"dave weil" wrote in message
...

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
don't make or break a rule.

This post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1...21%40rwcrnsc53

refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one you
cited Weil, namely

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...newssvr15.n e
ws.prodigy.com

So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
citing an exception or three.

Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Not true:
[snip]
If you look at what was written by the Stereophile Editor Tom,
[snip]
For example Tom,
[snip]
Then Tom,
[snip]

Sorry, you lose.
Again.

You've only scratched the surface. There are hundreds of instances of
Turdborg affixing the polite "Mr." to people's names. One example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.prodigy.com
This particular post is loaded with inadvertent humor, as
****-for-Brains puts his imponderable concreteness on display.

Here's another in which he directly addresses one of his tormentors
by first name only:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm... .prodigy.com
This post is also pretty funny, as it shows Krooger wailing about the
unjustness of the persecutions he receives in response to his vile
behavior.

And another feeble attempt to shunt well-deserved criticism of his
****ful self onto the same Normal guy:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40comcast.com
The "sensitive tank" behavior continues unabated in this post.

Here's Turdborg building a web of verbal feces on the tenuous pylon
of illogic offered by the mentally challenged Booby Wumpkins:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&sel...ws.prodigy.com
As usual, only first-name address is appropriate for this truckload
of Kroo-lies.


There is an ocean of examples for anybody to find. Krooger recently
adopted the viewpoint that using silly honorifics like Mr. is a sign
of weakness. I figure he dropped them to reinforce his own pathetic
self-image as a schoolyard bully. Constantly "working over" his
antagonists the way he does, it's no wonder he considers himself
invincible in the "debating trade".

BTW, here's a trivia question: Who first introduced the phrase
"debating trade" to RAO? ;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
...


Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.


Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
don't make or break a rule.

Umm, oh never mind..

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:49:25 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their
last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
don't make or break a rule.

Oh, it's now a RULE that you refer to people by their last name.

Gratuitous use of capitals noted.

OK. Seems like a petty rule, especially since you didn't used to have
that rule. I remember when you used to refer to me as Mr. Weil.
However, all that changed when you finally noticed that I stopped
referring to you as Arny (which WAS deliberate since I didn't think
that you deserved the "cute" nickname). Suddenly you dropped the
honorific (in some bizarre backwards retaliation). Then you extended
it to everyone you disliked. While it's rather gratifying to know that
I exert a powerful influence on your family and behavior, it's a
little disturbing in a way.

You're delusional, Weil.


This post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1...21%40rwcrnsc53

refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one
you
cited Weil, namely

But you weren't addressing him, were you?

Who else would I address as "Nousaine"?

That's the point that we're talking about, right?

You're delusional, Weil.

Maybe you could find an example of you responding directly to Tom by
addressing him as Nousaine. I'm just curious if it's ever happened...

You're delusional, Weil.


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40newssvr15.n
ews.prodigy.com

So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
citing an exception or three.

Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?

This spin is far lamer than anything I've ever posted.

I agree Weil, you're descending to even lower levels of lameness than I ever
thought could exist.

Basically, you're just a rather nasty piece of work and this sort of
behavior simply underscores it.

Weil, as if your gratuitous introduction of yourself, your bile, your
madness, and your crap into what was once a technical audio thread isn't a
nasty piece of work.

You're delusional, Weil.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:49:58 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:49:25 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their
last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
don't make or break a rule.

Oh, it's now a RULE that you refer to people by their last name.

Gratuitous use of capitals noted.

It wasn't gratuitous - it was a deliberate use of EMPHASIS.

OK. Seems like a petty rule, especially since you didn't used to have
that rule. I remember when you used to refer to me as Mr. Weil.
However, all that changed when you finally noticed that I stopped
referring to you as Arny (which WAS deliberate since I didn't think
that you deserved the "cute" nickname). Suddenly you dropped the
honorific (in some bizarre backwards retaliation). Then you extended
it to everyone you disliked. While it's rather gratifying to know that
I exert a powerful influence on your family and behavior, it's a
little disturbing in a way.

You're delusional, Weil.

Nope.

You've already admitted how much influence I wield over your family,
you know.

This post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1...21%40rwcrnsc53

refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one
you
cited Weil, namely

But you weren't addressing him, were you?

Who else would I address as "Nousaine"?

You weren't addressing him. You were talking *about* him.

Here's who you were addressing: "Therefore we can see that Mr.
Lavo..."

That's the point that we're talking about, right?

You're delusional, Weil.

You seem to be stuck for a real answer. The point of Mr. Atkinson
bringing it up was to show that you use someone's last name to be
dismissive and derisive. This occurs when you address someone.

Maybe you could find an example of you responding directly to Tom by
addressing him as Nousaine. I'm just curious if it's ever happened...

You're delusional, Weil.

I note that you refuse to respond to my comment in a substantial way.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.prodigy.com

So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
citing an exception or three.

Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?

This spin is far lamer than anything I've ever posted.

I agree Weil, you're descending to even lower levels of lameness than I ever
thought could exist.

Now who's delusional?

Basically, you're just a rather nasty piece of work and this sort of
behavior simply underscores it.

Weil, as if your gratuitous introduction of yourself, your bile, your
madness, and your crap into what was once a technical audio thread isn't a
nasty piece of work.

Bile from you noted.

You're delusional, Weil.

Loopiness noted.

BTW, I think it's hilarious that you can be prompted into the vilest
sort of namecalling without any effort from certain people. It should
really give you pause.

dave weil wrote:

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:49:25 -0400, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that I refer to people by their last
name, friend, foe and neutral party alike.

Even a blithering idiot like you Weil should know that a few exceptions
don't make or break a rule.

Oh, it's now a RULE that you refer to people by their last name.

OK. Seems like a petty rule, especially since you didn't used to have
that rule. I remember when you used to refer to me as Mr. Weil.
However, all that changed when you finally noticed that I stopped
referring to you as Arny (which WAS deliberate since I didn't think
that you deserved the "cute" nickname). Suddenly you dropped the
honorific (in some bizarre backwards retaliation). Then you extended
it to everyone you disliked. While it's rather gratifying to know that
I exert a powerful influence on your family and behavior, it's a
little disturbing in a way.

This post:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Y1...21%40rwcrnsc53

refers to Tom Nousaine as "Nousaine" and is far more recent than the one you
cited Weil, namely

But you weren't addressing him, were you?

That's the point that we're talking about, right?

Maybe you could find an example of you responding directly to Tom by
addressing him as Nousaine. I'm just curious if it's ever happened...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ws.prodigy.com

So much for cherry-picked posts and stupid attempts to disprove a rule by
citing an exception or three.

Really lame, Weil. Grow a brain, will you?

This spin is far lamer than anything I've ever posted.

Basically, you're just a rather nasty piece of work and this sort of
behavior simply underscores it.

shrug

Here's a blast from the past where S-f-B is taken to task for this practice. BTW, it's on
RAP, a group that Turdy claims is so sweet to him and where he's accepted like a bro. guffaw

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=la...ods.com&rnum=2

This chiding was rewarded with a temporary damming of the borg snot splashing all over the
place. TurdBorg was even polite (shudder) for a while. Guess he's terrified of being
ostracized by a group to which he so desperately wants to belong. A check of that NG today
shows that S-f-B is treading on thin ice over there, again. Even Scott Dorsey has scolded
Turdy for his lack of social graces. When Dorsey comments on it you can rest assured that
it's gotten beyond tedious.

The TurdBorg's cranium must surely contain a maelstrom of feces, fear and raging snot. Not a
pretty sight.

LN

--
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:57 -0700, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

Here's a blast from the past where S-f-B is taken to task for this practice. BTW, it's on
RAP, a group that Turdy claims is so sweet to him and where he's accepted like a bro. guffaw

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=la...ods.com&rnum=2

This chiding was rewarded with a temporary damming of the borg snot splashing all over the
place. TurdBorg was even polite (shudder) for a while. Guess he's terrified of being
ostracized by a group to which he so desperately wants to belong. A check of that NG today
shows that S-f-B is treading on thin ice over there, again. Even Scott Dorsey has scolded
Turdy for his lack of social graces. When Dorsey comments on it you can rest assured that
it's gotten beyond tedious.

The TurdBorg's cranium must surely contain a maelstrom of feces, fear and raging snot. Not a
pretty sight.

LN

--
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger
--------------------
"Bob Cain" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

Arny, repetitively addressing someone by their last name is rude,
insulting and provocative. It casts your words in an ad hominem
vein that strips them of being worthy of further consideration. As
a debating strategy, it is self defeating.

It's also the only strategy I know of for addressing comments to
exactly one person.

If you've got a better one, I'm all ears.
First name?

I've been in too many situations where there is more than one person
involved with the same or a similar first name.
------------------------

Amazing. He'll do *anything* to circle around the way that most people
address others and that's with a Mr. or Mrs.

Seems like people from across the USENET universe are tiring of his
tactics...

"Leon North" wrote in message
...

So sockpuppet "North", why can't you provide me with that information I need
to see about your $100,000+ bank account?

Not able to show good faith?

Oh, I get it, you're another anonymous internet no-show sockpuppet.

Turdy "Skidmark of the borg" Krooogles is felled by wimplash:

"Leon North" wrote in message
...

So sockpuppet "North", why can't you provide me with that information I need
to see about your $100,000+ bank account?

It will cost you the same, Pussyborg. Koff up and we'll dance.

Not able to show good faith?

Just showed it. You show me that you can see the wager and I'm right there
with the dough. It will go into an escrow account for a specified period of
time during which you will perform your idea of what can be done. The point is
that it +can't+ be done and you know it. Ergo, I don't expect you to comply
but to just sit there cutting and pasting your same lame reply in hopes that
this will go away. I'm laughing at you.

Oh, I get it, you're another anonymous internet no-show sockpuppet.

It's showing right in your rodentious face, Turdy. You are the no-show here.
Snip, snip, cut, paste is your thing. No there there, is there?
chuckle-snicker-guffaw

You are a gigantic pussy. QED

And,

You remain ineffably stupid.*

I remain,

The Shadow

*more variety

--
"The discussion is what I meant, not what I said." A. Dimbulb Kroooger

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:02 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.

A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.

Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)

Much as it galls me to concur with Arnii about anything, I have to
agree on this one. On the occasions that I've visited the Stereophile
website, the browsing process has not been a pleasant one. The
searches take an age. I have often just given up trying to find what I
was looking for.

Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature. Maybe for the
same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
their toilet.

--
Thine

Lived EHT wrote:


On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:20:02 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

Several sections of the website are currently so sluggish they
are nearly indistinguishable from broken. 30-90 seconds to just
reply to a page request indicates that something is wrong here.

I went to the web site to see if this was indeed a problem with my
connection and there *is* a definite slowness to some of the review
links. It takes a LONG time to get into the review sections although
once you get there, the individual reviews seem to come up quickly.

A long time seems to fit the time frame expressed by Mr. Crowley.

Perhaps this was Mr. Krueger's problem (since he didn't say for sure
whether he got an actual error message, it's hard to tell)

Much as it galls me to concur with Arnii about anything, I have to
agree on this one. On the occasions that I've visited the Stereophile
website, the browsing process has not been a pleasant one. The
searches take an age. I have often just given up trying to find what I
was looking for.

Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature. Maybe for the
same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
their toilet.

--
Thine








LOL!


But in C-L-K's Ministry of Disinformation, such visual aids may be required to
see the $ 1000 bills he regularly uses.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

"Lived EHT" wrote in message
n.net...

Of course, Arnii's hideous assemblages of broken links, cheesy 90s
clipart and infant-level language 'shedding light by the means of the
combustion of snake oil' do not sport a search feature.

Since I haven't tried to assemble a collection of articles from the last 20
years of Stereophile online, why would I need one?

Maybe for the
same reason that most people don't have a magnifying glass fitted to
their toilet.

Oh come on now Graham. We hear tell that you have a magnifying glass fitted
to your toilet to use every time you try to take a pee!

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message


John Atkinson wrote:

(drummer) wrote in message
le.com...


i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
finding something a tad cheaper.


Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT
Lightpipe protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have
recorded 8 channels on my PC using this card and digital input via
LightPipe.


Very much an inexpert in this field, but just bought the RME Digi96/8
PST. My aim was to get better stereo output sound into my hifi, and I
was more than delighted by the results on that score.


Most people cut their teeth in PC audio with either SoundBlaster cards or
on-motherboard sound facilities. Both can be pretty substandard compared to
a modern CD or DVD player. The SoundBlaster Audigy was the first Creative
Labs card that had a chance of holding a candle performance-wise to even a
$100 CD or DVD player.


I had already 'upgraded' from a an old, cheap Soundblaster card to a
ST-Audio card at about $100. It gave me digital I/O and very reasonable
results when burned to CD, but sound quality from the PC was dire.
My RME card now seriously rivals my Cyrus CD player which was around
$600 IIRC.

The one snag with the card is that there is no level control for
analogue input, so I had to invest in a small mixer to control the
level going to the card.


Very few modern sound cards have any kind of analog input level control
other than a coarse sensitivity setting (-10/+4). This is because there are
no reasonably-priced computer controlled analog attenuators that would not
degrade the card's input. Such fine level controls as one finds are
generally implemented digitally, which leaves the card susceptible to analog
clipping in its input buffers. Of course, it's pretty hard (without trying)
to clip the analog input of a +4 device that has reasonable (10-12 dB)
headroom (takes more than 6 volts RMS).


Are you saying that my analogue input would not have been too high
without being 'turned down' externally? It was pushing the CoolEdit
meter into the red.

The *last* analog level control chip that found general use as a sound card
analog input attenuator was the Crystal CS 3310 which was a pretty good
match for 16 bits, but would appreciably degrade any halfways-decent 24 bit
input.

Ironically, this same CS 3310 chip is used in some high end analog gear that
is used and prized by analog bigots and digiphobes. It doesn't have good
enough performance for general use in modern audio production computer
interface cards, but it does seem to have good enough performance for
digiphobes and analog bigots. Go figure.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
have gone wrong.

In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger. It seems a matter of logic:
IF you couldn't access the review; AND IF our server was working correctly;
THEN something other than a server problem was at fault.

Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.

Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it
up from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your
site www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

Okay, I was just making plausible suggestions as to what had happened.
Typing incorrect URLs can happen.

But if, indeed, you were trying to access Stereophile's on-line
archives on Monday morning, then that is when we get a huge increase
in traffic due to the new news postings.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was
not on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

Okay, your message didn't appear on the Google server I use until early
Monday morning, which is why I assumed you had had the problem around that
time. If you now say it happened on Sunday afternoon, I know that heavy
traffic wasn't the problem. However, as we work almost continually on the
website preparing Monday's new content on Sunday afternoons and evenings,
I can vouch for the fact that our web server was working normally at that
time.

The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error,
you didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
display, it is possible that this was the reason.

Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xs...%40comcast.com
can see.

Why is it irrelevant? This message merely gives the URL of the archived
review. Clicking on it retrieves the review, just as I have claimed
(though it does rather longer to appear than I expected). It doesn't prove
that doing so didn't retrieve the review on Sunday afternoon, as you
claimed. If you had answered my question -- did you get a "404" or did you
merely get a very slow download? -- I would have a better idea of what had
gone wrong.

Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and
not the substance of the man.

And again the anger and the inevitable insult. I fail to grasp why you
are so determined to pick a fight, Mr. Krueger. As I said, my pointing
out that the link appears to working correctly is _not_ a criticism of
you in any way, nor is it a claim of omniscience on my part.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
My saying so is _not_ a criticism of you in any way, nor is it a claim
of omniscience on my part, merely a suggestion that something else must
have gone wrong.

In which alternative universe, Atkinson?

I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger. It seems a matter of logic:
IF you couldn't access the review; AND IF our server was working correctly;
THEN something other than a server problem was at fault.

Perhaps you typed an incorrect URL.

Like anybody with a brain, I cut-pasted the URL from my browsers address
line to the post. Furthermore I didn't type the URL but rather picked it
up from another web site. I then ran a test using just the name of your
site www.stereophile.com. etc., etc., etc.

Okay, I was just making plausible suggestions as to what had happened.
Typing incorrect URLs can happen.

But if, indeed, you were trying to access Stereophile's on-line
archives on Monday morning, then that is when we get a huge increase
in traffic due to the new news postings.

Atkinson, anybody with a brain knows that posts are associated with a
particular time and date. The time and date associated with my post was
not on Monday morning but rather on Sunday afternoon.

Okay, your message didn't appear on the Google server I use until early
Monday morning, which is why I assumed you had had the problem around that
time. If you now say it happened on Sunday afternoon, I know that heavy
traffic wasn't the problem. However, as we work almost continually on the
website preparing Monday's new content on Sunday afternoons and evenings,
I can vouch for the fact that our web server was working normally at that
time.

The associated increased demand for archived reviews slows the
server down significantly and if, rather than getting a "404" error,
you didn't get any response at all other than a creeping "site loading"
display, it is possible that this was the reason.

Irrelevant, as anybody who inspects
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=xs...%40comcast.com
can see.

Why is it irrelevant? This message merely gives the URL of the archived
review. Clicking on it retrieves the review, just as I have claimed
(though it does rather longer to appear than I expected). It doesn't prove
that doing so didn't retrieve the review on Sunday afternoon, as you
claimed. If you had answered my question -- did you get a "404" or did you
merely get a very slow download? -- I would have a better idea of what had
gone wrong.

Whatever the cause, I do appreciate people letting me know when they
have problems with www.stereophile.com. Thanks for doing so, Mr.
Krueger.

Too bad this is a veneer of congeniality of wisdom and good taste and
not the substance of the man.

And again the anger and the inevitable insult. I fail to grasp why you
are so determined to pick a fight, Mr. Krueger. As I said, my pointing
out that the link appears to working correctly is _not_ a criticism of
you in any way, nor is it a claim of omniscience on my part.


Many of us have observed the same phenomenon re. Krueger's inability to
interact with people in a socially acceptable, rational manner. Sadly, his
RAO posting history is full of unprovoked personal attacks on others, As you
correctly observe, he doesn't need any logical reason to pick a fight. He just
compulsively insults people, concocts conspiracy theories with a markedly
paranoid flavor to justify his aggression, and as I have pointed out elsewhere,
meets many of the criteria associated with a diagnosis of Paranoid Personality
Disorder, a relatively chronic, highly rigid pattern of behavioral trtaits that
have been established over a long period of time.



John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile









Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D/
Licensed Psychologist

"Robbie Noake" wrote in message
om

Just to throw my ha'penny worth into the fray...................

The esteemed JA, ed of stereophile, comes out the winner in this
thread, having at least the ability and good grace not to resort to
the awful snideness that is only too prevalent with most regular
posters.

Au contraire. Atkinson added his usual dollop of snideness in several forms.
If you can't see them, well then whatever.

Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic, and its the
following:

"As I wrote in another posting, if you want to bounce tracks from your ADAT
to your computer and back, the RME Digi96/8 PAD is ideal for this, though
it is more expensive than the CardDeluxe. There is also a TDIF interface
available for the RME cards, for those with Tascam MDMs."

But to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did he deny
reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous lies, such as the
idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in the google archive.

You regular posters need to use the google archive to check
out your posts, some of you do know your audio
but as one poster recently brutally pointed out, some of you can be
very pompous

This thread started with the usual good intentions and a number of good
posts, but as usual the RAO trolls like Weil, Middius, Dormer, North,
Richman, Graham etc. worked their *magic* on it.

In article ,
Robbie Noake wrote:
Just to throw my ha'penny worth into the fray...................
The esteemed JA, ed of stereophile, comes out the winner in this
thread, having at least the ability and good grace not to resort to
the awful snideness that is only too prevelent with most regular
posters. You regular posters need to use the google archive to check
out your posts, some of you do know your audio
but as one poster recently brutally pointed out, some of you can be
very pompous

When stuff gets crossposted from rec.audio.opinion into other newsgroups,
NOBODY wins.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic...

Thank you Mr. Krueger.

to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous lies,
such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in the google
archive.

For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives? Discussions
such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson said:

he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous lies, such as the idea
that posts aren't properly time-stamped in the google archive.

For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives? Discussions
such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.

I'd like to know how you made your lies "really homogenous".
I prefer mine pied in colors, or of mixed extraction, or blended
like a Moon Glow on the rocks.

Forget the timestamping and let's variegate those lies.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
m
I fail to understand your point, Mr. Krueger.

You probably do, Atkinson but it would be more ego-satisfying for you
to lie and say you don't,
...
That logic Atkinson seemed to have escaped you for several days since
my post last Sunday afternoon.
...
it's an insult. Anybody with a brain knows that mistyping URLs is one
of those things that happens. By suggesting that this cause went
unconsidered and undetected Atkinson, you're basically saying that I
don't have a brain.
...
Stereophile editors growing a brain could happen.
...
Try another dumb claim, Atkinson.
...
Atkinson, why don't you learn how to read obvious things like time and
date off of google web pages?
...
What I take exception to is your false claim that my report of no web
access was and I quote: "Incorrect".
...
Atkinson, the URL I cited also has some other content that you seem to
want to deny exists.
...
Atkinson, most logical human beings could interpret my comments as being
other than slow response. Of course you just mistakenly claimed that my
post was composed of only a URL and anybody who cares to look can see
that this is a false claim. So what good are you?
...
Atkinson...I feel no anger towards you at this time, merely pity. The
pity is based on your inability to deal logically and honestly with the
fact that you made a mistake last Monday morning. But after all these
years of experience with you Atkinson, I really feel almost no emotion
towards you at all. You are like a large rock in the middle of a desert
that will remain useless and unchanged for the foreseeable future. Does
one feel much emotion towards such a rock? No! It just is.
...
Obviously you have forgotten what it is like to fight with me, Atkinson.
...
Regrettably, you are neither omniscient Atkinson, nor are you capable of
undoing a mistake that you are incapable of admitting that you made.

I read these words with you with sadness, Mr. Krueger. You claim that you
are not angry, yet your words imply otherwise. So rather than me address
each of your points, let us just put this matter to rest: you had
difficulty accessing the Stereophive archives last Sunday for any number
of possible reasons. However, the www.stereophile.com server is working
(albeit slowly at high traffic times), and the link you quoted --
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?280 -- continues to function as
it should. I fail to grasp why my pointing this out is a "mistake" on my
part. But that the link does continue to work is really all that matters,
surely? No hurt, no foul on either of our parts.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:53:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
. com
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic...

Thank you Mr. Krueger.

to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous
lies, such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in
the google archive.

For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives?

Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when you
baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by when
you first saw it at the google web site.

Discussions
such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.

I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive. Which
was it?

Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.

Please get help.

Now.

dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.
Please get help.
Now.

Yes, Arnii, do see if the Kroobitch's health insurance policy will
cover some therapy for you. I'd suggest a psychiatrist rather than
just a clinician, since the ability to prescribe from the full range
of antipsychotic medications may be necessary.

Dave Weil wrote:


On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:53:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
.com
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Atkinson did actually add one idea that related to the topic...

Thank you Mr. Krueger.

to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous
lies, such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in
the google archive.

For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives?

Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when you
baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by when
you first saw it at the google web site.

Discussions
such as this would be a loss less confrontational if posters stuck to
what had actually happened instead of what they think happened.

I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive. Which
was it?

Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.

Please get help.

Now.









Krueger's increasingly abnormal and disturbed behavior is obvious to all but
him.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

George M. Middius wrote:


dave weil said to ****-for-Brains:

Actually, it's you just being your typical self. Nasty as usual.
Please get help.
Now.

Yes, Arnii, do see if the Kroobitch's health insurance policy will
cover some therapy for you. I'd suggest a psychiatrist rather than
just a clinician, since the ability to prescribe from the full range
of antipsychotic medications may be necessary.






I agree that prescription of antipsychotic medication may well be required.
However, that, in and of itself, will potentially do nothing more than perhaps
ameliorate some of Krueger's confused and delusional thinking. I might add
that it would also be worth exploring the possible use of psychotropic agents
frequently used for unprovoked rage reactions like the ones that Krueger
frequently displays on RAO. Mentions of certain words such as "vinyl" and
"tubes" appear to be particularly troublesome for him and likely to elicit
irrational rage reactions. Drugs such as Tegretol have sometimes been found
to be helpful in this regard.

As a matter of correction, health insurance plans covering psychiatric services
also cover mental health services provided by licensed psychologists, so that
in practically all cases, the patient does not have to choose one or the other,
but can use both.. It is quite common for psychologists to refer their
patients to a psychiatrist for appropriate medication as part of a
comprehensive and appropriate treatment package. It is also increasingly
common for psychiatrists, most of whom focus purely on biological treatment
modalities, to refer their patients to psychologists for various types of
psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy.

I might add that in New Mexico, and hopefully in other states in the near
future, psychologists, after an appropriate training program and state
examination, may also prescribe psychotropic medications.


Brucde J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Bruce J. Richman

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:53:07 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when you
baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by when
you first saw it at the google web site.

I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive. Which
was it?

Stunning. Just stunning.

I *honestly* don't know whether you really are this stupid or whether
this stems from your fathomless malevolence. Or both. Both, I think.

Still, it's stunning.

--
Thine

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
to say that Atkinson avoided snideness in numerous other posts is to
ignore his many reprehensible and laughable deceptions. Not only did
he deny reality, but he tried to perpetrate some really homogenous
lies, such as the idea that posts aren't properly time-stamped in
the google archive.

For goodness sake Mr. Krueger, your reasoning behind these statements
escapes me. In what message or messages am I supposed to have "lied"
about the timestamping of messages in the Google archives?

Atkinson, you implicity claimed that the timestamping didn't exist when
you baldly stated that you could only determine when I sent the email by
when you first saw it at the google web site...

I know what happened Atkinson - you were either clueless or deceptive.
Which was it?


Neither, Mr. Krueger. I am saddened that your connection with reality is
demonstrably tenuous. But as I said in another recent posting, the crux of
the matter is that while, for whatever reason, you couldn't access an
archived review at www.stereophile.com last Sunday, our website server
does appear to be working properly (if slowly). Which to me is what matters.

I am sorry you feel my explanantions to be "snide" and "lies," but to be
brutally frank, it does appear that you have been trying to pick a fight
with me over something that is really of little consequence. This is my last
word on the subject.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"tor b" wrote in message
om
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...

nasty, tedious babble snipped


Brucde J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Bruce J. Richman

Very impressive, "doc".

He's quite a literate guy, isn't he? With a little help he might even learn
how to properly write his first name. Then he could graduate from
kindergarten!

"Girth" wrote in message

George M. Middius wrote:

Mark D. Zacharias Shelleyed:

I agree. RAO is a sewer.

And you are a floater.

LOL!

You are a sinker, Dormer.

Arny Krueger displays his stupidity:


"tor b" wrote in message
. com
(Bruce J. Richman) wrote in message
...

nasty, tedious babble snipped


Brucde J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
Bruce J. Richman

Very impressive, "doc".

He's quite a literate guy, isn't he? With a little help he might even learn
how to properly write his first name. Then he could graduate from
kindergarten!



How droll! This sterling comment comes from RAO's Most Widely Despised and
Hated Poster. A frequency count of the number of typographical errors,
misspellings, incomprehensible attempts at sentences, and just plain idiotic
neologisms produced by RAO's resident retard, Krueger, easily shows that this
hypocrite is basically illiterate.

We can always tell when the incompetent, compulsive liar Krueger is getting his
head handed to him by his many intellectual superiors. He desperately starts
looking around for typographical errors to attack. What's so funny about this
is that he makes more than most of the people here, so he just shows himself to
be a flaming hypocrite. C-L-K (aka "Freddy") doesn't even have the smarts to
realize that he just makes a fool of himself whenever he does this.

As usual, the lies just keep coming from this paranoid, stupid and seriously
disturbed cretin.

LOL!


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist

John Atkinson wrote:

(drummer) wrote in message . com...

i have an 8 track adat, would that be completely obsolete if i buy a
sound card like that? it goes for 400 american, so i wouldnt mind
finding something a tad cheaper.


Sadly more expensive than the CardDeluxe, the RME Digi96/8 PAD has an
optical input that can be configured to communicate via the ADAT Lightpipe
protocol. Using Cool Edit Pro (now Adobe Audition), I have recorded 8
channels on my PC using this card and digital input via LightPipe.

You can find Stereophile's review of the RME Digi96/8 PAD at
http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?541 and its predecessor, the
Digi96/8 PRO at http://www.stereophile.com/showarchives.cgi?299 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm


Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.

Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?


My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.

Nick H

Nick H (UK) wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock circuitry,
and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm



Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.

Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?


My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.

How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.

I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.

Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
a better alternative that isn't a fortune.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Nick H (UK) wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm




Looks spiffy. I like the use of the serial port connector to
a multi-jack dongle. Nice feature, IMO.

Q: how does it do on playback or is it purely for recording?


My experience with RME (the Digi96/PST) is that playback through my hifi
is *better* than my Cirus CD player! :-)). As I bought it looking for
better playback quality (I ahd all the i/o I needed previously) I was
well pleased.


How much does it cost? I'm in the market for a good sound card
and want to also play games and such with it as well as do surround
sound. Partially to take the 20% load off of my CPU - too high
for serious gaming - but also to act like a nice 4-track mixer
and/or midi port - so I can run decent sequencer package.

I can't stand Creative's kludgy drivers or second-rate processors
and sound libraries/sample sets. Ensoniq's and Turtle Beach's always
sounded better anyways - and they weren't high-end cards.

Creative is like Microsoft - acceptable programs. Bland, soul-less,
hopelessly adequate implimentations of other technologies. I want
a better alternative that isn't a fortune.


Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
it does that sales spiel;-)

Nick H

Nick H (UK) wrote:
Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm

Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out what
it does that sales spiel;-)

"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"

Kurt Albershardt wrote:
Nick H (UK) wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm


Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
what it does that sales spiel;-)


"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"


Woops, sorry, wrong again. That's been happening *all* day ! ;-)
Nick H

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Nick H (UK) wrote:

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Kurt Albershardt wrote:

Or perhaps the new HDSP9632 (192k converters, better clock
circuitry, and nearly the same price.)
http://www.rme-audio.de/english/hdsp/hdsp9632.htm



Check RME's site carefully; I don't think it does midi, but could be
wrong. My digi96 certainly does not. You can see the specs on the
site, of course, but they also have the manuals up for rerading. I
always think the product manual is a much better way of finding out
what it does that sales spiel;-)



"1 MIDI I/O with 16 channels of hi-speed MIDI via breakout cable"


Neat - so how does it do in games and such(Direct-X)

It doesn't since it's a pro soundcard. ASIO and MME drivers only at
this point.



what does it cost?(probably way more than my budget - lol)

See my reply earlier.

Bubba wrote:
Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

Bubba wrote:
Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

FWIW, I have a Soundblaster and a hgher end card in the same machine.
Works good.

What I have noticed is that some games have
*ugly* "dll hell" issues with DAW software, and therefore,
only old DOS games on the DAW machine.

--
Les Cargill

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message


Bubba wrote:
Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.

Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.

You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message



Bubba wrote:

Check out M-audio revolution 7.1.
http://www.m-audio.net/products/cons...tion_page1.php
This company mostly makes cards for audiofphiles.
This is their consumer version. It is the best for music.
Has had great reviews.
Not so good for games. Can output digital audio.


Grr. Now you know why it's so frustrating. I want a better
option for games and recording that the Audgigy II, but it's
confusing to say the least.


You've never heard that saying about having your cake and eating it, too?

Hey! It's the new millenium. I'll take the German Chocolate
with sprinkles and a scoop of ice cream right now!



Give me a good 24/96 option for gaming and general use other
than the Audigy II.