Parrot

Kelly, Well, I see you've edited your post yet again, to make it sound less defensive. What is that now, four changes to one post? All this after-the-fact changing of yours is bad form on your part, pal.

What's with all the editing of your posts after you post them? Every time I blink you've changed something. You can't even stick to one name, so I shouldn't be surprised. Here's what I see happening: You get testy whenever anyone disagrees with you. What you deem going downhill is whenever anyone disagrees with you. This observation should sound pretty familiar to you by now. I don't have anything against the Rega; I've never even heard it. Nor do I mind if you and many others love it. All I am telling people who ask is that they should try SACD. But you are choosing to get defensive, and belittling something great, which you have scarcely heard. Remember, no one is going to take your beloved Rega away from you. What I find mighty puzzling is that you claim to be able to hear the tiniest conceivable differences in things, really nutty tweaks if you will, and yet you can't hear the difference between SACD and CD. That is really odd.

We, the mediocre AKA pompous azz AKA mobile homeless: Doesn't sound to me like you've ever listened to SACD. I thought you championed having an open mind?

mdeneen, You are reading way too much into that statement by the President. Here it is again: "We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us." He is talking about a crucial period, which means the war on terrorism (which includes Iraq). "Part of that history" refers to what the terrorists (including Saddam) have done. "The rest will be written by us" means that we will respond to these threats and, to the best of our ability, render them incapable of destroying innocent life again. I think my reading makes a lot more sense than yours, and rowoo's, where you have the US writing the future of every nation in the world, controlling everyone's life in the world, et cetera et cetera. Can you honestly say that you think Bush plans to take over France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and so forth? Enslave their people? You saw religious interference when we destroyed the Taliban!!!!!

Rowoo, When you said to me "and your view is universal throughout our country." I am saying that that is preposterous, not only that some view I have would be universal throughout the country but that any view by anyone would be held by every single person throughout the US. As for the other part of your post, it is obvious that you are the pot calling the kettle black. Your reading of that remark is so bad that you think THE REST means that Bush wants to control every facet of every single person's life in the entire world? Come on, you've got to be kidding me.

Mdeneen, Muslims do not all think alike. Anyway, since I missed the President's remark, and I read and see quite a lot of news, I bet most Muslims missed it too. In the end, the words don't matter much. What matters is what happens in Iraq and the rest of the world after we destroy Saddam's regime. I think things will improve. Perhaps you prefer the path of Carter, who wanted all the world to love him. That didn't work too well in Iran, did it? It would be interesting to know how the world would be different now if Carter had not allowed Iran to "hold America hostage" for all that time. I look at that as the exact wrong posture to take. Weakness is not respected.

Rowooo, No one should claim that any view expressed by anyone is held by every American. I take the President's statement to mean that the war that terrorists started, we will finish, as the victors. He's talking about a particular moment in history, which I believe refers to terrorism against the US, and he's saying that the US is not simply going to be passive about it. And what the US does most certainly will be historic--probably everybody here, including Bush-haters, will agree on that. I don't see any statement by the President that the US is going to control every nation. Instead the US will work to spread freedom. Freedom does not include the freedom to crash hijacked airliners into our skyscrapers, however.

I can't wade through all these posts, sorry. I didn't hear the President's remark or read about it, but assuming he said it, I believe you are misinterpreting it. It does not mean we're going to invade Australia and tell them they can't use slang. It means that instead of having a dictator in Iraq who enforces his rule by threat of death, the Iraqis will have freedom. If you want to get into a semantics debate about whether giving someone freedom is enforcing your will on them, I'm not interested in playing. The President was eager to stay out of world affairs before 9/11. But that changed things. Now the US is going to be proactive. We have had enough status quo and stability. Now it's time for a big shake-up. EDIT: Thanks for the quote reference. I do find that has quite a different flavor to it, and I see nothing wrong with it in the slightest.

mdeneen says: "The president has declared that we will write the rest of history for all the worlds peoples." Please give us the source for this statement. I must have missed it.

Mace, If you go here http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/hirez/bbs.html and type Planet in the search box, you can read posts by different people who have compared it on CD playback to CDs played on various SACD machines. May not help you much because there are opinions both ways on which is better for CD playback. I've never heard a Planet so I can't offer my own take. However, I do know that a Planet cannot play an SACD. Why limit yourself to only CDs? Sure, you may have a lot of CDs and want something good to play them on, but SACDs are obviously so much better that you might as well buy them in the future when titles show up that you want. It's not like SACDs cost a lot--sometimes they are even $1 cheaper. There are many incredible classical SACDs out right now. Rock, less so, but definitely lots of titles on the way in the near future (just waiting to be stamped out and shipped). You yourself know the 222ES sounds "pretty darn good" on CD playback.

By the way, Andy, I didn't mean you, but the other Andy.

Kelly, Congrats on your new name. I hope you're going to give Andy a royalty each time you post.

wm, $189 for that receiver, in the ad you found, is WAY too much. You can get one on eBay as low as $30. You could easily get 3 or 4 of these receivers for $189.

Dean didn't say $250 with shipping for a pair, he said $250 LESS, meaning $250 less than $699, meaning $450. You can sometimes find bargains, like in anything, but $450, for a decent pair, wouldn't normally include shipping too.

Hang in there, HDBR. One day you will master the skill of close reading, appreciate the display of subtle wit, and be able to distinguish the sonic signature of a display light on a CD player. Then you will be ready for mobile's posts, which surely only the most learned of the learned can fully grasp. Remember, on this forum it's mobile's way or the highway.

HDBR, What was the price again?

Clipped, The music sounded better to you because you had just been to the Bahamas.

FedEx Ground has worked out great for me, although I've used it maybe only a dozen times. The carriers are independent from the real FedEx, so it may be a matter of geographical area--some areas of the country might use better carriers. One thing that's really nice about FedEx ground is that depending on the distance, it can be only half the cost of UPS or USPS. The most important thing is to use very strong boxes, and double box your stuff. A lot of people send heavy stuff in fairly thin boxes, and that's just asking for problems. You can't safely send a 30 lb amp in a box that was made to ship something that weighed 10 pounds. And a lot of people use the same shipping box over and over and over, until after it's lost most of its structural integrity. All carriers have problems sometime or another, I don't care if it's UPS, USPS, FedEx, Airborne, or independent guys. All you can do is pack it securely as practical and then hope. But 3 bad transactions with FedEx Ground; I don't know mobile, this might be bad karma.

If you happen to own this home, would it be possible for you to repair the wall? If it slopes inches over a three or four feet length, that wall needs some help.

Thanks, Cut-Throat! My son just happened to buy some epoxy today, so I'll stick this sucker back on soon.

mdeneen, You are confusing the developing of a nuclear bomb from scratch, from Einstein's ideas to actual realization--you are confusing this with copying someone else's plan. This is easier than reverse engineering, even. Anyway, no one figures Saddam is going to fly a plane to the US and drop a nuclear bomb on New York or Washington. The concern is that he and fellow terrorists will detonate a dirty bomb, and render the area around detonation uninhabitable for a long time and cause many deaths from radiation and cancer.

mobile, I don't need any help reading, thanks anyway. If you can recall back to page one, I even gave you a chance to explain away your Stalin comparison, just in case you had screwed up big time, and you chose not to, instead choosing to try to make a little joke. The gist of the joke, for the benefit of forum readers who don't want to bother to go back to read it, is that your post was so far above me that I would hurt myself if I strained to understand it. You seem to think that lightly touching on a subject and being obscure will make us think you're smart. But there is a big difference between seeming intelligent and being intelligent. I doubt if you've ever read a history book other than, perhaps, one assigned to you in school. You've certainly never read anything about Stalin.

mobile, Let's see, you're the guy who compares Bush to Stalin on page one of this thread. Thank goodness you disagree with 99% of the points made here. You may not be doing Tom any favors by praising his post. Maybe historian Tom could recommend a book for you to read about Stalin so you don't make insane comparisons in the future. mdeneen, The President (not to be confused with the *ex* Presidents Carter and Clinton, who still want to be President) would have been pleased to have captured Bin Laden. But for you to act like his capture was the primary mission of liberating Afghanistan is either disingenuous or a sad misunderstanding of the situation. You are simply parroting the Democratic party line--which is fine if you want to exercise your freedom to state someone else's political views while accusing others of not having original thoughts. The problem is bigger than Bin Laden. He is one man, who may already be dead under tons of Afghanistan crushed mountain rock as it is. It is naive of you to think that terrorism would disappear with Bin Laden's certain death or capture.

I remember when Bush was in the debates with Gore. Bush advocated that the US take a step or two back from trying to police the world, particularly in the Middle East, and let the nations in question settle their own problems and govern themselves. He took quite a bit of heat for these statements. Anyway, September 11 changed all this. We are now at war, a different kind of war, and individuals need to adjust to new realities.

Excellent job! Say, how does one put a Klipsch nameplate back on once it has fallen off?