From all your bluster and boasting, I'd expect better of you, delius. I made two posts recently, and in your reactions to both you found it necessary to chop pieces out in order to build up a proper head of steam in your lengthy condemnation of my comments. The reason you can't find intelligent debate is that you are too busy finding ways to twist, misread, and dismember people's comments in hopes of proving their stupidity. Sadly, a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees...

Let me offer a few examples.

You made a stab at debunking my HiFiSoundGuy/GoodSound theory, but you ran out of steam partway through. For example, you asked, "How did he know it was back ordered?" and then proceeded to spend a paragraph rambling along on sarcastic, hair-brained answers to your question. In reality, there was a simple answer that would be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of the product I'd referred to. Maybe HiFiSoundGuy knew it was backordered because the order page for the RR2150 had said that it was backordered. Or maybe he knew it was backordered because of the discussion in the RR2150 area of this forum explaining the status of backorders. In other words, maybe he could read. As assumptions go, that's not a great stretch for posts in an online forum. Oh, and the Sonicaps mentioned in HiFiSoundGuy's second post weren't backordered - the receiver he claimed to have ordered was backordered. My post was quite clear, but in your eagerness to find fault in my argument you failed to actually read what I'd written. After your tangent about the backordered 2150, you simply "snipped out" my reasoning and walked away. For somebody who writes such long posts, that's uncharacteristically brief.

It's also interesting that in your very next post, you moved on to my other recent post and ranted a fair bit about orgone energy and the skeptic's dictionary - even though the link I offered was simply the one previously provided by HiFiSoundGuy in his post. And speaking of HiFiSoundGuy's posts, that brings us right back to chopping and skipping portions of my argument that might make distract from ridiculing me. We all know by this point that the Machina Dynamica site lacks any explanation of their CLC, but I clearly explained how we were presented with two separate explanations for its operation. I even included links (which you did not include in the quote) taking you directly to both of those two separate and contradictory explanations. Then, a couple paragraphs later, you ask me "First of all, who said it was a "time travel device"? Please show me where it is being marketed as such." Those links that you left out of your quote showed where it was presented as such, including comments from Geoff that served to confirm that he had originally provided that explanation. I'd already shown you the information you asked me to present to you. You also asked "Second of all, what do you mean by that?" My answer is simple: Mighty fine question, because the full explanation (taken directly from HFSG's previously linked post: "It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time. This ads realism to the music. Because this device functions as a sort of a time travel apparatus it is not necessary to connect to the audio circuit. It has entirely to do with shortening the distance between time events.") is pretty inexplicable. That's actually my point.

Some time back, I made the statement that pursuing intelligent debate in these circumstances could lead to a "debate of volume." When someone declares victory (such as your comment "No one has apologized for such statements. The closest is Gonk who tried to make excuses for the libel of others (which I have defeated in debate).") after such maneuvers as I've described above, it becomes clear that we've ended up deep in exactly such a debate, and it is just as pointless an exercise as I anticipated.