Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Krooborg Ignorance Log
Arnii "Spelling is for loosers" Krooborg makes a hash of common English words. thermonic No such word. electromechical No such word. sockpppet. No such word. anythhing. No such word. Too bad your church defunded the position of Sunday school jester. |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Krooborg Ignorance Log
Arnii "Spelling is for loosers"
I love that. Hahahaha. "Loosers." |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"John Atkinson" wrote in message om... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "MINe 109" wrote in message Website AWOL, check; Never happened for most of the web. Only person reporting: JA. So why then, Mr. Krueger, are you arguing with another poster in another thread over the fact that they couldn't access the page? I guess it must be hard for you to keep track of what you have said to different people at different times. :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile Just because Arny consistently tells lies doesn't mean he tells consistent lies. ----== 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 =--- |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 10:13:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Yet another example of your basic wired-in blockheadedness, Weil. What sort of a regimen of which drugs gets a normal teenager to your current mental state? What an asshole. I hope that Mr. Wheeler takes you for as much as he can. What is it in *your* heredity that has hard-wired you to be such a mess? Cheap capacitors. ----== 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 =--- |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius wrote: You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3. You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc. There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm. CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc, not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end of the album. -- You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed variation over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed. By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius from the center, the longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point. Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius from the center travels farther, thus has a greater speed. This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly take RPM to be the speed. Example: The speed for a point one inch away form the center is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute. For a point two inches out from the center, it is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational 'rate' of 33.33 RPM's ----== 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 =--- |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Krooborg Ignorance Log
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Arnii "Spelling is for loosers" Krooborg makes a hash of common English words. thermonic No such word. electromechical No such word. sockpppet. No such word. anythhing. No such word. Too bad your church defunded the position of Sunday school jester. Kroo**** is all too willing to perform on a voluntary basis. ----== 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 =--- |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
In article ,
George M. Middius writes: dave weil said: BTW, it *still* doesn't really make sense, but I guess I'm stupid for admitting that. Or human. It doesn't? Hmmm..... You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3. If that's true then why don't turntables have a different setting for different size records? The "R" in RPM stands for revolutions, not feet or inches. It means it spins 33 1/3 times around per minute. If you were to suspend a string from the center of the platter to the edge and then draw a point anywhere on the platter, the point would cross the line 33 1/3 times each minute no matter where you drew it. It's a rotational or angular speed, not a linear speed. The linear speed is proportional to the angular speed times the distance from the center. |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc. There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm. George is indeed mistaken here and Dave does seem to be suffering from some sort of block. I bet by the end of the day they will both have things figured out. Will you still be a prick at the end of the day or will you have learned something too? |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius wrote: You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3. You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc. There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm. CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc, not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end of the album. -- You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed variation over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed. Seems like you're the one who is really confused. Read the posts carefully. They all say speed of rotation, or rotational speed. It's perfectly OK to state rotational speed in rpm. By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius from the center, the longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point. Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius from the center travels farther, thus has a greater speed. This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly take RPM to be the speed. You're the only one who's mistaken, it seems, as the following shows. Example: The speed for a point one inch away form the center is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute. Circumference = 2*pi*r. Not really that hard to remember. For a point two inches out from the center, it is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational 'rate' of 33.33 RPM's The linear speed is proportional to radius, or distance to center of circle. Not really that hard to remember. At 2 inches away, linear speed should be *twice* the value at 1 inch away. ----== 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 =--- |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
chung a écrit :
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius wrote: You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3. You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc. There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm. CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc, not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end of the album. -- You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed variation over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed. Seems like you're the one who is really confused. Read the posts carefully. They all say speed of rotation, or rotational speed. It's perfectly OK to state rotational speed in rpm. By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius from the center, the longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point. Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius from the center travels farther, thus has a greater speed. This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly take RPM to be the speed. You're the only one who's mistaken, it seems, as the following shows. Example: The speed for a point one inch away form the center is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute. Circumference = 2*pi*r. Not really that hard to remember. For a point two inches out from the center, it is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational 'rate' of 33.33 RPM's The linear speed is proportional to radius, or distance to center of circle. Not really that hard to remember. At 2 inches away, linear speed should be *twice* the value at 1 inch away. You should try to explain them why on grindstone you must install a speed adjustement. I know that they like nice knifes perhaps it will be easier than with music. ;-) |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On 6 Jan 2004 23:28:31 GMT, Mr. Physics wrote:
In article , George M. Middius writes: dave weil said: BTW, it *still* doesn't really make sense, but I guess I'm stupid for admitting that. Or human. It doesn't? Hmmm..... You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3. If that's true then why don't turntables have a different setting for different size records? The "R" in RPM stands for revolutions, not feet or inches. It means it spins 33 1/3 times around per minute. If you were to suspend a string from the center of the platter to the edge and then draw a point anywhere on the platter, the point would cross the line 33 1/3 times each minute no matter where you drew it. It's a rotational or angular speed, not a linear speed. The linear speed is proportional to the angular speed times the distance from the center. Thank you Mr. Physics. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
Dave said What an asshole. I hope that Mr. Wheeler takes you for as much as he can. Arny said I think he will. ;-) Interesting prediction. The court limmit is 25,000 plus costs. Good thing that there is no such thing as a "limmit". |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Dave Weil wrote:
On 6 Jan 2004 23:28:31 GMT, Mr. Physics wrote: In article , George M. Middius writes: dave weil said: BTW, it *still* doesn't really make sense, but I guess I'm stupid for admitting that. Or human. It doesn't? Hmmm..... You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3. If that's true then why don't turntables have a different setting for different size records? The "R" in RPM stands for revolutions, not feet or inches. It means it spins 33 1/3 times around per minute. If you were to suspend a string from the center of the platter to the edge and then draw a point anywhere on the platter, the point would cross the line 33 1/3 times each minute no matter where you drew it. It's a rotational or angular speed, not a linear speed. The linear speed is proportional to the angular speed times the distance from the center. Thank you Mr. Physics. He definitely doeesn't live in Detroit or one of its suburbs. Bruce J. Richman |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
RPM is conmstant, Nothing is "conmstant". speed for any particular point on the radius is NOT. In the real world intelligent people speak of rotational speed and linear speed. The rotational speed of a LP is supposed to be 33 1/3 rpm. However the linear speed of the groove referenced to the stylus varies with the tracking radius. Don't confuse RPM with speed. Since rotational speed is a legitimate concept, RPM and speed can be synonymous. The speed, in inches per second, varies with the distance from the center. That would be linear speed. Your confusion lied not with the principles, of which I am sure you understand, but iinstead lies with the semantics. There is nothing that is "iinstead". Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans, but you also haven't got a clue about the generally-accepted semantics for this topic. |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"chung" wrote in message rvers.com... Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 10:27:51 -0500, George M. Middius wrote: You're right that there are different speeds of rotation. 33-1/3 rpm refers to the edge of the LP. If the disk were only 6" in diameter, it would spin at a lower rate and we'd refer to its speed as 16-2/3. You are a total ignoramus Gorge, it's 33.33 rpm all over the disc. There is *one* rotational speed - 33.33 rpm. CD of course is different, since it's a constant linear velocity disc, not constant angular velocity. Hence, it spins slower towards the end of the album. -- You are confusing the speed variation along the radius with speed variation over the passage of time. And you are confusing RPM with speed. Seems like you're the one who is really confused. Read the posts carefully. They all say speed of rotation, or rotational speed. It's perfectly OK to state rotational speed in rpm. By speed we mean the distance travelled per second, at any particular point along the radius.Obviously, for a point farther along the radius from the center, the longer the circumference travelled in one revolution, for that point. Thus, for any given period of time, a point farther along the radius from the center travels farther, thus has a greater speed. This whole issue is clouded by semantics, where some people mistakenly take RPM to be the speed. You're the only one who's mistaken, it seems, as the following shows. Example: The speed for a point one inch away form the center is 3.14 x 33.33, or 104.6562 inches per minute. Circumference = 2*pi*r. Not really that hard to remember. For a point two inches out from the center, it is 12.56 x 33.33, or 418.6248 inches per minute, given a rotational 'rate' of 33.33 RPM's The linear speed is proportional to radius, or distance to center of circle. Not really that hard to remember. At 2 inches away, linear speed should be *twice* the value at 1 inch away. oops I squared it ----== 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 =--- |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message RPM is conmstant, Nothing is "conmstant". speed for any particular point on the radius is NOT. In the real world intelligent people speak of rotational speed and linear speed. The rotational speed of a LP is supposed to be 33 1/3 rpm. However the linear speed of the groove referenced to the stylus varies with the tracking radius. Don't confuse RPM with speed. Since rotational speed is a legitimate concept, RPM and speed can be synonymous. The speed, in inches per second, varies with the distance from the center. That would be linear speed. Your confusion lied not with the principles, of which I am sure you understand, but iinstead lies with the semantics. There is nothing that is "iinstead". Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans, but you also haven't got a clue about the generally-accepted semantics for this topic. I can't type worth beans, and neither can you. that is why I don't bother to point out all of your errors. Another reason is that it is much more important to focus on your orther shortcomings, such as your being an ignoramus, a liar, and an asshole. ----== 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 =--- |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Marc "formerly Andrew Z. MacGowan" Phillips wrote
Richard Malesweski said: Hmm... http://tinyurl.com/2pr2o Confused, Porky? :-) Scott "I'm smart, just ask me" Wheeler scrawled: Congradulations and explination and then, again explination? ESL, Scotty? ;-) And yet it's okay when Arny does it, right, Internet geek? And it's okay when Bruce "Quackenbush" Richman does it, right, Porky Boy? |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Good thing that there is no such thing as a "limmit". I guess Arny thinks my spelling errors will shield him from the courts. But he does have a lot of goofy ideas. |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
torresists, an anonymous scumbag who oozes out from the sewer every so often to
infest RAO spews his happy horse**** as follows: Marc "formerly Andrew Z. MacGowan" Phillips wrote Richard Malesweski said: Hmm... http://tinyurl.com/2pr2o Confused, Porky? :-) Scott "I'm smart, just ask me" Wheeler scrawled: Congradulations and explination and then, again explination? ESL, Scotty? ;-) And yet it's okay when Arny does it, right, Internet geek? And it's okay when Bruce "Quackenbush" Richman does it, right, Porky Boy? Actually, with the exception of this delusional scumbag and Krueger, nobody really cares very much about typographical errors in RAO posts. But for an anonymous, nonentity like torresists who has no name, no credentials, and no credibility, parroting of a McKelvy slander is about the best he can come up with. His mindless stupidity fully justifies his need to hide his identity. Bruce J. Richman |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... What a maroon. Yes he's probably red in the face by now with embarsment at his stupidity. Then again he's probably too stupid to realise it. One of many. Gosh Weil, I wish I would have figured out you were this stupid and block-headed 3 years ago. That's a sad admission in itself Arny. TonyP. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
=(8888)= a écrit :
"Arny Krueger" emitted : 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? you are wrong. Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384 Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ! LOL! Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!! So you can't see that circulation has shrunk every year since 2000? Not in any significant way. I don't know about England but sometime plants are closed for less than that ! :-( |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile readership trends..
=(8888)= a écrit :
"Michael McKelvy" emitted : 1994: 71,040 1995: 79,332 1996: 85,808 1997: 87,219 1998: 83,921 1999: 85,224 2000: 91,384 2001: 84,987 2002: 82,932 2003: 81,668 Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't these figures say that the magazine's circulation is shrinking? you are wrong. Let me guess. In sockpuppet math, 81,668 91,384 Hey, that's why you are the boy with the high IQ! LOL! Arny's new math is that 81,688 71,040!!! LOL! It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers are clearly falling. The average over the ten year period is 83352. The current readership is a mere ~2% down on that average. Negligible. In the last 8 years the fluctuation has been between +10% and -2%. Apparently you are more than eager to point out a meager and insignificant tailing off, but failed to notice the more important spurt in growth from the mid to late 1990's onwards. Here's a plot of the data with linear and polynomial (3rd order) trend lines, forecasting thru 2005. [JA, hope you don't mind.. :-S] http://home.clara.net/media/CAP1.jpg To say that the readership is "shrinking" is hyperbole. The readership has remained pretty steady. Indeed, the linear trend line indicates an overall increase in readers across the data period. Same plot extended thru 2007 http://home.clara.net/media/CAP2.jpg Magistral demonstration ! Yes sincerely. This pure statistical analyze stick to a media make me think to an attempt to learn about furtur in a cristal bowl. It's looks like that Stereophile has some problems to anchor about 10% of its potential readership. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 04:30:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers. Actually you *don't* make a heck of a lot less typos than anyone. You made quite a few yesterday, you know. Besides, who are you talking about when you refer to "bozos" that use "cheap" newsreaders that lack spell-checkers? You certainly couldn't be talking about me. Or Yustabe. Or Stephen. Or George. Or Paul Dormer. |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers. So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist? Run out of ideas, Arny? ----== 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 =--- |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:02:13 +1100, "Tony Pearce"
wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... What a maroon. Yes he's probably red in the face by now with embarsment at his stupidity. Then again he's probably too stupid to realise it. I guess I am. I'm too stupid to realize that there's no shame in trying to find out things that I don't know. Thing is, I wish more people around here did it, instead of trying to hide their gaps in knowledge. One of many. Gosh Weil, I wish I would have figured out you were this stupid and block-headed 3 years ago. That's a sad admission in itself Arny. shrug |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:02:13 +1100, "Tony Pearce" wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... What a maroon. Yes he's probably red in the face by now with embarrassment at his stupidity. Then again he's probably too stupid to realize it. I guess I am. I'm too stupid to realize that there's no shame in trying to find out things that I don't know. That's not it Weil. First off, you could have researched this one yourself. we quickly gave you a number of acronyms and words that you could have used quite profitably at google. Or perhaps, you really aren't that good at searching with google? Secondly, a bunch of different people who had no reason to lie to you, told you almost exactly the same thing. Even Middius and I agreed for a while until he got weird again. Thirdly, this is a stupid simple issue. How did you graduate from High School without learning this? How do you live life without seeing this simple physical rule operate right before your eyes? How have you gone this long without knowing why LPs are played at 33 1/3 rpm and what that really means? Thing is, I wish more people around here did it, instead of trying to hide their gaps in knowledge. Thing is Weil, you've got a long track record of doing the same thing on any number of other topics. Admittedly some of them were not so clear-cut. But many of them were almost this simple. I guess we didn't think how to search low enough to find the limits of your inability to learn simple things. One of many. Gosh Weil, I wish I would have figured out you were this stupid and block-headed 3 years ago. That's a sad admission in itself Arny. Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were more educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic success becomes startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people, and you can't admit it to even yourself. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers. So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist? Run out of ideas, Arny? Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd try a little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet? |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:38:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: That's a sad admission in itself Arny. Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were more educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic success becomes startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people, and you can't admit it to even yourself. I didn't say this. In fact, I shrugged it off, but you deleted that. Was this a mistake or was it an intentional attempt to say that I said this about you? I'd like for you to explain this, if you would would. IRT the rest of the post, I simply kept asking questions about things that were unclear to me. I'm sorry that you find this strange. I think it shows self-confidence for someone to do that in a public forum. Why you turned on me is an issue that you'll have to deal with. |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:39:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers. So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist? Run out of ideas, Arny? Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd try a little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet? You still didn't answer my question about newsreaders. Could that blather about "cheap newsreaders with no spellchecker" have been your own variation of the above juvenile phrase that you routinely employ? Is that cake on your face, or just egg? |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:38:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's a sad admission in itself Arny. Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were more educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic success becomes startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people, and you can't admit it to even yourself. I didn't say this. True, you didnt'. But its the sort of thing that you would say. In fact, I shrugged it off, but you deleted that. Shrugging off is one of those things you do very well Weil, and that's a relevant point. You're trying to shrug the cosmic meaning of this experience you've been going through for several days. Was this a mistake or was it an intentional attempt to say that I said this about you? I'd like for you to explain this, if you would would. Asked and answered at this point. IRT the rest of the post, I simply kept asking questions about things that were unclear to me. I guess that's what it is like inside the head of a person who is pretty much unteachable. I'm sorry that you find this strange. You should be happy for me. Unlike you, I'm a pretty quick learn. I think it shows self-confidence for someone to do that in a public forum. Weil, your self-confidence far over-reaches your grasp of how things really are, especially in the so-called scientific world. What's sorely lacking is the step where you realize that you are almost impossible to teach things to, even things that are easily observed in day-to-day life, even things that have been generally-agreed upon for ages. Why you turned on me is an issue that you'll have to deal with. I didn't turn on you Weil. I just had one of those "Eureka" realizations. I suspect that what I've leaned about you also applies to many in your clique, the sockpuppet twins for sure. Essentially what I do here is to teach a few little things about consumer audio. You're never going to get it because of the fact that you are one, more unteachable than the next. I mean look at the sockpuppet twins. They've just had their current houses of lies collapse right in front of their faces, one w/r/t my house and one w/r/t my main stereo. They didn't skip a beat. Facts mean nothing. Intentional false statements they gratuitously make aren't lies. It's all a head game, nothing more, nothing less. |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
"dave weil" wrote in message
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:39:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers. So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist? Run out of ideas, Arny? Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd try a little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet? You still didn't answer my question about newsreaders. Could that blather about "cheap newsreaders with no spellchecker" have been your own variation of the above juvenile phrase that you routinely employ? Is that cake on your face, or just egg? Clear example of "debating trade trick number one". I talk about spell-checkers and suddenly the topic changes to typing skills. I'm out of this subthread unless you start making sense, Weil. |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:34:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:38:20 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: That's a sad admission in itself Arny. Sad? Sue me for thinking too highly of you, Weil. I thought you were more educatable than that. The reason for your lack of academic success becomes startlingly clear. You can't learn like most people, and you can't admit it to even yourself. I didn't say this. True, you didnt'. But its the sort of thing that you would say. That's *two* apostrophe errors in one sentence. Well done! In fact, I shrugged it off, but you deleted that. Shrugging off is one of those things you do very well Weil, and that's a relevant point. You're trying to shrug the cosmic meaning of this experience you've been going through for several days. No I haven't. I've been quite upfront with not only my questions but with my willingness to ask questions. Was this a mistake or was it an intentional attempt to say that I said this about you? I'd like for you to explain this, if you would would. Asked and answered at this point. Actually you didn't. Was it intentional or accidential? And why do you "mindread", which is something that you decry? Just curious... |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 09:36:22 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 08:39:29 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news "dave weil" wrote in message On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:36:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Sockpuppet, not only can't you spell worth a hill of beans Well, you can't either. What's yer point? That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers. So now we are down to arguing over who is the better typist? Run out of ideas, Arny? Since you've just been clearly caught in a big lie, thought you'd try a little "Look over there, cake", eh sockpuppet? You still didn't answer my question about newsreaders. Could that blather about "cheap newsreaders with no spellchecker" have been your own variation of the above juvenile phrase that you routinely employ? Is that cake on your face, or just egg? Clear example of "debating trade trick number one". I talk about spell-checkers and suddenly the topic changes to typing skills. Why are 8you* changing the subject. I said nothing about typing skills. I asked you a question previously, but apparently you are too afraid to answer it. I'm out of this subthread unless you start making sense, Weil. I simply want to know who you were talking about when you said "That I make a heck of a lot less typos than you bozos with the cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers". Specifically, who has cheap newsreaders that lack spell-checkers? Can you answer the question or are you going to continue babbling about cake? |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics would also be reduced. What am I missing? The velocity speed is constant. (The velocity is constantly changing but don't think about velocity here it will only complicate things. The speed of each point is constant *but* the speed is constantly *different for points that are different distances from the center. Just lok at the constant speed of any point on the label and look at the constant speed of the edge of the LP.The distance traveled by each point in relation to the speed at which it travels equals the same time to make a rotation. You see the speed and the distance travelled vary in proportion to the distance from the center of the disc. Like the arm of a clock comes around at the same time so do points on a disc that are lined up from the center of the disc even though the outside of the disc is traveling both faster and farther than the inner points. |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
S888Wheel a écrit :
I'll see if I can find a disk that I can sacrifice. Do you see why this would be counterintuitive though? If the velocity is constant but the distance travelled is reduced, it seems that the time between tics would also be reduced. What am I missing? The velocity speed is constant. (The velocity is constantly changing but don't think about velocity here it will only complicate things. The speed of each point is constant *but* the speed is constantly *different for points that are different distances from the center. Just lok at the constant speed of any point on the label and look at the constant speed of the edge of the LP.The distance traveled by each point in relation to the speed at which it travels equals the same time to make a rotation. You see the speed and the distance travelled vary in proportion to the distance from the center of the disc. Like the arm of a clock comes around at the same time so do points on a disc that are lined up from the center of the disc even though the outside of the disc is traveling both faster and farther than the inner points. Eh hop, one more... :-) |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Stereophile readership trends..
Lionel wrote in message ...
=(8888)= a écrit : "Michael McKelvy" emitted : It's less than 91,384 the highpint reached in 2000. Since then the numbers are clearly falling. The average over the ten year period is 83352. The current readership is a mere ~2% down on that average. Negligible. In the last 8 years the fluctuation has been between +10% and -2%. Apparently you are more than eager to point out a meager and insignificant tailing off, but failed to notice the more important spurt in growth from the mid to late 1990's onwards. Here's a plot of the data with linear and polynomial (3rd order) trend lines, forecasting thru 2005. [JA, hope you don't mind.. :-S] Not at all. Much appreciated. http://home.clara.net/media/CAP1.jpg To say that the readership is "shrinking" is hyperbole. The readership has remained pretty steady. Indeed, the linear trend line indicates an overall increase in readers across the data period. Same plot extended thru 2007 http://home.clara.net/media/CAP2.jpg Magistral demonstration ! Yes sincerely. This pure statistical analyze stick to a media make me think to an attempt to learn about furtur in a cristal bowl. Hi Lionel, I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The extrapolations _are_ interesting. However, as I have said, there are so many factors that affect a magazine's total circulation that any number of futures are possible. A bounding resurgence in the US economy might make things a lot better; another war will make things worse. All I have tried to do is provide the historical data so that people's arguments will have more of a basis in fact. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile It's looks like that Stereophile has some problems to anchor about 10% of its potential readership. |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Magazine Statitistics
Eh hop, one more... :-) Trying to keep pace with Arny in today's stupidity dash? |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Alpine CD Changer Ejecting Magazine | Car Audio | |||
Remove magazine from Sony CDX-656 changer | Car Audio | |||
- TAS magazine Website Updated - | Audio Opinions | |||
- TAS Magazine Website Updated - | General | |||
Car Audio Magazine back issues | Car Audio |