AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - The Risible and Bizarre History of the Oinkerton Challenge, by the Victor

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
This lie from PinkoThicko requires correction:

"Stewart 'Porg Butcher' Pinkerton" wrote:
: On 7 Dec 2005 15:25:11 -0800, "Andre Jute"
wrote:
:
: Unfortunately there are a lot of posts about that time, as Patrick
: Turner was indulging his St Francis passion for salvaging lame
vultures
: and trying to teach poor Pinkothicko, who had challenged me to a
design
: contest, the basics of electronic design and making a ****ing awful
: meal of it because Pinko isn't called Thicko for nothing.
:
: I did no such thing, that's just more of your usual pathetic
: self-aggrandisement.

I was publishing the rationale for an ultrafidelity 300B amp in stages.
You, Pinkerton, kept interfering, deliberately wrecking discussion with
your silicon crap. When I told you, yes, you Pinko, to **** or get off
the pot, you claimed you could build a silicon amp with zero feedback
that would sound as good as my 300B amp. That's a challenge.

Graciously I stopped work on my own project to clear the decks for your
challenger, I thought for a week or two. The delay turned into many
months because it turned out that you, Pinkothicko were as pig-ignorant
of audio design as of everything else. It turned out that, before you
could design anything, you had to be given a crash course in audio
design by Patrick Turner and John Byrns.

Considering the results, those two guys get an A+ for goodwill and
trying really hard, but they an F- for failing to turn you into
anything that even remotely approximates an audio designer. (Turner and
Byrns will see me after class. Their apples had better be big and
shiny...)

After further huge delays while you, Pinkerton, tried to wriggle out of
your rash promise, you produced a piece of **** on paper that didn't
have the devices indicated, that was unbuilt, untested, undocumented,
and that broke every one of the rules of the contest. Oh yes folks, did
I mention yet, I permitted the foul Oinkerton to set his own rules for
the contest...

After you, Pinkerton, set the rules yourself, including zero feedback,
your little paper design used all kinds of feedback, twice as many
devices as were in the rules, etc, etc, an absolute travesty not only
as an audio device and a challenge but because it broke the rules you
made and agreed to.

You wriggled this way and that way, Pinkerton, but it was clear to
everyone that you lost the contest before you even started. Now you
claim you never made the challenge. Anyone can google to months of
exchanges about it. The challenge, the process and the outcome stand on
the record. You're a liar, Pinkerton, besides being a sore loser, an
electronics incompetent, and ill-mannered slime.

******
Incidentally... When I realized what a rolling, time-wasting
cluster**** the Pinkerton Challenger would turn out, I overnight
published my own simple, straightforward
silicon-that-sounds-approximately-like-tubes-design, built it, tested
it, played it while I waited for Pinkerton to stop wriggling as he
realized he was outmatched, and for the others to crucify him on his
rash promises.

Having read posts from Stewart for roughly 10 years, there is nothing in
that time to even hint at him being outmatched regarding audio
electronics.

That tells us everything we need to know about your level of
electronics skill and discrimination.

Give a thread name or some sort of way to search for the thread(s) that
all
this conflict took place in.

You cut all the references I gave, and now you demand more? Aren't you
the same hapless, helpless twerp I gave dates to yesterday? Go look
them up!

You quoted a few posts but did not give the thread names or any context
other than your own ravings. It seems quite likely, given you rants here
that it wsa you who initiated whatever beating Stewart gave you.

Whatever offenses you rightly or wrongly beleive that Mr. Pinkerton has
comitted, you are not serving yourself well by all the attack threads you
have initiated here.

We're still having a misunderstanding. While I offer you information
from a sense of noblesse oblige, it would be an impertinent mistake for
you to conclude it is a two-way street.

I think that is fairly obvious.

I am hardly so careless of good
sense as to seek advice on how to conduct myself from the flotsam and
jetsam on the net, and I certainly will not accept any that is
gratuitously offered. Save your breath.

I was simply pointing out to you how raving, ad hominem, name calling
attacks to sane people.
This is apparently lost on you.

BTW, since none of it took place here and since Stewart rarely posts here,
why dump this crap here?

Perhaps I just answered my own question. :-(