D?
> I'm sure you can handle dividing that by the capita count. Or...
> maybe not.
>


You're not making sense, Scottie. In one breath you're comparing my
little speaker to Legacy, and the in the next Quad. How much money did
Legacy spend on R&D to throw a bunch of drivers in a "furniture grade"
cabinet?

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:

>
> Regardless of your weak attempt to denigrate a design you aren't
> familiar with (I thought you recently claimed that wasn't your
> style - are you reduced to hypocrisy as well?), your argument
> that the material value content of these speakers is on a par
> with Trotsky's remains thoroughly refuted. Give it up Dave.



Yeah, dave--Scottie wouldn't know musicality if it kicked him in the
face anyway.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:

>>>> If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that it
>>>> doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range speakers.

>>>> Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're listening to.

If that. Well, shipping from Chicago to Nashville has to be included, right?

<g>

>>> How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?

Lots. One reason why their competition doesn't go down the same technical
road as Quad is that they don't think they can make as much money doing
that, as doing something else perhaps a little more mainstream. R&D costs
no doubt figure significantly in their cost estimates.

>> They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know > what R&D
is?

Yeah, minimal. Greg did everything he knew how to do, which ain't much!

> His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did.

The informed version of this sentence would probably relate to "unit costs",
and not use demographic terminology. But when has Weil restricted himself to
discussions in areas where he's well-informed?

<g>

However, its hard to imagine how Singh rang up many costs given his
truncated development cycle.

> Quad has amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.

> <g>

I guess the joke is how poorly-informed this statement makes Weil sound.

<g>

(1) Just because a company has sold a non-zero quantity of their product
doesn't mean that their R&D costs per unit were small.

(2) R&D costs relate to the use of technology, which in skilled hands
reduces the R&D costs required to obtain quality results. OTOH, the law of
diminishing returns hasn't been repealed, and a lot of time and money can be
spent getting top quality results. This is particularly true for products
that don't use the most popular technologies.

Comparing the skill levels of audio-technical-illiterate Singh, to those of
Peter Walker and his group at Quad isn't even a bad joke. It's absolutely
ridiculous.

(3) Singh has detailed his R&D process which was absolutely minimal and
could have been completed in an afternoon, as minimal as it was.

(4) The amortization of R&D costs are usually based on tax laws, not their
per-unit equivalent cost.

(5) Products that are in production often continue to produce significant
R&D costs. So the fact that the ESL 63 has been around for a long time
proves nothing about what the R&D costs for the current equivalent product.

As usual Weil is so wrong that it's not funny. But don't expect him to admit
that he's wrong.

<g>

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:46:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did.
>
>The informed version of this sentence would probably relate to "unit costs",
>and not use demographic terminology. But when has Weil restricted himself to
>discussions in areas where he's well-informed?

Per capita refers to "per person".

Sorry that this went over your head. If yu spread out the R&D costs
over the people who have worked for Quad in the past 50 years, this
could very well be a true statement.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:46:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>As usual Weil is so wrong that it's not funny. But don't expect him to admit
>that he's wrong.

Because I'mnot in this instance.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:29:50 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>> Quad has
>> amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.
>
> Maybe in basic technology of electrostats but the "new" Quad has
>released new models which did require far more R&D than Trots
>basic off the shelf speaker design.

*Most* of the R&D work was done years ago. The main principles haven't
changed. That's my point.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:41:36 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>Regardless of your weak attempt to denigrate a design you aren't
>familiar with (I thought you recently claimed that wasn't your
>style - are you reduced to hypocrisy as well?), your argument
>that the material value content of these speakers is on a par
>with Trotsky's remains thoroughly refuted. Give it up Dave.

Who's denegrating it? *You* are the one who's making the rather
questionable claim that it's a sibilant speaker. I'm just taking your
word on it. You tried to hand your argument about ribbon tweeters on
it and tried to denigrate Mr. Singh's speakers by twisting my words to
imply that I claimed the same thing about *his* speakers.

As to the cost of drivers, when you can quote me the ACTUAL cost of
the drivers that legacy pays, not what it would cost *you* to get them
from Madisound, maybe we'll talk. I'm quite sure that Legacy doesn't
pay the prices that you've quoted. I *am* pretty sure though that the
prices that have been quoted for Greg's drivers are the prices that
he's paying.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:54:52 GMT, trotsky > wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>>If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that it
>> >>>doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range speakers.
>> >>>Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're listening
>> >
>> >to.
>> >
>> >>How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?
>> >
>> > They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know
>> >what R&D is?
>>
>>
>> His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did. Quad has
>> amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.
>
>
>
>Try 40. They've been refining the same design since 1963.

Well, I was giving them credit for some continuing R&D.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:46:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> As usual Weil is so wrong that it's not funny. But don't expect him
>> to admit that he's wrong.

> Because I'mnot in this instance.

Yeah Weil, all that and then there's the many typos you inflict on us
because you're too arrogant to use a spell-checker. Ironic and hypocritical
AFTER you tried to ream me out for the same issue such as:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mqrp0vk79l4apbvvoo1ul1o54okl9htr39%404 ax.c
om

Dave Weil wrote:

"Hop you get your spell-checker fixed <chuckl>"

In fact, Outlook Express's spell-checker was defective at that point in
time, a fact that was out of my control.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> As to the cost of drivers, when you can quote me the ACTUAL cost of
> the drivers that legacy pays, not what it would cost *you* to get them
> from Madisound, maybe we'll talk.

Typical of Weil's deceptive debating by means of making an irrelevant,
unreasonable demand. The information in question is proprietary information
belonging to Legacy. Weil is basically trying to win the argument with
Scotty based on Scott's inability to do the impossible.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:16:22 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:46:35 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> As usual Weil is so wrong that it's not funny. But don't expect him
>>> to admit that he's wrong.
>
>> Because I'mnot in this instance.
>
>Yeah Weil, all that and then there's the many typos you inflict on us
>because you're too arrogant to use a spell-checker. Ironic and hypocritical
>AFTER you tried to ream me out for the same issue such as:
>
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mqrp0vk79l4apbvvoo1ul1o54okl9htr39%404 ax.com
or, alternately http://tinyurl.com/pg7e
>Dave Weil wrote:
>
>"Hop you get your spell-checker fixed <chuckl>"
>
>In fact, Outlook Express's spell-checker was defective at that point in
>time, a fact that was out of my control.

In point of fact, *that* particular typo was a joke, if I remember
correctly.

The typo that you point out from this morning *wasn't* intentional.

BTW, I reconstructed your link so that it worked correctly. You still
don't have enough of a concern for the group to do it properly.

As to the typo issue, yes, I make them periodically. I made several
this morning. Maybe I should have waken up first <g>.

And finally, were *you* too "arrogant" to use your spellchecker early
this morning when you wrote this, or was it "defective at that
point"?:

<Nobody should hold their breath for George to allow a fair compaison
between his whining about his betters and his actual miserable life>

Just curious. Maybe your spellchecker "lied" to you.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:18:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> As to the cost of drivers, when you can quote me the ACTUAL cost of
>> the drivers that legacy pays, not what it would cost *you* to get them
>> from Madisound, maybe we'll talk.
>
>Typical of Weil's deceptive debating by means of making an irrelevant,
>unreasonable demand. The information in question is proprietary information
>belonging to Legacy. Weil is basically trying to win the argument with
>Scotty based on Scott's inability to do the impossible.

He's the one who brought up the cost of drivers. He shouldn't use
"impossible to prove points" now should he?

It's not irrelevant nor unreasonable to apply the same standards on
both sides of the equation.

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:18:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:

>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>
>
>>> As to the cost of drivers, when you can quote me the ACTUAL cost of
>>> the drivers that legacy pays, not what it would cost *you* to get
>>> them from Madisound, maybe we'll talk.

>> Typical of Weil's deceptive debating by means of making an
>> irrelevant, unreasonable demand. The information in question is
>> proprietary information belonging to Legacy. Weil is basically
>> trying to win the argument with Scotty based on Scott's inability to
>> do the impossible.

> He's the one who brought up the cost of drivers.

An interesting claim given that Scotty's post doesn't mention "cost".

Obviously, a non-existent claim from Scotty is not justification for you
making such an unreasonable demand, Weil.

> He shouldn't use "impossible to prove points" now should he?

Where did Scotty do that?

> It's not irrelevant nor unreasonable to apply the same standards on
> both sides of the equation.

A fine statement, except that it's irrelevant.

> Sorry, you lose.

You're delusional, Weil.

> Again.

Nope despite your posturing, you're still on the hotseat Weil. You made some
claims, now take responsibility for them. Otherwise, we'll just have more
proof that you are full of lies and deceptions.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 12:38:37 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 09:18:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>
>>> "dave weil" > wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>>> As to the cost of drivers, when you can quote me the ACTUAL cost of
>>>> the drivers that legacy pays, not what it would cost *you* to get
>>>> them from Madisound, maybe we'll talk.
>
>>> Typical of Weil's deceptive debating by means of making an
>>> irrelevant, unreasonable demand. The information in question is
>>> proprietary information belonging to Legacy. Weil is basically
>>> trying to win the argument with Scotty based on Scott's inability to
>>> do the impossible.
>
>> He's the one who brought up the cost of drivers.
>
>An interesting claim given that Scotty's post doesn't mention "cost".
>
>Obviously, a non-existent claim from Scotty is not justification for you
>making such an unreasonable demand, Weil.

> >> > But to BOM/retail price ratio compare the Focus to Singhs
> >> >speakers is stupid even at 6K/pair. Trots has <$100 in
> >> >distributor driver pricing in the pair. One of the Eton
> >> >midranges goes for $100 from distributors. I get to $400
> >> >n midrange drivers in a pair of Legacys without the 6
> >> >woofers, 2 ribbons, and 2 tweeters.

>> He shouldn't use "impossible to prove points" now should he?
>
>Where did Scotty do that?

See above.

He's trying to compare the cost of drivers using a "retail" price when
it's probable that Legacy doesn't pay that price, whereas Trotsky
probably does.

Let's compare apples to apples, OK?

>> It's not irrelevant nor unreasonable to apply the same standards on
>> both sides of the equation.
>
>A fine statement, except that it's irrelevant.

It's NOT irrelevant. If *I* were using the same sort of deceptive
debating technique that Scott is, you'd be all over me like stink on
****.

>> Sorry, you lose.
>
>You're delusional, Weil.
>
>> Again.
>
>Nope despite your posturing, you're still on the hotseat Weil. You made some
>claims, now take responsibility for them. Otherwise, we'll just have more
>proof that you are full of lies and deceptions.

Already shown that you are wrong for defending Scott in this instance.
I like the fact that you trip all over yourself trying to find fault
with me though. It's rather flattering...

[Marc Phillips]

Greg said:

>ScottW wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:51:14 -0700, "ScottW"
>>
>>
>>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>If anything, your review supports Howard's contention that
>>
>> it
>>
>> >>>>doesn't take big $$ to get OK sounding limited range
>>
>> speakers.
>>
>> >>>>Greg probably has less than $300 in the pair you're
>>
>> listening
>>
>> >>to.
>> >>
>> >>>How much do you think that Quad "has" in a pair of 959s?
>> >>
>> >> They actually did some extensive R&D. Did Greg? Do you know
>> >>what R&D is?
>> >
>> >His R&D probably cost him more per capita than Quad's did.
>>
>>
>> More per capita? How much do you think Trots has invested in
>> his R&D?
>> I'm sure you can handle dividing that by the capita count. Or...
>> maybe not.
>>
>
>
>You're not making sense, Scottie. In one breath you're comparing my
>little speaker to Legacy, and the in the next Quad. How much money did
>Legacy spend on R&D to throw a bunch of drivers in a "furniture grade"
>cabinet?

Some of the most incredible speakers I've listened to in the last year have
been two-ways, or in one case, a single-driver speaker (a Lowther). I'm
considering trading in my current speaker, an 88-lb three-way, on a least two
two-way designs (a Harbeth Monitor 30 or a Reynaud Offrande), and possibly a
third (Dynaudio Special 25). I'm still considering Quads, too.

My point is, and this is directed at everyone else in this thread, not you,
Greg, that it's kind of hard to relegate performance to the cost of drivers and
materials. If one speaker sounds better than another, isn't it worth more? It
is exciting when a speaker designer comes up with a great performer and doesn't
charge for it (like the Spicas), and it sucks when a manufacturer overcharges
for R&D (there is no way the JMlabs Micro Utopia BE is worth $5500, when a used
pair of ESL-63s outperforms it at around one-third the cost). But attention
needs to be paid to the VALUE of the product.

Boon

[ScottW]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:41:36 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
> >Regardless of your weak attempt to denigrate a design you aren't
> >familiar with (I thought you recently claimed that wasn't your
> >style - are you reduced to hypocrisy as well?), your argument
> >that the material value content of these speakers is on a par
> >with Trotsky's remains thoroughly refuted. Give it up Dave.
>
> Who's denegrating it? *You* are the one who's making the rather
> questionable claim that it's a sibilant speaker. I'm just taking your
> word on it. You tried to hand your argument about ribbon tweeters on
> it and tried to denigrate Mr. Singh's speakers by twisting my words to
> imply that I claimed the same thing about *his* speakers.

Just to refresh your one byte memory, you said Greg's speaker
exacerbate sibilance. I say the Legacy Focus do likewise.

>
> As to the cost of drivers, when you can quote me the ACTUAL cost of
> the drivers that legacy pays, not what it would cost *you* to get them
> from Madisound, maybe we'll talk. I'm quite sure that Legacy doesn't
> pay the prices that you've quoted. I *am* pretty sure though that the
> prices that have been quoted for Greg's drivers are the prices that
> he's paying.

The prices are valid for the purpose of comparing material value
content. The bias you show by wanting to grant Greg an advantage in
this comparison is bizaare. You have twisted yourself into the
irrational position of arguing that Singhs inability to buy materials
direct from the manufacturers without distributor markups results in
greater value to prospective buyers.
That is absurd and you are obviously arguing for the sake of argument
rather than trying to make a valid point.

You're an old man playing a childs game, Dave. It makes you look
foolish.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On 2 Oct 2003 12:38:06 -0700, (ScottW) wrote:

>dave weil > wrote in message >...
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:41:36 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Regardless of your weak attempt to denigrate a design you aren't
>> >familiar with (I thought you recently claimed that wasn't your
>> >style - are you reduced to hypocrisy as well?), your argument
>> >that the material value content of these speakers is on a par
>> >with Trotsky's remains thoroughly refuted. Give it up Dave.
>>
>> Who's denegrating it? *You* are the one who's making the rather
>> questionable claim that it's a sibilant speaker. I'm just taking your
>> word on it. You tried to hand your argument about ribbon tweeters on
>> it and tried to denigrate Mr. Singh's speakers by twisting my words to
>> imply that I claimed the same thing about *his* speakers.
>
> Just to refresh your one byte memory, you said Greg's speaker
>exacerbate sibilance. I say the Legacy Focus do likewise.

No, let's get this correct, once and for all. I said this:

"If the source material tends toward the sibilant, this speaker
will exacerbate that tendency slightly."

This means that if there's sibilance already present in the source
material, the speaker will exacerbate it SLIGHTLY.

You said this about the Legacys:

" I already have a sybilant ribbon tweeter. The Quads are so silky
smooth in ..... well, it's hard to call it a
comparison".

This means (as written) that the speaker ITSELF is sibilant.

To me, a speaker that CREATES sibilance is a speaker that I'm not
interested in.


>> As to the cost of drivers, when you can quote me the ACTUAL cost of
>> the drivers that legacy pays, not what it would cost *you* to get them
>> from Madisound, maybe we'll talk. I'm quite sure that Legacy doesn't
>> pay the prices that you've quoted. I *am* pretty sure though that the
>> prices that have been quoted for Greg's drivers are the prices that
>> he's paying.
>
> The prices are valid for the purpose of comparing material value
>content.

No they aren't. You're trying to compare "wholesale" prices of drivers
to 'retail" prices of drivers.

>The bias you show by wanting to grant Greg an advantage in
>this comparison is bizaare. You have twisted yourself into the
>irrational position of arguing that Singhs inability to buy materials
>direct from the manufacturers without distributor markups results in
>greater value to prospective buyers.

No, I'm saying that you can't quote an artificially high raw materials
price to support your claims.

>That is absurd and you are obviously arguing for the sake of argument
>rather than trying to make a valid point.
>
>You're an old man playing a childs game, Dave. It makes you look
>foolish.

Hardly. You know what looks foolish? You attacking someone's product
unheard because you've got a grudge. It makes you look petty as well.

<shrug>

[trotsky]

Marc Phillips wrote:

> Greg said:
>
>
> >ScottW wrote:
>
> >> More per capita? How much do you think Trots has invested in
> >>his R&D?
> >>I'm sure you can handle dividing that by the capita count. Or...
> >>maybe not.
> >>
> >
> >
> >You're not making sense, Scottie. In one breath you're comparing my
> >little speaker to Legacy, and the in the next Quad. How much money did
> >Legacy spend on R&D to throw a bunch of drivers in a "furniture grade"
> >cabinet?
>
>
> Some of the most incredible speakers I've listened to in the last year
> have
> been two-ways, or in one case, a single-driver speaker (a Lowther). I'm
> considering trading in my current speaker, an 88-lb three-way, on a
> least two
> two-way designs (a Harbeth Monitor 30 or a Reynaud Offrande), and
> possibly a
> third (Dynaudio Special 25). I'm still considering Quads, too.


You might want to consider Jupiters. I'm currently working on a 3 way
that's guaranteed to be a giant killer.

>
>
> My point is, and this is directed at everyone else in this thread, not
> you,
> Greg, that it's kind of hard to relegate performance to the cost of
> drivers and
> materials. If one speaker sounds better than another, isn't it worth
> more? It
> is exciting when a speaker designer comes up with a great performer
> and doesn't
> charge for it (like the Spicas), and it sucks when a manufacturer
> overcharges
> for R&D (there is no way the JMlabs Micro Utopia BE is worth $5500,
> when a used
> pair of ESL-63s outperforms it at around one-third the cost). But
> attention
> needs to be paid to the VALUE of the product.



Value is, of course, a relative thing. What you and I might consider
values audio retards like, say, Arny Krueger and Norm Strong would
consider mountains of money. Also, expensive drivers in a speaker
cabinet are no guarantee of musical sound, regardless of how "furniture
grade" that cabinet is. Obviously (to me, anyway) raw drivers have to
offer value just like finished speakers do. It's weird, but you would
think after all this time the audio would at least grow up a little bit,
but it hasn't. The vast majority of pundits and consumers are still
impressed by numbers, for some ungodly reason. "These Sony SACDs have a
384 kHz sampling frequency, and sound super terrific when played back
through ultra-cheap Chinese built analog stages!" Yeah, except that
they don't--they sound cheap. But I digress.

Most people don't know how to hear, and wait for somebody else to tell
them what sounds good, much like they wait for artists of questionable
talent to be played on the radio before they decide it's music that they
need to buy.

As for Lowthers, I only heard them once at a guys house, and they
weren't what I expected at all. From the reviews I'd read, and from
experiences I'd already had with neodymium tweeters, I expected them to
be "hot" on the high end, and they weren't. They had a light, airy,
open quality that was very involving. I think their Achilles heel is
that they are damn difficult to make relatively full range.

[trotsky]

ScottW wrote:

> dave weil wrote in message news:...
>
> >On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:41:36 -0700, "ScottW"
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Regardless of your weak attempt to denigrate a design you aren't
> >>familiar with (I thought you recently claimed that wasn't your
> >>style - are you reduced to hypocrisy as well?), your argument
> >>that the material value content of these speakers is on a par
> >>with Trotsky's remains thoroughly refuted. Give it up Dave.
> >
> >Who's denegrating it? *You* are the one who's making the rather
> >questionable claim that it's a sibilant speaker. I'm just taking your
> >word on it. You tried to hand your argument about ribbon tweeters on
> >it and tried to denigrate Mr. Singh's speakers by twisting my words to
> >imply that I claimed the same thing about *his* speakers.
>
>
> Just to refresh your one byte memory, you said Greg's speaker
> exacerbate sibilance. I say the Legacy Focus do likewise.
>



Maybe they needed to spend more money on the drivers--LOL!!!

[Bob Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Morein wrote:
>
> > On 10/2/03 14:46, in article Z4Oeb.10640$gi2.7354@fed1read01, "ScottW"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>One of those 14 (the Eton Midrange) has a distributor price
> >>greater than all 4 of Trotsky's drivers combined.
> >
> >
> > That has absolute no relevance, quality-wise.
> >
> > Bob
> >
Thanks for staying on the case, Lionel.

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:29:50 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> >> Quad has
> >> amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.
> >
> > Maybe in basic technology of electrostats but the "new" Quad
has
> >released new models which did require far more R&D than Trots
> >basic off the shelf speaker design.
>
> *Most* of the R&D work was done years ago. The main principles
haven't
> changed. That's my point.

Most of the expense probably wasn't in the basic technology
research but tooling the parts for production.
That has to be redone to a large extent for each model. Dave, we
know you never worked in design or manufacturing or industry in
general so quit spouting off stupidly about things you know
nothing about.
"Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer. You
imply the more people I have working for less money, the better
off the customer will be. That may apply in manufacturing but I
could hire a thousand waiters and ask them to develop a new
technology for reproducing sound and would surely get nothing
from their efforts. Oh well, as research talent goes, they came
at a low per capita cost.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Oct 2003 12:38:06 -0700, (ScottW)
wrote:
>
> >dave weil > wrote in message
>...
> >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:41:36 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> > The prices are valid for the purpose of comparing material
value
> >content.
>
> No they aren't. You're trying to compare "wholesale" prices of
drivers
> to 'retail" prices of drivers.
>

Wrong. You are wrong and grasping on so many levels I have
tired of trying to bring any factual content to this discussion.
Tell us the bottom line.

Would you pay $1300 for Trots speakers if you had the money and
were in the market?

ScottW

[Sylvan Morein when I croak Bob gets all my dough!]

On 10/3/03 11:52, in article , "Bob
Morein" > wrote:

> Thanks for staying on the case, Lionel.


Yes Lionel. Why don't you come over and visit my poor sick twisted son Bob.
He hasn't left his room in weeks, and his room stinks as he hasn't bathed in
a month of Sundays.

He could use a little camaraderie from another sick twisted loser.


Sylvan Morein

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

>
> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."

Doomed to another miserable 10 years or so as a failed member of what
is mostly a productive human race. Most of us have successes and
failures, but the tough get up and succeed again. And again. And
again.

But a twisted few are forever failures.


Thanks for the kind summary of Robert Morein's failed existence from
the Philadelphia Inquirer.

A Real Brian McCarty
Successful

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:Bh6fb.11224$gi2.1009@fed1read01

> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...

>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:29:50 -0700, "ScottW" >
>> wrote:

>>>> Quad has
>>>> amortized most of their R&D 20 years ago.

>>> Maybe in basic technology of electrostats but the "new" Quad has
>>> released new models which did require far more R&D than Trots
>>> basic off the shelf speaker design.

>> *Most* of the R&D work was done years ago. The main principles
>> haven't changed. That's my point.

> Most of the expense probably wasn't in the basic technology
> research but tooling the parts for production.

You're talking to the wind Scotty. Remember that Weil and technology on that
scale are strangers. He works in a place where they "tool up" new product by
adding a little more salt and spice by shaking it out of a dispenser.

> That has to be redone to a large extent for each model.

In the case of a materials-sensitive product like electrostatic speakers,
process changes by a supplier can force re-engineering by Quad.

> Dave, we
> know you never worked in design or manufacturing or industry in
> general so quit spouting off stupidly about things you know
> nothing about.

Right, Weil and technology are well known to be strangers. Note all the
broken audio gear Weil has that he is incompetent to repair, and can't
afford to have someone else repair for him.

> "Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer.

It's inappropriate terminology that Weil made up because he doesn't even
know the accepted words to use - he's so removed from the technology.

> You imply the more people I have working for less money, the better
> off the customer will be. That may apply in manufacturing...

It doesn't, as a rule.

> but I
> could hire a thousand waiters and ask them to develop a new
> technology for reproducing sound and would surely get nothing
> from their efforts.

True. Consider Singh's futility and desperation as he uses a junior waiter
in a cheap bar who is a proven technical incompetent as his chief audio
reviewer. Only on RAO!



>Oh well, as research talent goes, they came
> at a low per capita cost.
>
> ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottieborg grunts and strains to deliver a cogent thought.

> > No they aren't. You're trying to compare "wholesale" prices of drivers
> > to 'retail" prices of drivers.

> Wrong. You are wrong and grasping on so many levels I have
> tired of trying to bring any factual content to this discussion.

It must be frustrating for you to feel so strongly that everybody
else doesn't make any sense, and yet be unable to express why you
feel that way.





This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

>
> True. Consider Singh's futility and desperation as he uses a junior waiter
> in a cheap bar who is a proven technical incompetent as his chief audio
> reviewer. Only on RAO!
>
>
>


Krueger, why do you even bother pretending that you're a Christian?

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:45:19 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>"Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer. You
>imply the more people I have working for less money, the better
>off the customer will be.

I think it's just willful misreading of my stuff.

You really should stop it now.

[dave weil]

On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:54:13 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2 Oct 2003 12:38:06 -0700, (ScottW)
>wrote:
>>
>> >dave weil > wrote in message
>...
>> >> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 22:41:36 -0700, "ScottW"
>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> > The prices are valid for the purpose of comparing material
>value
>> >content.
>>
>> No they aren't. You're trying to compare "wholesale" prices of
>drivers
>> to 'retail" prices of drivers.
>>
>
> Wrong. You are wrong and grasping on so many levels I have
>tired of trying to bring any factual content to this discussion.
> Tell us the bottom line.
>
> Would you pay $1300 for Trots speakers if you had the money and
>were in the market?

Sorry, I'm out of that game now.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> True. Consider Singh's futility and desperation as he uses a junior
>> waiter in a cheap bar who is a proven technical incompetent as his
>> chief audio reviewer. Only on RAO!

> Krueger, why do you even bother pretending that you're a Christian?

As a Christian I'm supposed to love the truth and speak out against
deceptions, right?

So, where's your beef, Singh?

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message


> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:45:19 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:

>> "Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer. You
>> imply the more people I have working for less money, the better
>> off the customer will be.

> I think it's just willful misreading of my stuff.

Looks like an attempt by Weil to distance himself from something dumb that
he said way back on...
yesterday.

LOL!

There's kinda of an interesting comparison here. Schwartznegger is trying to
distance himself from things he did 25 years ago, and Weil is trying to
distance himself from things he did 25 hours ago.

> You really should stop it now.

Yes, the whining from Weil is becoming quite distracting. Time to stop,
before he hurts himself by screaming in pain so loudly.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message

> Scottieborg grunts and strains to deliver a cogent thought.
>
>>> No they aren't. You're trying to compare "wholesale" prices of
>>> drivers to 'retail" prices of drivers.
>
>> Wrong. You are wrong and grasping on so many levels I have
>> tired of trying to bring any factual content to this discussion.
>
> It must be frustrating for you to feel so strongly that everybody
> else doesn't make any sense, and yet be unable to express why you
> feel that way.

Irrelevant. Here's the highly relevant question from Scott that Middius
wants to bury in posturing:

"Would you pay $1300 for Trots speakers if you had the money and were in the
market?"

So what about it Middius. In addition to running away from your record as an
eBay trader, why are you running away from this extremely relevant question?

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> ink.net
>
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
> >>True. Consider Singh's futility and desperation as he uses a junior
> >>waiter in a cheap bar who is a proven technical incompetent as his
> >>chief audio reviewer. Only on RAO!
>
>
> >Krueger, why do you even bother pretending that you're a Christian?
>
>
> As a Christian I'm supposed to love the truth and speak out against
> deceptions, right?
>
> So, where's your beef, Singh?



My beef? Well, having been brought up as a Christian, it was all too
clear the entire religion is based on the concept of brotherly love, and
I see nothing but hatred and putridity in the above post, as it is with
all your posts. To call yourself a Christian is tantamount to admitting
that you are a liar.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "dave weil" wrote in message
>
>
>
> >On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:45:19 -0700, "ScottW"
> >wrote:
>
>
> >>"Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer. You
> >>imply the more people I have working for less money, the better
> >>off the customer will be.
>
>
> >I think it's just willful misreading of my stuff.
>
>
> Looks like an attempt by Weil to distance himself from something dumb that
> he said way back on...
> yesterday.
>
> LOL!
>
> There's kinda of an interesting comparison here. Schwartznegger



No such person.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
et
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "trotsky" wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> True. Consider Singh's futility and desperation as he uses a junior
>>>> waiter in a cheap bar who is a proven technical incompetent as his
>>>> chief audio reviewer. Only on RAO!
>>
>>
>>> Krueger, why do you even bother pretending that you're a Christian?
>>
>>
>> As a Christian I'm supposed to love the truth and speak out against
>> deceptions, right?
>>
>> So, where's your beef, Singh?
>
>
>
> My beef? Well, having been brought up as a Christian, it was all too
> clear the entire religion is based on the concept of brotherly love,
> and I see nothing but hatred and putridity in the above post, as it
> is with all your posts.

I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh, so it's easy to
dismiss.

> To call yourself a Christian is tantamount to admitting that you are a
liar.

I think that question has been asked and answered in the past, Singh. If you
want to try to lie about it too, I might be persuaded to document your
lying, but then again I might not.

[Arny Krueger]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
. net
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "dave weil" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:45:19 -0700, "ScottW"
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> "Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer. You
>>>> imply the more people I have working for less money, the better
>>>> off the customer will be.
>>
>>
>>> I think it's just willful misreading of my stuff.
>>
>>
>> Looks like an attempt by Weil to distance himself from something
>> dumb that he said way back on...
>> yesterday.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> There's kinda of an interesting comparison here. Schwartznegger

> No such person.

Only if one is so English-challenged that they can't re-insert the missing
letter.

Thanks for failing the IQ test, Singh.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:24:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh, so it's easy to
>dismiss.

Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:24:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh, so it's
>> easy to dismiss.
>
> Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.

Looks like Weil doesn't understand that properly-operating spell-checkers
check word spellings, not word meanings.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh,

> Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.

Too bad microsoft doesn't give him diction and punctuation checkers.
There's still no substitute for an elementary-school education.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:51:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"dave weil" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:24:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh, so it's
>>> easy to dismiss.
>>
>> Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.
>
>Looks like Weil doesn't understand that properly-operating spell-checkers
>check word spellings, not word meanings.

Looks like you missed the ironical comment about trying to fix
something that ain't broke.

Oh yeah, thanks for confirming that you have trouble with word
meanings.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 10:02:35 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh,
>
>> Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.
>
>Too bad microsoft doesn't give him diction and punctuation checkers.
>There's still no substitute for an elementary-school education.

Maybe his teachers took a screwdriver to him.

[Marc Phillips]

Greg said:

>As for Lowthers, I only heard them once at a guys house, and they
>weren't what I expected at all. From the reviews I'd read, and from
>experiences I'd already had with neodymium tweeters, I expected them to
>be "hot" on the high end, and they weren't. They had a light, airy,
>open quality that was very involving. I think their Achilles heel is
>that they are damn difficult to make relatively full range.

Even with massive, room-consuming cabinets, they only hit around 40hZ at the
best, though people keep trying to make them go lower. I heard a rather simple
pair of Lowthers in the minimalist Medallion cabinets, and they were quite
surprising and real-sounding with small-scale recordings. They're like 2A3 SET
amps in that they definitely have some glaring limitations, but within a
certain window of performance, they are unrivaled, even by Quads. The trick to
listening to them is to put them in a fairly small room and to listen in the
nearfield. Then keep it to small jazz combos and string quartets.

Unfortunately, I like rock too much to buy a pair, but I can obviously see
their reason for being.

Boon

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> et
>
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"trotsky" wrote in message
> ink.net
> >>
> >>
> >>>Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>True. Consider Singh's futility and desperation as he uses a junior
> >>>>waiter in a cheap bar who is a proven technical incompetent as his
> >>>>chief audio reviewer. Only on RAO!
> >>
> >>
> >>>Krueger, why do you even bother pretending that you're a Christian?
> >>
> >>
> >>As a Christian I'm supposed to love the truth and speak out against
> >>deceptions, right?
> >>
> >>So, where's your beef, Singh?
> >
> >
> >
> >My beef? Well, having been brought up as a Christian, it was all too
> >clear the entire religion is based on the concept of brotherly love,
> >and I see nothing but hatred and putridity in the above post, as it
> >is with all your posts.
>
>
> I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh, so it's easy to
> dismiss.
>
>
> > To call yourself a Christian is tantamount to admitting that you are a
>
> liar.
>
> I think that question has been asked and answered in the past, Singh.



No it hasn't. You head for the hills like the yellow bellied sapsucker
you are every time the subject comes up.

[trotsky]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> . net
>
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"dave weil" wrote in message
>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:45:19 -0700, "ScottW"
> >>>wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>"Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer. You
> >>>>imply the more people I have working for less money, the better
> >>>>off the customer will be.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I think it's just willful misreading of my stuff.
> >>
> >>
> >>Looks like an attempt by Weil to distance himself from something
> >>dumb that he said way back on...
> >>yesterday.
> >>
> >>LOL!
> >>
> >>There's kinda of an interesting comparison here. Schwartznegger
>
>
> >No such person.
>
>
> Only if one is so English-challenged that they can't re-insert the missing
> letter.



Still no such person.


>
>
> Thanks for failing the IQ test, Singh.
>


Prove you can spell "Schwarzenegger", dumkopf.

[trotsky]

dave weil wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:24:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
> wrote:
>
>
> >I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh, so it's easy to
> >dismiss.
>
>
> Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.



Like Krueger always says, "...any part in a storm."

[George M. Middius]

trotsky said:

> Prove you can spell "Schwarzenegger", dumkopf.

One out of two ain't bad.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> trotsky said:
>
>
>>Prove you can spell "Schwarzenegger", dumkopf.
>
>
> One out of two ain't bad.
>
>
Whaooo, Middius is playing ass-licker for Greg "Loser" trotsky !

[George M. Middius]

Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:

> > trotsky said:

> >>Prove you can spell "Schwarzenegger", dumkopf.

> > One out of two ain't bad.

> Whaooo, Middius is playing ass-licker for Greg "Loser" trotsky !

Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
"ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
kowtowing, kissing up, etc.

Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
fool two or three times a day?

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
>
>
>>>trotsky said:
>
>
>>>>Prove you can spell "Schwarzenegger", dumkopf.
>
>
>>>One out of two ain't bad.
>
>
>>Whaooo, Middius is playing ass-licker for Greg "Loser" trotsky !
>
>
> Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
> "ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
> kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
>
> Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
> fool two or three times a day?
>
>
>
I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
Soon or late you will play *ASS-LICKER* for Greg "Loser" Trotsky !
This is my prediction...

LOL !

[George M. Middius]

Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:

> > Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
> > "ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
> > kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
> >
> > Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
> > fool two or three times a day?

> I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !

So you did, moron. And I replied that your head was up your ass again.

It's a rare talent to be able to make a fool out of yourself twice on
the exact same point. Krooger shares that talent with you. In fact,
****borg has been able to make an ass of himself dozens of times on
the same point, as we've seen every time he enters a "debating trade"
death spiral. Are you going to try for an equally impressive
performance?

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
>
>
>>>Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
>>>"ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
>>>kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
>>>
>>>Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
>>>fool two or three times a day?
>
>
>>I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
>
>
> So you did, moron. And I replied that your head was up your ass again.
>
> It's a rare talent to be able to make a fool out of yourself twice on
> the exact same point. Krooger shares that talent with you. In fact,
> ****borg has been able to make an ass of himself dozens of times on
> the same point, as we've seen every time he enters a "debating trade"
> death spiral. Are you going to try for an equally impressive
> performance?
>
>
>
arse-licker UK [Show phonetics]
noun [C] (US ass-licker) OFFENSIVE
a person who tries to get an advantage from other people by being
extremely pleasant to them in a way which is not sincere

You wasn't mocking of Trotsky...
Do you remember Darwin sentence ?

[George M. Middius]

Lionella la Bete Salope tries to out-stupid the Krooborg.

> >>>Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
> >>>"ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
> >>>kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
> >>>
> >>>Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
> >>>fool two or three times a day?
> >
> >
> >>I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
> >
> >
> > So you did, moron. And I replied that your head was up your ass again.
> >
> > It's a rare talent to be able to make a fool out of yourself twice on
> > the exact same point. Krooger shares that talent with you. In fact,
> > ****borg has been able to make an ass of himself dozens of times on
> > the same point, as we've seen every time he enters a "debating trade"
> > death spiral. Are you going to try for an equally impressive
> > performance?
> >
> >
> >
> arse-licker UK [Show phonetics]
> noun [C] (US ass-licker) OFFENSIVE
> a person who tries to get an advantage from other people by being
> extremely pleasant to them in a way which is not sincere
>
> You wasn't mocking of Trotsky...

Really? Amazing how you know what I meant better than I do. Also,
seemingly, better than any normal adult who speaks English.

> Do you remember Darwin sentence ?

This is three times you've made the total fool of yourself on the same
point. Sorry, but you'll have to dig a lot deeper if you want to
overtake your heroborg.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:07:23 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
>
>> > Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
>> > "ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
>> > kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
>> >
>> > Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
>> > fool two or three times a day?
>
>> I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
>
>So you did, moron. And I replied that your head was up your ass again.
>
>It's a rare talent to be able to make a fool out of yourself twice on
>the exact same point. Krooger shares that talent with you. In fact,
>****borg has been able to make an ass of himself dozens of times on
>the same point, as we've seen every time he enters a "debating trade"
>death spiral. Are you going to try for an equally impressive
>performance?

Notice how you never see Lionel and Arnold in the same room?

Oh yeah, how about Arnold's absense at the moment. I wonder how long
he thinks he can avoid the porcess server. Do you think his business
is going to suffer while he hangs out all day drinking coffee at
McDonalds?

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Lionella la Bete Salope tries to out-stupid the Krooborg.
>>arse-licker UK [Show phonetics]
>>noun [C] (US ass-licker) OFFENSIVE
>>a person who tries to get an advantage from other people by being
>>extremely pleasant to them in a way which is not sincere
>>
>>You wasn't mocking of Trotsky...
>
>
> Really? Amazing how you know what I meant better than I do. Also,
> seemingly, better than any normal adult who speaks English.

Because you are afraid George, you are scary about life. Everybody know
that but you.
Since more than 4 years on RAO you use to protect your poor miserable
private existence.
You are a coward George you are afraid with any kind of introspection,
you force me to show you the true.
PS : don't speak anymore about my english skill because many times you
have demontrated that you perfectly understand.

<Boon's mimic> You are pathetic George.

[Lionel]

dave weil wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:07:23 -0400, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
>>
>>
>>>>Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
>>>>"ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
>>>>kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
>>>>
>>>>Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
>>>>fool two or three times a day?
>>
>>>I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
>>
>>So you did, moron. And I replied that your head was up your ass again.
>>
>>It's a rare talent to be able to make a fool out of yourself twice on
>>the exact same point. Krooger shares that talent with you. In fact,
>>****borg has been able to make an ass of himself dozens of times on
>>the same point, as we've seen every time he enters a "debating trade"
>>death spiral. Are you going to try for an equally impressive
>>performance?
>
>
> Notice how you never see Lionel and Arnold in the same room?
>
> Oh yeah, how about Arnold's absense at the moment. I wonder how long
> he thinks he can avoid the porcess server. Do you think his business
> is going to suffer while he hangs out all day drinking coffee at
> McDonalds?
>

You are a loser Dave.

[Lionel]

Lionel wrote:

> dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:07:23 -0400, George M. Middius
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
>>>>> "ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
>>>>> kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen as a
>>>>> fool two or three times a day?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
>>>
>>>
>>> So you did, moron. And I replied that your head was up your ass again.
>>>
>>> It's a rare talent to be able to make a fool out of yourself twice on
>>> the exact same point. Krooger shares that talent with you. In fact,
>>> ****borg has been able to make an ass of himself dozens of times on
>>> the same point, as we've seen every time he enters a "debating trade"
>>> death spiral. Are you going to try for an equally impressive
>>> performance?
>>
>>
>>
>> Notice how you never see Lionel and Arnold in the same room?
>>
>> Oh yeah, how about Arnold's absense at the moment. I wonder how long
>> he thinks he can avoid the porcess server. Do you think his business
>> is going to suffer while he hangs out all day drinking coffee at
>> McDonalds?
>>
>
> You are a loser Dave.
>

Sorry, you are also an ass-licker's ass-licker.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> Oh yeah, how about Arnold's absense at the moment. I wonder how long
> he thinks he can avoid the porcess server. Do you think his business
> is going to suffer while he hangs out all day drinking coffee at
> McDonalds?

I wouldn't be surprised if that's how he actually gets the tiny
trickle of "business" he needs to make his nut. I can picture him now,
hanging out in McD's with a little sandwich board on his table that
reads "Free BJ w/every PC! LOL!" A real mom & pop business, even if
it's slightly untraditional. Probably doesn't even change out of his
undies and bathrobe.

[Lionel]

Lionel wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> dave weil wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:07:23 -0400, George M. Middius
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be interpreted as
>>>>>> "ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means toadying,
>>>>>> kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be seen
>>>>>> as a
>>>>>> fool two or three times a day?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you did, moron. And I replied that your head was up your ass again.
>>>>
>>>> It's a rare talent to be able to make a fool out of yourself twice on
>>>> the exact same point. Krooger shares that talent with you. In fact,
>>>> ****borg has been able to make an ass of himself dozens of times on
>>>> the same point, as we've seen every time he enters a "debating trade"
>>>> death spiral. Are you going to try for an equally impressive
>>>> performance?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice how you never see Lionel and Arnold in the same room?
>>>
>>> Oh yeah, how about Arnold's absense at the moment. I wonder how long
>>> he thinks he can avoid the porcess server. Do you think his business
>>> is going to suffer while he hangs out all day drinking coffee at
>>> McDonalds?
>>>
>>
>> You are a loser Dave.
>>
>
> Sorry, you are also an ass-licker's ass-licker.
>
You are also an underling.

[George M. Middius]

Lionella la Bete Salope has installed some rechargeable
stupid-batteries.

> > Really? Amazing how you know what I meant better than I do. Also,
> > seemingly, better than any normal adult who speaks English.

> Because

I'll take this as an admission you're too addled to figure out what
I was talking about. Four times the fool, you are.

> PS : don't speak anymore about my english skill because many times you
> have demontrated that you perfectly understand.

Because you're lucid enough to make sense on occasion, you imply
that I "perfectly understand"[sic] your every garbled post? As your
heroborg ****-for-Brains might volley, hardly™.

None of us really believes you can't read and write English
properly. Your act isn't bad, but a couple of times you've slipped
and grokked an adult-level thought, or expressed an abstract
connection of ideas elegantly. This is behavior that's not
encompassed by the Lionella instruction set.

I would like to add that as foolish as you've made yourself in this
exchange about a single line I wrote to trotsky, the intense
stupidity you spewed at dave after he got fed up with the little
sweathog is a triumph of obtundity. So overall, your performance has
been pretty good. However, since your objective isn't entertainment
but rather whoring for attention (again, like Kroo****), the
occasional slipups detract from the effectiveness of the Lionella
shtick.

Bitch.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Lionella la Bete Salope has installed some rechargeable
> stupid-batteries.
>
>
>>>Really? Amazing how you know what I meant better than I do. Also,
>>>seemingly, better than any normal adult who speaks English.
>
>
>>Because
>
>
> I'll take this as an admission you're too addled to figure out what
> I was talking about. Four times the fool, you are.
>
>
>>PS : don't speak anymore about my english skill because many times you
>>have demontrated that you perfectly understand.
>
>
> Because you're lucid enough to make sense on occasion, you imply
> that I "perfectly understand"[sic] your every garbled post? As your
> heroborg ****-for-Brains might volley, hardly™.
>
> None of us really believes you can't read and write English
> properly. Your act isn't bad, but a couple of times you've slipped
> and grokked an adult-level thought, or expressed an abstract
> connection of ideas elegantly. This is behavior that's not
> encompassed by the Lionella instruction set.
>
> I would like to add that as foolish as you've made yourself in this
> exchange about a single line I wrote to trotsky, the intense
> stupidity you spewed at dave after he got fed up with the little
> sweathog is a triumph of obtundity. So overall, your performance has
> been pretty good. However, since your objective isn't entertainment
> but rather whoring for attention (again, like Kroo****), the
> occasional slipups detract from the effectiveness of the Lionella
> shtick.
>
> Bitch.
>
>
>
Middius you must understand that I don't care about any judgement from you.
Your above fight is as vain as trying to catch your soap under your
shower. Soon or late you will be obliged to stoop... Exactly at this
moment I will be behind you. ;-)
My real deception for this evening is Dave Weil.
I thought he was a real "self made man" but he confirms me that he is
only an underling, a waiter waiting for the tip(*) !

(*)# noun: a relatively small amount of money given for services
rendered (as by a waiter)

[MiNE 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> I thought he was a real "self made man" but he confirms me that he is
> only an underling, a waiter waiting for the tip(*) !

You, you don't lahk ma meaning of lahfe?!

Stephen

[ScottW]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:45:19 -0700, "ScottW"
>
> wrote:
>
> >"Per capita" R&D numbers are meaningless to the customer. You
> >imply the more people I have working for less money, the
better
> >off the customer will be.
>
> I think it's just willful misreading of my stuff.
>
> You really should stop it now.

So what did you mean? R&D $ per speaker sold?

That puts a zero in old Trots denominator. I suspect it will be
a zero for very long time.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius wrote:
> >
> > Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
> >
> >
> >>>trotsky said:
> >
> >
> >>>>Prove you can spell "Schwarzenegger", dumkopf.
> >
> >
> >>>One out of two ain't bad.
> >
> >
> >>Whaooo, Middius is playing ass-licker for Greg "Loser"
trotsky !
> >
> >
> > Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be
interpreted as
> > "ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means
toadying,
> > kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
> >
> > Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be
seen as a
> > fool two or three times a day?
> >
> >
> >
> I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
> Soon or late you will play *ASS-LICKER* for Greg "Loser"
Trotsky !
> This is my prediction...
>
> LOL !

Close Lionel. But if you pay attention (and I am not
recommending you actually bother but) you will see that everytime
Trots gets his ass in a sling he tries to endear himself to the
tireless crusadors (aka people without lives) by bashing Kreuger.
It's the kiss and make up ritual. Hard to tell who is actually
kissing who sometimes. Either way, it ain't pretty.

ScottW

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Given the crap speakers you proudly listen to at home Weil, that's totally
> meaningless. It also sheds no light on the room acoustics question.
>
That issue makes your evaluations useless.
Show us some pictures of your listening room.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Langis said:
>
> > >Would you like to describe *your* listening room/s at this point?
> >
> > "Skip"
> > http://www.nickpoole.com/skip.jpg
>
>
> Well, look at that. Krooger went and cleaned up his yard.
>
.....and moved the debris down to his basement worksataion.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're talking to the wind Scotty. Remember that Weil and technology on
that
> scale are strangers. He works in a place where they "tool up" new product
by
> adding a little more salt and spice by shaking it out of a dispenser.


First of all, you don't even work at all. Secondly, 'your' home made product
is tooled up by varying how much brocolli and beans you consume.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Scottie Dum-Dum said:

> Hard to tell who is actually kissing who sometimes.

Ah yes, I remember it well -- the day you gave up your crush on
Krooger. It wasn't that long ago, was it? Perhaps you can pass on
your experience to Lionella. Explain why you dropped that torch even
though Mr. **** was your Perfect Anti-Audio Crusader.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> dave weil said:
>
> > >I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh,
>
> > Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.
>
> Too bad microsoft doesn't give him diction and punctuation checkers.
> There's still no substitute for an elementary-school education.
>

Krueger is the product of a completely teknikul edukashun.
And a third rate one, at that.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scottie Dum-Dum said:
>
> > Hard to tell who is actually kissing who sometimes.
>
> Ah yes, I remember it well -- the day you gave up your crush on
> Krooger. It wasn't that long ago, was it?

Never had one, but you can't understand that. I do remember the
first time you slithered up to me and wanted to know what I
thought of Arny, was I with you or against you. I said I was
strictly independent and you went into a hissy fit. Go pound
sand George. You're every bit as sick as Arny.

> Perhaps you can pass on
> your experience to Lionella. Explain why you dropped that torch
even
> though Mr. **** was your Perfect Anti-Audio Crusader.

Let him find out for himself what Arny is like. Won't take long.
The thing that still amazes me is this incredible Arny fixation.
This place will go weeks or even months with nothing but Arny
bashing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.

ScottW

[Lionel]

MiNE 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>I thought he was a real "self made man" but he confirms me that he is
>>only an underling, a waiter waiting for the tip(*) !
>
>
> You, you don't lahk ma meaning of lahfe?!
>
> Stephen

Good morning octopussy.

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>>>Lionella la Bete Salope blithered:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>trotsky said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Prove you can spell "Schwarzenegger", dumkopf.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>One out of two ain't bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Whaooo, Middius is playing ass-licker for Greg "Loser"
>
> trotsky !
>
>>>
>>>Maybe in France, mocking someone's pomposity can be
>
> interpreted as
>
>>>"ass-licking". In the U.S., however, that expression means
>
> toadying,
>
>>>kowtowing, kissing up, etc.
>>>
>>>Isn't it a bitch to be completely out of your element and be
>
> seen as a
>
>>>fool two or three times a day?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I said *ASS-LICKER* Middius !
>>Soon or late you will play *ASS-LICKER* for Greg "Loser"
>
> Trotsky !
>
>>This is my prediction...
>>
>>LOL !
>
>
> Close Lionel. But if you pay attention (and I am not
> recommending you actually bother but) you will see that everytime
> Trots gets his ass in a sling he tries to endear himself to the
> tireless crusadors (aka people without lives) by bashing Kreuger.
> It's the kiss and make up ritual. Hard to tell who is actually
> kissing who sometimes. Either way, it ain't pretty.
>
> ScottW
>
>
Agree with you, this explain my above comment. ;-)
In this role they look like rdiculous, absurd Mousquetaires :
"One for all, all for one"

LOL

[Powell]

"ScottW" wrote

> Let him find out for himself what Arny is like.
> Won't take long. The thing that still amazes
> me is this incredible Arny fixation.
>
Hypocrite, remove the timber from your own
eye first.

> This place will go weeks or even months with
> nothing but Arny bashing. I can't think of a
> bigger waste of time.
>
I can think of one... posting empty handed
litigious threats, mr non-starter :).

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > dave weil said:
> >
> > > >I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh,
> >
> > > Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.
> >
> > Too bad microsoft doesn't give him diction and punctuation checkers.
> > There's still no substitute for an elementary-school education.
> >
>
> Krueger is the product of a completely teknikul edukashun.
> And a third rate one, at that.

Tell us about your technical education, Sockpuppet Yustabe. Then tell us
about Middius' technical education.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You're talking to the wind Scotty. Remember that Weil and technology on
that
> > scale are strangers. He works in a place where they "tool up" new
product by
> > adding a little more salt and spice by shaking it out of a dispenser.

> First of all, you don't even work at all.

Then I've been paying all these taxes for what?

> Secondly, 'your' home made product
> is tooled up by varying how much brocolli and beans you consume.

Tell us about the products you design, build and sell sockpuppet Yustabe.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:dZrfb.12633$gi2.8531@fed1read01...

> Close Lionel. But if you pay attention (and I am not
> recommending you actually bother but) you will see that everytime
> Trots gets his ass in a sling he tries to endear himself to the
> tireless crusaders (aka people without lives) by bashing Kreuger.
> It's the kiss and make up ritual. Hard to tell who is actually
> kissing who sometimes. Either way, it ain't pretty.

The RAO political system in a nutshell. Good analysis.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:DQtfb.12727$gi2.3762@fed1read01...


>You're every bit as sick as Arny.

> Let him find out for himself what Arny is like. Won't take long.
> The thing that still amazes me is this incredible Arny fixation.
> This place will go weeks or even months with nothing but Arny
> bashing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.

Since you've been engaging in more than a little gratuitous Arny-bashing of
your own Scott, I guess you're no better than the people you analyze
accurately as being nuts and then damn.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Given the crap speakers you proudly listen to at home Weil, that's
totally
> > meaningless. It also sheds no light on the room acoustics question.

> That issue makes your evaluations useless.

Really? Why don't you list out the formal evaluations I've published of the
100's I've done, that are based on my listening room.

> Show us some pictures of your listening room.

First, tell us where your's is, and then show us pictures of it.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > dave weil said:
> > >
> > > > >I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh,
> > >
> > > > Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.
> > >
> > > Too bad microsoft doesn't give him diction and punctuation checkers.
> > > There's still no substitute for an elementary-school education.
> > >
> >
> > Krueger is the product of a completely teknikul edukashun.
> > And a third rate one, at that.
>
> Tell us about your technical education, Sockpuppet Yustabe. Then tell us
> about Middius' technical education.
>

Unlike you, I dont' have any pretense of a technical education.
What I do have is a well balanced liberal education,
having participated in a demanding Great Books program.


I can't speak for George, although he appears to be
of reasonably high intelligence with a good dose of common sense.

My point about 'your' educational background is that it is limited
to technology and it is woefully inadequate in areas of language,
literature, culture, the arts, history, politics, philosophy, etc.
That is the reason your writing and spelling talents are just so
pathetic.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > You're talking to the wind Scotty. Remember that Weil and technology
on
> that
> > > scale are strangers. He works in a place where they "tool up" new
> product by
> > > adding a little more salt and spice by shaking it out of a dispenser.
>
> > First of all, you don't even work at all.
>
> Then I've been paying all these taxes for what?
>

A disability retirement.

> > Secondly, 'your' home made product
> > is tooled up by varying how much brocolli and beans you consume.
>
> Tell us about the products you design, build and sell sockpuppet Yustabe.
>

I do not pretend to be something that I am not.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Given the crap speakers you proudly listen to at home Weil, that's
> totally
> > > meaningless. It also sheds no light on the room acoustics question.
>
> > That issue makes your evaluations useless.
>
> Really? Why don't you list out the formal evaluations I've published of
the
> 100's I've done, that are based on my listening room.
>
> > Show us some pictures of your listening room.
>
> First, tell us where your's is, and then show us pictures of it.
>

I haven't made any pretensions regarding mine.
Your the one with the published 'listeniong tests', so
it is up to you to describe your listening environment.

Look, you big dummy, it is up to the writer of the evaluation
to describe his litening room. It is not up to the reader
of your evaluation to describe his.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[S888Wheel]

>
>Then I've been paying all these taxes for what?
>

Prove you pay taxes

>
>Tell us about the products you design, build and sell sockpuppet Yustabe.

Tell us anything you have ever designed that has had any commercial success.

[George M. Middius]

S888Wheel said to ****-for-Brains:

> Tell us anything you have ever designed that has had any commercial success.

Yes, Arnii, do tell. And don't trot out that crap story about the
"Painless Suicide Box" -- obviously it's worthless and a failure.

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:DQtfb.12727$gi2.3762@fed1read01...
>
>
> >You're every bit as sick as Arny.
>
> > Let him find out for himself what Arny is like. Won't take
long.
> > The thing that still amazes me is this incredible Arny
fixation.
> > This place will go weeks or even months with nothing but
Arny
> > bashing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.
>
> Since you've been engaging in more than a little gratuitous
Arny-bashing of
> your own Scott, I guess you're no better than the people you
analyze
> accurately as being nuts and then damn.

We all know you lack self awareness when it comes to dealing with
your own issues.
I don't claim these people don't have a legit complaint about
your behavior. I claim the cure is every bit as debilitating as
the disease.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > dave weil said:
> > > >
> > > > > >I see nothing but a lie in this port of your post Singh,
> > > >
> > > > > Looks like he took a screwdriver to his spell-checker.
> > > >
> > > > Too bad microsoft doesn't give him diction and punctuation checkers.
> > > > There's still no substitute for an elementary-school education.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Krueger is the product of a completely teknikul edukashun.
> > > And a third rate one, at that.
> >
> > Tell us about your technical education, Sockpuppet Yustabe. Then tell
us
> > about Middius' technical education.

> Unlike you, I dont' have any pretense of a technical education.

For a guy who likes to obsess over other people's typos Sockpuppet Yustabe,
you dont' wrote to gud, either.

> What I do have is a well balanced liberal education,
> having participated in a demanding Great Books program.

Most people learn something about writing well by reading well. Why didn't
it work for you?

> I can't speak for George, although he appears to be
> of reasonably high intelligence with a good dose of common sense.

Reasonably high compared to carrots, lots of common sense compared to a
beet.

> My point about 'your' educational background is that it is limited
> to technology and it is woefully inadequate in areas of language,
> literature, culture, the arts, history, politics, philosophy, etc.

Wrong - I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I can kick your butt in
any of the topics you've listed. What I can bring myself to do is to obsess
over pedophile fantasies as the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
Yustabe.

> That is the reason your writing and spelling talents are just so
> pathetic.

If irony killed... As we see above, there is plenty of evidence that
sockpuppet Yustabe dont' spell to gud.

LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > You're talking to the wind Scotty. Remember that Weil and technology
> on
> > that
> > > > scale are strangers. He works in a place where they "tool up" new
> > product by
> > > > adding a little more salt and spice by shaking it out of a
dispenser.
> >
> > > First of all, you don't even work at all.
> >
> > Then I've been paying all these taxes for what?

> A disability retirement.

Is that the secret of your success, sockpuppet Yustabe? Is that how Middius
is supporting himself?

> > > Secondly, 'your' home made product
> > > is tooled up by varying how much brocolli and beans you consume.
> >
> > Tell us about the products you design, build and sell sockpuppet
Yustabe.
> >
>
> I do not pretend to be something that I am not.

Wrong. Since I just corrected you for that so I won't belabor the point.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message
...

> >Then I've been paying all these taxes for what?

> Prove you pay taxes

Attempt to fraudulently obtain my SSN noted.

> >Tell us about the products you design, build and sell sockpuppet Yustabe.

> Tell us anything you have ever designed that has had any commercial
success.

I asked you first, sockpuppet "Wheel".

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Given the crap speakers you proudly listen to at home Weil, that's
> > totally
> > > > meaningless. It also sheds no light on the room acoustics question.
> >
> > > That issue makes your evaluations useless.
> >
> > Really? Why don't you list out the formal evaluations I've published of
> the
> > 100's I've done, that are based on my listening room.
> >
> > > Show us some pictures of your listening room.
> >
> > First, tell us where your's is, and then show us pictures of it.
> >
>
> I haven't made any pretensions regarding mine.


Wrong. I just corrected you on that point, so I won't belabor it.

> Your the one with the published 'listeniong tests', so
> it is up to you to describe your listening environment.

Asked and answered. Please see www.pcabx.com .

> Look, you big dummy, it is up to the writer of the evaluation
> to describe his litening (sic) room. It is not up to the reader
> of your evaluation to describe his.

Asked and answered.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:14:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
makes an astounding admission:

>What I can bring myself to do is to obsess over pedophile fantasies as the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
>Yustabe.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:14:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> makes an astounding admission:

> >What I can bring myself to do is to obsess over pedophile fantasies as the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
> >Yustabe.

Eeeeeeeeyew!

I notice Mr. **** is also lecturing people on learning to write well.
Apparently his disgusting fantasies have completely consumed him.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...

>
> > Unlike you, I dont' have any pretense of a technical education.
>
> For a guy who likes to obsess over other people's typos Sockpuppet
Yustabe,
> you dont' wrote to gud, either.
>

I don't obsess over your typos, nor anyone elses. just about
everybody makes typos. What I do criticize
is your extremely poor sentence structure.

> > What I do have is a well balanced liberal education,
> > having participated in a demanding Great Books program.
>
> Most people learn something about writing well by reading well. Why didn't
> it work for you?
>

It did, you moron.


> > I can't speak for George, although he appears to be
> > of reasonably high intelligence with a good dose of common sense.
>
> Reasonably high compared to carrots, lots of common sense compared to a
> beet.
>

And definitely much superior to a pile of rotting turds.


> > My point about 'your' educational background is that it is limited
> > to technology and it is woefully inadequate in areas of language,
> > literature, culture, the arts, history, politics, philosophy, etc.
>
> Wrong - I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I can kick your butt
in
> any of the topics you've listed. What I can bring myself to do is to
obsess
> over pedophile fantasies as the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
> Yustabe.
>

Really? I am glad you can obsess over your pedophile
fantasies. That's good to know. However, please do
it in private. You are the one to pollute RAO
with wild and false accusations of distributing kiddie porn.

> > That is the reason your writing and spelling talents are just so
> > pathetic.
>
> If irony killed... As we see above, there is plenty of evidence that
> sockpuppet Yustabe dont' spell to gud.
>

I admti I donnt tipe so gud.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > You're talking to the wind Scotty. Remember that Weil and
technology
> > on
> > > that
> > > > > scale are strangers. He works in a place where they "tool up" new
> > > product by
> > > > > adding a little more salt and spice by shaking it out of a
> dispenser.
> > >
> > > > First of all, you don't even work at all.
> > >
> > > Then I've been paying all these taxes for what?
>
> > A disability retirement.
>
> Is that the secret of your success, sockpuppet Yustabe? Is that how
Middius
> is supporting himself?
>
> > > > Secondly, 'your' home made product
> > > > is tooled up by varying how much brocolli and beans you consume.
> > >
> > > Tell us about the products you design, build and sell sockpuppet
> Yustabe.
> > >
> >
> > I do not pretend to be something that I am not.
>
> Wrong. Since I just corrected you for that so I won't belabor the point.
>

You did no such thing.
Prove that you are not a pretender!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
>

>
> > Your the one with the published 'listeniong tests', so
> > it is up to you to describe your listening environment.
>
> Asked and answered. Please see www.pcabx.com .

Hmmmm. 17 links on that page, and not one indicates that it would
be a descriptioon of your listening room. I guess that you expect me to
thoroughly look in every nook and cranny of your hideously
designed site, chasing innumerable links. It seems either you
have something to hide, and have hidden it well, or you have
something you want to show, and put it in a not easily reachable
place. Either way, you lose.


>
> > Look, you big dummy, it is up to the writer of the evaluation
> > to describe his litening (sic) room. It is not up to the reader
> > of your evaluation to describe his.
>
> Asked and answered.

You mean asked and nonanswered.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:14:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> makes an astounding admission:

> >What I can bring myself to do is to obsess over pedophile fantasies as
the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
> >Yustabe.

Weil, thanks for agreeing with me that sockupppet Yustabe is shown by the
google record to obsess over pedophile fantasies.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:iKYfb.14683$gi2.6049@fed1read01...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > news:DQtfb.12727$gi2.3762@fed1read01...

> > >You're every bit as sick as Arny.

> > > Let him find out for himself what Arny is like. Won't take long.
> > > The thing that still amazes me is this incredible Arny fixation.
> > > This place will go weeks or even months with nothing but Arny
> > > bashing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.

I agree it's a big waste of time Scott, but it's what smaller minds such as
yours seem to busy themselves with. You were doing better shrinking Singh's
head, but now I see you should start with trying to untangle your own
mangled cranium

> > Since you've been engaging in more than a little gratuitous Arny-bashing
of
> > your own Scott, I guess you're no better than the people you analyze
> > accurately as being nuts and then damn.

> We all know you lack self awareness when it comes to dealing with
> your own issues.

If irony killed. Scott, you've been caught red-handed and all you can do is
obsess over me.

> I don't claim these people don't have a legit complaint about
> your behavior. I claim the cure is every bit as debilitating as
> the disease.

I submit that people who purport to have diagnosed a disease in others
should first address it when its clearly proven they are likewise afflicted.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >
> > > Unlike you, I dont' have any pretense of a technical education.
> >
> > For a guy who likes to obsess over other people's typos Sockpuppet
> Yustabe,
> > you dont' wrote to gud, either.
> >
>
> I don't obsess over your typos, nor anyone elses.

Missing indication of possession. Also an easily disprovable lie. Reel gud!

LOL!

> just about everybody makes typos. What I do criticize
> is your extremely poor sentence structure.

Nahh, what happens sockpuppet Yustabe is that you're the kind of public
asshole who holds casual writing up to the standards of formal writing, and
makes a big fuss when the syntax is less than perfect.

> > > What I do have is a well balanced liberal education,
> > > having participated in a demanding Great Books program.
>
> > Most people learn something about writing well by reading well. Why
didn't
> > it work for you?

> It did, you moron.

Can't prove it by the error-ridden crap you post in RAO, sockpuppet Yustabe.

> > > I can't speak for George, although he appears to be
> > > of reasonably high intelligence with a good dose of common sense.
>
> > Reasonably high compared to carrots, lots of common sense compared to a
> > beet.

> And definitely much superior to a pile of rotting turds.

Thanks for positioning yourself realistically, sockpuppet Yustabe.

> > > My point about 'your' educational background is that it is limited
> > > to technology and it is woefully inadequate in areas of language,
> > > literature, culture, the arts, history, politics, philosophy, etc.
>
> > Wrong - I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I can kick your
butt in
> > any of the topics you've listed. What I can't bring myself to do is to
obsess
> > over pedophile fantasies as the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
> > Yustabe.

> Really? I am glad you can obsess over your pedophile
> fantasies.

Nice job of trying to capitalize on a typographic error, sockpuppet Yustabe.

>That's good to know.

In the process of tying to capitalize on my typographic error you admitted
that you obsess over pedophile fantasize, sockpuppet Yustabe. Good job.

>However, please do it in private. You are the one to pollute RAO
> with wild and false accusations of distributing kiddie porn.

And sockpuppet Yustabe, you are the one who says that distributing kiddie
porn on RAO is funny. Shall I quote you from google?

> > > That is the reason your writing and spelling talents are just so
> > > pathetic.

> > If irony killed... As we see above, there is plenty of evidence that
> > sockpuppet Yustabe dont' spell to gud.

> I admti I donnt tipe so gud.

You've also admitted that you obsess over pedophile fantasies, sockpuppet
Yustabe. But that was already a matter of the public record.

If one looks at the record and judges my comments about pedophile fantasies,
it shows that I hate them and object to them.

If one looks at the record and judges your comments about pedophile
fantasies sockpuppet Yustabe, it shows that you like them and find them to
be humorous. Nice record you've got there!

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Your the one with the published 'listeniong tests', so
> > > it is up to you to describe your listening environment.

> > Asked and answered. Please see www.pcabx.com .

> Hmmmm. 17 links on that page, and not one indicates that it would
> be a descriptioon of your listening room.

You won't find a "descriptoon" of my listening room anyplace!

You think you're fooling anybody with your quick change of "listening
environment" to "listening room", sockpuppet Yustabe?

You claimed that I had published listening tests, sockpuppet Yustabe. That
presumes that you have adequate knowledge of my published works. If
www.pcabx.com is over your head, then you should have said so up front.

Do try to be consistent, next time.

> I guess that you expect me to
> thoroughly look in every nook and cranny of your hideously
> designed site, chasing innumerable links.

No, I expect you to remain consistent with your demands and show a little
understanding of what constitutes a "listening environment".

>It seems either you
> have something to hide, and have hidden it well, or you have
> something you want to show, and put it in a not easily reachable
> place. Either way, you lose.

Just shows how overwhelmed you are with deceptions and narrow-mindedness,
sockpuppet Yustabe.

> > > Look, you big dummy, it is up to the writer of the evaluation
> > > to describe his litening (sic) room. It is not up to the reader
> > > of your evaluation to describe his.
> >
> > Asked and answered.
>
> You mean asked and nonanswered.

"nonanswered"?? gud engulsch ef eber i saw et.

I mean that I caught you being deceptive, ignorant, and narrow-minded,
again, sockpuppet Yustabe.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:14:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> > makes an astounding admission:
>
> > >What I can bring myself to do is to obsess over pedophile fantasies as
> the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
> > >Yustabe.
>
> Weil, thanks for agreeing with me that sockupppet Yustabe is shown by the
> google record to obsess over pedophile fantasies.
>
>

You 'still' don't get it!
Boy, are you dense.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[S888Wheel]

Arny said

>
>> >Then I've been paying all these taxes for what?

I said

>
>> Prove you pay taxes
>

Arny said

>
>Attempt to fraudulently obtain my SSN noted.
>

Nonsense. you made an assertion I asked you to prove it. Nothing more.

Arny said

>
>> >Tell us about the products you design, build and sell sockpuppet Yustabe.

I said

>
>> Tell us anything you have ever designed that has had any commercial
>success.

Arny said

>
>I asked you first, sockpuppet "Wheel".

Once again you aren't even aware of who you are talking to it seems. You asked
Yustube not me. Duh. I have never made any attempts to design anything in audio
so the question is absurd. OTOH you claim you have so it is relevant. It also
further illustrates your hypocricy.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > And definitely much superior to a pile of rotting turds.
>
> Thanks for positioning yourself realistically, sockpuppet Yustabe.
>

Is that so, Turdy?


>
> In the process of tying to capitalize on my typographic error you admitted
> that you obsess over pedophile fantasize, sockpuppet Yustabe. Good job.
>

I have never admitted such. That is another of you famous
lies.

> >However, please do it in private. You are the one to pollute RAO
> > with wild and false accusations of distributing kiddie porn.
>
> And sockpuppet Yustabe, you are the one who says that distributing kiddie
> porn on RAO is funny. Shall I quote you from google?
>

Again you lie. It was George's characterization
of your pedophilic fantasies of your
deceased son that I thought was funny.
BTW, please show me where kiddie porn was 'ever' distibuted
on RAO. The only reference to kiddie porn
that I am aware of is the whole issue of your
dubious claims of having received such by email, from
persons unknown.


>
> You've also admitted that you obsess over pedophile fantasies, sockpuppet
> Yustabe. But that was already a matter of the public record.
>

Again, I have not. You lie.

> If one looks at the record and judges my comments about pedophile
fantasies,
> it shows that I hate them and object to them.
>

A pretty amusing claim, as you are the instigator of that whole issue.

> If one looks at the record and judges your comments about pedophile
> fantasies sockpuppet Yustabe, it shows that you like them and find them to
> be humorous. Nice record you've got there!
>

They are only humorous when they are about your evil doings!





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> You think you're fooling anybody with your quick change of "listening
> environment" to "listening room", sockpuppet Yustabe?
>


This discussion began with your knocking Dave's listening room.
I then asked you for a description of yours.
Where is it, dunderhead?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[ScottW]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:iKYfb.14683$gi2.6049@fed1read01...
> >
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "ScottW" > wrote in message
> > > news:DQtfb.12727$gi2.3762@fed1read01...
>
> > > >You're every bit as sick as Arny.
>
> > > > Let him find out for himself what Arny is like. Won't
take long.
> > > > The thing that still amazes me is this incredible Arny
fixation.
> > > > This place will go weeks or even months with nothing but
Arny
> > > > bashing. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.
>
> I agree it's a big waste of time Scott, but it's what smaller
minds such as
> yours seem to busy themselves with. You were doing better
shrinking Singh's
> head, but now I see you should start with trying to untangle
your own
> mangled cranium
>
> > > Since you've been engaging in more than a little gratuitous
Arny-bashing
> of
> > > your own Scott, I guess you're no better than the people
you analyze
> > > accurately as being nuts and then damn.
>
> > We all know you lack self awareness when it comes to dealing
with
> > your own issues.
>
> If irony killed. Scott, you've been caught red-handed and all
you can do is
> obsess over me.
>
> > I don't claim these people don't have a legit complaint about
> > your behavior. I claim the cure is every bit as debilitating
as
> > the disease.
>
> I submit that people who purport to have diagnosed a disease in
others
> should first address it when its clearly proven they are
likewise afflicted.
>
>
If anyone wasn't aware of your dementia, you have kindly
provided a small sample to prove my point.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:49:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 14:14:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> makes an astounding admission:
>
>> >What I can bring myself to do is to obsess over pedophile fantasies as
>the google record shows you have, sockpuppet
>> >Yustabe.
>
>Weil, thanks for agreeing with me that sockupppet Yustabe is shown by the
>google record to obsess over pedophile fantasies.

And thanks for admitting that *you* obsess over pedophile fantasies.

That's pretty sick. I can't vouch for Art, but you are vouching for
yourself.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:16:54 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>In the process of tying to capitalize on my typographic error

<s******>

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message


Notice the above includes a "generic" IP address that sheds no light on who
the bozo "sockpuppet Yustabe" really is. This is of course part of someone's
scheme to avoid taking responsibility for their reprehensible actions.

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> You think you're fooling anybody with your quick change of "listening
>> environment" to "listening room", sockpuppet Yustabe?

> This discussion began with your knocking Dave's listening room.

A figment of your imagination. Go back and look at the google record before
you expose yourself to even more ridicule, sockpuppet Yustabe.

> I then asked you for a description of yours.

You asked for a description of my "listening environment". I pointed you at
detailed descriptions of several of them.

> Where is it, dunderhead?

Where I said they were. Learn to think and read!

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
>
> Notice the above includes a "generic" IP address that sheds no light on
who
> the bozo "sockpuppet Yustabe" really is. This is of course part of
someone's
> scheme to avoid taking responsibility for their reprehensible actions.
>

Generic? What is inherently generic about comcast.net?
How is it more generic than hotpop.com?????

At any rate, you 'do' know who I am.


> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> You think you're fooling anybody with your quick change of "listening
> >> environment" to "listening room", sockpuppet Yustabe?
>
> > This discussion began with your knocking Dave's listening room.
>
> A figment of your imagination. Go back and look at the google record
before
> you expose yourself to even more ridicule, sockpuppet Yustabe.
>
> > I then asked you for a description of yours.
>
> You asked for a description of my "listening environment". I pointed you
at
> detailed descriptions of several of them.
>
> > Where is it, dunderhead?
>
> Where I said they were. Learn to think and read!
>

So, are you ready to give us a description of your listnening room?
You dissed Dave's, so tell us why yours is better.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>>

>> Notice the above includes a "generic" IP address that sheds no light on
who
>> the bozo "sockpuppet Yustabe" really is. This is of course part of
someone's
>> scheme to avoid taking responsibility for their reprehensible
>> actions.

> Generic? What is inherently generic about comcast.net?

Nothing, which is why it looks like you're covering your tracks.

> How is it more generic than hotpop.com?????

> At any rate, you 'do' know who I am.

Doooohhhh!

>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>
>>>> You think you're fooling anybody with your quick change of
>>>> "listening environment" to "listening room", sockpuppet Yustabe?
>>
>>> This discussion began with your knocking Dave's listening room.

>> A figment of your imagination. Go back and look at the google record
before
>> you expose yourself to even more ridicule, sockpuppet Yustabe.

<No response from sockpuppet Yustabe, leading to him repeating himself>

>>> I then asked you for a description of yours.

>> You asked for a description of my "listening environment". I pointed you
at
>> detailed descriptions of several of them.

>>> Where is it, dunderhead?

>> Where I said they were. Learn to think and read!

> So, are you ready to give us a description of your listnening room?

Several of my listening environments are described in detail at the URL
already given.

> You dissed Dave's,

Wrong.

>so tell us why yours is better.

Irrelevant.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> >> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> >>
>
> >> Notice the above includes a "generic" IP address that sheds no light
on
> who
> >> the bozo "sockpuppet Yustabe" really is. This is of course part of
> someone's
> >> scheme to avoid taking responsibility for their reprehensible
> >> actions.
>
> > Generic? What is inherently generic about comcast.net?
>
> Nothing, which is why it looks like you're covering your tracks.
>

You idiot. you claim its generic, when I ask you why, then you say it isn't!



> >>
> >>>> You think you're fooling anybody with your quick change of
> >>>> "listening environment" to "listening room", sockpuppet Yustabe?
> >>
> >>> This discussion began with your knocking Dave's listening room.
>
> >> A figment of your imagination. Go back and look at the google record
> before
> >> you expose yourself to even more ridicule, sockpuppet Yustabe.
>
> <No response from sockpuppet Yustabe, leading to him repeating himself>
>

No response is repeating myself?
You are being an idiot again.


>
> > You dissed Dave's,
>
> Wrong.
>

Read the record

> >so tell us why yours is better.
>
> Irrelevant.
>

Absolutuely relevant




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---