"Keith G" wrote

But that what this group does - try anything to do with the enjoyment of
'hifi' per se and the sounds you get from it and it soon gets ****ed on by
a small group of smartarses* who think they have got the all the answers
'in the numbers' and who start braying 'you can't alter the laws of
physics' or somesuch with the effect that the 'enthusiasts' all got fed up
with hearing it** and buggered off a long time ago.


Oh please Keith!, do you really think that little bit of self-indulgent sour
grapes does you any favours?

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

But that what this group does - try anything to do with the enjoyment of
'hifi' per se and the sounds you get from it and it soon gets ****ed on
by
a small group of smartarses* who think they have got the all the answers
'in the numbers' and who start braying 'you can't alter the laws of
physics' or somesuch with the effect that the 'enthusiasts' all got fed
up
with hearing it** and buggered off a long time ago.


Oh please Keith!, do you really think that little bit of self-indulgent
sour
grapes does you any favours?


Who cares?

The thing is you weren't here to see it happen - a general 'recreational'
group for 'hifi' enthusiasts reduced to a pitful handful of 'ex-trade types'
who hadn't got the decency to **** off to the 'pro' and 'tech' groups but
spent endless hours *putting people right* in this group to the extent they
all eventually buggered off.

We lost at least two 'Davids' who I still hear from from time to time.

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote

But that what this group does - try anything to do with the enjoyment of
'hifi' per se and the sounds you get from it and it soon gets ****ed on
by
a small group of smartarses* who think they have got the all the answers
'in the numbers' and who start braying 'you can't alter the laws of
physics' or somesuch with the effect that the 'enthusiasts' all got fed
up
with hearing it** and buggered off a long time ago.


Oh please Keith!, do you really think that little bit of self-indulgent
sour
grapes does you any favours?

The thing is you weren't here to see it happen - a general 'recreational'
group for 'hifi' enthusiasts reduced to a pitful handful of 'ex-trade
types' who hadn't got the decency to **** off to the 'pro' and 'tech'
groups but spent endless hours *putting people right* in this group to the
extent they all eventually buggered off.

We lost at least two 'Davids' who I still hear from from time to time.

Goliath went too:-)

I can't recall any "ex-trade types". Audio manufacturers,
amp designers, amp builders and audio journalists tend
to avoid groups such as this one like the plague.

There were a number of very interesting people,
a Scotsman who had been a Royal Navy signals
officer (radio not flags:-) two chaps from the Beeb
whom I brought along, a local radio producer, a
couple of semi-pro musicians, an ex copper, and
several other very interesting people, who kept the
discussion brisk and very interesting.

There were a similar number of casual posters.

All of these got fed up with being told they were
totally wrong, by others whose only delight in
life seemed to be armchair critique.

In those days the language was a lot more
colourful than it is now, and several found
it offensive. This aspect improved
considerably when Stewart left, and Arny
found The Lord Jesus.

I helped several to get membership of closed
groups, where they are still active posters.
Others still keep in touch.

Recently, when Jim and I were discussing the
construction of woodwinds, I asked a chap
who had contacted me directly (a former
designer at Boosey and Hawkes fropm the
time when Buffet Crampon, makers of the
world's finest clarinets, oboes and bassoons
were part of the same concern) to join the
discussion and give us "the real lowdown"

He replied: "And be called witless and incompetent
by people who probably don't know which end
of a clarinet to blow into? No thanks!"

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:


Recently, when Jim and I were discussing the construction of woodwinds,
I asked a chap who had contacted me directly (a former designer at
Boosey and Hawkes fropm the time when Buffet Crampon, makers of the
world's finest clarinets, oboes and bassoons were part of the same
concern) to join the discussion and give us "the real lowdown"

He replied: "And be called witless and incompetent by people who
probably don't know which end of a clarinet to blow into? No thanks!"

Shame that you decided to tell him that I'd call him "witless and
incompetent". Particularly when it later became clear that you didn't
understand what I'd actually said. (And apparently still don't from what
you now write.) Or if you didn't tell him this, when was he reading the
group to form his own impression independent of what you told him?

I can quite understand that others may not even bother to try reading if
you misrepresent what is said.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:


Recently, when Jim and I were discussing the construction of woodwinds,
I asked a chap who had contacted me directly (a former designer at
Boosey and Hawkes fropm the time when Buffet Crampon, makers of the
world's finest clarinets, oboes and bassoons were part of the same
concern) to join the discussion and give us "the real lowdown"

He replied: "And be called witless and incompetent by people who
probably don't know which end of a clarinet to blow into? No thanks!"

Shame that you decided to tell him that I'd call him "witless and
incompetent".

That would indeed have been a shame, but is not
what happened. My words to this gentleman we
(quote) "It would be both interesting and informative
if you would agree to join the UKRA discussion,
and give us some facts about the design of conical vs
tubular musical instruments"

He read the discussion so far, and formed his own
conclusions before telling me his decision not to join it,
and the reason behind his decision, which I copied
word for word from his reply to me:

He said, "And be called witless and incompetent by
people who probably don't know which end of a
clarinet to blow into? No thanks!"

He has however been most kind in giving me a further
contact in France, an instrument maker whom I would
like to visit later in the Spring.

Iain

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


Shame that you decided to tell him that I'd call him "witless and
incompetent".

That would indeed have been a shame, but is not what happened. My words
to this gentleman we (quote) "It would be both interesting and
informative if you would agree to join the UKRA discussion, and give us
some facts about the design of conical vs tubular musical instruments"

He read the discussion so far, and formed his own conclusions before
telling me his decision not to join it, and the reason behind his
decision, which I copied word for word from his reply to me:

He said, "And be called witless and incompetent by people who probably
don't know which end of a clarinet to blow into? No thanks!"

Curious then that you didn't explain to him the misunderstanding you made
and help him to also understand since he seems to make the same one. I have
tried explaining this to you repeatedly. Do you still not understand the
distinction between the basic physics which applies generally and how the
design details alter the results in individual cases - all under the same
physics? I appreciate he may not personally be much into differential
equations or finite element modelling/analysis. But it seems odd if he has
never even known that these and similar physics methods are applicable.

BTW Where have I called anyone "witless and incompetent" wrt the physics of
woodwind instruments? If you/he think this, please post the full text of
the posting where I said this so I can track it down and examine it.

It does remain worrying that he also can have reached such an odd
conclusion duplicating your own but taking a wording from one topic into
another quite different. Out of context in both, just as you have been
doing. I wonder how much of the "discussion" he read to make the same error
as yourself. Perticularly when he uses a wording that comes from a quite
different discussion - which you also have repeatedly misunderstood or
misrepresented despite my explaining you are doing so.

It does all seem rather odd. Almost like something you might make up. Only
to have the same strange muddle show up in both. Indeed, given your
declared willingness to accept the existence of 'hidden evidence' wrt the
issue of clipping your statements do seem like more 'hidden evidence' which
no one else here can check.

TBH It does seem like some mix of him just reading a partial time-slice of
discussions without knowing the context and some effect of what you said to
him. But as hidden evidence no-one else can tell.

Strange,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html