In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 12:32:58 -0400, George M. Middius
wrote:



Tim Anderson said to ****-for-Brains:

You missed (d) None of the above.

Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that
other
subthread.

As I said, you missed it. The newsgroup is my witness.

Those in the group who can stand to look at that sack of ****, anyway.

Without turning into a pillar of salt you mean...

LoTs!

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:06:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Tim Anderson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

1) To most people, LPs played on a good system do not sound as you
describe.

Sure they do. 99.5% of everybody has stopped buying records because
they sounded like crap. That's why LP market share is down to about
0.5%, even including "turntablists" whose use of LPs is irrelevant
to high fidelity.

How do you "know" this?

RIAA statistics.

Sooooo, the RIAA statistics have a category for why people stopped
buying records and one of those categories is "sounds like crap".

I'd like to see you produce the figures.

MiNE 109 said:

Tim Anderson said to ****-for-Brains:

You missed (d) None of the above.

Prove it, and do a better job than the hack that you posted on that
other
subthread.

As I said, you missed it. The newsgroup is my witness.

Those in the group who can stand to look at that sack of ****, anyway.

Without turning into a pillar of salt you mean...

LoTs!

Zing!

I never knew that's what the Kroo meant.......

"Tim Anderson" wrote in
:


??? CDs are smaller, easier to load into the player, play in the car,
play for longer without attention, etc etc. These are all primarily to
do with convenience.

Further, a competent CD player is much cheaper than a competent
turntable assembly. Another big factor.


All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning. Only recently are CD recorders
affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in their day,
but the superior versatility, durability and sound quality of the CD have
all but buried the cassette tape


A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
included by the sounds of it. That's not a value judgement, just a
fact.

Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay system,
which is superior to LP.

TB

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
How do you "know" this?

RIAA statistics.

Reference please.

NB you do not prove any case if there are stats on "superior sound quality." Your
contention is that LPs sound like excrement. Surprising to see this in an RIAA
survey, but go on, produce the evidence.

You can say that people scrapped LPs because of convenience, but even
convenience nets out to be a sound quality discussion. Most of the
inconvenience of playing LPs related to attempting to preserve their
sound quality.
I never said that all of the benefits of CDs relate to sound quality, now
did I.

'Fraid so. "it nets out to be a sound quality discussion" were the very words.
They are quoted 4 lines above your retraction. Never mind ears, what about
eyes?

The fact of the matter is that CDs made their strongest market share gains
when both the recordings and the players cost more than comparable
LP-related items.

I know this is false with respect to the players. I purchased a player in
the early days of CD - Philips CD 104 - and it cost way less than a
decent turntable/arm/cartridge.

The software was more, but so what?

A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
included by the sounds of it.

That's not a value judgment, just a fact.

Just because its a fact doesn't mean that its relevant or meaningful. In
fact, its just a whine.

Of course it's relevant. You are arguing that most people think LPs sound
like excrement. Yet you agree that most people have never heard decent
LP playback. In which case what most people think has little to do with
the sound quality discussion.

Come on Tim I wasn't born yesterday and neither were most of the readers of
RAO. The debating trade trick called "You don't believe this because you
never heard a good one" is as old as the hills.

I am doing you a favour, because the other possibility is that you are not
telling the truth about what you heard.

Hearing is fine thanks. Can't recall you ever measuring its acuity
though.

Tim, the inadequacy of your hearing is proven by the fact that you can't
properly hear the obvious audible deficiencies inherent in LP playback.

Who said I can't? Not me, in fact I referred to audible deficiencies.
However I dispute your excremental contention.

Tim

"Browntimdc" wrote in message ...
"Tim Anderson" wrote in
:

All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning.

This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.

There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.

affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in their day,
but the superior versatility, durability and sound quality of the CD have
all but buried the cassette tape

This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for cassettes that
persists for LPs (among a small minority).

Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay system,
which is superior to LP.

Agreed.

Tim

Tim Anderson wrote:


"Browntimdc" wrote in message
...
"Tim Anderson" wrote in
:

All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning.

This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.


And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did not exactly
use very good tape or recording procedures, given the need for mass production.
Those who record for their own personal use, as I do for a rather
sophisticated mobile audio system in my car, can easily do a lot better with
reasonably priced modern equipment and tape.



There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.

affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in their day,
but the superior versatility, durability and sound quality of the CD have
all but buried the cassette tape

This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for cassettes that
persists for LPs (among a small minority).


Very true. And what is more remarkable is the level and degree of that
persistence, given the fact that the commercial LP dates from prior to 1950.
Also quite remarkable is the fact that new vinyl is manufactured by several
pretty well known companies (Classic Records, Cisco Records, Acoustic Sounds,
etc.) and that many new popular releases, at least among some of the more
well-known artists, are issued on vinyl as well as CD almost simultaneously.


Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay system,
which is superior to LP.

Agreed.


Even in their heyday, open-reel tape never achieved widespread popularity, in
part because of the cost of the hardware. Open-reel Teacs, Revoxes, Tandbergs,
etc. were relatively costly compared to other playback equipment.
The best open reel playback I ever heard was on Otari deck - but this pro-level
equipment used by local FM radio station for which I was a DJ at the time - it
definitely wasn't something the average home user could afford.









Tim











Bruce J. Richman

Tim wrote:


On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
wrote in :

I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP - there
are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.

Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
cases, completely unnoticeable.

---

Agreed. Other options, although relatively expensive in some cases, include
the use of a linear tracking tonearm such as the EminentTechnology ET-2 or
ET-2.5, or use of a pivoted arm with a relatively long pivot point - to -
stylus distance, such as one of the VPI Tonearms which vary from 9" to 12" in
length.


"It occurred to me that audio engineers will someday be replaced by
computers. I feel better now -- at least you can turn a computer off."









Bruce J. Richman

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:21:46 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
wrote in :

A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
included by the sounds of it.

That's not a value judgment, just a fact.

Just because its a fact doesn't mean that its relevant or meaningful. In
fact, its just a whine.

Of course it's relevant. You are arguing that most people think LPs sound
like excrement. Yet you agree that most people have never heard decent
LP playback. In which case what most people think has little to do with
the sound quality discussion.

Arnii's definition of "relevance" doesn't fit any known logic.
Rather, what he considers relevant is relevant -- and if you don't
agree with him, *you* are irrelevant.

The sooner you learn this, the sooner you'll stop wasting your time
trying to hold a rational discussion with the Kroog, and start
speaking to him (if at all) in a language he understands. You have to
stroke his ego -- either through praise, or through flames. Otherwise,
I just wouldn't bother -- the guy is an irrational, self-centered and
self-absorbed nutcase. He is not a tech guru or engineer, he just
plays one on the Net.

Hope this helps...

---
"It occurred to me that audio engineers will someday be replaced by
computers. I feel better now -- at least you can turn a computer off."

"Tim Anderson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


That's why LP market share is down to about
0.5%, even including "turntablists" whose use of LPs is irrelevant
to high fidelity.

How do you "know" this?

RIAA statistics.

Reference please.

See google, I've presented this information many times. If you don't have
time to look it up, neither do I.

NB you do not prove any case if there are stats on "superior sound
quality." Your contention is that LPs sound like excrement.
Surprising to see this in an RIAA survey, but go on, produce the
evidence.

You can say that people scrapped LPs because of convenience, but
even convenience nets out to be a sound quality discussion. Most
of the inconvenience of playing LPs related to attempting to
preserve their sound quality.

I never said that all of the benefits of CDs relate to sound
quality, now did I.

'Fraid so. "it nets out to be a sound quality discussion" were the
very words.

What's unclear about the word "Most".

They are quoted 4 lines above your retraction.

There is no retraction.

Never mind ears, what about eyes?

???

The fact of the matter is that CDs made their strongest market
share gains when both the recordings and the players cost more than
comparable LP-related items.

I know this is false with respect to the players. I purchased a
player in the early days of CD - Philips CD 104 - and it cost way
less than a decent turntable/arm/cartridge.

I guess that depends on how you define "decent". Given that early CD players
cost $600-900 you must have a very elevated idea of "decent".

The software was more, but so what?

Thanks for showing that when faced with undeniable relevant evidence, you
just dismiss it.

A lot of people have never heard a decent LP replay system, you
included by the sounds of it.

That's not a value judgment, just a fact.

Just because its a fact doesn't mean that its relevant or
meaningful. In fact, its just a whine.

Of course it's relevant. You are arguing that most people think LPs
sound like excrement.

Right, and that would be based on whatever means they used to hear it.
You've already effectively said even in the early 80's one had to pay
substantially more than $600-900 for a decent LP playback system. Shortly,
good CD players were under $200. The consequence of all this is that to most
people LPs sounded like crap, if only because so-called decent LP playback
equipment was prohibitively expensive. Of course, that isn't the only
reason - there's the slight problem of the egregious technical deficiencies
of the LP that are for all practical purposes unsolvable.

Yet you agree that most people have never heard
decent LP playback.

Where did I say THAT?

I think that *decent* LP playback has been available for say, $300-500 for a
very long time. I think that an AR turntable with a good Shure cartridge
represented a *decent* LP playback system for about $125 in the late 1960's.

In which case what most people think has little
to do with the sound quality discussion.

Thanks for showing that when faced with undeniable relevant evidence, you
just dismiss it. This whole discussion started with a discussion of what
most people (I believe my number was 99.5%) think based on how their
purchase decisions.

Come on Tim I wasn't born yesterday and neither were most of the
readers of RAO. The debating trade trick called "You don't believe
this because you never heard a good one" is as old as the hills.

I am doing you a favour, because the other possibility is that you
are not telling the truth about what you heard.

Irrelevant, and again dismissive.

Tim Anderson" wrote in message


"1) To most people, LPs played on a good system do not sound as you
describe."

I'm going to take a flyer here and presume that you include yourself as
being like "most people".

In essence, you are saying that you can't hear anything THAT wrong with LPs.

Hearing is fine thanks. Can't recall you ever measuring its acuity
though.

Tim, the inadequacy of your hearing is proven by the fact that you
can't properly hear the obvious audible deficiencies inherent in LP
playback.

Who said I can't? Not me, in fact I referred to audible deficiencies.

Say what? You said that most people think that LPs don't sound bad at all.
You deleted that to revise history, but I put it back in to reestablish the
context you deceptively removed.



However I dispute your excremental contention.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Tim Anderson wrote:


"Browntimdc" wrote in message
...
"Tim Anderson" wrote in
:

All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning.

This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.


And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did
not exactly use very good tape or recording procedures, given the
need for mass production. Those who record for their own personal
use, as I do for a rather sophisticated mobile audio system in my
car, can easily do a lot better with reasonably priced modern
equipment and tape.

You can do marginally better. However, to get out of the low speed, narrow
track analog tape trap, you need a lot more than a marginal improvement.

There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.

affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in
their day, but the superior versatility, durability and sound
quality of the CD have all but buried the cassette tape

This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for
cassettes that persists for LPs (among a small minority).

Very true. And what is more remarkable is the level and degree of
that persistence, given the fact that the commercial LP dates from
prior to 1950. Also quite remarkable is the fact that new vinyl is
manufactured by several pretty well known companies (Classic Records,
Cisco Records, Acoustic Sounds, etc.) and that many new popular
releases, at least among some of the more well-known artists, are
issued on vinyl as well as CD almost simultaneously.

Let's hear an actual number for say, last year that we can compare to the
number of new releases of CDs in the same year.

be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman, total deletion, or a
great example of a drop in a bucket

Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay
system, which is superior to LP.

Agreed.

Irrelevant. The LP is dead as anything but a dying niche and raw meat for
turntablists.

Even in their heyday, open-reel tape never achieved widespread
popularity, in part because of the cost of the hardware. Open-reel
Teacs, Revoxes, Tandbergs, etc. were relatively costly compared to
other playback equipment.

Not true. A Revox A77 in its heyday it listed for $579 which was pretty well
matched or exceeded by the cost of a Thorens TD 125, a SME 3009 II, and a
Shure V-15. Tell me about it, I had both!

Audio Classics says the list price of a TD125 was $500.
Audio Classics lists the list price of a SME 3009 as $199 and I think the
model II was like $249.
My recollection is that a V15 III listed for $125.

Obviously this totals way more than the Revox.

be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman or total deletion of
proof that he's wrong

The best open reel playback I ever heard
was on Otari deck - but this pro-level equipment used by local FM
radio station for which I was a DJ at the time - it definitely wasn't
something the average home user could afford.

The last Otaris were something else - even difficult but not impossible to
distinguish from a CD.

"Moi" wrote in message

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
wrote in :

I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP -
there are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.

Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
cases, completely unnoticeable.

Yet another reason why LP's sound more lifelike than CDs in the book of Moi.
CD's don't have all that nice inner groove distortion. Quite a disadvantage
when it comes to lifelike reproduction, doncha think?

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message ...
Tim wrote:


On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
wrote in :

I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP - there
are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.

Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
cases, completely unnoticeable.

Yes I have one. Agreed the inner groove still sounds OK, however the
sound is noticeably less good than on the outer grooves. That strikes me as
inevitable.

Agreed. Other options, although relatively expensive in some cases, include
the use of a linear tracking tonearm such as the EminentTechnology ET-2 or
ET-2.5, or use of a pivoted arm with a relatively long pivot point - to -
stylus distance, such as one of the VPI Tonearms which vary from 9" to 12" in
length.

Not heard either of these.

Tim

Krueger tries, pathetically, to spread his anti-vinyl, anti-preference
propaganda further:

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Tim Anderson wrote:


"Browntimdc" wrote in message
...
"Tim Anderson" wrote in
:

All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning.

This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.


And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did
not exactly use very good tape or recording procedures, given the
need for mass production. Those who record for their own personal
use, as I do for a rather sophisticated mobile audio system in my
car, can easily do a lot better with reasonably priced modern
equipment and tape.

You can do marginally better. However, to get out of the low speed, narrow
track analog tape trap, you need a lot more than a marginal improvement.


The usual prejudicial OSAF. note the lack of supportive evidence to back up
this anti-analog, hgihly predictable piece of propaganda

There were a few other factors ... they were always a bit frail and
got chewed up by the players from time to time, and they never
really cracked the hiss problem. Dolby C got rid of hiss but messed
up the sound. The packaging of cassettes was also somewhat
cheap-looking; CDs were better marketed.

affordable to the mainstream. Cassettes were pretty popular in
their day, but the superior versatility, durability and sound
quality of the CD have all but buried the cassette tape

This is uncontentious. There isn't the level of affection for
cassettes that persists for LPs (among a small minority).

Very true. And what is more remarkable is the level and degree of
that persistence, given the fact that the commercial LP dates from
prior to 1950. Also quite remarkable is the fact that new vinyl is
manufactured by several pretty well known companies (Classic Records,
Cisco Records, Acoustic Sounds, etc.) and that many new popular
releases, at least among some of the more well-known artists, are
issued on vinyl as well as CD almost simultaneously.

Let's hear an actual number for say, last year that we can compare to the
number of new releases of CDs in the same year.

be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman, total deletion, or a
great example of a drop in a bucket


Clearly an example of moronic mind-reading by Krueger. My statement had
nothing to do with numbers, so he obviously was juist trying to misrepresetn
what I said and change the topic.

no doubt, this will be followed by Krueger's primitive attempts to justify his
attempt to lie with statistics via the old McDonald's argument re. DD's - which
is of course totally relevant to the fact that LP production and enjoyment
persists after over 50 years



Alot of people have have never heard a decent open reel replay
system, which is superior to LP.

Agreed.

Irrelevant. The LP is dead as anything but a dying niche and raw meat for
turntablists.


More anti-vinyl propaganda, with no supportive evidence to support it. The
usual anti-vinyl spewage from RAO's leading garbage purveyor.



Even in their heyday, open-reel tape never achieved widespread
popularity, in part because of the cost of the hardware. Open-reel
Teacs, Revoxes, Tandbergs, etc. were relatively costly compared to
other playback equipment.

Not true. A Revox A77 in its heyday it listed for $579 which was pretty well
matched or exceeded by the cost of a Thorens TD 125, a SME 3009 II, and a
Shure V-15. Tell me about it, I had both!

Audio Classics says the list price of a TD125 was $500.
Audio Classics lists the list price of a SME 3009 as $199 and I think the
model II was like $249.
My recollection is that a V15 III listed for $125.

Obviously this totals way more than the Revox.

be prepared for either rapid dissembling by Richman or total deletion of
proof that he's wrong


Once again, Krueger tries to use selected facts that ignore other facts to
promote his anti-vinyl arguments and propagands. Many open-reel machines swere
more costly than less expensive turntables at that point in time. The Thorens,
SME and Shure, cherrypicked by the liar, Krueger, to try and "prove" his
invalid price comparison, disregards the facts that there were less expensive
turntables (with integrated, less expensive arms), and less expensive
cartgridges available at that point in time.

expect Krueger to shift into another ad hominem personal attack to try and
cover up his transparent ineptitude at pushing his anti-vinyl, anti-preference,
anti-subjective-opinion propaganda. How hypocritical that he tries to exclude
lower priced equipment from his devious and fraudulent representation of
turntable gear of the day.



The best open reel playback I ever heard
was on Otari deck - but this pro-level equipment used by local FM
radio station for which I was a DJ at the time - it definitely wasn't
something the average home user could afford.

The last Otaris were something else - even difficult but not impossible to
distinguish from a CD.













Bruce J. Richman

Tim wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Tim wrote:


On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 13:16:59 +0100, "Tim Anderson"
wrote in :

I do find the sound degrades towards the inner groove of an LP - there
are pretty obvious physical reasons for this.

Get a cartridge with a line-contact stylus. The sound still degrades
toward the inner grooves, but it's much less noticeable -- in some
cases, completely unnoticeable.

Yes I have one. Agreed the inner groove still sounds OK, however the
sound is noticeably less good than on the outer grooves. That strikes me as
inevitable.

Agreed. Other options, although relatively expensive in some cases,
include
the use of a linear tracking tonearm such as the EminentTechnology ET-2 or
ET-2.5, or use of a pivoted arm with a relatively long pivot point - to -
stylus distance, such as one of the VPI Tonearms which vary from 9" to 12"
in
length.

Not heard either of these.

Tim










They ae probably not as popular in the UK as in the US, but VPI is one of the
most widely known American manufracturers of turntables, tonearms, a very
popular record cleaning machine, and other assorted analog gear. They have
been turning out turntables for over 20 years, and are based in the New York
area. One of the nice things about many of their turntable models is that they
are internbally upgradeable, via replacing just the platter/bearing assembly
or just the plinth. Their tonearms are a unipivot design and have generally
received very high reviews in the audiophile press. The designer believes that
because of their relatively long length they significantly cut down on inner
groove distortion effects and also don't require anti-skate adjustments. The
Eminent Technology Linear Tracking Tonearms are manufactured in Flroida, and
are an air-bearing type (a blessing and a curse, since they require an air
pump/surge tank to be used with them - which is a somewhat noisy affair -
although reducing tonearm friction below that most of competing designs). This
too is a mature design that is been around for at least 10 years. In
comparison with similar European designs such as the Souther/Clearaudio or Air
Tangent linear trackiing tonearms, it is much less expensive (and would be on
your side of the pond also), although still expensive compared to Regas, Linns,
Nottinghyams, etc.



Bruce J. Richman

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Tim Anderson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


That's why LP market share is down to about
0.5%, even including "turntablists" whose use of LPs is irrelevant
to high fidelity.

How do you "know" this?

RIAA statistics.

Reference please.

See google, I've presented this information many times. If you don't have
time to look it up, neither do I.


Yep, it is right there along with Arny's history as a child pornographer and
molester. Very sad indeed.

MvB

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message ...
Tim Anderson wrote:


"Browntimdc" wrote in message
...
"Tim Anderson" wrote in
:

All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning.

This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.


And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did not exactly
use very good tape or recording procedures, given the need for mass production.
Those who record for their own personal use, as I do for a rather
sophisticated mobile audio system in my car, can easily do a lot better with
reasonably priced modern equipment and tape.


Wow!

I'm surprised Bruce. You're actually talking about audio in response
to comments I made about audio. Why aren't you ranting senselessly and
calling me names?

TB

Dim Tim Brown decides to justify his well-earned reputation as Krueger's
imitator and fellow compulosive liar:

(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...
Tim Anderson wrote:


"Browntimdc" wrote in message
...
"Tim Anderson" wrote in
:

All the above also applies to the Compact Cassette. Plus, you could
record on cassettes from the beginning.

This I think was a key reason why cassettes did less well than you
might have expected. People bought blanks and made their own.


And to some extent, still do. Commercially produced cassettes did not
exactly
use very good tape or recording procedures, given the need for mass
production.
Those who record for their own personal use, as I do for a rather
sophisticated mobile audio system in my car, can easily do a lot better
with
reasonably priced modern equipment and tape.


Wow!

I'm surprised Bruce. You're actually talking about audio in response
to comments I made about audio.

to make Dim Tim feel at home, the rest of his comments - consisting of the
usual unprovoked personal insults - like his role model, Krueger - are snipped

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance once again, Tim. The Google record
will show that when responding to posts about audio (wihout the gratuitious ad
hominem attacks typical of Krueger, Fesrstler, McKelvey & Brown), I respond in
a similar vein. Of course, when dealing with chronic flamers like these four,
it is only logical to treat them with the same degree of contempt that thay
give to others. In Tim's case, one also has to make alloowances for his
fabrications and delusions as well. His latest post quite conveniently
provides all on RAO with more evicence of that fact.




Bruce J. Richman