Andy Hewitt wrote:

I'm just finding it hard to comprehend the nature of the responses in
this newsgroup now. Obviously Phil is an Aussie, so I can understand
that, but otherwise I'm the only person to have written anything
without insult (until now), and in fact have at least provided a
source of my comments.

I resent the implication that I've been giving you ****! (I'm the good cop.



Now who do I listen to? A few prominent UK publications, or some
geezers off the newsgroup that just insult me for regurgitating the
information.

Your argument is predicated on an appeal to authority, and your terminology
('prominent', 'geezers') substantiates this. The fact that a few prominent
UK publications have something to say about something doesn't make it true.

If you can't tell the difference between some geezers on a newsgroup
insulting you, and a few prominent UK publications telling you stuff is good
(the same stuff that companies advertise in their mags), then you need to
establish your knowledge of the subject independently, and decide for
yourself who you think is full of crap.

The basic tenet of all this bi-wiring stuff, fancy cables and all the rest
is that it's all based on physics somewhere along the line. The problem is,
the physics it's based on is often plain false, misapplied, or of such
minimal effect as to be completely disregradable.


You may or may not be right, but right now I don't care if you are.
Just about every single reference to biwiring I could find on a
Google search suggests you're not.

Do you have any knowledge of physics or electricity?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife.
(Spike Milligan)