[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Clyde Slick wrote:
Arny Krueger a scris:


Ignores common sense. As stated, according to the Atkinson Dictum as stated
above, we could do an ABX test involving 200,000 audiophiles of all ages and
experience levels, and each and every one of them could produce a negative
result. None even come close.

We have a null data set. We apply the Atkinson Dictum:

"The null data set means that no difference could be heard _under the
specific
circumstances of that test_. No more generalized conclusion can be drawn.
"

We conclude according to the Atkinson Dictum that we cannot possibly know a
thing about the outcome of the same test, were it done by a 200,001st
person.

Common sense says that if not one of 200,000 persons can even come close to
accomplishing something, the 200,001st person won't be able to do it,
either.

In short, the Atkinson Dictum violates common sense.

Even "you" know better than that

"under the specific
circumstances of that test"

stop being such an asshole

You forgot "insane."

Arns is an insane asshole.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg stops short of a full travelogue.

Yup, shallow tests for shallow interests.

Here's the newest version of the "office" chair you want for Xmas, Arnii:
http://tt.mainstreet.net/ttoutpost/opv8.jpg

In the meantime, I copped this piccie from your decorator's candid
collection of before-shots when you "renovated" your hovel:
http://shorterlink.com/?21U0U3





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

I predict that Arns really doesn't care, though, as his outright lies
are also obviously logically fallacious.

Good point to bring out, on LOt"S.

On the meta level, is there a specific term for the kind of "logic" that is
invisible and incomprehensible to all but one observer? ;-)

Yes. On the meta level I believe that type of "logic" is called
"insanity.";-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:

I never criticized the statistics Atkinson, I criticized your self-serving
interpretation of them.

So who exactly are you talking to here, Arns?

"While I think that Arns Krueger is the biggest liar on the Usenet, I
think that he should stop talking about things that you obviously have
no idea about."

Perhaps you can invent speaking in the fourth person. LOL!

Poor confused old Arns!

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

On the meta level, is there a specific term for the kind of "logic" that is
invisible and incomprehensible to all but one observer? ;-)

Yes. On the meta level I believe that type of "logic" is called
"insanity.";-)

That's an odd viewpoint for a sicicccnenncs-hater like you to take. I mean,
given™ the Krooborg's avowed dedication to what he calls "science", wouldn't
a "scientist" like Arnii be remiss in not having ruled out the possibility
that he is, in fact, insane? Unless you're suggesting that Arnii "changed
the conditions of the test", a la Capt. Kirk....






--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
... the Atkinson Dictum violates common sense.

Really? In that case, I had better inform the authors of the
two statistics textbooks I use that they have been
publishing an egregious error. :-)

What statistics book says this:
The null data set means that no difference could be heard _under
the specific circumstances of that test_. No more generalized
conclusion can be drawn.

I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

Of course if you really understood, you'd have to accept that the
meaning of
the null data set is totally dependent upon the design of the test and
no more
generalized conclusion can be drawn.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
On Dec 21, 6:39 am, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:



On Dec 20, 7:33 pm, "John Atkinson"
wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
The intellectually honest person, upon getting a null data set
will admit that he really couldn't hear a difference.Intellectually honest he may be, but informed about statistics, no.
The null data set means that no difference could be heard _under
the specific circumstances of that test_. No more generalized
conclusion can be drawn.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics.

Bob StantonWhattt????
One would admit one can't hear a difference because one does not hear a
difference,
not because of an understanding of statistics.

When he got a null data set on the test, *that proved* he couldn't
hear a difference. So why shouldn't he have admitted it?



Perhaps you can't write and don't understand English.

"Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "


That is what i responded to.

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com
On Dec 21, 6:39 am, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:



On Dec 20, 7:33 pm, "John Atkinson"
wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
The intellectually honest person, upon getting a null
data set
will admit that he really couldn't hear a
difference.Intellectually honest he may be, but
informed about statistics, no.
The null data set means that no difference could be
heard _under the specific circumstances of that test_.
No more generalized conclusion can be drawn.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear
a difference because he had a *good understanding* of
statistics.

Bob StantonWhattt????
One would admit one can't hear a difference because one
does not hear a difference,
not because of an understanding of statistics.

When he got a null data set on the test, *that proved*
he couldn't hear a difference. So why shouldn't he have
admitted it?

Perhaps you don't understand what a null data set is.

My problem with Atkinson is that he sets his acceptance level for sufficient
indication of need to buy very low, while setting the acceptance level for
admitting that there's no reason in terms of sound quality to spend the
money very high.

It is almost like Atkinson's magazine's bills are mostly paid for by the
advertisers. ;-)

Maybe "you" should get some
for your web publishing "business".

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
The Krooborg gets snotty.

Really? In that case, I had better inform the authors of
the two statistics textbooks I use that they have been
publishing an egregious error. :-)

I never criticized the statistics Atkinson, I criticized your self-serving
interpretation of them.

Do you resent Mr. Atkinson's stature as a professional recordist, Arnii?



Even more than that, he resents his stature as an editor
of a commercially successful publication.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article
. com,
"R. Stanton" wrote:

On Dec 20, 7:06 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
. com,
"R. Stanton" wrote:



On Dec 18, 10:29 pm, "
wrote: 2) In addition all of them
had a
negative, null outcome which proves nothing, because
a next-door better selected group could have got a
positive result.

They were so representative that they were born and
died in the web or the pages of a pop mag

You wrote that "a negative, null outcome ..... proves
nothing" That
is a common misconception in this group. ABX null
data sets provide valuable information.

If a subject gets a null data set, the probability is
that he can not hear a difference between the two
components. Each new null data set increases that
probability. At some point, a reasonable person will
conclude that the subject absolutely can not hear a
difference.But that's only part of the equation. I'm
not really pro nor con on the
ABX issue as it relates to product R&D, for example,
but we should be clear that if there are multiple null
data sets and it is clear that the subject cannot hear
a difference there still could BE a difference.

I agree. Of course there could be a difference. No two
objects in the universe are exactly alike. No two
amplifiers or CD players will be exactly identical.
What's important is, can we *hear* the difference.

If a test produces a null data set, that tells us the
two components sounded the same, to those who took the
test. Does it not?

IF the test is valid.

Ironic that you should raise this point Jenn, given that
every listening test you've ever done was demonstrably
invalid.

For audio, I've carried out the best listening tests that
my interest in such things allow.

Yup, shallow tests for shallow interests.

You're quite correct; I have shallow interests in testing.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 21, 2:34 pm, "Clyde Slick"
"Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

That is what i responded to.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

On the meta level, is there a specific term for the kind of "logic" that is
invisible and incomprehensible to all but one observer? ;-)

Yes. On the meta level I believe that type of "logic" is called
"insanity.";-)

That's an odd viewpoint for a sicicccnenncs-hater like you to take. I mean,
given„¢ the Krooborg's avowed dedication to what he calls "science", wouldn't
a "scientist" like Arnii be remiss in not having ruled out the possibility
that he is, in fact, insane? Unless you're suggesting that Arnii "changed
the conditions of the test", a la Capt. Kirk....

It would also seem that a 'scientist' would understand logic and
statistics.

Ironically, those suffering from insanity are apprently the last to
know. They think that the whole world is insane, and they are the only
sane ones left. I think that's because they have "the kind of "logic"
that is invisible and incomprehensible to all but one observer..."

So we should pity old insane asshole Arns. (Hm. I'm ****R to Arns. I
haven't thought up a cute name for him yet. How about PIOUS: poor
insane old unhinged ****head. It would cut down on my typing time,
too.)

PIOUS Arns. What a guy.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 21, 2:34 pm, "Clyde Slick" Perhaps you
can't write and don't understand English.

"Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

That is what i responded to.


Yes, I think I now understand what you are trying to convey.
Translating it to something I can understand: I think you are saying
that you don't really know what a "null data set" is and you are
trying to change the subject.

[Harry Lavo]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger a scris:
"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com
On Dec 21, 6:39 am, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:



On Dec 20, 7:33 pm, "John Atkinson"
wrote:
R. Stanton wrote:
The intellectually honest person, upon getting a null
data set
will admit that he really couldn't hear a
difference.Intellectually honest he may be, but
informed about statistics, no.
The null data set means that no difference could be
heard _under the specific circumstances of that test_.
No more generalized conclusion can be drawn.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear
a difference because he had a *good understanding* of
statistics.

Bob StantonWhattt????
One would admit one can't hear a difference because one
does not hear a difference,
not because of an understanding of statistics.

When he got a null data set on the test, *that proved*
he couldn't hear a difference. So why shouldn't he have
admitted it?

Perhaps you don't understand what a null data set is.

My problem with Atkinson is that he sets his acceptance level for
sufficient
indication of need to buy very low, while setting the acceptance level
for
admitting that there's no reason in terms of sound quality to spend the
money very high.

It is almost like Atkinson's magazine's bills are mostly paid for by the
advertisers. ;-)

Maybe "you" should get some
for your web publishing "business".

It's Arny's approach. He's tried, heaven knows. But somehow, when he
approaches manufacturers with his straightforward pitch...."advertise on my
web site...it ain't pretty...but if you do I won't tell anybody I think your
s**t is just manufactured sn*ke o*l"...it seems to fall on deaf ears. Arny
has thought and thought about it, but he just can't figure out "why" that
happens.

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg whined:

Translating it to something I can understand: I think you are saying
that you don't really know what a "null data set" is and you are
trying to change the subject.

How many DBTs of consumer audio equipment have you participated in, R?





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:29 pm, " wrote:
2) In addition all of them had a
negative, null outcome which proves nothing, because a next-door better
selected group could have got a positive result.

They were so representative that they were born and died in the web or
the pages of a pop mag


You wrote that "a negative, null outcome ..... proves nothing" That
is a common misconception in this group. ABX null data sets provide
valuable information.

If a subject gets a null data set, the probability is that he can not
hear a difference between the two components. Each new null data set
increases that probability. At some point, a reasonable person will
conclude that the subject absolutely can not hear a difference.

Sometimes a person is convinced in his own mind that he can hear that
one component sounds better than another. He will blame the ABX test
for his failure to prove this. A typical excuse for failure is:
"Switching from A to B to X is confusing and mind numbing."

The intellectually honest person, upon getting a null data set will
admit that he really couldn't hear a difference.

Bob Stanton

=============================

There is not one word in your posting that I can see any reason to
contradict.

My understanding is that you say that if an individual(s) using some
method or gadget is/are are unable to get a positive result he/they
have to admit that:

using this particular method or gadget he/they can not get a positive
result.
Absolutely right.

A question: If he heard that many others were in the same boat and that
a statistically credible, properly protocolled POSITIVE test using
this....etc. has not been reported ever n 40 years why on earth would
he bother his poor litle self to prove again that an individual using
this etc. etc. is wasting his time trying to beat the odds? Masochism?
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

R. Stanton wrote:
On Dec 18, 10:29 pm, " wrote:
2) In addition all of them had a
negative, null outcome which proves nothing, because a next-door better
selected group could have got a positive result.

They were so representative that they were born and died in the web or
the pages of a pop mag


You wrote that "a negative, null outcome ..... proves nothing" That
is a common misconception in this group. ABX null data sets provide
valuable information.

If a subject gets a null data set, the probability is that he can not
hear a difference between the two components. Each new null data set
increases that probability. At some point, a reasonable person will
conclude that the subject absolutely can not hear a difference.

Sometimes a person is convinced in his own mind that he can hear that
one component sounds better than another. He will blame the ABX test
for his failure to prove this. A typical excuse for failure is:
"Switching from A to B to X is confusing and mind numbing."

The intellectually honest person, upon getting a null data set will
admit that he really couldn't hear a difference.

Bob Stanton

=============================

There is not one word in your posting that I can see any reason to
contradict.

My understanding is that you say that if an individual(s) using some
method or gadget is/are are unable to get a positive result he/they
have to admit that:

using this particular method or gadget he/they is/are unlikely to get
a positive result.

A question: If he heard that many others were in the same boat and that
a statistically credible, properly protocolled POSITIVE test using
this....etc. has not been reported ever n 40 years why on earth would
he bother his poor litle self to prove again that an individual using
this etc. etc. is wasting his time trying to prove that using etc.. he
can get any but a negative result..
Masochism?
Ludovic Mirabel

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 21, 7:06 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg whined:
How many DBTs of consumer audio equipment have you participated in, R?


I never did any double or single blind tests, on audio components.

I wasn't aware the knowing something about the subject, was a request
for writing in this forum. :-)

Bob Stanton

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg gibbered:

How many DBTs of consumer audio equipment have you participated in, R?

I never did any double or single blind tests, on audio components.

The truth might set you free.

I wasn't aware the knowing something about the subject, was a request[sic]
for writing in this forum. :-)

Not a requirement, certainly. But it's fair for everybody to see your
comments in their true context. In the case of your preaching about DBTs,
the context is total ignorance and a complete lack of any useful experience.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Arny Krueger]

"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com
On Dec 21, 7:06 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore]
george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg whined:
How many DBTs of consumer audio equipment have you
participated in, R?


I never did any double or single blind tests, on audio
components.

I wasn't aware the knowing something about the subject,
was a request for writing in this forum. :-)


You can call the Middiot's bluff by spending a little time at www.pcabx.com,
downloading a few files, and actually trying ABX out.

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:

I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

Of course if you really understood, you'd have to accept that the
meaning of
the null data set is totally dependent upon the design of the test and
no more
generalized conclusion can be drawn.



True for FDA tests also!!
the FDA tests are meaningles to any specific individual.
There are choices of drugs one can use for a particular condition,
one might work better for you, another migh work better for me.
"at least " we know they probably won't kill us, more than
can be said for a Sanyo receiver.

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
On Dec 21, 2:34 pm, "Clyde Slick" Perhaps you
can't write and don't understand English.

"Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

That is what i responded to.


Yes, I think I now understand what you are trying to convey.
Translating it to something I can understand: I think you are saying
that you don't really know what a "null data set" is and you are
trying to change the subject.

which was "Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a
difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

one can conclude one does not hear a difference because on could not
hear a difference.
"dull nanite set" is not required!

[Clyde Slick]

Arny Krueger a scris:
"R. Stanton" wrote in message
ups.com
On Dec 21, 7:06 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore]
george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg whined:
How many DBTs of consumer audio equipment have you
participated in, R?


I never did any double or single blind tests, on audio
components.

I wasn't aware the knowing something about the subject,
was a request for writing in this forum. :-)


You can call the Middiot's bluff by spending a little time at www.pcabx.com,
downloading a few files, and actually trying ABX out.

I recommend the two second castanet snippets.
While you're there, Bob, check out the paid advertising.

[ScottW]

Clyde Slick wrote:
ScottW a scris:

I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

Of course if you really understood, you'd have to accept that the
meaning of
the null data set is totally dependent upon the design of the test and
no more
generalized conclusion can be drawn.



True for FDA tests also!!
the FDA tests are meaningles to any specific individual.

Damn....now we need drug trials on everyone before we
can declare them safe and effective.

ScottW

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 22, 12:30 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

On Dec 21, 2:34 pm, "Clyde Slick" Perhaps you
can't write and don't understand English.

"Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

That is what i responded to.

Yes, I think I now understand what you are trying to convey.
Translating it to something I can understand: I think you are saying
that you don't really know what a "null data set" is and you are
trying to change the subject.which was "Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a
difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

one can conclude one does not hear a difference because on could not
hear a difference.
"dull nanite set" is not required!

I still think you don't understand what a "null data set" is. If you
don't understand something, it is not a good idea to write about it. It
just shows your ignorance.

Bob Stanton

[Clyde Slick]

R. Stanton a scris:
On Dec 22, 12:30 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

On Dec 21, 2:34 pm, "Clyde Slick" Perhaps you
can't write and don't understand English.

"Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

That is what i responded to.

Yes, I think I now understand what you are trying to convey.
Translating it to something I can understand: I think you are saying
that you don't really know what a "null data set" is and you are
trying to change the subject.which was "Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a
difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

one can conclude one does not hear a difference because on could not
hear a difference.
"dull nanite set" is not required!

I still think you don't understand what a "null data set" is. If you
don't understand something, it is not a good idea to write about it. It
just shows your ignorance.

Bob Stanton


LEARN TO READ, I didn't write about it.
I understand it, though it is comppletely irrelevant to what
I said. My point that one doesn't need tests and thus
does not need statistical anlysis of any kind when
comparing consumer goods, for individual consumer decisons
or individual consumer preferences. You don't need to do it for
condoms, you don't need to do it for audio items.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
John Atkinson wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
... the Atkinson Dictum violates common sense.

Really? In that case, I had better inform the authors of the
two statistics textbooks I use that they have been
publishing an egregious error. :-)

What statistics book says this:
The null data set means that no difference could be heard _under
the specific circumstances of that test_. No more generalized
conclusion can be drawn.

I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

Of course if you really understood, you'd have to accept that the
meaning of
the null data set is totally dependent upon the design of the test and
no more
generalized conclusion can be drawn.

ScottW
=============================

Scottw authoritatively pronounces::
I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

It would help if people reastricted themselves to spouting about things
of which they have the foggiest idea.

Bringing in FDA drug testing requirements, that originated iin the Med.
Research Ccil. of U.K., in a debate about audio so-called "tests"
shows total ignorance of what modern drug testing is.

1) No, drug test results often are not and need not be applicable to
"general population".. Whatever that means: ??? both genders???, all
the ages???, all degrees of severity of the disease???... But why
continue? The absurdity of this statement speaks for itself..
Example : streptomycin was THE greatest advance in treatment of tb. It
was once accepted wisdom that when dealing with tuberculous meningitis
( a 100% fatal disease before streptomycin) the best way of
administering it would be directly into the spinal fluid where the bugs
were.
We did and made a kid permanently deaf. The route was wrong ,
especially for young children.

2) Cortisone and derivatives were promoted when first discovered as THE
wonder drugs for arthritis. They were that and their indiscriminate use
ended up producing a potentially fatal hormonal disease in many
patients some of whom would have done well enough on physio and
aspirin. "General population"??? That's where the little thing called
"clinical judgement" comes in.

3) FDA would put a drug test that consisted of patients filling in one
of two squares in the waste-paper basket where it belongs. With the
rare exception of neurotic afflictions much,. much more is required:
little things like mortality statistics with and without, disease
duration with and without, evidence of improvement on physical, lab and
Xray exams.with and without. Compare with filling in the little
squares: "same or different?" End of "test! Horses of very different
colour.with the plagiarists invoking the name without authorisation.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Scottw authoritatively pronounces::
I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

It would help if people reastricted themselves to spouting about things
of which they have the foggiest idea.

You need to "think outside of the small box" that you're in, Ludovic.

That's what toopid says to me when he authoritatively makes comments
about another area in which he does not have the foggiest idea of what
he's talking about: military matters.

It seems that toopid thinks that he's an expert in all sorts of areas
that he has no experience, training, or knowledge in.

Do you want to know how to pilot a supersonic fighter in combat and
then safely land on an aircraft carrier with a strong crosswind? Do you
want to know how to make a perfect souffle? Do you want to know how to
expertly perform Bach on the lute? Or how to design the perfect drug
test, or how to array your infantry formation tactically? Or how to
build the best pipe organ ever?

Just ask toopid: I'm sure that he knows. LOL!

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 24, 9:56 am, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:



On Dec 22, 12:30 pm, "Clyde Slick" wrote:
R. Stanton a scris:

On Dec 21, 2:34 pm, "Clyde Slick" Perhaps you
can't write and don't understand English.

"Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

That is what i responded to.

Yes, I think I now understand what you are trying to convey.
Translating it to something I can understand: I think you are saying
that you don't really know what a "null data set" is and you are
trying to change the subject.which was "Oh contraire, Mr Atkinson! He admitted he couldn't hear a
difference
because he had a *good understanding* of statistics. "

one can conclude one does not hear a difference because on could not
hear a difference.
"dull nanite set" is not required!

I still think you don't understand what a "null data set" is. If you
don't understand something, it is not a good idea to write about it. It
just shows your ignorance.

Bob StantonLEARN TO READ, I didn't write about it.
I understand it, though it is comppletely irrelevant to what
I said. My point that one doesn't need tests and thus
does not need statistical anlysis of any kind when
comparing consumer goods, for individual consumer decisons
or individual consumer preferences. You don't need to do it for
condoms, you don't need to do it for audio items.

I agree.

As a consumer, I have never found a need to do ABX testing. But, I'm
not given to wild imaginings about "magic speaker cables" and the like.

There are, however, times and places where ABX testing is useful.

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg forces himself to acknowledge reality.

As a consumer, I have never found a need to do ABX testing. But, I'm
not given to wild imaginings about "magic speaker cables" and the like.
There are, however, times and places where ABX testing is useful.

I'm sure all of us gullible Normals can agree with that statement.

It doesn't explain, however, why you repeatedly preach about the virtues of
aBxism rituals for consumers. If you've recently been rebooted, just say so,
because that would explain the disconnect between today's reasonableness and
yesterday's religiosity.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 26, 10:06 am, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg forces himself to acknowledge reality.

As a consumer, I have never found a need to do ABX testing. But, I'm
not given to wild imaginings about "magic speaker cables" and the like.
There are, however, times and places where ABX testing is useful.I'm sure all of us gullible Normals can agree with that statement.

It doesn't explain, however, why you repeatedly preach about the virtues of
aBxism rituals for consumers. If you've recently been rebooted, just say so,
because that would explain the disconnect between today's reasonableness and
yesterday's religiosity.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Dear Middius (Normal Person, junior grade):

Did I ever advocate ABX, for the typical consumer?

Bob Stanton

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message
ups.com

It would help if people reastricted themselves to
spouting about things of which they have the foggiest
idea.


Sort of like a superannuated MD with poor English comprehension and
expression skills trying to make up the rules for audio listening test as he
goes along, no?

[George M. Middius]

StantonBorg the post-destroyer lied by implication:

useful.I'm sure all of us gullible Normals can agree with that statement.

See that, R? Are you too Krooger-like in your ineptitude to make your posts
legible?

It doesn't explain, however, why you repeatedly preach about the virtues of
aBxism rituals for consumers. If you've recently been rebooted, just say so,
because that would explain the disconnect between today's reasonableness and
yesterday's religiosity.

Dear Middius (Normal Person, junior grade):

Quite senior in acumen, actually.

Did I ever advocate ABX, for the typical consumer?

Over and over and over. Yes. Emphatically, unequivocally YES.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg's mirror is broken again.

Sort of like a superannuated MD with poor English comprehension and
expression skills

You're not an M.D., Arnii. Stop lying.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
The Krooborg's mirror is broken again.

Sort of like a superannuated MD with poor English comprehension and
expression skills

You're not an M.D., Arnii. Stop lying.

LOL

I think Arns (PIOUS) was talking about Ludo.

I suspect that, although Ludo does not talk about money, old Arns
suspects that Ludo is worth more than he is.

Thus the jealousy.

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[R. Stanton]

On Dec 26, 12:25 pm, George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at]
comcast [dot] net wrote:
StantonBorg the post-destroyer lied by implication:

useful.I'm sure all of us gullible Normals can agree with that statement.See that, R? Are you too Krooger-like in your ineptitude to make your posts
legible?

It doesn't explain, however, why you repeatedly preach about the virtues of
aBxism rituals for consumers. If you've recently been rebooted, just say so,
because that would explain the disconnect between today's reasonableness and
yesterday's religiosity.
Dear Middius (Normal Person, junior grade):Quite senior in acumen, actually.

Did I ever advocate ABX, for the typical consumer?Over and over and over. Yes. Emphatically, unequivocally YES.

--


You called me "Krooger-like"! I'm shocked!!!!!!! :-)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com

It would help if people reastricted themselves to
spouting about things of which they have the foggiest
idea.


Sort of like a superannuated MD with poor English comprehension and
expression skills trying to make up the rules for audio listening test as he
goes along, no?

==================================

Deja vu!
Krueger, the RAO resident audio listening "tests" quack-Meiister said
on Dec 18.:in "Mirabel's unreasoning bias" thread.
End of discussion on the grounds of utter
personal disrepect by Ludo.
The " disrespectful" posting was my reply to his previous hinting ,
subtly and tactfully, in the best Kruerish way, at my not being a
native USEnglish speaker. Were I a Sri Lankan or a Nigerian he' d
bring that in too..

I answered at that time:

"Surely Master of the English prose "Ludo's utter lack of respect"
would be
more stylistically and semantically correct. "Personal disrespect by
Ludo"
would be right if you were chastising me for MY lack of respect for
myself..
(That would be the first! !.)
You make yourself sound like a deprived ghetto kid. ("Mum, he
disrespected
me".) Or if he were completely sunk in Krueger's utter lack of feel for
literacy in English usage
he'd say like Krueger" Mum, I was disrespected BY him"

In the same posting; I made a correct prediction that he would reemerge
from his lair as soon as the memories fade.

"Be it as it may I feel I won't miss you for too long. So far you've
gone mute on me 4 times and came back 3 of them when you felt your lack
of a cogent answer was swept under the carpet.and forgotten.
Cheerio tut tut.
Ludovic Mirabel
And au-revoir- (that's French for "See you soon", cher maitre. The 5th.
time).
Can't wait for more English lessons..

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Scottw authoritatively pronounces::
I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

It would help if people reastricted themselves to spouting about things
of which they have the foggiest idea.

You need to "think outside of the small box" that you're in, Ludovic.

That's what toopid says to me when he authoritatively makes comments
about another area in which he does not have the foggiest idea of what
he's talking about: military matters.

It seems that toopid thinks that he's an expert in all sorts of areas
that he has no experience, training, or knowledge in.

Do you want to know how to pilot a supersonic fighter in combat and
then safely land on an aircraft carrier with a strong crosswind? Do you
want to know how to make a perfect souffle? Do you want to know how to
expertly perform Bach on the lute? Or how to design the perfect drug
test, or how to array your infantry formation tactically? Or how to
build the best pipe organ ever?

Just ask toopid: I'm sure that he knows. LOL!

+++++++++++++++++++++

In a way it is even more simple than lack of knowledge.
The underlying problem is semiliteracy. Mr. ScottW simply does not know
what the big words he uses: like "perception" mean. As a esult he
waffles on at best muddle-headed, at worst incomprehensible using a
mish-mash of terms that he does not understand but is too ignorant to
recognise that and look up a good dictionary ..

Add to that the compulsion to pipe up about subjects he knows nothing
about with a phony expert self-assurance and you get semi-comic and
semi-hopeless waste of time results.

Only in RAO.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Scottw authoritatively pronounces::
I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

It would help if people reastricted themselves to spouting about things
of which they have the foggiest idea.

You need to "think outside of the small box" that you're in, Ludovic.

That's what toopid says to me when he authoritatively makes comments
about another area in which he does not have the foggiest idea of what
he's talking about: military matters.

It seems that toopid thinks that he's an expert in all sorts of areas
that he has no experience, training, or knowledge in.

Do you want to know how to pilot a supersonic fighter in combat and
then safely land on an aircraft carrier with a strong crosswind? Do you
want to know how to make a perfect souffle? Do you want to know how to
expertly perform Bach on the lute? Or how to design the perfect drug
test, or how to array your infantry formation tactically? Or how to
build the best pipe organ ever?

Just ask toopid: I'm sure that he knows. LOL!

+++++++++++++++++++++

In a way it is even more simple than lack of knowledge.
The underlying problem is semiliteracy. Mr. ScottW simply does not know
what the big words he uses: like "perception" mean. As a esult he
waffles on at best muddle-headed, at worst incomprehensible using a
mish-mash of terms that he does not understand but is too ignorant to
recognise that and look up a good dictionary ..

Add to that the compulsion to pipe up about subjects he knows nothing
about with a phony expert self-assurance and you get semi-comic and
semi-hopeless waste of time results.

Only in RAO.
Ludovic Mirabel.

[ScottW]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Scottw authoritatively pronounces::
I'm sure the FDA is happy to know their entire drug testing protocol
is BS when it comes to applying the results to the general population.

It would help if people reastricted themselves to spouting about things
of which they have the foggiest idea.

You need to "think outside of the small box" that you're in, Ludovic.

That's what toopid says to me when he authoritatively makes comments
about another area in which he does not have the foggiest idea of what
he's talking about: military matters.

It seems that toopid thinks that he's an expert in all sorts of areas
that he has no experience, training, or knowledge in.

Do you want to know how to pilot a supersonic fighter in combat and
then safely land on an aircraft carrier with a strong crosswind? Do you
want to know how to make a perfect souffle? Do you want to know how to
expertly perform Bach on the lute? Or how to design the perfect drug
test, or how to array your infantry formation tactically? Or how to
build the best pipe organ ever?

Just ask toopid: I'm sure that he knows. LOL!

+++++++++++++++++++++

In a way it is even more simple than lack of knowledge.
The underlying problem is semiliteracy. Mr. ScottW simply does not know
what the big words he uses: like "perception" mean. As a esult he
waffles on at best muddle-headed, at worst incomprehensible using a
mish-mash of terms that he does not understand but is too ignorant to
recognise that and look up a good dictionary ..

Poor Ludo....you don't realize how ironic you are.
You can't even properly phrase an insult.

ScottW