In Reply to: Three posts to reply? posted by Jon Risch on November 2, 2004 at 18:30:54:
at AR???And here, a three parter explaining to us what a naysayer is?
And a huge two parter here explaining how skin effect compromises the audio signals???
Some of us have work to do...I waffled as to whether or not to address all your bullshit..but decided that no matter what point I stopped at, you'd come back with some garbage about not addressing them because they are valid..Hence, the rest...when I had the time. Not all at the same time, which is what you now claim others should do...unlike you.
JR: "" am sure that you felt the need to respond three times, just to make sure your spin was seen enough. Getting desperate, aren't we?""
SOOO, now, you are stupidly claiming that multiple posts are a sign of desperation...you are such a clown...
JR: ""As for one of the few relevant issues you kinda sorta address, my original statement was:
" (This was all over at AR) "You shortened it to:
"all over AR"Of course the WRONG WORDS seem much more like you want to spin it, but now it becomes clear that you are doing exactly what I said you do:""
Hmmm...aren't the words in the public domain, Jon??? go review them.Note: yes, editing at AH is easy, but copies of the text which others use to respond to are not edited as a result..anything you origionally posted, that another replied to, will remain unchanged.
JR: ""Finally, you still have not provided any evidence for your claims that skin effect does not cause time smear. Nothing.
Refering to mentioning a whole book in some obscure post ages ago, is NOT a reference or citation that is specific to the subject matter at hand, and can hardly be considered relevant or worthy as backup for what you claimed. The mention of the Hawksford paper is a red herring, and has nothing to do with failing to backup your specific claim.
This clearly shows your hypocrisy.""
From your layman's understanding of the topic, you will clearly not benefit from the correct analysis..so far, you ignore it all. In fact, for all the garbage of yours I have provided sound analysis of, showing the bogus nature of your claims, you have ignored, much like a long neck bird with his head in the sand..I think the MOST telling thing would be this:
Have Hawksford publish in either IEEE or AES, the entire uncut, unedited 1985 essex echo article on skin effect, so that his peers can see the level of that article, the non reproducible results, the errors of assumptions, and worst of all, the run on claims of effects that occur at the end of the article..
JR: ""Now, why don't you post three more bogus replies in desperation.""
Why? at least in the post I am replying to, you did not use as many sentences to convey to us your lack of understanding, your lack of humility, your inability to accept or acknowledge your errors, and your lack of character in trying to deflect blame for your excesses in vile postings against others to fit your own agenda..By the way, do you actually read the posts, or have you reduced yourself to using your fingers to count the number of responses?
So, please dispense with the clowning...you don't look good with that red ball thingy on your nose..
Your incoherent responses are not pretty, Jon..I think you really need to back up, count to a hundred, and figure out what it is you want the world to see of you..
Cheers, John.
PS...I will not be mischaracterized by some wannabe pseudo-engineer who's only desire is to be thought of as the high end guru.
Clean up your act, and you will be treated with respect...change nothing, and I will rspond in kind..
toodles, ttfn.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Hmmm..aren't you the one to post SEVEN consecutive - jneutron 06:01:28 11/03/04 (18)
- aha.. - jneutron 08:53:06 11/03/04 (17)
- Re: aha.. - Jon Risch 19:54:20 11/03/04 (16)
- Re: aha.. - jneutron 07:03:03 11/04/04 (15)
- figures...talk about the equations, and poof...gone - jneutron 06:52:17 11/05/04 (14)
- Still (nt) - Jon Risch 10:04:31 11/06/04 (2)
- Re: Still (nt) - john curl 11:56:58 11/06/04 (1)
- Ask a question...poof, an answer. - jneutron 07:48:00 11/08/04 (0)
- Re: figures...talk about the equations, and poof...gone - john curl 10:04:33 11/05/04 (10)
- Re: figures...talk about the equations, and poof...gone - jneutron 12:21:50 11/05/04 (9)
- Spin, spin, spin - Jon Risch 19:44:38 11/07/04 (3)
- Why didn't you address the theory, Jon??? - jneutron 07:15:58 11/08/04 (2)
- Still dodging providing YOUR evidence for YOUR claim! - Jon Risch 10:36:44 11/08/04 (1)
- um, Jon?? answer the question Jon...the proof is in the answer. - jneutron 11:20:05 11/08/04 (0)
- here's the lidar info. - jneutron 12:55:22 11/05/04 (4)
- Re: here's the lidar info. - john curl 16:14:53 11/05/04 (3)
- Re: here's the lidar info. - jneutron 06:41:56 11/08/04 (2)
- Re: here's the lidar info. - john curl 10:07:25 11/08/04 (1)
- Re: here's the lidar info. - jneutron 10:28:27 11/08/04 (0)