ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: ScottW
Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 9:24 pm
Email: "ScottW"


Sssh still can't stand behind his own words,
"Look, scott, no offense intended, but you are simply too stupid to
continue talking to."

Sounds like a guy I know who says, "You can always recognize an
honest intellect, they attack ideas, not people."

Yet after your 'ideas' were thoroughly proven to be asinine, you
weren't able to let it go. You continued to defend and indefensible
position.

No... stupidity is your incessant attempts change reality
with your claims. You think if you repeat this enough
it will become true?


That falls under the 'toopid' column.

Does your friend offer any advice on debating people that employ
circular reasoning?;-)

BTW, joining deLudo at the cranium isn't an operation destined
to improve your credibility.

He made a valid point: debating with someone that has been beyond doubt
proven 'toopid' is a waste of time.

So you've repeatedly said... but still you keep creating these new threads.
deLudo has difficulty with facts.... I see you do as well.

ScottW

It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over
and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his
M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to
repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them
which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way round - I
can't be
bothered to keep looking it up.
He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
.. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!
Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.
Who remembers figures like 0,16 of a db? Who cares?
Moronic snare layers think they got something to lie about in the
future just because no one will remember".

I apologise for going on about this but I want a to have a record.
To me accusation of lying, RAO or not, is a serious matter
As I foresaw Scottie is letting sleeping dogs lie waiting in ambush
to pop up when details are forgotten and he can restart.
He has done this several times before in several different threads.
It seems to be his internet technique."

I claim no kudos for forecasting the predictable behaviour
of an unpleasant piece of work of the kind that the internet
throws up time and again.
Ludovic Mirabel