"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Laurence Payne" wrote in message


On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:35:33 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:

Many are people who used to post here,
but got fed up with the Pinky/Arny double act the first
time round.

Oh, has Arny been here before?

Arny has been here *that* long, and never went away since then.

Iain is a relative newbie compared to Pinkie and I.

Google suggested Iain first posted here in late 2007. Laurence only a
little more senior has been posting here since 2006.

How long before he gets
bored and goes off to irritate someone else?

It is true that watching hopeless wannbees stoke their egos gets old
pretty fast.

I first popped in several years ago, but left because the
group was dominated by some potty-mouthed Australian
jerk. Recently it's become more interesting, but now
we're infected with Arny. Wonder why this group attracts
them?

This group has benefitted from my contributions since no later than 2001.
;-)


More irrelevant OT from someone who thinks that because we were their best
*customers* in WW2, he's got some form of handed-down *baronial rights* in a
UK newsgroup...??

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message



Now it's Vinyl Grinder and Pooch....

Grinding vinyl, interesting choice of words. IOW would that be flogging
it needlessly as you seem to affect Kitty?



Care to run that by me again - in English?

"Bob Latham" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:

A little thing that seems to take more explaining in some groups than
others: Free speech.

Free speech in the UK? You have to be a foreigner to get that. The
indigenous aren't allowed to think politically incorrect let alone say it.



**Bingo**

"Bob Latham" wrote in message

In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:

A little thing that seems to take more explaining in
some groups than others: Free speech.

Free speech in the UK? You have to be a foreigner to get
that. The indigenous aren't allowed to think politically
incorrect let alone say it.

My regrets.

"Keith G" wrote in message


One thing a lot of us Brits have started to notice
(finally) is that for 'Free Speech' you first need the
Free Healthcare, Free Housing and Free Income mentioned
above. And then you drag your forign **** over here in
the knowledge the saps in low to medium places will
legislate on your behalf to ensure we get it in our faces
on a daily basis whether we like it or not....

I would say that the prevailing belief in the US is that with Free
Healthcare, Free Housing and Free Income, free speech becomes far more
difficult. The basic problem is subverting the meaning of the word "free"
from meaning totally the individual's responsibility to meaning totally the
state's responsibility.

Whoever pays the piper calls the dance.

"Keith G" wrote in message


More irrelevant OT from someone who thinks that because
we were their best *customers* in WW2, he's got some form
of handed-down *baronial rights* in a UK newsgroup...??

You're making that up for sure. I'm just exercising the rights of a free
man. One does not have to be a baron to be free.

David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote
David Looser wrote:

You are in no position to talk about "posting style", yours is
bombastic.


Better than pussy footing around, IMO.

Is it? that's a matter of opinion.


IMO, yes.


And you very definitely *do* post "bull****" (which I don't)


I'm very surprised - almost taken aback - that you don't think that you
spout bull**** whereas you think I do.

LOL! Is not bull**** in the eye of the reader? You think *I* write
"bull****" because I don't write to massage your massive ego.


No, bull**** is not in the eye of the reader.


Oh, and you
appear to be unable to snip posts.

I am able to. Honest.

So why don't you then? too precious to do so are you?


I do sometimes. And I'm hardly the only person in this thread that doesn't
snip.


Ok. Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB, anyway.

If you had remembered correctly you would have remembered that I don't
listen to DAB. I get excellent FM reception and I'm more than happy to
stick with that.


So why do I recall you as someone trying to argue against me considering
that I only tend to post on this NG on DAB-related threads?


What actually *do* you remember? Not much as far as I can see.


Mainly that you took me to task from a DAB supporting perspective.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote
David Looser wrote:

You are in no position to talk about "posting style", yours is
bombastic.


Better than pussy footing around, IMO.

Is it? that's a matter of opinion.


IMO, yes.

And IMO it depends on just how you define the terms.



No, bull**** is not in the eye of the reader.

LOL! of *course* it is! I write sense, you write bull****, isn't that what
everyone thinks?


Oh, and you
appear to be unable to snip posts.

I am able to. Honest.

So why don't you then? too precious to do so are you?

I do sometimes.

Can't say I'd noticed

And I'm hardly the only person in this thread that doesn't snip.

That's no excuse. You are simply too bone idle to snip. It shows how little
interest you have in presenting your case well. You want us to simply take
what you say on trust because *you* say it.


Ok. Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB, anyway.


What actually *do* you remember? Not much as far as I can see.


Mainly that you took me to task from a DAB supporting perspective.


In other words all you remember is an impression. I've never "supported"
DAB, and if you can't remember that it says little for your ability to
remember. FYI what I did do was to criticise your obsessive approach to the
issue, but I guess you can't tell the difference as you have personalised
the whole issue. You are Mr "DAB sucks", so you take criticism of your
obsessive style as support for DAB, and visa-versa.

David.

David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote

The futility of you trying to take me to task on this subject amuses me.


Do you really think that posting comments like that is any way to get
people to engage in meaningful discussion with you?


Enlighten me as to what information you could possibly add to a meaningful
discussion about the efficiency of DAB, DAB+ and DVB-T2?


I didn't "take you to
task", I asked questions about your statements.


Where you say you were asking questions, in reality you were blatantly
trying to pick holes in what I said. Here's an example:

"Me . For example, the latest digital mobile broadcasting systems are 10
times
as efficient as DAB.

You: What is that supposed to mean? What sort of "efficiency" are you
talking
about? Spectral efficiency?, capital cost efficiency?, power efficiency?,
what?

Come to that what do you mean by "mobile broadcasting systems"?"


I'll read the web page
that you gave the link to, but it would carry a lot more weight if it had
been independent, rather than simply a restatement of your own opinions.


I provided the link to that web page because it contains a description of
how I calculated the efficiency values that I referred to earlier in the
thread, and the calculations are based on theory. From memory I only made
one assumption, and IMO that assumption is perfectly reasonable based on the
theory. That's the only place where an opinion was possible, because the
rest is just knowing the facts and the theory and plugging the numbers in.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies

David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
David Looser wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote
David Looser wrote:

You are in no position to talk about "posting style", yours is
bombastic.


Better than pussy footing around, IMO.

Is it? that's a matter of opinion.


IMO, yes.

And IMO it depends on just how you define the terms.



No, bull**** is not in the eye of the reader.

LOL! of *course* it is! I write sense, you write bull****, isn't that what
everyone thinks?


Definittely not.


Oh, and you
appear to be unable to snip posts.

I am able to. Honest.

So why don't you then? too precious to do so are you?

I do sometimes.

Can't say I'd noticed

And I'm hardly the only person in this thread that doesn't snip.

That's no excuse. You are simply too bone idle to snip. It shows how
little interest you have in presenting your case well. You want us to
simply take what you say on trust because *you* say it.


The reason I don't snip tends to be because I'm busy but I've decided to
write a quick reply to a post.


Ok. Enjoy the low audio quality on DAB, anyway.


What actually *do* you remember? Not much as far as I can see.


Mainly that you took me to task from a DAB supporting perspective.


In other words all you remember is an impression. I've never "supported"
DAB, and if you can't remember that it says little for your ability to
remember. FYI what I did do was to criticise your obsessive approach to
the issue, but I guess you can't tell the difference as you have
personalised the whole issue. You are Mr "DAB sucks", so you take
criticism of your obsessive style as support for DAB, and visa-versa.


Yeah. Whadever. Loser.


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - digital radio news & info

The BBC's "justification" of digital radio switchover is based on lies