Albert Porters after market panzerholz plinths

Raul&Lewn,I hope I will be not crashed between two giants
of our forum. I have also no Solomons intentions. My interest is pure pragmatic.
Lew I think that your slate-plinths are beautiful but hope
that they are also affordable in contradistinction to Alberts and Dobbins 'alternative'.From this 'stuff'(aka slate) we in Europe make floor-covering and there is in Germany a speaker-producer who uses the same stuff as building material. So my assumption is that at least the stuff is affordable. My question is about the provision for
the tonearms. I noticed this 'black thing resting (and rusting?) on a spike' wich one can put everywhere but most of us are not so brave to put a cart in such a thing.I mean a provision such that one can use more then one tonearm.
Raul are other feets then the AT's also suitable for the purpose? Then ( this question is already asked) the armbase to put next to the TT. Those are not easy to get but I have seen a German producer who make them on request but for +/- 600 Euro. Can you suggest some cheaper solution?
Regards,

John, There are 'modest' people who are also satisfied with
the 'second best' and probable also able to buy some LP's. That is btw the reason that I am so kind to Lew.

Regards,

How about those drilling platforms on the sea searching
for oil or gas? Are those 'legs' or feets inadequate? Or
are those low torque drive mechanism?

Frogman, The relation between the whole and the parts is called aggregate when the parts are 'similar' or composition when the parts are disimilar. A sentence or statement, for example, is a composition. The notion of essence is from Aristotle. For him then a particular part
must be essencial while the other parts are 'only' accidental. This doctrine is called 'essencialism' but is untenable in logical, philosophical and scientific sence. Why should ,say, word 'is' in 'S is P' (subject predicat)be
essential? BTW the 'is' in this 'S is P' composition has 4 different logical readings so as a consequence we need a new determination of the 'essence' among those 4 logical readings of ,seemingly, 'the same word'.
There are some 'parts' of a composition, say a symphony, that we may like more then the other parts. To me every person is free to choose his own 'beloved part'. While we
all have probable different inclinations or sensitivitys we
have this in common that we love music in general.
Regards,

Dear Frogman, There is also great joy in discussion with
eloquent persons for the sake of argument. My problem with
the éssentilism in the context of 'composition' is that when you take the 'essential part'apart and remove the 'accidental' one you will have no composition. Ie a composition presupposes more parts then one. The musical works are creations of composers and they are called compositions. I don't believe that the composers will allow
any partitioninig of they work. Thy even have protection
from the law by copyright wich is a part of intellectual property law. So even in the law- matters we need ,uh, the
'composed' parts.Ie a single part regardless of importance or essence will not do.
Regards,