More on soundboard crown

[Ron Nossaman]

>This is complete balderdash... If you had not wanted to go through a few past
>posts to sort out what seems a bit contradicting, then you could have said so
>to begin with.

I didn't, and still don't see any contradiction. I indicated the 
qualifiers. I did see you taking half a quote here and something else there 
and expecting an explanation of what I couldn't see was there in the first 
place. Just reading the complete quote and the post you got it from should 
have cleared it up. When I asked you to explain what you wanted, you just 
restated the original question, with the same incomplete quote. You had 
already gotten the clarifying explanation in detail more than once in past 
discussions, so I don't understand why you even still do this. Why should I 
be interested in going over the same ground repeatedly with you when all 
the past attempts don't seem to have had an effect?


>Nobody is debating physical principles here, nor bringing them
>into question. That doesnt keep some of us from not swallowing every 
>conclusion
>you make about these well known phsysics. Nor should we.

A near infinite number of very similar questions can be asked about basic 
soundboard structural properties with a couple of different construction 
techniques. They can be discussed endlessly, with the same small set of 
basic parameters covering all the endless permutations of possible 
questions. Or a relatively very few basic principals can be learned that, 
when applied to these questions, will answer them. The principals haven't 
changed, that I'm aware of, and have been outlined both here and in outside 
(and presumably more credible) reference sources. If my explanations and 
deductions aren't credible to you, supply your own.


>Whether you like it or not, there is rather large group of significant players
>out there who dissagree with you. And I am quite sure they are capable of
>treating anyone who questions them exactly as you do here, and otherwise have
>done many times before. You deliberatly avoid discussion choosing  to lecture
>instead, and attribute it to what you deliberatly define as my (and others)
>ignorance, my lack of reading up on background material, and in general my
>attitude. None of which has anything remotely to do with the simple question I
>asked... however you try and twist it. Its absolutely political of you.

You didn't ask a simple question. You asked me to explain your impression 
derived from incomplete and out of context quotes that you felt were 
contradictory. That's not a question. It's a homework assignment to 
convince you starting with a faulty premise. I have no desire to engage in 
another discussion with you on that basis. I've been there. If you could 
phrase a question from that I would answer it.


>Oh there's a game going on here alright... only problem is I refuse to play it
>with you. Nobody is keeping score with you, nobody is competing with you. You
>remember the first thing you said to me in person ?  You said... "I hope you
>understand I had to take you down". I had to laugh.  And since then I have 
>seen
>you attempt to do that to myself and viturally anyone else who comes along
>thinking things through a little differently then suits your temper.
>Admirable.

No, never happened. I don't do Micky Spillane.


>Go back to the "I give up on you" phase you had decided on about me a year or
>so ago. I have no use for whatever information you have to offer as long 
>as its
>continually laced thus.
>
>Er... Cheers
>
>RicB

Good advice.


Ron N