On 5/9/2022 11:23 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:56:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/9/2022 8:35 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:49:58 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:23:40 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:23:32 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2022 4:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> Some people think he's just fine:
>>>>>>>>> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which brings a question. Who are these people and what's wrong with them?
>>>>>>>> Personally, when a president inherits a hell of a mess from his
>>>>>>>> predecessor I cut him some slack, whether a Democrat or a Republican.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> George H.W. Bush inherited a huge mess from Ronald Reagan and did the
>>>>>>>> best he could to clean it up. Part of that clean-up was a tax increase
>>>>>>>> that cost him his re-election attempt.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Barack Obama inherited a huge mess from George W. Bush and did a pretty
>>>>>>>> good job of undoing the damage that W. inflicted on the country.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mess Biden inherited from Trump was order of magnitudes worse than
>>>>>>>> what George H.W. Bush or Obama inherited from their predecessors. The
>>>>>>>> thoughtless tariffs that fueled inflation, the total bungling of the
>>>>>>>> Covid response. The foreign policy blunders of Trump, especially as
>>>>>>>> relate to Ukraine. The increased deficits caused by huge tax cuts for
>>>>>>>> the wealthy and for corporations, It's only been a little more than a
>>>>>>>> year in office for Biden. Undoing the Trump damage is going to take many
>>>>>>>> years of work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
>>>>> Why are you speaking about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
>>>>>
>>>>> To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it pornography?
>>>>> Does it actually show sex?
>>>>> Is it otherwise useless?
>>>>>
>>>>> To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>> This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
>>>> Tom, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of Miller vs California. For starters,
>>>> - you conflate "pornography" with "prurient interest". In Ripplinger v. Collins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (post Miller v California) found "It is apparent that neither the Supreme Court nor the legislatures intended that tasteful pornography be suppressed while distasteful pornography remains unregulated."
>>>> - depictions of sexual acts in and of themselves is not qualifying
>>>> - 'Useless' is not a qualifying term. The material must be viewed as being without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In fact, a qualification of "useless" could negate the prurient interest qualification of the first demand.
>>>>
>>>> Of course you would jump in with your pseudo-intellectual interpretation based on your 5 minute on-line search of the Miller test in which you are factually and demonstrably wrong (as is predominantly the case with any attempt of yours to allude to authority).
>>>>
>>>> Andre has not published anything with any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It was a joke, son. Now step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
>>>
>>> Since the Miller Act was rather famous since it was the first real challenge to the First Amendment, I suggest you ACTUALLY disprove my statement simply by any challenge whatsoever in court against the comments or writing of Andre. Take your fucking garbage disapproval of him elsewhere where other stupid people might agree with you.
>>>
>> 'Miller' was a court decision not an Act of legislation.
>>
>> John Adams & Congress assaulted the 1st Amendment in 1798,
>> 175 years before Miller and more disastrously I might add:
>>
>> https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
>>
>> https://vtdigger.org/2022/03/06/then-again-vermont-congressman-targeted-for-sedition/
>>
>> Special mention for Woodrow Wilson who jailed Presidential
>> candidate Eugene Debs in 1917 under his new Espionage Act:
>>
>> https://vtdigger.org/2022/03/06/then-again-vermont-congressman-targeted-for-sedition/
>>
>> Lyon was a jerk nd Debs was a communist but our 1st
>> Amendment doesn't have any meaning if the current
>> administration can pick and choose its coverage.
>
> There is NO Doubt that ruling parties can and will assault the First Amendment just as it is presently doing with full cooperation of the Slime Stream Media and treasonous moguls. But you will note that the Miller case; unlike previous unlike previous cases set clear and reasonable limits to the right to free speech in a court of law and not issuing from the mouths of idiots on the left.(or the right for that matter). These limitations are easy to understand despite the apparent blindness of jfc who is simply attempting to use a case incorrectly because he doesn't like Andre. If Flunky, Russell or Jeffie said things to my face that they feel free to write into this group, I would make them wish that they were dead. So if the law is unwilling to set reasonable limits it become the rule of the strongest. And despite my age and infirmities I am perfectly willing to show any one of these three who the strongest is. If a uniformed cop feels so threatened merely by my looking at him as
if he were crazy that he feels compelled not only to draw his gun but to cock it and point it at my head I can only imagine that Jeffie would have heart failure.
>
> And in the first place, the Constitution was written not to protect you from me, but to protect you and me from the government. Something that seems to have escaped the Democrats entirely.
>

Woodrow Wilson and Congress 'set clear limits' too.
And they were equally wrong in so doing.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:35:42 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:49:58 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:23:40 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:23:32 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/5/2022 4:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > Some people think he's just fine:
> > > > > > > https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which brings a question. Who are these people and what's wrong with them?
> > > > > > Personally, when a president inherits a hell of a mess from his
> > > > > > predecessor I cut him some slack, whether a Democrat or a Republican.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > George H.W. Bush inherited a huge mess from Ronald Reagan and did the
> > > > > > best he could to clean it up. Part of that clean-up was a tax increase
> > > > > > that cost him his re-election attempt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Barack Obama inherited a huge mess from George W. Bush and did a pretty
> > > > > > good job of undoing the damage that W. inflicted on the country..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mess Biden inherited from Trump was order of magnitudes worse than
> > > > > > what George H.W. Bush or Obama inherited from their predecessors. The
> > > > > > thoughtless tariffs that fueled inflation, the total bungling of the
> > > > > > Covid response. The foreign policy blunders of Trump, especially as
> > > > > > relate to Ukraine. The increased deficits caused by huge tax cuts for
> > > > > > the wealthy and for corporations, It's only been a little more than a
> > > > > > year in office for Biden. Undoing the Trump damage is going to take many
> > > > > > years of work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
> > > > > >
> > > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
> > > Why are you speaking about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
> > >
> > > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
> > >
> > > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
> > >
> > > Is it pornography?
> > > Does it actually show sex?
> > > Is it otherwise useless?
> > >
> > > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
> > >
> > > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
> > Tom, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of Miller vs California. For starters,
> > - you conflate "pornography" with "prurient interest". In Ripplinger v. Collins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (post Miller v California) found "It is apparent that neither the Supreme Court nor the legislatures intended that tasteful pornography be suppressed while distasteful pornography remains unregulated."
> > - depictions of sexual acts in and of themselves is not qualifying
> > - 'Useless' is not a qualifying term. The material must be viewed as being without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In fact, a qualification of "useless" could negate the prurient interest qualification of the first demand.
> >
> > Of course you would jump in with your pseudo-intellectual interpretation based on your 5 minute on-line search of the Miller test in which you are factually and demonstrably wrong (as is predominantly the case with any attempt of yours to allude to authority).
> >
> > Andre has not published anything with any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It was a joke, son. Now step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
>
> Since the Miller Act was

It wasn't an act of legislation, and it wasn't even a decision. It was a tripartite 'test' that established guidelines for for _helping_ to decide if material was obscene.

> rather famous since it was the first real challenge to the First Amendment

Wrong again. Decisions and challenges to the first amendment with as great as if not greater effect than Miller are almost too numerous to mention. Previous to Miller, SCOTUS heard a challenge to banning Ulysses (yes, the Homer epic) in 1934 and another challenge against a seller of pornographic material in Roth vs United States in 1957.

> I suggest you ACTUALLY disprove my statement

Which one?

> simply by any challenge whatsoever in court against the comments or writing of Andre.

I never made the claim that jute had and any court actions vis obscenity charges.

> Take your fucking garbage disapproval of him elsewhere where other stupid people might agree with you.

As noted previously, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of Miller vs California, which is now evident from this little tantrum of yours. That point notwithstanding, last I checked this is a free unmoderated forum - you have no authority to tell other what they can and cannot post.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:57:18 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:35:42 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:49:58 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:23:40 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:23:32 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> > > > > > > On 5/5/2022 4:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > Some people think he's just fine:
> > > > > > > > https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which brings a question. Who are these people and what's wrong with them?
> > > > > > > Personally, when a president inherits a hell of a mess from his
> > > > > > > predecessor I cut him some slack, whether a Democrat or a Republican.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > George H.W. Bush inherited a huge mess from Ronald Reagan and did the
> > > > > > > best he could to clean it up. Part of that clean-up was a tax increase
> > > > > > > that cost him his re-election attempt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Barack Obama inherited a huge mess from George W. Bush and did a pretty
> > > > > > > good job of undoing the damage that W. inflicted on the country.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The mess Biden inherited from Trump was order of magnitudes worse than
> > > > > > > what George H.W. Bush or Obama inherited from their predecessors. The
> > > > > > > thoughtless tariffs that fueled inflation, the total bungling of the
> > > > > > > Covid response. The foreign policy blunders of Trump, especially as
> > > > > > > relate to Ukraine. The increased deficits caused by huge tax cuts for
> > > > > > > the wealthy and for corporations, It's only been a little more than a
> > > > > > > year in office for Biden. Undoing the Trump damage is going to take many
> > > > > > > years of work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
> > > > Why are you speaking about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
> > > >
> > > > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
> > > >
> > > > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
> > > >
> > > > Is it pornography?
> > > > Does it actually show sex?
> > > > Is it otherwise useless?
> > > >
> > > > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
> > > >
> > > > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
> > > Tom, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of Miller vs California. For starters,
> > > - you conflate "pornography" with "prurient interest". In Ripplinger v. Collins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (post Miller v California) found "It is apparent that neither the Supreme Court nor the legislatures intended that tasteful pornography be suppressed while distasteful pornography remains unregulated."
> > > - depictions of sexual acts in and of themselves is not qualifying
> > > - 'Useless' is not a qualifying term. The material must be viewed as being without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In fact, a qualification of "useless" could negate the prurient interest qualification of the first demand.
> > >
> > > Of course you would jump in with your pseudo-intellectual interpretation based on your 5 minute on-line search of the Miller test in which you are factually and demonstrably wrong (as is predominantly the case with any attempt of yours to allude to authority).
> > >
> > > Andre has not published anything with any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It was a joke, son. Now step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
> >
> > Since the Miller Act was
> It wasn't an act of legislation, and it wasn't even a decision. It was a tripartite 'test' that established guidelines for for _helping_ to decide if material was obscene.
> > rather famous since it was the first real challenge to the First Amendment
> Wrong again. Decisions and challenges to the first amendment with as great as if not greater effect than Miller are almost too numerous to mention. Previous to Miller, SCOTUS heard a challenge to banning Ulysses (yes, the Homer epic) in 1934 and another challenge against a seller of pornographic material in Roth vs United States in 1957.
> > I suggest you ACTUALLY disprove my statement
> Which one?
> > simply by any challenge whatsoever in court against the comments or writing of Andre.
> I never made the claim that jute had and any court actions vis obscenity charges.
> > Take your fucking garbage disapproval of him elsewhere where other stupid people might agree with you.
> As noted previously, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of Miller vs California, which is now evident from this little tantrum of yours. That point notwithstanding, last I checked this is a free unmoderated forum - you have no authority to tell other what they can and cannot post.

Pardon me for losing my temper. The fact remains that Andrea made absolutely NO statements relevant to your use of Miller. I am curious as to why you would have done that since Miller was all about visual obscenity and this site is entirely verbal. Furthermore, Andre didn't even get close to even one of the prerequisites necessary under Miller. My anger was triggered by your seeming attempt to display knowledge of nothing more than a word rather than the actual finding.

James Carrington <jhcjrx@gmail.com> writes:

> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:35:42 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:49:58 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:23:40 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:23:32 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
>> > > > > > On 5/5/2022 4:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > <snip>
>> > > > > > > Some people think he's just fine:
>> > > > > > > https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Which brings a question. Who are these people and what's
>> > > > > > > wrong with them?
>> > > > > > Personally, when a president inherits a hell of a mess from his
>> > > > > > predecessor I cut him some slack, whether a Democrat or a
>> > > > > > Republican.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > George H.W. Bush inherited a huge mess from Ronald Reagan
>> > > > > > and did the
>> > > > > > best he could to clean it up. Part of that clean-up was a
>> > > > > > tax increase
>> > > > > > that cost him his re-election attempt.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Barack Obama inherited a huge mess from George W. Bush and
>> > > > > > did a pretty
>> > > > > > good job of undoing the damage that W. inflicted on the country.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The mess Biden inherited from Trump was order of
>> > > > > > magnitudes worse than
>> > > > > > what George H.W. Bush or Obama inherited from their
>> > > > > > predecessors. The
>> > > > > > thoughtless tariffs that fueled inflation, the total
>> > > > > > bungling of the
>> > > > > > Covid response. The foreign policy blunders of Trump, especially as
>> > > > > > relate to Ukraine. The increased deficits caused by huge
>> > > > > > tax cuts for
>> > > > > > the wealthy and for corporations, It's only been a little
>> > > > > > more than a
>> > > > > > year in office for Biden. Undoing the Trump damage is
>> > > > > > going to take many
>> > > > > > years of work.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a
>> > > > > new President. You could use the letter above as proof that
>> > > > > you’re totally devoid of reality.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who
>> > > > > will cost Disney further losses.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
>> > > Why are you speaking about something you so clearly don't
>> > > understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of
>> > > the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
>> > >
>> > > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at
>> > > least know its definition?
>> > >
>> > > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
>> > >
>> > > Is it pornography?
>> > > Does it actually show sex?
>> > > Is it otherwise useless?
>> > >
>> > > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
>> > >
>> > > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name
>> > > being used?
>> > Tom, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to
>> > have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of
>> > Miller vs California. For starters,
>> > - you conflate "pornography" with "prurient interest". In
>> > Ripplinger v. Collins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
>> > Circuit (post Miller v California) found "It is apparent that
>> > neither the Supreme Court nor the legislatures intended that
>> > tasteful pornography be suppressed while distasteful pornography
>> > remains unregulated."
>> > - depictions of sexual acts in and of themselves is not qualifying
>> > - 'Useless' is not a qualifying term. The material must be viewed
>> > as being without serious literary, artistic, political, or
>> > scientific value. In fact, a qualification of "useless" could
>> > negate the prurient interest qualification of the first demand.
>> >
>> > Of course you would jump in with your pseudo-intellectual
>> > interpretation based on your 5 minute on-line search of the Miller
>> > test in which you are factually and demonstrably wrong (as is
>> > predominantly the case with any attempt of yours to allude to
>> > authority).
>> >
>> > Andre has not published anything with any serious literary,
>> > artistic, political, or scientific value. It was a joke, son. Now
>> > step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
>>
>> Since the Miller Act was
>
> It wasn't an act of legislation, and it wasn't even a decision. It was
> a tripartite 'test' that established guidelines for for _helping_ to
> decide if material was obscene.
>
>> rather famous since it was the first real challenge to the First Amendment
>
> Wrong again. Decisions and challenges to the first amendment with as
> great as if not greater effect than Miller are almost too numerous to
> mention. Previous to Miller, SCOTUS heard a challenge to banning
> Ulysses (yes, the Homer epic) in 1934 and another challenge against a
> seller of pornographic material in Roth vs United States in 1957.

I just can't let that one go. It was _Ulysses_, the James Joyce
novel, inspired to some extent by the work of Homer.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:23:40 AM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
> > > >
> > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
> > > >
> > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
>
Good golly, even by the non-sequitur mindlessness of these illiterate monkey, that’s pretty transparent.
>
To tell you the truth, I didn’t even see that dim monkey’s clumsy attempt to link me to pornography until you pointed out the stupidity of it. Even if my eye had caught “Miller”, I would have passed it by because I know more about the Miller Effect in the sort of electronics I care about (tube ultrafi amps) than these jumped-up techies in the RBT Slimeballs. See for instance
https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/KISS%20125%20by%20Andre%20Jute.htm
>
> Why are you speaking a about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
>
> Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
>
> To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
>
> Is it pornography?
> Does it actually show sex?
> Is it otherwise useless?
>
> To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
>
> This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
>
The anonymous coward Flunky no doubt has pornography on the brain, since he consumes so much of it.
>
Andre Jute
Dead is dead, forgotten, for jumped-up techies, but writers live forever.
>

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:05:31 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:23:40 AM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
> > > > >
> > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
> > > > >
> > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test..
> >
> Good golly, even by the non-sequitur mindlessness of these illiterate monkey, that’s pretty transparent.
> >
> To tell you the truth, I didn’t even see that dim monkey’s clumsy attempt to link me to pornography until you pointed out the stupidity of it. Even if my eye had caught “Miller”, I would have passed it by because I know more about the Miller Effect in the sort of electronics I care about (tube ultrafi amps) than these jumped-up techies in the RBT Slimeballs. See for instance
> https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/KISS%20125%20by%20Andre%20Jute.htm
> >
> > Why are you speaking a about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
> >
> > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
> >
> > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
> >
> > Is it pornography?
> > Does it actually show sex?
> > Is it otherwise useless?
> >
> > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
> >
> > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
> >
> The anonymous coward Flunky no doubt has pornography on the brain, since he consumes so much of it.
> >
> Andre Jute
> Dead is dead, forgotten, for jumped-up techies, but writers live forever.
> >
I don't believe that was Flunky, but rather someone who fancies himself a lawyer.

As for vacuum tube amps, I designed them before the invention of transistors which made and instant end to that damned thermal emission noise in audio amps. I can't even imagine what radar must have been like before the invention of transistors.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:48:08 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
> James Carrington <jhc...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:35:42 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:49:58 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:23:40 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> >> > > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:23:32 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> >> > > > > > On 5/5/2022 4:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > <snip>
> >> > > > > > > Some people think he's just fine:
> >> > > > > > > https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Which brings a question. Who are these people and what's
> >> > > > > > > wrong with them?
> >> > > > > > Personally, when a president inherits a hell of a mess from his
> >> > > > > > predecessor I cut him some slack, whether a Democrat or a
> >> > > > > > Republican.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > George H.W. Bush inherited a huge mess from Ronald Reagan
> >> > > > > > and did the
> >> > > > > > best he could to clean it up. Part of that clean-up was a
> >> > > > > > tax increase
> >> > > > > > that cost him his re-election attempt.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Barack Obama inherited a huge mess from George W. Bush and
> >> > > > > > did a pretty
> >> > > > > > good job of undoing the damage that W. inflicted on the country.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > The mess Biden inherited from Trump was order of
> >> > > > > > magnitudes worse than
> >> > > > > > what George H.W. Bush or Obama inherited from their
> >> > > > > > predecessors. The
> >> > > > > > thoughtless tariffs that fueled inflation, the total
> >> > > > > > bungling of the
> >> > > > > > Covid response. The foreign policy blunders of Trump, especially as
> >> > > > > > relate to Ukraine. The increased deficits caused by huge
> >> > > > > > tax cuts for
> >> > > > > > the wealthy and for corporations, It's only been a little
> >> > > > > > more than a
> >> > > > > > year in office for Biden. Undoing the Trump damage is
> >> > > > > > going to take many
> >> > > > > > years of work.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a
> >> > > > > new President. You could use the letter above as proof that
> >> > > > > you’re totally devoid of reality.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who
> >> > > > > will cost Disney further losses.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
> >> > > Why are you speaking about something you so clearly don't
> >> > > understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of
> >> > > the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
> >> > >
> >> > > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at
> >> > > least know its definition?
> >> > >
> >> > > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
> >> > >
> >> > > Is it pornography?
> >> > > Does it actually show sex?
> >> > > Is it otherwise useless?
> >> > >
> >> > > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
> >> > >
> >> > > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name
> >> > > being used?
> >> > Tom, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to
> >> > have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of
> >> > Miller vs California. For starters,
> >> > - you conflate "pornography" with "prurient interest". In
> >> > Ripplinger v. Collins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
> >> > Circuit (post Miller v California) found "It is apparent that
> >> > neither the Supreme Court nor the legislatures intended that
> >> > tasteful pornography be suppressed while distasteful pornography
> >> > remains unregulated."
> >> > - depictions of sexual acts in and of themselves is not qualifying
> >> > - 'Useless' is not a qualifying term. The material must be viewed
> >> > as being without serious literary, artistic, political, or
> >> > scientific value. In fact, a qualification of "useless" could
> >> > negate the prurient interest qualification of the first demand.
> >> >
> >> > Of course you would jump in with your pseudo-intellectual
> >> > interpretation based on your 5 minute on-line search of the Miller
> >> > test in which you are factually and demonstrably wrong (as is
> >> > predominantly the case with any attempt of yours to allude to
> >> > authority).
> >> >
> >> > Andre has not published anything with any serious literary,
> >> > artistic, political, or scientific value. It was a joke, son. Now
> >> > step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
> >>
> >> Since the Miller Act was
> >
> > It wasn't an act of legislation, and it wasn't even a decision. It was
> > a tripartite 'test' that established guidelines for for _helping_ to
> > decide if material was obscene.
> >
> >> rather famous since it was the first real challenge to the First Amendment
> >
> > Wrong again. Decisions and challenges to the first amendment with as
> > great as if not greater effect than Miller are almost too numerous to
> > mention. Previous to Miller, SCOTUS heard a challenge to banning
> > Ulysses (yes, the Homer epic) in 1934 and another challenge against a
> > seller of pornographic material in Roth vs United States in 1957.
> I just can't let that one go. It was _Ulysses_, the James Joyce
> novel, inspired to some extent by the work of Homer.

Oh my, I did commit that faux pas....I stand corrected.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 3:53:54 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:05:31 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:23:40 AM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
> > > > > >
> > > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
> > >
> > Good golly, even by the non-sequitur mindlessness of these illiterate monkey, that’s pretty transparent.
> > >
> > To tell you the truth, I didn’t even see that dim monkey’s clumsy attempt to link me to pornography until you pointed out the stupidity of it. Even if my eye had caught “Miller”, I would have passed it by because I know more about the Miller Effect in the sort of electronics I care about (tube ultrafi amps) than these jumped-up techies in the RBT Slimeballs. See for instance
> > https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/KISS%20125%20by%20Andre%20Jute.htm
> > >
> > > Why are you speaking a about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
> > >
> > > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
> > >
> > > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
> > >
> > > Is it pornography?
> > > Does it actually show sex?
> > > Is it otherwise useless?
> > >
> > > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
> > >
> > > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
> > >
> > The anonymous coward Flunky no doubt has pornography on the brain, since he consumes so much of it.

Hey, Sparky is the pervert that complains about getting solicited for kanye west dic pics because he surfs so much porn, not me, (or maybe it's his wife surfing for black dic pics, and neither of them knows how to use anonymous browsing or clear out the cache)

> > >
> > Andre Jute
> > Dead is dead, forgotten, for jumped-up techies, but writers live forever.
> > >
> I don't believe that was Flunky, but rather someone who fancies himself a lawyer.
>
> As for vacuum tube amps, I designed them before the invention of transistors which made and instant end to that damned thermal emission noise in audio amps. I can't even imagine what radar must have been like before the invention of transistors.

Oh fer fucks sake.....You never designed tube amps, and you certainly never did _any_ work in electronics before the invention of the transistor. The first BJT was invented by William Shockley at Bell Labs in 1948. AT&T used transistors in telecom switching equipment in 1953, and Sony marketed the first mass produced all-transistor radio in 1957.

You and your fucking lies......

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 1:01:08 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:48:08 PM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
> > James Carrington <jhc...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 9:35:42 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:49:58 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:23:40 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >> > > > > On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:23:32 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> > >> > > > > > On 5/5/2022 4:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > <snip>
> > >> > > > > > > Some people think he's just fine:
> > >> > > > > > > https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
> > >> > > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > > Which brings a question. Who are these people and what's
> > >> > > > > > > wrong with them?
> > >> > > > > > Personally, when a president inherits a hell of a mess from his
> > >> > > > > > predecessor I cut him some slack, whether a Democrat or a
> > >> > > > > > Republican.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > George H.W. Bush inherited a huge mess from Ronald Reagan
> > >> > > > > > and did the
> > >> > > > > > best he could to clean it up. Part of that clean-up was a
> > >> > > > > > tax increase
> > >> > > > > > that cost him his re-election attempt.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > Barack Obama inherited a huge mess from George W. Bush and
> > >> > > > > > did a pretty
> > >> > > > > > good job of undoing the damage that W. inflicted on the country.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > > The mess Biden inherited from Trump was order of
> > >> > > > > > magnitudes worse than
> > >> > > > > > what George H.W. Bush or Obama inherited from their
> > >> > > > > > predecessors. The
> > >> > > > > > thoughtless tariffs that fueled inflation, the total
> > >> > > > > > bungling of the
> > >> > > > > > Covid response. The foreign policy blunders of Trump, especially as
> > >> > > > > > relate to Ukraine. The increased deficits caused by huge
> > >> > > > > > tax cuts for
> > >> > > > > > the wealthy and for corporations, It's only been a little
> > >> > > > > > more than a
> > >> > > > > > year in office for Biden. Undoing the Trump damage is
> > >> > > > > > going to take many
> > >> > > > > > years of work.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a
> > >> > > > > new President. You could use the letter above as proof that
> > >> > > > > you’re totally devoid of reality.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who
> > >> > > > > will cost Disney further losses.
> > >> > > > > >
> > >> > > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
> > >> > > Why are you speaking about something you so clearly don't
> > >> > > understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of
> > >> > > the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at
> > >> > > least know its definition?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Is it pornography?
> > >> > > Does it actually show sex?
> > >> > > Is it otherwise useless?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name
> > >> > > being used?
> > >> > Tom, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to
> > >> > have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of
> > >> > Miller vs California. For starters,
> > >> > - you conflate "pornography" with "prurient interest". In
> > >> > Ripplinger v. Collins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
> > >> > Circuit (post Miller v California) found "It is apparent that
> > >> > neither the Supreme Court nor the legislatures intended that
> > >> > tasteful pornography be suppressed while distasteful pornography
> > >> > remains unregulated."
> > >> > - depictions of sexual acts in and of themselves is not qualifying
> > >> > - 'Useless' is not a qualifying term. The material must be viewed
> > >> > as being without serious literary, artistic, political, or
> > >> > scientific value. In fact, a qualification of "useless" could
> > >> > negate the prurient interest qualification of the first demand.
> > >> >
> > >> > Of course you would jump in with your pseudo-intellectual
> > >> > interpretation based on your 5 minute on-line search of the Miller
> > >> > test in which you are factually and demonstrably wrong (as is
> > >> > predominantly the case with any attempt of yours to allude to
> > >> > authority).
> > >> >
> > >> > Andre has not published anything with any serious literary,
> > >> > artistic, political, or scientific value. It was a joke, son. Now
> > >> > step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
> > >>
> > >> Since the Miller Act was
> > >
> > > It wasn't an act of legislation, and it wasn't even a decision. It was
> > > a tripartite 'test' that established guidelines for for _helping_ to
> > > decide if material was obscene.
> > >
> > >> rather famous since it was the first real challenge to the First Amendment
> > >
> > > Wrong again. Decisions and challenges to the first amendment with as
> > > great as if not greater effect than Miller are almost too numerous to
> > > mention. Previous to Miller, SCOTUS heard a challenge to banning
> > > Ulysses (yes, the Homer epic) in 1934 and another challenge against a
> > > seller of pornographic material in Roth vs United States in 1957.
> > I just can't let that one go. It was _Ulysses_, the James Joyce
> > novel, inspired to some extent by the work of Homer.
> Oh my, I did commit that faux pas....I stand corrected.

James, you seem intelligent and educated. Please don't use this site to vent your anger feelings probably caused in large part by the Slime Stream Media.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:49:58 AM UTC+1, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> Andre has not published anything with any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
>
You’ve read all 70-odd of my books in English and several other languages? Wow, I’m flattered. Now name all 70-odd of my books.
>
Andre Jute
Another illiterate monkey, whose name I never heard, who thinks I care shit what he thinks
>

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 4:31:27 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:49:58 AM UTC+1, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > Andre has not published anything with any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
> >

Apologies - that should have been "Andre has not published anything with any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in several decades", or in the words pre-Miller "Lacking any socially or morally redeeming value".

> You’ve read all 70-odd of my books in English and several other languages? Wow, I’m flattered. Now name all 70-odd of my books.

I picked up your hatchet job against Stieg Larsson at my local library when i saw your name as it gave me a blast of reminiscence of a former mentor of mine who had your car building book in his office. The Larsson book turned out to be rather pointless with curious personal attacks against Ms. Gabrielsson (was it really necessary to attack Larsson's girlfriend?). Out of curiosity I did a little more investigation into your oeuvre, on-line searches brought me here. (funny how this forum seems to be your only public presence in the past ten years).

> Andre Jute
> Another illiterate monkey, whose name I never heard, who thinks I care shit what he thinks

You had promise, Andre, but somewhere you went horribly awry, and ended up seeking some sort of ego-assuaging activity by being an obscene provocateur in a forum from which you can't be evicted. It does comport with the trajectory of your career, however, somewhat like any moderately talented artist who becomes drunk with ego and falls into a drug induced obscurity and depravity.

You've devolved to the point of no return, Mr Jute. It's a sad thing to witness. Yes, I'll agree, my opinion is hardly relevant from your perspective. I wouldn't imagine any criticism against you would be.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:16:58 PM UTC+1, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I did a little more investigation into your oeuvre, on-line searches brought me here.
>
So you came to RBT for the specific purpose of abusing me. I did you no harm, I don’t know who you are, your opinion of me and whatever I did or didn’t do is totally worthless, but you’re here only to abuse me.
>
I’m busy, so fuck off, little man. Perhaps I’ll remember to step in your face when I’m bored. You just justified whatever I choose to do to you, and the open contempt with which I choose to ignore you.
>
Andre Jute
This is a microcosm of how the Krygowski Scum have ruined RBT.
>

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 3:10:42 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:16:58 PM UTC+1, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I did a little more investigation into your oeuvre, on-line searches brought me here.
> >
> So you came to RBT for the specific purpose of abusing me. I did you no harm, I don’t know who you are, your opinion of me and whatever I did or didn’t do is totally worthless, but you’re here only to abuse me.
> >
> I’m busy, so fuck off, little man. Perhaps I’ll remember to step in your face when I’m bored. You just justified whatever I choose to do to you, and the open contempt with which I choose to ignore you.
> >
> Andre Jute
> This is a microcosm of how the Krygowski Scum have ruined RBT.
> >

I'm trying to imagine this - some horses ass searched all over the Internet in order to come to this Google Group on bicycles in order to abuse you. The mental processes behind this surely demonstrates a dire need of mental facility help. Not to mention his entire misrepresentation of Miller in a rather dull and stupid claim that he knew what he was talking about.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 3:10:42 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 10:16:58 PM UTC+1, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I did a little more investigation into your oeuvre, on-line searches brought me here.
> >
> So you came to RBT for the specific purpose of abusing me. I did you no harm, I don’t know who you are, your opinion of me and whatever I did or didn’t do is totally worthless, but you’re here only to abuse me.
> >
> I’m busy, so fuck off, little man. Perhaps I’ll remember to step in your face when I’m bored. You just justified whatever I choose to do to you, and the open contempt with which I choose to ignore you.
> >
> Andre Jute
> This is a microcosm of how the Krygowski Scum have ruined RBT.

Well, while Frank at least has been here as long as I have he does seem to have attracted what can only be termed "stalkers". A group of useless and hopeless wankers who one imagines wank off between postings. This can certainly be the only reason for Jeffie's postings.

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:23:11 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 7:56:14 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 5/9/2022 8:35 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 2:49:58 AM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 7:23:40 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:59:30 PM UTC-7, jhc...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 2:39:39 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 6:23:32 PM UTC+1, sms wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 5/5/2022 4:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> <snip>
> > >>>>>>> Some people think he's just fine:
> > >>>>>>> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Which brings a question. Who are these people and what's wrong with them?
> > >>>>>> Personally, when a president inherits a hell of a mess from his
> > >>>>>> predecessor I cut him some slack, whether a Democrat or a Republican.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> George H.W. Bush inherited a huge mess from Ronald Reagan and did the
> > >>>>>> best he could to clean it up. Part of that clean-up was a tax increase
> > >>>>>> that cost him his re-election attempt.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Barack Obama inherited a huge mess from George W. Bush and did a pretty
> > >>>>>> good job of undoing the damage that W. inflicted on the country.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The mess Biden inherited from Trump was order of magnitudes worse than
> > >>>>>> what George H.W. Bush or Obama inherited from their predecessors.. The
> > >>>>>> thoughtless tariffs that fueled inflation, the total bungling of the
> > >>>>>> Covid response. The foreign policy blunders of Trump, especially as
> > >>>>>> relate to Ukraine. The increased deficits caused by huge tax cuts for
> > >>>>>> the wealthy and for corporations, It's only been a little more than a
> > >>>>>> year in office for Biden. Undoing the Trump damage is going to take many
> > >>>>>> years of work.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>> And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
> > >>> Why are you speaking about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
> > >>>
> > >>> To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
> > >>>
> > >>> Is it pornography?
> > >>> Does it actually show sex?
> > >>> Is it otherwise useless?
> > >>>
> > >>> To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
> > >>>
> > >>> This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
> > >> Tom, you have neither the background nor intellect to be able to have a discussion on the application or basic understanding of Miller vs California. For starters,
> > >> - you conflate "pornography" with "prurient interest". In Ripplinger v. Collins the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (post Miller v California) found "It is apparent that neither the Supreme Court nor the legislatures intended that tasteful pornography be suppressed while distasteful pornography remains unregulated."
> > >> - depictions of sexual acts in and of themselves is not qualifying
> > >> - 'Useless' is not a qualifying term. The material must be viewed as being without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In fact, a qualification of "useless" could negate the prurient interest qualification of the first demand.
> > >>
> > >> Of course you would jump in with your pseudo-intellectual interpretation based on your 5 minute on-line search of the Miller test in which you are factually and demonstrably wrong (as is predominantly the case with any attempt of yours to allude to authority).
> > >>
> > >> Andre has not published anything with any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It was a joke, son. Now step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
> > >
> > > Since the Miller Act was rather famous since it was the first real challenge to the First Amendment, I suggest you ACTUALLY disprove my statement simply by any challenge whatsoever in court against the comments or writing of Andre. Take your fucking garbage disapproval of him elsewhere where other stupid people might agree with you.
> > >
> > 'Miller' was a court decision not an Act of legislation.
> >
> > John Adams & Congress assaulted the 1st Amendment in 1798,
> > 175 years before Miller and more disastrously I might add:
> >
> > https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/alien-and-sedition-acts
> >
> > https://vtdigger.org/2022/03/06/then-again-vermont-congressman-targeted-for-sedition/
> >
> > Special mention for Woodrow Wilson who jailed Presidential
> > candidate Eugene Debs in 1917 under his new Espionage Act:
> >
> > https://vtdigger.org/2022/03/06/then-again-vermont-congressman-targeted-for-sedition/
> >
> > Lyon was a jerk nd Debs was a communist but our 1st
> > Amendment doesn't have any meaning if the current
> > administration can pick and choose its coverage.
> There is NO Doubt that ruling parties can and will assault the First Amendment just as it is presently doing with full cooperation of the Slime Stream Media and treasonous moguls. But you will note that the Miller case; unlike previous unlike previous cases set clear and reasonable limits to the right to free speech in a court of law and not issuing from the mouths of idiots on the left.(or the right for that matter). These limitations are easy to understand despite the apparent blindness of jfc who is simply attempting to use a case incorrectly because he doesn't like Andre. If Flunky, Russell or Jeffie said things to my face that they feel free to write into this group, I would make them wish that they were dead. So if the law is unwilling to set reasonable limits it become the rule of the strongest. And despite my age and infirmities I am perfectly willing to show any one of these three who the strongest is.

Tommy, tommy, tommy. You are an old frail man(?). It is highly unlikely we should ever meet. I have no immediate plans to visit the Oakland area. About 25 years ago I was in the San Fracisco area across the bay. But knowing your age, 77? And how fragile bones become with age. And knowing my age and strength and weight. I am not too concerned with your empty bombastic threats.

Besides the mental, what infirmities do you have Tommy? Maybe someone here can recommend treatments like they have for your mental issues.

> If a uniformed cop feels so threatened merely by my looking at him as if he were crazy that he feels compelled not only to draw his gun but to cock it and point it at my head I can only imagine that Jeffie would have heart failure.

Please elucidate this encounter to us Tommy. We would all get some amusement about your run ins with the law. Having police point a gun at your head should be especially entertaining to us.

>
> And in the first place, the Constitution was written not to protect you from me, but to protect you and me from the government. Something that seems to have escaped the Democrats entirely.

I put "purpose of constitution" in Google. Here is what came back:
First it creates a national government consisting of a legislative, an executive, and a judicial branch, with a system of checks and balances among the three branches. Second, it divides power between the federal government and the states. And third, it protects various individual liberties of American citizens.

So I will give you one out of three. One of its purposes is to prevent infringement of personal liberties by the government authorities.

On Mon, 9 May 2022 13:24:26 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 3:53:54 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:05:31 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
>> > On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 12:23:40 AM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > Hey, Scharfie, Cloud Cuckoo Land AKA Disney is looking for a new President. You could use the letter above as proof that you’re totally devoid of reality.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > Unsigned so as not to be seen dropping a dime on a guy who will cost Disney further losses.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > And jute once again proves he is incapable of passing the Miller test.
>> > >
>> > Good golly, even by the non-sequitur mindlessness of these illiterate monkey, that’s pretty transparent.
>> > >
>> > To tell you the truth, I didn’t even see that dim monkey’s clumsy attempt to link me to pornography until you pointed out the stupidity of it. Even if my eye had caught “Miller”, I would have passed it by because I know more about the Miller Effect in the sort of electronics I care about (tube ultrafi amps) than these jumped-up techies in the RBT Slimeballs. See for instance
>> > https://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/KISS%20125%20by%20Andre%20Jute.htm
>> > >
>> > > Why are you speaking a about something you so clearly don't understand? Since you haven't even a passing understanding of the Miller Test, why are you mentioning it?
>> > >
>> > > Might I suggest that if you're going to use a phrase that you at least know its definition?
>> > >
>> > > To put it in layman's terms, the following questions must be answered:
>> > >
>> > > Is it pornography?
>> > > Does it actually show sex?
>> > > Is it otherwise useless?
>> > >
>> > > To pass the Miller test is has to meet ALL three requirements.
>> > >
>> > > This being so - exactly why did you even post with Andre's name being used?
>> > >
>> > The anonymous coward Flunky no doubt has pornography on the brain, since he consumes so much of it.
>
>Hey, Sparky is the pervert that complains about getting solicited for kanye west dic pics because he surfs so much porn, not me, (or maybe it's his wife surfing for black dic pics, and neither of them knows how to use anonymous browsing or clear out the cache)
>
>> > >
>> > Andre Jute
>> > Dead is dead, forgotten, for jumped-up techies, but writers live forever.
>> > >
>> I don't believe that was Flunky, but rather someone who fancies himself a lawyer.
>>
>> As for vacuum tube amps, I designed them before the invention of transistors which made and instant end to that damned thermal emission noise in audio amps. I can't even imagine what radar must have been like before the invention of transistors.
>
>Oh fer fucks sake.....You never designed tube amps, and you certainly never did _any_ work in electronics before the invention of the transistor. The first BJT was invented by William Shockley at Bell Labs in 1948. AT&T used transistors in telecom switching equipment in 1953, and Sony marketed the first mass produced all-transistor radio in 1957.
>
>You and your fucking lies......

Come now! Tommy was born in 1944 (I believe) so in 1953 he would have
been 9 years old... don't 9 year old's design amplifiers?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 9 May 2022 12:53:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>As for vacuum tube amps, I designed them before the invention of transistors which made and instant end to that damned thermal emission noise in audio amps.

The first transistor was demonstrated in Dec 1947, about 3 years after
you were born. The first commercially available transistor was the
CK722, which was first available in 1953:
<http://www.ck722museum.com>
If you had designed vacuum tube circuits before 1947 (age of 9), you
must have been a very precocious genius:
<https://www.wired.com/2009/12/1223shockley-bardeen-brattain-transistor/>

Please note that in deference to your aversion to Wikipedia, I did not
use Wikipedia as a reference. You're welcome.

>I can't even imagine what radar must have been like before the invention of transistors.

Nice leap from audio amps to RADAR. They're really quite different.

There are videos of Chain Home and later WWII vintage radars all over
YouTube.
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wwii+radar>
Yes, early WWII RADAR was horribly noisy. Just seeing a target in the
grass (baseline noise) was a major accomplishment. Even though the
early radars operated at a low frequency of 20 to 30 MHz, the high
operating temperature of the tubes (valves) and the wide receiver
bandwidths conspired to produce nearly stone deaf receivers. The
transmitters also had problems producing sufficiently narrow pulses
and high enough peak transmit power.

The introduction of transistors didn't put an "instant end" to
receiver noise. That's because the NF (noise figure) of the receiver
is primarily determined by the front end (that which is connected to
the antenna) noise figure. The 1953 vintage transistors were only
useable at audio frequencies. They could barely function in an AM BCB
(broadcast band) receiver at 1MHz. These early transistors weren't
particularly useful in the post WWII RADAR front ends that operated in
the GHZ (gigahertz) frequency range. Most had diode mixer (1N21, 1N23
etc) diode mixer front ends that downconverted to 30 or 60MHz IF
(intermediate frequency) amplifiers. I didn't see transistors in the
IF stages until the early 1960's.

Yes, tubes were awful, but only in the beginning of WWII. Research
and inventions during WWII made rapid and major improvements. Higher
frequencies, narrower pulses, more transmit power, narrower beamwidth
antennas, better displays, doppler clutter reduction, 3D locating,
transponders, etc all helped. RADAR may have been problematic at the
beginning of WWII, but it was fully functional and quite useful by the
end of WWII, while still using (improved) vacuum tubes.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

You guys are going on like all of a sudden, three days after the first germanium diode appeared, suddenly tubes were dead and everything was made of sand. That’s utter bullshit. I was designing tube amps through the eighties and nineties and the first decade of this century, and people were building and selling tube amps; they still are. And as late as the mid 1960s everybody who crossed the Southern Ocean and made passage around Cape Horn had tubes in both their nav and their emergency radios, proven gear; it wasn’t just me, I was merely copying my elders, and government advice for the Cape to Rio races was not to trust your life to devices that would crack the moment they saw an iceberg.

But you clowns just can’t leave off trying to harass Tom with these utterly ludicrous arguments, can you? You should consider that these ruined threads, and such mindless perversity with facts says more about you than about him. And most of all, the fact that Tom is standing up and saying precisely what he wants to say whenever he wants to say it, tells the world everything there is to know about your incompetence as censors and gatekeepers. All this nastiness has achieved … zero except to make you look even limper than you are, even more spiteful than you would like to be remembered, petty totally beyond belief, and above all too stupid to learn from experience.

Andre Jute
It’s embarrassing to be on a group with such a bunch of quarterwits..

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 3:16:47 AM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
> You guys are going on like all of a sudden, three days after the first germanium diode appeared,
> suddenly tubes were dead and everything was made of sand. That’s utter bullshit.

No one wrote anything even remotely resembling that you magatard. To refresh your memory: sparky wrote "I designed them before the invention of transistors". That would have made him 9 years old.

>
> But you clowns just can’t leave off trying to harass Tom with these utterly ludicrous arguments, can you?

Ok skippy, you tell us, whats more ludicrous: Some one who was born in 1944 claiming to have designed tube amps before the invention of the transistor (making him age 9), or us telling him there's no possibility he was designing tubes amps at age 9? Just to remind you again because we know how you love to obfuscate the facts, sparky wrote "I designed them before the invention of transistors".

We'll wait......

> You should consider that these ruined threads,

Try and keep up here skippy: every response from everyone but you and sparky for the first few days was specific to facts regarding electric cars. It was you two that repeatedly made pejorative references to the political left.

> and such mindless perversity with
> facts says more about you than about him.

What says a lot about you two dumb and dumber trolls is that you refer to facts as perverse.

> And most of all, the fact that Tom is standing up and saying precisely what he wants to say whenever he
> wants to say it, tells the world everything there is to know about your incompetence as censors and gatekeepers.

No, it tells us that sparky is a moron who tries to get us to believe that he ever designed tubes amps, let alone the claim that he did it before transistors were invented, And you are in the paraphrased words of Mr. Carrington " a moderately talented artist who became drunk with ego and fell into obscurity and depravity. "

> All this nastiness has achieved … zero except to make you look even limper than you are, even more
> spiteful than you would like to be remembered, petty totally beyond belief, and above all too stupid to learn from
> experience.

Think about what you just wrote skippy....No one here except you has any concern for their legacy - It's your behavior here that will taint yours.
>
> Andre Jute
> It’s embarrassing to be on a group with such a bunch of quarterwits.

There's a real simple solution to that, skippy. go away.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 12:16:47 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> You guys are going on like all of a sudden, three days after the first germanium diode appeared, suddenly tubes were dead and everything was made of sand. That’s utter bullshit. I was designing tube amps through the eighties and nineties and the first decade of this century, and people were building and selling tube amps; they still are. And as late as the mid 1960s everybody who crossed the Southern Ocean and made passage around Cape Horn had tubes in both their nav and their emergency radios, proven gear; it wasn’t just me, I was merely copying my elders, and government advice for the Cape to Rio races was not to trust your life to devices that would crack the moment they saw an iceberg.
>
> But you clowns just can’t leave off trying to harass Tom with these utterly ludicrous arguments, can you? You should consider that these ruined threads, and such mindless perversity with facts says more about you than about him. And most of all, the fact that Tom is standing up and saying precisely what he wants to say whenever he wants to say it, tells the world everything there is to know about your incompetence as censors and gatekeepers. All this nastiness has achieved … zero except to make you look even limper than you are, even more spiteful than you would like to be remembered, petty totally beyond belief, and above all too stupid to learn from experience.
>
> Andre Jute
> It’s embarrassing to be on a group with such a bunch of quarterwits.

Our Radar units had tubes in them. I was indeed designing tube amplifiers from a very young age. There was no other means of electronic design. In what universe do you suppose these local yokels live in which every guitar amplifier wasn't tube? They are even easier to design with and early transistors were GERMANIUM which, while it didn't have a large band-gap (0,2 volts) that still was a step that destroyed amplifier fidelity. Not to mention that it wasn't until the 70's that they could make actual high powered transistors.

Why do you suppose that stupid people would believe that transistors took over everything when even today it takes a deft hand to design a high fidelity amp with transistors? On our B52D, the terrain avoidance computer (TAC) was transistor because the military had unlimited funding at that time and transistor designers were exceedingly rare.

Today, MOST "electronics engineers" cannot design analog circuitry and that has to be specified directly in the job offering. As for me, there was a teenager around the block that was interested in the electronic available at that time. I would go over to his garage workshop and he would explain it all to me. Then I would go home and try it myself probably starting at 7 years old. I could even design with transistors very early because you didn't have to design poser supplies with filament voltages. That meant that you could run your experiments with a car battery and a floor charger to keep the lead-acid battery up.

But I suppose that people like the bookkeeper and flunky can tell me far more than I know because they have such a marvelous string of accomplishments.. The bookkeeper one time counted all the way to ten and flunky never did a thing. John can Google something and claim it was his work.

Many people have been led into electronics engineering because of the money despite having no interest or aptitude in it. A degree does NOT make you and engineer contrary to what Frank might believe. He was and engineer because he had the interest for it as did Jobst. But for every Jobst there were 100 "engineers" that couldn't even design a gear train which is a lot more complicated than people might expect. My very first foray as an engineer is when I contradicted TWO PhD EE's. I don't know what they were thinking when they said that a project couldn't possibly be completed without TWO IBM supercomputers (which at that time weren't all that super since they were numerical engines more than anything else). Perhaps they thought that they could get Kary Mullis to buy them gold in a box. I said that I could do the same thing with an 8008 (and did it with the 8080 as that came out in mid development.) Then I did additional projects with every microcomputer as it came out. Completing a degree doesn't mean you're an engineer. It means that you can pass tests. No disrespect for Frank but I expect he would be doing good if more than 10% of his students didn't go on to be successful engineers. You have to actually have aptitude and not simply training. Why do you suppose that at every job I was hired the same people over and over were employed with extremely few new people at each new position? Berkeley was grinding out EE's by the hundreds. If I received a new engineer I would make every possible effort to employ him to the best of his ability. Which unfortunately meant Walmart got a great many new checkers.

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 4:25:17 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 12:16:47 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > You guys are going on like all of a sudden, three days after the first germanium diode appeared, suddenly tubes were dead and everything was made of sand. That’s utter bullshit. I was designing tube amps through the eighties and nineties and the first decade of this century, and people were building and selling tube amps; they still are. And as late as the mid 1960s everybody who crossed the Southern Ocean and made passage around Cape Horn had tubes in both their nav and their emergency radios, proven gear; it wasn’t just me, I was merely copying my elders, and government advice for the Cape to Rio races was not to trust your life to devices that would crack the moment they saw an iceberg.
> >
> > But you clowns just can’t leave off trying to harass Tom with these utterly ludicrous arguments, can you? You should consider that these ruined threads, and such mindless perversity with facts says more about you than about him. And most of all, the fact that Tom is standing up and saying precisely what he wants to say whenever he wants to say it, tells the world everything there is to know about your incompetence as censors and gatekeepers. All this nastiness has achieved … zero except to make you look even limper than you are, even more spiteful than you would like to be remembered, petty totally beyond belief, and above all too stupid to learn from experience.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > It’s embarrassing to be on a group with such a bunch of quarterwits.
> Our Radar units had tubes in them. I was indeed designing tube amplifiers from a very young age. There was no other means of electronic design. In what universe do you suppose these local yokels live in which every guitar amplifier wasn't tube? They are even easier to design with and early transistors were GERMANIUM which, while it didn't have a large band-gap (0,2 volts) that still was a step that destroyed amplifier fidelity. Not to mention that it wasn't until the 70's that they could make actual high powered transistors.
>
> Why do you suppose that stupid people would believe that transistors took over everything when even today it takes a deft hand to design a high fidelity amp with transistors? On our B52D, the terrain avoidance computer (TAC) was transistor because the military had unlimited funding at that time and transistor designers were exceedingly rare.
>
> Today, MOST "electronics engineers" cannot design analog circuitry and that has to be specified directly in the job offering. As for me, there was a teenager around the block that was interested in the electronic available at that time. I would go over to his garage workshop and he would explain it all to me. Then I would go home and try it myself probably starting at 7 years old. I could even design with transistors very early because you didn't have to design poser supplies with filament voltages. That meant that you could run your experiments with a car battery and a floor charger to keep the lead-acid battery up.
>
> But I suppose that people like the bookkeeper and flunky can tell me far more than I know because they have such a marvelous string of accomplishments. The bookkeeper one time counted all the way to ten and flunky never did a thing. John can Google something and claim it was his work.
>
> Many people have been led into electronics engineering because of the money despite having no interest or aptitude in it. A degree does NOT make you and engineer contrary to what Frank might believe. He was and engineer because he had the interest for it as did Jobst. But for every Jobst there were 100 "engineers" that couldn't even design a gear train which is a lot more complicated than people might expect. My very first foray as an engineer is when I contradicted TWO PhD EE's. I don't know what they were thinking when they said that a project couldn't possibly be completed without TWO IBM supercomputers (which at that time weren't all that super since they were numerical engines more than anything else). Perhaps they thought that they could get Kary Mullis to buy them gold in a box. I said that I could do the same thing with an 8008 (and did it with the 8080 as that came out in mid development.) Then I did additional projects with every microcomputer as it came out. Completing a degree doesn't mean you're an engineer. It means that you can pass tests. No disrespect for Frank but I expect he would be doing good if more than 10% of his students didn't go on to be successful engineers. You have to actually have aptitude and not simply training. Why do you suppose that at every job I was hired the same people over and over were employed with extremely few new people at each new position? Berkeley was grinding out EE's by the hundreds. If I received a new engineer I would make every possible effort to employ him to the best of his ability. Which unfortunately meant Walmart got a great many new checkers.
>
Vacuum tubes are still pretty good, if you know how to design with them. But germanium was always crap. The chief engineer at the nearby international airport gave me their reserve PA which was 6550 tubes, eightfold redundant.. He also told me he had taken up playing the electronic organ to ladies’ tea parties, so if I wanted to come clear out his loft, I could have a scope capable of withstanding big broadcasting valves, a 3000V meter like I’d been trying to buy from the guy who introduced us, and all his small parts. I tried some of the germanium that came from him. Though I could understand the excitement from those who earned a living from electronics at that time at the new stuff, I found the germanium components crappy beyond belief. But tubes, almost no matter how old, if they came from Western Electric or Mullard, were good for routine constant use at 80 per cent of max power dissipation which made for a pretty straight and wide transfer function, aka a noiseless amp, especially when running into a high load, which cost in power of course but I didn’t care because I’d designed tractrix horns that required less than 1W for jackhammer volumes. I even made a single-ended 80W per channel amp to drive QUAD-63 electrostats, which sounded heavenly but I broke up my own set as too heavy and too dangerous (over 2000VDC — the ones I sold were installed in water cooled cabinets with locks). —- AJ

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 2:22:39 PM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 4:25:17 PM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 12:16:47 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > You guys are going on like all of a sudden, three days after the first germanium diode appeared, suddenly tubes were dead and everything was made of sand. That’s utter bullshit. I was designing tube amps through the eighties and nineties and the first decade of this century, and people were building and selling tube amps; they still are. And as late as the mid 1960s everybody who crossed the Southern Ocean and made passage around Cape Horn had tubes in both their nav and their emergency radios, proven gear; it wasn’t just me, I was merely copying my elders, and government advice for the Cape to Rio races was not to trust your life to devices that would crack the moment they saw an iceberg.
> > >
> > > But you clowns just can’t leave off trying to harass Tom with these utterly ludicrous arguments, can you? You should consider that these ruined threads, and such mindless perversity with facts says more about you than about him. And most of all, the fact that Tom is standing up and saying precisely what he wants to say whenever he wants to say it, tells the world everything there is to know about your incompetence as censors and gatekeepers. All this nastiness has achieved … zero except to make you look even limper than you are, even more spiteful than you would like to be remembered, petty totally beyond belief, and above all too stupid to learn from experience.
> > >
> > > Andre Jute
> > > It’s embarrassing to be on a group with such a bunch of quarterwits.
> > Our Radar units had tubes in them. I was indeed designing tube amplifiers from a very young age. There was no other means of electronic design. In what universe do you suppose these local yokels live in which every guitar amplifier wasn't tube? They are even easier to design with and early transistors were GERMANIUM which, while it didn't have a large band-gap (0,2 volts) that still was a step that destroyed amplifier fidelity. Not to mention that it wasn't until the 70's that they could make actual high powered transistors.
> >
> > Why do you suppose that stupid people would believe that transistors took over everything when even today it takes a deft hand to design a high fidelity amp with transistors? On our B52D, the terrain avoidance computer (TAC) was transistor because the military had unlimited funding at that time and transistor designers were exceedingly rare.
> >
> > Today, MOST "electronics engineers" cannot design analog circuitry and that has to be specified directly in the job offering. As for me, there was a teenager around the block that was interested in the electronic available at that time. I would go over to his garage workshop and he would explain it all to me. Then I would go home and try it myself probably starting at 7 years old. I could even design with transistors very early because you didn't have to design poser supplies with filament voltages. That meant that you could run your experiments with a car battery and a floor charger to keep the lead-acid battery up.
> >
> > But I suppose that people like the bookkeeper and flunky can tell me far more than I know because they have such a marvelous string of accomplishments. The bookkeeper one time counted all the way to ten and flunky never did a thing. John can Google something and claim it was his work.
> >
> > Many people have been led into electronics engineering because of the money despite having no interest or aptitude in it. A degree does NOT make you and engineer contrary to what Frank might believe. He was and engineer because he had the interest for it as did Jobst. But for every Jobst there were 100 "engineers" that couldn't even design a gear train which is a lot more complicated than people might expect. My very first foray as an engineer is when I contradicted TWO PhD EE's. I don't know what they were thinking when they said that a project couldn't possibly be completed without TWO IBM supercomputers (which at that time weren't all that super since they were numerical engines more than anything else). Perhaps they thought that they could get Kary Mullis to buy them gold in a box. I said that I could do the same thing with an 8008 (and did it with the 8080 as that came out in mid development.) Then I did additional projects with every microcomputer as it came out. Completing a degree doesn't mean you're an engineer. It means that you can pass tests. No disrespect for Frank but I expect he would be doing good if more than 10% of his students didn't go on to be successful engineers. You have to actually have aptitude and not simply training. Why do you suppose that at every job I was hired the same people over and over were employed with extremely few new people at each new position? Berkeley was grinding out EE's by the hundreds. If I received a new engineer I would make every possible effort to employ him to the best of his ability. Which unfortunately meant Walmart got a great many new checkers.
> >
> Vacuum tubes are still pretty good, if you know how to design with them. But germanium was always crap. The chief engineer at the nearby international airport gave me their reserve PA which was 6550 tubes, eightfold redundant. He also told me he had taken up playing the electronic organ to ladies’ tea parties, so if I wanted to come clear out his loft, I could have a scope capable of withstanding big broadcasting valves, a 3000V meter like I’d been trying to buy from the guy who introduced us, and all his small parts. I tried some of the germanium that came from him. Though I could understand the excitement from those who earned a living from electronics at that time at the new stuff, I found the germanium components crappy beyond belief. But tubes, almost no matter how old, if they came from Western Electric or Mullard, were good for routine constant use at 80 per cent of max power dissipation which made for a pretty straight and wide transfer function, aka a noiseless amp, especially when running into a high load, which cost in power of course but I didn’t care because I’d designed tractrix horns that required less than 1W for jackhammer volumes.. I even made a single-ended 80W per channel amp to drive QUAD-63 electrostats, which sounded heavenly but I broke up my own set as too heavy and too dangerous (over 2000VDC — the ones I sold were installed in water cooled cabinets with locks). —- AJ

Every one of the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's rock groups used TUBE amplifiers for the morons that don't know. Transistors were crap until they were built into op amps. And then they didn't have any power and the power transistors couldn't even stand up to a cheap tube amp.

On Tue, 10 May 2022 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
<fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:

>They are even easier to design with and early transistors were GERMANIUM which, while it didn't have a large band-gap (0,2 volts) that still was a step that destroyed amplifier fidelity.

Germanium band gap at room temp is 0.67 eV (electron volts).
<https://www.rp-photonics.com/band_gap.html>
Band gap is measured in electron volts. You're thinking of the PN
junction forward conduction voltage, measured in volts, which is
approximately 0.3V for germanium. Neither has an effect on audio
"fidelity" which is a marketing term for accurate reproduction of the
original music.

>Not to mention that it wasn't until the 70's that they could make actual high powered transistors.

The 2N3055 was introduced in the early 1960's.
<https://www.onsemi.com/pdf/datasheet/2n3055-d.pdf>
They are still being manufactured and used in current designs today
(e.g. Astron linear power supplies). These are 115 watt power
transistors in a TO-3 case which I would consider to be "high power".
I used several as series regulators in a low RF noise linear 12VDC
power supply. The 2N3055 was marginal at the higher audio frequencies
(25KHz) because the Ft (gain-bandwidth product) was rather low (about
2.5MHz). What made them popular was that the early versions were
really cheap because of the single diffusion process used. Later
versions switched to some kind of epitaxial process, which were less
horrible. With an acceptable beta of 15 to infinity almost everything
that was produced met the spec. Trying to design something consistent
and reliable with such crap was a challenge.

>On our B52D, the terrain avoidance computer (TAC) was transistor because the military had unlimited funding at that time and transistor designers were exceedingly rare.

Do you recall which model TFR (terrain following radar) was in your
B52D? There's a list starting on Pg 33 in:
"A History of Terrain-Following Radar"
<https://www.theatlas.org/index.php/r-b-library/td-reports?download=47:a-history-of-terrain-following-radar-by-tandy-penn&start=40>
The B-52D was delivered between 1957 and 1958. Unlimited funding is
not going to produce a reliable RADAR system. Unless there was an
upgrade to the RADAR just before you were flying (approximately 1967),
the only reliable devices available in 1957-1958 (assuming the RADAR
was designed a few years before delivery), were vacuum tubes.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 10:25:17 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 10, 2022 at 12:16:47 AM UTC-7, Andre Jute wrote:
> > You guys are going on like all of a sudden, three days after the first germanium diode appeared, suddenly tubes were dead and everything was made of sand. That’s utter bullshit. I was designing tube amps through the eighties and nineties and the first decade of this century, and people were building and selling tube amps; they still are. And as late as the mid 1960s everybody who crossed the Southern Ocean and made passage around Cape Horn had tubes in both their nav and their emergency radios, proven gear; it wasn’t just me, I was merely copying my elders, and government advice for the Cape to Rio races was not to trust your life to devices that would crack the moment they saw an iceberg.
> >
> > But you clowns just can’t leave off trying to harass Tom with these utterly ludicrous arguments, can you? You should consider that these ruined threads, and such mindless perversity with facts says more about you than about him. And most of all, the fact that Tom is standing up and saying precisely what he wants to say whenever he wants to say it, tells the world everything there is to know about your incompetence as censors and gatekeepers. All this nastiness has achieved … zero except to make you look even limper than you are, even more spiteful than you would like to be remembered, petty totally beyond belief, and above all too stupid to learn from experience.
> >
> > Andre Jute
> > It’s embarrassing to be on a group with such a bunch of quarterwits.
> Our Radar units had tubes in them. I was indeed designing tube amplifiers from a very young age. There was no other means of electronic design. In what universe do you suppose these local yokels live in which every guitar amplifier wasn't tube?

Are you insinuating all of the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s legendary guitarists built their own amplifiers? Jimi Hendrix and Jimmy Page and Eddie Van Halen and Eric Clapton and Neil Young and Richard Harrison and Brian May all built their own amplifiers for their guitars. Gosh. I did not know that.

> They are even easier to design with and early transistors were GERMANIUM which, while it didn't have a large band-gap (0,2 volts) that still was a step that destroyed amplifier fidelity. Not to mention that it wasn't until the 70's that they could make actual high powered transistors.
>
> Why do you suppose that stupid people would believe that transistors took over everything when even today it takes a deft hand to design a high fidelity amp with transistors? On our B52D, the terrain avoidance computer (TAC) was transistor because the military had unlimited funding at that time and transistor designers were exceedingly rare.
>
> Today, MOST "electronics engineers" cannot design analog circuitry and that has to be specified directly in the job offering. As for me, there was a teenager around the block that was interested in the electronic available at that time. I would go over to his garage workshop and he would explain it all to me. Then I would go home and try it myself probably starting at 7 years old.

Gosh Tommy. 7 years old. You were a junior Nikola Tesla in the making. He won a Nobel Prize. You haven't told us about yours yet.

> I could even design with transistors very early because you didn't have to design poser supplies with filament voltages. That meant that you could run your experiments with a car battery and a floor charger to keep the lead-acid battery up.
>
> But I suppose that people like the bookkeeper and flunky can tell me far more than I know because they have such a marvelous string of accomplishments. The bookkeeper one time counted all the way to ten and flunky never did a thing. John can Google something and claim it was his work.
>
> Many people have been led into electronics engineering because of the money despite having no interest or aptitude in it. A degree does NOT make you and engineer contrary to what Frank might believe. He was and engineer because he had the interest for it as did Jobst. But for every Jobst there were 100 "engineers" that couldn't even design a gear train which is a lot more complicated than people might expect. My very first foray as an engineer is when I contradicted TWO PhD EE's. I don't know what they were thinking when they said that a project couldn't possibly be completed without TWO IBM supercomputers (which at that time weren't all that super since they were numerical engines more than anything else). Perhaps they thought that they could get Kary Mullis to buy them gold in a box. I said that I could do the same thing with an 8008 (and did it with the 8080 as that came out in mid development.) Then I did additional projects with every microcomputer as it came out. Completing a degree doesn't mean you're an engineer. It means that you can pass tests. No disrespect for Frank but I expect he would be doing good if more than 10% of his students didn't go on to be successful engineers. You have to actually have aptitude and not simply training. Why do you suppose that at every job I was hired the same people over and over were employed with extremely few new people at each new position? Berkeley was grinding out EE's by the hundreds. If I received a new engineer I would make every possible effort to employ him to the best of his ability. Which unfortunately meant Walmart got a great many new checkers.

On Wednesday, May 11, 2022 at 12:36:13 AM UTC+1, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2022 14:22:37 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
> <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Nope, I did not. You’re splitting hairs with Tom. — AJ
>
> >They are even easier to design with and early transistors were GERMANIUM which, while it didn't have a large band-gap (0,2 volts) that still was a step that destroyed amplifier fidelity.
> Germanium band gap at room temp is 0.67 eV (electron volts).
> <https://www.rp-photonics.com/band_gap.html>
> Band gap is measured in electron volts. You're thinking of the PN
> junction forward conduction voltage, measured in volts, which is
> approximately 0.3V for germanium. Neither has an effect on audio
> "fidelity" which is a marketing term for accurate reproduction of the
> original music.
> >Not to mention that it wasn't until the 70's that they could make actual high powered transistors.
> The 2N3055 was introduced in the early 1960's.
> <https://www.onsemi.com/pdf/datasheet/2n3055-d.pdf>
> They are still being manufactured and used in current designs today
> (e.g. Astron linear power supplies). These are 115 watt power
> transistors in a TO-3 case which I would consider to be "high power".
> I used several as series regulators in a low RF noise linear 12VDC
> power supply. The 2N3055 was marginal at the higher audio frequencies
> (25KHz) because the Ft (gain-bandwidth product) was rather low (about
> 2.5MHz). What made them popular was that the early versions were
> really cheap because of the single diffusion process used. Later
> versions switched to some kind of epitaxial process, which were less
> horrible. With an acceptable beta of 15 to infinity almost everything
> that was produced met the spec. Trying to design something consistent
> and reliable with such crap was a challenge.
> >On our B52D, the terrain avoidance computer (TAC) was transistor because the military had unlimited funding at that time and transistor designers were exceedingly rare.
> Do you recall which model TFR (terrain following radar) was in your
> B52D? There's a list starting on Pg 33 in:
> "A History of Terrain-Following Radar"
> <https://www.theatlas.org/index.php/r-b-library/td-reports?download=47:a-history-of-terrain-following-radar-by-tandy-penn&start=40>
> The B-52D was delivered between 1957 and 1958. Unlimited funding is
> not going to produce a reliable RADAR system. Unless there was an
> upgrade to the RADAR just before you were flying (approximately 1967),
> the only reliable devices available in 1957-1958 (assuming the RADAR
> was designed a few years before delivery), were vacuum tubes.
> --
> Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
> PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558