Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote:

First the Wheeler lawsuit, now "the debate". It's been a
bad year for
George "100% wrong" Middius, the confirmed idiot of RAO.
:-D

Ironically, Middius seems to think of Wheeler and Atkinson
as friends.


IMO, "George" regards Wheeler as one of his minions/dupes/aspiring
lapdogs. If Wheeler ever dares to cross "George", he'll get the
Singh/Sanders treatment.

OTOH, "George" seems to just worship Atkinson. The real question is how
can Atkinson deal with cozying up to an obviously deranged, psychotic
personality such as "George M. Middius" (well, I guess have a nutball
like Fremer on his staff goes a long way to explaining things, eh?).


With friends like them, he needs that many fewer enemies!

wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote:

First the Wheeler lawsuit, now "the debate". It's been a
bad year for
George "100% wrong" Middius, the confirmed idiot of RAO.
:-D

Ironically, Middius seems to think of Wheeler and
Atkinson
as friends.

IMO, "George" regards Wheeler as one of his
minions/dupes/aspiring
lapdogs.

He's even got wheeler using a dog's name!

If Wheeler ever dares to cross "George", he'll get the
Singh/Sanders treatment.

Wheeler does not need to cross George, he merely has to let
his adulation down.

OTOH, "George" seems to just worship Atkinson.

Agreed.

The real question is
how can Atkinson deal with cozying up to an obviously
deranged,
psychotic personality such as "George M. Middius" (well, I
guess have
a nutball like Fremer on his staff goes a long way to
explaining
things, eh?).

I wonder how many other of the SPile staff have Freemer's
nasty dispostion?

I still remember a certain mental health professional's
comment over a decade ago, about how high end audio seems to
attract the certifiable nutcases.

In article , says...

jclause wrote:
Be completely assured that all of my RAO posts are 100%
serious and that no way would I ever try to pull on JA's
chain. ;-)


Now I've seen you pull Johns chain
And I've watched with some disdain
"Cause even if you're right..
You should do a clean "fight"
Or is that too much of a strain?

Show me a clean fight and I'll fight it cleanly.

Then there's RAO...


In a fight it's pretty well known,
That the first punch has to be thrown
So whoever threw it
Pretty much blew it
So who is it that needs to atone?

Hammingaway

Obie tries out his newly issued BorgSmugSnot license.

Answer one question: Is there anything JA (or anybody else) might say that
would convince you that "tests" are worthless in evaluating audio gear?
If, as I suspect, there is nothing, then what kind of enlightenment would
you consider valuable?

I place more faith in science to evaluate something that is based
upon scientific principles itself than emotions.

How dorky of you. We're talking about enjoyment of music, and you babble about "scientific principles". At least you spelled the words correctly, unlike your role model, Krooger.


As for what kind of enlightenment I find valuable, that's a red herring

If not enlightenment, on what basis are you judging the exchange between JA and Mr. **** worthless?

and as meaningless as most of your blather.

Testy today, aren't you. Somebody pinch your favorite meter? ;-)



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

jclause wrote:
In article ,

says...

jclause wrote:
Be completely assured that all of my RAO posts are 100%
serious and that no way would I ever try to pull on
JA's
chain. ;-)


Now I've seen you pull Johns chain
And I've watched with some disdain
"Cause even if you're right..
You should do a clean "fight"
Or is that too much of a strain?

Show me a clean fight and I'll fight it cleanly.

Then there's RAO...


In a fight it's pretty well known,
That the first punch has to be thrown
So whoever threw it
Pretty much blew it
So who is it that needs to atone?

Hence the mention of Allen/Ellen/Alan Derrida and Zippy.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message

George M. Middius wrote:

Answer one question: Is there anything JA (or anybody else) might say
that
would convince you that "tests" are worthless in evaluating audio gear?
If, as I suspect, there is nothing, then what kind of enlightenment would
you consider valuable?

I place more faith in science to evaluate something that is based
upon scientific principles itself than emotions. As for what
kind of enlightenment I find valuable, that's a red herring and
as meaningless as most of your blather.

At least Middiot is giving us all a break from his homoerotic scatological
obsession with Krueger.

George Middius blathered:

We're talking about enjoyment of music, and you babble about
"scientific principles".

Well gee, George the equipment used to play the music you enjoy is the
product of scientific research and scientific prinicples, making it
perfectly reasonableto evaluate it's performance in a scientific
manner. Naturally this bugs the **** out of the people who want to
charge ridiculous amounts of money for things that are trivially easy
to manufacture, and/or utterly worthless in their efficacy, like Bedini
clarifiers, etc..

Speaking of enlightenment, why not enlighten us all on the reason you
give a **** about how anybody chooses their equipment? You have your
way, what's wrong with somebody doing it another way, especially if
their way is more reliable?

Do you have some vested interest in making sure people stay as stupid
and uneducated about how differences are determined?

Or is your constant presence here and heaping of insult and derision
simply a reflection of how empty your life is?

Whatever happened to the idea that people should be able to make up
their own minds based on whatever information is available? Why is it
you want to limit the discussion to your unreliable, and utterly
worthless methods?

Why is it you seem to think that the way to defeat an idea is not to
challenge it, but simply to call it, and it's messenger(s) dirty names?

Have you noticed that you're becoming like the Democrats? Irrelevant.

Arny Krueger a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

John Atkinson a écrit :


Strictly speaking, it was Stereophile's money
that was spent on your attendance at HE2005, and
I certainly didn't think that money "wasted."

...And we thank Stereophile for its generous contribution.
All the money spent to confirm that George M. Middius is
really an idiot isn't wasted money.

:-D


Even in the face of all of the earlier evidence that George
M. Middius is really an idiot?

I guess that sometime "subjectivists" need to be also
"objectivists".

;-)

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:53:31 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


A fatty lonely bumblebee from Nashville wrote :


On 3 May 2005 15:53:37 -0700, wrote:


Lionel wrote:

snip

Trotsky - Middius - Weil, the "Bermuda triangle" of the common sense.


LOL! A gem, Lionel. Well done!

Here's a Kleenex for the both of you.


Ummm... Are you sure you haven't "make love" to *it* before ?


Nope. But maybe your wife could use it to make a brother or sister for
your kids.

Your spermatozoids are as slow as your neurons, Dave, this
explains why you are sterile.

:-D

You could use a little bicycle repairman in the family.
After all, you probably have little milkmen now.

No milkmen in France...
Only postmen.

;-)

Signal a écrit :
" emitted :


First the Wheeler lawsuit, now "the debate". It's been a bad year for
George "100% wrong" Middius....


You have failed to grasp the true motivation behind GMM's taunts
toward Krueger over these two issues.

It's surely English humour.
Except sporadic anal contingencies, GMM hasn't any "true
motivation".

Signal a écrit :
"Joseph Oberlander" emitted :


Me? I like a slightly muted top-end
to my speakers. Tannoy and the older Kefs are favorites of
mine.


Maybe you are persuaded by the appearance..

And maybe *you* are.
Are you sure that you correctly handle this aspect of the
problem before to engage this conversation ?

Clyde Slick a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote in message
...

In , Clyde Slick wrote :


"Lionel" wrote in message
...


That's true, Ô Herald.
Middius always lose. Always !!!

In fact I'm not fair because according to his own avow he has actively
and financially contributed to G.W. Bush reelection.
I quote him :

"I've marched in Pride parades and I contribute to the cause with money
that I *earn* by *working*."

Lovely, no ?

what the hell are you babbling about now?

I'm just writing that George M. Middius confirmed us recently that he has
brought a financial and militant contribution to Bush reelection.
During the campain, while you were wasting bandwitdh on Usenet, Middius
was
in the street for manifestation and funds collect.

In other words you are a lazy parasite and George M. Middius a real
militant.

Shame on you Sackman !!!

:-D


Can somebody translate this gibberish?

Just for you because you are dense :

*GEORGE M. MIDDIUS HAS SUCCESSFULLY SUPPORTED G.W. BUSH'S
CANDIDATURE!!!*

Is it clear now ???

Arny Krueger wrote:
That I feel the whole high end business is a fraud
would be one of those fabricated quotes that Atkinson
was just complaining about.

That's not quite correct, Mr. Krueger. Perhaps you do not
remember but back in 1998 and 1999 you used up a lot of
r=2Ea.o. bandwidth accusing Stereophile of fraud. Here is
an example:

------------------------------------------------
In message #1/1
"Arny Kr=FCger" wrote on 1999/01/05:
Edward M. Shain wrote in message
...
please demonstrate fraud here in audio.

Imaginary and erronious events reported as if they
were characteristics of equipment: Stereophile, any
issue.
-----------------------------------------------

It was this exchange that led to my invitation to you
to debate the subject at the 1999 Chicago Show, and
eventually to your acceptance of my similar invitation
to last week's New York Show.
=20
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Signal a écrit :
"Lionel" emitted :


Me? I like a slightly muted top-end
to my speakers. Tannoy and the older Kefs are favorites of
mine.


Maybe you are persuaded by the appearance..

And maybe *you* are.


It's a factor.


Are you sure that you correctly handle this aspect of the
problem before to engage this conversation ?


What?

Nothing, a flight of factors.

In .com, John Atkinson
wrote :


It was this exchange that led to my invitation to you
to debate the subject at the 1999 Chicago Show, and
eventually to your acceptance of my similar invitation
to last week's New York Show.


Ooops ! This specific point didn't appear in your "pre-debate" demonstration
of fairness.

This plus the computer failure... IMHO you should rebuke your secretary! ;-)

In article , says...

jclause wrote:
In article ,

says...

jclause wrote:
Be completely assured that all of my RAO posts are 100%
serious and that no way would I ever try to pull on
JA's
chain. ;-)


Now I've seen you pull Johns chain
And I've watched with some disdain
"Cause even if you're right..
You should do a clean "fight"
Or is that too much of a strain?

Show me a clean fight and I'll fight it cleanly.

Then there's RAO...


In a fight it's pretty well known,
That the first punch has to be thrown
So whoever threw it
Pretty much blew it
So who is it that needs to atone?

Hence the mention of Allen/Ellen/Alan Derrida and Zippy.


You've apparently taken on the role
Of attacking high-end as a whole..
But you can't claim,
These men are to blame
Or that they over you had control.

Hammingaway

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
spoke of.

I won't try to guess JA's intent, but those parts of the listening
experience are beyond the DBT as commonly espoused hereabouts.

From a consumer standpoint, it doesn't matter it's a "real difference"
or not.

Well, I would hesitate to speak for *all* consumers....
the extraordinary thing is that for self-proclaimed *audiophiles*, it
*apparently* doesn't matter if it's a 'real difference'...even while
claiming it *does* matter.

Your hesitation module's broken.

Nope...I wrote *apparently* for a reason. I'm certainly not speaking for all
consumers.


If I were a high-end component seller, I'd be pleased as punch that
'perception is reality' for so much of my prey...er, I mean, consumer
base.

It's called marketing. That 'perception is reality' is trickier than
you'd think, or no "high-end component seller" would ever go out of
business.

No one said it wasn't *tricky*...it's certainly *tricky* in lots of ways.


One simply assumes he's sincere that he preferred the tube amp for its
sound. But that in itself doesn't prove it was due to some real sonic
difference between the tube and the SS amp. Sighted evalutations are
*always*
subject to such ambiguity and bias...it's intrinsic to them. Because of
that,
for example, it's pretty easy to get someone to ascribe big 'sonic'
differences
to the *exact same component presented twice*. The unreliability of
uncontrolled observation is an elementary issue in science...if it
weren't,
science would be immeasurably easier to 'do'...and it's mind-boggling
that
'audiophile culture' still tilts against it so fiercely at this late
date.

That's because the scientific 'side' is better at explaining "sound"
than it is at explaining "how I feel when I listen." If the DBT doesn't
explain the reality of the listening experience, I imagine highenders
don't so much tilt against it as ignore it, just as honest DBTers would
ignore something as unscientific as an induced false positive in a
same-same comparison.

An 'induced false positive' isn't necessarily unscientific -- it can be a
scientific demonstration of the effect of non-audible factors on
perception of audible difference. An honest audiophile would acknowledge
the fundamental reality revealed by such demonstrations...and adjust their
claims of difference accordingly.

Same-same doesn't reveal much, but it certainly engenders ill-will.
Maybe that's the point.

Could be. Or maybe not. Either way, it's irrational to ignore the phenomenon
it reveals...which, far from being 'not much', is actually rather crucial.
Unless you don't really care about what's real, of course.

Science *can* 'explain' "how you feel when you listen' -- it can isolate
the factors that influence that feeling. From such reserach comes the
finding that the 'reality of the listening experience', as experienced
during sighted listening, never involves just *listening*. That reality,
again, should temper the claims of *audible* difference made by
audiophiles, who time and again ascribe different *sonic* signatures to
components on the basis of sighed listening. It would be far more honest
to call these 'psychological' signatures, and to note the sobering
possibility that they *could* have *NOTHING AT ALL* to do with the sound.

Hmmm...think that will happen any time soon?

Calling them 'opinions' or 'use and listening evaluations' works for me,
plus there's the reality that some stuff may actually sound different.

That 'plus' isn't a 'plus'; it's a *given*, in science. The issue
is how to determine when some stuff actually sounds different. There's a
way that works 'for real' --- and there's the way audiophiles tend to
do it.

From a scientific POV, audiophile 'opinions' and 'use and listening evaluations'
are about as good a predictor of the real state of things, as astrological
signs are of personality.



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...



To me, JA seemed clearly to be referring to the sound -- the real sound,
not an imagined sound.

There is no such thing as 'real sound'. Yes, there is 'real sound
waves', but sound is what any particular person hears (that is,
perceives).

People can 'hear' stuff when there's no corresponding sound waves at all.
Is that a sound?



--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

Mike McKelvy wrote:
George Middius blathered:

We're talking about enjoyment of music, and you babble about
"scientific principles".

Well gee, George the equipment used to play the music you enjoy is the
product of scientific research and scientific prinicples, making it
perfectly reasonableto evaluate it's performance in a scientific
manner. Naturally this bugs the **** out of the people who want to
charge ridiculous amounts of money for things that are trivially easy
to manufacture, and/or utterly worthless in their efficacy, like Bedini
clarifiers, etc..

I think audiophiles should go for the gold -- eliminate all equipment, and
just sit there *imagining* the music instead.

Then no one can bug them about these pesky 'fact' things. And no need
to ever even *think* of those horrible soulless 'engineer' people.


--

-S
It's not my business to do intelligent work. -- D. Rumsfeld, testifying
before the House Armed Services Committee

On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:56:00 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

You could use a little bicycle repairman in the family.
After all, you probably have little milkmen now.

No milkmen in France...
Only postmen.

My condolences, having little civil servants for children.

In article , "Lionel"
wrote:


We are on RAO Bob !!!
Conzo/McCarty is somewhere right. You can easily imagine the
din, the cabal, the mockeries if Arny had made such mistake.
I'm sure that without a big effort of imagination you can
read what Middius would have written. ;-)


Is everyone living in Australia "Brian McCarty"?

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
spoke of.

I won't try to guess JA's intent, but those parts of the listening
experience are beyond the DBT as commonly espoused hereabouts.

From a consumer standpoint, it doesn't matter it's a "real difference"
or not.

Well, I would hesitate to speak for *all* consumers....
the extraordinary thing is that for self-proclaimed *audiophiles*, it
*apparently* doesn't matter if it's a 'real difference'...even while
claiming it *does* matter.

Your hesitation module's broken.

Nope...I wrote *apparently* for a reason. I'm certainly not speaking for all
consumers.

One generalization deserves another? There's a difference between "all
consumers" and "the consumer standpoint" especially in the context of an
opinion group.

If I were a high-end component seller, I'd be pleased as punch that
'perception is reality' for so much of my prey...er, I mean, consumer
base.

It's called marketing. That 'perception is reality' is trickier than
you'd think, or no "high-end component seller" would ever go out of
business.

No one said it wasn't *tricky*...it's certainly *tricky* in lots of ways.

Indeed. Unless you intend to regulate audio and sell only generic boxes
from container stores, marketing is important to the consumer experience.

One simply assumes he's sincere that he preferred the tube amp for
its
sound. But that in itself doesn't prove it was due to some real sonic
difference between the tube and the SS amp. Sighted evalutations are
*always*
subject to such ambiguity and bias...it's intrinsic to them. Because
of
that,
for example, it's pretty easy to get someone to ascribe big 'sonic'
differences
to the *exact same component presented twice*. The unreliability of
uncontrolled observation is an elementary issue in science...if it
weren't,
science would be immeasurably easier to 'do'...and it's mind-boggling
that
'audiophile culture' still tilts against it so fiercely at this late
date.

That's because the scientific 'side' is better at explaining "sound"
than it is at explaining "how I feel when I listen." If the DBT doesn't
explain the reality of the listening experience, I imagine highenders
don't so much tilt against it as ignore it, just as honest DBTers would
ignore something as unscientific as an induced false positive in a
same-same comparison.

An 'induced false positive' isn't necessarily unscientific -- it can be a
scientific demonstration of the effect of non-audible factors on
perception of audible difference. An honest audiophile would acknowledge
the fundamental reality revealed by such demonstrations...and adjust
their
claims of difference accordingly.

Same-same doesn't reveal much, but it certainly engenders ill-will.
Maybe that's the point.

Could be. Or maybe not. Either way, it's irrational to ignore the
phenomenon
it reveals...which, far from being 'not much', is actually rather crucial.
Unless you don't really care about what's real, of course.

Or if you entirely discount the subjective experience. "Same-same" tests
are a parlor trick that proves what we already know: people are
suggestible. I've never met an audio fan who felt he couldn't be fooled
(excepting Howard, of course).

Science *can* 'explain' "how you feel when you listen' -- it can isolate
the factors that influence that feeling. From such reserach comes the
finding that the 'reality of the listening experience', as experienced
during sighted listening, never involves just *listening*. That reality,
again, should temper the claims of *audible* difference made by
audiophiles, who time and again ascribe different *sonic* signatures to
components on the basis of sighed listening. It would be far more honest
to call these 'psychological' signatures, and to note the sobering
possibility that they *could* have *NOTHING AT ALL* to do with the sound.

Hmmm...think that will happen any time soon?

Calling them 'opinions' or 'use and listening evaluations' works for me,
plus there's the reality that some stuff may actually sound different.

That 'plus' isn't a 'plus'; it's a *given*, in science. The issue
is how to determine when some stuff actually sounds different. There's a
way that works 'for real' --- and there's the way audiophiles tend to
do it.

I'm familiar with both. Problems each way: suggestibility for one;
unjustified certainty for the other.

From a scientific POV, audiophile 'opinions' and 'use and listening
evaluations'
are about as good a predictor of the real state of things, as astrological
signs are of personality.

As in sometimes right? Broken clocks, etc.

"Use and listening tests" are good indicators of what the reviewer felt
during use and listening.

Stephen

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:56:00 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


You could use a little bicycle repairman in the family.
After all, you probably have little milkmen now.

No milkmen in France...
Only postmen.


My condolences, having little civil servants for children.

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:56:00 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


You could use a little bicycle repairman in the family.
After all, you probably have little milkmen now.

No milkmen in France...
Only postmen.


My condolences, having little civil servants for children.


And you know what you are speaking about, eh lackey ?

:-)

Michael Conzo a écrit :
In article , "Lionel"
wrote:


We are on RAO Bob !!!
Conzo/McCarty is somewhere right. You can easily imagine the
din, the cabal, the mockeries if Arny had made such mistake.
I'm sure that without a big effort of imagination you can
read what Middius would have written. ;-)



Is everyone living in Australia "Brian McCarty"?

No there're also kangaroo ! ;-)

dave weil said:

I guess that Kleenix[sic] answers the spit or swallow question
about Dave. ;-)

I guess this answers the question about your secret sex life. Perhaps
you should tell the wife and the children now.

Did you know that in Krooglish, "Arnii" is a hominym™ for "ornery"?

Lionel said:

Michael Conzo a écrit :

Is everyone living in Australia "Brian McCarty"?


No there're also kangaroo ! ;-)


Could be worse. Phil Allison comes to mind.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

Clyde Slick said:

In fact I'm not fair because according to his own avow he has actively and
financially contributed to G.W. Bush reelection.
I quote him :

"I've marched in Pride parades and I contribute to the cause with money
that I *earn* by *working*."

Lovely, no ?

what the hell are you babbling about now?


Sluttie is deeply confused. Hers may be the worst case of Kroopologism
ever discovered.

Clyde Slick said:

Shame on you Sackman !!!

Can somebody translate this gibberish?

It's safe to say Sluttie has either lost her marbles or had a few too many
drinks. (Or tokes, or pills....)

Sulliborg sucks some Mikey-Milk.

I think audiophiles should go for the gold -- eliminate all equipment, and
just sit there *imagining* the music instead.

Then no one can bug them about these pesky 'fact' things. And no need
to ever even *think* of those horrible soulless 'engineer' people.

Sorry, you lose. duh-Mikey is still stupider than you are.

BTW, is it a fact that you're a braying jackass, or just an opinion?
Inquiring audiophiles want to know.

Clyde Slick said:

Arny, has Google been lying to you again?

You know what Krooger does when his own pet computers "lie" to him.

****-for-Brains defecates again.

Remember that George is totally incapable of doing what he
demanded of me - appear in person as my RAO persona.

Obie, if you're reading this, perhaps you can translate it into regular
human-style geekspeak. You've bragged many times of your affinity for
Kooglish, so here's your chance to show us.

In , Sander deWaal wrote :

Lionel said:

Michael Conzo a écrit :

Is everyone living in Australia "Brian McCarty"?


No there're also kangaroo ! ;-)


Could be worse. Phil Allison comes to mind.

OK for you, Bob (and the naturalists...) Australia is also the continent
where live the most part of the venomous snakes. ;-)

Arny Krueger wrote:
Mr. Anderson wrote:


Tony Loban
Bill McCullough
"Dick" Malesweski wrote:

"George" already answered....by changing the subject.

Remember that George is totally incapable of doing what he
demanded of me - appear in person as my RAO persona.

What a surprise!
;-)

Indeed.

His answer must have scared ya. You ran off....dick.

A totally unresponsive and illogical reply. What a surprise!

What the heck are you talking about Arny? Dickless said George
answered and I said the answer must have scared him. That's a
completely logical, responsive reply. Did you know torrie****s fixes
bicylces in Arkansas? He's an old, hippy Ozark Democrat. If you don't
believe me, ask him.
I'm surprised you like him.

Michael Conzo wrote:
In article , "Lionel"
wrote:


We are on RAO Bob !!!
Conzo/McCarty is somewhere right. You can easily imagine the
din, the cabal, the mockeries if Arny had made such mistake.
I'm sure that without a big effort of imagination you can
read what Middius would have written. ;-)


Is everyone living in Australia "Brian McCarty"?


Well, would you rather be Doug Haugen (check Google for the background
on this)? It can be arranged! Or, if you change the content of your
posts a little, "George" might let you be Greg Pavlov. But under no
circumstances will you be allowed to be Michael Conzo from Australia.
Sorry.

Seriously, Michael, this kind of he-is-really-someone-else paranoia is
SOP here on RAO. Just laugh at the nutjobs and carry on. ;-)

In .com, Mr. Anderson
wrote :

He's an old, hippy Ozark Democrat.

Do you really prefer reactionary old fag ? Just a question.

George "Betty Boop" Middius wrote:

your affinity for Kooglish

His affinity for what, George ?




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

George M. Middius wrote:


Inquiring audiophiles want to know.

George doesn't care since he is only interested in " "overwhelming consensus of the opinions of audio connoisseurs"

Just ask him. ;-)




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

George M. Middius wrote:



Clyde Slick said:

Shame on you Sackman !!!

Can somebody translate this gibberish?

It's safe to say Sluttie has either lost her marbles or had a few too many
drinks. (Or tokes, or pills....)

You're wrong George it's just the "overwhelming consensus of the opinions of politic connoisseurs"

:-D




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

George "Vote G.W. Bush" Middius wrote:



Clyde Slick said:

In fact I'm not fair because according to his own avow he has actively and
financially contributed to G.W. Bush reelection.
I quote him :

"I've marched in Pride parades and I contribute to the cause with money
that I *earn* by *working*."

Lovely, no ?

what the hell are you babbling about now?


Sluttie is deeply confused. Hers may be the worst case of Kroopologism
ever discovered.

Wrong George it's just the "overwhelming consensus of the opinions of wine connoisseurs"

:-D




----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals