[yellowmattercustard]

George M. Middius wrote:


JA has answered that question several times previously. Did you know
there's an archive of Usenet messages at www.google.com ?

Of course. Finding the time to wade through it all is the problem.
Care to point me in the right direction, or provide a url for one of
J.A.'s answers to the same question?
Thanks George.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

yellowmattercustard said:

JA has answered that question several times previously. Did you know
there's an archive of Usenet messages at www.google.com ?

Of course. Finding the time to wade through it all is the problem.
Care to point me in the right direction, or provide a url for one of
J.A.'s answers to the same question?

Uh-oh. Looks like RAO has been blessed with another troll who is afraid
Google will lie to him.

On the off-chance you're serious, wait until you're dead. Then try to
defend yourself against lies and calumnies.

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


yellowmattercustard wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this
forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Yes, after being boss in his day job, he wants to be submissive to me. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 3:16 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

...

Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,

John's claiming to read my mind, again. :-(

it is clearly understood that review samples remain the manufacturer's
property.

That's one of the things that "everybody I know who reviews" says. Too bad
John relies on his obviously-flawed mind-reading skills instead of just
asking me.

"Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets
indirect benefits."

I'll ask again:

You're an impatient little ankle-biter, aren't you ****R?

Like what?

Oh my dear little ****R, you're almost talking like an adult for once in
your life. ]

OK, I'll favor you with a serious answer.

Indirect benefits of reviewing:

(1) Professional development from actually doing the work. Get hands-on
exposure to SOTA technology.

(2) Professional reputation improved by widespread exposure of your work, if
it is meritorious.

(3) Professional reputation improved by being presented as an authority
figure.

(4) Develop personal ties with some of the people responsible for the
equipment you review.

(5) Infrequent long term *loans* of equipment, or opportunities to purchase
equipment at a significant "professional discount"

(6) Every once in a while you end up with equipment that the vendor simply
does not want returned. A two-edged sword because they may not want it back
because it is junk.

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
yellowmattercustard wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Yes, after being boss in his day job, he wants to be submissive to me. ;-)

LOL ! I didn't know you had a kinky side Arny. Maybe Christianity's not so bad
after all ?

Graham

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Big **** wallows in himself.

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Yes, after being boss in his day job, he wants to be submissive to me. ;-)

"Not insane! Not insane! Just give me a second to kill those millipedes
and then I'll proove Aktonsin is a fraud!"

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Idiot is apparently lying to himself.

Looking at the question from the reviewer's point of view, where's the
incentive to engage in a "test" that doesn't interest him -- or, for
that matter, the magazine's readers. (Scottie Witlessmongrel is
slobbering all over himself waiting for DBTs to become the sine qua non
of "scientific" reviews, but, sad to say, he doesn't read Stereophile or
any other audio hobby magazine.)

Because S'phile is *too high a percentage BS IMO.
I know[sic] you live for[sic] BS so I'm surprised that you don't subscribe.
Why not[sic] George?

Trying to be clever doesn't become you, Scooter. I could observe that
you harbor "bigotry" against me

I don't group you with anyone. Thankfully, you're one of a kind.

I guess somebody else said this:

"I'll bet it will be the homosexual community purging themselves of you."

BTW, it's generally accepted that people who are unable to use the
contextually correct term Gay, and instead resort to the misplaced,
clinical "homosexual", are closet cases. Happy trails, Scooter.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 13:38:25 -0400, George M Middius wrote:


yellowmattercustard, YACA, said:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in this
forum.

JA has answered that question several times previously. Did you know
there's an archive of Usenet messages at www.google.com ?

He's lied several times, you mean. I posted a copy of the review yesterday
including stereophile issue number and date.

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 19:49:26 -0400, yellowmattercustard wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:


JA has answered that question several times previously. Did you know
there's an archive of Usenet messages at www.google.com ?

Of course. Finding the time to wade through it all is the problem.
Care to point me in the right direction, or provide a url for one of
J.A.'s answers to the same question?
Thanks George.

go to google. Search for JA's full name and add the magic words "tice clock"

[yellowmattercustard]

AZ Nomad wrote:

go to google. Search for JA's full name and add the magic words "tice clock"

Thank you dear sir. It is as I feared.

J.A.'s presence here is merely a self defense mechanism.

With so many detractors who could blame him.

Right George?

[AZ Nomad[_2_]]

On Wed, 07 May 2008 23:14:59 -0400, yellowmattercustard wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:

go to google. Search for JA's full name and add the magic words "tice clock"

Thank you dear sir. It is as I feared.

J.A.'s presence here is merely a self defense mechanism.

With so many detractors who could blame him.

Right George?
George is his bitch.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

BozoBorg is on the rag again.

J.A.'s presence here is merely a self defense mechanism.
With so many detractors who could blame him.

Right George?

George is his bitch.

I sneer at your life of perpetual sloppy seconds. Thanks for sending me
your self-portrait, BTW. I posted it so everybody can enjoy it.

http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com...airy-dirty.JPG

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 19:57, ScottW wrote:


*It's easier to say what of my gear did I thoroughly audition before
buying. *


Winston, maybe it is easier to say, but it is not easier to read.

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 21:08, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



yellowmattercustard wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this
forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Yes, after being boss in his day job, he wants to be submissive to me. ;-)

It would take an army to eat all your ****
Arny's Army!!!

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 21:44, Eeyore
wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" *wrote
yellowmattercustard wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Yes, after being boss in his day job, he wants to be submissive to me. ;-)

LOL ! I didn't know you had a kinky side Arny. Maybe Christianity's not so bad
after all ?

Graham

Arny would have more fun as a Catholic vs a BAptist

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Mai, 21:55, George M. Middius wrote:



BTW, it's generally accepted that people who are unable to use the
contextually correct term Gay, and instead resort to the misplaced,
clinical "homosexual", are closet cases. Happy trails, Scooter.


maybe among your fellow homosexuals, but not among us normal non-gay
people.

[TT]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message
...
You left out the term "very gullible" when referring to
readers of audioporn
rags.

I had a roomate who was an electrical engineer. Trained,
graduated,
working as one.

He believed that cables and interconnects could sound
different. I do
not, but what skin is it off my back? How many hours should
I have
devoted to showing him "the Light"?

Ah yes, cables can sound different. Bad and worse ;-) A
badly constructed cable that either has poor shielding or
too much resistance will sound different to a well
constructed one. The whole point is, it cannot sound better
than what was there at the source to start with. This is
the issue I have with purveyors of snake oil ;-)

Good point. I would hope that such rags might want to
educate readers
rather than create ignorance.

No audio magazine could have instructed my roomate on
electrical
properties any more than he already had been.

Probably yes as well. I should add by changing the
electrical properties of a cable it will sound different
e.g. rolled of top/bottom end etc. In effect you have an
external tone control.

Cheers TT

[GeoSynch]

John Atkinson wrote:
[i]
t is clearly understood that review samples remain the manufacturer's
property.

While true, this is quite a disingenuous statement, John, as it blithely
overlooks the value of the component in the reviewer's possession
beyond the review period. For example, let's say a Boulder amp
that costs $30,000 and took two months from the time the reviewer
received and submitted the article for it for publication deadline,
but held onto the amp for another four months for a possible
"followup" clarification (which in all likelihood would never
materialize). The reviewer is, in essence, enjoying the value
of that four months for free. We can easily quantify this value.
Let's say the resale value of the Boulder amp after six months
is $24,000. We could look at it as being a lease at $1,000 per
month and the value of the four months of free usage is $4,000.
This is payola pure and simple. The manufacturer, of course,
sees it as the cost of favorable publicity and is more than happy
to accommodate. After six months, it's onto a Lamm or ARC or
somesuch for the reviewer. Of course, this accommodation, to
some extent, influences the reviewer's review of the component.
To argue otherwise is just not credible. This is the reason I
never trusted Jonathon Scull's over-the-top reviews of all the
expensive components he got his greedy little mitts on.


GeoSynch

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

BTW, it's generally accepted that people who are unable to use the
contextually correct term Gay, and instead resort to the misplaced,
clinical "homosexual", are closet cases. Happy trails, Scooter.

maybe among your fellow homosexuals, but not among us normal non-gay
people.

Maybe not, but I was referring to Scottie Witlessmongrel.

[Eeyore]

Clyde Slick wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote
yellowmattercustard wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Yes, after being boss in his day job, he wants to be submissive to me. ;-)

LOL ! I didn't know you had a kinky side Arny. Maybe Christianity's not so bad
after all ?

Graham

Arny would have more fun as a Catholic vs a BAptist

The girls from the local Catholic school were always rated as pretty hot.

Graham

[yellowmattercustard]

"AZ Nomad" wrote

George is his bitch.

I am well aware of the deity status GM bestows upon JA.

There once was a day when I could have been accused of the same thing.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 8:08*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



yellowmattercustard wrote:

I have to wonder why somebody of J.A.'s stature would waste his time in
this
forum.

A soft spot for some of RAO's inhabitants?

He can't resist chatting with Arny.

Yes, after being boss in his day job, he wants to be submissive to me. ;-)

And you wonder why you're considered insane. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Children, let this be a lesson to you: If you waste your time in school
and fail reading and writing, you could end up like Scottie
Witlessmongrel. Here the Dim One takes a break from bitching about the
Brown Drown of SoCal in order to show off his retardation in language.

The Idiot is apparently lying to himself.

Looking at the question from the reviewer's point of view, where's the
incentive to engage in a "test" that doesn't interest him -- or, for
that matter, the magazine's readers. (Scottie Witlessmongrel is
slobbering all over himself waiting for DBTs to become the sine qua non
of "scientific" reviews, but, sad to say, he doesn't read Stereophile or
any other audio hobby magazine.)

Because S'phile is *too high a percentage BS IMO.
I know[sic] you live for[sic] BS so I'm surprised that you don't subscribe.
Why not[sic] George?

Trying to be clever doesn't become you, Scooter. I could observe that
you harbor "bigotry" against me

I don't group you with anyone. *Thankfully, you're one of a kind.

I guess somebody else said this:

"I'll bet it will be the homosexual community purging themselves of you."

I clearly imply that that even the homosexual community does
not consider you one of their group.

Nobody's laughing at you, Scooter. We're all shaking our heads in pity.

Would you like to be euthanized? I know you don't want to dodder around
the house in your old age, forcing your grandkids to clean up after you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 4:56*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 12:31*pm, John Atkinson wrote:





On May 7, 2:44 pm, George M. Middius wrote:

in the case of magazine reviews, "per word" and "per article"
are pretty much the same thing. That's because an editor is likely to
ask a reviewer for, say, a 2000-word review at a fixed rate.

JA should correct me if this is wrong. My info may be out of date.

Stereophile and the best of my knowledge, other magazines, pay a
flat rate per review.

Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets indirect
benefits.

Like what?

Harold Ferstler frequently "lost" the review samples he was given.

Howard Ferstler and Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,
it is clearly understood that review samples remain the manufacturer's
property.

*None of your reviewers have obtained a piece they reviewed at
discount?

2pid: go to Best Buy. Most audio companies offer discounts to floor
sales people. Likewise, many building component manufacturers do as
well. In fact, these discounts are not unusual in many industries.

Duh.

Is this an "understanding" or a contractual obligation S'phile
imposes on its reviewers?

We're reaching now, 2pid. If the answer is that it's an
"understanding" does this somehow effect SP's "integrity"? LOL!

2pid scenario #1:

Reviewer: "I think I need a new amplifier. I've looked around and I
want a new ARC tube amp. I think I'll contact them and tell them I'll
do a nice write-up on them for a price."

2pid scenario #2:

Reviewer: "We just got this new ARC tube amp in. I want it.I think
I'll write a good review if they give it to me."

2pid scnario #3:

Reviewer: "JA just called me and ordered me to writ a good review for
this ARC tube amp because they advertise in SP

Down, down, down. 2pid sinks ever deeper into the mire of stupidity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 8:21*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...
On May 7, 3:16 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message

...

Arny's "everybody I know who reviews" aside,

John's claiming to read my mind, again. :-(

it is clearly understood that review samples remain the manufacturer's
property.

That's one of the things that "everybody I know who reviews" says. Too bad
John relies on his obviously-flawed mind-reading skills instead of just
asking me.

"Everybody I know who reviews audio gear hopes for, and often gets
indirect benefits."

I'll ask again:

You're an impatient little ankle-biter, aren't you ****R?

It's called "asking a question".

Your dictionary seems as screwed up as 2pid's is. I think it's for
different reasons though. Stupidity does not necessarily equate to
insanity.

Like what?

Oh my dear little ****R, you're almost talking like an adult for once in
your life.

People often treat you like an adult and ask you questions, my dear
little GOIA.

OK, I'll favor you with a serious answer.

You should try that more often, GOIA.

Indirect benefits of reviewing:

(1) Professional development from actually doing the work. Get hands-on
exposure to SOTA technology.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind at all.

(2) Professional reputation improved by widespread exposure of your work, if
it is meritorious.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind at all.

(3) Professional reputation improved by being presented as an authority
figure.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind at all.

(4) Develop personal ties with some of the people responsible for the
equipment you review.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind at all.

(5) Infrequent long term *loans* of equipment, or opportunities to purchase
equipment at a significant "professional discount"

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind at all.

(6) Every once in a while you end up with equipment that the vendor simply
does not want returned. A two-edged sword because they may not want it back
because it is junk.

Everything you have listed save this one seems to be a given. It is
highly doubtful that a manufacturer is going to write off gear that is
worth very much. It may happen, but I doubt it happens very often. You
don't kow much about the audio industry, do you.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 5:01*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 11:45*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 7, 1:18*pm, Jenn wrote:

*ScottW wrote:
Possibility? * It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

ScottW

Ah shucks. *You don't think I know anything? *Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility.

He knew enough to buy speakers without having heard them first, based
presumably entirely on a review.

*The possibilities of your presumptions are endless.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 5:01*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 11:45*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 7, 1:18*pm, Jenn wrote:

*ScottW wrote:
Possibility? * It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

ScottW

Ah shucks. *You don't think I know anything? *Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility.

He knew enough to buy speakers without having heard them first, based
presumably entirely on a review.

*The possibilities of your presumptions are endless.

Where did you hear them, 2pid?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 5:00*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 11:18*am, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

*ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 7:51*am, Jenn wrote:

Not at all. Reviewers are paid pretty much a flat rate.
So where's the cost? I think it's all NRE.

Time is money.

Not to S'phile they play a flat rate for reviews.
Atkinson could require ABX tests by his reviewers.

I suppose he could. Here's an idea, 2pid: you and GOIA and all the DBT
advocates should subscribe to SP until you constitute a large majority
of the subscribers. Then start a campaign insisting upon DBTs.

He could even facilitate them so they can be performed without
assistance. *That part would require some NRE, though not much IMO.

I suppose if the outcry from SP's subscribers was loud enough, it
might even make sense.

Wasn't there a magazine that did this a few years ago (The Audio
Critic, IIRC)? Where can I buy a copy today? Did you subscribe? If no,
why not?

**The
possibility is that the increased cost is why mags don't do it.

Possibility? * It's funny, anything is possible to people who
don't know anything.

Ah shucks. *You don't think I know anything? *Anyway, cost is clearly a
possibility.

*Reviews are flat rate.

2pid, I think you should apply for a job as a reviewer at Stereophile.
JA has a keen sense of humor, so maybe he'd even go for it. Maybe you
could do a monthly column. I'd humbly submit "Kiddie's Korner" as it's
name.

Anyway, let's presume that you're being serious for just one moment
and look at some of the logical flaws you have presented:

1. DBTs, nor any other test of its type, are not done to a time
standard. It is often said that to do one properly the subject has to
have unlimited time to make a selection. It is also often said that
some subtle differences are not immediately apparent.

2. You assume that a reviewer would spend the time necessary to
perform a proper DBT when being paid upon a fixed rate basis. Every
hour they spent testing would reduce their compensation accordingly.
There would be no benefit to the reviewer to take longer amounts of
time. This could skew the results, rendering the tests invalid.

3. The fixed rate would need to be increased regardless since the
testing would take more time than reviews currently do and they would
require more people to do them since they cannot be self-proctored.
Further, you would either be listening in an environment that was not
your own, or you have now added even more expense to the test.
Therefore, your "reduced possibility" of cost not being a factor is
now reintroduced.

The possibilities are being reduced.

The possibilities of you ever proving yourself to be smart have been
nonexistant since I saw your first post, and probably nonexistant far
earlier than that.

The answer, of course, is that if you want to do DBTs you should by
all means do them. LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message


On May 7, 8:21 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Indirect benefits of reviewing:

(1) Professional development from actually doing the
work. Get hands-on
exposure to SOTA technology.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.

(2) Professional reputation improved by widespread
exposure of your work, if
it is meritorious.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.

(3) Professional reputation improved by being presented
as an authority
figure.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.

(4) Develop personal ties with some of the people
responsible for the
equipment you review.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.

(5) Infrequent long term *loans* of equipment, or
opportunities to purchase
equipment at a significant "professional discount"

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.

(6) Every once in a while you end up with equipment that
the vendor simply
does not want returned. A two-edged sword because they
may not want it back
because it is junk.

Everything you have listed save this one seems to be a
given.

Based on what?

It is highly doubtful that a manufacturer is going to write off
gear that is worth very much.

Where did I say anything about the how the manufacturer was going to
expense providing the review equipment?

It may happen, but I doubt it happens very often.

Based on what?

You don't kow much about the audio industry, do you.

Why would you say that?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 7, 6:57*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 7, 11:12*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

*It's easier to say what of my gear did I thoroughly audition before
buying. *My Quads, my Advents.

Everything else was paid for before hearing in any meaningful fashion,
much of it I didn't hear at all.

Did you select these items based on reviews? If "yes", based on whose
review?

*And why did you buy your speakers without having heard them first?

*I built them as much for the fun of building them as for
potentially getting a SOA speaker. * And the closest
audition I could find was further that I was willing to travel.

Did you base your decision on a review? If "yes", whose?

Would you buy a car based on a review and without test driving it
first?

*No, but meaningful test drive is relatively easy for a car.
Auditioning audio gear in one's home is not that easy.

For high-end stuff (actually, even for low-end too) it's easy enough
to return if you don't like it at most places.

LOL!

*Do you really think buying audio gear is like buying a car?

I think buying anything based on reviews is like buying anything bsaed
on reviews.

*I find that view quite strange and why you think it's funny
is also weird.

I think it's funny that you are so puffed-up about how SP reviews
products. I also think it's funny that you never realize how out-
gunned you are intellectually.

So, concerning your comment above, who is, or what is the subject
that is subjected for evaluations ?

*The reviewer.

So your list of bitter enemies this past day include:

JA
Monster Cable
Stereophile
Audio Reviewers
Home Depot
Radio Shack

*Disappointed you don't make the list?

Why should I care?

*I guess you're just not bitter enough.

Why would I be bitter? You make me laugh. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 2:37*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 8, 12:01*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

2pid: go to Best Buy. Most audio companies offer discounts to floor
sales people. Likewise, many building component manufacturers do as
well. In fact, these discounts are not unusual in many industries.

Yeah, doesn't it make you feel really great when you visit your Dr.
and there is a stead parade of really hot pharmaceutical reps
parading through the door?

I don't really care. If they prescribed an inappropriate medicine for
an illness I would. There are laws that cover that.

What *really* burns me is all the free pens and post it notes the
doctors get.

Duh.

Is this an "understanding" or a contractual obligation S'phile
imposes on its reviewers?

We're reaching now, 2pid. If the answer is that it's an
"understanding" does this somehow effect SP's "integrity"?

*Bill Clinton doesn't understand what sex is.
Such is the nature of "understanding" in the world today.

Not all of us are confused by it, 2pid. You sure seem to be.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 2:56*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

On May 7, 8:21 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Indirect benefits of reviewing:
(1) Professional development from actually doing the
work. Get hands-on
exposure to SOTA technology.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.
(2) Professional reputation improved by widespread
exposure of your work, if
it is meritorious.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.
(3) Professional reputation improved by being presented
as an authority
figure.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.
(4) Develop personal ties with some of the people
responsible for the
equipment you review.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.

(5) Infrequent long term *loans* of equipment, or
opportunities to purchase
equipment at a significant "professional discount"

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in mind
at all.

(6) Every once in a while you end up with equipment that
the vendor simply
does not want returned. A two-edged sword because they
may not want it back
because it is junk.
Everything you have listed save this one seems to be a
given.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that it's speculation.

It is *highly doubtful that a manufacturer is going to write off
gear that is *worth very much.

Where did I say anything about the how the manufacturer *was going to
expense providing the review equipment?

Ah. The "debating trade".

I'll pass, thanks.

It may happen, but I doubt it happens very often.

Based on what?

Based on having worked in the audio industry at the factory, retail
and wholesale level, GOIA.

You *don't kow much about the audio industry, do you.

Why would you say that?

Because it's obvious that everything you know about it is either made-
up or second-hand.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 12:57*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Nobody's laughing at you, Scooter. We're all shaking our heads in pity.

Sorry, George, but I do laugh at 2pid. I can't help it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message

On May 8, 2:56 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On May 7, 8:21 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Indirect benefits of reviewing:
(1) Professional development from actually doing the
work. Get hands-on
exposure to SOTA technology.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems to be a given. I don't think this is
what you had in mind at all.
(2) Professional reputation improved by widespread
exposure of your work, if
it is meritorious.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.
(3) Professional reputation improved by being presented
as an authority
figure.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.
(4) Develop personal ties with some of the people
responsible for the
equipment you review.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.

(5) Infrequent long term *loans* of equipment, or
opportunities to purchase
equipment at a significant "professional discount"

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.

(6) Every once in a while you end up with equipment
that the vendor simply
does not want returned. A two-edged sword because they
may not want it back
because it is junk.
Everything you have listed save this one seems to be a
given.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that it's speculation.

It is highly doubtful that a manufacturer is going to
write off
gear that is worth very much.

Where did I say anything about the how the manufacturer
was going to
expense providing the review equipment?

Ah. The "debating trade".

Yes ****R you have been caught and ticketed for your application of debating
trade nonsense.

I'll pass, thanks.

When what's bothering you passes, you'll probably feel better.

It may happen, but I doubt it happens very often.

Based on what?

Based on having worked in the audio industry at the
factory, retail and wholesale level, GOIA.

Been there, done that. But I'm not going to believe that you're not lying
unless you give names and dates.

You don't kow much about the audio industry, do you.

Why would you say that?

Because it's obvious that everything you know about it is either made-
up or second-hand.

Absent any documentation of your claims ****R, whatever you say is just
smoke.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Nobody's laughing at you, Scooter. We're all shaking our heads in pity.

Sorry, George, but I do laugh at 2pid. I can't help it.

Well, of course you do. We all do, at least sometimes. (Except for
Krooger, who doesn't laugh, period.)

I was trying to be serious for poor Scottie's sake. He'll never lift his
snout out of the mud puddle if he only expects to find mud everywhere.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 3:24*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in





On May 8, 2:56 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in


On May 7, 8:21 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Indirect benefits of reviewing:
(1) Professional development from actually doing the
work. Get hands-on
exposure to SOTA technology.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems to be a given. I don't think this is
what you had in mind at all.
(2) Professional reputation improved by widespread
exposure of your work, if
it is meritorious.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.
(3) Professional reputation improved by being presented
as an authority
figure.
Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.
(4) Develop personal ties with some of the people
responsible for the
equipment you review.

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.

(5) Infrequent long term *loans* of equipment, or
opportunities to purchase
equipment at a significant "professional discount"

Is this an "indirect benefit they hope for and often
get"? This seems
to be a given. I don't think this is what you had in
mind
at all.

(6) Every once in a while you end up with equipment
that the vendor simply
does not want returned. A two-edged sword because they
may not want it back
because it is junk.
Everything you have listed save this one seems to be a
given.

Based on what?

Based on the fact that it's speculation.

It is highly doubtful that a manufacturer is going to
write off
gear that is worth very much.

Where did I say anything about the how the manufacturer
was going to
expense providing the review equipment?
Ah. The "debating trade".

Yes ****R you have been caught and ticketed for your application of debating
trade nonsense.

I'll pass, thanks.

When what's bothering you passes, you'll probably feel better.

It may happen, but I doubt it happens very often.
Based on what?
Based on having worked in the audio industry at the
factory, retail *and wholesale level, GOIA.

Been there, done that. *But I'm not going to believe that you're not lying
unless you give names and dates.

I don't care if you do not believe me. Anyone in the industry will
look at what's been written and know it's true.

That's kind of like 2pid's belief that I've never been in the military
since I won't publicly post my DD-214. Anyone who's ever been in would
see that what I've said is true.

Now here's one for you, GOIA: You go take a psycological battery
including an MMPI inventory and have the test administrator post the
results here. If you'll do that, and I will not believe that you're
not insane if you don't, I'll not only post who I worked for in the
audio industry, but my DD-214 as well.

Wanna know a secret? I've known Dick Schulz for over 25 years.

LOL!

You don't kow much about the audio industry, do you.
Why would you say that?
Because it's obvious that everything you know about it is either made-
up or second-hand.

Absent any documentation of your claims ****R, whatever you say is just
smoke.

No, what you could do is disprove my claim by posting where you've
worked in the audio industry and where your information comes from.

But you can't, as it's either made-up or second-hand, right?

LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

Based on having worked in the audio industry at the
factory, retail *and wholesale level, GOIA.

Been there, done that. *But I'm not going to believe that you're not lying
unless you give names and dates.

I don't care if you do not believe me. Anyone in the industry will
look at what's been written and know it's true.

Krooger is apparently envious of your experience as a manufacturing drone
and a salesdroid. I'm reminded of when Turdy threw a major envy fit over
Sacky's huge salary.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/24ce5fc99c37cf82?dmode=source

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message


I don't care if you do not believe me.

Then why did you bother writing it?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Krooborg's "debating trade" wetware shorts out.

Based on having worked in the audio industry at the
factory, retail *and wholesale level, GOIA.

I don't care if you do not believe me.

Then why did you bother writing it?

So many reasons, all of which escape poor little Arnii....

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 8, 4:51*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in

I don't care if you do not believe me.

Then why did you bother writing it?

Short answer:

Because what I wrote is true, GOIA. Whether or not you choose to
believe it is your concern, not mine.

Longer answer: because I enjoy confronting twisted logic such as you
and 2pid display so consistently. Call it a hobby.

There is even a longer answer, but I'm choosing not to post it until
you can prove to me that you're not insane. ;-)