Dean Roddey

OK, how about $40 plus shipping?

This guy is still available if anyone wants it...

Just a bump to make sure it gets seen before it drifts away.

I had a little trouble deciphering that response for a while there. I was kind of thinking, yes, Rats often do need 8 ohms when we haven't taken our medication, but it's gonna be OK :-)

I replaced the Eminence speaker in my Valve Jr. cab with a nice Weber vintage speaker. So I don't have any need for this guy. It has very few hours of use and probably is really just beyond the fully broken in stage. It looks immaculately new. I was actually kind of suprised at how spiffy it looks, given that few people ever probably pull the cab open to look at them. If someone wants it, I'll sell it for $45 plus shipping. I'm in CA, Silicon Valley area. The cabs are $150, and I figure at least half of the cost of it is the speaker, if not more, so $45 seems like a reasonable price for it, particularly given how little use it's had. It's a 70 watt, 16 ohm, 12" speaker. They aren't available, AFAIK, except in the Epi amps, i.e. not sold separately I don't think.

48K seems to be the best compromise. It provides that extra bit to get the cutoff frequency of the filters up a bit above the 20K range, and it's light on the CPU so you can handle a lot of load.

I call mine Rain Man Studios, because I get in there and I'm suddenly Dustin Hofman in Rain Man, completely lost in space. I've literally been so into a mix before that I drooled on myself. Hey, how much did that pre-amp cost? Ummm... about a hundred dollars. Yeh.... about a hundred dollars. Uh OHHHH. Time for Mix it Like a Record.

Not to be Pollyannaish, but I think you could argue that many of the most successful people out there owe their success to a downturn. It's often only when that happens that people are thrown out of their rut and forced to examine where they are and where they want to be and decide to go out on their own or down a different path. Without that downturn that caused them to lose their job, they'd often have just stayed there in that comfortable situation and never taken the risk. I'm hardly a highly successful person, though I hope to be, and this is my story as well. I would have never taken the risk to go out on my own if I'd not gotten thrown overboard during the Net bubble pop. It's happened to so many people who went on to great success. To be fair they often already had the itch and that just provided the impetus to scratch it. But still, they often not have scratched otherwise. I wouldn't have. I was making quite good money (though it didn't go nearly so far here in Silicon Valley as it would have elsewhere) and not working too hard for it. In the long run, it's been a massive improvement in my quality of life, though I'm poorer than a bearded call girl most of the time. I'd have a hard time going back to the standard grind. And I believe it's going to pay off well in the end, at least it looks like things are heading that way now. So anyway, sometimes you have to look at these things as a fated kick in the butt to re-examine your path and maybe vector off in another direction potentially.

One thing to remember is that a 'recession' doesn't mean we are all going to be eating out of garbage cans. It means some number of consequetive quarters of negative growth, no matter how small that negative growth is. When people hear there's going to be a recession, they really act as if it's going to be a depression, because I'm not sure a lot of people really understand the difference. Obviously you can have a really bad recession as well, and at some fuzzy point it can become a depression. But our whole way of life is so dependent upon continuous growth of the economy, that just not growing is considered a pretty bad thing. Even slight negative growth gets people freaked out it seems. I think what worries some folks is that, in this case, the recession is fairly broadly based. There's always someone having a recession, but as long as other economies are grinding away, that takes some of the pressure off and gives them a better chance of quicker recovery. When lots of countries get whacked at at once, that's less the case. But still, we aren't talking about the collapse of civilization, but a period of some time where we won't be growing and will retract some amount. But the vast majority of people will still have jobs and still need to buy stuff and all that. If you are in the banking sector probably things are probably not so good I guess. To such a large degree it's an issue of perception. We believe there will be a recession, so we all do things that absolutely guarantee that there will be a recession, so therefore there will be a recession. Clearly some folks who were overextended in the financial area have to call in their bucks to pay their debts, and that's understandable. But for most of us, the very fear of a recession is what's going to make sure we have one, because we'll all hunker down and spend less. It's not a bad thing to spend less of course, but the point at which we should do that is not now. It's when we AREN'T in a recession that we should spend less and save more, then there very likely wouldn't be a next one. Or if there was, it would be much shorter and much less worse since we could all draw on money saved when times were up. We always do the wrong thing at the wrong time. People are selling stocks at the lowest point they are likely to ever get and completely screwing themselves, when it's one of the fundamental rules of stocks that you shouldn't, and that causes more stock panic which lowers the price even more and more people bail out and on and on. It's really kind of a wierd view of herd mentality that's pretty instructive. A person is smart, but people are stupid.

The ones that speak out are ignored by our far left media. I'm not sure what that had to do with what I said that you quoted. But anyway, the old 'far left media' thing is so old now that it's moldy. There's lot of media out there, some more to the left, some more to the right. On average, it probably about evens out. But of course people on the left think it leans right and people on the right think it leans left, because they never consider that those things that they agree with represent a leaning in their direction, and only count the things that they don't agree with as proof of a leaning in the other direction.

If it's good to demand a "Windfall Profits Tax" when things are good, why isn't it good to do the opposite when things go the other direction? I'm sure that the WPT didn't eat too far into their enormous all time record profits, all of which was out of our pockets. So they will be just fine I'm sure. Most folks aren't business tycoons, but they are smart enough to realize that if the price of something goes up massively, but then the companies that sell it make recording breaking enormous profits as a result, then the cost increase had nothing to do with the actual cost of the product, but just went into the pockets of the sellers. If the cost increase had been related to the actual cost of the product, there would have been no issue.

Of course, the problem is that we will not be able to know who's right and who's wrong until it's too late. Thus, any sane, intelligent person should support reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and back all of our energy efficiency initiatives. That's what I've been arguing throughout this thread.

Well, that was a VERY little ice age. But I assume you've seen the changes in glaciers around the world in the last 20 or 30 years right? As compared to the changes before that. I can't see how you can ignore the possibility that is not part of the natural retreat of the glaciers, because of the high speed of change.

Well, using you correlation equals causation logic, one can argue that the worldwide decline in the number of pirates is responsible for global warming. Last I checked, pirates are not scientifically believed to be greenhouse gasses, whereas CO2 is. So it's more than correlation equals causation.

The glaciers have been retreating for 100s of years, we are in an interglacial period- that's what glaciers do in these periods. The glaciers that covered most of the US during the last ice age have since receded. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago, so it's hard to argue that the very rapid retreat is part of any 10,000 year long gradual retreat, and that it just happened to occur at the point in time when we started having major sustained industrial output.

Come on. It's so easy when you don't agree with someone to accuse them of being blantantly evil or greedy. Do you really believe that all those scientists have no concern for their professional career and integrity?

He's a credible scientist, in fact one of the LEADING scientists studying this subject. He's not just "a guy". That's WHY he was testifying before congress. They don't just let crackpots wander up to the mic... But don't you see the issue here? They other people who did the same and had the opposite point of view are also leading scientists and not crackpots. If the fact that a leading, non-crackpot scientist says something, then global warming would have to be true, since plenty of them take that position. The only difference with this guy is that he's saying what you want to believe, so you assume he's correct and that the other scientists, just as competent, who take the opposite approach are not. But that's an arbitrary choice. So it makes no sense for you to point me at that video and claim that it has to be true because he's competent and a leading scientist. That doesn't make him unique in any way. Neither of us are in a position to say whether his arguments are true or false, since we are not climate scientists. If what he says is true, then he needs to convinece other climate scientists.

First of all everything we do is natural, toxins are natural -- and all that occurs here on this shiny blue marble is part of the current natural process. Period. That's not remotely true. We pump out all kinds of things that would NEVER exist if we didn't create them artificially through industrial processes.

Watch the youtube vid I posted. New scientific findings disputing the link betwee CO2 and global warming have been identified. Shared with peers. Contrary to "general opinion". Contrary to Democratic party "policy". Again, it doesn't matter if someone posted something. That doesn't mean anything. Show me where it's being accepted by the broad consensus of climate scientists. I could post a video saying whatever I want. It doesn't mean much though unless it's accepted by those peers, not just seen by them. If it's upsetting the belief system, reference those comments by the other scientists whose beliefs it's changed.

Remember when the best medical science included "bleeding" a patient to help them improve. How about at the time of the invention of the railroad the "proven" belief that above a certain speed, (I think 30 mph), all the air would be sucked out of the rail cars, and everyone inside would die. These are meaningless examples. They are all prior to modern, peer reviewed science as we know it. Those types of things wouldn't last 10 minutes today. You might as well argue that CPUs can't work, since the overwhelming majority of phsysics believe that electroncs disappear from over here and appear over there, and don't travel the distance in between, despite the fact taht they've never seen an electron in person. You can't just selectively decide that science is incompetent about the things you happen to disagree with, while you are making use of a hugely complex system that science created, because it isn't obviously is not incompetent.

Science has had many a consensus throughout history, only to be proven wrong when new information and new research brings more facts to the table. But the point is 'more facts'. If he has more facts and can prove them and prove that they discredit the existing consensus, then he should present them within a scientific forum and get them accepted there. Your cynical view of scientists is very unfair. If that was the case we'd never make the kind of progress we have. Science only works because anyone can take on the big dogs if they have sufficient proof. It is true that this particular science is not far enough along to offer definitive answers. But, as I said above, that should lead one to being more careful about what we do to the planet, not less.

In John's defense, the "much more widely held view" is usually wrong when it's all said and done. Well, it's easy to say that, but it's a lot harder to back it up. It would require that the bulk of scientists be incompent the bulk of the time. Generally, in a widely studied area these days, the consensus is probably fairly accurate, and will have been backed up a good bit of work in order to have become a consensus. Public opinion is often incorrect. But we aren't talking about public opinion here, but scientific consensus.

Dean - you are missing the point - If Roy Spencer was some lowly research scientist in some small university I would agree with you - but Dr Spencer has the following Wiki entry: I don't think I am. He's a scientist, but he's trying to do public policy work in the press. If he's right, he needs to convince other scientists of this. If he does, then the press and the public policy will follow. Getting it reported on doesn't make it true. But getting a consensus that it is true will get it reported on.

He shouldn't be worrying about the press. If his purpose is make scientific claims, then he should only be worrying about convincing his fellow scientists. If he does so, then he doesn't have to worry about the press. If he truely has conclusive evidence that he is right, he will convince enough unaligned scientists with the stature to insure that the word gets out and turn the tide in the scientific community, and the public perception will flow from that. If he doesn't, then his trying to fight a war in the press is a waste of time. Why should reporters give his articles more priority than the larger consensus? It's not their job to prove he's right.

I don't see any sort of proof in there of anything other than he disagrees with some other people's opinions. There's nothing in there that I see that wouldn't be equally disagreed with on the other side by people just competent. Have you bothered to look around to see if anyone else of equal compentence has responded to his statements?