Greg Singh wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:
Greg Singh wrote:


Bruce J. Richman wrote:


Your credibility is zero, Greg.


No, that's not true either. I suppose in your alternate universe there
exists a Brubeck LP called "Take Five", right? The only reason to harp
on this is that the whole reason for calling the album "Time Out" is to
call attention to the groups penchant for weird time signatures, so to
not know the actually title eats at your credility on a couple of
different levels.




Yourr analysis is wrong. Of course, the fact that you have promoted
numerous
li9es about6 me over the years completely destroys your ability to judge my
credibility in an objective fashion. And I'm well aware of teh various
different time signatures used in the selections on the Time Out album,


Wait, now you're acknowledging that there is a "Time Out" album?


whether
we'are talking about Take Five, or any of the other selection on the album.

The fact that I made a slip of the tongue has nothing to do with my
credibility
whatsoever. And only a petty flamer such as yourself would even notice it
-
but then again, your sole purpose for being on RAO, as most of us know, is
to
try and fight with others. (Many of commented on this before).


So "facts suck" is basically you're excuse.

As usual, you've attempted to lie about me and what I've said. What else is
new?
Of course, it may just be a carryover of your "salesman days" when you probably
tried to twist what people actually said on a regular basis, correct?


We are talking about one of
the most well known jazz recordings ever, of course. Do you also think
that Jethro Tull lived five or six hundred years so he could make
records, too?


Do you have any evidence for any of your ridiculous lies about things that I
have said? Or would you rather just continue to exhibit your delusional claims
on RAO?





And your dishonesty has been demonstrated over

and over again concerning both audio issues and other topics as well.
Your
arrogance and silly bragging about your imaginary skills are well known to
practically all RAO regulars.


My speakers are really good, Bruce. That's a fact.


There is no reason that anybody should believe you,


That statement makes dave weil look like you consider him to be nothing.


Once again, you demonstrate your (a) inabiloity to colmprehend English, and (b)
propensity to lie about what others have said. Dave Weil found both positive
and negative things to say about your speakers, a *fact* that you are now
trying to avoid conceding.



since to promote your
products, you resort to the old, tired salesman's ploy of bashing other
products such as Quads, Martin Logans, Dunlavys and probably many others as
well.


I bashed Quads? When was this? I haven't liked Martin Logans for years
and was astonished when the Jupiters scored well against Dunlavys. Your
misrepresentation of the facts here is tantamount to lying.


You lost no time in ridiculing Scott's ownership of Quads and implied that your
speakers were superior. You've also claied that your speakers are "really
good" is a fact. It is nothing more than your opinion, on all counts.
Therefore, your attempt to represent cloaims about your speakers that you make
as facts - is clearly an example of self-serving lieing in an effort to sell
your products.




If you care to

refute that fact, I would suggest you bid on one of my auctions where it
is a lot harder for me to refuse to sell you a pair.







There is no fact that you given to refute, other than your biased opinion -


So dave's opinion is meaningless?



That would be your projection of your incorrect and false beliefs on to others,
but as with most of your attempts to twist what others have said, you' would
appear to be either again incapable of comprehending what one of your flame
tarrgets has written, or more likely, you're just lieing again.



which is not a fact. You've made no effort whatsoever to provide any
evidence
- other than your questionable words - that your speakers are superior to
any
others. And when a relatively objective reviewer found even the smallest
flaws
(in his iopinion) with your speakers, you immediately resorted to personal
attacks upon him. So why should anybody bother to try and review your
speakers, since you have no tolerance for either suggestions or
constructive
criticism?


I'm not sure what you're trying to say he dave was only capable of
finding the smallest of flaws, and you still say there's no reason to
believe me (or him)?




It's indeed unfortunate that you can't understand clearly written sentences
that don't correspond to your self-serving, prejudiced views of your speakers.
Your attempts to misrepresent what I have written tend to corroborate what I've
said earlier about your credibility.



Bruce J. Richman