Stereophile & Cable Theory

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:03:22 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>Oh, I'm scary.

Well...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

torresists@aol.com a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:32:04 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>>>><YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:3FxRe.4944$_84.2418@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
>>>>>>>>equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
>>>>>>>>manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
>>>>>>>>challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
>>>>>>>>to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
>>>>>>>>achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
>>>>>>>>performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
>>>>>>>>that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell
>>>>>>>>plenty?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with
>>>>>"performance".
>>>>>
>>>>>Sorry you know so little about cars.
>>>>
>>>>LOL I bet that *you* can make the difference between :
>>>>
>>>>Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm.
>>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes
>>>>
>>>>VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm
>>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes
>>>>
>>>>BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any
>>>>difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so...
>>>>
>>>>I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave.
>>>
>>>
>>>When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get
>>>back to me.
>>
>>Oh, oh Dave is vexed.
>>
>>
>
> Of course he is, the little back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth session
> he tried to start with Stewart just blew up in his face. I think he was
> not aware of the availability of the W12 engine in the Touareg.

I really like to peeve him using his prefered tactic. It's
very easy 'cause it's always the same.

The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
totaly inoffensive.



>>My point was about performance :
>>"That has more than a little to do with "performance".
>>
>>When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-)
>>
>>
>
> Be nice to dave, Lionel, he's very busy picking the egg off his face.
> :-D

Let me add one or two rotten tomatoes and we will have some
"oeufs brouillés". :-D

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:20:20 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>torresists@aol.com a écrit :
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:32:04 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
>>>>>><patent3@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:18:57 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
>>>>>>><YustabeSlim@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"nyob123@peoplepc.com" <NYOB123@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:3FxRe.4944$_84.2418@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>When people flat out lie about the perfomance improvements that a peice of
>>>>>>>>>equipment, it's my feeling that such information shoud be challenged. If
>>>>>>>>>manufacturers want to chare high prices for gear they ought to expect
>>>>>>>>>challenges. Aside from liking the way one peice of gear looks as opposed
>>>>>>>>>to another, why would anyone want tos spend more monye than needed to
>>>>>>>>>achieve the same performance. Do you think they'd sell more VW's of they
>>>>>>>>>performed exactly the way Porsche does? Do you tink if someone made a car
>>>>>>>>>that performed exactly the way a Porsce does that they'd likely sell
>>>>>>>>>plenty?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They do - the VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne are the *same* car.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Until you look at the motors. That has more than a little to do with
>>>>>>"performance".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry you know so little about cars.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL I bet that *you* can make the difference between :
>>>>>
>>>>>Porsche Cayenne : Cayenne Turbo 450 ch - 620 Nm.
>>>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,6 secondes
>>>>>
>>>>>VW Touareg W12 : 450 ch - 600 Nm
>>>>>0 to 100 km/H : 5,9 secondes
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW 99% of the drivers would not make any
>>>>>difference between the V10 TDI (313ch) and the W12, so...
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sorry *you* know so little about cars, Dave.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When you learn the meaning of the English word "exactly", please get
>>>>back to me.
>>>
>>>Oh, oh Dave is vexed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Of course he is, the little back-and-forth-and-back-and-forth session
>> he tried to start with Stewart just blew up in his face. I think he was
>> not aware of the availability of the W12 engine in the Touareg.

I was not..

The SAME goes with the diesel.

So, I guess I don't know as much about cars at the moment.

>I really like to peeve him using his prefered tactic. It's
>very easy 'cause it's always the same.

At least I don't have to drink that piss French beer.

>The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
>he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
>apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
>totaly inoffensive.

I agree that inoffensive is a pretty good word. Thanks. Now, why are
*you* so intentionally offensive? when you can answer that, then maybe
you'll get a little self-awareness going.

>>>My point was about performance :
>>>"That has more than a little to do with "performance".
>>>
>>>When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Be nice to dave, Lionel, he's very busy picking the egg off his face.
>> :-D

Hey, unlike you, Lionel, and Stewart, I don't mind admitting when I'm
wrong.

>Let me add one or two rotten tomatoes and we will have some
>"oeufs brouillés". :-D

Well, since I'm talking to the two rotten tomatoes, I'll add the egg.

BTW, I'm just curious about one thing - we know that you're mildly
interested in hi-fi. I have to wonder about our favorite bicycle
repairman, since I'm not sure that he's ever even talked about hi-fi.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:20:20 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>
>The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
>he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
>apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
>totaly inoffensive.

BTW, since Porsche has already beat the 450HP of the W12 with a 500 HP
version of the Cayenne Turbo, looks like it's all a moot point anyway.
Either Stewart didn't know about that, or he intentionally
"cherry-picked" his data to fit his argument. Eitehr way, I wonder how
forthcoming he's going to be...

And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
"non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Lionel wrote:
> dave weil a écrit :
> > On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:04:56 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Try to get your urges under control.
> >>>
> >>>Now, back to your hoppy swill.
> >>
> > Good, game set and match. ;-)
> >
> > Hard to believe that you concede.
> >
> > Well done!
>
> Seems that when I said that you are a presumptuous pathetic
> baggart it was a kind euphemism.
>
> )
>
>
How about "ignorant, immature, slow-witted clod"? Is that better? ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

paul packer a écrit :
> On 1 Sep 2005 08:06:35 -0700, George Middius
> <George_member@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>paul packer said to La Salope:
>>
>>
>>>>You are kindly credulous. I appreciate.
>>
>>>"Kindly credulous"? Interesting use of English.
>>
>>Lewis Carroll may have anticipated Lionella's assaults on the language. But at
>>the last minute, his editor persuaded him to call the beast Jabberwocky instead
>>of Gibberwocky.
>
>
> You do know of course that one of the underlying motives of the
> French/English wars was the spread of language. Both sides realized
> that ultimately language dictated influence, that if a colony or
> province spoke your language, its allegiance would almost certainly be
> to you. The French lost those wars, the evidence being that the
> dominant world language today is English, but that doesn't mean
> they've taken the loss in good part. Personally I believe that much of
> the current obstructionist activity of the French as a nation arises
> from their resentment that English is now either the first or second
> language of most of the world's youth--in other words, they're sore
> losers. However, they still have RAO in which to make a last stand. By
> posting in gibberish English, it's possible they hope to convince us
> that English is not after all a fit means of communication, the
> inference being that French might be better. Consequently I would
> urge all RAO posters and lurkers to resist this mean-spirited attempt
> at cultural sabotage and demand a full translation of any gibberish
> they encounter. This is simple first line defence of our most precious
> possession-our primary means of communication. English must survive,
> and RAO is where the battle starts.

English doesn't exist anymore, it already succumbs to its
fast internationalization...
This explains why Brits are marginalized in Europe now. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

NYOB says:
> I don't think you're capable of lying convincingly so I won't
> reciprocate. I think you truly believe in your "test".

Mr. NYOB says:
"As do most of the people and organization in the world who do any kind
of
work that involves human hearing. Cel phones, hearing aids, etc.."
Which audio components did "most of the people and organisation"
compare? Just a few names, quotes and results
I said 2 days ago:
In the future till you respond I'll just reprint what I said to you
on August 30th:
"But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
(his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
else in audio (that had a positive outcome) He was challenged twice for
a reference to a published
report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twice (only
to reemerge after a suitable interval. )
Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
"test" work? "
On Aug. 31 we had another exchange:
" How about cutting out the chit- chatting and "pointing out" some
references to the ABX helping to recognise differences between
anything and anything else in audio. If I "hair-split and deny", never
mind me- the world is waiting with bated breath. Your grateful readers
will be able to tell the grain from the jaw jaw chaff."
By today the clam up count is up to 4 (four)
Ludovic Mirabel.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

<elmir2m@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1125640046.228581.326400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> NYOB says: (Sept 1)
> "The biggest of which is your own lying self. You bring up
> an article tgat
> essentially provesthe case for wire being wire. Nothing more than
> random
> chance for equal diameter wire, as expected.
> I note that you do not mention any ABX "
>
> Temper... temper Mr. NYOB. You don't have to imitate our
> littler RAO Goebbelses. Why don't you check Greenhill's article for
> yourself rather than expect me to spoonfeed you?

You mean like you want me to do for you?
BTW that wasn't temper, just a statement of fact.

But I will this time-
> yes it was an ABX test.
> Dear NYOB. "Wire is wire". So be it.
> But the crux is not the object of the "test" but the test itself.

Only for those who want to deny reality.

> I don't think you're capable of lying convincingly so I won't
> reciprocate. I think you truly believe in your "test".

As do most of the people and organization in the world who do any kind of
work that involves human hearing. Cel phones, hearing aids, etc..

But when you
> tell me that *I'm* a believer I must point out that your semantics
> are out of whack. You preach a "test". I'm asking for your
> evidence. Call me a heretic, a disbeliever, a sceptic- your choice. But
> I'm not a believer. You are.

As are the people I just mentioned above. It's only a smal cadre of hard
core disbelievers that seem to reject what the rest of the scientific
community recognizes.


> But enough of word games. I'd rather not have this topic
> sidetracked into a pointless, unprovable argument about "Wire this,
> wire that". It is about the "test" that you say "proves' how
> right you are when you can not hear very much.
>

> Are the loudspeakers, cartridges, amps, preamps, cdplayers
> and Dacs same as the wires? Or have you finally found a test report
> (Journak, author(s_. vol., year, Nr,. Page) where most members of an
> ABX panel could tell one comparable component from another?
> Naturally I'd expect that you would apply your exacting
> statistical criteria (better than 83% hits?) to such a report and not
> gossip about "industry" or the BBC doing this or that. Judging by
> your fighting choice of "arguments" (see above) I'd hate feeling
> responsible for some unpleasantness befalling you from rising blood
> pressure while trying to devise new dodges so I'll make this one a
> final (5th?) invitation.
> In the future till you respond I'll just reprint what I
> said to you on August 30th:
> "But "naturally" he is unable to quote "one single bias controlled'
> (his cryptonim for ABX/DBT) comparison between anything and anything
> else in audio. He was challenged twice for a reference to a published
> report (Author(s), title , year, Nr.,page). of an ABX testing, where
> the majority recognised the difference.. And he clammed up twice (only
> to reemerge after a suitable interval.
> Mr. McKelvy where else outside the long-suffering usenet did your
> "test" work? "
> On Aug. 31 we had another exchange:
> "Mr McKelvy, do you realize how ridiculous you sound when YOU
> pompously
> "point (me) in the right direction?"

Do you realize how ridiculous you look when you bring up "evidence that
shows you to be less than honest?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

dave weil a écrit :

> At least I don't have to drink that piss French beer.

Are you also an exclusive diet-soda drinker ?

>>The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
>>he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
>>apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
>>totaly inoffensive.
>
>
> I agree that inoffensive is a pretty good word.

That's right you are an inoffensive dishonest braggart.

> Thanks. Now, why are
> *you* so intentionally offensive?


For fun only, Dave, for fun only. You are a dishonest
braggart and it's a lot of pleasure to counter you pitiful
verbal agressions (ie : your recent post to Pinkerton) and
to see you vexed.


> when you can answer that, then maybe
> you'll get a little self-awareness going.


This is already done, just above.


>>>>My point was about performance :
>>>>"That has more than a little to do with "performance".
>>>>
>>>>When you learn to read, please get back too me. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Be nice to dave, Lionel, he's very busy picking the egg off his face.
>>>:-D
>
>
> Hey, unlike you, Lionel, and Stewart,


I *always* admit that I am wrong. The fact is only that you
never geet me wrong. ;-)


> I don't mind admitting when I'm wrong.


"Errare humanum est, perseverare diabolicum"


>>Let me add one or two rotten tomatoes and we will have some
>>"oeufs brouillés". :-D
>
>
> Well, since I'm talking to the two rotten tomatoes, I'll add the egg.


That's right you are an egg.


> BTW, I'm just curious about one thing - we know that you're mildly
> interested in hi-fi.

You don't understand anything.
I am very interested in music so HiFi is very important for me.
I am not interested in the sterile discussions around
objectivism and subjectivism, etc...


> I have to wonder about our favorite bicycle
> repairman, since I'm not sure that he's ever even talked about hi-fi.

Your point ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:24:54 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>> Well, since I'm talking to the two rotten tomatoes, I'll add the egg.
>
>
>That's right you are an egg.

I'd rather be an egg than a rotten tomato.

I'm also glad to find out that you're nasty 'for fun".

Cool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

dave weil a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:20:20 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
>>he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
>>apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
>>totaly inoffensive.
>
>
> BTW, since Porsche has already beat the 450HP of the W12 with a 500 HP
> version of the Cayenne Turbo, looks like it's all a moot point anyway.
> Either Stewart didn't know about that, or he intentionally
> "cherry-picked" his data to fit his argument. Eitehr way, I wonder how
> forthcoming he's going to be...
>
> And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
> not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
> "non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
> Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
> that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
> past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
> found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
> after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
> the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.

;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:26:34 +0200, Lionel wrote:

> dave weil a écrit :
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:20:20 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
>>>he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
>>>apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
>>>totaly inoffensive.
>>
>>
>> BTW, since Porsche has already beat the 450HP of the W12 with a 500 HP
>> version of the Cayenne Turbo, looks like it's all a moot point anyway.
>> Either Stewart didn't know about that, or he intentionally
>> "cherry-picked" his data to fit his argument. Eitehr way, I wonder how
>> forthcoming he's going to be...
>>
>> And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
>> not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
>> "non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
>> Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
>> that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
>> past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
>> found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
>> after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
>> the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.
>
> ;-)

Look - these things are the same car. If you really want to prove they
aren't, you are going to have to find some serious functional difference,
The colour of the insides of the ash trays would be a good place to start.

Got anything?

d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:30:09 +0100, Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com>
wrote:

>>> And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
>>> not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
>>> "non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
>>> Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
>>> that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
>>> past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
>>> found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
>>> after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
>>> the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Look - these things are the same car. If you really want to prove they
>aren't, you are going to have to find some serious functional difference,
>The colour of the insides of the ash trays would be a good place to start.
>
>Got anything?

As I said, I'm having trouble finding a diesel version of the Cayenne.

Got anything?

And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
the same cars. Cool.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:51:35 -0500, dave weil wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:30:09 +0100, Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
>>>> not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
>>>> "non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
>>>> Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
>>>> that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
>>>> past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
>>>> found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
>>>> after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
>>>> the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>>Look - these things are the same car. If you really want to prove they
>>aren't, you are going to have to find some serious functional difference,
>>The colour of the insides of the ash trays would be a good place to start.
>>
>>Got anything?
>
> As I said, I'm having trouble finding a diesel version of the Cayenne.
>

So buy the Touareg instead - same car, and the diesel version. Problem?

> Got anything?
>
> And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
> the same cars. Cool.

Anybody know what he's talking about?

d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:54:25 +0100, Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:51:35 -0500, dave weil wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:30:09 +0100, Don Pearce <donald@pearce.uk.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
>>>>> not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
>>>>> "non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
>>>>> Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
>>>>> that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
>>>>> past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
>>>>> found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
>>>>> after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
>>>>> the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>Look - these things are the same car. If you really want to prove they
>>>aren't, you are going to have to find some serious functional difference,
>>>The colour of the insides of the ash trays would be a good place to start.
>>>
>>>Got anything?
>>
>> As I said, I'm having trouble finding a diesel version of the Cayenne.
>>
>
>So buy the Touareg instead - same car, and the diesel version. Problem?

If there's no diesel version, then there's no "same car" to talk
about.

>> Got anything?
>>
>> And a Volvo S-40 is a Mazda 3, or a Lincoln LS and a Jaguar S-type are
>> the same cars. Cool.
>
>Anybody know what he's talking about?

Apparently you don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

George Middius a écrit :

> I like your analysis.

LOL !

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

Don Pearce a écrit :
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:26:34 +0200, Lionel wrote:
>
>
>>dave weil a écrit :
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:20:20 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
>>>>he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
>>>>apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
>>>>totaly inoffensive.
>>>
>>>
>>>BTW, since Porsche has already beat the 450HP of the W12 with a 500 HP
>>>version of the Cayenne Turbo, looks like it's all a moot point anyway.
>>>Either Stewart didn't know about that, or he intentionally
>>>"cherry-picked" his data to fit his argument. Eitehr way, I wonder how
>>>forthcoming he's going to be...
>>>
>>>And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
>>>not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
>>>"non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
>>>Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
>>>that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
>>>past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
>>>found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
>>>after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
>>>the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.
>>
>>;-)
>
>
> Look - these things are the same car. If you really want to prove they
> aren't, you are going to have to find some serious functional difference,
> The colour of the insides of the ash trays would be a good place to start.
>
> Got anything?

The gas hose part number ?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:44:57 +0200, Lionel wrote:

> Don Pearce a écrit :
>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:26:34 +0200, Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>dave weil a écrit :
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 14:20:20 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The only "danger" or trap with Dave Weil is to believe that
>>>>>he is really interested in the discussion. Except this
>>>>>apparent sincerity, honesty that he mimes correctly, he is
>>>>>totaly inoffensive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>BTW, since Porsche has already beat the 450HP of the W12 with a 500 HP
>>>>version of the Cayenne Turbo, looks like it's all a moot point anyway.
>>>>Either Stewart didn't know about that, or he intentionally
>>>>"cherry-picked" his data to fit his argument. Eitehr way, I wonder how
>>>>forthcoming he's going to be...
>>>>
>>>>And I'm still looking for a picture of the Cayenne diesel, which I'm
>>>>not sure exists in reality (the previous posting of a photo about the
>>>>"non-existent Touareg diesel" was a joke in case you didn't get it).
>>>>Since I didn't know about the W12 version of the Touareg, I thought
>>>>that Porsche's denial of ever using the diesel in the Cayenne for the
>>>>past couple of years might have been superceded. But I STILL haven't
>>>>found anything credible to say that it's being offered. Of course,
>>>>after this week, it might be just what Porsche needs to goose sales in
>>>>the US - regular gas being over $3 a gallon at the moment.
>>>
>>>;-)
>>
>>
>> Look - these things are the same car. If you really want to prove they
>> aren't, you are going to have to find some serious functional difference,
>> The colour of the insides of the ash trays would be a good place to start.
>>
>> Got anything?
>
> The gas hose part number ?

That'll do for me - totally differnt, clearly.

d

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

dave weil a écrit :

> I'm also glad to find out that you're nasty 'for fun".
>
> Cool.

Dave you are really too slow and dense, in one word you are
lovely ridiculous.
I already tell you that at least 10 times and each time you
done the same stupid answer "I am glad...".

It's not my fault if you cannot avoid to act like a
grotesque and presumptuous braggart, it's too tempting to
nail you. I cannot resist.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.opinion (More info?)

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:58:38 +0200, Lionel <rf.eerf@siupahc.lenoil>
wrote:

>dave weil a écrit :
>
>> I'm also glad to find out that you're nasty 'for fun".
>>
>> Cool.
>
>Dave you are really too slow and dense, in one word you are
>lovely ridiculous.
>I already tell you that at least 10 times and each time you
>done the same stupid answer "I am glad...".

Sorry, the phrase was "I'm also glad"...

Once again, if you like to be nasty "for fun", that's your
prerogative.

>It's not my fault if you cannot avoid to act like a
>grotesque and presumptuous braggart, it's too tempting to
>nail you.

Does your wife know that you're bi?

> I cannot resist.

Try to get your urges under control.

Now, back to your hoppy swill.