[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

ScottW wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote

Liar. What do you mean back away ?

I mean you fled rational discuss and ran to a
world of insane babbling, nonsensical accusations


I did not fleed the discussion. If you're referring to the
subthread titled... 'Illumination for Arny's top-tiered
proselyting bootlick,' it tells you were the one whimpering
senselessly after you started contradicting yourself
rabidly.

Your barren appeal to SCEINCE uncovered your
ill-founded motive, bigotry, and intolerance.



and total lack of desire to understand anything I say.


On the contrary, I have this irrepressible desire to
understand what you said. In case your newreader
missed it, my question below were based directly from
what you have said:


Please tell why you 'think' that hifi reviewers and
Recommended Component List selectors needed science
to determine good audio ?

Please do tell why you needed science on the side when
"selling" your opinion to select 'good audio.'?

Please do tell why you do not need science after admitting
that you determine good audio based on what you like,
as you confessed ?

Please tell why you would be 'mildly' interested if science
comes marching down to claim that some particular audio
component(s) sounds good

Please explain your claim that science just tend to tell you
whether components has the potential to sound good.

Please tell what you meant by saying that no science is like
listening to sticks on hollow logs with ... topless women ?



What can I sing....Oh well....


No singing needed, just straight forward responses.


ScottW


---

............ the ball is on your court.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

Yes, I understand that I can never pay enough attention to George
to
satisfy you and Arny. Meanwhile, I was critical of him just this
week,
IIRC .

Arny appears to be a non-factor in RAO mostly appearing in cross
posts.
He's gone...yet RAO remains a place incapable of hosting thoughtful
audio discussions. Oh well....

Non-addressing of the point noted.

What? That you made one critical comment of George?
I think the fact that you want that flagged as milestone
accomplishment worthy of note says much more than
the one comment.

Who said that I "want that flagged as a milestone"?

You did...see you had a choice if you felt I was not addressing your
point. You could have clarified your point to insure I "got it",
or you could leave it to interpretation. You left it out there
for interpretation as you so often do.

OOOOOKKK... from now on when I give an example of something (a situation
that most people understand),

A claim you get to make but one an examination of history shows
you often wrong in making.

Only for you and Arny, it seems.


I'll make sure to state it as such. You
be sure to do the same.

I'll just note that the second opportunity for you to clarify
your point has passed you by. I'm beginning to wonder if
you really had a point.

I did clarify, since you needed it. I wrote an EXAMPLE of me being
critical of George.




I simply gave it an
an example.

an example of one.

Correct. Very good. That was the most recent one. You are the one
(AGAIN) being critical of me for not being critical enough of George.
YOU search the Google record if you want to see if you're speaking from
your hat or not. I've already done it. Either that or tell me how many
posts by George I should A. criticize and B. even bother to read in the
first place. I'll try to please you.

Not necessary. I won't force you to read his tripe.
It is sufficient to know you don't find him worthy of reading.



I've been through this already a couple of times. I even
wasted an hour going through Google to pull up examples. I'm not
inclined to do that again.

Just as I'm not inclined to ressurrect examples of your
vagueness.

Great. Then don't accuse me of vagueness if you don't want to back it
up.

Vagueness is an opinion, a perspective and if I feel you're prone to it
I'll say so. Your so-called point is an example. You're being vague on
it and remain so.

You are accusilator, not me.

No such word.

I borrowed it from Bush.




Again: I mostly ignore George. I imagine
that I've read far less than half of what he posts here, and I've
replied to something like 10 of his posts in my time here. If that
doesn't meet with your approval, tough.

I'll remember that if George ever starts one of his vendettas
on you.

I don't expect that, as (AGAIN) I generally ignore what he writes.

You couldn't be bothered to step off the curb
and ruffle your skirt. You get the RAO you deserve.

As you couldn't be bothered to step off the curb and ruffle your boxers
when Arny attacks me for no reason.

I'm sorry...did you want me to restrain you from spanking his ass
or hold him down for you?







So talk some audio

Tried that with 'borg jr...most disappointing.

and ignore the flack.

Sounds like advice I gave you about Arny...

AGAIN, I post much less to Arny now.

I'll try to follow your lead with George and Sssshhhiee.
So what is count of regular posters on RAO worth conversing with?
I'd have to be extremely liberal on the regualar title to get double
digits.

You're probably about right.




Have you noticed how I replay far less to Arny these days, even when
he's here in "full strength"?

Replay is an apt description of your multiple Arny exchanges.
Perhaps you meant something different though...no, you never
say something you don't mean .

Do you REALLY want to play "typo wars"? Really?

Oh no...let's play you're vs your wars. They're so much more
scintillating.

No, just more persistent ;-)





FWIW...sssshhhhieees back in my ignore bin.
I suppose I should do the same with George.
Both are totally useless.

Here's something: Who among us
have gone the route of something like the Squeezebox? How does it
sound
compared to CD?

I haven't tried one but since it supports PCM it shouldn't sound
any different than what preamp does to a source. Internet radio
is too compressed for me to invest more than a cable in.

A really critical listening session between, say, a WiFi
laptop/Squeezebox/system, and a CD/system might be interesting.

Why? Squeezebox supports PCM or WAV...you should be able stream
bit exact to it if you choose. So, IMO...you're just comparing to DACs
unless
you use digital audio to DAC or receiver...then you're not even comparing
DACs.
You're into the realm of comparing transports.

Do we know that wifi doesn't alter the sound?

I suppose not...but no technical reason it should. It has a almost a couple
orders more BW than stereo 16/44 needs.


As we
move further away from physical media in music and more and more to
downloads, it would be nice to know what we're headed toward IRT sound.

We? ....well, I'm not.

I'm not either, presently. But you can bet that we all will.

You can pry my records from cold dead fingers...

Mine as well, but it seems clear that physical media is going to become
more and more rare.



I don't even like CD-Rs...yet.
Hard drive is the last place I'd put faith in storing my collection.
Even on-line storage doesn't sound appealing to me.

Off now to a bar-b-q and jam. Catch you all later, and I wish everyone
a good 7/4.

Enjoy.

Thanks, we did.

[MiNe 109]

In article

om,
Jenn wrote:

I wish everyone a good 7/4.

I didn't notice this earlier, but I heard a Bo Diddley-esque Freddie
Hubbard tune (if I understood the announcer correctly) in 7/4 on the
radio last week.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

Yes, I understand that I can never pay enough attention to George
to
satisfy you and Arny. Meanwhile, I was critical of him just this
week,
IIRC .

Arny appears to be a non-factor in RAO mostly appearing in cross
posts.
He's gone...yet RAO remains a place incapable of hosting thoughtful
audio discussions. Oh well....

Non-addressing of the point noted.

What? That you made one critical comment of George?
I think the fact that you want that flagged as milestone
accomplishment worthy of note says much more than
the one comment.

Who said that I "want that flagged as a milestone"?

You did...see you had a choice if you felt I was not addressing your
point. You could have clarified your point to insure I "got it",
or you could leave it to interpretation. You left it out there
for interpretation as you so often do.

OOOOOKKK... from now on when I give an example of something (a situation
that most people understand),

A claim you get to make but one an examination of history shows
you often wrong in making.

Only for you and Arny, it seems.


I'll make sure to state it as such. You
be sure to do the same.

I'll just note that the second opportunity for you to clarify
your point has passed you by. I'm beginning to wonder if
you really had a point.

I did clarify, since you needed it. I wrote an EXAMPLE of me being
critical of George.

I am sensing a full circle...an example is a point of what?





I simply gave it an
an example.

an example of one.

Correct. Very good. That was the most recent one. You are the one
(AGAIN) being critical of me for not being critical enough of George.
YOU search the Google record if you want to see if you're speaking from
your hat or not. I've already done it. Either that or tell me how many
posts by George I should A. criticize and B. even bother to read in the
first place. I'll try to please you.

Not necessary. I won't force you to read his tripe.
It is sufficient to know you don't find him worthy of reading.



I've been through this already a couple of times. I even
wasted an hour going through Google to pull up examples. I'm not
inclined to do that again.

Just as I'm not inclined to ressurrect examples of your
vagueness.

Great. Then don't accuse me of vagueness if you don't want to back it
up.

Vagueness is an opinion, a perspective and if I feel you're prone to it
I'll say so. Your so-called point is an example. You're being vague on
it and remain so.

Non-addressing of the point noted.


You are accusilator, not me.

No such word.

I borrowed it from Bush.

You should return it.





Again: I mostly ignore George. I imagine
that I've read far less than half of what he posts here, and I've
replied to something like 10 of his posts in my time here. If that
doesn't meet with your approval, tough.

I'll remember that if George ever starts one of his vendettas
on you.

I don't expect that, as (AGAIN) I generally ignore what he writes.

You couldn't be bothered to step off the curb
and ruffle your skirt. You get the RAO you deserve.

As you couldn't be bothered to step off the curb and ruffle your boxers
when Arny attacks me for no reason.

I'm sorry...did you want me to restrain you from spanking his ass
or hold him down for you?







So talk some audio

Tried that with 'borg jr...most disappointing.

and ignore the flack.

Sounds like advice I gave you about Arny...

AGAIN, I post much less to Arny now.

I'll try to follow your lead with George and Sssshhhiee.
So what is count of regular posters on RAO worth conversing with?
I'd have to be extremely liberal on the regualar title to get double
digits.

You're probably about right.




Have you noticed how I replay far less to Arny these days, even when
he's here in "full strength"?

Replay is an apt description of your multiple Arny exchanges.
Perhaps you meant something different though...no, you never
say something you don't mean .

Do you REALLY want to play "typo wars"? Really?

Oh no...let's play you're vs your wars. They're so much more
scintillating.

No, just more persistent ;-)





FWIW...sssshhhhieees back in my ignore bin.
I suppose I should do the same with George.
Both are totally useless.

Here's something: Who among us
have gone the route of something like the Squeezebox? How does it
sound
compared to CD?

I haven't tried one but since it supports PCM it shouldn't sound
any different than what preamp does to a source. Internet radio
is too compressed for me to invest more than a cable in.

A really critical listening session between, say, a WiFi
laptop/Squeezebox/system, and a CD/system might be interesting.

Why? Squeezebox supports PCM or WAV...you should be able stream
bit exact to it if you choose. So, IMO...you're just comparing to DACs
unless
you use digital audio to DAC or receiver...then you're not even comparing
DACs.
You're into the realm of comparing transports.

Do we know that wifi doesn't alter the sound?

I suppose not...but no technical reason it should. It has a almost a couple
orders more BW than stereo 16/44 needs.


As we
move further away from physical media in music and more and more to
downloads, it would be nice to know what we're headed toward IRT sound.

We? ....well, I'm not.

I'm not either, presently. But you can bet that we all will.

You can pry my records from cold dead fingers...

Mine as well, but it seems clear that physical media is going to become
more and more rare.

I'm hoping bandwidth improvements with services like FTTP
will make audio compression unnecessary for those who don't
want it.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 5, 7:38 pm, "ScottW" wrote:

Non-addressing of the point noted.

2pid, what is it called when someone insists others do something they
themselves are unwilling to do?

Oh, I thought so.

LOL!

[Sander deWaal]

"ScottW" said:


You can pry my records from cold dead fingers...


Mine as well, but it seems clear that physical media is going to become
more and more rare.


I'm hoping bandwidth improvements with services like FTTP
will make audio compression unnecessary for those who don't
want it.


There probably will be a market for uncompressed audio, at a cost.
Every time one wants to listen, one has to pay.

The dream of the record companies: no physical disks.

I think I'll stick onto my CD- and LP collection a loooooong time.

--

- Maggies are an addiction for life. -