|
|
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Yo, Pinkerton:
Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and pettily. If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their hobby What's your excuse? Andre Jute |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com Yo, Pinkerton: Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and pettily. If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their hobby What's your excuse? No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of hype and false claims. The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates: "Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to believe that tubes automatically impart some kind of magic fairy dust, so manufacturers exploit that." All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps could be invested in making good sounding (SS) amps. The time could be spent other audio projects that are forward-looking as opposed to backward-looking. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Arny Krueger wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com Yo, Pinkerton: Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and pettily. If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their hobby What's your excuse? No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of hype and false claims. Only the most monumentally stupid and the most monumentally arrogant people ever have such certainty in their own judgement as you and Pinkerton exhibit, Krueger. Your determination to control through your public nastiness the activities of people even in their harmless hobbies is sociopathic. I have already proved that you, Arnold Krueger, are so keen to make yourself appear more important than you are that you will lash out denigration to a group of people who did you no harm before the group is even specified. This very post above to which you are responding proves that Stewart Pinkerton is so keen to lash out pain to others that he spends a quarter of his working life ruining the pleasure in their hobby of posters to a tube conference where Pinkerton has absolutely no business, where it has been repeatedly made clear to him that he isn't wanted, where his attempt to prove that his way is better (his dumb KISASS design) ended in a humilating failure, where his lies are constantly exposed, where no secret is made of the fact that he is despised for being scum to a greater extent even than you are. The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates: Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may follow? "Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to believe that tubes automatically impart some kind of magic fairy dust, so manufacturers exploit that." So what? It's their business and their money. Why is it so disturbing to you little control freaks that people hear something different from you? What has manufacturing hype to do with the DIYers on RAT? How does what manufacturers do justify Pinkerton's foul manners and destructive lunging around other people's hobbies? Or yours, for that matter, Krueger? It is truly sick for grown men to justify their existence (as you, Arnold Krueger, and Stewart Pinkerton, repeatedly do, as you done again above) by the disruption they bring to other people's innocent pleasure. All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps could be invested in making good sounding (SS) amps. Who appointed you UberFuhrer of people's hi-fi? The time could be spent other audio projects that are forward-looking as opposed to backward-looking. And approved by you and the equally arid, useless, uncultured, slimy, ignorant, crude, unmannered, loutish, uncreative, dull, etc, Pinkerton? No doubt after months of formfilling in quadriplicate and delays, you will refuse to sanction even a little opamp gainclone if it is likely to give anyone any pleasure. Thanks, but no thanks. We saw your sort of control freaks in charge in the Soviet Union already; they ground it to a halt. You and Pinkerton are harbingers of death, not of light and life. You two, and your trail of goosestepping "engineers" and hangerson, are a walking, talking nightmare to those of us who do hi-fi for pleasure. We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by law is expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And all the better for it. You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger, Pinkerton, and all the other control freak "engineers" on a crusade. So **** off. Andre Jute |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by law is
expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And all the better for it. Mr. McCoy: So, does Ireland have a written constitution? England does not. In the US, you would be referring to the 9th and 10th amendments (the "Bill of Rights"). The issue being your use of the word "expressly" which requires an explicit reference. But you are referring only to societies based on English Law, vs. those based on Roman Law. So, those here from France or Spain, and certain Parishes in Louisiana (US) and elsewhere are subject to Roman Law, where the derivation of power is from the state, and not from the people. You do come up with remarkably ignorant analogies. However, within Usenet, we almost all do have the privilege of calling it as we see it. You do have a great deal of time on your hands and have a lot of bile to spew. Enjoy. It must do you some good even if you are entirely unconcerned over any collateral damage. I suppose a rich and full fantasy life is marginally better than no life at all, but I do pity you. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com Yo, Pinkerton: Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and pettily. If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their hobby What's your excuse? No excuse is needed for telling the truth in the face of hype and false claims. Only the most monumentally stupid and the most monumentally arrogant people ever have such certainty in their own judgement as you and Pinkerton exhibit, Krueger. Training in the hard sciences may tend to increase one's propensities in that direction. Learning that some things definately don't work, and others definately do has this effect on one's thinking. That which is clear becomes obvious. Your determination to control through your public nastiness the activities of people even in their harmless hobbies is sociopathic. Control??? Surely you Jest! I just post opinions like everybody else, yourself included. People read or not, believe or not, act or not based on their own thinking. I have already proved that you, Arnold Krueger, are so keen to make yourself appear more important than you are that you will lash out denigration to a group of people who did you no harm before the group is even specified. Whatver that means. This very post above to which you are responding proves that Stewart Pinkerton is so keen to lash out pain to others that he spends a quarter of his working life ruining the pleasure in their hobby of posters to a tube conference where Pinkerton has absolutely no business, where it has been repeatedly made clear to him that he isn't wanted, where his attempt to prove that his way is better (his dumb KISASS design) ended in a humilating failure, where his lies are constantly exposed, where no secret is made of the fact that he is despised for being scum to a greater extent even than you are. Next time, you might not hold your feelings back! The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates: Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may follow? I have no such position, so no appointment is necessary. "Unfortunately many people have somehow been led to believe that tubes automatically impart some kind of magic fairy dust, so manufacturers exploit that." So what? It's their business and their money. Right, so when people encounter diverse opinons, they can do their business and spend their money as those diverse opinions affect their personal opinions or not. As we say in the US: "It's a free country". Of course we're not totally free in the sense of anarchism, but we do have a fair amount of lattitude. Why is it so disturbing to you little control freaks that people hear something different from you? Disturbed? I'm sitting here smiling while you are obviously, again as we say in the US: "Dancing on the ceiling". What has manufacturing hype to do with the DIYers on RAT? They appear to be customers for manufactured goods such as tubes, transformers, and other electronic parts. How does what manufacturers do justify Pinkerton's foul manners and destructive lunging around other people's hobbies? Or yours, for that matter, Krueger? There's no need to justify that which we do not do. It is truly sick for grown men to justify their existence (as you, Arnold Krueger, and Stewart Pinkerton, repeatedly do, as you done again above) by the disruption they bring to other people's innocent pleasure. Just the facts, ma'm. ;-) All this time that is wasted creating bad-sounding amps could be invested in making good sounding (SS) amps. Who appointed you UberFuhrer of people's hi-fi? No appointment is required for a position that I do not fill. The time could be spent other audio projects that are forward-looking as opposed to backward-looking. And approved by you and the equally arid, useless, uncultured, slimy, ignorant, crude, unmannered, loutish, uncreative, dull, etc, Pinkerton? There are no such persons, except in your fevered little mind, Jute or whatever your name really is. No doubt after months of formfilling in quadriplicate and delays, you will refuse to sanction even a little opamp gainclone if it is likely to give anyone any pleasure. Huh? I did no such thing. Thanks, but no thanks. We saw your sort of control freaks in charge in the Soviet Union already; they ground it to a halt. You and Pinkerton are harbingers of death, not of light and life. You two, and your trail of goosestepping "engineers" and hangerson, are a walking, talking nightmare to those of us who do hi-fi for pleasure. What's wrong with doing hifi for pleasure in the context of modern technology? We live in a society where whatever is not forbidden by law is expressly permitted by constitution and usage. And all the better for it. Works for me. One of the things that is not forbidden is posting my opinions on various newsgroups. It's comforting to know that what I do is expressly permitted by constitution and usage. You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger, Pinkerton, and all the other control freak "engineers" on a crusade. So **** off. You seem upset Mr. Jute. Are we having a bad day? ;-) |
Krooger and his hobbies
Andre Jute said to ****-for-Brains: The so-called "glee with their hobby" is often pretty pathetic, as this post fragment from rec.audio.pro illustrates: Who appointed you to decide which hobbies people may follow? Indeed. We do know some of the Krooborg's hobbies. For one, he spends most of his waking hours inventing rationalizations for his consuming envy. The Beast is envious of other people's material success (witness his whining about being attacked by "millionaires"). He's also envious of others' education, as shown by his compulsive "debating trade" hyping of his own half-assed version of a BSEE. And when it comes to professional accomplishments, one need only examine Turdborg's expletive-loaded attacks on John Atkinson, Paul Bamborough, Glenn Zelniker, and Jim Johnston to see how depraved Mr. **** is. Even so, one might consider Krooger's conflagrations of envy to be just a personality flaw, or perhaps a manifestation of his mental illness. To that objection, I would counter that an even more inane hobby Mr. **** indulges in is his crack-brained, phoney religiosity. On the one hand, he professes to be a "Christian", but on the other, his behavior is as un-Christian as you can get without commiting violent crimes. And what, I'd also ask, does Krooger's devotion to superstition and flummery say about his professed love of "science"? Actually I wouldn't ask because I already know. Somebody recently suggested a few prescription drugs that might help Krooger deal with his decayed mental faculties. Maybe Turdy can tell us if he asked his doctor about them and whether he plans to get any prescriptions that will enable him to move a little closer to the real world. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Peter Wieck said: the 9th and 10th amendments (the "Bill of Rights") [snip] You do come up with remarkably ignorant analogies. Once again, from the top, please. |
Stewart Pinkerton's positive contribution
On 23 Feb 2006 05:31:40 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Yo, Pinkerton: Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. That is of course just a typical Jute lie. I regard tube amps as overpriced for their performance, but certainly *capable* of excellent performance. SET amps are another matter. Your total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact negative. Actually, I think I've done a fine job of pointing out the many errors in your incompetent KISS articles - after sifting through the 99% of waffle surrounding the actual content. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and pettily. 'Most' would be *you*, or are you counting your merry band of sycophantic sockpuppets? If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their hobby I type faster than that, probably less than 10 hours a month, or 25 minutes a day, helping others to avoid your incompetence. What's your excuse? I don't need one. What's your excuse for creating dozens of pure attack threads in what is supposed to be an audio forum? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On 23 Feb 2006 06:50:18 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Only the most monumentally stupid and the most monumentally arrogant people ever have such certainty in their own judgement as you and Pinkerton exhibit, Krueger. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I nearly blew my coffee all over the screen. Do you never read your own arrogant, pretentious and self-aggrandising drivel? You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger, Pinkerton, and all the other control freak "engineers" on a crusade. So **** off. Oh, we may not be *wanted* by incompetent self-important dilettantes such as yourself, but we're certainly *needed*, if only to point out your numerous errors. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. There it is, George. In writing and not in Mr. McCoy's inflamed imagination. No sin not to know this, most Americans don't, for sure. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Wiecky whined: Amendment IX Amendment X There it is, George. In writing and not in Mr. McCoy's inflamed imagination. No sin not to know this, most Americans don't, for sure. The Bill of Rights is not just the 9th and 10th Amendments. It's all of the first 10, i.e. I through X. This is the second time I've quibbled with your half-assed phrasing, and here you are, again, denying that you said what Google shows you did say. Could it be that the irascible and temperamental Jute is right about you? |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Mr. Middius:
Mr. McCoy referred to a specific aspect of the rights of the people. Those aspects in the AMERICAN constitution are described in the 9th and 10th amendments. There are no such words in the non-written British constitution, of course. I have no clue as to the Irish constitution. These rights are NOT protected in France amongst many other countries under Roman Law. The Bill of Rights, being amendments 1-10 go over some specifics, of course. But the critical and continuing protections We Americans are privileged to are far more protected by 9 and 10 than by 1-8. It is 9 and 10 that cover that critical aspect of English Law: What is not forbidden is permitted. Which is what Mr. McCoy alluded to in his blanket statement albeit with far too many adjectives. Sadly, in 'real life' that statement applies to about 15% of the world's population, or less, and not even across the English Channel. So, don't attempt to hang your hat on 1-8, as those are *specific* protections and of an entirely different nature than the last two. If all that existed were 1-8, then the Federal Government would have the right to invade privacy, legislate morality, limit movement, property rights and various other quite personal issues as they would *not necessarily* be protected a-priori. DO once read the US Constitution for content. It is a fascinating document. Well, you don't read anyway, even the words of your Idol, so go ahead and develop a few more months of 100% attack-mutt posts. Mr. McCoy must be proud of you as you are most useful to him. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
On 23 Feb 2006 06:50:18 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote: Only the most monumentally stupid and the most monumentally arrogant people ever have such certainty in their own judgement as you and Pinkerton exhibit, Krueger. BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I nearly blew my coffee all over the screen. Do you never read your own arrogant, pretentious and self-aggrandising drivel? You are nor wanted in tube conferences, Krueger, Pinkerton, and all the other control freak "engineers" on a crusade. So **** off. Oh, we may not be *wanted* by incompetent self-important dilettantes such as yourself, but we're certainly *needed*, if only to point out your numerous errors. Hear! Hear! ;-) |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Andre Jute wrote: Yo, Pinkerton: Since October 2004 you sent 4607 message to RAT, which is rec.audio.tubes. You don't have a tube amp. Your expressed attitude to tubes is that you hate them. Your total contribution after 4607 messages to a tube conference is generally agreed to be zero, in fact negative. Most consider that you did this vile thing maliciously and pettily. If each of those messages took you only ten minutes to find and read the post you responded to, to type and send you reply, that is 46070 minutes or 767 hours or over 50 hours every month to ruin other people's glee in their hobby What's your excuse? Andre Jute I doubt he has any excuse, and asking for an apology won't get us a result. He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to make blankets, and soaking wet blankets at that. Was it 4,607 messages? Who cares? if he'd posted 4,607,000 messages it will not change the fact that tube amps are here to stay because people prefer them and nothing, abolutely nothing, Oinkerton sqeals about will change this fact. I cannot think of one single contribution that Oinkerton has made to this group to further tubecraft. What he has succeeded in doing is establish that people like him have ZERO credibility with regard to audio design, and his credibility was permanently dis-established when he had the utter supidity to promote the idea that you could build a solid state amp with as few parts as the 300B SET and without any NFB, at about the time you propsed a simple 300B amp could be had using a 300B and a single 417 driver/input tube and an OPT. When we did allow him to use 12dB of NFB since that is about how much there is internally within a 300B when loaded, he still came up with ZERO worth building. He did rattle on about some supposedly simple design, but then proceeded to NEVER BUILD IT OR TEST IT, and only those who persue their convictions and demonstrate to all the viability of their designs will ever gain my respect, or the respect of anyone else I suspect. Don't worry Andre, Oinkerton is a fool I can ignore so easily! Months go by and there isn't anything he says which I feel i need to discuss with him. I have no wish to stifle those who would challenge pet theories expressed here if only they would remain scholarly and intellectual about it. When they don't conduct themselves towards the technical issues raised then i find there is a lot I can ignore. And when they are here to merely sling mud and bellittle people to make themselves look grand in their own eyes ( but fools in the eyes of all really intelligent ppl here then ) then I hope they don't mind our disdain. Patrick Turner. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to
make blankets, and soaking wet blankets at that. Patrick: Much as I agree with you on Mr. Pinkerton being well over the edge in his irrational reaction to Mr. McCoy, it is a bit more like him going into rec.quiltmakers and railing against an individual attempting to dominate the forum by demanding that all participants use only a specific type of thread, cloth and stitch pattern. The brute fact of the matter is that Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pinkerton richly deserve each other and require each other in order to be fulfilled. If that were not the case, Mr. McCoy would not start thread after thread chasing his personal demons, and Mr. Pinkerton would ignore the entirety, much less start threads of his own. The latest threads have suggested strongly that neither of them is worth a damn as a technician, neither of them is worth a damn as a designer, and I expect both of them would be entirely lost without a cookbook. Now, and at the same time, writing for myself, I am not a designer (nor have I ever claimed to be), my predilections are to repairing and upgrading of existing equipment... A LOT of understanding of faults both initial and eventual come out of this experience, as well as the correction thereof... permanent correction, not just replacement of burnt parts until the next failure. So, my comments on the techniques and designs of others are based on the results as-reported over claims-made. I expect that most *any* one in this venue could do a creditable job of following a cookbook-design, or even modify-with-guidance such a design. But in the case of these two, there is a whole bunch of smoke-and-mirrors, exaggerated claims and dubious results. I would go so far as to believe that Mr. McCoy might at one time have take great pleasure from his hobby, and even have something to offer were it not delivered from the Burning Bush and were he not to expect us to accept it as "received wisdom". I expect that Mr. Pinkerton took or takes no such pleasure. And apart from their mutual dislike and various pathologies, shared and individual, both of them are desparately unhappy individuals. If they would both get off their bully pulpits and get on with the enjoyment of tubes (and about anything else audio), life would be infinitely better for them certainly. Maybe even for us, even though a constant source of darkly amusing silliness would be removed from our lives. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On 24 Feb 2006 05:19:13 -0800, " wrote:
He's like someone wading into rec.quiltmakers, and telling them all to make blankets, and soaking wet blankets at that. Patrick: Much as I agree with you on Mr. Pinkerton being well over the edge in his irrational reaction to Mr. McCoy, it is a bit more like him going into rec.quiltmakers and railing against an individual attempting to dominate the forum by demanding that all participants use only a specific type of thread, cloth and stitch pattern. The brute fact of the matter is that Mr. McCoy and Mr. Pinkerton richly deserve each other and require each other in order to be fulfilled. If that were not the case, Mr. McCoy would not start thread after thread chasing his personal demons, and Mr. Pinkerton would ignore the entirety, much less start threads of his own. Hmmm A point well made. Time to stop feeding the trolls. The latest threads have suggested strongly that neither of them is worth a damn as a technician, neither of them is worth a damn as a designer, and I expect both of them would be entirely lost without a cookbook. That's fightin' talk, pilgrim! I have no idea how you come to that conclusion about me, but I'd be interested to debate design specifics if you have a problem with anything I've said. I expect that most *any* one in this venue could do a creditable job of following a cookbook-design, or even modify-with-guidance such a design. But in the case of these two, there is a whole bunch of smoke-and-mirrors, exaggerated claims and dubious results. Never used smoke and mirrors in my life, and I've been producing original designs (and getting paid for it) for more than 35 years. I would go so far as to believe that Mr. McCoy might at one time have take great pleasure from his hobby, and even have something to offer were it not delivered from the Burning Bush and were he not to expect us to accept it as "received wisdom". I expect that Mr. Pinkerton took or takes no such pleasure. Your expectation is incorrect. And apart from their mutual dislike and various pathologies, shared and individual, both of them are desparately unhappy individuals. Not me, sunbeam, I just don't suffer fools like Jute. If they would both get off their bully pulpits and get on with the enjoyment of tubes (and about anything else audio), life would be infinitely better for them certainly. Ah well, I'm afraid that my audio life would be much worse with tubes, it's known as progress.......... -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Not me, sunbeam, I just don't suffer fools like Jute.
If you stop chasing McCoy, he will have no choice but to rant in a vacuum. Whatever your past accomplishments may have been as an engineer, technician or designer, they are now lost in the flames and smoke. That forces a casual observer into believing that the two of you are cut from the same cloth and trained on the same knee. If this is not the case, you will stop chasing your personal white whale and get on with your life. And as this is rec.audio.tubes, you will generally have to have some respect for the medium if you wish to participate in a positive way. Again, writing for myself, I have a pretty broad array of equipment that includes three separate tube amps, three tube tuners, two tube pre-amps, and a couple of oddballs like a multiplex decoder. Tubes are unabashedly good fun. Their action is "visible" and there is a certain appeal somewhere between Flash Gordon and Rube Goldberg in their use. Would I transport a tube system to provide sound in a critical application? Not hardly. I have solid-state amps that I can toss against the wall, pretty much abuse in any way except soaking for that. But can it be very relaxing to sit with the cat on my lap, reading a good (but not very engaging) book and listening to Mozart on equipment that is nearly as old as I am and still sounds wonderful....? you bet it is, especially with a fire going, my wife on the other end of the couch and a glass of single-malt beside me. Progress is a variable taken by choice, not an absolute requirement to live. And, on an absolute scale, our erstwhile least controlled fulminator here, Mr. Allison has managed to cool his jets lately and even be helpful on occasion. So, do you wish to align with the 'dark side' and provide Mr. McCoy with the energy he needs to live, or simply ignore the silly little git and get on with it? Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Wiecky said: So, do you wish to align with the 'dark side' and provide Mr. McCoy with the energy he needs to live, or simply ignore the silly little git and get on with it? We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't unanimous, so his jones kept him going. Maybe you have some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on an unmoderated group? |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't unanimous, so his jones kept
him going. Maybe you have some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on an unmoderated group? Well, Steve Dinius is no longer a plague at rec.antiques.radio+phono. I cannot write for other groups, but he did spread himself. Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny the blood, the tick will die. The term "freezing out" assumes active participation, any activity requires energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore the pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually leave, to go somewhere else to get the energy they need to survive. One more thing required for this to work... the impetus will not come from another silly little git with a 100% without exception record of attack-mutt posts going back 4 or more months. Such an individual may well be the target, not the marksman. Peter WIeck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
wrote in message
oups.com Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny the blood, the tick will die. The term "freezing out" assumes active participation, any activity requires energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore the pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually leave, to go somewhere else to get the energy they need to survive. Not true at RAO. For example, I haven't responded to any posts by Dave Weil for a number of years, but he still routinely attacks me here. For example, a number of us includeing Pinkerton banded together and vowed to not respond to any posts by Middius.We held firm for maybe over a year. Note that Middius is still posting here quite vigorously. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Difficulties at first blush:
I.... but he still..... A number..... is still.... Ticks feed on blood. They are pretty much indiscriminate as to whose blood it might be. If not your blood, someone else's. So. Just let it not be you that feeds them. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
wrote in message
oups.com Difficulties at first blush: I.... but he still..... A number..... is still.... Ticks feed on blood. They are pretty much indiscriminate as to whose blood it might be. If not your blood, someone else's. So. Just let it not be you that feeds them. Ticks feed each other, and thus can live forever no matter what you personally or even a small group of people do. That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved.
You don't read so well do you? If it's not your blood involved why should you care? Writing for myself, if I am burnt in effigy and I am entirely unaware of it, I could care less. If I am burnt in effigy and there is no direct or indirect threat to me and my family, I might care... for about a hummingbird heartbeat. This is USENET, not a tea room. Individuals write and claim to do things here that they would never do in public view, and in many cases never did anyway. They use the keyboard to make up for their poor, lonely, spavined little lives as they can be anything they want on the other side of the screen. So, let these ticks suck on each other. That will leave the rest of us able to enjoy the hobby and the parts and pieces that go with it... in the real world. Put another way, since you won't control them, it leaves you only with the option of controlling yourself. And if you can't do that, you are no better than the worst. Peter Wieck Wyncote, PA |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
wrote in message
oups.com That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved. You don't read so well do you? a little frustrated eh? unable to take responsibility for what you just said, eh? If it's not your blood involved why should you care? Because it is my blood that is involved. the ticks entertain themselves with stories about how horrible of a person that I am. Writing for myself, if I am burnt in effigy and I am entirely unaware of it, I could care less. When a once-productive newsgroup is turned into a field of ticks, its a bit sad. If I am burnt in effigy and there is no direct or indirect threat to me and my family, I might care... for about a hummingbird heartbeat. This is USENET, not a tea room. Individuals write and claim to do things here that they would never do in public view, and in many cases never did anyway. They use the keyboard to make up for their poor, lonely, spavined little lives as they can be anything they want on the other side of the screen. Totally agreed. You've explained Middius to a t. So, let these ticks suck on each other. That will leave the rest of us able to enjoy the hobby and the parts and pieces that go with it... in the real world. The real world is mostly elswhere. Put another way, since you won't control them, it leaves you only with the option of controlling yourself. And if you can't do that, you are no better than the worst. The good news is that RAO is not the only audio newsgroup. But you were telling us how we could save the world by not feeding ticks, and that doesn't always work. You were painting a very simplistic picture of newsgroup pathologies. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message Wiecky stamps his pointy little feet. We tried that with the Krooborg but we weren't unanimous, so his jones kept him going. Maybe you have some pointers on freezing out an annoying pest on an unmoderated group? Not even a tick can survive forever without blood. Deny the blood, the tick will die. The term "freezing out" assumes active participation, any activity requires energy. Ticks survive on that energy. So, ignore the pests, (deny them the blood) and they will eventually leave, to go somewhere else to get the energy they need to survive. I done told you, we tried that already, but it wasn't a unified effort. It couldn't be, because I wasn't the problem and enough people could see that. The problem is you, Middius. You're completely non-productive. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On 24 Feb 2006 10:50:33 -0800, " wrote:
Not me, sunbeam, I just don't suffer fools like Jute. If you stop chasing McCoy, he will have no choice but to rant in a vacuum. Whatever your past accomplishments may have been as an engineer, technician or designer, they are now lost in the flames and smoke. That forces a casual observer into believing that the two of you are cut from the same cloth and trained on the same knee. If this is not the case, you will stop chasing your personal white whale and get on with your life. And as this is rec.audio.tubes, you will generally have to have some respect for the medium if you wish to participate in a positive way. Hey, my very first 'hi-fi' amp was a single-ended tube design! Of course, after I took up electronic engineering, I progressed to more linear devices...... :-) Again, writing for myself, I have a pretty broad array of equipment that includes three separate tube amps, three tube tuners, two tube pre-amps, and a couple of oddballs like a multiplex decoder. Tubes are unabashedly good fun. Their action is "visible" and there is a certain appeal somewhere between Flash Gordon and Rube Goldberg in their use. Would I transport a tube system to provide sound in a critical application? Not hardly. I have solid-state amps that I can toss against the wall, pretty much abuse in any way except soaking for that. But can it be very relaxing to sit with the cat on my lap, reading a good (but not very engaging) book and listening to Mozart on equipment that is nearly as old as I am and still sounds wonderful....? you bet it is, especially with a fire going, my wife on the other end of the couch and a glass of single-malt beside me. Can't argue with that. Progress is a variable taken by choice, not an absolute requirement to live. And, on an absolute scale, our erstwhile least controlled fulminator here, Mr. Allison has managed to cool his jets lately and even be helpful on occasion. So, do you wish to align with the 'dark side' and provide Mr. McCoy with the energy he needs to live, or simply ignore the silly little git and get on with it? One can but try, but it's difficult to stay silent when he coughs up more drivel in his interminable but horribly flawed KISS articles. Some poor souls out there might actually *believe* that tripe! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On 24 Feb 2006 13:28:11 -0800, " wrote:
That demolishes your premise that ticks can be starved. You don't read so well do you? If it's not your blood involved why should you care? Writing for myself, if I am burnt in effigy and I am entirely unaware of it, I could care less. If I am burnt in effigy and there is no direct or indirect threat to me and my family, I might care... for about a hummingbird heartbeat. This is USENET, not a tea room. Individuals write and claim to do things here that they would never do in public view, and in many cases never did anyway. They use the keyboard to make up for their poor, lonely, spavined little lives as they can be anything they want on the other side of the screen. So, let these ticks suck on each other. That will leave the rest of us able to enjoy the hobby and the parts and pieces that go with it... in the real world. Put another way, since you won't control them, it leaves you only with the option of controlling yourself. And if you can't do that, you are no better than the worst. Actually, I found the most effective technique was simply to unsubscribe to RAO. Most of the bad posts around here (Jute excepted) come from RAO crosspostings. When I can remember - as here - I remove such crossposting. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote. . .
One can but try, but it's difficult to stay silent when he coughs up more drivel in his interminable but horribly flawed KISS articles. Some poor souls out there might actually *believe* that tripe! :-) Hey! I do! |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Andre Jute wrote:
[justified rant about Pinkerton snipped] Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc. For example: If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid". If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a "cloth-eared idiot". If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe hearing damage at birth". Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc). Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. Fortunately in Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS, traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit". But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4 Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph. Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view. -- Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735 Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:18:25 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote: Andre Jute wrote: [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped] Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc. For example: If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid". I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification. If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a "cloth-eared idiot". I don't believe he has ever objected to such a view, given that it is an expression of personal preference. In terms of what constitutes a better amplifier - that is another matter. A good amplifier is one which amplifies and does not screw with the signal in any other way. In general solid state amps beat valve amps, although there are some good valve amps which are a match for SS. If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe hearing damage at birth". A possibility that is worthy of examination, although it is equally possible that the hearing damage occurred at a later stage. Hearing damage of some kind is more or less implied because only thus can one explain the inability to hear all the crap that comes along with the music from vinyl. Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc). Given a high enough bit rate, quite true. I have never been able to - and I have never known anyone else who could - distinguish a 320k MP3 from the CD original. Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. Fortunately in Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS, traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit". Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it. But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4 Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph. Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view. I believe you are mistaken about the Pinkerton point of view - not surprising as what you have presented here is not a summary of his views, but of those claimed for him by his enemies. His views are genuinely held, and reasonably presented in the face of a great deal of stupid arrogance from a few well known sources. He does have a rather short fuse, though, and doesn't suffer fools anything like as long as - say - Jim Lesurf or me. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
Don Pearce wrote:
I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification. No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion. You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton. And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults and name-calling. The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in the group. Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from. -- Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735 Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/ IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message Andre Jute wrote: [justified rant about Pinkerton snipped] Unfortunately, Stewart Pinkerton is one of those freaks of nature who is always right, even when he's been proved wrong. "Never let the truth/facts get in the way of a good argument", etc etc. For example: If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid". Or merely a dupe. However, that's actually often a consequence of "arrogant" and "stupid". If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a "cloth-eared idiot". Or merely a dupe. If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe hearing damage at birth". Or merely a dupe. Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc). On the best of all days and with high bitrates that can be true. Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. Oh come on - that's the essence of any disagreement. How many times do you see people arguing that they both agree with each other? Fortunately in Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS, traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit". Depends on how you interpret "spped limit". I interpret that as "driving in accordance with the conditions". But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4 Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph. Really good brakes have been the undoing of many an over-confident driver. I have good reason to believe that there are a wide range of brakes that stop in about the same distance on ice or wet pavement, sophisiticated braking technologies notwithstanding. Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view. Good job of misrepresenting Mr. Pinkerton - it seems like today is "beat up an objectivist" day around here. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message Don Pearce wrote: I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification. No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion. Something that no subjectivist has ever done, ever. ;-) You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton. And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults and name-calling. In many cases you may be looking at just the recent activity related to a long-running controversy. If the person Pinkerton is addressing isn't insulting him this week, that's not to say that they didn't insult him last week. The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in the group. Not at all. Just about any time I want to I can repeatedly challenge a subjectivist in a perfectly civil way, no abuse, name-calling or anything like it, and just watch time pass and postings pass until the explosion of abuse. I call it "The prerequisite subjectivist personal attack". ;-) Something that Pinkerton could do very well to learn from. What we've all learned is that the most extreme behavior around here has come from the so-called subjectivst side of the debate. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Arny Krueger" said:
If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid". Or merely a dupe. However, that's actually often a consequence of "arrogant" and "stupid". Thanks for keeping 3 newsgroups civil and on-topic again, Arny. Are you really sure that Middius made you do it this time, and that you're not part of the problem? ;-) -- - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. - |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:15:27 -0600, flipper wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:58:13 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: snip Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it. Funny you should use that as an example because, according to the story, there was once at least one state legislature in the good ole USA that did just that: decided pi was ridiculous and passed a law defining it shall be 3. If I remember correctly they immediately reversed themselves after the bill's sponsor, having made whatever point it was, explained you can't do that. It was Indiana, home of the Hoosiers: From 'The Straight Dope' "Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2, as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend the rest of your natural life in Indiana. Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number. "Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead, mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the following formulae: (1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4 to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2 (2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4 the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we see that pi must be equal to 4. (3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23. There may have been other values for pi as well; the bill was so confusingly written that it's impossible to tell exactly what Goodwin was getting at. Mathematician David Singmaster says he found six different values in the bill, plus three more in Goodwin's other writings and comments, for a total of nine. Lord knows how all this was supposedly to clarify pi or anything else, but as we shall see, they do things a little differently in Indiana. Bill #246 was initially sent to the Committee on Swamp Lands. The committee deliberated gravely on the question, decided it was not the appropriate body to consider such a measure and turned it over to the Committee on Education. The latter committee gave the bill a "pass" recommendation and sent it on to the full House, which approved it unanimously, 67 to 0. In the state Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on Temperance. (One begins to suspect it was silly season in the Indiana legislature at the time.) It passed first reading, but that's as far as it got. According to The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, the bill "was held up before a second reading due to the intervention of C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics [at Purdue] who happened to be passing through." Waldo, describing the experience later, wrote, "A member [of the legislature] then showed the writer [i.e., Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He declined the courtesy with thanks, remarking that he was acquainted with as many crazy people as he cared to know." The bill was postponed indefinitely and died a quiet death. According to a local newspaper, however, "Although the bill was not acted on favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation." As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle." -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:59:59 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: I think you will find he has always presented - quite correctly - an alternative option. You are mistaken. There are certain individuals for whom he has moved towards the "liar" option, with justification. No, he's always been rude and abusive when someone posts something that doesn't agree with his narrow mindset of opinion. Not at all - only when they attempt to support their bull**** with lies and ignorance. You are of course a perfect case in point, which is no doubt why you've now crawled out of the woodwork. You, on the other hand, seem much more reasonable. You may disagree with me that cables make a difference to the sound, for example (as I recall you did), but you do so in a much more civilised manner than Pinkerton. And, most importantly, you do it without resorting to personal insults and name-calling. The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in the group. I don't worry about ****ing off stupid, lying, ******s like you. Clear enough for you? Don's right, Jim has the patience of a saint, and Don's a pretty laid-back guy himself. I'm of a more combative nature. Always nice to have a cross-section of personalities in any discussion forum. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:18:25 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote: If you can hear a difference between two interconnects/speaker cables, you're either "lying", "arrogant" or "stupid". In your case, the evidence is overwhelming for all three....... If you think valve amps sound better than solid state, you're a "cloth-eared idiot". Not something I've ever said, but when did you ever let the facts get in the way of a good story? If you think vinyl can sound better than CD, you've "suffered severe hearing damage at birth". Again, you'd have to define 'better'. Oh, and apparently MP3 is indistinguishable from CD (or uncompressed WAV, or FLAC, Apple Lossless etc). Indeed it can be, given an adequate bitrate. AAC is even better. Pinkerton is of the "I am right, you are wrong" brigade. In your case, invariably true. Fortunately in Real Life [TM] I don't know anyone from that camp, although I do have a friend who's a close second - "you're entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong". Although with him it's cars, not hi-fi, apparently modern cars are "too powerful", and have "too many safety devices fitted" (ABS, traction control, stability control, the stuff that often makes the difference between a near miss and a crash). And according to him, all you need to do to be safe is "stay within the speed limit". Clearly, you associate with idiots. Why am I not surprised? But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4 Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph. Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view. Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:15:27 -0600, flipper wrote: On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 10:58:13 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: snip Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions don't count for much in a situation where something is either right or wrong - you can't make pi equal 3 by voting for it. Funny you should use that as an example because, according to the story, there was once at least one state legislature in the good ole USA that did just that: decided pi was ridiculous and passed a law defining it shall be 3. If I remember correctly they immediately reversed themselves after the bill's sponsor, having made whatever point it was, explained you can't do that. It was Indiana, home of the Hoosiers: From 'The Straight Dope' "Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2, as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend the rest of your natural life in Indiana. Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin and Record apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a rational number. "Since the rule in present use [presumably pi equals 3.14159...] fails to work ..., it should be discarded as wholly wanting and misleading in the practical applications," the bill declared. Instead, mathematically inclined Hoosiers could take their pick among the following formulae: (1) The ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference is 5/4 to 4. In other words, pi equals 16/5 or 3.2 (2) The area of a circle equals the area of a square whose side is 1/4 the circumference of the circle. Working this out algebraically, we see that pi must be equal to 4. (3) The ratio of the length of a 90 degree arc to the length of a segment connecting the arc's two endpoints is 8 to 7. This gives us pi equal to the square root of 2 x 16/7, or about 3.23. There may have been other values for pi as well; the bill was so confusingly written that it's impossible to tell exactly what Goodwin was getting at. Mathematician David Singmaster says he found six different values in the bill, plus three more in Goodwin's other writings and comments, for a total of nine. Lord knows how all this was supposedly to clarify pi or anything else, but as we shall see, they do things a little differently in Indiana. Bill #246 was initially sent to the Committee on Swamp Lands. The committee deliberated gravely on the question, decided it was not the appropriate body to consider such a measure and turned it over to the Committee on Education. The latter committee gave the bill a "pass" recommendation and sent it on to the full House, which approved it unanimously, 67 to 0. In the state Senate, the bill was referred to the Committee on Temperance. (One begins to suspect it was silly season in the Indiana legislature at the time.) It passed first reading, but that's as far as it got. According to The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, the bill "was held up before a second reading due to the intervention of C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics [at Purdue] who happened to be passing through." Waldo, describing the experience later, wrote, "A member [of the legislature] then showed the writer [i.e., Waldo] a copy of the bill just passed and asked him if he would like an introduction to the learned doctor, its author. He declined the courtesy with thanks, remarking that he was acquainted with as many crazy people as he cared to know." The bill was postponed indefinitely and died a quiet death. According to a local newspaper, however, "Although the bill was not acted on favorably no one who spoke against it intimated that there was anything wrong with the theories it advances. All of the Senators who spoke on the bill admitted that they were ignorant of the merits of the proposition. It was simply regarded as not being a subject for legislation." As for Representative T.I. Record--well, I haven't been able to confirm this. But some say he changed his name to Quayle." Where he went on to change the name of Tomato to Tomatoe. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:18:39 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: The end result of which is that you can have a sensible debate without ****ing off 80% of contributors (plus an unknown number of lurkers) in the group. Not at all. Just about any time I want to I can repeatedly challenge a subjectivist in a perfectly civil way, no abuse, name-calling or anything like it, and just watch time pass and postings pass until the explosion of abuse. I call it "The prerequisite subjectivist personal attack". ;-) It's just a shame that even though you *can*, you *don't*. Anyone can look at your exchanges with Jenn to see your abuse pattern. It's a classic case study in Kruegerkultur. |
Stewart Pinkerton's negative contribution
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:37:02 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: But then he's driving round in a barely roadworthy 1994 Astra diesel estate that cost him about £800, whereas I'm in a 3-year-old A4 Quattro... which could stop from 60mph faster than he can stop from 30mph. Anyway, that's a whole different argument, but he's almost a less extreme version of Pinkerton from that point of view. Not hardly - I drive an A3 3.2 with DSG box, and every electronic driver aid known to man! Will go 0-100-0 in less than 20 seconds. You need to get yourself a Cobra. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk