We're seeing the same issues arise over and over again. The same group of
questions that aren't addressed in the FAQ. Especially with the advent of
mp3 and the evolution of ICE.

So who's responsible for the damned thing?

Mark Zarella wrote: "So who's responsible for the damned thing?"

Why don't you check the FAQ?

:-)

Tony


--



What's more likely? That an all-powerful mysterious god created the
universe and then decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that
he simply doesn't exist at all? And that we created him so that we wouldn't
have to feel so small and alone. -Eleanor Arroway, Contact

"Mark Zarella" wrote in message
...
We're seeing the same issues arise over and over again. The same group of
questions that aren't addressed in the FAQ. Especially with the advent of
mp3 and the evolution of ICE.

So who's responsible for the damned thing?

We have the FAQ setup here with a section for the submission o
questions to be added, as well as answered.

Gather a few of you guys interested and drop me a private-mail onc
logged in and I will set your permissions to edit that section.

See it he http://tinyurl.com/2vv9
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

No, I'm talking about the REAL FAQ. Not one of you piggybackers connecting
to usenet.

"Lee" wrote in message
s.com...
We have the FAQ setup here with a section for the submission of
questions to be added, as well as answered.

Gather a few of you guys interested and drop me a private-mail once
logged in and I will set your permissions to edit that section.

See it he http://tinyurl.com/2vv93
--
Lee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!
View this thread:
http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176471

Mark, you pompous jerk, the real FAQ has been dead for years. There ar
some of us that are trying to breath life back into it and attitude
like yours are one of the barriers.

The FAQ didn't exist until members of this news group started puttin
one together. Just because one was put together in the late nineties
doesn't mean it can't be updated and or replaced.

You want to be useful, get involved, otherwise, go play with yourself
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

Mark, you pompous jerk, the real FAQ has been dead for years. There are
some of us that are trying to breath life back into it and attitudes
like yours are one of the barriers.

The FAQ didn't exist until members of this news group started putting
one together. Just because one was put together in the late nineties,
doesn't mean it can't be updated and or replaced.

You want to be useful, get involved, otherwise, go play with yourself.

There are a million "pseudo-FAQs" out there. Yours is just one of many. I
was just talking about updating the "official" FAQ. Why? Because even the
simplest google search brings that one up as THE r.a.c. FAQ.

Lee wrote:
We have the FAQ setup here with a section for the submission of
questions to be added, as well as answered.

He's referring to "the" faq; The rec.audio.car FAQ. Go spam somewhere else.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.caraudio.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

Lee wrote:
Mark, you pompous jerk, the real FAQ has been dead for years. There are
some of us that are trying to breath life back into it and attitudes
like yours are one of the barriers.

The FAQ didn't exist until members of this news group started putting
one together. Just because one was put together in the late nineties,
doesn't mean it can't be updated and or replaced.

You want to be useful, get involved, otherwise, go play with yourself.

The link you posted doesn't work.

The FAQ section at caraudioforums.com contains several omissions,
glaring errors, and stupid suggestions that I would never refer anyone
to it as a resource.

Just because you no-talent assclowns can afford to set up a half-assed
web site with a forum capable of spamming usenet doesn't mean you're
part of this community. Kindly **** off.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

Mark Zarella wrote:
We're seeing the same issues arise over and over again. The same group of
questions that aren't addressed in the FAQ. Especially with the advent of
mp3 and the evolution of ICE.

So who's responsible for the damned thing?

Last I checked it was Ian D. Bjorhovde . The
last revision was 2000. I can't believe it's been four years, so lets
get this ball rolling.

I just took a gander at the list of contributors too - a real whos who
of rec.audio.car legend. We had Andrew C. Ohnstad in there, and our own
old man John Durbin. I'm damn surpised to not see Eddie Runner or Jay B.
Haider up there.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

Last I checked it was Ian D. Bjorhovde . The
last revision was 2000. I can't believe it's been four years, so lets
get this ball rolling.

I just took a gander at the list of contributors too - a real whos who
of rec.audio.car legend. We had Andrew C. Ohnstad in there, and our own
old man John Durbin. I'm damn surpised to not see Eddie Runner or Jay B.
Haider up there.

Ian needs to be contacted I think. Otherwise, we'll need to find someone
else to host the "official" FAQ, no?

Mark Zarella wrote:
*Ian needs to be contacted I think. Otherwise, we'll need to fin
someone else to host the "official" FAQ, no? *

I've sent him half a dozen emails regarding this topic over the las
couple of years with no response. It is also clear that he is n
longer active here. I would prefer his official handing off of th
responsibilities, but at some point we have to realize that it has
simply been abandoned.

I say we move forward; I plan on it either way but would prefer inpu
from as many active members as would like to participate
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

thelizman wrote:
*The link you posted doesn't work.*Will try again: http://tinyurl.com/3a22r

thelizman wrote:
*The FAQ section at caraudioforums.com contains several omissions
glaring errors ...*Point them out, they will be corrected. The entry is an import of th
original with some added footnotes, it should be complete; but if it i
missing an entry I will gladly correct it. As far as the footnotes, i
you disagree with something specific, pointed it out.

thelizman wrote:
*Just because you no-talent assclowns can afford to set up
half-assed web site with a forum capable of spamming usenet doesn'
mean you're part of this community. Kindly **** off.
* Hmm. assclowns? Well, this assclown has been in the industry sinc
1980. This assclown has owned an audio retail store for the past 1
years. This assclown has also been part of the rec.audio.car newsgrou
for the past 8 years, and the so called half-assed web site was th
FIRST car audio specific forum on the internet, dating back to May o
1996 and has over 3000 unique visitors a day with one million post
available to browse online and has yet to subject its visitors t
advertising of any kind.

I'm not sure who you are, and I have no idea why you're so hostile, bu
it must be some kind of personality problem so I think I'll just ignor
future non-constructive suggestions posted by you
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

I'm not sure who you are, and I have no idea why you're so hostile, but
it must be some kind of personality problem so I think I'll just ignore
future non-constructive suggestions posted by you.

You've been part of r.a.c. for 8 years but you don't know who Lizard is and
you're not familiar with his...um...personality?

*The FAQ section at caraudioforums.com contains several omissions,
glaring errors ...*Point them out, they will be corrected.

Ok. Corrections (apologies in advance for any stepped-on toes):

Part 1: Definitions
I may address other sections later.

"1.2 Frequency response

"The frequency response of a device is the range of frequencies over which
that device can perform in some fashion. The action is specific to the
device in question. For example, the frequency response of the human ear is
around 20Hz-20kHz, which is the range of frequencies which can be resolved
by the eardrum."

**Not quite. The ear drum is responsive over a much broader frequency
range. The frequently-quoted 20-20kHz is a figure limited primarily by the
mechanical transduction process of the inner ear. Also, a more realistical
number would be somewhere between 30Hz and 18kHz.

**Moreover, the phrase "frequency response of the human ear" is a bit faulty
because it's not really a frequency response (the transfer function is a lot
more complex, and it's modulated by other factors). It's a sensitivity
function. Anyway, I'd take that line out.

**This, by the way, also brings up a glaring ommission. There's nothing
written anywhere about the most important part of the audio chain: the human
observer!

"The frequency response of an amplifier may be 50Hz-40kHz, and that of a
certain speaker may be 120Hz-17kHz. In the car audio world, frequency
responses should usually be given with a power ratio range as well, such as
(in the case of the speaker) 120Hz-17kHz +/-3dB. What this means is that
given an input signal anywhere from 120Hz to 17kHz, the output signal is
guaranteed to be within an "envelope" that is 6dB tall. Typically the
extreme ends of the frequency range are the hardest to reproduce, so in this
example, the 120Hz and 17kHz points may be referred to as the "-3dB points"
of the amplifier. When no dB range is given with a frequency response
specification, it can sometimes be assumed to be +/-3dB."

**An important point, but it seems buried in the numbers. I think it should
be stressed that the frequency response must be accompanied by the
"attenuation" numbers, and a sample freq response graph can even be provided
to illustrate how freq response can change if you use different values as
your threshold (a picture says a thousand words). It should also be pointed
out that improving freq response beyond human detection capability is
fruitless.

"1.1 What do all these acronyms mean
snipped reasonable definitions

"W is for watts, a measurement of electrical power. One watt is equal to one
volt times one amp, or one joule of energy per second. In a DC circuit, the
power is calculated as the voltage times the current (P=V x I). In an AC
circuit, the RMS power is calculated as the RMS voltage times the RMS
current (Prms=Vrms x Irms)."

**What's quoted above is not "RMS power", but rather "average power". "RMS
power" is something entirely different, and in fact has no relevance to
anything in audio.

"dB is for decibel, and is a measurement for power ratios. To measure dB,
you must always measure with respect to something else. The formula for
determining these ratios is P=10^(dB/10), which can be rewritten as
dB=10log(P). For example, to gain 3dB of output compared to your current
output, you must change your current power by a factor of 10^(3/10) = 10^0.3
= 2.00 (that is, double your power). The other way around, if you triple
your power (say, from 20W to 60W) and want to know the corresponding change
in dB, it is dB=10log(60/20)=4.77 (that is, an increase of 4.77dB). If you
know your logarithms, you know that a negative number simply inverts your
answer, so that 3dB corresponding to double power is the same as -3dB
corresponding to half power. There are several other dB formulas; for
instance, the voltage measurement is dB=20log(V). For example, a doubling of
voltage produces 20log2 = 6.0dB more output, which makes sense since power
is proportional to the square of voltage, so a doubling in voltage produces
a quadrupling in power."

**What a convoluted explanation!

"SPL is for sound pressure level and is similar to dB. SPL measurements are
also ratios, but are always measured relative to a constant. This constant
is 0dB which is defined as the smallest level of sound pressure that the
human ear can detect. 0dB is equal to 10^-12 (ten to the negative twelfth
power) W/m^2 (watts per square meter). As such, when a speaker is rated to
produce 92dB at 1m when given 1W (92dB/Wm), you know that they mean that it
is 92dB louder than 10^-12W/m^2. You also know than if you double the power
(from 1W to 2W), you add 3dB, so it will produce 95dB at 1m with 2W, 98dB at
1m with 4W, 101dB at 1m with 8W, etc."

**SPL is not "similar to dB". That line should be removed. The "constant"
needs to be redefined. Test frequency should also be introduced here to
describe these sensitivity measurements.

"THD is for total harmonic distortion, and is a measure of the how much a
certain device may distort a signal. These figures are usually given as
percentages. It is believed that THD figures below approximately 0.1% are
inaudible. However, it should be realized that distortion adds, so that if a
head unit, equalizer, signal processor, crossover, amplifier and speaker are
all rated at "no greater than 0.1%THD", together, they could produce
0.6%THD, which could be noticeable in the output."

**That 0.1% number is rubbish. It should be removed. Though a discussion
of threshold is warranted.

Also, as Lizard said, there are many omissions to this list.

Mark Zarella wrote:
*Ok. Corrections ..*
Thanks Mark, these have been added to their respective sections fo
reference, one note: When writing an answer to a FAQ, IMO, it is a goa
for your answer not to create more questions.

Remember, the people asking these questions are not physics o
electronic engineering candidates, just normal guys trying to mak
sense out of all the hype. I find myself often giving customer
simplified answers to complex questions, because if I do take the tim
to explain all of the related issues required to understand before on
can understand the fundamental issues, they usually walk away with
blank look on their face and more questions in their head. I think w
should strive to fashion answers that are accurate, but simple enoug
to be understood by the average guy.

You mentioned omissions, are you thinking there are sections of th
original FAQ that are not currently shown? If so, could you give me th
section and paragraph number?

Thanks again
Le
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

Thanks Mark, these have been added to their respective sections for
reference, one note: When writing an answer to a FAQ, IMO, it is a goal
for your answer not to create more questions.

It wasn't my intention to provide comprehensive solutions to the problems
that I pointed out. I was simply identifying parts of the original FAQ that
were inaccurate, potentially confusing to the reader, or incomplete. My
point was that there are parts that are outdated, parts that are incomplete,
and even parts that are incorrect. These sections shouldn't be included.
They should be removed! Otherwise, the reader won't know what to think.
The last thing a newcomer wants to see is a debate in front of them. They
don't know enough in order to make a decision about who's right.

snip
You mentioned omissions, are you thinking there are sections of the
original FAQ that are not currently shown? If so, could you give me the
section and paragraph number?

No. By omissions I meant there are many many topics that should be brought
up in a FAQ that aren't. For instance, DVC wiring strategies (including
wiring just one coil), frequency content of "typical" music, "does clipping
blow speakers?", speaker wire, RCA shielding, box aiming, gain setting, a/b
tests, "what makes amplifiers sound different?", and so forth. These are
all examples of some of the most common questions that I come across around
here that are either not addressed in the FAQ or have such a terse
description that the answer is utterly useless.

The goal of any FAQ should be to provide a comprehensive answer to the most
common questions, and at the same time keep it easy enough to follow for the
intended audience. Although it's important to achieve a balance of these
two things, one should never be compromised in favor of the other! It's not
a good idea to oversimplify things or leave important points out because you
don't feel the reader can handle it. The problem isn't with the reader;
it's with the writer.

The difficulty that the writer faces is conveying the information while
maintaining technical precision. In my opinion, the "official" FAQ failed
to do this in a number of different places, mostly by neglecting to adhere
to the technical precision and completeness aspect. I'm afraid to say that
it appears that your updated FAQ may fail to achieve it's goal on the other
token, by providing too many different answers to the questions.

In other words, the footnotes must go! If there's a problem with the answer
to a question, it should be rewritten. I suggest either having someone with
expertise in that particular area rewrite it, paraphrasing literature in
that area, or doing google searches of R.A.C. to find what the general
concensus was for an answer to that question.

Mark Zarella wrote:
*In other words, the footnotes must go! If there's a problem wit
the answer to a question, it should be rewritten. I suggest eithe
having someone with expertise in that particular area rewrite it
paraphrasing literature in that area, or doing google searches o
R.A.C. to find what the general concensus was for an answer to tha
question. *
My plan is not to have the final product replete with footnotes, but t
use this as a tool for moving the future FAQ to a healthy modifie
version. The debate as to which questions need to be added and whic
answers need to be redacted, needs a method to be organized. Firs
suggestions need to be recorded in an organized manner. It's not goin
to happen over night, but with a little effort, it can happen
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

Mark Zarella wrote:
*The FAQ section at caraudioforums.com contains several omissions,
glaring errors ...*Point them out, they will be corrected.

"1.1 What do all these acronyms mean
snipped a list of initials that are NOT acronyms

None of these are acronyms. If you pronounce THD
"tee-aitch-dee" then it's NOT an acronym. It could
be an acronym, for instance, if you pronounced it
"thud."

*In other words, the footnotes must go! If there's a problem with
the answer to a question, it should be rewritten. I suggest either
having someone with expertise in that particular area rewrite it,
paraphrasing literature in that area, or doing google searches of
R.A.C. to find what the general concensus was for an answer to that
question. *
My plan is not to have the final product replete with footnotes, but to
use this as a tool for moving the future FAQ to a healthy modified
version. The debate as to which questions need to be added and which
answers need to be redacted, needs a method to be organized. First
suggestions need to be recorded in an organized manner. It's not going
to happen over night, but with a little effort, it can happen.

I see. Not a bad idea after all, then. Good luck!

"1.1 What do all these acronyms mean
snipped a list of initials that are NOT acronyms

None of these are acronyms. If you pronounce THD
"tee-aitch-dee" then it's NOT an acronym. It could
be an acronym, for instance, if you pronounced it
"thud."

Hehe, good catch. In fact, they're just initials. But I think the final
version should just rename that section to something like "list of terms".

Mark Zarella wrote:
*I see. Not a bad idea after all, then. Good luck!*
I was hoping you would be part of the editing team ...

So, did you receive the password for the account I created for you o
CAF
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

Mark Zarella wrote:

Ian needs to be contacted I think. Otherwise, we'll need to find someone
else to host the "official" FAQ, no?


I dropped him an e-mail, but from the looks of things he's MIA. I've
already started modifying the original faq including a copyright so
certain morons who run web forums that plague this newsgroup can't
steal the FAQ and post it as their own work. All existing content
for Rev. $4.xx$ is coprighted to Ian, and all future work will be
available under the Creative Commons 1.0
Atrribution-Non-commercial-Share-Alike Copyright. I'm also working up a
script to host the FAQ and make updates / text dumps / mass mailings
easier. The original FAQ was maintained by texi, which I don't think is
even available anymore.

I figure teamROCS.com has outlasted just about every other site out
there, so naturally...and mirrors at places like audioguy.net and
geo****ties ought to safeguard the FAQ.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

Lee wrote:
thelizman wrote:
*The link you posted doesn't work.
Will try again: http://tinyurl.com/3a22r

Why don't you just post the correct link.


*Just because you no-talent assclowns can afford to set up a
half-assed web site with a forum capable of spamming usenet doesn't
mean you're part of this community. Kindly **** off.

* Hmm. assclowns? Well, this assclown has been in the industry since

1980.

I think Eddie can beat that, but you don't see him polluting rac with a
web forum that crossposts here.

This assclown has owned an audio retail store for the past 18
years.

So you're selling something - 1 less reason to trust you.

This assclown has also been part of the rec.audio.car newsgroup
for the past 8 years,

Got you beat by about a year. I made my first drunken posting here in
1995. I've been posting under some variant of my nom de plum since April
of 1997. You, on the other hand, don't seem to exist prior to just a
little while ago.

I'm not sure who you are, and I have no idea why you're so hostile,

Allow me to paint you a picture - I'm hostile at you for the same reason
I'm hostile towards WebTV and AOL. You have provided a medium which has
diluted the informational capacity of this newsgroup by allowing people
who normally lack the intelligence and resourcefulness to access it the
ability to thoughtlessly post messages here. Furthermore, you wantonly
facilitate the violation fundamental usenet etiquette by allowing the
WWW equivalent of the great unwashed to post messages here without
adherence to usenet protocol. Finally, you are exploiting a public
resource - neigh, two public resources (rec.audio.car and the rac FAQ)
for your own personal gain.

You are disgusting to me, which is precisely why I'm so hostile to you.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

Mark Zarella wrote:

You've been part of r.a.c. for 8 years but you don't know who Lizard is and
you're not familiar with his...um...personality?

I'm calling bull****. I've looked for his posts under his name, his
website, his business name (which took me a while to dig up), and I'm
coming up bupkis.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

Lee wrote:
My plan is not to have the final product replete with footnotes, but to
use this as a tool for moving the future FAQ

snip

Please, your plan is to exploit pre-existing public goods and resources
in order to increase the amount of content on your site, raising its
visibility to search engines and ultimately creating a new revenue
stream. Unplug the connection to usenet and end your crapflooding.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

I guess everything has the equivalent of a boil on its *** and thelizman
is obviously this medium's boil.

thelizman: so, anything that facilitates the access of the public to
this resource should be disconnected? Outlook, Google, et al should all
be disconnected because it gives people a method to post in this
newsgroup? What kind of inbred logic is that?

Can't find me? Hmm, I'm so surprised .. it has been clear for a while
that you suck at the Internet. In one search I a found post by me in
this newsgroup dated: 1996/05/11 .. I guess you'll just have to try
harder to make up for the mental shortcomings you were given.

You know, I started the process to see if we could update the FAQ back
in Sept. of 2002 .. it was morons like you that made it too much
trouble to try and help .. wait .. it probably was you.

So I and the other members of the medium that are not you, are the
scourged of the earth? Let's see here, You repost spam in the name of
helping. You have hijacked a thread entitled "The FAQ needs a major
update" and turned it into your little ****ing contest. And you've
joined another thread also not titled: "let's read crap from a moron"
and proceeded to load it with crap; you've done all of this in less
than 24 hours, and who's the scourged? It seem pretty clear you are the
disease this medium suffers. Now, please go make your own threads
entitled: "Listen to a Mad man Rant" and stop annoying others.

I never remember the rule, people with no power always try to control
that which is not theirs .. I clearly made a mistake by not following
my own advice to ignore posts from you, this is now corrected.
--
Lee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online!
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...hreadid=176471

Lee wrote:
thelizman: so, anything that facilitates the access of the public to
this resource should be disconnected? Outlook, Google, et al should all
be disconnected because it gives people a method to post in this
newsgroup?

Outlook does not connect to usenet. Outlook Express has a legimate
newsreader built into it. Google maintains an archive, and has a strict
Acceptable Use Policy which governs how people use it. There are a
number of services which provide access to usenet in a reasonable and
responsible manner. Your forum does not.


You know, I started the process to see if we could update the FAQ back
in Sept. of 2002 .. it was morons like you that made it too much
trouble to try and help .. wait .. it probably was you.

You're full of ****. I just got an e-mail from Ian, the official
maintainer of the FAQ. If you had made any attempt to update the FAQ, it
would have been through him, and it would have resulted in a change to
the FAQ.

I never remember the rule, people with no power always try to control
that which is not theirs .. I clearly made a mistake by not following
my own advice to ignore posts from you, this is now corrected.

Ironic you would say that since you've plagiarized the rec.audio.car FAQ
from mobileaudio.com for your website.

--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

Mark Zarella wrote:

We're seeing the same issues arise over and over again. The same group of
questions that aren't addressed in the FAQ. Especially with the advent of
mp3 and the evolution of ICE.

So who's responsible for the damned thing?


I am responsible for maintaining the FAQ. I have been the maintaining it
since 1995. The content has always come from volunteers in the
rec.audio.car community (myself included).

Unfortunately, in the past 4 years, although I have received email from
a number of people asking about updating the FAQ, but my requests for
help with updating sections or write new sections have gone unanswered.

I would be very happy to update the document if anyone is willing to
provide material. I have already received an offer for assistance
from Andrew Krause (the lizard), and I look forward to other contributors,
so we can make the FAQ a better document.


Thanks -


Ian Bjorhovde

rec.audio.car FAQ Maintainer




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Ian,

If you are indeed going to organized a revamping of the FAQ an
reassert your presence here -- I support your efforts 100% -- I hav
attempted to contact you several times in the last few years in a
attempt to see if we could pass the touch on to someone with a littl
more available time, but as I say, if you are willing to take on th
project of vetting and readdressing the issues that are currently i
need of address, then you have my support and the support of ou
resources.

Welcome back
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

Lee wrote:

Well, this assclown has been in the industry since
1980. This assclown has owned an audio retail store for the past 18
years. This assclown has also been part of the rec.audio.car newsgroup
for the past 8 years,

You been on RAC for 8 years and dont know who Lizard is???
How could anyone be here for that long and not know Liz?
You must be a newbie!
have you seen?
http://www.teamrocs.com/crap/newbie.htm

and the so called half-assed web site was the
FIRST car audio specific forum on the internet, dating back to May of
1996 and has over 3000 unique visitors a day with one million posts
available to browse online and has yet to subject its visitors to
advertising of any kind.

Whats it called?

Lizard was one of the founders of teamROCS!
THE FIRST online car audio team!
(I am sure you have seen us in the trade magazines)

Lizard was one of the first members of the IML
(Installer Mailing List, and also featured in the trade
magazines several times over the years)
The FIRST, Pro installer only internet group.

I'm not sure who you are,

He is the Lizman,

and I have no idea why you're so hostile,

Its his special way to welcome YOU to RAC....
ha ha ha

but
it must be some kind of personality problem so I think I'll just ignore
future non-constructive suggestions posted by you.

Sounds like you have been ignoring RAC altogether for the
last 8 or more years, if you dont know who Lizard is....
ha ha ha

Should someone who knows so little about RAC
be building the RAC FAQ.. ???????

Eddie Runner
(installer since 1974)

Its just some NEW GUY that thinks he can RUN RAC...
First the FAQ, tomorrow the USNET GROUP!

thelizman wrote:

I'm calling bull****. I've looked for his posts under his name, his
website, his business name (which took me a while to dig up), and I'm
coming up bupkis.

thelizman wrote:

* Hmm. assclowns? Well, this assclown has been in the industry since
1980.

I think Eddie can beat that, but you don't see him polluting rac with a
web forum that crossposts here.

ha ha ha
Yeah Liz your right, all these ASSCLOWNS are newbies to me...
ha ha ha

Eddie Runner

Got you beat by about a year. I made my first drunken posting here in

1995. I've been posting under some variant of my nom de plum since April
of 1997. You, on the other hand, don't seem to exist prior to just a
little while ago.

its too bad the newsgroup searchers dont go back further than they do
some of the best arguements wereback in the mid 90s.


Allow me to paint you a picture - I'm hostile at you for the same reason
I'm hostile towards WebTV and AOL. You have provided a medium which has
diluted the informational capacity of this newsgroup by allowing people
who normally lack the intelligence and resourcefulness to access it the
ability to thoughtlessly post messages here. Furthermore, you wantonly
facilitate the violation fundamental usenet etiquette by allowing the
WWW equivalent of the great unwashed to post messages here without
adherence to usenet protocol. Finally, you are exploiting a public
resource - neigh, two public resources (rec.audio.car and the rac FAQ)
for your own personal gain.

Oh, I get it....
He wants to pull the FEW RACers we have left over to his FORUM
(forums are for fags)
So he can push his stores crap on them....

**** the RAC posts are down to like 50 or 60 a day now.
in the old days we had 100s...
I would hate to loose any more RACers...
This place IS the internet...


Eddie

Eddie Runner,

I do know who you are, I just didn't think you had devolved to jus
another troll. This liz person is simply a jackass -- another paranoi
social misfit that is afraid of change. I'm sad to see that you soun
like just another of his ilk. If things were left to people like yo
two, there would never have been a faq created in the first place
because you people would have thought its intentions were to brainwas
the masses .. like this little corner of the world is the masses. A
for my being new, there is no question that I'm not -- as for me no
knowing who the troll is, I try not to remember the morons -- I have t
deal with too many of them already. As for me selling things on m
site .. stop talking out of your *** .. my forum has absolutely n
advertising on it of any kind -- can you say that about your site?
have never accepted any money nor profited in any way from running tha
board in its 7+ years online.

I see another that has no problem with hijacking threads -- nic
behavior for a senior member of this industry. Don't you people eve
grow up
-
Le
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CarAudioForum.com - Usenet Gateway w/over one million posts online
View this thread: http://www.caraudioforum.com/showthr...threadid=17647

Eddie Runner wrote:
Its just some NEW GUY that thinks he can RUN RAC...
First the FAQ, tomorrow the USNET GROUP!


He apparently doesn't realize that teamROCS has already won the battle
for domination of rec.audio.car once already.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

Lee wrote:
Eddie Runner,

I do know who you are, I just didn't think you had devolved to just
another troll.

Eddie has ALWAYS been a troll! He's a good troll - he makes people think!!

THINK!! That's something you could try doing.

This liz person is simply a jackass

I'm THE jackass, cheesedick.

If things were left to people like you
two, there would never have been a faq created in the first place,
because you people would have thought its intentions were to brainwash
the masses

Guys like us FORCE change! We ran off the marketing hypocrites from this
group once already. We showed people that guys like Richard Clark
weren't as smart as they made everyone think they were. We exposed the
cheaters in car audio competitions who use explosive airbag charges
hidden in the dash of their Astros to beat up on little old ladies!

What have you done for this community? You've stolen posts for your
website to represent them as your own. You've plagiaraized the
rec.audio.car FAQ because it suits you to do so. You LIED! You never
tried to contact Ian. Had you tried, you would have gotten a reply. I
e-mailed him three time yesterday, and got three replies!!! You are
coopting public resources to produce private goods! That is called STEALING!

As for me selling things on my
site .. stop talking out of your *** .. my forum has absolutely no
advertising on it of any kind -- can you say that about your site? I
have never accepted any money nor profited in any way from running that
board in its 7+ years online.

Nobody said you were selling anything. Eddie didn't even say anything
close. That was me, fartbuble! I accused you of taking from this
community for your own profit. Look up profit in the dictionary bozo!

I see another that has no problem with hijacking threads -- nice
behavior for a senior member of this industry. Don't you people ever
grow up?

You're the one hijacking threads moron. When you changed the subject
fromthe FAQ to making personal attacks against Eddie, you should have
changed the subject line like I did above. But you didn't, because your
a NOOB! You don't even know basic usenet etiquitte, like always quoting
the text to which you are replying.

If you want to be part of the community, fine. Stop trying to act like
you're better than everyone. Stop crapflooding the forum with poorly
formatted posts from your website. Educate your users to quote in plain
ASCII text. E-mail your FAQ updates to Ian. Most of all, help the newbs!
Contribute something USEFUL, dont' try to tell everyone what they should
do and how they should act.

And if you've been here 8 years - so what! I've been here longer. Eddie
has been here even longer than that! You're just a NEWBIE to us. Don't
act like a newb, and you won't treated like one.


--
thelizman

teamROCS Car Audio Forums http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio/
teamROCS Car Audio News http://www.teamrocs.com/news/
"It's about the music, stupid"

This post is Copyright (C) 2004. Reproduction of its content anywhere
other than the rec.audio.car newsgroup without the express written
permission of the author is forbidden.

And if you've been here 8 years - so what! I've been here longer. Eddie
has been here even longer than that! You're just a NEWBIE to us. Don't
act like a newb, and you won't treated like one.

I'm suspicious of his claim that he's been here for 8 years. You and Eddie
have been around for longer than that, and I've been around for 5, yet he
didn't know who we were?

Lee wrote:

Eddie Runner,

I do know who you are,

Doesnt everyone??? ;-)

I just didn't think you had devolved to just
another troll.

I been trollin this newsgroup since before alot of folk on here
were born....

This liz person is simply a jackass --

Yes he is, I wont argue that one.
But he aint no dummy!

another paranoid
social misfit that is afraid of change.

Liz can make change better N most of us
he is a professional!

I'm sad to see that you sound
like just another of his ilk.

Just what is his ILK?

If things were left to people like you
two, there would never have been a faq created in the first place,

Do we really need one?

because you people would have thought its intentions were to brainwash
the masses ..

Just what are your intentions?

like this little corner of the world is the masses.

Ya come in here to RAC an belittle it...
No wonder no one here seems to like you much...

As
for my being new, there is no question that I'm not

Yes there is
Mark Questioned it
Liz questioned it
and I dont remember you either....

-- as for me not
knowing who the troll is,

Whats your attraction to trolls?
Do you like Ogres too?

I try not to remember the morons

Seems like you dont remember anything anyway.

-- I have to
deal with too many of them already.

Where are all these morons?
You are new here to RAC so you must be talking about the
MORONS on your own forum...

Lee 's little playhouse....

As for me selling things on my
site .. stop talking out of your *** ..

Breappp, Frrrtttt, ... Whats wrong with that?
Everyone does it..

my forum has absolutely no
advertising on it of any kind -- can you say that about your site?

Why would I want to say that? I dont see the point....

I am affiliated with at least 30 or more sites, some are
commercial and some are not....

I
have never accepted any money nor profited in any way from running that
board in its 7+ years online.

Then why are you trying to HIJACK the RAC FAQ?

I see another that has no problem with hijacking threads

Who?

-- nice
behavior for a senior member of this industry.

behaviour? Me? what are you talking about?

Don't you people ever
grow up?

Young folks (newbies) always wanna grow up.

When you get as old as I am you wish you could be a kid again...

Eddie Runner
http://www.installer.com/tech
http://www.teamrocs.com
http://www.twfer.com
http://www.tx4x4.com
http://www.installer.com/tech/iml.html
http://www.teamrocs.com/caraudio
http://www.installer.com/tech/meml.html

thelizman wrote:

Eddie has ALWAYS been a troll! He's a good troll - he makes people think!!

Why, thank you Liz...

THINK!! That's something you could try doing.

He obviously looks down on us RACers.....

This liz person is simply a jackass

I'm THE jackass, cheesedick.

He does have the right Liz!
ha ha

What have you done for this community?

he has done nothing on RAC that Ican remember

You've stolen posts for your
website to represent them as your own.

has he really?

You've plagiaraized the
rec.audio.car FAQ because it suits you to do so.

The guy is a thief!

You LIED!

His motive wa sprofit driven

You never
tried to contact Ian. Had you tried, you would have gotten a reply.

Ian is even posting here on RAC now thanks to Lizard...

I
e-mailed him three time yesterday, and got three replies!!! You are
coopting public resources to produce private goods! That is called STEALING!

Damn!!!

Nobody said you were selling anything. Eddie didn't even say anything
close. That was me, fartbuble!

Fartbubble! ha! Tell Sancho to add it to the LIST

I accused you of taking from this
community for your own profit. Look up profit in the dictionary bozo!

Is this guy the same guy that starte TEAM LAMP?
http://www.teamrocs.com/crap/teamlamp/index.html

You're the one hijacking threads moron. When you changed the subject
fromthe FAQ to making personal attacks against Eddie,

He Liz, I dont mind his personal attacks, really!!
It gives me something to do...

you should have
changed the subject line like I did above. But you didn't, because your
a NOOB! You don't even know basic usenet etiquitte, like always quoting
the text to which you are replying.

He is new here Liz, go easy on him... ha ha

If you want to be part of the community, fine. Stop trying to act like
you're better than everyone.

You noticed that too...??

Stop crapflooding the forum with poorly
formatted posts from your website.

is he doing that?

Educate your users to quote in plain
ASCII text. E-mail your FAQ updates to Ian. Most of all, help the newbs!

Good advice

And if you've been here 8 years

If he was here that long I dont remember him ever saying anything.


Eddie Runner

Mark, if someone claims they are on RAC and dont know YOUR name
then they MUST BE a liar,.... Hell you post a reply to ANYTHING and
EVERYTHING!!

Havent seens anything like you since old Phil Gunther used to reply
to every single RAC post... But Phil didnt actually know anything
he was just insecure and wanted someone to talk to him...

Eddie

Mark Zarella wrote:

And if you've been here 8 years - so what! I've been here longer. Eddie
has been here even longer than that! You're just a NEWBIE to us. Don't
act like a newb, and you won't treated like one.

I'm suspicious of his claim that he's been here for 8 years. You and Eddie
have been around for longer than that, and I've been around for 5, yet he
didn't know who we were?

Mark, if someone claims they are on RAC and dont know YOUR name
then they MUST BE a liar,.... Hell you post a reply to ANYTHING and
EVERYTHING!!

Havent seens anything like you since old Phil Gunther used to reply
to every single RAC post... But Phil didnt actually know anything
he was just insecure and wanted someone to talk to him...

I may be the most frequent poster over the last 3 years or so, but over the
past year Vina's got me beat by a mile!