ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
"objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
worries mate?

Why would you use an L when you obviously can't read?

ScottW

LOL! Nice try at defining irony. You and your spec-head mates are
always making a lot of demands for "evidence", but you've not supplied
any to support your groundless claim that I can't read. However, I've
just proven that you can't read. You ask "Why would I use an L-shape",
and that was answered in my first post: to improve sound quality.
What's obvious here, is you're the one who can't read. You've also
shown that you can't think much either.

BTW, is this how you show you're not a troll, how you "take the high
road" and have a lot of "class"? By responding to my post which is one
of the few here that attempts to stay on the subject of audio, with ad
hominem attacks and personal insults?

I hope I don't ever see you whine about others doing that to you.

wrote:
ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
"objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
worries mate?

Why would you use an L when you obviously can't read?

ScottW

LOL! Nice try at defining irony. You and your spec-head mates are
always making a lot of demands for "evidence", but you've not supplied
any to support your groundless claim that I can't read. However, I've
just proven that you can't read. You ask "Why would I use an L-shape",
and that was answered in my first post: to improve sound quality.
What's obvious here, is you're the one who can't read. You've also
shown that you can't think much either.

BTW, is this how you show you're not a troll, how you "take the high
road" and have a lot of "class"? By responding to my post which is one
of the few here that attempts to stay on the subject of audio, with ad
hominem attacks and personal insults?

I hope I don't ever see you whine about others doing that to you.

No L in audio....L is for Looney.

ScottW

ScottW had nothing to say, but wrote this anyway:

wrote:
ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Are you even an audiophile, Mr. Morein? Do you care at all about sound
quality, or are you like "Krueger", "Pinkerton", Mike McKelvy,
Westpace, Steve Sullivan, ScottW and the rest of the self-professed
"objectivists" who think that everything in audio sounds the same, no
worries mate?

Why would you use an L when you obviously can't read?

ScottW

LOL! Nice try at defining irony. You and your spec-head mates are
always making a lot of demands for "evidence", but you've not supplied
any to support your groundless claim that I can't read. However, I've
just proven that you can't read. You ask "Why would I use an L-shape",
and that was answered in my first post: to improve sound quality.
What's obvious here, is you're the one who can't read. You've also
shown that you can't think much either.

BTW, is this how you show you're not a troll, how you "take the high
road" and have a lot of "class"? By responding to my post which is one
of the few here that attempts to stay on the subject of audio, with ad
hominem attacks and personal insults?

I hope I don't ever see you whine about others doing that to you.

No L in audio....L is for Looney.

ScottW

Yet another intelligent, profound and thought provoking response from
the self-professed "objectivist" point of view, with supporting
evidence and everything. Bravo!
You've shown us all how credible the self-described "objectivists" are.

(I'll bet the "W" stands for "******".)