"Arny Krueger" wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong Tom, but don't you know what a buttplug is? If
so,
why is it right for you to know what a buttplug is, and wrong for Lionel
and
Tor to know what a buttplug is?

Again Middius, in my subculture most people wouldn't know what a butt-plug
would be.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Powell" wrote in message


Further "If, after having listened to the best that
high-end audio has to offer, both in the way of digital
and analog playback, Mr. Krueger still feels that the
whole business is a fraud, well at least that opinion
will be based on exposure to it."

Just shows that Atkinson like to demean and dismiss the opinons of
people who don't buy the song-and-dance that puts bread on his table.

He didn't demean your opinon.

Interesting. What's your interpretation of the following:

"at least that opinion will be based on exposure to it."

This implies that my current opinon is not based on exposure to it, right?


Yes, but that doesn't demean your opinion. He just wants you to reconsider
it, the result of which will either strengthen or change your opinion.


"At least" your abx song and dance doesn't
put any bread on your table.

So what are you saying here Art? Are you saying that deceptions are OK if
they are profitable?

Au contraire, I just point out
that you find them particulary blessed if they are not



----== 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 =----

"Tom" wrote in message
...

"Lionel" wrote

Jealous Tom ?


You always try to turn it around, don't you, mr shapwee?

Tchapoois, with the emphasisi on the "poo".



----== 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 =----

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Powell" wrote in message


Further "If, after having listened to the best that
high-end audio has to offer, both in the way of digital
and analog playback, Mr. Krueger still feels that the
whole business is a fraud, well at least that opinion
will be based on exposure to it."

Just shows that Atkinson like to demean and dismiss the opinons of
people who don't buy the song-and-dance that puts bread on his
table.

He didn't demean your opinon.

Interesting. What's your interpretation of the following:

"at least that opinion will be based on exposure to it."

This implies that my current opinon is not based on exposure to it,
right?


Yes, but that doesn't demean your opinion. He just wants you to
reconsider
it, the result of which will either strengthen or change your opinion.


"At least" your abx song and dance doesn't
put any bread on your table.

So what are you saying here Art? Are you saying that deceptions are
OK if they are profitable?

Au contraire, I just point out
that you find them particulary blessed if they are not

You've laid no logical support for that supposition.

"Tom" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong Tom, but don't you know what a buttplug is?
If so,
why is it right for you to know what a buttplug is, and wrong for
Lionel and
Tor to know what a buttplug is?

Again Middius, in my subculture most people wouldn't know what a
butt-plug would be.

That answer does not relate to the question. Thanks for evading the question
and showing your ongoing bad faith, Tom or whoever you are.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Thanks for evading the question and showing your ongoing bad faith


???????

Arny - you're a legend in your own mind.

Thanks for being you.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Powell" wrote in message


Further "If, after having listened to the best that
high-end audio has to offer, both in the way of digital
and analog playback, Mr. Krueger still feels that the
whole business is a fraud, well at least that opinion
will be based on exposure to it."

Just shows that Atkinson like to demean and dismiss the opinons of
people who don't buy the song-and-dance that puts bread on his
table.

He didn't demean your opinon.

Interesting. What's your interpretation of the following:

"at least that opinion will be based on exposure to it."

This implies that my current opinon is not based on exposure to it,
right?


Yes, but that doesn't demean your opinion. He just wants you to
reconsider
it, the result of which will either strengthen or change your opinion.


"At least" your abx song and dance doesn't
put any bread on your table.

So what are you saying here Art? Are you saying that deceptions are
OK if they are profitable?

Au contraire, I just point out
that you find them particulary blessed if they are not

You've laid no logical support for that supposition.



sucker....
www.pcabx.com





----== 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 =----

In article , "Howard Ferstler"
wrote:

Most of the people here have too much spare time on their
hands. I do, too, but I am retired, and so spare time is
part of the deal.


Good point.

And most seem to be chasing shadows, or their own tails.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Sack'Ô'**** the congenital coward wrote :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Clyde Slick a écrit :


An they have patiently waited 1944 I guess...



Bad guess.

Liar.


You are welcome to post my relatives' service records.

LOL, you have already done that for me, just below...

:-D

Tom a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote

Jealous Tom ?



You always try to turn it around, don't you, mr shapwee?

Jealous Tom ?

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Sack'Ô'**** the congenital coward wrote :

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

Clyde Slick a écrit :


An they have patiently waited 1944 I guess...



Bad guess.

Liar.


You are welcome to post my relatives' service records.

LOL, you have already done that for me, just below...

:-D

Idiot



----== 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 =----

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:14:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"At least" your abx song and dance doesn't
put any bread on your table.

So what are you saying here Art? Are you saying that deceptions are OK if
they are profitable?

Now THIS is a startling question coming from Mr. Krueger in this
context.

"Lionel" wrote
Tom a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote

Jealous Tom ?



You always try to turn it around, don't you, mr shapwee?

Jealous Tom ?

I have no idea what you are talking about LeeOnell. buh-bye.

John Atkinson wrote:
Powell wrote:
I find it interesting that you openly libel Howard using
your official letterhead (John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile).

As I have explained before, I strongly believe that those of
us professionally involved in audio should make that affiliation
clear when we post to the newgroups. We can then be judged
accordingly, just as you are doing so in this thread.

In most business operations that's an invitation to a
lawsuit and/or loss of good will and/or dismissal.

If Mr. Ferstler feels defamed, then he can take what he feels to
be the appopriate recourse, Mr. Powell.

While I don't agree with Howard's characterizations
of Stereophile practices, I'm disheartened to see one
of my favorite magazine's editors wallowing in the mud
on my dime.

You have a point. Put it down to my increasing impatience
with the unethical and hypocritical behavior of someone who,
to the casual eye perusing the newsstand, shares the same
profession as I do.

Given Arny's lack of civility toward you, do you really think
he should be or would be concerned about unnecessary
expenses that your company might incur? If this all falls
down around your head you won't find many shoulders
in r.o.a. to cry on, me thinks .

A risk I went into with open eyes, Mr. Powell. I was not
asking for sympathy, merely explaining what would happen
if Mr. Krueger defaulted on his commitment.

You recently wrote "My agenda was in plain sight...I do
hope that while you are NY, you manage take a listen to
some of the systems being demonstrated."

This benefits Primedia how?

It doesn't (though the debate does, for the reasons I outlined
in an earlier posting). But I do feel it would benefit Mr.
Krueger. I believe a lot of his resentment stems from lack of
exposure to the best high-end sound (witness his complaint a
couple of days ago that he doesn't get to hear $25,000 amplifiers).
My hope is, that like another well-knowen skeptic from a few years
ago, once he has been exposed to the best of what the audio
industry has to offer, he will reconsider his position. It
happened on the road to Damascus; why can't it do so in New York?

If, after having listened to the best that
high-end audio has to offer, both in the way of digital
and analog playback, Mr. Krueger still feels that the
whole business is a fraud, well at least that opinion
will be based on exposure to it.

Hehehe... sugar pants !

I don't know what you mean by this phrase, Mr. Powell.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I was curious who the well known skeptic was and what position(s?) did
he reconsider. What high end systems was he exposed to that made him
change his thinking?

Arny Krueger wrote:
From: "Arny Krueger"
Subject: The Audio Critic
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:36 AM

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

The Krooborg tries out its new "debating trade" software.

If you believe his story, Scott is a Hollywood makeup artist. The
nature of his occupation is that he often has time to burn. He's
apparently achieved some success as a makeup artist which has
convinced him that he is a brilliant audio technologist, master
debater, legal expert, and that he is far more intelligent than
John
Atkinson.

My, you have quite the little imagination, don't you? ;-)

Thanks Middius for confirming that no reasonble person would think
that
Scott knows anything of merit about audio, that Scott can't argue his
way
out of a paper bag, that Scott's legal theories have been proven in
court to
be crap, and that Scott has less intelligence and common sense than
a
carrot.



Arny's imagination may be small in scope but it seems to have no off
button.



Scott Wheeler

Tom a écrit :
"Lionel" wrote

Tom a écrit :

"Lionel" wrote


Jealous Tom ?



You always try to turn it around, don't you, mr shapwee?

Jealous Tom ?


I have no idea what you are talking about LeeOnell. buh-bye.

Adios, Tom.

dave weil a écrit :
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:14:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"At least" your abx song and dance doesn't
put any bread on your table.

So what are you saying here Art? Are you saying that deceptions are OK if
they are profitable?


Now THIS is a startling question coming from Mr. Krueger in this
context.

You should be happy since in THIS context a loser like you
have a lot of arguments to feed the debate... ;-)

Michael Conzo wrote:

In article , "Howard Ferstler"
wrote:

Most of the people here have too much spare time on their
hands. I do, too, but I am retired, and so spare time is
part of the deal.

Good point.

And most seem to be chasing shadows, or their own tails.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

It is sad, and the situation is made even more pathetic when
one considers the borderline inconsequential nature of the
hobby.

Why on earth does this damned hobby attract so many people
who distrust scientific protocol and ALSO appear to distrust
(regarding the DBT protocol) their own ears?

Howard Ferstler

John Atkinson wrote:

It doesn't (though the debate does, for the reasons I outlined
in an earlier posting). But I do feel it would benefit Mr.
Krueger. I believe a lot of his resentment stems from lack of
exposure to the best high-end sound (witness his complaint a
couple of days ago that he doesn't get to hear $25,000 amplifiers).

There is more than a slight chance that an amp in this price
category has been "adjusted" by the designer to deliver
performance that is just enough sub-optimal to make it sound
different from a clean-sounding $400 receiver.

Of course, the bottom line for anyone with even a slightly
scientific approach to the issue would be to do a carefully
level-matched DBT with both and see what transpires.

Incidentally, John, when you get out to California make it a
point to ask Floyd and Sean what they think of the DBT
protocol and Stereophile's take on the issue.

Howard Ferstler

Powell wrote:

"John Atkinson" wrote

Please don't forget that this whole episode is a result
of motions you put into action (Arny debate).

Indeed. I don't get your point, Mr. Powell. Nor do I
think I am committed to any of Howard Ferstler's
proposals merely because he has proposed them.

Didn't imply that you did (need to consider "Ferstler's
proposals"). However, you wouldn't be insulting
and demeaning Howard if you hadn't started this
silly debate in the first place. I find it interesting that
you openly libel Howard using your official
letterhead (John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile). In
most business operations that's an invitation to a
lawsuit and/or loss of good will and/or dismissal.

I consider the source and the medium and take it all with a
grain of salt. John is the guy who has a serious vested
interest in the financial side of audio, not me.

I still think it would be cool if John and some of his
associates and Arny and some of his supporters openly
participated in an open and public, level-matched DBT series
(using Stereophile's favorite hardware for the expensive
side of the comparison, with some chump-change hardware on
the other side) and then debated the results at the HE2005
get together.

Rather than debate different experiences, it would be much
more interesting if they could debate the SAME experience.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I wrote nearly 200 articles, tweako.

Prove it.

Go look at copy. Most of the longer ones have my name after
them. This was not done with the shorter ones (with any of
the other writers, as well), but the longer ones I edited
also list my name as the guy who updated them.

he means prove that you actually wrote it and
not merely put your name under it.

Well, let's be reasonable. It would be just about impossible
to do that. Of course, in America you are presumed innocent
until proven guilty. It is up to YOU guys to come up with
copy that proves that any or all of my published articles
were copied from other sources.

Get busy. Time's a wasting.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:

I wrote nearly 200 articles, tweako.

Prove it.

Go look at copy.

Learn to write.

Most of the longer ones have my name after
them.

IOW most of the really boring ones were actually written by you. You do
have a talent for saying nothing with more words than any other writer
I have ever read.

This was not done with the shorter ones

Oh, the plagiarized ones? I'm sure the writers you plagiarized were
more economical than you with their words.

As I indicated to "slick," in American you are innocent
until proven guilty. It is not up to me to prove that a
multitude of articles were not copied from other sources. It
is up to YOU to prove that they were.

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
wrote:

Although I am one of the busier makeup artists in the business....

And the moon is made of green cheese.


Still can't deal with reality eh? why should you change now?

Well, anyone can find evidence that I am a published writer.
As best I can tell there is no evidence that you are a
makeup artist, busy or otherwise.

Actually, I really cannot BELIEVE that anyone would brag
about being a makeup artist. If you are going to fabricate a
job to elevate your imaginary status here, why not brag
about being a physicist or lawyer, or doctor, or stock
broker?

Howard Ferstler

wrote:

I have done blind listening tests. I didn't falsify any of the results
though so you wouldn't like the conclusions.

My results were published. All we have from you are a bunch
of specious claims about what you have read and what you
have accomplished. My guess is that you have not done a
damned thing, including reading the articles. Hey, in what
issues of the magazine did you find them?

Howard Ferstler

randy wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
My hope is, that like another well-knowen skeptic from a few
years ago, once [Arny Krueger] has been exposed to the best of
what the audio industry has to offer, he will reconsider his
position. It happened on the road to Damascus; why can't it do
so in New York?

I was curious who the well known skeptic was and what position(s?)
did he reconsider.

Mike Silverton, once a colleague of Howard Ferstler's at Fanfare
and, I believe, The Sensible Sound, spent many years railing at
the audio High End, with particular criticism reserved for
amplifiers and cables.

What high end systems was he exposed to that made him
change his thinking?

Mike heard a Wilson speaker system, wired with Transparent cable,
and decided that he had been wrong. He now occasionally writes
for The Absolute Sound and has his own website dedicated to
music writing.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

randy wrote:

John Atkinson wrote:

It doesn't (though the debate does, for the reasons I outlined
in an earlier posting). But I do feel it would benefit Mr.
Krueger. I believe a lot of his resentment stems from lack of
exposure to the best high-end sound (witness his complaint a
couple of days ago that he doesn't get to hear $25,000 amplifiers).
My hope is, that like another well-knowen skeptic from a few years
ago, once he has been exposed to the best of what the audio
industry has to offer, he will reconsider his position. It
happened on the road to Damascus; why can't it do so in New York?

I was curious who the well known skeptic was and what position(s?) did
he reconsider. What high end systems was he exposed to that made him
change his thinking?

John will probably not reveal the name, and I do not blame
him. (John may not be my ethical ideal, but I think that
even he will stay away from revealing that kind of private
info.) However, it would be interesting to know what
components were involved, and whether this "revelation"
involved a blind comparison protocol or if the guy just
decided to go off his rocker without doing any comparing at
all.

Howard Ferstler

"George M. Middius" wrote:

I thought Arnii believes all crimes are harmless unless the perpetrator
confesses.

I rarely respond to this pinhead, because he rarely posts
anything that rates a response.

Howard Ferstler

John Atkinson wrote:

randy wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
My hope is, that like another well-knowen skeptic from a few
years ago, once [Arny Krueger] has been exposed to the best of
what the audio industry has to offer, he will reconsider his
position. It happened on the road to Damascus; why can't it do
so in New York?

I was curious who the well known skeptic was and what position(s?)
did he reconsider.

Mike Silverton, once a colleague of Howard Ferstler's at Fanfare
and, I believe, The Sensible Sound, spent many years railing at
the audio High End, with particular criticism reserved for
amplifiers and cables.

This is funny. I know a good recording engineer who mentored
Mike at the beginning. It would not be fair of me to mention
the man's name here (just like it was maybe not fair for
John to mention Mike's name without first checking with
him), but he has mastered some extremely fine recordings.

I have discussed audio with Mike off and on for some time,
and have come to the conclusion that he really is more of a
believer than a critical listener.

Mike was never at The Sensible Sound, by the way, at least
not since I have been with the magazine. Actually, he was
not a colleague at Fanfare, either, since he came on board
after I left.

What high end systems was he exposed to that made him
change his thinking?

Mike heard a Wilson speaker system, wired with Transparent cable,
and decided that he had been wrong. He now occasionally writes
for The Absolute Sound and has his own website dedicated to
music writing.

My mentoring friend spent some time trying to convince Mike
about certain attributes of various audio components. This
also involved some rather precise comparing work that Mike
essentially dismissed, because it did not fit into his world
view. The mentor's feeling was that Mike was mainly
interested in "feel good" audio and not exacting
performance, per se.

Mike is a nice guy, but I would not accept his observations
concerning audio components on a bet. He writes good record
reviews, however.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:
randy wrote:
I was curious who the well known skeptic was and what position(s?)
did he reconsider. What high end systems was he exposed to that
made him change his thinking?

John will probably not reveal the name, and I do not blame
him.

Why would I not do that, Mr. Ferstler? In fact I have done so, before
you made this statement.

John may not be my ethical ideal, but I think that even he will
stay away from revealing that kind of private info.

Why not? It is matter of public, ie, published record.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
randy wrote:
I was curious who the well known skeptic was and what position(s?)
did he reconsider. What high end systems was he exposed to that
made him change his thinking?

John will probably not reveal the name, and I do not blame
him.

Why would I not do that, Mr. Ferstler? In fact I have done so, before
you made this statement.

John may not be my ethical ideal, but I think that even he will
stay away from revealing that kind of private info.

Why not? It is matter of public, ie, published record.

All those details you mentioned?

Incidentally, do you still have a job, John? I thought you
were supposed to be editing a magazine.

By the way, I responded additionally to randy's question in
another post.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
I think that even he will stay away from revealing that kind
of private info.

Why not? It is matter of public, ie, published record.

All those details you mentioned?

Indeed it was and they were, Mr. Ferstler. I really do think you
are obliged to read the magazines you so readily criticize.

Incidentally, do you still have a job, John? I thought you
were supposed to be editing a magazine.

Taking a lunch break, Mr. Ferstler, if that's okay by you?
Would you prefer I post before 8am and after 6pm? I could if
it's really that important to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Howard Ferstler wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
I think that even he will stay away from revealing that kind
of private info.

Why not? It is matter of public, ie, published record.

All those details you mentioned?

Indeed it was and they were, Mr. Ferstler. I really do think you
are obliged to read the magazines you so readily criticize.

Incidentally, do you still have a job, John? I thought you
were supposed to be editing a magazine.

Taking a lunch break, Mr. Ferstler sir, if that's okay by you?
Would you prefer I post before 8am and after 6pm? I could do
that if it's really that important to you.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote

I find it interesting that you openly libel Howard using
your official letterhead (John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile).

As I have explained before, I strongly believe that those
of us professionally involved in audio should make that
affiliation clear when we post to the newgroups. We can
then be judged accordingly, just as you are doing so in
this thread.

"As I have explained before"... yes, we've had this
conversation before. We each have different
opinions/experiences regarding business ethics
and personal responsibility. You've indicated that
verbal profanity is an acceptable business practice
in your workplace environment, that's foreign to me.
In the same business regard, it is not my
experience to misuse professional credentials (John
Atkinson Editor, Stereophile) out of respect for others
and potential liability. You feel otherwise and you
may be right because this format is USEnet.


In most business operations that's an invitation to a
lawsuit and/or loss of good will and/or dismissal.

If Mr. Ferstler feels defamed, then he can take what
he feels to be the appopriate recourse, Mr. Powell.

Finger pointing. We each have different
opinions/experiences regarding business ethics
and personal responsibility.


While I don't agree with Howard's characterizations
of Stereophile practices, I'm disheartened to see one
of my favorite magazine's editors wallowing in the mud
on my dime.

You have a point. Put it down to my increasing
impatience with the unethical and hypocritical
behavior of someone who, to the casual eye
perusing the newsstand, shares the same
profession as I do.

"my increasing impatience"... I understand how
you feel. I can assure you that transactions
happen every day between the bitterest of foes
which benefits all. The terms of your offer to
Arny are bitter-sweet for him. Both of you are
now struggling for control and face saving.


Given Arny's lack of civility toward you, do you really think
he should be or would be concerned about unnecessary
expenses that your company might incur? If this all falls
down around your head you won't find many shoulders
in r.o.a. to cry on, me thinks .

A risk I went into with open eyes, Mr. Powell. I was
not asking for sympathy, merely explaining what
would happen if Mr. Krueger defaulted on his
commitment.

Ok. All I trying to do is point out that Arny canceled
before. It really doesn't matter why he might do so
now, is there? You have no recourse other than
living with it and learning from the experience...
twice. You can't really blame Arny. The there is a
metaphor for this "fool me once, shame on you but
fool me twice, shame on me." Crashing and burning
is largely up to you ("Editor,
Stereophile"/business manager) not Arny.


You recently wrote "My agenda was in plain sight...I do
hope that while you are NY, you manage take a listen to
some of the systems being demonstrated."

This benefits Primedia how?

It doesn't (though the debate does, for the reasons
I outlined in an earlier posting). But I do feel it would
benefit Mr. Krueger.

"Atkinson Editor, Stereophile"... thus the perception
of a hidden agenda by misusing your
credentials/moral ethics. It's difficult to determine
if this offer is personally driven, in a negative way, or
for the betterment of the magazine/audience. And I'm
on your side, note.

Why is it that you won't recognize Arny's parental
notions of what will "benefit" Atkinson/audience?

If you've noticed Arny is generally talking AT you
and not TO you. You can't be the parent (Atkinson
the man/"benefit Mr. Krueger") and "Editor,
Stereophile" (business manager) in the same
breath without appearing to have a hidden/suspect
agenda. And again, I'm on you side.


I believe a lot of his resentment stems from lack of
exposure to the best high-end sound (witness his
complaint a couple of days ago that he doesn't get to
hear $25,000 amplifiers). My hope is, that like another
well-knowen skeptic from a few years ago, once he
has been exposed to the best of what the audio
industry has to offer, he will reconsider his position. It
happened on the road to Damascus; why can't it do so
in New York?

If, after having listened to the best that
high-end audio has to offer, both in the way of digital
and analog playback, Mr. Krueger still feels that the
whole business is a fraud, well at least that opinion
will be based on exposure to it.

Hehehe... sugar pants !

I don't know what you mean by this phrase, Mr. Powell.

You will have an experience (Arny Debate) and
you will learn new things.


John Atkinson

Yes to the man.

Editor, Stereophile

A work in progress, as we all are, John .

"George M. Middius" wrote

I find it interesting that
you openly libel Howard using your official
letterhead

Stating facts is not libel. The references were
to Ferstler's behavior. Are you trying to out-idiot
the 'borgs?

I'm always willing to learn from my betters.
Perhaps you could explain the difference
between a *fact* and a *claim*... for the
normal®/subjective man ?

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

(witness his complaint a couple of days ago that
he doesn't get to hear $25,000 amplifiers).

There is more than a slight chance that an amp in
this price category has been "adjusted" by the designer
to deliver performance that is just enough sub-optimal
to make it sound different from a clean-sounding $400
receiver.

All amplifiers are compromises on one kind or another.
IME, the better (more expensive) have fewer compromises.
The perceived/real value depends on a raft of other
issues (upstream/down stream from amp). One is
usually forced into reductionism (simplistic
thinking/amps = amps) when the wallet is pulled from
the back pocket .


Of course, the bottom line for anyone with even a slightly
scientific approach to the issue would be to do a carefully
level-matched DBT with both and see what transpires.

Incidentally, John, when you get out to California make it a
point to ask Floyd and Sean what they think of the DBT
protocol and Stereophile's take on the issue.

Make sure you send these gentleman your resume
so that they will know how self-important your are,
Howard .

John Atkinson a écrit :

Mike heard a Wilson speaker system, wired with Transparent cable,
and decided that he had been wrong...

This happens to a friend of mine the first time he entered
in a church.

"Howard Ferstler" wrote

Please don't forget that this whole episode is a result
of motions you put into action (Arny debate).

Indeed. I don't get your point, Mr. Powell. Nor do I
think I am committed to any of Howard Ferstler's
proposals merely because he has proposed them.

Didn't imply that you did (need to consider "Ferstler's
proposals"). However, you wouldn't be insulting
and demeaning Howard if you hadn't started this
silly debate in the first place. I find it interesting that
you openly libel Howard using your official
letterhead (John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile). In
most business operations that's an invitation to a
lawsuit and/or loss of good will and/or dismissal.

I consider the source and the medium and take it
all with a grain of salt. John is the guy who has a
serious vested interest in the financial side of audio,
not me.

You lack the knowledge or capital to do anything
about it, even if you didn't have a whole raft of
gaffs in tow behind you .


I still think it would be cool if John and some of his
associates and Arny and some of his supporters
openly participated in an open and public,
level-matched DBT series (using Stereophile's
favorite hardware for the expensive side of the
comparison, with some chump-change hardware
on the other side) and then debated the results at
the HE2005 get together.

If this (proposal) were for fun that's one thing.
But I think you want to come away with greater
audio trvth® but there's no budget for serious
science. Meaning for you doesn't safeguard
causality for others. Perhaps if your ilk were
to classify the above as *clown science* it really
would make the point to a greater, more
informed, audiance .


Rather than debate different experiences, it
would be much more interesting if they could
debate the SAME experience.

To be truthful I'd like have an better understanding
of the hearing acuity of professional reviewers
(paid). If you would be the first reviewer to openly
volunteer for auditory testing you might set an
example of what the ethic standards should be
for those you dislike. Will you sit a professional
audiometric test to be published on USEnet, to
practice what you're preaching (above) here?
What say you, Howard?

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Actually, I really cannot BELIEVE that anyone would brag
about being a makeup artist. If you are going to fabricate a
job to elevate your imaginary status here, why not brag
about being a physicist or lawyer, or doctor, or stock
broker?

I'll bet you know his work, even admire it. Of course, being artistic in
nature, you wouldn't have anything to say about it.

Stephen

"George M. Middius" wrote

I find it interesting that
you openly libel Howard using your official
letterhead

Stating facts is not libel. The references were
to Ferstler's behavior. Are you trying to out-idiot
the 'borgs?

I'm always willing to learn from my betters.
Perhaps you could explain the difference
between a *fact* and a *claim*... for the
normal®/subjective man ?

No, I don't think I could. Not if the "normal" person
in question is you.

It's Friday and 5 p.m. is drawing near. Perhaps
you could recommend a new libation for me
instead ?

"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...

As I indicated to "slick," in American you are innocent
until proven guilty.

Does that apply to your alleged tweako freako scam artists?



----== 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 =----