John Sayers' Design Forum

John Sayers' Recording Studio Design Forum

A World of Experience
Click Here for Information on John's Services
It is currently Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:51 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 5:52 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:46 pm
Posts: 5315
Location: Australia
This is a similar design to lou's studio. The center walls are built first and they connect to the outer walls and the floor/ceiling. Then the inner rooms are floated, I assume the walls are built on the floor, the outer skin is added then the walls are stood up and the inner skin is added ending up with 6 leafs.

The 2 leaf system was proposed by Eric Desart when he built Galaxy studios in Brussels. The design was an Eastlake Audio ( http://www.eastlake-audio.co.uk/ea_news.html ) project but the client wanted one main recording room with 3 control rooms fronting onto it and they wanted 100db STC between all 4 rooms!!
Eric and a Professor in acoustics from Brussels were the only people prepared to guarantee the 100STC and I gather Eric devised the 2 leaf system to achieve it and ended up designing the acoustic isolation system used. I understand the glass used in the 2 pane windows was 4" thick!!

http://www.galaxystudios.com/music/#/st ... laxy_hall/

Hopefully Eric will stop by and confirm this.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:29 am 
Offline
Confused, but not senile yet
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
Posts: 2297
Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
cadesignr wrote:
PLEASE...can someone tell me what I'm missing, cause I'm missing something. I mean, I see these sort of things in Mr. Newells book as well. What is going on?


It is actually a straightforward compromise in specification. Muliple leaf has greater isolation than double leaf in high frequencies, and less at low frequencies. If high isolation is not spec'ed at low frequencies, then multiple leaf is better.

Well specified,
Andre

_________________
Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:08 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:25 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Oregon USA
Quote:
It is actually a straightforward compromise in specification.


What part of this didn't you understand andre?
Quote:
Isolation Specification

The isolation specification is based upon both the isolation from the building and isolation between rooms.

Low frequency cross-talk (isolation) between adjacent studios.


If its so straight forward, then why did they use 6 leaf for LOW FREQUENCY ISO?

Quote:
Well specified,
I'm not convinced.

_________________
alright, breaks over , back on your heads......


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:10 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:54 am
Posts: 3725
Location: Exit 4, Alabama
John Sayers wrote:
I understand the glass used in the 2 pane windows was 4" thick!!

http://www.galaxystudios.com/music/#/st ... laxy_hall/

Hopefully Eric will stop by and confirm this.


In Phillip Newell's book, Recording Studio Design, the Author makes mention of this studio. It wasn't specifically a flattering comment, but it was made in passing, so to speak.

I would have to re-read the book to locate the passage, but if it comes up in conversation, I suppose I will find it :)

Nevermind what Mr. Newell said, Eric Desart is a premiere force in the world of acoustics as any one how has read his comments over the years can testify, the shining light that led me home...well, to here, which is sort of my home :)

_________________
Brien Holcombe
_____________________________________________
Sound: You can't stop it, you can only try to contain it.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 1:15 am 
Offline
Confused, but not senile yet
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
Posts: 2297
Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
cadesignr wrote:
What part of this didn't you understand andre?
Quote:
Isolation Specification

The isolation specification is based upon both the isolation from the building and isolation between rooms.

Low frequency cross-talk (isolation) between adjacent studios.


If its so straight forward, then why did they use 6 leaf for LOW FREQUENCY ISO?


The section you quoted was a section title. The picture beside the section is captioned as being typical construction. Looking at what is in the picture, that specific partition appears to be between the main tracking room and an isolation booth. The impressive isolation figures shown later (51 dB@63 Hz) is not achievable by lightweight construction.

Examples of what amount of TL is acheivable with such construction can be found in BBC RD 1995 06. As a starter fig 5 on pdf page 8 shows several several multiple leaf walls. The best isolation at 63 Hz is 32 dB achieved with a double leaf construction. All other partitions have lower isolation due to the reduced spacing, increasing the MAM resonance frequency. The higher frequencies are better isolated with more leafs.

Higher LF isolation is typical of double leaf CMU construction. Fig 13 on pdf page 19 in NRC IR 586 shows 42 dB TL at 63 Hz with two 90 mm CMU leafs on isolated mounts. Impressive, but still 10 dB less than what was achieved on your linked page!

The constructions used to acheive ~50 dB of TL at 63 Hz for adjacent spaces would be considered heroic, even by our studio isolation standards. Without comment, fig 9 on pdf page 12 in BBC RD 1987 01 shows 2 partitions that acheive such performance.

I hope this helps clear things on the use of multiple leafs in studios.

Clearly leafy,
Andre

_________________
Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:08 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:25 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Oregon USA
Quote:
Nevermind what Mr. Newell said, Eric Desart is a premiere force in the world of acoustics as any one how has read his comments over the years can testify, the shining light that led me home...well, to here, which is sort of my home

Hello xspace. This is exactly why I posted my questions, as I too have bowed on the alter of his High Acoustical Majesty. I was NOT questioning Mr. Desart in any way, shape or form if that is indeed what you are suggesting above. On the contrary, it is BECAUSE of my trust in Mr. Desart that I posted this.

In that regard, let me clarify this further.

PRECISELY, the reason for my questions is this.

From the time I was introduced to the subject of TL, I have been "led to believe", that a TWO LEAF system is superior to multi leaf systems ..PERIOD. So, when I see ANYTHING, that suggests that my belief system has been in error, then I ask questions. In this particular case, I was under the "impression", that modern practitioners of Studio design and construction would use 2 leaf systems as a matter of current acoustic "common sense", if not by their credentialed access to Lab test data of current Scientific studys in the rhelm of TL. Namely, access to University labs, standards, membership in Societies with access to published reports, costly books, etc etc., of which layman such as myself do NOT have nor need as I am NOT a practitioner of Professional Acoustical services. Therefore I can only read what is and has been posted on various forums, and the net in general via Web sites etc.
Which is why this question came about. When I came across the linked site, I saw the pictures and immedietly scratched my head. I wondered exactly what I posted. WHY IN THE WORLD, if TWO LEAF SYSTEMS are the "de facto" standard in TL assemblys, would a Company with Acoustical professional staff, design a studio usind MULTI LEAF SYSTEMS???????? At the moment, it appeared as a "no brainer", given my limited knowlege and "belief system".

With that said, lets move on.

Now, given andre has posted this....

Quote:
The section you quoted was a section title. The picture beside the section is captioned as being typical construction. Looking at what is in the picture, that specific partition appears to be between the main tracking room and an isolation booth. The impressive isolation figures shown later (51 dB@63 Hz) is not achievable by lightweight construction.


Ok andre, I read the PDF's you linked. Apparently, IF the assemby in the pictures are indeed "lightweight construction", you are correct. Which means, if I understand your statement correctly, and if I may be frank if not blunt, I submit lets call a horse a horse...whoever wrote or designed that page, with the approval of the Company in question...is a DAMN LIAR!!! :evil:

Quote:
The constructions used to acheive ~50 dB of TL at 63 Hz for adjacent spaces would be considered heroic, even by our studio isolation standards. Without comment, fig 9 on pdf page 12 in BBC RD 1987 01 shows 2 partitions that acheive such performance.


Hmmm...without comment?

If indeed, my presumption is the case, it only confirms my growing other belief system, which I won't go into here, other than freely applying a quote from Mr. Savant on another forum
Quote:
And the industry is fully aware of this, albeit not seemingly very forthcoming when it comes to discussions about it.


If I'm missing the point of your statements in this regard, then please andre, what is it?

_________________
alright, breaks over , back on your heads......


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:43 am 
Offline
Confused, but not senile yet
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
Posts: 2297
Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
Cadesignr:

Acoustics, in studios is a very frustrating thing to fully comprehend because so little is intuitive, significant factors change with un-obvious causes and test data seems to be hard to get. A lot of your frustration I went through myself when learning acoustics. You have my sympathy and admiration for what you are putting yourself through. There is a lot of test data available on the internet if one knows where it is.

One of the beauties John's website and his disciples is that we share that knowledge with people who ask. However it is frustrating for people learning to have their beliefs destroyed by facts. I avoided commenting on the BBC high TL walls to avoid diluting the content of the post. Looking at those partitions, they are obviously multiple leaf. In those cases the mass is so high that the MSMSMSM resonance is so low that the partition exhibits the desired high TL right down to the LF range. These are partitions with so great a mass that they would be rarely needed for normal isolation. But it is the correct design in those cases.

Keep on learning and don't worry about the headaches trying to learn the acoustics. The headaches will disappear in several years.

Andre

_________________
Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:54 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:54 am
Posts: 3725
Location: Exit 4, Alabama
"Hello xspace. This is exactly why I posted my questions, as I too have bowed on the alter of his High Acoustical Majesty. I was NOT questioning Mr. Desart in any way, shape or form if that is indeed what you are suggesting above."

Actually I was just making a real world connection between Newell and Desart in direct reference to the thick glass that John had brought up.

_________________
Brien Holcombe
_____________________________________________
Sound: You can't stop it, you can only try to contain it.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:20 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:25 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Oregon USA
Quote:
The 2 leaf system was proposed by Eric Desart when he built Galaxy studios in Brussels. The design was an Eastlake Audio ( http://www.eastlake-audio.co.uk/ea_news.html ) project but the client wanted one main recording room with 3 control rooms fronting onto it and they wanted 100db STC between all 4 rooms!!


Hello John, I forgot to thank you for your reply. However, read on. If I'm not mistaken, your "2 leaf system" statement above may be in for a bit of review. Frankly, untill someone clears up the term "leaf", I'm ready to chock all these years of reading up to a "a lesson in hindsight" :roll:

Now let me address andres last post.


Hello andre. Sorry it took a while to get back and thank you for the links. Actually, it took a while to analyse that document and then recover. :mrgreen: . I didn't see it before.

Quote:
Acoustics, in studios is a very frustrating thing to fully comprehend because so little is intuitive, significant factors change with un-obvious causes and test data seems to be hard to get.


To say the least andre.


Quote:
However it is frustrating for people learning to have their beliefs destroyed by facts.


On the contrary. i don't mind that so much. But what IS frustrating is to BUILD a belief system on what people present as fact, only to find the "facts" turn out to be something entirely different in the firstplace Let me put it this way.

How many THOUSANDS of threads, here, at Studiotits, and other forums(even this thread), have posts from experts(Brian Dayton, Rod Gervais, Eric Desart, yourself and multitude of others) offering test data "proof" that TWO LEAF systems are superior to mutileaf systems. Not to mention pictures showing what a TWO LEAF system is.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but from everything I've read, a TWO LEAF system is defined as TWO distinct quantities of MASS, seperated by an airgap. Whether or not a stud creates the airgap is irrelevent. I've also been led to believe, this is called a MAM system, and or a DOUBLE LEAF system as well, no?

So, if that is indeed TRUE, what does one do under those circumstances other than come to a conclusion these are so called "facts", and speak for themself. Now I find this MASSIVE piece of hidden information, and after ALL THESE YEARS, I am not just frustrated....frankly I don't have words for it.

The other thing that makes me frustrated is CONTRADICTION in not only the FIELD of Acoustics, but with some people statements that APPEAR to contridict themself.
Here is what I mean,

Quote:
As a starter fig 5 on pdf page 8 shows several multiple leaf walls. The best isolation at 63 Hz is 32 dB achieved with a double leaf construction.


I must appologize at this point. I did NOT see that link the first time I read your post. However, now that I HAVE read the entire linked document, something is not jiving here.

First you say
Quote:
fig 5, Page 8 shows "several MULTIPLE LEAF WALLS"....


But when I look at both fig's 5 & 6 on that page, the author labels these as DOUBLE LEAF!!!! From everything I've read, including this thread, I've been led to believe these are exactly what you call them...multileaf..not double leaf.

Then you say....
Quote:
The best isolation at 63 Hz is 32 dB achieved with a DOUBLE LEAF construction.


So I looked at the link again and immedietly got FURTHER confused.

This is why. APPARENTLY, I do not understand the term LEAF, as the BBC author implys a LEAF can be a MAM assembly, which in this case is a STUD partition wall, sheithed on BOTH faces with a layer of mass. He calls this a SINGLE LEAF, which contridicts everything I've read over 10 years. Right from the beginning, on (PDF)Page 5, the BBC author says this:

Quote:
Fig. 2 shows the sound insulation of a
staggered stud partition compared with those of other
single leaf partitions.


Image

Even, the heading below the figure states these are SINGLE LEAF assemblys

Apparently, I'm not the ONLY one who is confused.

Here is why. The author calls a standard partition wall(TWO MASS's seperated by a stud which creates an airgap), a SINGLE LEAF. From everthing I've been led to believe, this would be called a DOUBLE LEAF, no?
Even you call the figure at the top of fig 7, ..a DOUBLE LEAF, which is the one with measured isolation of 32db at 63 Hz.
But then the author calls the two assemblys below it DOUBLE LEAF as well!!!


Image


Now, even this thread has defined a TWO leaf system, as well as a THREE LEAF and FOUR LEAF system, no?

This is why I labeld the pictures on my first post....a SIX LEAF system. But apparently, this is NOT the case, as here, the BBS author calls ALL the examples in fig. 10(page ) TRIPLE LEAF!!! Even the one at the top that is a typical MAM assembly(2 distinct MASS layers seperated by an airgap).


Image




Again, in Figure 11, the author calls these different types of assemblys,....TRIPLE LEAF. Which now gets really confusing as I see FOUR distinct MASSES, seperated by THREE AIRGAPS,


Image


Yet in other figures(5 & 6 for example) they show the EXACT same thing(4 distinct Mass layers and 3 airgaps, but now the author calls these DOUBLE LEAF!!!


Image

And THEN, he calls this a DOUBLE LEAF, which from everything I've been led to believe, is a TRIPLE LEAF!!


Image


What the heck is going on here????? I don't understand how an airgap created by a stud is any different than an airgap with NO stud...as in Figure 5c, 6c, 8c.

To be absolutely clear, the author states this.
On PDF Page (9)

Quote:
The results are shown in Fig. 8(a)
(overleaf). The first leaf was made from conventional
70 mm studs fitted with a layer of 15 mm plasterboard
and a layer of 9.5 mm plasterboard each side.



FRUSTRATION?????? What a massive understatement andre. I rest my case.

So, WTF is going on here????

On a lighter note, in another section, the author states

Quote:
the first layer is 19mm "gypsum board but the next layer is 12.5mm plasterboard
???? I thought "plasterboard" was just another name for drywall, which is made from "gypsum". Apparently not. What is Plasterboard made from? Here is the
Legend. btw, I'v never seen those metal stud types with another "H" shaped flange. How does one get the drywall into the flange? It would appear they would have to assemble the studs around the drywall first, and then fasten the whole assembly in place. GAK! :shock: :shock:

Image

Quote:
Keep on learning and don't worry about the headaches trying to learn the acoustics.


Headaches? I get no headaches andre. However, this reminds me of someone on another forum who replied to one of my threads, and implied I take "meds", which implied there is something "wrong" with me. From what I see now, I'd submit I am correct when I told him....it appears the shoe is on the other foot. Afterall, one of his posts was the first time I read an explanation of a TWO LEAF SYSTEM. :roll: I believe the shoe fits him perfectly now. :roll: :roll:

_________________
alright, breaks over , back on your heads......


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:15 am 
Offline
Confused, but not senile yet
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:56 pm
Posts: 2297
Location: Hanilton, Ontario, Canada
Thanks for the excellent post just above this one. Acoustically speaking, your definition of leaf as a single mass is correct. The strange use of double triple and other in the BBC document relates to use of leaf in construction at the BBC. NOT THE ACOUSTIC TERM. I hope this helps trying to understand teh world of MAM.

As you noticed, in the earlier BBC doc I linked it is a 4 leaf system. The mass is so great that the raised MAM... frequency is still so low that is not significant. There is an accurate description of the effects of multiple leafs by Sharp. Unfortunately I do have the link handy. IT is a very technical document, and full of useful information.

As far as meds go, aspirin bottles are cheaper by the gross.

With fewer headaches,
Andre

_________________
Good studio building is 90% design and 10% construction


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:42 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:25 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Oregon USA
Quote:
The strange use of double triple and other in the BBC document relates to use of leaf in construction at the BBC. NOT THE ACOUSTIC TERM.


Good thing doctors don't use different terms than pharmacists. :roll: How preposterous.
Well, somebody better let the Studio "construction" forum know. They might be building all kinds of stange walls over there by now. :mrgreen:

_________________
alright, breaks over , back on your heads......


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 2:11 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:54 am
Posts: 3725
Location: Exit 4, Alabama
"This is why I labeld the pictures on my first post....a SIX LEAF system. But apparently, this is NOT the case, as here, the BBS author calls ALL the examples in fig. 10(page ) TRIPLE LEAF!!! Even the one at the top that is a typical MAM assembly(2 distinct MASS layers seperated by an airgap)."

Figure 10 does not show a blanket comment on all the pictures. The items are marked (a), (b) and (c) respectively and the author points this out in the "comparisons" he makes to (a) "...the sound insulation of the single-sided alternative to the triple Camden (Fig. 10(a))" and (b) "...the sound insulations of the simplified triple leaf partition (Fig. 10(b))"


The author makes clear, to me, that item (b) and item (c) are the triple leaf he is discussing.

A typical residential wall, the author refers to this wall assembly as one leaf due to the coupling. I am guilty of saying two leaf as anyone else may be, which does not jive with the standards used in this document...but I am not a scientist either :)

I consider the document accurate, my use of the terms here and in the outside world a simplification even if in-accurate as this document recommends.

But for the most part, I think we are still in the same ball park.

_________________
Brien Holcombe
_____________________________________________
Sound: You can't stop it, you can only try to contain it.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 5:31 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:25 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Oregon USA
Quote:
my use of the terms here and in the outside world a simplification even if in-accurate as this document recommends.

I'll remember that the next time you speak of a double or triple leaf. Only problem is...which one will you be refering to? :roll:

_________________
alright, breaks over , back on your heads......


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 12:46 pm
Posts: 5315
Location: Australia
the one we've grown accustomed to no doubt.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:56 am 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 4:25 pm
Posts: 568
Location: Oregon USA
With all due respect John, I don't understand why the cynical tone from xspace and you. :

One would think this community at large would welcome news that the use of certain concepts/terms used here MAY have been in error, and even if not, when other SIGNIFICANT, RELEVANT and seemingly IMPORTANT information in this regard is presented to this forum, it's like stepping on peoples toes, especially if it CHALLANGES prevailing schools of thought and studio design dogma..scientific or not.

This document proved to me, the use of multileaf assemblies to achieve very high isolation values are in used in a variety of ways by the foremost authority on Studio construction, which when I read it, seemed to use a certain term in ways that were in conflict with everything I've been led to believe. I posted this NOT to step on peoples toes, but to learn.
Thanks to andre, I saw concepts that have NEVER been discussed on ANY of all the relevant forums I've been visiting for over 10 years, and after viewing these concepts, something didn't jive.. But when I post a relevant set of questions..other than andre...what do I get? :roll:

among other things...scoffing tone, rolling eye attitude, in-significant error checks......

Quote:
Figure 10 does not show a blanket comment on all the pictures.

Since you want to get picky.."Figure 10" is indeed blanket LABLED....which is WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO! :evil: :roll: Afterall, I posted FIGURE 10!! Here it is AGAIN for verification.
Image

What does the LABLE say? :roll:

Quote:
The author makes clear, to me, that item (b) and item (c) are the triple leaf he is discussing.


Then I assume if "I" were to refer to a TRIPLE LEAF assembly on THIS FORUM...FROM NOW ON, you will understand what I am talking about. I also assume YOU will take your valuable time to explain to others that my use of the terrm is NOT the "norm" used on this forum, no? :roll: Indeed, you will also take the time to explain...WHICH TRIPLE LEAF I am refering to...the one with THREE distinct masses and TWO airgaps, or the one with SIX distinct mass's and FIVE airgaps, eh?

I also assume YOU will continue to use..as John puts it..

Quote:
the one we've grown accustomed to


In that case, now that SIX LEAF(or in BBC terms..TRIPLE LEAF) systems have been discussed, when YOU refer to a SIX LEAF system, I will assume you will also take the time to explain WHICH ONE you are referring to...the one with SIX distinct mass layers and FIVE airgaps which have a TWO LEAF COUPLED assembly surrounded by TWO non-coupled masses on the exterior layers, OR, the one with SIX LEAFS, which have FIVE airgaps, but is made from THREE coupled TWO LEAF assemblys, whereby the OUTER assemblies are NOT coupled to the inner assembly...no?

Have fun.

Quote:
A typical residential wall, the author refers to this wall assembly as one leaf due to the coupling. ,


Then I assume from your analysis item 10a would NOT be what he calls ONE LEAF? Now, because there is no coupling(regardless that the studs may be COUPLED at the floor and ceiling) it is neither a ONE leaf, Double leaf or Triple leaf...it is simply....er.....something he refers to as...SINGLE SIDED...hmmmm. Boy, I bet a homestudio builder would have fun trying to describe THAT scenario to a carpenter. Ha!

Quote:
I am guilty of saying two leaf as anyone else may be, which does not jive with the standards used in this document...but I am not a scientist either

Scientist? What does it have to do with science? Its simply a matter of DEFINING the term LEAF, which was the WHOLE point of my post. geeezus xspace, what part of this needs a Scientist to explain it to you. I did NOT ask for Eric or anyone else to provide "scientific" analysis or Lab test results. I just wanted a damn CLARIFICATION of the term LEAF!
And guilty? See below.

Quote:
I consider the document accurate, my use of the terms here and in the outside world a simplification even if in-accurate as this document recommends.

Simplification? I would think the author himself is the one who has "simplified" the term leaf, although it appears it has become grossly complex, and therefore confusing. At least when compared to, as andre put it...the ACOUSTICAL way or the "customary" use here.
:roll:

And in-accurate? ahh...I'm getting confused again.

Quote:
But for the most part, I think we are still in the same ball park.


In the same ball park???? Good god, Andre JUST SAID...the term "LEAF", as used here is CORRECT!!!! So why are you trying to make it look like even if the use here is INCORRECT...your "still in the same ball park???? What kind of non-sense is that? Andre just explained the BBC uses the term in an entirely different context. sheeeesh! :roll: Thats like..."its ok...were exempt from correct usage because "we" know what "we" are talking about"!!! You'd make a great attorney xspace. :wink: Even John just said..."
the one we've grown accustomed to no doubt." Unbelievable.


Frankly, this is EXACTLY what I expected here. Although I'm somewhat suprised Stuart hasn't jumped on the pile yet.

However, I STILL have questions regarding this whole ball of wax, and at the risk of playground clique abuse, I will ask them regardless if I get a coherent answer.

But I think I need a drink first. A STIFF one. :roll:

_________________
alright, breaks over , back on your heads......


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: durkkooistra and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group