Some basics

http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA313062?stt=000&pubdate=8%2F7%2F2003

and the future from 6 months ago.

http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA313055?stt=000&pubdate=8%2F7%2F2003

Note: These articles may not be at all interesting for the
technophobes of the group.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
om...
Some basics


http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednm...00&pubdate=8%2
F7%2F2003

and the future from 6 months ago.


http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednm...00&pubdate=8%2
F7%2F2003

Note: These articles may not be at all interesting for the
technophobes of the group.



I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.
We are not technophobes. We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby. Mostly, we are bored by it rather
than fearful of 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 =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.
We are not technophobes. We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby. Mostly, we are bored by it rather
than fearful of it.

I never considered you a technophobe nor consider
them correlated to subjectivists or objectivists.
Do you?

ScottW

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

"ScottW" wrote in message
om...
Some basics



http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednm...00&pubdate=8%2
F7%2F2003

and the future from 6 months ago.



http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednm...00&pubdate=8%2
F7%2F2003

Note: These articles may not be at all interesting for the
technophobes of the group.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.

We are not technophobes.

Really? You've got a lot of people fooled. Yustabe, you've also got yourself
fooled if you think you speak for all subjectivists. Furthermore, your
retro-technology audio system with gratuitous noise and distortion enhancers
can only be explained by a complete hatred of modern technology.

We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby.

As if the people who have a clue about technology feel that way. Of course
they don't, but with boneheads like you posturing away, no one who was
neutral and otherwise uninformed would know it.

And that's your story isn't it Yustabe - you just tell lies about people you
disagree with because it makes a good troll.

Mostly, we are bored by it rather than fearful of it.

You're bored by the technical aspects of audio because of your narrow mind,
limited abstract reasoning, and poor aptitude for dealing with facts and
reason.

The Terrierborg backpawdals.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.
We are not technophobes.

I never considered you a technophobe nor consider
them correlated to subjectivists or objectivists.

You still have the stink of Kroopologism on you. That's why Socky
assumed you were snotting about "technophobes".

Let's see if you have the brains to explain whom you meant when you
used that word. I know it's not possible for you to understand why the
word is a bit loaded on RAO.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:08:41 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.
We are not technophobes. We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby. Mostly, we are bored by it rather
than fearful of it.

I never considered you a technophobe nor consider
them correlated to subjectivists or objectivists.
Do you?

I'm pretty sure that he knows that your comment was just a troll.

Of course, if he hadn't been over to your house, you'd be dogging him
right about now. It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

"dave weil" wrote in message


On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:08:41 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.
We are not technophobes. We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby. Mostly, we are bored by it rather
than fearful of it.

I never considered you a technophobe nor consider
them correlated to subjectivists or objectivists.

Hey Yustabe can't do any wrong, after all he partied over at Scotty's house,
right?

Do you?

Given that Yustabe ate from Scotty's hand, he wouldn't turn around and bite
it, now would he?

I'm pretty sure that he knows that your comment was just a troll.

Probably. Ordinarily I'd find it hard to believe that Yustabe would
indirectly libel his good bud Scotty, but we are talking a mental giant
known under the name "Yustabe", right?

Of course, if he hadn't been over to your house, you'd be dogging him
right about now.

Yes. Yustabe already took his first bite out of Scotty's butt.

It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

Bingo!

Arny said


Really? You've got a lot of people fooled. Yustabe, you've also got yourself
fooled if you think you speak for all subjectivists. Furthermore, your
retro-technology audio system with gratuitous noise and distortion enhancers
can only be explained by a complete hatred of modern technology.


It is clear by your post that you are the one with a phobea.


Art said



We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby.

Arny said


As if the people who have a clue about technology feel that way.

Thanks for admitting you don't have a clue.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message


We are not technophobes.

Really? You've got a lot of people fooled. Yustabe, you've also got
yourself
fooled if you think you speak for all subjectivists. Furthermore, your
retro-technology audio system with gratuitous noise and distortion
enhancers
can only be explained by a complete hatred of modern technology.


No, IDIOT, my preference is based on my perception
that it is more musical.

We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby.

As if the people who have a clue about technology feel that way. Of course
they don't, but with boneheads like you posturing away, no one who was
neutral and otherwise uninformed would know it.

Nobody following your illustrious RAO
'career' would know it.



And that's your story isn't it Yustabe - you just tell lies about people
you
disagree with because it makes a good troll.


What lies? I never called you a decent human being.


Mostly, we are bored by it rather than fearful of it.

You're bored by the technical aspects of audio because of your narrow
mind,
limited abstract reasoning, and poor aptitude for dealing with facts and
reason.


People ingrossed in technical minutia as ahobby are the
ones with the narrow minds. Some people have
trouble seeing the forests from the trees. Some people
hve trouble seeing the trees form the leaves. You, ARny
have trouble seeing the leaves form the veins.
You are no aware of the world than an ant.





----== 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 =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:08:41 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.
We are not technophobes. We just don't
think that technical issues are the be all and end all of enjoying
the audio hobby. Mostly, we are bored by it rather
than fearful of it.

I never considered you a technophobe nor consider
them correlated to subjectivists or objectivists.
Do you?

I'm pretty sure that he knows that your comment was just a troll.

Of course, if he hadn't been over to your house, you'd be dogging him
right about now. It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

you ought to visit him at his house.
The two of you might actually like each other.




----== 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 =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Of course, if he hadn't been over to your house, you'd be dogging him
right about now. It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

you ought to visit him at his house.
The two of you might actually like each other.

Are you saying he can switch from overbearingly rabid to socially
composed like turning on the lights?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Of course, if he hadn't been over to your house, you'd be dogging him
right about now. It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

you ought to visit him at his house.
The two of you might actually like each other.

Are you saying he can switch from overbearingly rabid to socially
composed like turning on the lights?



Sometimes he'll get a "reviewers need to do abx" bug up his ass,
but most times he doesn't. Most important, he does love music.
Besides me, Boon and Wheeler enjoy his company, also.





----== 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 =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Are you saying he can switch from overbearingly rabid to socially
composed like turning on the lights?

Sometimes he'll get a "reviewers need to do abx" bug up his ass,
but most times he doesn't. Most important, he does love music.
Besides me, Boon and Wheeler enjoy his company, also.

Well, at least when you folks get together, it's definitely a
no-'borgs zone.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


The Terrierborg backpawdals.

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the subjectivists.
We are not technophobes.

I never considered you a technophobe nor consider
them correlated to subjectivists or objectivists.

You still have the stink of Kroopologism on you. That's why Socky
assumed you were snotting about "technophobes".

Let's see if you have the brains to explain whom you meant when you
used that word. I know it's not possible for you to understand why the
word is a bit loaded on RAO.

You are a prime example.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...

It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

I do believe Dave and Spirit are exhibiting
similar symptoms.

ScottW

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Of course, if he hadn't been over to your house, you'd be dogging
him
right about now. It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling
around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

you ought to visit him at his house.
The two of you might actually like each other.

Are you saying he can switch from overbearingly rabid to socially
composed like turning on the lights?



Sometimes he'll get a "reviewers need to do abx" bug up his ass,
but most times he doesn't. Most important, he does love music.
Besides me, Boon and Wheeler enjoy his company, also.

These articles didn't have much to do with sound quality but more
to with possible future digital formats, particularly in the video
realm with increased data capacity on a disc.

ScottW

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:54:20 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

I do believe Dave and Spirit are exhibiting
similar symptoms.

You're welcome to your opinion.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:58:55 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

Of course, if he hadn't been over to your house, you'd be dogging
him
right about now. It's that "hypocritical" charge that you fling
around
so much show its ugly face in your posts.

you ought to visit him at his house.
The two of you might actually like each other.

Are you saying he can switch from overbearingly rabid to socially
composed like turning on the lights?



Sometimes he'll get a "reviewers need to do abx" bug up his ass,
but most times he doesn't. Most important, he does love music.
Besides me, Boon and Wheeler enjoy his company, also.

These articles didn't have much to do with sound quality but more
to with possible future digital formats, particularly in the video
realm with increased data capacity on a disc.

To respond to Art, why would I want to visit someone who's been going
after me since he started posting here? Notice that I've never
complained to you, Marc or the other Scott about his attitude towards
me, nor have I ask you to ever take sides.

So, my answer would be nahhhh, I don't think I'd ever seek out meeting
the guy. I tend to hang out with people who don't go after things like
my profession, et. al.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:58:55 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

To respond to Art, why would I want to visit someone who's been going
after me since he started posting here? Notice that I've never
complained to you, Marc or the other Scott about his attitude towards
me, nor have I ask you to ever take sides.

So, my answer would be nahhhh, I don't think I'd ever seek out meeting
the guy. I tend to hang out with people who don't go after things like
my profession, et. al.

You're off base again Dave. I don't go after your profession.
I go after your "superior" attitude which you sometimes
attribute to your profession.

ScottW

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:13:04 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, my answer would be nahhhh, I don't think I'd ever seek out meeting
the guy. I tend to hang out with people who don't go after things like
my profession, et. al.

You're off base again Dave. I don't go after your profession.
I go after your "superior" attitude which you sometimes
attribute to your profession.

Nope. Wrong on *all* accounts.

I remember your opening shot across the bow when you imagined a waiter
deliberately serving corked wine because the waiter didn't want to
return a whole case of it to the distributor. You were trying to draw
an analogy to a dealer selling cables. You were shown to be wrong
about all aspects of *that* analogy. You've since shown massive
misunderstandings about restaurants in general and you've played the
class card more than once. Additionally, I've never attributed my
profession with any aspect of my personality. I *have* defended it as
a reasonable profession though.

In response to your catty insults to my profession, I have indeed
replied with some to *your* profession, but I'd say that you started
it. shrug

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:13:04 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, my answer would be nahhhh, I don't think I'd ever seek out meeting
the guy. I tend to hang out with people who don't go after things like
my profession, et. al.

You're off base again Dave. I don't go after your profession.
I go after your "superior" attitude which you sometimes
attribute to your profession.

Nope. Wrong on *all* accounts.

I remember your opening shot across the bow when you imagined a waiter
deliberately serving corked wine because the waiter didn't want to
return a whole case of it to the distributor. You were trying to draw
an analogy to a dealer selling cables. You were shown to be wrong
about all aspects of *that* analogy.

You don't think there has ever been a restaurant guilty of
moving corked wine? Don't be naive.

You've since shown massive
misunderstandings about restaurants in general

You mean by being falsely accused of frequenting McDonalds?
Why do you stoop to lying so blatantly and quickly when
you feel threatened?

and you've played the
class card more than once.

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.
You tried to extol the virtues of your
fun loving freedom existence without
recognizing the responsibility you slack on.

Additionally, I've never attributed my
profession with any aspect of my personality. I *have* defended it as
a reasonable profession though.

You have offered it as evidence of your "cultured" status.
Listening to jazz, aware of fine wines and cuisine.
You're really lacking self awareness.

In response to your catty insults to my profession, I have indeed
replied with some to *your* profession, but I'd say that you started
it. shrug

Still, you freely admit you know nothing of a technical profession.
If effect, you have freely lied in weak attempts to refute my points
which continue to go right over your head.

ScottW

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:38:15 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:13:04 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, my answer would be nahhhh, I don't think I'd ever seek out meeting
the guy. I tend to hang out with people who don't go after things like
my profession, et. al.

You're off base again Dave. I don't go after your profession.
I go after your "superior" attitude which you sometimes
attribute to your profession.

Nope. Wrong on *all* accounts.

I remember your opening shot across the bow when you imagined a waiter
deliberately serving corked wine because the waiter didn't want to
return a whole case of it to the distributor. You were trying to draw
an analogy to a dealer selling cables. You were shown to be wrong
about all aspects of *that* analogy.

You don't think there has ever been a restaurant guilty of
moving corked wine? Don't be naive.

Give me an example.

You really show your ignorance about the business. There's no reason
for a restaurant to ever deliberately serve a corked wine.

You've since shown massive
misunderstandings about restaurants in general

You mean by being falsely accused of frequenting McDonalds?

Nope. How does a poke in your eye from me qualify as *your* massive
misunderstandings about restaurants in general qualify?

I guess my job wasn't done after all s******

Why do you stoop to lying so blatantly and quickly when
you feel threatened?

and you've played the
class card more than once.

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

I wasn't even *talking* about that. Failure to follw a conversation
noted.

You tried to extol the virtues of your
fun loving freedom existence without
recognizing the responsibility you slack on.

Once again, you've changed the subject completely. However, since
you've brought it up, I'm just living the American dream to realize my
pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by choosing to
work in which ever field I want without interference from government
or snoopy individuals.

There is *no* federally mandated "share" BTW. When did you turn into a
communist?

Additionally, I've never attributed my
profession with any aspect of my personality. I *have* defended it as
a reasonable profession though.

You have offered it as evidence of your "cultured" status.

I don't think I have.

Listening to jazz, aware of fine wines and cuisine.

That's different than offering my profession as evidence of my
"cultured" status. Those are interests of mine that happen to dovetail
nicely into my current occupation. I was interested in all three
before I ever got into the business, especially the first and last
category.

You're really lacking self awareness.

In response to your catty insults to my profession, I have indeed
replied with some to *your* profession, but I'd say that you started
it. shrug

Still, you freely admit you know nothing of a technical profession.

I really don't know what you mean by this.
If you mean that I'm not in a technical profession, you're right. Of
course, you aren't in the food service business, but that hasn't
stopped *you* from making weird comments about it.

If effect, you have freely lied in weak attempts to refute my points
which continue to go right over your head.

Well, idiotic comments *do* go right over my head. I freely admit
that.

Sometimes he'll get a "reviewers need to do abx" bug up his ass,
but most times he doesn't. Most important, he does love music.
Besides me, Boon and Wheeler enjoy his company, also.


I did indeed enjoy Scott's company along with Marc and Art. We didn't talk
politics and we talked more about food than RAO. Mostly it was about music and
the equipment used to play it. There was a great deal of common interests along
those lines amoung all of us. Yeah, everyone was good company.

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" emitted :

and you've played the
class card more than once.

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

How do you
calculate the "share"?

How about 1 equal part for every man woman and child
(after business tax revenue)? Parents responsible for
dependents.


You tried to extol the virtues of your
fun loving freedom existence without
recognizing the responsibility you slack on.

Seems like Dave is able to look after himself, pay his bills etc.

So. Is this more than can be said for George?

ScottW

Yappity-yappity-yap.

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

Funny definition you have there. dave weil is gainfully employed, owns
property, pays his due share of taxes.... If he's a slacker, how do
you define being self-sufficient?


How do you
calculate the "share"?

How about 1 equal part for every man woman and child
(after business tax revenue)?

What is "after business tax revenue"? Do you mean "after-business tax
revenue" or "after business-tax revenue"? Do you even know what you
mean?

Parents responsible for dependents.

So you're accusing dave of not supporting his supposed dependents?
What makes you think he has any?

Seems like Dave is able to look after himself, pay his bills etc.

So. Is this more than can be said for George?

dave owns his own home, which is more than I can say. Furthermore, he
can do his job nearly anywhere, whereas I (like you) am limited to
certain metropolitan areas if I want to make a decent living.


Now you can tell us how you've "won" this "debate".

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:53:30 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"The Artist" wrote in message
.. .
"ScottW" emitted :

and you've played the
class card more than once.

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

How do you
calculate the "share"?

How about 1 equal part for every man woman and child
(after business tax revenue)? Parents responsible for
dependents.

I don't kowtow to communists like you, Scott. You lost the Cold War,
you know.

You tried to extol the virtues of your
fun loving freedom existence without
recognizing the responsibility you slack on.

Seems like Dave is able to look after himself, pay his bills etc.

So. Is this more than can be said for George?

Nobody knows if *you* can "pay your bills". So what's the big deal?

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" emitted :

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

How is this relevant? Dave pays his dues.

That is debatable.


How do you
calculate the "share"?

How about 1 equal part for every man woman and child
(after business tax revenue)? Parents responsible for
dependents.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. One "part" of what?

Maybe you should get out in a ****ing field and start digging, you
dirty slacker. You're just not putting the effort in.

The federal government revenue.
You might want to at least browse the thread before blindly
butting in.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Yappity-yappity-yap.

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

Funny definition you have there. dave weil is gainfully employed, owns
property, pays his due share of taxes.... If he's a slacker, how do
you define being self-sufficient?

Paying at least 1 equal share.



How do you
calculate the "share"?

How about 1 equal part for every man woman and child
(after business tax revenue)?

What is "after business tax revenue"? Do you mean "after-business tax
revenue" or "after business-tax revenue"? Do you even know what you
mean?

Dumb and dumber (Middius & Dormer)


Parents responsible for dependents.

So you're accusing dave of not supporting his supposed dependents?

No.

What makes you think he has any?

I don't. I'm not making him responsible for others dependents.


Seems like Dave is able to look after himself, pay his bills etc.

So. Is this more than can be said for George?

dave owns his own home, which is more than I can say. Furthermore, he
can do his job nearly anywhere, whereas I (like you) am limited to
certain metropolitan areas if I want to make a decent living.


Now you can tell us how you've "won" this "debate".

Being a non-tax payer you can't even figure out what the debate is
about. You're as useful as a brick with no mortar.

ScottW

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:54:39 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"The Artist" wrote in message
.. .
"ScottW" emitted :

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

How is this relevant? Dave pays his dues.

That is debatable.

Maybe to a Communist like you.

How do you
calculate the "share"?

How about 1 equal part for every man woman and child
(after business tax revenue)? Parents responsible for
dependents.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. One "part" of what?

Maybe you should get out in a ****ing field and start digging, you
dirty slacker. You're just not putting the effort in.

The federal government revenue.
You might want to at least browse the thread before blindly
butting in.

As if that's ever stopped *you* before.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:54:39 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"The Artist" wrote in message
.. .
"ScottW" emitted :

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

How is this relevant? Dave pays his dues.

That is debatable.

Maybe to a Communist like you.


Turning to the repititive lie tactic now Dave?
Is that what betters need to resort to?

ScottW

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:13:46 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:54:39 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"The Artist" wrote in message
.. .
"ScottW" emitted :

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

How is this relevant? Dave pays his dues.

That is debatable.

Maybe to a Communist like you.


Turning to the repititive lie tactic now Dave?
Is that what betters need to resort to?

Since you demand fealty to the collective, I have no other alternative
than to call you what you are - an unmasked Communist.

More mindless yapping from RAO's SoCal Idiot.

Yappity-yappity-yap.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

Funny definition you have there. dave weil is gainfully employed, owns
property, pays his due share of taxes.... If he's a slacker, how do
you define being self-sufficient?

Paying at least 1 equal share.

If I understand your illogic correctly, everybody who pays less than
"1 equal share" [of taxes] is a slacker. Aside from the prima-facie
stupidity of that proposition in a free-market economy, how is "1
equal share" calculated?


What is "after business tax revenue"? Do you mean "after-business tax
revenue" or "after business-tax revenue"? Do you even know what you
mean?

Dumb and dumber (Middius & Dormer)

That's the admission I was looking for.


Parents responsible for dependents.

So you're accusing dave of not supporting his supposed dependents?

No.

Then what did you mean? Do you even know what you mean?


What makes you think he has any?

I don't. I'm not making him responsible for others dependents.

Do you know the term "nonsequitur"?

Now you can tell us how you've "won" this "debate".

Being a non-tax payer you can't even figure out what the debate is
about. You're as useful as a brick with no mortar.

As usual, you're too stupid to differentiate between a fact and your
own speculations. To buttress my point, however, there's a ton of
evidence that you are, in fact, an idiot.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 09:13:46 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:54:39 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"The Artist" wrote in message
.. .
"ScottW" emitted :

I didn't attack your class, I attacked your
choice to do less than your share.

Not everybody wants to work their knuckle to the bone.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

How is this relevant? Dave pays his dues.

That is debatable.

Maybe to a Communist like you.


Turning to the repititive lie tactic now Dave?
Is that what betters need to resort to?

Since you demand fealty to the collective, I have no other alternative
than to call you what you are - an unmasked Communist.

The collective being our federal government. Anyone who advocates
equal taxation is now a communist?
Weil, the unmasked McCarthyite.

So why aren't gratuities on a progressive scale? Shouldn't the tip
percentage increase as the bill increases? Isn't the magnitude of the
bill a good representation of the customers ability to pay? Why
not go up from 15% to 20% to 30 or even 35%?
Why not waive the gratuity for those obvious unfortunates who
are restricted the special and the house chablis?

ScottW

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
news


More mindless yapping from RAO's SoCal Idiot.

Yappity-yappity-yap.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

Funny definition you have there. dave weil is gainfully employed,
owns
property, pays his due share of taxes.... If he's a slacker, how do
you define being self-sufficient?

Paying at least 1 equal share.

If I understand your illogic correctly, everybody who pays less than
"1 equal share" [of taxes] is a slacker. Aside from the prima-facie
stupidity of that proposition in a free-market economy, how is "1
equal share" calculated?

[Federal budget - (non- Individual Income tax revenue)]/ total population.

Federal budget excludes SS and medicare (they have their own tax system).

ScottW

The Fleabag is scratching his hindquarters again.

If I understand your illogic correctly, everybody who pays less than
"1 equal share" [of taxes] is a slacker. Aside from the prima-facie
stupidity of that proposition in a free-market economy, how is "1
equal share" calculated?

[Federal budget - (non- Individual Income tax revenue)]/ total population.

That's a small percentage of the federal budget.

Do you actually want to do away with progressive income taxes? That
would make you worse than a Commie. Oh wait -- you're already a proven
Idiot, so no harm, no foul on that one.

The collective being our federal government. Anyone who advocates
equal taxation is now a communist?
Weil, the unmasked McCarthyite.


Are you advocating equal taxation? It seems you are advocating the notion that
anyone who pays less than the average amount of federal tax is somehow not
doing their fair share despite the fact that they are paying the amount that
current laws require.


So why aren't gratuities on a progressive scale? Shouldn't the tip
percentage increase as the bill increases?

There are no laws and tipping is optional if it isn't included in the bill. But
to some degree what is expected does have a bit of a progressive scale. At
McDonalds one doesn't tip. At your local diner one is expected to tip 10-15%
and at the highend 15-20% is the norm.

In article EUTQb.60657$zs4.20244@fed1read01,
"ScottW" wrote:

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
news


More mindless yapping from RAO's SoCal Idiot.

Yappity-yappity-yap.

No ****, and espcially noboby wants to do it to
cover for slackers.

Funny definition you have there. dave weil is gainfully employed,
owns
property, pays his due share of taxes.... If he's a slacker, how do
you define being self-sufficient?

Paying at least 1 equal share.

If I understand your illogic correctly, everybody who pays less than
"1 equal share" [of taxes] is a slacker. Aside from the prima-facie
stupidity of that proposition in a free-market economy, how is "1
equal share" calculated?

[Federal budget - (non- Individual Income tax revenue)]/ total population.

Federal budget excludes SS and medicare (they have their own tax system).

The word you're still searching for is "progressive".

Stephen

PD said:

If I understand your illogic correctly, everybody who pays less than
"1 equal share" [of taxes] is a slacker. Aside from the prima-facie
stupidity of that proposition in a free-market economy, how is "1
equal share" calculated?

It's known as The ScottW Quotient. If you pay less tax than ScottW,
you are a slacker.

Poor Doggie must truly hate his job. And probably his life as well.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...

The collective being our federal government. Anyone who advocates
equal taxation is now a communist?
Weil, the unmasked McCarthyite.


Are you advocating equal taxation?

Because Im tired of being penalized.

It seems you are advocating the notion that
anyone who pays less than the average amount of federal tax is somehow
not
doing their fair share despite the fact that they are paying the amount
that
current laws require.

Since when does tax law = fairness?

My version of one equal share to demonstrate a point is far less than
the average amount per taxpayer.

We are a nation of majority rules. We continue to increase the number
of low income voters while the upper income ranks grow at a much slower
pace. What do you think the inevitable outcome of this trend?
Ten Years After was ahead of their time.

ScottW

I said


Are you advocating equal taxation?

Scott W. said


Because Im tired of being penalized.

I'll take that as a yes. It did not seem to be the point you were making in
your arguments with Dave over his fair share of the national burden.


I said


It seems you are advocating the notion that
anyone who pays less than the average amount of federal tax is somehow
not
doing their fair share despite the fact that they are paying the amount
that
current laws require.

Scott W. said


Since when does tax law = fairness?

Fairness is subjective IMO. The laws are aimed at being fair. They are the
current comprimise between many different opinions on just what is fair. Given
the vast differences in those opinions it is unlikely that any individual will
find the tax laws at any given time to be totally fair. Such is life in a large
country.

Scott W. said


My version of one equal share to demonstrate a point is far less than
the average amount per taxpayer.


I'm not questioning your opinions on what is and is not fair about taxation in
the USA. It does seem wrong minded though to claim someone isn't paying their
fair share if they are paying what is asked of them by law. If you believe in
the right of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, I cannot understand
your assertion that Dave is doing anything wrong by choosing not to make more
money than he does.


Scott W. said



We are a nation of majority rules. We continue to increase the number
of low income voters while the upper income ranks grow at a much slower
pace.

I am not going to get into a political debate. But I will say that I agree with
the constitution on one person one vote.

Scott W. said

What do you think the inevitable outcome of this trend?
Ten Years After was ahead of their time.


I think it is obvious. The result is a diminished middle class. I don't think
the waelthy of our nation are an endangered species nor do I think the
influence of the wealthy in creating national policy is getting weaker.