Wmcmanus

Don't forget the Ultrapriced.

As if I don't have a hard enough time explaining why I hang out with a bunch of headphone geeks (and that I'm one of them):

This has prolly been posted here before, but... it's pretty amazing if you like orange bikes. http://www.youtube.c...amp%3bvq=medium

Here's another one of the human trumpet girl. Pretty amazing.

Ya, me too.

Well, except that 99% of all people here are out of touch with what's new in the $100-$200 market. Most people here have been in the hobby a long time, and many of the people here don't really listen to headphones all that often any more. When they do, they're listening to whatever they've chosen over time after a lot of trial and error. For most people here, that either means custom IEMs like the JH-13, or medium to high priced headphones. That's not to say you won't get a handful of good suggestions, it's just not a market that people here keep a close eye on at this point in their journey. Now, if you want to know about $100-$200 scotch, knives, or luggage, that's a different story.

I'd be tempted to try something from the new Phillips lineup as well. I've never really heard any $100-$200 headphones that have 'done it' for me, although many of them are pretty decent.

Hang in there Fitzie. Life has it's ups and downs. Come to Florida in March and drink heavily.

Willie Nelson in 1965.

Thought I was in the slow forum... sorry.

Ah, easy to forget how far South you are. Chicago is really the only decent choice for me. Grew up 100 miles SW from there right off of I-80. St. Louis is 4+ hours whereas Chicago is only 2.

Amazing WWII story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETeB2JnpXiU

Happy birthday, Mo. You old fuck.

I used to think that too, but I've found that Midway is just as bad. But it's a different kind of bad. Not as much walking, so you get through quickly. But then you stand around for a half hour watching one employee at Enterprise/National/Dollar/whichever... trying to deal with a long line of customers. Plus, chances are you're dealing with Southwest which I'm not a big fan of. So the O'Hare/Midway debate is pretty much a "best price" proposition for me at this point.

^ Ya, different for sure, but also connected to the winter weather in Chicago. I've had issues getting in and out of O'Hare as well, but have never had to sleep in the airport as a result. I remember a couple of years ago getting out about 4 hours before they closed the place down.

Done!

Some of us never learn. I go back to Chicago every year at Christmas time (except now it's not until after Christmas) and come back with a miserable cold almost every time.

Well put, Ric. Agree with your points as well, and do think that's what she was hoping for, to have him drop his armor for a moment and quit pretending (in certain ways). But he was bound and determined to fight it out until the end. Thus, he was obviously being a complete ass by not letting her take control of the interview process.

^ My point in using Steve in the above example isn't that he is gay, but that it would be a fact (whatever that fact might be about someone, that Clyde Barrow was a bank robber, or that Tiger Woods was a cheater) that she as an interviewer would be well aware of and thus well prepared for in advance. Obviously, she was expecting Gene to give a "normal" interview by showing some sort of remorse or reticence about the way he had lived his life because it didn't measure up to widely accepted societal standards.

^ I guess what I'm saying is that I wasn't impressed with either of them. He's obviously a turd. But it wasn't terribly good journalism on her part, and I've heard her do a lot of great interviews. It would be like if she interviewed Steve, and had read a book about his life, and then suddenly was all shocked and horrified that he was gay and had slept with a lot of men, and even more shocked and horrified that he wasn't ashamed to admit it, or that he even felt proud about it in certain ways, or found satisfaction in it, etc. Now, mind you, the analogy breaks down quickly when considering that Gene was being and out and out ass, and was way over the top in his efforts to get her goat; he didn't give the listener anything to like about him other than his brutal (albeit offensive and self-indulgent) honesty; whereas Steve would undoubtedly show other aspects of his personality, which would offer the listener something more, something that they could like about him even if they weren't able to identify with certain particulars about his personality and lifestyle. So it's not that I disagree about Gene. He failed miserably in giving the listener anything to like about him, but I think he did so intentionally. That she got sucked into it and became defensive took away from the opportunity she had to actually get to the bottom of what was driving these behaviors and attitudes, and to see if there was anything else inside of the shell of a person she was speaking to. In other words, I think she was complicit in the failure of the interview in the sense that she helped to feed the audience with contempt based on her (and their) standards. Instead of delving deeper into his psyche when it started to turn in that direction, she instead choose to ask him about inane bullshit like how he paints his face and if/how he breathes fire.

I don't agree with his views on manhood either (not in the least) and certainly didn't mean to imply that I did. Although I love women, I've never felt the need to sleep with 4,600 of them to prove something to myself or anyone else, and don't think that would have changed in any significant way had I been rich and famous. But I do think there are a lot of men who have these sorts of base instincts and attitudes, yet they're afraid to be honest about it because it's not politically correct to be a self-absorbed prick. That's exactly what he is and he doesn't attempt represent himself any differently. Why is she so shocked and horrified by this? She had read his book, no?