Is Direct Drive Really Better?

I've reread my last post repeatedly in search of the comment that triggered the Immodium and bloody shorts remarks.I guess I'm going to need an explanation.
Immodium is for the control of diarrhea not for relief of constipation.I looked it up.
As for blood in my shorts -- is that a gender driven slight? If so, you are addressing the wrong gender.
And if you want to find a direct drive turntable that can beat a medium priced belt drive, I can help you with that and it appears that Psychicanimal can as well.
What is it about this thread that is causing you boys to giggle and smirk? Where are the observations about the relative merits of DD versus belt? How about establishing some of the trade offs between the two. Someone earlier stated that there are definite trade offs. What are they?
Have your fun, if you must but I'm looking for more than jokes. I already know how clever some of you can be and I enjoy the repartee but must it be either or? Aren't you deft enough to intermingle the humor with useful contributions. 4yanx does this well and Viridian typically splays adroitly.
No one has seen fit to comment on my suspended tables theory. Doesn't it seem in retrospect that the entire consumer market has been swayed by a little postulation and a lot of press on more than one occassion? Do you think that Harry Pearson has done more harm than good?

I posted in haste before and did not get my point across. I love the joking as much as anyone and don't mean to sound like a curmudgeon.

"I'm going to conclude from this meager participation that direct drive is a better performer than belt and few people are aware of the fact."

This seems more like a statement of what had already been accepted by Macrojack as fact. Since he is so quick to come to this conclusion I'm getting a sense that the point of starting this thread is something of fishing expedition, otherwise known as trolling. I'll stick with my original thoughts. That is, there trade-offs with all 'table designs. None is inherently better than the others, but the proof is in the implementation. There are good and bad examples of DD, idler, belt-drive, suspended, non-suspended, etc., and to dismiss all others for the sake of a chosen "golden" theory is short sighted, IMO. Kind of like the debate about whether or not digital is worth doing.

yes...if you're grandmaster flash.

I understand fully well that any approach can be mishandled or compromised by price point considerations, sheer ineptitude or misdirection. Let those units go. They are not intended to influence this discussion.
Taking the best efforts in each of the various turntable drive options into consideration, do you believe any drive system to have an inherent design superiority. Is belt slack and take-up an insurmountable obstacle? Is there magnetic influence on the cartridge from the motor as your arm nears the center of the record on direct drive tables? Wouldn't it be better to rely on constant drive of the platter rather than requiring momentum for speed stability? How the heck can an idler wheel not transfer rumble? Is chain drive really dead? Can analysis be worthwhile........?

"constant drive of the platter "

The platter is still driven by a motor, and that motor is still subject to noise or vibration. One could argue that a belt filters motor noise.

Why would a lighter platter directly driven by a higher torque motor produce a more constant rotation with less noise than a massive platter driven with high inertia by a low torque motor ?

To me it is not obvious that direct drive has any advantage over belt drive.