Active VS passive – specific questions
It means John has sent you an email.
To the email address you registered with...
Well, there was one a few weeks back, although I expect JD's take on it would be different.... Anyway, I'm on JD's side with this one and agree with most of your post. I can see why people may have felt inhibited (or at least frustrated) in the past, but the change in policy over the last month or so should have minimised that IMO.
Correct, I did lock one that was getting out of hand anyway, and the last straw for me was someone questioning whether I had a conflict of interest, which I thought was a bit unfair.
You'll notice I didn't ban them though 
That someone must be an annoying little EDITED 
That someone must be an annoying little EDITED
Complete EDITED.
It means John has sent you an email.
To the email address you registered with...
Or you in some way remind him of either Tom Hanks or Meg Ryan?
Maybe it's a hitherto unkown form of AOL based tourettes?
I do recognise a number of people who spend a lot of time in "other places" slagging WHF off at every available opportunity and then come back here and pretend everything's fine and dandy. That, frankly, boggles my mind, I wouldn't have the bare-faced cheek to be that hypocritical. And I can be very hypocritical when I feel like it...
It boggles my mind how people find the time to frequent so many forums - I don't even have time to keep up with this one...
That's why I don't bother with "the other place", it's just a massive sprawling mess of sub-forums, I wouldn't know where to begin and I can't be **sed with it, frankly and that's allowing for the fact that I spend most of my working day on the net!
It means John has sent you an email.
Thanks I will go have a look.
Well i'm a forum mod who uses active and passive speakers on a daily basis. And has bought a pair of AVIs previously: very good they were, too - as you'd expect from a WHF five-star product
Every product - regardless of brand or design - has to be judged on its individual merits and how they suit your system/music/taste.
[Cuts and pastes above sentence to clipboard for re-use in 101 other fractious threads]
That's why I don't bother with "the other place", it's just a massive sprawling mess of sub-forums, I wouldn't know where to begin and I can't be **sed with it, frankly and that's allowing for the fact that I spend most of my working day on the net!
Are we talking about the same other place?
There have been so many claims of actives are so much better than passives it has rung my sceptical alarm bell.
The main reason for that is so many speakers are described as active, but have different ways of being powered. There are true actives and powered speakers and some that seem to be inbetween. I wonder if the 'better' actives are the ones that supposed to be much 'better' than passives and the no so great 'actives', which may be powered instead are ignored to reach that conclusion.
I have heard with a mate as he auditioned loads of 'actives' (they may be powered) a lot of difference between them. How can they all be better than passives? (Answer, they cannot)
I wonder how much of this is a split amongst audiophiles, like vinyl sounds much 'better' than CD. Lets face it, we are an argumentative bunch.
My mates Mackies sound better than his passives, but they were 20 year old TDLs and no great shakes. Where actives won was he was able to replace a whole hifi system with a laptop and two speakers, at a reasonable price (£700 including the laptop) and get great sound. But that does not necessarily mean actives are 'better'.
Well i'm a forum mod who uses active and passive speakers on a daily basis. And has bought a pair of AVIs previously: very good they were, too - as you'd expect from a WHF five-star product
Every product - regardless of brand or design - has to be judged on its individual merits and how they suit your system/music/taste.
[Cuts and pastes above sentence to clipboard for re-use in 101 other fractious threads]
Yippee, something I can agree with, without any reservation. 
It means John has sent you an email.
To the email address you registered with...
Or you in some way remind him of either Tom Hanks or Meg Ryan?
Maybe it's a hitherto unkown form of AOL based tourettes?
Oh lee, you are awful. You cheeky, cheeky boy.
.For me you see, a simple, 'I have sent you an email' would have sufficed. I must seem such a simple soul, poor me.
That someone must be an annoying little EDITED
Complete EDITED.
I think yours was ruder than mine!
I do recognise a number of people who spend a lot of time in "other places" slagging WHF off at every available opportunity and then come back here and pretend everything's fine and dandy. That, frankly, boggles my mind, I wouldn't have the bare-faced cheek to be that hypocritical. And I can be very hypocritical when I feel like it...
It boggles my mind how people find the time to frequent so many forums - I don't even have time to keep up with this one...
That's why I don't bother with "the other place", it's just a massive sprawling mess of sub-forums, I wouldn't know where to begin and I can't be **sed with it, frankly and that's allowing for the fact that I spend most of my working day on the net!
Yup, no sub forums here*. None at all. Not loads. Definitley not.
And some folk are very transparent about who they are in both places, even though some only became so transparent quite recently.
*No offence intended, just being factual.
Flouting house rules (12) in the process , but I s'pose you're not just a member.
John,
I don't understand the "you've got mail" comment of yours at post at page 6 #2. can you enlighten me? Sorry I have to ask on an open forum but I know of no other way to ask you this.
Maybe you have an email