Dear Dertonarm, My argument was not against the arm but against the designer arguments (phenomenal hearing capabiltys) BTW I am not used to argue
against lifeless objects.If I understand you well you or
your tractor can fix the problem(s). But more interesting, I assume, is the article by Keith Howard in Stereophile (March,2010) about the 'arc angels'. From him I also borrowed 'my' point about the O points . According to him the 'accurate cart. alignment is very difficult to achive, not least beacause the overhang and offset have to be set within extremly tight tolerances...' He also mentioned the 'whole hystory' from Percy Wilson till Stevenson. I was suprised to learn about the diffrence between the tracking error and the tracing error but more in particular that what Dennes calls Lofgren B 'just doesent't make sence to me'. Alas the whole technical story is to complex for a lawyer.
Which brings me btw to Thuchan.
Dear Thuchan , the reduction of complexity in casu is for
me a two O points protractor with O points in the right place. No need for me to comprehend all the technicalitys.
Like a average car driver who knows that there is something
called 'motor' in his car. So 'die praktische Vernunft'(the practical reason) is something differnt from
'die reinen Vernunft' ( Kant's 'pure reason'). Anyway the fact that you are still optimistic person despite your extended experiance deserves admiration.
Regards,
Regards,
against lifeless objects.If I understand you well you or
your tractor can fix the problem(s). But more interesting, I assume, is the article by Keith Howard in Stereophile (March,2010) about the 'arc angels'. From him I also borrowed 'my' point about the O points . According to him the 'accurate cart. alignment is very difficult to achive, not least beacause the overhang and offset have to be set within extremly tight tolerances...' He also mentioned the 'whole hystory' from Percy Wilson till Stevenson. I was suprised to learn about the diffrence between the tracking error and the tracing error but more in particular that what Dennes calls Lofgren B 'just doesent't make sence to me'. Alas the whole technical story is to complex for a lawyer.
Which brings me btw to Thuchan.
Dear Thuchan , the reduction of complexity in casu is for
me a two O points protractor with O points in the right place. No need for me to comprehend all the technicalitys.
Like a average car driver who knows that there is something
called 'motor' in his car. So 'die praktische Vernunft'(the practical reason) is something differnt from
'die reinen Vernunft' ( Kant's 'pure reason'). Anyway the fact that you are still optimistic person despite your extended experiance deserves admiration.
Regards,
Regards,