Royster

I am looking for the exact same thing. I would split them with you. I would not ship any heritage speaker though. That being said a road trip would have to be in the mix. Roy

What brand of air conditioner do you use to keep your Klipsch speakers cool?

He said prior to shipping out that it would be a while before he would be back posting. Will use what little net time he gets for email to/from home. May GOD keep him safe.

Oh boy...... I can't wait to run out to deal with a 16 year old student give me audio advice.... No thanks...... I will stick to those that have served me over the years and ARE pros... Heritage, IMHO is what Klipsch is, at least for me.....

Michael, Look at my thread in 2 channel. The email was the same guy. Looks like I am not getting WO belles. dang! Roy

By the way did I mention "I was in fear for my life"

Did it take seven bullets???????????

Anyone have input for ositive lead (speaker wire) location. Feeling kind of techno challenged. can't seem to distingush between the 2. Thank for any help.

Win, The stories just keep getting better evry year. I wonder what law suit is next?

I have been happy with XM. I enjoy deep tracks, bone yard, 60's, 70's 80's and several others. including fox nes and disney for kids.

Oh buy the way did I mention " I was in fear for my life".

---------------- On 6/6/2005 8:07:13 PM dragonfyr wrote: "I was in fear of my life" END of story! That is the only statement one would need to make. ---------------- The quote of a law enforcement officer whowould rather lie then respond in a lawful and responsible manner! You sound like the wackos who justify the shoot first mentality and (erroneously) claim that all you have to do is to drag their shooting victim into your house to 'get off'! Yeah, so let's all get our fraudulent story straight! Do the words "commensurate force" mean anything to you? Obviously not! The law according to Barney Fife! ---------------- If anyone was to break and enter into my home, "I would fear for my life". That being said, yes I would shoot first and ask questions later. I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Not to mention "fear for my familys life" Nothing fraudulent about that. Or do you know more about that than anyone else?

---------------- On 6/6/2005 7:21:27 PM dragonfyr wrote: "Well, first off. Your analogy of a owner of a shepard attcking a intruder is off base. Shepard, Pit, poodle or house cat, I would say good job (side note to home owner; dial slow). As they are within there rights. As referenced as LE type, care to explain? Yes, I am in law enforcement and quite proud of it. "Hysteria", not me. I am about as level as they come. So before trying to dull out generic physico babble, know your subject." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- One tries to ignore such drivel, but at some point it simply becomes impossible! The same nonsense ad nauseum. Just one question for the one who claims to be so intimate with the law! So you would say "good job" to someone who would inflict deadly force (as that is what you maintain the pit bull to be!) on someone for simply breaking into a house when they do not present a lethal threat and 'it is not at last resort', "As they are within their rights."????? Really???? In what country? Since when do property rights take precedence over human rights? And since when is deadly force appropriate when the situation does not present a 'last resort' lethal threat? This is utter and complete nonsense! And not based on any legitimate interpretation of the law! For someone so intimate with the law and in a position to enforce it, it is exactly this utter disregard for the law as well as the prejudiced opinion based upon your feelings rather then an objective interpretation of situational fact that renders such an attitude irresponsible! Go back and review the law! As 'your opinion' is in violation of it! Property rights do not take precedence over human rights! As it should be! In matters of opinion, many options are possible, but in the interpretation of the law this is an utterly simple case based upon ample precedence that requires no thinking at all. Perhaps that is why the point has been missed! So I would agree with your suggestion above, before one dole's out psychobabble, learn the law! And before your prescribe what is 'within people's rights', knowledge of the law is indeed useful, and a little knowledge of the law is indeed a dangerous thing! And deadly force is not appropriate when there are any other available non-lethal commensurate options. ---------------- "I was in fear of my life" END of story! That is the only statement one would need to make. What is your qualifications to pontificate the merit and interpetation of law? You are one of the primary reasons that the thread a few weeks ago was locked. You guys can stroke each others egos as much as you like, but I see that you too have overloked the origional posters flavor of this thread. Try starting on of you own, you seem to have all the answers in your mind.

---------------- On 6/6/2005 6:56:21 PM Olorin wrote: Royster, Nowhere have I argued in favor of pitbulls -- what I have argued against is the idea that banning them helps. There's a difference. Grasp it. As for the living vicariously bit, you've got a real knack for the psychobabble for which you earlier expressed such a dislike. What gives? Is intellectual consistency and integrity something you haven't learned yet? I notice you hae as any posts in this thread as I have. Who are you to talk about living vicariously? It's clear that not only is your mind made up, you're not even interested in talking intelligently about it. You're more interested in calling people names, accusing them of being sheltered and closed minded, and insulting them for doing things that you yourself are engaged in doing. You're a real sweetheart, Officer Friendly. I suggest we agree to disagree and go our separate ways. ---------------- without chewing the same meal again, your other posts sure have a flavor of pro pit. Grasp that. Who are you to question my integrity? This yet another thread in reference to pits attacking someone completly unjustified! I rest my case in regards to "living vicariously" thru thier puters, as I would welcome you to make the same assumtion in person. But then again the net has a way making even the most cowardly brave. As far as your "officer friendly" remarks, completely uncalled for. You live in a sheltered little world protected from real life by guys like me. The first folks to cry fowl, the man is keeping us down, not my lttle fluffy ect but the first ones to cry out for help or justice. I too agree that we agree to disagree. As far a seperate directions, I see you over looked the part about starting a thread where support of the pit is the topic. Might want to try that.

---------------- On 6/6/2005 6:01:41 PM Olorin wrote: The analogy is right on target. A trained animal attacking a person at its owner's order is a trained animal attacking a person at its owner's request. Whether it is admirable or reprehensible is entirely a question of context. That was my point. LE type -- what needs explaining? That was your nomenclature, and I used it. I think you meant "dole out generic phycho babble." You know, like calling anyone who considers this a people problem a tree hugger. At any rate, "hysteria" had to do with media reports making it out that the pit bull is the great satan of canine being, and "lap it up" had to do with "go right on believing it." Nothing personal. Street gang days . . . red herring . . . so now you have bands of thugs with vicious dogs instead of individuals with vicious dogs . . . what's different about the dogs, again? Still a people problem. Punishment after people are attacked? Well yeah, that's how it works. You don't punish someone for running a red light until after they do it, even if they MIGHT kill somebody on the trip through the light. Not trying to drag you into a firearm argument, just using an analogy. Tell me Royster, if there are already laws on the books punishing people whose dogs hurt other people, how does banning the breed make it better? You take the dog away, euthanize it, they get another one, lather, rinse, and repeat. Or they get a legal dog and train it up to be a killer. Those german shepherds and malinois and akitas can be pretty dangerous, you know. What's changed when you get rid of the pits? It's still a matter of irresponsible people, and until we voters and those lawmakers and you LE types do something about the irresponsible people, nothing is going to change with regards to dogs biting people. That's all I'm getting at. This "ban the pitbull" stuff is just hysterical bull****. It won't do squat to solve the real problem. But hey, if it feels good to run around hollering that the sky is falling, knock yourself out. Just don't be so surprised when someone gets tired of hearing it and tells you to knock it off. Nothing personal. ---------------- Don't be suprised when folks get tired of hearing your sheltered close minded view of the subject and tells you to knock it off. Nothing personal. There are more supporters of a position of regulation regarding these dogs than not ( at least in this thread) I would move that you start a thread in support of this misunderstood breed. Or I suspect that you and others might enjoy living vicarously thru your puter? Nothing personal.

---------------- On 6/6/2005 5:13:37 PM Olorin wrote: If an owner gave the attack command to his german shepherd and the shepherd proceeded to take down the guy robbing his house, what would you say? "Good dog." The only difference is context. I guess I must be an ill-informed tree hugger type since I remember when the doberman was the evil breed, and I remember when the rottweiler was the evil breed, and now I see the pitbull is the evil breed. It called "hysteria," Royster. Notice how few doberman attacks there are in the news now that there are so many pitbull attacks? Yes, it's the story du jour. Lap it up. While tough to do while hugging the tree so tightly, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people are the problem. Yes, people. People who ignorantly or maliciously breed the dogs, people who ignorantly or maliciously raise the dogs, and people who ignorantly or maliciously train the dogs. Yes, pitbulls are inherently potentially dangerous. So are handguns. I'm sure that as an LE type you see a lot of handgun injuries too, but I've yet to see a post from you calling for their ban. Why is that? Oh yeah, becuase the problem isn't handguns, the problem is people -- people who ignorantly and maliciously use handguns. We as a society should not be calling for the ban or destruction of the animals. We should be calling for appropriate punishment for people whose negligent or malicious acts cause harm via their animals. All dogs are potentially dangerous -- they've got those teeth, you know. Anyone whose loose dog attacks another person ought to be treated by the law as though they'd fired a gun into the air and let the bullet land on someone. ---------------- Well, first off. Your analogy of a owner of a shepard attcking a intruder is off base. Shepard, Pit, poodle or house cat, I would say good job (side note to home owner; dial slow). As they are within there rights. As referenced as LE type, care to explain? Yes, I am in law enforcement and quite proud of it. "Hysteria", not me. I am about as level as they come. So before trying to dull out generic physico babble, know your subject. As far as "lap it up", while other breeds in the past have been "story du juor" those were all pre street gang days. And yes I will "lap it up" as that is what my job is. How much time do you have working the streets? I guess not to much. You want to call for punishment for the owners of these dogs. Guess what, the laws are already on the books. That doesn't change the fact that punishment can only happen after yet another person is attacked. A firearm does not have a life, it can not act own it's own, Unlike an animal. I will not let you drag me into a firearm argument. There is many laws that some may take issue with, but they are there for the betterment of society.

---------------- On 6/6/2005 5:03:06 PM ben. wrote: ---------------- On 6/6/2005 4:48:20 PM Royster wrote: Careful guys...... there a couple of illinformed tree hugging types that think they have the problem with pit bulls within thier grasp. ---------------- Care to name any names? I love how this subject keeps getting brought up. You guys need to take off the blinders a bit. What percentage of Pit Bulls ever display violent tendencies? Oh, you have no idea? Great argument you have there. ---------------- No..... I don't care to argue about it. I can tell that in 20 years of police work, I can only count 2 times that I have been to a call where another breed attacked a person ( both times the dog was provked). On the other hand, more times than I can recall pits were a problem. Gang bangers and the "pit" fighting with each other (real world = bystanders get hurt), I personaly have had to use my service weapon to dispatch a "pit" that was in ligimate threat to me (owner gave attack command).

sent a reply email back to seller. Let see what happens.

There was a pair of belles in Indy that was listed once, did not meet reserve, and was relisted. I bid $1,250.00 and the reserve was not met. The seller has contacted me with a offer to sell them for the $1,250.00 Anyone interested in a split as I only need one for a center?

Careful guys...... there a couple of illinformed tree hugging types that think they have the problem with pit bulls within thier grasp. Remember the thread a few weeks ago? Here we are again with yet another unprovoked attack. Contact your local, state and fed reps, voice your concern and outrage. That is the only way this scurge of a fighting machine will be delt with. I don't see the "coolness" of these dogs. There are some that say "ban them and another dog will take it's place". The poodle, yorkie, ect.... Dodger, I agree 100%, as a fellow LE person, we get to see the aftermath of reacting with fire power, before thinking.

I have 4500 watts of orion poer in my avalanche and it is good. I would say that ebay can produce some great sounding and big power ZAPCO products for a good price. Mcintosh, car audio is made by Clarion. Kind of a slap in the face to true mac owners.

---------------- On 5/27/2005 4:19:58 PM Marvel wrote: I've got some of the parts to make a box or two. How soon do you need one? Marvel ---------------- I don't need it next week. I would like to do fairly soon. I would be more than happy to compensate you for one. Just let me know if you want to do it. I am ready when ever. Thanks for the respond. Roy

I want to add a third speaker to my 2 channel set up. I am thinking a scalla with my khorns (would prefere a belle but out of luck there). I was wondering if anyone could point me to someone that could fab, or does already (doubtful but hoping)make a "mini box" or simm to the one PWK refers to in his "Dope From Hope" vol 14, no 4. What say ye??????? Roy

---------------- On 5/27/2005 2:29:36 PM damonrpayne wrote: I think if it wasn't planned when they created it, they should definately pay attention to these principles now. Partly because of this forum there are a lot of very gung-ho klipsch people. A lot of guys have even offered to let people audition Heritage in their homes, etc. ---------------- My door is always open for anyone to check out the set up. I am not aware of a heritage dealer within a 150 miles of me.

Thanks Craig. I am torn between making a 4th syatem with these and the VTL's or using one as a center with my khorns. Need to come up with a magic box (like the dope from hope design) or something. Roy