|
|
Slam
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:16:57 GMT, "Parker"
wrote: Would I find words for you to understand? Leave like that: my opinion. I know that, for you, your thickness should be mathematically demonstrated. OK, you are simply rude. We will leave it there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:16:57 GMT, "Parker"
wrote: Would I find words for you to understand? Leave like that: my opinion. I know that, for you, your thickness should be mathematically demonstrated. OK, you are simply rude. We will leave it there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
Good, you felt my rudeness.
It took you less than one minute. How can such a simple thing like "SLAMMMM" an auditive impression commented and defined by humans thousand times in a very long period of years escape your ears and brain? Rudeness to logical reasoning, perhaps. "Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje ... On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:16:57 GMT, "Parker" wrote: Would I find words for you to understand? Leave like that: my opinion. I know that, for you, your thickness should be mathematically demonstrated. OK, you are simply rude. We will leave it there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
Good, you felt my rudeness.
It took you less than one minute. How can such a simple thing like "SLAMMMM" an auditive impression commented and defined by humans thousand times in a very long period of years escape your ears and brain? Rudeness to logical reasoning, perhaps. "Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje ... On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:16:57 GMT, "Parker" wrote: Would I find words for you to understand? Leave like that: my opinion. I know that, for you, your thickness should be mathematically demonstrated. OK, you are simply rude. We will leave it there. d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:56:08 GMT, "Parker"
wrote: Good, you felt my rudeness. It took you less than one minute. How can such a simple thing like "SLAMMMM" an auditive impression commented and defined by humans thousand times in a very long period of years escape your ears and brain? Rudeness to logical reasoning, perhaps. If you had any idea what it was, you could have simply told the OP and everybody would have been happy. But no, instead you chose the route of the pig ignorant. As it is, you have simply repeated the hand-waving by saying it has been defined a thousand times; it hasn't - and more specifically, you haven't defined it. So please either put up or shut up - define slam or quit. Please understand that simply spelling it wrongly and in capitals doesn't actually demonstrate your knowledge in any measurable way. Your choice d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do, or
write here in this public debate? Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few ones the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are acting scientifically? Stop lying to yourself. The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise. According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness and that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to decide which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not? Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere. Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human subjective construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in two given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as defined by the O.P.) and the other not. "Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje ... On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:56:08 GMT, "Parker" wrote: Good, you felt my rudeness. It took you less than one minute. How can such a simple thing like "SLAMMMM" an auditive impression commented and defined by humans thousand times in a very long period of years escape your ears and brain? Rudeness to logical reasoning, perhaps. If you had any idea what it was, you could have simply told the OP and everybody would have been happy. But no, instead you chose the route of the pig ignorant. As it is, you have simply repeated the hand-waving by saying it has been defined a thousand times; it hasn't - and more specifically, you haven't defined it. So please either put up or shut up - define slam or quit. Please understand that simply spelling it wrongly and in capitals doesn't actually demonstrate your knowledge in any measurable way. Your choice d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do, or
write here in this public debate? Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few ones the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are acting scientifically? Stop lying to yourself. The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise. According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness and that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to decide which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not? Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere. Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human subjective construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in two given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as defined by the O.P.) and the other not. "Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje ... On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:56:08 GMT, "Parker" wrote: Good, you felt my rudeness. It took you less than one minute. How can such a simple thing like "SLAMMMM" an auditive impression commented and defined by humans thousand times in a very long period of years escape your ears and brain? Rudeness to logical reasoning, perhaps. If you had any idea what it was, you could have simply told the OP and everybody would have been happy. But no, instead you chose the route of the pig ignorant. As it is, you have simply repeated the hand-waving by saying it has been defined a thousand times; it hasn't - and more specifically, you haven't defined it. So please either put up or shut up - define slam or quit. Please understand that simply spelling it wrongly and in capitals doesn't actually demonstrate your knowledge in any measurable way. Your choice d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:16:29 GMT, "Parker"
wrote: Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do, or write here in this public debate? Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few ones the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are acting scientifically? Stop lying to yourself. The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise. According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness and that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to decide which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not? Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere. Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human subjective construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in two given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as defined by the O.P.) and the other not. Parker, you are entirely clueless - and still rude. Thank you for this piece of slimy patronisation. It is just a shame that it is entirely without any basis in fact. Goodbye d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 16:16:29 GMT, "Parker"
wrote: Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do, or write here in this public debate? Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few ones the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are acting scientifically? Stop lying to yourself. The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise. According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness and that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to decide which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not? Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere. Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human subjective construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in two given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as defined by the O.P.) and the other not. Parker, you are entirely clueless - and still rude. Thank you for this piece of slimy patronisation. It is just a shame that it is entirely without any basis in fact. Goodbye d _____________________________ http://www.pearce.uk.com |
Slam
"Parker" wrote in message .. . Would you mind not telling me or others what they should or shouldn't do, or write here in this public debate? Are you not tired (and some others here) of restricting to just a few ones the conditions of every aspect in life, in order to pretend you are acting scientifically? Stop lying to yourself. The man did define slam; with ironic terms you said it was b.s. and subjective misconception. Very rude in disguise. According to your rather instantaneous judgement I acted with rudeness and that is a subjective impression of yours. Who gave you the power to decide which subjective perceptions are based on real facts and which are not? Perhaps you have a definition of rudeness somewhere. Slam: what the O.P. defined in nice and clear terms. As a human subjective construction based on natural facts it is specially noticeable when in two given music reproduction equipments or rooms, one of them gives it (as defined by the O.P.) and the other not. "Don Pearce" escribió en el mensaje ... On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:56:08 GMT, "Parker" wrote: Good, you felt my rudeness. It took you less than one minute. How can such a simple thing like "SLAMMMM" an auditive impression commented and defined by humans thousand times in a very long period of years escape your ears and brain? Rudeness to logical reasoning, perhaps. If you had any idea what it was, you could have simply told the OP and everybody would have been happy. But no, instead you chose the route of the pig ignorant. As it is, you have simply repeated the hand-waving by saying it has been defined a thousand times; it hasn't - and more specifically, you haven't defined it. So please either put up or shut up - define slam or quit. Please understand that simply spelling it wrongly and in capitals doesn't actually demonstrate your knowledge in any measurable way. Your choice d HEY, YOU GUYS !!!!!!! I think I'll leave this one to you........... regards jim |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 PM. |
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