In uk.rec.audio  Don Pearce <donaldnospam@pearce.uk.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:02:55 +0100, Ronnie McKinley
><mckinley@glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In uk.rec.audio  Don Pearce <donaldnospam@pearce.uk.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Or is the word _audiophile_  just the means to the end?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Now don't be a geek, Don :)
>>>
>>>Oh I see. You didn't really read what I replied to.
>>>
>>
>>It would appear to me the importance of term 'audiophile' has more
>>attachment added to it by the technically minded than those who simply
>>have a love of (reproduced) music, reproduced by their home based audio
>>systems.
>>
>>Furthermore, it would appear to me than a number in this ng would not
>>even regard or consider the non-techinically minded folk as
>>'audiophiles' and even to do so, would be repugnant.
>>
>I can't get that worked up about anything much.
>>

Well  .... there must be something, Don? ;>)  .

... if not, then may I suggest you take up on some of the offers from
those **SPAM** e-mails we all receive, maybe that 'll give you an extra
lift, Don.


>>>Now, you called me a Geek
>>
>>I didn't call you a geek.
>>
>In the post before...
>

In the post before what, Don?

In the quote above. I said  ....

"Now don't be a geek, Don :)"

So what are you saying, Don, It wasn't obvious I was pulling your leg?
"**don't** be a geek, Don" -  Wise up, Don. I defended you before as NOT
being one of the resident geeks of this ng. Did you parked your sense of
humour down at the pub last night, Don?


>>> - maybe tongue-in-cheek, 
>>
>>Obviously.
>>
>>
>>>Bearing in mind that this is 2003, which activity do you think would
>>>be perceived by the great unwashed as more Geekish; putting on a CD,
>>>or playing vinyl on high-end gear?
>>
>>Why does it have to be 'high-end gear?'
>>
>Cos I'm not sure that 45s on the Dansette are really what we are
>talking about.
>

Oh I see. So, playing an LP on a Rega 2 with basic arm and cart is now
regarded as "high-end" gear?


>>I wouldn't regard either formats as 'geekish' only the dogmatic
>>attitudes held by some, on both sides of the debate. I can't speak for
>>the masses.
>
>I'll agree with that one!

How could you ever start to disagree with that one? :)



-- 
Ronnie