in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 9/13/07 11:43 AM:

In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.

Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it
later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This
is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so
I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in
another usenet newsgroup.


Regards,

John Byrns


John,

Your idol Jute is the very master of a variant this technique.

He makes up stuff about people and then repeats it as fact, ad nauseum.

But I realize that sometimes we are blinded to our loved one's failings . .
.. .

Jon

The garage vermin Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 9/13/07 11:43 AM:



In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.

Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it
later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This
is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so
I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in
another usenet newsgroup.

Regards,

John Byrns

John,

Your idol Jute is the very master of a variant this technique.

You should pay attention, Yaeger. John told us not long ago that his
beau ideal (John is too level-headed to have false gods, which is what
idols are) was the leader of the research lab at RCA in the early
years.

He makes up stuff about people and then repeats it as fact, ad nauseum.

This is a lie.

If you're referring to me calling you Garage Vermin, Yaeger, I didn't
make that up. You must thank the Master himself, Phil Allison, Elegant
Inventor of Incisive Invective. It was too apt a description of you
for me to bother inventing my own. I just borrowed it from Phil, with
his gracious permission and with grateful acknowledgement given at
suitable intervals (like now).

If you're referring to me calling you a Crooked Garage Trader, Yaeger,
you have many times admitted it, so it can't be made up. And even if
you hadn't admitted it, it wasn't made up, it was observed and then
tested in adversarial debate and proved when you publicly lied about
the quality of Magnequest transformers you were trying to sell to West
at the same time as you found them not good enough for yourself. At
the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public. That makes
you a Crooked Garage Trader, from observation and proof, as I say. No
invention required.

But I realize that sometimes we are blinded to our loved one's failings

Jon

AKA John and Jono when he needs a new name to hide behind when he's
ripping a newbie.

Remember this, Yaeger, you're the one who first assaulted me, when you
thought you had a gang behind you. You were a lot cockier then.

Unsigned out of contempt

in article , Andre Jute
at wrote on 9/14/07 8:30 AM:

The garage vermin Jon Yaeger wrote:
in article , John
Byrns at wrote on 9/13/07 11:43 AM:


Your idol Jute is the very master of a variant this technique.

You should pay attention, Yaeger. John told us not long ago that his
beau ideal (John is too level-headed to have false gods, which is what
idols are) was the leader of the research lab at RCA in the early
years.

He makes up stuff about people and then repeats it as fact, ad nauseum.

This is a lie.

If you're referring to me calling you Garage Vermin, Yaeger, I didn't
make that up. You must thank the Master himself, Phil Allison, Elegant
Inventor of Incisive Invective. It was too apt a description of you
for me to bother inventing my own. I just borrowed it from Phil, with
his gracious permission and with grateful acknowledgement given at
suitable intervals (like now).

*** You might be right. I've blocked Phil's posts for a long time. I have
no idea what he says, unless someone else quotes him.

If you're referring to me calling you a Crooked Garage Trader, Yaeger,
you have many times admitted it, so it can't be made up.

*** Nah. I've asked several times for people to come forward and provide
evidence that I was crooked, and no one ever has (except you to claim that
West thought I was "ripping him off)." But West has yet to back you up.

*** So, further proof about your fictional writing.


And even if
you hadn't admitted it, it wasn't made up, it was observed and then
tested in adversarial debate and proved when you publicly lied about
the quality of Magnequest transformers you were trying to sell to West
at the same time as you found them not good enough for yourself.

*** I never had any problem with the quality of these transformers. They
were well built and worked just fine. I have no idea what you are talking
about, but then, neither do you!

At
the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack.?

I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public. That makes
you a Crooked Garage Trader, from observation and proof, as I say. No
invention required.

*** I disagree. I said Henry designed it. He did the math each & every
component. The fact that it is a Williamson amplifier . . . well, the
provenance of just about every new amp today is a design from yesteryear.
Henry did build it from scratch. There is no debate that the design of the
layout was his. So WTF is your point, anyway?

But I realize that sometimes we are blinded to our loved one's failings

Jon

AKA John and Jono when he needs a new name to hide behind when he's
ripping a newbie.

*** I don't rip newbies. Just old assholes like yourself.

Remember this, Yaeger, you're the one who first assaulted me, when you
thought you had a gang behind you. You were a lot cockier then.

*** I've had better things to do lately. Sorry I haven't been giving you
the attention you crave.

Unsigned out of contempt

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
At the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public.

The amplifiers I sold to Jon were a pair of monoblocks using a Williamson
style driver, 5881 outputs, and Dynaco replica output transformers wired in
ultralinear configuration. The power supply consisted of a 1000V transformer
with tube rectification and a choke-input filter with large electrolytic fiter caps,
yielding about 425-450V B+ depending on the AC mains voltage. The input
stage tube was a 6DJ8 and the driver tube was a 6SN7.

Jon subsequently modified the amplifiers to use KT88 output tubes, as I
recall.

You can see pictures and a schematic he

http://picasaweb.google.com/hap1128/5881Amplifier

This was the second amplifier implementation on these chassis. The
original amplifiers used a through-hole output transformer, the bias supply
board was mounted on standoffs (still visible) in the vicinity of the power
switch and IEC socket, and where the bias supply is located now (lower
left corner in the photo) there was originally a dual solid-state bias and B-
supply regulator, the circuit of which I adapted from a schematic published
by Erno Borbely. The driver circuit was a direct-coupled cascade differential
type, which sounded great but which I abandoned due to troubles maintaining
DC balance.

As you can see from the schematic, there is absolutely nothing original --
but neither is it proprietary -- about the design. I described these amplifiers
at length and in detail on the newsgroup long before ever meeting Jon. The
layout and mechanical design, the construction techniques, and so on,
were of my own choosing.

I thought the amplifiers worked extremely well in spite of their unfashionable
plainness. I hope this clears up any confusion about the "provenance" of my
amplifiers.

-Henry

In article ,
"Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
At the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public.

The amplifiers I sold to Jon were a pair of monoblocks using a Williamson
style driver, 5881 outputs, and Dynaco replica output transformers wired in
ultralinear configuration.

Hi Henry,

It's good to see that you are still following the old newsgroup, even if
not contributing much, we all miss you here.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Thanks for the full description, Henry. The question is not whether
the circuit is propriety or whether you adapted it but whether it
started in a Gordon Rankin circuit. Or you might decide you'd rather
stay out of Yaeger's futile flame war.

I was saying just the other day that we miss you; even the flame wars
are of a much lower quality than when you were here. And Patrick is
always saying that there is not enough interesting discussion of
tubes.

Here, let's see if you're in a suitable frame of mind not to explode
on RAT within the week: Isn't Wolfie's monicker a bit presumptuous for
someone of your amateur standing on the piano?

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the
Borg. -- Robert Casey

On Sep 14, 6:55 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...
At the same time you lied about the provenance of an amplifier you had
bought from Pasternack. I pointed out that either Pasternack lied to
you or you knowingly lied about who designed that amplifier. Instead
of correcting your description, you abused me in public.

The amplifiers I sold to Jon were a pair of monoblocks using a Williamson
style driver, 5881 outputs, and Dynaco replica output transformers wired in
ultralinear configuration. The power supply consisted of a 1000V transformer
with tube rectification and a choke-input filter with large electrolytic fiter caps,
yielding about 425-450V B+ depending on the AC mains voltage. The input
stage tube was a 6DJ8 and the driver tube was a 6SN7.

Jon subsequently modified the amplifiers to use KT88 output tubes, as I
recall.

You can see pictures and a schematic he

http://picasaweb.google.com/hap1128/5881Amplifier

This was the second amplifier implementation on these chassis. The
original amplifiers used a through-hole output transformer, the bias supply
board was mounted on standoffs (still visible) in the vicinity of the power
switch and IEC socket, and where the bias supply is located now (lower
left corner in the photo) there was originally a dual solid-state bias and B-
supply regulator, the circuit of which I adapted from a schematic published
by Erno Borbely. The driver circuit was a direct-coupled cascade differential
type, which sounded great but which I abandoned due to troubles maintaining
DC balance.

As you can see from the schematic, there is absolutely nothing original --
but neither is it proprietary -- about the design. I described these amplifiers
at length and in detail on the newsgroup long before ever meeting Jon. The
layout and mechanical design, the construction techniques, and so on,
were of my own choosing.

I thought the amplifiers worked extremely well in spite of their unfashionable
plainness. I hope this clears up any confusion about the "provenance" of my
amplifiers.

-Henry

"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com...
Thanks for the full description, Henry. The question is not whether
the circuit is propriety or whether you adapted it but whether it
started in a Gordon Rankin circuit. Or you might decide you'd rather
stay out of Yaeger's futile flame war.

No, Andre, the amplifiers I sold to Jon were a push-pull design based
loosely on Williamson. The Rankin circuit you are thinking of is the
"Baby Ongaku", a SE 2A3 design that I also adapted, built, and later
sold (but not to Jon Yaeger). There is no relationship between the
amps I sold to Jon and Gordon Rankin's published work, save that
they all use vacuum tubes.

I've added pictures of the 2A3 amplifiers to the Picasa web album so
you can see the difference.

I've explained all of this to you several times in the past and am a bit
puzzled why you keep repeating this misinformation. This seems to
be a pattern for you.

Here, let's see if you're in a suitable frame of mind not to explode
on RAT within the week: Isn't Wolfie's monicker a bit presumptuous
for someone of your amateur standing on the piano?

What I lack in professionalism at the piano, Andre, I make up in
earnestness. Although you haven't heard me play... I might be better
than you expect. Perhaps you should learn an instrument -- you would
find it rewarding and therapeutic, if only you could bring yourself to put
in the effort.

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry


Talk about a life's work, Henry . . . .

;-)

On Sep 14, 8:17 am, Jon Yaeger wrote:
If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

-Henry

Talk about a life's work, Henry . . . .

;-)

Now we have one point cleared up, that the Gordon Rankin design was
the other amplifier, the one you didn't buy. I apologize for saying
the one you did buy was a Rankin design, Yaeger. Pasternack should
have explained sooner and better, preferably at the time when all this
started. What are you doing about clearing up the other points?

Andre Jute

On Sep 14, 8:13 am, "Wolfgang Amadeus" wolfgang@amadeus,com wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in oglegroups.com...
Thanks for the full description, Henry. The question is not whether
the circuit is propriety or whether you adapted it but whether it
started in a Gordon Rankin circuit. Or you might decide you'd rather
stay out of Yaeger's futile flame war.

No, Andre, the amplifiers I sold to Jon were a push-pull design based
loosely on Williamson. The Rankin circuit you are thinking of is the
"Baby Ongaku", a SE 2A3 design that I also adapted, built, and later
sold (but not to Jon Yaeger). There is no relationship between the
amps I sold to Jon and Gordon Rankin's published work, save that
they all use vacuum tubes.

I've added pictures of the 2A3 amplifiers to the Picasa web album so
you can see the difference.

I've explained all of this to you several times in the past and am a bit
puzzled why you keep repeating this misinformation. This seems to
be a pattern for you.

Must be because I focus on this sort of reproach and worry about it,
and then the good information is spoilt and lost.

Here, let's see if you're in a suitable frame of mind not to explode
on RAT within the week: Isn't Wolfie's monicker a bit presumptuous
for someone of your amateur standing on the piano?

What I lack in professionalism at the piano, Andre, I make up in
earnestness. Although you haven't heard me play... I might be better
than you expect.

Of course you might. But I know how well you play because you told us
the last time you dropped in. See, I do remember when you don't
clutter your posts with superfluous hits.

Perhaps you should learn an instrument -- you would
find it rewarding and therapeutic, if only you could bring yourself to put
in the effort.

I cycle instead. Pretty ladies cycle with me. I do my own bike
mechanicking.

If you can internalize that without heartburn, perhaps you should
give RAT a go. We'll all be very nice to you. Won't we, chaps?

Thanks, but I just stopped by to correct the misstatements you had
posted.

John will be disappointed.

-Henry

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...20CYCLING.html