wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not
prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe
about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof.

That much is obvious.

Nor do we
believe
in mysticism.

If you believe that people can hear differences from things like
Shakti
stones, then you do believe in mysticism.


I don't know whether any particular people can hear differences with
Shakti
Stones.

Yes you do, you just don't admit it. It's impossible.

All I care about is whether I hear any differences with Shakti
Stones, and
if so,
are the differences worth the money, and if so, can I afford them.

You're saying you don't care if it's possible for them to have an
effect.

Three questions. If any one of the three answers is no, then I am not

interested.
Now, as to question 1) I don't know whether I would hear a
difference. I
never
used Shakti Stones. Question 2) I assume that whatever differences I
might
possibly
find, they are not worth the exhorbitant cost of the Shakti's, that I
could
get better results for less money investing in better equipment.

Why would you be reluctant to know if it's possible for them to do what
they claim?
To me that's a more important question than being able to affor them.
I can afford a copper bracelet which is allegedly supposed to benefit
people with arthritis, but I won't buy one because I know they don't
have any effect.

Question 3)
I probably
could afford them, but there are scads of other things
I would prefer to spend that money on.


Save your money it is impossible for ehm to work as advertised.



All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant,
whether
proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that
matters.

Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose.
If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like
Shakti
Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an

effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on
the
absurdity of it.


That's fine, I don't care about you questioning Shakti Stones, ITs
the
insistence on your scienctific methodology as applied to consumer
audio
purchases.

But I don't insist on it and never have. I only suggest that people
claiming differences from things that aren'tlikely to have them or from
things like Shakti Stones, which do not have any effect, think about
finding out if there is a real effect or an imagined one. Perfectly
reasonable, in light of how many things have been shown to be snake
oil.

It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of
flavor we
like.
This isn't science.


There's no real science to listening, but there is in how people can
think something causes an effect when it in fact can't.

I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot
music. I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that
can not do what is claimed.

I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound
different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing
is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with
performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less
than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as
anything in the megabuck amp category.

People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be aware
of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve the same
level of sound quality. That doesn't mean I have a problem with people
spending their money as they see fit, it just means that if it's sound
they are after, then can get it for less and buy better spakers or more
CD's.

Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get the
exact same sound quality?

Why should anyone not want to know that?

It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by
people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are
obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference
for. I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time
trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers who
made the record wanted to be heard.

You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money.


You're laboring under a false assumption.
Making these choices is not necessarily about spending more money.
Usuall, its about spending less money. My preferences and choices
have saved me lots and lots of momey. My most expensive component cost
$1,900. Every other audio purchase I made was under a grand.



----== 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 =----

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


Here's a heads up - Art believes that green pen lines on the periphery of
a CD change how they sound.


You betcha!!! It usually makes them sound worse.
Of course, I stopped after about ten of them



----== 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 =----

You say:
" ABX is not aobut preference, it's about difference, and determing if any
exists. It is simply another form of DBT. It is used by different areas
of audip engneering, from home audio to hearing aids. The sole purpose
for it's creation was to prove that differences DO exist"
Sorry. The codeveloper of the ABX comparator Mr. Carlstrom disagrees with
you:

"A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test
result is not a preference...While literally true, if an ABX test confirms a
difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy and completely
justified" (Introductory pages in his PCABX website). Whom to believe?


If it is about all about difference why do you quote, without rhyme or
reason, the BBC listening tests report which is ALL about preference.
Nothing, repeat nothing, about formal testing for difference. And , that is
your only reference in response to my challenge to give a reference to one,
just one published ABX listening test with a positive outcome where
majority of participants *could* distinguish between components.
Everything sounds the same when deafened by the ABX.

I do feel for you. . You can not strike water out of a stone. No such
published report exists
In the past ( see the " RAHE challenges "Stereophile'...." thread last
December.) you tried to smuggle in as your response to my challenge a trial
of the manufacturer of the LP turntables and speakers (some "listening
group" of average audiophiles!). But as I soon showed : he failed- it was
another *negative* ABX test. Nothing daunted you referred next to Sean
Olive's loudspeaker trial . But I look at my sources! Great majority of
expert audiophiles failed to differentiate between very different
loudspeakers- but they had no problem selecting the best when not bothered
by your testing.
Mr. Krueger had the temerity to slur me with "distorting" Olive's report.
He did not quote, chapter and verse, where my "distortion" was... Why
doesn't he ask Sean Olive?. Because I've done so and found him an affable
correspondent who still keeps in touch.
So much for your assertion:":
If you cna't hear a difference, it seems clear that you can't reasonably
make a claim of "better," at least in terms of sound quality.
In science, that your group claims to represent, what *seems* to anyone has
to be tested by experiment.
No such basic testing was ever done to establish that ABX helps to
differentiate -none.
Quoting anonymous " tests of hearing aids" by anonymous testers on anonymous
subjects is really not enough in a discussion about high-end components.
Give it up - you're defending a hopeless cause. Why not demand DBT to
confirm that a Stradivarius is better than a Guarnieri, Pavarotti better
than Domingo, best Bordeaux Cabernet better than best Californian Merlot? Or
could it be vice versa.for all of them? You know: "De gustibus..."
L. Mirabel

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...
Mr. McKelvy says:
Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one
uses.
The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update
their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work.

You quoted BBC before, when challenged to reference one single
published ABX test showing that an average listener group using it
recognised ANY differences between ANY audio components.
I read the BBC report. It concerns a group of BBC exxperts
listening double blinded to speakers to decide which one most of them
liked best. A perfectly legitimate procedure for anyone to use when
deciding his/her's likes and dislikes. No quarrel with that.
Note that: There was wide variability of
preferences between the individuals in that *expert* group. The
purchasing decisions were made by totting up the majority of votes.. Just
as it would happen in real life- only more so if one asks every Tom ,
Dick and Harry for their opinions. Blinded or not blinded.
I have no idea what this has to do with the ABX method of
asking if X is like A or like B to *prove* differences.
I wonder when people will give up the simplistic idea
that it is possible to PROVE anything in the world of " I like - I like
not". No other walk of life is so plagued.
Ludovic Mirabel

ABX is not aobut preference, it's about difference, and determing if any
exists. It is simply another form of DBT. It is used by different areas
of audip engneering, from home audio to hearing aids. The sole purpose
for it's creation was to prove that differences DO exist. The unfortuante
truth in many cases is that differences claimed, don't show up in the ears
of people making claims of difference.

If you cna't hear a difference, it seems clear that you can't reasonably
make a claim of "better," at least in terms of sound quality.


"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message
...
Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my
limited English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native
speaker, compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?)
For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an
endearment, insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you
explain I shall not know how you'd want me to address you?..
Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a ban
when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"?
Please explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that
you lift when a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again
when someone wants to answer him?
Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so
titled exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as
a high-end group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without
an original, creative thought in their heads and without any interest
in getting life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath,
the moderator..

By that, can we assume that you mean they don't like to stray from what
is provable into what is wishful thinking?


Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his
message: "Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down
anything outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear
the difference,
And ,no, I was not banned.

Until there is a better way to prove subtle difference, ABX is what one
uses.

The BBC as I showed in another thread used DBT's extensively to update
their studio speakers. They did this because they know DBT's work.

Neither temporarily nor
"permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end
forum ceased to exist
My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of
speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the
word exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library
reference/dictionary section.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

Sarcasm is what they use when talking about your obsession with teh fact
that ABX and DBT's in general are the standard for determining subtle
differences. It's the way it is because it works. One only need
peruse the pages of some of the subjectivist rags to see how wrong
subjective review processes can be, how much they can miss about how
good or bad something is until compared to an objective reference.

You win. I dream nights about posting in Rahe but the guardian-angel Bath
stands at the gate with a flaming sword because I did not praise his name..
Also you made a wonderful point about the ABX ban with holes in it.
Also you're a wizard at picking up typos.
Also (though I'd prefer other, less boring, pursuers) at my age one takes
what one can.
You wouldn't by any chance 'be a double of someone who also used to haunt me
obsessively in RAHE, someone with a pen-nme of wiseguy or audio-wise or
such? You certainly share his exquisite style and his obsession with my
modest person.
But I do not think an audio forum is the right place for venting personal
grudges and obsessions. And frankly- it bores me.
I think it is time for liitle Joey to go to his room , learn a few more big
words like "logorrhea" and let the grown-ups talk about grown-up things.
As Tallulah Bankhead said to a young admirer: "I'll be late. Make yourself
at home, pour yourself a drink and start without me."
Regards Ludovic Mirabel

A
wrote in message ...
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
Thank you for your close reading, piocking up all my
typos.
You'd qualify for a proof-reader providing that in addition you pass a
literacy test.
What all of that has to with the subject under discussion
will remain your secret.
Ludovic Mirabel

Just trying to understand what in the world you are trying to say in
all of your convoluted logorrhea.

No reply to my point about the quote from Dr. Bath's post? Must mean
you concede my point on the non-permanent ban.

Also, I still haven't seen you post to RAHE, so it also must be true
that you have been banned. Must really get under you skin since you
have the irresistible need to complain here about RAHE, but cannot
post there.

Ludo has a severe case of logorrhea wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:
Dear non-Richard. You raise so many fascinating points that with my
limited
English I hardly know where to begin.( how can I, a non-native
speaker,
compete with your unrivalled mastery of the RAO prose?)
For instance Ludo is a clown. Was it meant as an
endearment,
insult, uninvited familiarity or all three? Till you explain I shall
not
know how you'd want me to address you?..

I've changed it so that it is very clear to all. And all posts in this
subthread came from me.

Thank you for so lucidly explaining that a ban is not a
ban
when it is not "permanent" Shall we call it a "non-permanent ban"?
Please
explain and inform: does " non-permanent" mean something that you lift
when
a "Richard" says something you like and clamp on again when someone
wants
to
answer him?

I quoted from Dr. Bath's post, what is so unclear about "likely to
stay in effect"? Is this another manifestation of your lack of English
ability again?

Now about "audio. low-end". You're right - no group so
titled
exists. But there is a group that was started long, long ago as a
high-end
group and that is now in the grip of second-raters, without an
original,
creative thought in their heads and without any interest in getting
life-like instrumental sound, aided and abetted by Mr. Bath, the
moderator..
Their check-mate slogan is the one "Richard" put at the end of his
message:
"Prove it by ABXing". And their main purpose is to shoot down anything
outstanding because they either can not or do not care to hear the
difference,

Periods are used at the end of sentneces in English bud, not commas.
And there is a lot of discussion on high-end on RAHE all the time.
Just none of your logorrhea against ABX.

And ,no, I was not banned. Neither temporarily nor
"permanently. I quit like many others, regretting that a true high-end
forum
ceased to exist

And a period is needed here, and no spaces before commas either. Quite
poor for a supposed English speaker.

Prove you can still post to RAHE by getting a post thru. Bet you
can't.

My use of "Low-end" was what they call " a figure of
speech". In my native language it is known as "sarcasm". I think the
word
exists in English as well. Look it up in your Public Library
reference/dictionary section.

More unneeded spaces, what is you native language anyway?

_______________________________________
I'll try and put this chaotic exchange into a sequence that can be
followed:
This is how it started:

Highly edited supposed quote snipped

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

There's no real science to listening,

...at least the way that Art (AKA Clyde Slick, Yustabe Slim, etc., etc.)
wants us all to listen.

but there is in how people can
think something causes an effect when it in fact can't.

Here's a heads up - Art believes that green pen lines on the periphery of
a CD change how they sound.

I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot
music.

Really, neither do I. However, I have a problem with people who promote
ignornace as if it were special wisdom.


I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that
can not do what is claimed.

Art has probably written something nice about clarifiers, but I don't feel
like trying to search them out using all of the aliases he's used through
the years.

I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound
different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing
is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with
performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less
than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as
anything in the megabuck amp category.

Agreed. I'll match your Crown and raise you two QSCs.

At least Crown still has some that don't use fans. :-)

People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be
aware of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve
the same level of sound quality.

Art is a vinyl-and-tubes maven. That means that his CD player has some
thermionic distortion enhancers tacked on near their output terminals.

That doesn't mean I have a problem
with people spending their money as they see fit, it just means that
if it's sound they are after, then can get it for less and buy better
speakers or more CD's.

If you spend less money than Art sees fit, no way can what you buy be good
enough. At least that's what he's told me. If you want to understand Art's
tastes better, remember that he's among the few who has posted his salary
here.

Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get
the exact same sound quality?

It makes them feel foolish?

Why should anyone not want to know that?

It makes them feel foolish if they believe what you say?

It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by
people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are
obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference
for.

Two extremes of a continuum, to be sure.

I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time
trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers
who made the record wanted to be heard.

Another difference between Art and I is the fact that I mix for Sound
Reinforcment and do quite a bit of multitrack recording. Art has
repeatedly criticized me because I don't record the best musicans - mostly
I work with amateurs, even fairly rank amateurs. You see in Art's world
its more important to play a recording by a top artist than to play a
recording where you heard the corresponding live performance. Art says
that he knows exactly what a recording should sound like because he's
heard similar groups play someplace maybe.

You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money.

I'm under the impression that Art was/is a government employee. If he
earned his money as some kind of a manager or analyst, then arguably the
taxpayers got robbed.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not
prove
that you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe
about
audio is more in the realm of mysticism.


You miss the point. We don't believe in any need for proof.

That much is obvious.

Nor do we
believe
in mysticism.

If you believe that people can hear differences from things like
Shakti
stones, then you do believe in mysticism.


I don't know whether any particular people can hear differences with
Shakti
Stones.

Yes you do, you just don't admit it. It's impossible.

All I care about is whether I hear any differences with Shakti
Stones, and
if so,
are the differences worth the money, and if so, can I afford them.

You're saying you don't care if it's possible for them to have an
effect.

Three questions. If any one of the three answers is no, then I am not

interested.
Now, as to question 1) I don't know whether I would hear a
difference. I
never
used Shakti Stones. Question 2) I assume that whatever differences I
might
possibly
find, they are not worth the exhorbitant cost of the Shakti's, that I
could
get better results for less money investing in better equipment.

Why would you be reluctant to know if it's possible for them to do what
they claim?
To me that's a more important question than being able to affor them.
I can afford a copper bracelet which is allegedly supposed to benefit
people with arthritis, but I won't buy one because I know they don't
have any effect.

Question 3)
I probably
could afford them, but there are scads of other things
I would prefer to spend that money on.


Save your money it is impossible for ehm to work as advertised.



All we have are opinions. And all we need are opinions.
What other people hear or don't hear isn't all that relevant,
whether
proven
or not. It's whatever pleases us, for whatever reason, that
matters.

Who has said otherwise. Listen how you choose, to what you choose.
If you make a claim of sonic difference due to something like
Shakti
Stones or some other device for which there is no possibility of an

effect, you shouldn't be surpised or alarmed when people comment on
the
absurdity of it.


That's fine, I don't care about you questioning Shakti Stones, ITs
the
insistence on your scienctific methodology as applied to consumer
audio
purchases.

But I don't insist on it and never have. I only suggest that people
claiming differences from things that aren'tlikely to have them or from
things like Shakti Stones, which do not have any effect, think about
finding out if there is a real effect or an imagined one. Perfectly
reasonable, in light of how many things have been shown to be snake
oil.

It's about enjoying the music, in whatever flavor or lack of
flavor we
like.
This isn't science.


There's no real science to listening, but there is in how people can
think something causes an effect when it in fact can't.

I have never begrudged anybody buying whatever they want to listen ot
music. I do have issues about things like stones and clairifiers that
can not do what is claimed.

I've listened to enough amplifiers to know that some do indeed sound
different and tried to educate myself on why that might be. One thing
is certain and that's that price and appearance havenoting to do with
performance as is evidenced by pro amps, which typically costfar less
than consumer audio amps and most of which perform at least as well as
anything in the megabuck amp category.

People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be aware
of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve the same
level of sound quality. That doesn't mean I have a problem with people
spending their money as they see fit, it just means that if it's sound
they are after, then can get it for less and buy better spakers or more
CD's.

Why should anyone be offended at the notion of spending less to get the
exact same sound quality?

Why should anyone not want to know that?

It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by
people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are
obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference
for. I'm in the first group and I have no desire to spend/waste time
trying to get anything different than what the artist and engineers who
made the record wanted to be heard.

You can do it your way if you choose. It's your money.


You're laboring under a false assumption.
Making these choices is not necessarily about spending more money.
Usuall, its about spending less money. My preferences and choices
have saved me lots and lots of momey. My most expensive component cost
$1,900. Every other audio purchase I made was under a grand.



It was an editorial "you," although your defense of things like Shakti
Stones and refusing to admit that they are a hoax made me think you might be
susceptible to such nonsense. If not, so much the better, but why not just
call them what they are?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Here's a heads up - Art believes that green pen lines on the periphery
of a CD change how they sound.


Art has probably written something nice about clarifiers, but I don't feel
like trying to search them out using all of the aliases he's used through
the years.


I don't think I have commented at all about clarifiers.
I have never used them.


People who want to spend 10,000 bucks for a CD player ought to be
aware of the fact that they could spend 1/10th of that and achieve
the same level of sound quality.


I spent 1/20th of that and have achieved better quality than some
in that price range.


Art is a vinyl-and-tubes maven. That means that his CD player has some
thermionic distortion enhancers tacked on near their output terminals.


If you spend less money than Art sees fit, no way can what you buy be good
enough. At least that's what he's told me.

I never said that.

If you want to understand Art's tastes better, remember that he's among
the few who has posted his salary here.


Yes I posted my salary, but that has little to do with my tastes.

It seems there are basicly 2 kinds of audio systems. Those owned by
people who are obsessed with accurate reproduction and those who are
obsessed with endless tweaking to get a sound they have a preference
for.

I have an audio system that I have a preference for.
I very rarely tweak it.



Another difference between Art and I is the fact that I mix for Sound
Reinforcment and do quite a bit of multitrack recording. Art has
repeatedly criticized me because I don't record the best musicans - mostly
I work with amateurs, even fairly rank amateurs. You see in Art's world
its more important to play a recording by a top artist than to play a
recording where you heard the corresponding live performance. Art says
that he knows exactly what a recording should sound like because he's
heard similar groups play someplace maybe.


I have some live recordings where I have been present during the
performances.




I'm under the impression that Art was/is a government employee. If he
earned his money as some kind of a manager or analyst, then arguably the
taxpayers got robbed.

You are correct in that I am a government employee, but
you don't know anything about my position, or about my job performance.
But I will tell you this, I do have to balance between the rights of those
select
citizens affected by my actions and the interests of the taxpayers at large.




----== 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 =----

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


You're laboring under a false assumption.
Making these choices is not necessarily about spending more money.
Usuall, its about spending less money. My preferences and choices
have saved me lots and lots of momey. My most expensive component cost
$1,900. Every other audio purchase I made was under a grand.



It was an editorial "you," although your defense of things like Shakti
Stones and refusing to admit that they are a hoax made me think you might
be susceptible to such nonsense. If not, so much the better, but why not
just call them what they are?


Let me put it this way, I would tend to be more 'susceptible'
if they were only ten bucks apiece. Other than for weight, I don't
think placing them on my components would matter. But I really
don't care if others are proponents of them, advertise them,
review them, buy them, or sell them.



----== 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 =----

Michael McKelvy wrote
JBorg wrote
Michael McKelvy"wrote:
JBorg wrote





M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everyone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.


You claim that HE gears of equal class all sounds alike,and that no one has
yet to prove any sonic differences among them.

Your paraphrasing is wrong. I and others have stated that gear that
performs within certain parameters of FR and distortion sounds alike.


HE gears falling within certain parameters of FR and distortion will not tell
you what they will sound like. Our ability to hear and ability to discern
subtle
differences among gears is not dependent on our hearing's ability in
(accurately) distinguishing the FR responses and levels of distortion of audio
gears.

Put simply, your reasoning doesn't follow.


Do you believe then that
additional pursuit to achieve further sonic improvement will be unnecessary
?


Depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, it is easy enough to find
CD players, amps and preamps that sound alike. Ditto for wires. When it
comes to speakers, there are plenty of significant differences that make
experimentation worthwhile.


I'm not asking you whether it is easy to find CDs players, amps, or preamps
that sounded alike. I'm asking you if it is worthwhile for the industry to
pursue further sonic improvement on these components.


His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.

Your crudity and narrow-mindedness do not reflect the reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made
that have no proof.


Why are you intolerant of audiophiles who claim to hear differences but
feel it unneccessary to offer you proof?


I'm not intolerant of them, I simply think they ought to try and be wiser in
their choices. Since it's about sound quality, one should simply
concentrate on what can or can not affect it. [...]


So if audiophiles don't offer you proof, you would only become tolerant of
them
as long as they try to be wise in their choices since it's about sound
quality?

What if you're deaf like Howard ferstler ? What type of sound quality should
be afforded to him ?


You are obviously free to choose what you want for whatever reason you want.
The fact still remains that there are things that people that do not
actually have any effect. Since there are other people who lurk here without
taking an active part in these discussions, I think it's important that they
be able to get straight information. Those who argue so strenuously that
XYZ product did so and so to the sound of their system ought to be able to
have the facts available to them as well, even if they choose not to care.
It seems pretty silly to be offended by truth, especially since in the end,
you don't have to act on it if you choose.

So it's important that those people who argue so strenuously that XYZ product
sound good to them, it should be important they get straight information and
hand the facts available to them. And that facts would be that if they could
not
provide you with proof why XYZ product sounded different, you will become
intolerant --- BUT they don't really have to act upon it.


It seems that the truth is whatever it is that you want them to do to satisfy
your ego.


An ability which help to lead us together. A gift that bring us together
to share that unrelenting compassion we have for music, and that small
opportunity to express our appreciation for the technology that bring us
closer even more.


I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
reproduction more than I do.


So you're enchanted with HE audio reproduction, yet you denigrate those
who admit to hearing distinctive sonic differences among HE gears.

I'm enchanted with good reproduction and I have always sought to optimize my
listening pleasure in any way possible. Key word possible.

Key Word: POSSIBLE

If it is not POSSIBLE for audiophiles to provide you with proof about
hearing sonic differences they'll never be enchanted with good audio
reproduction just like you do. Right?



Just as you do, why do you feel it necessary to be suspicious when other
audiophiles express their fascination among the distinctive sounds of
various gears ?

Because many of the claims that are made about such sounds are known to be
impossible.


YOU SEE ? No matter what they do, it simply is not possible to you isn't it ?


M. McKelvy is intolerant. He is a doctrinaire with bigoted cause, a
crusader with unforbearing pang encumbering himself to bring forth
destruction to those sagaciously affirming a sound belief to personal
preferences. Along with A. Krueger, H. Ferstler, and T. Nousaine, these
are symptomatic of their frigid rage to fulminate further technological
advancement in the High-End industry. A congregation of hatred that
assault those at the forefront laboring unrelentlessly to advance our
knowledge in the physics of sound. They are an assembly of polluted
thoughts readily ravishing those committed to fulfill our desire to
experience in our home the highest state in the art of musical
reproduction .


Thanks for admitting that we have it right and you guys can not prove that
you hear what you claim and that much of what you believe about audio is
more in the realm of mysticism.


What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive
differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

Um, they're called DBT's.

DBT again?

What source or type of media would you advice they use when making
the comparison?

Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote




What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?


(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the Twilight
Zone

In other words, you don't know.


(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the validity
of the results of DBTs.



I'm tired of discussing DBT's with you because in all cases you end up
always snipping what I say. You do this just before you run away completely
with your tail neatly folded and tuck between your legs. Remember ?

How ya doin with them Protocols ?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...


You're laboring under a false assumption.
Making these choices is not necessarily about spending more money.
Usuall, its about spending less money. My preferences and choices
have saved me lots and lots of momey. My most expensive component cost
$1,900. Every other audio purchase I made was under a grand.



It was an editorial "you," although your defense of things like Shakti
Stones and refusing to admit that they are a hoax made me think you might
be susceptible to such nonsense. If not, so much the better, but why not
just call them what they are?


Let me put it this way, I would tend to be more 'susceptible'
if they were only ten bucks apiece. Other than for weight, I don't
think placing them on my components would matter. But I really
don't care if others are proponents of them, advertise them,
review them, buy them, or sell them.


I care about people who commit fraud, which is what Shakti Stones and
Clarifiers are.

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Lionel, you've missed some incredible instances where Weil wet himself here.

Yeah, he is very funny... sometime.
What's a pity that he is so obsessed in winning debates...

Anyway he is my prefered "encyclopedia" since I perfectly
know how to open it and thankfully how to close it. ;-)

Paul Dormer a écrit :
"Arny Krueger" emitted :


Furthermore it is arguable that Dave empathises positively with Devil's
false claims related to my son's tragic death because of the unfortunate
circumstances related to the death of Dave's dad.


Yesss.... For the first time Arnold has rolled *two* personally
related tragedies into one sentence... purely for trolling purposes!!
Quite an astonishing achievement, I'm sure you'll agree!!

Agreed.

But seems to me that you're suffering from the
"selective-pitying-syndrom".
What's a pity you wasn't here recently when George M.
Middius helped by one of your compatriot have brought up
this filth on RAO.
I'm sure that you would have found here the reason of a
deeper indignation.

OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!
Quite an astonishing behaviour, I'm sure you'll agree !!!

George M. Middius wrote:



Paul Dormer said:

Furthermore it is arguable that Dave empathises positively with Devil's
false claims related to my son's tragic death because of the unfortunate
circumstances related to the death of Dave's dad.

Yesss.... For the first time Arnold has rolled *two* personally
related tragedies into one sentence... purely for trolling purposes!!
Quite an astonishing achievement, I'm sure you'll agree!!

Krooger is hoping you'll feel sorry for him even though he never proved he
had nothing to do with either of those deaths.


Paul, you should ask George "Merde" Middius who recently has brought up this filth again.




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

Michael McKelvy wrote
JBorg wrote
Michael McKelvy wrote
JBorg wrote
Michael McKelvy"wrote:
JBorg wrote





M. McKelvy's ignorance is well known to everyone. His ignorance about
the potentiality for growth and development in High-End audio industry
is particularly disturbing.

IOW right on target.


You claim that HE gears of equal class all sounds alike,and that no one
has yet to prove any sonic differences among them.

Your paraphrasing is wrong. I and others have stated that gear that
performs within certain parameters of FR and distortion sounds alike.


HE gears falling within certain parameters of FR and distortion will not
tell you what they will sound like.


It can tell you if it's accurate or not and it can tell you if it's lack of
perfect accuarcy is going to be audible or not.

Unless you're talking about poorly design equipment, which we're not
discussing here, can you tell what an accurate FR response tone from the
listening position would be? Can you differentiate the FR tone betw
two modern design gears from the listening position ? And tell why the
other is diff. from the other ?

After you do that, can you do the same while listening to your favorite
music while in relax mode BUT completely neglecting the emotional affect
of the music to you so you could focus strictly on the FR produce by
the frequency of sounds (in Hz) of the components you are comparing
as you sit alone quitely from the listening position ?


Our ability to hear and ability to discern subtle differences among gears
is not dependent on our hearing's ability in (accurately) distinguishing
the FR responses and levels of distortion of audio gears.


And your proof of this is?


The proof will be in the answer you provide above.


Put simply, your reasoning doesn't follow.


It follows, you're just running like hell away from it.


'cuse me?

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!

This is incorrect. On several levels.

But thanks for playing.

bzzzzt!

Next!

Michael McKelvy wrote
JBorg wrote
Michael McKelvy wrote
JBorg wrote
Michael McKelvy"wrote:
JBorg wrote






Do you believe then that additional pursuit to achieve further sonic
improvement will be unnecessary ?


Depends on what you're talking about. Certainly, it is easy enough to
find CD players, amps and preamps that sound alike. Ditto for wires. When
it comes to speakers, there are plenty of significant differences that
make experimentation worthwhile.


I'm not asking you whether it is easy to find CDs players, amps, or preamps
that sounded alike. I'm asking you if it is worthwhile for the industry to
pursue further sonic improvement on these components.


I think it's worhtwhile to pursue improvements.

Ok so it's worthwhile to pursue improvements. Why do you castigate
audiophiles that bought a much improve products simply because
they discern sonic differences?


As far as the industry is concerned, my suspicion is


No, I'm not asking what your f***** suspicions are about what the industry
is concern.


that they are trying to figure out how to improve speakers, how to make the
media and players still smaller and without moving parts. I suspect there
is also work being done to find out what the optimum number and placement of
speakers might be, or how to create some sort of DSP that can create a more
relistic soundstage.

In the are of more accurate sound reproduction, I would doubt very much that
anything is being done there since that end is accomplished through CD
playback. There needs to be done by the recording industry to use the full
capability of the format, but that's another story. Since CD's are capable
of an exact repridcution of what was put on the master tape, there doesn't
seem to be much point in "improving" it.

So there's lots of improvements that need to be done. Good.


His crudeness with regard to understanding
our innate and especial abiltiy to perceive and recognize distinctive
sound character among top-of-the-world audio gears reflect his narrow-
mindedness.

Actually, it reflects reality.

Your crudity and narrow-mindedness do not reflect the reality.


I'm not intolerant to audio improvements, I'm intolerant to claims made
that have no proof.


Why are you intolerant of audiophiles who claim to hear differences but
feel it unneccessary to offer you proof?


I'm not intolerant of them, I simply think they ought to try and be wiser
in their choices. Since it's about sound quality, one should simply
concentrate on what can or can not affect it. [...]


So if audiophiles don't offer you proof, you would only become tolerant of
them as long as they try to be wise in their choices since it's about sound
quality?


When audiophiles make claims that defy reason and logic, yes I expect they
offer some sort of proof, since it is known that people can make themselves
believe they hear things that aren't really there. When people claim that a
clarifier made their CD sound better, I don't need them to offer proof since
I already know they are wrong.


If audiophile finds it unnecessary to offer you proof, you believe that they
are "hearing things".

Can you define your reason and logic behind these?


What if you're deaf like Howard ferstler ?

Ferstler is deaf? Somehow I doubt it. He's not an EE and is sometimes taken
to task by them for errors, but he's willing to learn.


I've read him long enough. He is also an imbecile of highest order.


You are obviously free to choose what you want for whatever reason you
want. The fact still remains that there are things that people that do not
actually have any effect. Since there are other people who lurk here
without taking an active part in these discussions, I think it's important
that they be able to get straight information. Those who argue so
strenuously that XYZ product did so and so to the sound of their system
ought to be able to have the facts available to them as well, even if they
choose not to care. It seems pretty silly to be offended by truth,
especially since in the end, you don't have to act on it if you choose.


So it's important that those people who argue so strenuously that XYZ
product sound good to them, it should be important they get straight
information and hand the facts available to them.


It's important to know whether it's POSSIBLE for the product to have the
effect they claim.


That's fair. I think you're making progress.


And that facts would be that if they could not provide you with proof why
XYZ product sounded different, you will become intolerant --- BUT they
don't really have to act upon it.


If they make an outrageous claim and the reasons why it is outrageous are
explained to them and they still maintain the outrageous claim, I would
certainly suggest that a way to prove it, is to do a DBT of some kind.


But you have not provided proof that DBT is effective.


It seems that the truth is whatever it is that you want them to do to
satisfy your ego.

It seems that the truth is a stranger to you, which compels you to make
false statements about me.


Could you provide an example of this ?


The truth is that there are things that are audible and things that are not.
There are things that can cause audible differences and things that can't.
People ought to be aware of what they are and are not.


But if they find it unneccessary to give you your much wanted proof, it
means they're hearing things, right ?


I think it would be hard to find a person who loves high quality audio
reproduction more than I do.


So you're enchanted with HE audio reproduction, yet you denigrate those
who admit to hearing distinctive sonic differences among HE gears.


Another lie. I denigrate people who refuse to learn what is real and what
is advertising hype.


But if they find it unneccessary to give you your much wanted proof, it
means they're "hearing things", right ?

You s** of a b*****.


I'm enchanted with good reproduction and I have always sought to optimize
my listening pleasure in any way possible. Key word possible.

Key Word: POSSIBLE

If it is not POSSIBLE for audiophiles to provide you with proof about
hearing sonic differences, they'll never be enchanted with good audio
reproduction just like you do. Right?


I don't ask for proof so much for myself, I think they shoould prove to
themselves what is real and what is not. I've already got a pretty good
idea about what can and can't cause differences and where the best plces to
put my money are. If others wish to do it differently, that's up to them.

So now audiophile only need to prove things only for themselves,
right? So we're clear on this.

Btw, I have a Bedini Ultra Clarifier it works wonder on my cd's. There
is to be no problem with this to you, am I correct to assume this?


Just as you do, why do you feel it necessary to be suspicious when other
audiophiles express their fascination among the distinctive sounds of
various gears ?

Because many of the claims that are made about such sounds are known to be
impossible.

And you know this via DBT ?


YOU SEE ? No matter what they do, it simply is not possible to you isn't it
?


No, only the impossible is impossible. Some things are possible. Some
things are audible, some tings are hype. Some things can be proven to be
audible and others not.

And so, you are able to provide that much needed proof base on that.
And you can easily provide that proof if you feel that a claim belong to
one of the categories you wrote above.

Only the impossible is impossible. So now tell me how does my brain
able to detect subtle diff. when listening to cd's I spun on my ultra
clarifier ?

If it's hype, give reason why.


Stop trying to put words in my mouth.

That's an opinion you get to have.


What are some of these examples leading you to believe that distinctive
differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?


I don't have any idea about what you claim makes a difference or has made a
difference for you.

What things do you beleive made a distinctive difference?


You're becoming evasive.


What source or type of media would you advice they use when making
the comparison?


If you are comparing, you compare using whichever media you listen to most.
If you own a CD player, then that would be your reference for accuracy, but
then you knew that. If your comparing phono
cartridges...........................


Base on the procedure you are proposing above, should I then use
the CD player's ability to warm the heat sinks when making comparison
betw, say, amplifiers to find out which get hotter first when determining
the difference betw these components?

It's your methodology, tell me what to do.

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!


This is incorrect. On several levels.


Are you denying that you keep a recording of an Arnold
Krueger's phone call ?


But thanks for playing.

Strange game but if you like that...

bzzzzt!

Raoaoaoaonnnnn !

Next!

I hear it's coming.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:10:05 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!


This is incorrect. On several levels.


Are you denying that you keep a recording of an Arnold
Krueger's phone call ?

Yes I am.

But thanks for playing.

Strange game but if you like that...

bzzzzt!

Raoaoaoaonnnnn !

Next!

I hear it's coming.

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:10:05 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!


This is incorrect. On several levels.


Are you denying that you keep a recording of an Arnold
Krueger's phone call ?


Yes I am.

Are you denying that recently you was keeping a recording of
an Arnold Krueger's phone call ?

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:19:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:10:05 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!


This is incorrect. On several levels.


Are you denying that you keep a recording of an Arnold
Krueger's phone call ?


Yes I am.

Are you denying that recently you was keeping a recording of
an Arnold Krueger's phone call ?

No I'm not.

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:19:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:10:05 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil a écrit :


On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:




OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!


This is incorrect. On several levels.


Are you denying that you keep a recording of an Arnold
Krueger's phone call ?


Yes I am.

Are you denying that recently you was keeping a recording of
an Arnold Krueger's phone call ?


No I'm not.


So my point is valid.

Thank you for playing.

Next !

"Lionel" wrote in message
...

OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a "little bit"
fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the copy of the copy of a
recording of Arnold Krueger's voice for trolling purposes, only !!!!!
Quite an astonishing behaviour, I'm sure you'll agree !!!

Talk about fetishes! Your admired hero, Arny, kept
what he will fully believed to be kiddiie porn on
his hard drive for three years.



----== 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 =----

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a "little bit"
fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the copy of the copy of a
recording of Arnold Krueger's voice for trolling purposes, only !!!!!


This is incorrect. On several levels.


Are you denying that you keep a recording of an Arnold Krueger's phone
call ?


I am sure he's denying your outrageous
qualifiers.



----== 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 Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:23:24 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:19:44 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:10:05 +0100, Lionel
wrote:



dave weil a écrit :


On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 11:35:22 +0100, Lionel
wrote:




OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!


This is incorrect. On several levels.


Are you denying that you keep a recording of an Arnold
Krueger's phone call ?


Yes I am.

Are you denying that recently you was keeping a recording of
an Arnold Krueger's phone call ?


No I'm not.


So my point is valid.

No it's not. You asked the wrong questions. Here, let me help you.

"The Tape" FAQ

Did you keep a copy of AK's voice for trolling purposes only?

No.

Are there other reasons do you have for keeping the copy?

Yes. I never bothered to delete it. In fact, when I told the Devil
that I'd delete it, I didn't even know where it was on my hard drive.
Took me a while to find it, mainly because I didn't even remember the
name of the file.

Did you even keep it for trolling purposes at all?

No. Once I heard it the first time, I had no need to keep it. I just
didn't bother to delete it.

How many times did you actually listen to it?

1 1/2 - once when I first got it years ago and snippets of it later on
when I needed a good chuckle after slogging through some of Arnold's
messes. Took me a while to find it then as well.

Did you actually need to keep the recording in order to refer to it?

Not at all. I mean,how hard is it to remember "Bull****! Bull****!
Bull****!" or "Stop dumping garbage on my lawn"?

Finally, when did you delete the recording?

Last week some time. And I did it without being asked to. Also, at no
time did I share the recording with third parties, either by sending
the file or allowing anyone to hear it in any form or fashion.

I hope that this refutes your original claim (the claim was destroyed
by your use of the present tense anyway). But it was wrong in its
intent as well.

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message


You say:

" ABX is not aobut preference, it's about difference, and determing if
any
exists. It is simply another form of DBT. It is used by different
areas of audip engneering, from home audio to hearing aids. The
sole purpose for it's creation was to prove that differences DO exist"

Sorry. The codeveloper of the ABX comparator Mr. Carlstrom disagrees
with you:

"A second common misconception about ABX is the claim that an ABX test
result is not a preference...While literally true, if an ABX test
confirms a difference is heard, selecting one's preference is easy
and completely justified" (Introductory pages in his PCABX website).
Whom to believe?

The two statements are roughly analogous. The two authors agree about all of
the important details. There's no way to reasonably discuss this matter with
someone who thinks that they are irreconcilably different.

"JBorg" wrote in message
t
Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote




What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the
Twilight Zone

In other words, you don't know.

In other words the answer is well known, but naive people are mislead to
believe otherwise.

(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the
validity of the results of DBTs.

I'm tired of discussing DBT's with you because in all cases you end up
always snipping what I say.

That's because what you say Borglet, is so completely screwed up. It needs
all the correction it can get.

You do this just before you run away

No Borglet, I get tired of trying to talk sense to you because you are so
dense.

completely with your tail neatly folded and tuck between your legs.
Remember ?

Just more of your delusional bilge, Borglet.

How ya doin with them Protocols ?

Been there, done that. You rather vastly overstate your importance to
anybody but yourself, Borglet. If you want my attention, then pay attention
to what I say!

"Lionel" wrote in message


Paul Dormer a écrit :

"Arny Krueger" emitted :

Furthermore it is arguable that Dave empathises positively with
Devil's false claims related to my son's tragic death because of
the unfortunate circumstances related to the death of Dave's dad.

Yesss.... For the first time Arnold has rolled *two* personally
related tragedies into one sentence... purely for trolling purposes!!

Dormer likes to ignore the fact that these matters were set aside as part of
a truce. Middius and Briggs/England broke the truce a number of times.
Middius and Briggs are Dormer's allies. It's a pretty straight-forward
situation. Dormer's aliies break the truce and then Dormer blames their
mutual enemy for breaking the truce.

Quite an astonishing achievement, I'm sure you'll agree!!

Agreed.

In Dormer-world his actions and the actions if his allies have no
consequences. In fact un until now, Dormer was removed from this entire
situation, but decided to interject himself. How much trolling is that?

But seems to me that you're suffering from the
"selective-pitying-syndrom".

What's a pity you wasn't here recently when George M.
Middius helped by one of your compatriot have brought up
this filth on RAO.

Dormer was here, but as usual he's just trolling with current events. His
alliances with Briggs and Middius are well known. They might have planned
this all out in advance.

I'm sure that you would have found here the reason of a
deeper indignation.

Note that Dormer has no complaints about Middius and Briggs breaking the
truce.

OTOH, few days ago Dave Weil has confirmed us that he is a
"little bit" fetichist since he is jealously keeping a the
copy of the copy of a recording of Arnold Krueger's voice
for trolling purposes, only !!!!!

Right, Weil is no more innocent than Dormer. They are both strog allies of
Middius and Briggs and give their tacit approval to everything that Middius
and Briggs do. Neither of them have any problems with Briggs and Middius
trolling Krueger.

Quite an astonishing behaviour, I'm sure you'll agree !!!

Actually not, its almost exactly predictable.

But since we're having so much fun digging graves, I'd like to see Dave Weil
tell us how long his dad was dead when he trolled RAO with his demise on
that fateful Christmas day. I hope he can talk more accurately about events
in his own life, than his false claims about the time delay between my
son's death and when I first mentioned it on RAO.

dave weil a écrit :

Why should I believe you ?

I hope that this refutes your original claim (the claim was destroyed
by your use of the present tense anyway).

"Destroyed" ? The word seems a little bit strong.
An error of less than one week compare to several years of
careful archiving.

LOL, seems that you have lost your common sens Dave.....

"Destroyed" ? Sounds like a Krooborg answer to me. :-D


But it was wrong in its
intent as well.


Not at all. You are a liar.

You have use this recording to troll Arnold more than one
once so my claim is fully valid.
It is doubly victorious since I have also demonstrated that
you also are a liar.

How many Krueger's messages have you saved on your HD ?

;-)

Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote
Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote




What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the
Twilight Zone

In other words, you don't know.

In other words the answer is well known, but naive people are mislead to
believe otherwise.

(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the
validity of the results of DBTs.




I'm tired of discussing with you because your jar is empty.


Go away.

"Lionel" wrote in message


You have use this recording to troll Arnold more than one
once so my claim is fully valid.
It is doubly victorious since I have also demonstrated that
you also are a liar.

How many Krueger's messages have you saved on your HD ?

You're point is well-taken Lionel. Weil's recording of my voice is illegal
in the US, and its illegal for him to distribute or even have it. It's
essentially stolen property. Briggs/England illegally distributed it from
the UK. These guys are all petty criminals. In Weil's case I know his home
address and could conceivably have him served if not arrested for his
illegal, not to mention immoral acts.

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:15:10 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

But since we're having so much fun digging graves, I'd like to see Dave Weil
tell us how long his dad was dead when he trolled RAO with his demise on
that fateful Christmas day. I hope he can talk more accurately about events
in his own life, than his false claims about the time delay between my
son's death and when I first mentioned it on RAO.

Sep 28 1998, 12:00 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion, rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tech,
comp.sys.ibm.pc.soundcard.tech, alt.cd-rom,
comp.publish.cdrom.hardware
From: "Arny Krüger" - Find messages by this author
Date: 1998/09/28
Subject: In Memorium - Nate Krueger 1982-1998
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse

A memorial to my son, Nathan Krueger, who died Sunday at the
age of 16, is at www.pcavtech.com/Nate.

This was on Monday. So, it was the next day. I fail to see how this
makes any substantial difference in my point. Point was, your posting
of that information on RAO THE NEXT DAY is the way that we found out
about it, which is the same thing that you accuse me of doing.

OTOH, my dad had been passed away over 15 years prior, so the idea
that I was trolling for pity seems rather ludicrous. And, since I'm
Jewish by raising, Christmas Day is just another day of the week for
me.

I'd like to point out that Mr. Krueger has admitted to having fun
discussing the deaths of loved ones. personally, I think that this is
just another disgusting display from RAO's biggest hypocrite.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:24:29 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :

Why should I believe you ?


About what?

I hope that this refutes your original claim (the claim was destroyed
by your use of the present tense anyway).

"Destroyed" ? The word seems a little bit strong.
An error of less than one week compare to several years of
careful archiving.

Well, you asked me a direct question and I answered it truthfully and
exactly. Of course, you never asked me any folowup questions that were
really relevant to your original claim anyway.

LOL, seems that you have lost your common sens Dave.....

"Destroyed" ? Sounds like a Krooborg answer to me. :-D


But it was wrong in its
intent as well.


Not at all. You are a liar.

Whatever you say. However, I have no reason to lie about such a
trivial thing. Everything I wrote is the truth, whether or not you
believe me.

You have use this recording to troll Arnold more than one
once so my claim is fully valid.

But it didn't matter whether I held on to it or not. Besides, who
cares anyway? Since you are constantly trolling me every opportunity
you get, when does trolling become a 'bad thing"?

It is doubly victorious since I have also demonstrated that
you also are a liar.

I don't see how. Claiming that I'm lying isn't a demonstration of
proof. Frankly, I think you're a bit obsessed by everything I say, but
that's a topic for another time.

How many Krueger's messages have you saved on your HD ?

I have about 30 posts specifically saved because they are libelous and
false and one day, I might just decide to contribute them to a legal
action. Otherwise, depending on the retention of your newgroup server,
probably about the same number that *you* currently have. I'm sure
that you don't mind when someone accuses someone of crimes without any
basis in fact. If they are a friend of yours, it's just "fun and
games".

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 09:35:04 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message


You have use this recording to troll Arnold more than one
once so my claim is fully valid.
It is doubly victorious since I have also demonstrated that
you also are a liar.

How many Krueger's messages have you saved on your HD ?

You're point is well-taken Lionel. Weil's recording of my voice is illegal
in the US, and its illegal for him to distribute or even have it. It's
essentially stolen property. Briggs/England illegally distributed it from
the UK. These guys are all petty criminals. In Weil's case I know his home
address and could conceivably have him served if not arrested for his
illegal, not to mention immoral acts.

You're more than welcome to try.

Kinda strange that Arnold "knows my address". Bloody stalker
chuckle. Of course, for a while, he wasn't sure whether or not I
might be a guitar-slinger from Atlanta.

"JBorg" wrote in message
t
Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote
Arny Krueger wrote
JBorg wrote




What are some of these examples leading you to believe that
distinctive differences I hear is base on mystical beliefs ?

(1) Some of the cause-and-effect relationships happen only in the
Twilight Zone

In other words, you don't know.

In other words the answer is well known, but naive people are
mislead to believe otherwise.

(2) Numerous ludicrous, not to mention offensive claims about the
validity of the results of DBTs.

I'm tired of discussing with you because your jar is empty.

Not at all. In fact Borglet your problem is that my jar has more than you
can handle.

Go away.

Dream on! ;-)

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

****-for-Brains whined:

You're[sic] point is well-[sic]taken Lionel.

Grammar much? ;-) Too bad your broken spellchecker can't help you
with Krooglish. ;-) Tell us more about your high-quality university
education. ;-)


Weil's recording of my voice is illegal
in the US, and its illegal for him to distribute or even have it.
It's

I believe your legal acumen was clearly demonstrated when Mister
Wheeler sued you for defamation.

Yes, the lawsuit that I won.

How did you handle it?

Careful study of the matter suggested a unique plan of action and the plan
of action was highly sucessful.

More specifically, I determined that the court really didn't want to hear
Scott's case because it was too trivial. I determined that they would use
any reasonable technicality to dispose of it. The most obvious weak spot in
Scott's case was the service, whose validity I threw into question by not
responding to it.

Oh, right --
you astutely hid your head in the sand and hoped it would go away.

Middius, that it would go away was almost a certainty given the nature of
Scott's childish filing. In order to show actionable libel he'd have to show
a significant ongoing pattern of behavior, such as your behavior with
resepect to me. That was not in evidence and it wasn't what happened.

Excellent strategy! ;-)

Winning is worth a lot. Watching Scott humiliate himself in public with his
bragging and hooting was worth a lot.

essentially stolen property. Briggs/England

snicker

illegally distributed it from the UK.

So all of this activity regarding a tape that doesn't exist [1] is
illegal.

Sue me for presuming that facts that I doubt might be true.

You must be incensed to find out about this conspiracy against you.

No, it just shows my importance to certain people who would like one and all
to believe that they are above such things.

All of us are in on it, you know -- all of your
"enemies". We plot ways to use the nonexistent tape to destroy you.

Middius, the fact that you, Weil, Dormer, Briggs/England etc., brag about
illegal and unethical acts in public would be your problem. Thanks for
showing your true selves so clearly.

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:24:29 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

You have use this recording to troll Arnold more than one
once so my claim is fully valid.


But it didn't matter whether I held on to it or not. Besides, who
cares anyway? Since you are constantly trolling me every opportunity
you get, when does trolling become a 'bad thing"?

We finally agree, Dave. You have saved this recording to
troll Arnold Krueger. You have kept it several years on your HD.
All this exchange to come back to my original claim... LOL,
you are right Dave, you are nothing but a troll.
Don't worry since it's not a bad thing. ;-)

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:42:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I believe your legal acumen was clearly demonstrated when Mister
Wheeler sued you for defamation.

Yes, the lawsuit that I won.

Yes, I agree with this. It was obviously the correct strategy.

dave weil a écrit :

And, since I'm Jewish by raising, Christmas Day is just another day of the week for
me.

And how many "Christmas" per year Dave ?


;-)

"Lionel" wrote in message


dave weil a écrit :

And, since I'm Jewish by raising, Christmas Day is just another day
of the week for me.

And how many "Christmas" per year Dave ?

Also note that Dave thinks that there's absolutely no difference between me
mentioning my son's death the day after it happened, and his waiting for
about 15 years more or less after his father's regrettable passing, and then
announcing it on THE Christian holiday. This is particularly ironic given
that Dave says he's a Jew. Dave knows that I'm an observant Christian and
that an announcement like this would have some effect on me, particularly
considering then-recent events in my life. It was a clearly targeted move. A
kind of emotional kamikaze.

I also note that Dave's allies Middius and Briggs/England have repeatedly
falsely claimed that my son's death was a self-inflicted head shot, the
unfortunate means of Dave's father's regrettable passing. Perhaps Dave has
suggested that they use this approach in their private communications,
because of its significance to him.

It's all pretty bad stuff, but it's pure Weil. Weil is vile, and I'm not
the first to observe it.

Dave has also indicated on at least one occasions that I should off myself
in about the same means that his father used. See Dave's discussion of me
sucking a "Smith and Wesson popcycle".

Of course, to Dave this represents perfectly laudable behavior on his part,
and on the part of his allies. According to Weil if his behavior is a well a
bit questionable, "Arny made me do it".