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

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 20:53:09 +0100, Ronnie McKinley
><mckinley@glenbourne-antiques.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>I have - I now have a 25-foot willy!
>>

Well feck me!! that is really going to piss Pinky off when he gets back.


  ... but at least you know how to use it properly, Don, not just wave
it about for effect.



>>>>>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?
>>
>I mean the post where you said "Gad almighty lets rewrite the English
>dictionary to suit the digitechno-geeks. It a means to an end, Don"
>
>I took that to mean I was one of the Geeks.
>>

No, it didn't mean YOU Don. I apologize if that is how you think it was
implied. 

My OED gives  ... audiophile -  a hi-fi enthusiast.

I'm a "hi-fi" enthusiast. But it's only a means to an end. And "hi-fi"
to me is subjective term, not something carved in a tablet of stone.


>>>>> - 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?
>>
>How many hairs make a beard? For a Dansette owner, that would have
>been high-end. To the proud owner of a real Grundig radiogram with
>teak veneer finish, it would be low-end rubbish :-)
>

Surely you can do better than that, Don ..... feeble :)



>>
>>>>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