Since Geoff is using my picture of the chip on his site, I thought it would be appropriate for me to correct some inaccuracies in his description of the chip.First of all, it's not a "plain green plastic sheet" where the disks are mounted on. The green square is a typical and unremarkable PCB-like material made of some kind of woven fabric impregnated with some kind of resin. Think of fiberglass if that helps.
Second, there is NO "unusual quilted surface" on the disks. What you are seeing (as if the obvious needs to be pointed out) is the surface of the PCB-like material forming its own impression thru the very thin disks. Folllow the lines of the weave and even in the very poor photo, you can easily see they extend thru the disks. If Geoff had truly "popped the case" he would have seen this along with the lack of battery, electronic board and control codes, whatever that may be.
I realize that this is a small thing and doesn't say anything at all about whether the chip actually does anything, but I think it's important to at least try and not be deceptive about the physical nature of the device. I mean if someone can't even accurately describe the construction of the chip in the first paragraph (after supposedly popping the case) how in the world can the rest of the "paper" be taken seriously?
For those of you interested in a down-to-earth view, here's what the disks really look like. The NiNb side is rolled foil and the copper side is vapor or electro deposited aluminum bronze. The disks have been stamped out of a larger sheet with a punch press and the overall quality of the material is extremely poor. The deposition was found to be random and wildly varying in thickness (relatively speaking of course) and the shape-memory nature of the aluminum bronze probably identifies the material as a temperature sensitive switching contact that causes the foil to bulge when it attempts to return to it's original shape in response to a change in temp.
The idea that the 5 major elements in the disk are independent of each other and are indications of "quantum material" is simply not true. They're alloys, and they serve a specific purpose as an alloy and there's nothing mystical about it. There's the suggestion throughout all of Machina Dynamica's "papers" that the mere presence of these elements is somehow proof of quantum material. But it's because the brain trust over there can't see the forest for the trees and can't seem to understand how important the word "alloy" is. The ~2 percent Nb is alloyed with the nickel to give it a mechanical property condusive to extremely thin rolling - without the Nb, the nickel would work harden to the point of losing the ductility needed to roll it that thin. This is just basic mettalurgy and has nothing to do with containing quantum dot arrays and quantum lasers.
Anyway, here's a shot of the Ni side, sans quilting:-)
And here's a shot of the bronze side - notice the unevenness of the deposition.
And here's a shot of a cross section after slicing and dicing.
The key to solving the great chip mystery is to find the manufacturer of the material and find out what the application for it is. I should have an answer on that one shortly. This is an "off the shelf" material guys that had an original purpose. Any discussion about the "way it works" is completely moot, since Geoff or anyone else cannot say with honesty and integrity, that the quantum material even exists on these disks. I'm amazed that anyone would go that far into a dubious explanation without first estblishing the fact that the arrays and lasers they use in their explanation even exist.
Am I the only one that thinks it's odd that degreed physicists would take such a sloppy approach to the truth? For 200 bucks, anyone can get a complete physical analysis of these disks from any one of hundreds of labs across the country. It's one thing to say that science is stuck in a rut (it probably is at some point) but that doesn't mean you can run around throwing up wild ass theories without doing even the most basic leg work. If you wanted to know why a cable sounded so good in your system, the first thing you'd do is find out if it's copper or silver or whatever, find out what kind of dielectric is used and what the terminations are made of. Why is this chip any different? Is it because the truth is too scary? Is the explanation of a couple of simple common alloys not high-tech enough to sell them? I mean if it works, it works, right? Why not just be honest about what it is rather than creating a totally unsubstantiated fairy tale without having even the most fundamental understanding of what it's made of?
I'm really shaking my head at this whole debacle, and not because I believe it's a farce. It's true that I listened to treated disks and didn't hear any change, but someone I trust sitting right next to me claimed he did. I truly and honestly don't give a rats ass if someone wants to spend money on it - if they believe it's improving their system, great. What really bothers me is the lack of simple honesty from the sellers of this thing. Do they know if there's quantum material in the disks? No they don't, yet they sell them based on that "fact." Do they know that their quantum lasers and quantum arrays have the effect on the polycarbonate as they claim? No they don't, yet they sell them based on that "fact." Have they taken even the most menial, basic steps to understand the composition and possible alternate uses for the material in the disks? No they haven't; they rely on internet anectdote to prove their marketing claims using photos posted by people who think they're being dishonest. They're using sources that have to follow them around and correct them everytime they take information from that source and use it deceptively for their own gain.
Thing is, the chip could still work and be very ordinary in its makeup. Why are they so afraid of that? So what if the disk is nothing more than a contact that lights up on your car's dashboard when your engine overheats? If it makes your CDs sound better, who cares where it came from?
I just don't understand how degreed physicists are so blatantly incompetent when it comes to "reverse engineering." Why can't they see how simple the approach to reverse engineering a piece of material with no moving parts is? Is it that hard to fathom, that first you need to prove the existence of the quantum material and then prove the effect? I know it's more fashionable to compare yourself to Gallileo and run all over the Asylum with a persecution complex, but geeze, how about a little common sense instead? You want to know how the chip works? Take the freaking thing apart! What's so hard about that? Between Curl, Clark and Geoff, there otta be 200 bucks to spare for a certified, traceable analysis and with all their combined experience with the military industrial complex, they should have tons of personal contacts to get the heavy stuff done for free.
I really just don't get this part of audiophilism - for all the smart people that seem to populate these boards, no one seems to be able actually do anything when push comes to shove. It's not too much to ask for some kind of rational explanation for things like the chip, and by rational, I mean something based on real research. It doesn't have to be so in-depth that you need to buy your own SEC, but just make it real - make a real attempt at knowing what's in that little disk and don't run around talking about quantum this and quantum that when you don't even know, and haven't even attempted to find out, if there's any quantum material in them to begin with! I would've thought they'd have taught that in college, but I guess not.
Doesn't this crap just make you want to scream?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - GSIC marketing corrections - Allan 03:13:24 06/21/05 (225)
- Nice pictures, thanks. nt - Elizabeth 06:01:03 06/29/05 (0)
- What about.... - RBP 15:20:02 06/25/05 (1)
- Re: What about.... - Ken Perkins 18:02:27 06/25/05 (0)
- Ping: Wellfed - bjh 11:19:52 06/23/05 (1)
- Nope... - Wellfed 14:22:27 06/23/05 (0)
- Yet another last chapter of the GSIC saga! - KlausR. 06:11:07 06/22/05 (150)
- Re: Yet another last chapter of the GSIC saga! - Allan 10:26:26 06/22/05 (73)
- Geoff Kait - KlausR. 00:39:54 06/23/05 (25)
- Re: KlausR - geoffkait 08:04:23 06/23/05 (24)
- Bad memory, Geoff! - KlausR. 00:14:19 06/24/05 (23)
- Not that it matters, but... - Jim Austin 08:20:20 06/24/05 (1)
- What is relevant in this context is... - KlausR. 22:18:29 06/24/05 (0)
- Re: "I decided to avoid high end altogether." - geoffkait 04:54:23 06/24/05 (20)
- Deja vu, do you remember? - KlausR. 05:12:07 06/24/05 (19)
- Re: Exactly my point!... - geoffkait 05:44:17 06/24/05 (18)
- tweaks such as vibration isolation or Mr. Chip - jensw 21:06:28 06/28/05 (0)
- How relative is relative? - KlausR. 06:59:27 06/24/05 (14)
- "I don't think that [tweaks] can make my system any better." So much for *your* thinking! - clarkjohnsen 08:18:44 06/24/05 (1)
- I'm a twiiiker, yes a twiiiker I am! - KlausR. 00:03:53 06/25/05 (0)
- Re: Everything is relative, Grasshopper - geoffkait 07:15:18 06/24/05 (11)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - Jim Willis 03:36:08 06/25/05 (10)
- Would someone please explain... - Jim Austin 08:38:08 06/27/05 (0)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - john curl 17:58:50 06/25/05 (8)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - john curl 21:32:27 06/25/05 (6)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - Jim Willis 06:14:12 06/26/05 (5)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - john curl 08:25:16 06/26/05 (4)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 15:09:10 06/27/05 (1)
- I protest! They're brilliant! (Ahhhhh) nt - bjh 22:10:41 06/27/05 (0)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - Jim Willis 11:08:10 06/26/05 (0)
- JSMR - KlausR. 09:13:45 06/26/05 (0)
- Re: Revenge of the DBTers attitude - Jim Willis 18:48:22 06/25/05 (0)
- Feelings... he has feelings... nt - clarkjohnsen 06:52:04 06/24/05 (1)
- Even better, Clark... - KlausR. 07:01:46 06/24/05 (0)
- Re: Yet another last chapter of the GSIC saga! - john curl 10:58:25 06/22/05 (46)
- Laws of nature and engineeering rules - Jim Austin 12:09:41 06/24/05 (10)
- Re: Laws of nature and engineeering rules - john curl 14:32:43 06/24/05 (9)
- Re: Handy guide - Mahatma Kane Jeeves 22:09:30 06/27/05 (0)
- Not sure there is such a "handy guide"... - Jim Austin 04:50:18 06/27/05 (6)
- Re: Not sure there is such a "handy guide"... - john curl 17:29:19 07/04/05 (5)
- No reason why you should believe me John - Jim Austin 07:26:01 07/05/05 (4)
- Re: No reason why you should believe me John - geoffkait 08:20:25 07/05/05 (3)
- Re: No reason why you should believe me John - Jim Austin 08:40:16 07/05/05 (2)
- Re: No reason why you should believe me John - geoffkait 09:43:33 07/05/05 (1)
- Cynical? - Jim Austin 10:34:51 07/05/05 (1)
- Re: Laws of nature and engineeering rules - Steve Eddy 00:20:53 06/25/05 (0)
- Do you REALLY want to know what the chip is? NO. - KlausR. 00:22:39 06/23/05 (29)
- Re: Do you REALLY want to know what the chip is? NO. - john curl 07:25:03 06/23/05 (28)
- Does this sound like hypothesizing? - KlausR. 07:52:40 06/23/05 (27)
- The question begs asking... - Wellfed 09:11:35 06/23/05 (26)
- Even if I did have the chip examined... - KlausR. 00:56:09 06/24/05 (9)
- I wouldn't care... - Wellfed 12:37:46 07/01/05 (8)
- Then you are the perfect target... - KlausR. 22:04:18 07/01/05 (7)
- You presumably miss my point... - Wellfed 22:21:18 07/01/05 (6)
- I make you a proposal - KlausR. 05:19:40 07/02/05 (1)
- Sounds good... - Wellfed 20:12:15 07/02/05 (0)
- I don't think I've missed your point! - KlausR. 04:11:49 07/02/05 (3)
- Don't forget... - Wellfed 20:49:56 07/02/05 (2)
- Re: Don't forget... - john curl 22:26:22 07/03/05 (1)
- Encouragement/reinforcement. - soulfood 08:52:17 07/04/05 (0)
- there's no need - BS64 11:43:41 06/23/05 (11)
- Is that so?... - Wellfed 14:17:55 06/23/05 (10)
- "Don't you have anything better to do?" - BS64 15:32:05 06/23/05 (9)
- What is the context of your "gloating"?... - Wellfed 16:21:04 06/23/05 (8)
- Re: What is the context of your "gloating"?... - BS64 08:49:12 06/26/05 (7)
- I didn't tell Klaus to have the GSIC tested... - Wellfed 19:32:32 06/28/05 (6)
- "...given your level of interest in the subject, why don't YOU have the chip tested? " - BS64 10:28:12 07/01/05 (5)
- Your point being? [nt] - Wellfed 12:40:17 07/01/05 (4)
- you stated that you did not tell Klaus to have the chip tested - BS64 04:05:48 07/02/05 (3)
- Did not... - Wellfed 21:00:50 07/02/05 (2)
- did so - BS64 12:31:04 07/03/05 (1)
- Literally speaking... - Wellfed 23:13:33 07/04/05 (0)
- Hijacker! nt - bjh 10:33:14 06/23/05 (3)
- Serious question... - Wellfed 14:19:04 06/23/05 (2)
- No seriously I was interested in Curl's response - bjh 17:02:25 06/23/05 (1)
- No, I don't... - Wellfed 21:54:40 06/23/05 (0)
- Keep an open mind, John, you might learn something. - Al Sekela 16:48:17 06/22/05 (0)
- "Do we REALLY know what the chip is? NO!" - bjh 12:13:23 06/22/05 (0)
- Re: Yet another last chapter of the GSIC saga! - Allan 11:34:32 06/22/05 (1)
- "Clark has no more interest in integrity either." According to your minions... - clarkjohnsen 07:51:17 06/23/05 (0)
- "That's why I chuckle when..." That's what one must do with these people. nt - clarkjohnsen 11:03:04 06/22/05 (0)
- With an addendum. - Jim Treanor 09:42:54 06/22/05 (3)
- Heat? - bjh 10:22:32 06/23/05 (0)
- questions - tunenut 09:51:16 06/22/05 (1)
- Answers...sort of... - Jim Treanor 12:09:11 06/22/05 (0)
- If you don't trust your ears, what can we say? nt - Norm 06:37:50 06/22/05 (71)
- It's not OUR ears we don't trust... - Jim Austin 07:39:53 06/22/05 (69)
- "...it's YOUR ears." And Dr. Gaw's, and Ken Kessler's, and Steve Harris's, and Marshall Nack's, and... anyone who... - clarkjohnsen 07:50:05 06/22/05 (68)
- Actually... - Jim Austin 10:53:11 06/22/05 (64)
- Actually...You just want to trash the chip, never have time to listen, right ? - henry Jones 17:49:17 06/28/05 (0)
- Re: Actually... - john curl 07:44:54 06/23/05 (53)
- Re: Actually... - Steve Eddy 09:13:36 06/23/05 (4)
- Re: Actually... - john curl 13:07:57 06/23/05 (3)
- Re: Actually... - Steve Eddy 15:33:00 06/23/05 (0)
- Objection... - Wellfed 14:46:51 06/23/05 (1)
- Re: Objection... - john curl 16:05:36 06/23/05 (0)
- I'm not a real scientist. - Jim Austin 08:41:03 06/23/05 (46)
- "scientists...embrace very high standards of proof for radical results" Not true! - Norm 09:35:36 06/23/05 (45)
- science and audio - Jim Austin 10:04:53 06/23/05 (44)
- I don't think the limited "science" of critics of the IC define what is "real" and what is not. - Norm 11:31:53 06/23/05 (43)
- So the challenge is to come up with a 'hypothesis' that - bjh 11:59:50 06/23/05 (38)
- Re: "Hypothesis" is not my word... - geoffkait 12:25:23 06/23/05 (37)
- What do you play these games? The admission is on the public record! - bjh 12:51:39 06/23/05 (36)
- Re: You don't do very well on reading comprehension tests, do you? - geoffkait 14:25:22 06/23/05 (1)
- Then feel free to address the substance of the challenge. Prediction: You won't. nt - bjh 16:58:11 06/23/05 (0)
- Why should anyone take the challenge seriously, it is just prattling on about pseudo science, but - Norm 13:52:44 06/23/05 (33)
- Finally!!! - Ken Perkins 16:27:59 06/23/05 (29)
- Are you happy that it is selling well? nt - Norm 16:59:19 06/23/05 (28)
- Actually I'm not - Ken Perkins 17:18:06 06/23/05 (27)
- Re: Actually I'm not - RBP 17:26:33 06/24/05 (1)
- Re: Actually ... - Jim Willis 06:53:13 06/25/05 (0)
- OK Ken... - Wellfed 22:08:15 06/23/05 (24)
- The simple facts - Ken Perkins 05:21:31 06/24/05 (23)
- Is it a scam if it works? - Norm 11:14:47 06/24/05 (13)
- There is a little anecdotal evidence for you. (nt) - Al Sekela 14:34:27 06/24/05 (11)
- Certainly it is anecdotal evidence. It is no evidence to say it cannot work. nt - Norm 15:38:24 06/24/05 (10)
- Re: With one exception... - Jim Willis 06:47:46 06/25/05 (9)
- If a visual perception allows this judgment. nt - Norm 08:07:10 06/25/05 (8)
- Re: If a visual perception allows this judgment. nt - Jim Willis 12:15:04 06/25/05 (7)
- No, but what do they show or not show? What would we expect to see? nt - Norm 13:29:25 06/25/05 (6)
- We have the pics and a qualitive analysis... - KlausR. 08:10:54 06/26/05 (5)
- And to the counter, I must conclude that it does work and is not a scam - Norm 15:41:08 06/26/05 (4)
- Quantum material everywhere? - KlausR. 23:25:49 06/26/05 (3)
- Re: Quantum material everywhere? - Norm 06:36:29 06/28/05 (2)
- Franssen illusion - KlausR. 08:16:29 06/28/05 (1)
- Enough, no one else is probably paying attention, and we will never convince each other. nt - Norm 11:19:51 06/28/05 (0)
- Re: Is it a scam if it works? - Ken Perkins 13:15:28 06/24/05 (0)
- "No one in the media... have heard of it, worked with it or endorsed it." ROTFLOL! - clarkjohnsen 08:23:06 06/24/05 (8)
- Re: "No one in the media... have heard of it, worked with it or endorsed it." ROTFLOL! - Ken Perkins 09:01:42 06/24/05 (7)
- "Only the media that caters to and exploits audiophools like you." Let's see, that would be... - clarkjohnsen 09:32:10 06/28/05 (4)
- Seriously, talk to someone would you. You've lost it. You need help. Seriously. nt - - Ken Perkins 13:30:58 06/28/05 (3)
- So: It *is* Sound & Vision for you. We're glad to have confirmation. nt - clarkjohnsen 14:35:14 06/28/05 (2)
- Re: So: It *is* Sound & Vision for you. We're glad to have confirmation. nt - Ken Perkins 17:21:08 06/28/05 (1)
- "...one-liner hit and run posts and your whiney letter to Stereophile." Well let's just say... - clarkjohnsen 07:56:14 06/29/05 (0)
- Your other "points" were dull -- and have already been refuted. - clarkjohnsen 07:44:54 06/25/05 (1)
- Seriously, talk to someone would you. You've lost it. You need help. Seriously. nt - bjh 19:20:04 06/25/05 (0)
- ... with your money! HA HA HA nt - bjh 13:59:59 06/23/05 (2)
- probably not yours. Too bad! nt - Norm 14:13:49 06/23/05 (1)
- His loss, not ours. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:23:49 06/24/05 (0)
- If you're counting me among those "critics"... - Jim Austin 11:53:34 06/23/05 (3)
- I think what you stated as your position is what I said is the position of "critics." - Norm 13:56:34 06/23/05 (2)
- No, I don't particularly... - Jim Austin 14:51:17 06/23/05 (1)
- As the old saying goes, "if it looks like a ......" nt - Norm 17:00:55 06/23/05 (0)
- "X-rays are a hoax!" Aren't they? I've never seen any! nt - clarkjohnsen 07:53:50 06/23/05 (0)
- Actually, Jim I don't give a fig what you say. nt - Norm 20:27:33 06/22/05 (4)
- Good for you Norm... - Jim Austin 06:03:50 06/23/05 (3)
- Actually, Jim, it was your illogical offering in Stereophile that causes me to disregard your offerings. - Norm 06:30:14 06/23/05 (2)
- It's not illogical... - Jim Austin 08:19:24 06/23/05 (1)
- No they are easy to grasp - Norm 09:06:03 06/23/05 (0)
- You forgot.... - Ken Perkins 11:02:12 06/22/05 (3)
- or you may have too many books and printed material - tunenut 11:08:54 06/22/05 (2)
- Ah the Bent (opps Belt) Connection ... - bjh 12:31:18 06/22/05 (0)
- Re: or you may have too many books and printed material - Ken Perkins 11:17:54 06/22/05 (0)
- It's the vacuum between the ears that's the problem. - Dan Banquer 08:34:55 06/22/05 (2)
- Maybe an empty skull adds some reverberation to the "perceived" sound? (nt) - orejones 09:00:53 06/22/05 (1)
- GOOD ONE! (nt) - Dan Banquer 09:20:18 06/22/05 (0)
- Re: If you don't trust your ears, what can we say? nt - KlausR. 07:11:52 06/22/05 (0)
- Magic and Langmuir's "Pathological Science" - Mark Kelly 20:03:31 06/21/05 (7)
- Re: Magic and Langmuir's "Pathological Science" - Jacques 13:02:29 06/22/05 (0)
- Re: Magic and Langmuir's "Pathological Science" - dickc212@msn.com 08:12:07 06/22/05 (0)
- Can you put this information in laymen's terms? [nt] - Wellfed 22:36:16 06/21/05 (4)
- Langmuir himself did it pretty well, as you will see... - orejones 02:37:47 06/22/05 (1)
- I think I put up that link before;guess they didn't read it - Atexanathome 17:59:08 06/22/05 (0)
- My post or Langmuir's talk? - Mark Kelly 01:36:05 06/22/05 (1)
- Langmuir's talk [nt] - Wellfed 12:05:50 06/22/05 (0)
- A paradigm for magical thinking. - Al Sekela 16:58:37 06/21/05 (7)
- I find it fascinating that it bugs you so! - Norm 17:36:07 06/21/05 (6)
- Of course the chip is safe. - Al Sekela 17:45:06 06/21/05 (5)
- Re: Of course the chip is safe. - Jacques 14:21:12 06/22/05 (4)
- Thanks for a wonderful link! - Al Sekela 16:22:04 06/22/05 (3)
- Re: Thanks for a wonderful link! - Jacques 00:58:02 06/23/05 (2)
- Thanks again for a thoroughly interesting discussion. - Al Sekela 13:44:54 06/23/05 (1)
- As with cars, except for those who buy Toyotas? Computers? Where not true? nt - Norm 14:00:02 06/23/05 (0)
- As the someone... - Jim Treanor 16:40:44 06/21/05 (1)
- Re: As the someone... - Tom Dawson 16:56:42 06/21/05 (0)
- Thank you for your thorough description. Now what? - Norm 13:48:55 06/21/05 (3)
- Ah, reality... - Wellfed 13:56:11 06/21/05 (2)
- Re: Ah, reality... - Tom Dawson 16:33:16 06/21/05 (1)
- I have used up 5. When they go, you hear no improvement. - Norm 17:32:13 06/21/05 (0)
- Somewhere in your analysis will we find an explanation of why... - clarkjohnsen 09:13:26 06/21/05 (7)
- Re: Somewhere in your analysis will we find an explanation of why... - Allan 10:26:00 06/21/05 (6)
- Still waiting for a reply to the below... nt - clarkjohnsen 07:59:14 06/23/05 (1)
- pssst! - bjh 11:26:23 06/23/05 (0)
- "just say you don't know and leave it at that" - BS64 10:13:38 06/22/05 (0)
- "They never deplete because they never begin." Hmmm... something circular there... - clarkjohnsen 13:17:05 06/21/05 (2)
- Same old same old - Dave Pogue 13:46:11 06/21/05 (0)
- Reason-go-'round - jbmcb 13:44:44 06/21/05 (0)
- Sure is quiet in here today - Ken Perkins 09:06:22 06/21/05 (23)
- It should also be noted that most anti-chipsters go into hibernation... - Wellfed 12:04:15 06/21/05 (22)
- Well, do we now? - Silver Eared John 15:49:33 07/27/05 (1)
- I am pretty sure we do... - Wellfed 16:04:47 07/27/05 (0)
- Re: It should also be noted that most anti-chipsters go into hibernation... - dickc212@msn.com 08:23:24 06/22/05 (1)
- Same audio press... - Wellfed 12:08:31 06/22/05 (0)
- Hibernation my a**. - Dan Banquer 13:14:20 06/21/05 (3)
- It's only drivel when a positive outcome is noted? [nt] - Wellfed 13:51:29 06/21/05 (2)
- Drivel or Delusional? Your choice. - Dan Banquer 13:57:38 06/21/05 (1)
- Well if your wife says it's delusional... - Wellfed 14:01:20 06/21/05 (0)
- You must be joking right? - Ken Perkins 12:16:59 06/21/05 (13)
- When joking... - Wellfed 13:50:04 06/21/05 (12)
- " the lack of germane and honest commentary acknowledging the positive GSIC reviews" - Ken Perkins 16:56:09 06/21/05 (11)
- I truly do not have a problem with dissenting views... - Wellfed 21:05:57 06/21/05 (9)
- "They worship their own opinion." Well there you have it! Mammon, in person. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:38:59 06/22/05 (1)
- Mammon you say? Hmmmm..., that´s more appliable to those trying to sell it... - orejones 08:45:30 06/22/05 (0)
- How can dissenting views be fairly self-moderated...common sense? - soulfood 06:52:23 06/22/05 (6)
- I am referring to something really obvious... - Wellfed 15:39:15 06/22/05 (5)
- Sensationalism attracts extremists. - soulfood 09:13:04 06/23/05 (4)
- I do attempt the courtesy of staying close to the topic... - Wellfed 14:41:49 06/23/05 (3)
- Staying close to this particular topic is a vessel for contention. - soulfood 16:54:14 06/23/05 (2)
- Exactly... - Wellfed 06:53:35 06/26/05 (1)
- We are all guilty of dismissive assertions. - soulfood 13:14:23 06/26/05 (0)
- Opps, it is the dog that is the judge. nt - Norm 20:26:18 06/21/05 (0)
- Geoffkait begs to differ, I'm sure. - Tom Dawson 08:21:14 06/21/05 (12)
- There's nothing to differ about. - Allan 09:24:16 06/21/05 (10)
- Why were you hoping for aluminum foil?... - Wellfed 12:07:02 06/21/05 (9)
- Re: Why were you hoping for aluminum foil?... - john curl 12:48:44 06/21/05 (4)
- Re: Why were you hoping for aluminum foil?... - Jim Willis 07:35:49 06/22/05 (1)
- Re: Why were you hoping for aluminum foil?... - orejones 08:56:58 06/22/05 (0)
- He's like those guys at Harvard who photographed the skies and thought that was all to know about stars. nt - clarkjohnsen 13:24:26 06/21/05 (1)
- Re: He's like those guys at Harvard who photographed the skies and thought that was all to know about stars. nt - john curl 08:15:15 06/23/05 (0)
- Re: Why were you hoping for aluminum foil?... - Allan 12:36:47 06/21/05 (3)
- I see... - Wellfed 14:05:14 06/21/05 (2)
- Only what you want to. - Allan 15:06:19 06/21/05 (1)
- I'm all for ethical business practice... - Wellfed 15:34:17 06/21/05 (0)
- Don't take any bets though. - soulfood 08:43:19 06/21/05 (0)
- Well, that's a breath of fresh air. - Dave Pogue 05:13:56 06/21/05 (0)
- Excellent post, Allan. And no further comments needed, I´d say... (nt) - orejones 04:24:21 06/21/05 (0)