This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website

I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on the matter.


If a single person can detect a change reliably only 0.5% more often
than by chance alone, controlled testing (including possible ABX) can
absolutely be used to confirm that ability to a high degree of certainty.



Absolutely. HOWEVER, if I wish to demonstrate THE PROBABLE ABSENCE a small
difference (say 0.22/0.17) to a level of significance of .05 I require a
very large sample.

Moreover, if 32 People all find that they can identify a given change to a
..2 certainty level the whole group requires to be aggregated and requires to
now allow the audibility of the suggested effect. However, if I insist that
ALL 32 People show a .05 certainty level I could claim (and thius what is
happening quite frequently) that no-one could hear the effect with any
significant certainty, while I have in fact data that supports the position
that the effect is audible.

For those who have not studied Statistics and wish to get a reasonable idea
of the position and why I will continue to insist on it are invited to
consult the discussion previously published in Stereophile:

The Highs & Lows of Double-Blind Testing

Do not be alarmed by the source in a subjectivist audio magazine, I feel the
discussion presented there is completely fair and allows both sides to
represent their positions well. I leave it to the genteele reader to draw
their own conclusions. Here just one quote I absolutely love:

"When data are nonsignificant, one scientist may conclude that differences
are inaudible, another may conclude that it is wiser to withhold judgment
(because, for example, it is always possible that ancillary equipment used
in the listening test masked otherwise audible differences), another may
decide to issue challenges, and a fourth scientist may decide to have spare
ribs for dinner. These four scientists, having decided what interpretation
to make when listening data are nonsignificant, may be interested in the
probability that their significance test will label data as nonsignificant
when differences are audible, forcing them to make that interpretation
rather than correctly conclude that differences are audible.

For example:
..Scientist 1 wants to know the risk of concluding that differences are
inaudible when differences are, in fact, audible.
..Scientist 2 wants to know the risk that he will withhold judgment when
differences are, in fact, audible.
..Scientist 3 wants to know the risk that he will issue challenges when
differences are, in fact, audible.
..Scientist 4 is beneath contempt because he is eating spare ribs while I am
hungry and writing this damn letter!"

You may go there by using the following:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showt...1&goto=newpost

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net

This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website

I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on the
matter.

If a single person can detect a change reliably only 0.5% more
often than by chance alone, controlled testing (including possible
ABX) can absolutely be used to confirm that ability to a high degree
of certainty.

Absolutely. HOWEVER, if I wish to demonstrate THE PROBABLE ABSENCE a
small difference (say 0.22/0.17) to a level of significance of .05 I
require a very large sample.

I really don't care about what people can't hear, I care about what people
can hear and the experiences they go through in order to do that.

As far as what people don't hear, the most important and meaningful results
are obtained when people try to hear these vanishingly small differences for
themselves. That's why the www.pcabx.com web site exists - for people to try
to hear small differences for themselves.

For example, as you may know, several of us have reliably heard small
diffrences between good power amps. Knowing what we went through to
accomplish that, and what we actually heard in terms of an audible
difference, is the most personally important finding.

Would I even spit in a bucket over the difference I heard? No way!

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on double-blind
testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on double-blind
testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

Except this isn't an artible about double-blind testing. It's really true
confessions and misapprehensions of people who are pretty clueless about
even the basics of subjective testing.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Michael McKelvy" said:

If a single person can detect a change reliably only 0.5% more
often than by chance alone, controlled testing (including possible
ABX) can absolutely be used to confirm that ability to a high degree
of certainty.

snip

There's a guy in RATubes, who's totally freaked out, but has genial
oneliners.

One of them is: "Build an amp. Enjoy the music".

The DBT viewpoint has long been: "Obtain a good amp by whaterver means and
enjoy the music".

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big point out of
trivail spelling errors:

Correction:

Except this isn't an article about double-blind testing. It's really
true confessions and misapprehensions of people who are pretty
clueless about even the basics of subjective testing.

"Arny Krueger" said:

One of them is: "Build an amp. Enjoy the music".

The DBT viewpoint has long been: "Obtain a good amp by whaterver means and
enjoy the music".

DIY has more to offer, and I don't mean just value for money .

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

One of them is: "Build an amp. Enjoy the music".

The DBT viewpoint has long been: "Obtain a good amp by whaterver
means and enjoy the music".

DIY has more to offer, and I don't mean just value for money .

What's unclear about "By whatever means"?

I would not presume to trash one man's preference for a commercial amp, or
another man's preference for an amp he built himself.

Either way, I've been there and done that, many times.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message



The 'borg viewpoint is: "Music is un-suitable for testing, LOt"S.

Odd that no such statement can be found in the google archives.

Middius, might that be because you are lying, big time?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

Except this isn't an artible about double-blind testing. It's really
true confessions and misapprehensions of people who are pretty clueless
about even the basics of subjective testing.

It looks as if you didn't read it, Mr. Krueger. The meat of the reprint
is an article by Les Leventhal, of the University of Manitoba's Psychology
Department, based on his Audio Engineering Society paper, "How
Conventional Statistical Analyses Can Prevent Finding Audible Differences
In Listening Tests," Preprint 2275 (C-9), which had been presented at the
79th AES Convention in New York, October 1985 and later reprinted in the
JAES, meaning it had passed peer review.

In addition to Mr. Leventhal's contributions, the reprint included
comments from myself and from J. Gordon Holt, as well as from Tom
Nousaine, David Carlstrom, David Clark, and E. Brad Meyer. Are you
seriously suggesting that none of us have a clue about the "basics
of subjective testing"?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141
..
Note that Atkinson quickly becomes totally confused and transfers my
comment on a Stereophile article to an AES paper

Except this isn't an artible about double-blind testing. It's really
true confessions and misapprehensions of people who are pretty
clueless about even the basics of subjective testing.

It looks as if you didn't read it, Mr. Krueger.

It looks to me like you are free-associating, Mr. Atkinson.

The meat of the
reprint is an article by Les Leventhal, of the University of
Manitoba's Psychology Department,

It's true that your article contains very little meat Atkinson, and what
little meat it does contain was not written by you.

based on his Audio Engineering
Society paper, "How Conventional Statistical Analyses Can Prevent
Finding Audible Differences In Listening Tests," Preprint 2275 (C-9),
which had been presented at the 79th AES Convention in New York,
October 1985 and later reprinted in the JAES, meaning it had passed
peer review.

My comments also seem apply to Levinthal's paper, as the subsequent
disembowelments of it in the JAES (cited below) show quite clearly.

Leventhal's little rant passed peer review just long enough for subsequent
disembowelment.

BTW Atkinson, you left out the two published corrections/partial retractions
by Levinthal.

Then there are the subsequent JAES papers that disemboweled Leventhal's
papers:

Comments on "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of
Listening Tests" and Author's Replies 674942 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Shanefield, Daniel; Clark, David; Nousaine, Tom; Leventhal, Les
Publication: Volume 35 Number 7/8 pp. 567·572; July 1987

Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests 468821 bytes (CD
aes5)
Author(s): Burstein, Herman
Publication: Volume 37 Number 5 pp. 363·367; May 1989
Abstract: A simple transformation of classical binomial confidence limits
provides exact confidence limits for the results of a listening test, such
as the popular ABX test. These limits are for the proportion of known
correct responses, as distinguished from guessed correct responses.
Similarly, a point estimate is obtained for the proportion of known correct
responses. The transformed binomial limits differ, often markedly, from
those obtained by the Bayesian method.

Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX Testing 442116
bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Burstein, Herman
Publication: Volume 36 Number 11 pp. 879·883; November 1988
Abstract: When sampling from a dichotomous population with an assumed
proportion p of events having a defined characteristic, the binomial
distribution is the appropriate statistical model for accurately
determining: type 1 error risk (symbol); type 2 error risk (symbol); sample
size n based on specified (symbol) and (symbol) and assumptions about p; and
critical c (minimum number of events to satisfy a specified [symbol]). Table
3 in [1] pre;sents such data for a limited number of sample sizes and p
values. To extend the scope of Table 3 to most n and p, we present
approximation formulas of substantial accuracy, based on the normal
distribution as an approximation of the binomial.

In addition to Mr. Leventhal's contributions, the reprint included
comments from myself and from J. Gordon Holt, as well as from Tom
Nousaine, David Carlstrom, David Clark, and E. Brad Meyer.

Inability to distinguish between the Stereophile article I mentioned, and an
AES paper I didn't mention noted.

Are you
seriously suggesting that none of us have a clue about the "basics
of subjective testing"?

Since "the none of us"were from an AES paper I wasn't commenting on, I'm not
commenting on them.

Are you totally confused or what, Atkinson? Why are you so hot to cite a
paper that was subsequently debunked so thoroughly?

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:50:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big point out of
trivail spelling errors:

As do you, of course.

dave weil said:

Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big point out of
trivail spelling errors:

As do you, of course.

According to Arny-logic, he would be an Atkinson supporter as well as
a "normal" (note quotation marks as to not confuse Arny any further).
Who said a negative can't be proven?

;-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141

Note that Atkinson quickly becomes totally confused and transfers my
comment on a Stereophile article to an AES paper

As I said, Mr. Krueger, you didn't appear to read the article at the
link
I gave, which includes a summarized version of the text of Professor
Leventhal's AES paper. That's why I pointed this out to you.

Except this isn't an artible about double-blind testing. It's really
true confessions and misapprehensions of people who are pretty
clueless about even the basics of subjective testing.

It looks as if you didn't read it, Mr. Krueger...

snip of Mr. Kruger's opinoions of the Leventhal AES paper, which I
am sure he believes to be true but are irrelevant to the specific
point
I was making

In addition to Mr. Leventhal's contributions, the reprint included
comments from myself and from J. Gordon Holt, as well as from Tom
Nousaine, David Carlstrom, David Clark, and E. Brad Meyer.

Inability to distinguish between the Stereophile article I mentioned,
and an AES paper I didn't mention noted.

As I pointed out, the article and the AES paper are essentially the
same.
However, the Stsreophile article includes comments form several
authors,
not just Leventhal, which you would have known had you read past the
first
page. :-)

Are you seriously suggesting that none of us have a clue about the
"basics of subjective testing"?

Since "the none of us" were from an AES paper I wasn't commenting on,
I'm not commenting on them.

The authors mentioned contributed to the Stereophile article to which
you were referring, not the AES paper that was also summarized in the
article. So it is fair to assume that your comment "It's really true
confessions and misapprehensions of people who are pretty clueless
about
even the basics of subjective testing" refers to me, to Gordon Holt,
to Les Leventhal, and to Tom Nousaine, David Carlstrom, David Clark,
and
E. Brad Meyer, all of whom contribued to the Stereophile reprint to
which you were referring.

As I said, had you actually read past the first page of the article at
http://www.stereophile.com/features/141, you would have known this. As
it now stands, you are on record as stating that your associates Tom
Nousaine, David Clark, and David Carlstrom "are pretty clueless about
even the basics of subjective testing." :-)

I am sure they will explain to you that you are wrong about this. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:50:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big point out of
trivail spelling errors:

As do you, of course.

And provides further evidence for the proposition that any commentary on
spelling will itself contain a typo.

Stephen

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on double-blind
testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
Good article.
I've subscribed now for a year, and IMHO, the magazine has lost it's
spice. It's still a good magazine, but, IMHO, a bit too much "The Village of
the Happy Nice People." Magnets for controversy do better in the long term.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:50:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big point out
of trivail spelling errors:

As do you, of course.

And provides further evidence for the proposition that any commentary
on spelling will itself contain a typo.

Thanks for behaving so "Normally" Stephen.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om
You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is
http://www.stereophile.com/features/141

Note that Atkinson quickly becomes totally confused and transfers my
comment on a Stereophile article to an AES paper

As I said, Mr. Krueger, you didn't appear to read the article at the
link
I gave, which includes a summarized version of the text of Professor
Leventhal's AES paper. That's why I pointed this out to you.

Except this isn't an artible about double-blind testing. It's
really true confessions and misapprehensions of people who are
pretty clueless about even the basics of subjective testing.

It looks as if you didn't read it, Mr. Krueger...

snip of Mr. Kruger's opinoions of the Leventhal AES paper, which I
am sure he believes to be true but are irrelevant to the specific
point
I was making

Snip Atkinson's gratuitous snippage on the grounds of egregious snippage.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
Good article.

It's a biased misleading POS designed to appeal to people who want to
believe in magic, not science.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:08:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
Good article.

It's a biased misleading POS designed to appeal to people who want to
believe in magic, not science.

From the article:

The ABX Comparator system, which I helped develop, has been refined
during the 10 years of its existence by the suggestions of many
audiophiles and scientists. Some hardware improvements of this system
can even be traced to the pages of this magazine (Vol.5 No.5). Other
inputs have resulted in the development of double-blind listening
tests which require no switching. The reason for perfecting listening
tests is to develop the ability to hear sonic improvements when they
exist as sound, rather than as mere claims. To quote the esteemed J.
Gordon Holt on the subject of double-blind testing, "The losers will
be the dissemblers, the frauds, and those skilled in the art of
autohype. The winners, ultimately, will be music and the rest of us
who are interested in the maximal fidelity of reproduced music."—David
Clark
--------------------
Does Mr. Clark now consider you a turncoat, since you've in essence
called him a POS?

Then of course, there's this bit of POS:

"The human brain is best at making sense out of nonsense. Humans tend
to find differences and distinctions whether they exist or not. The
research of Richard M. Warren, Diana Deutsch, and others, confirms
that humans can decipher a word obscured by noise as much as a minute
after a sentence was spoken (footnote 8). This same potential can, at
times, create the wrong word. We can misunderstand and still believe
firmly we heard a word different than the one spoken. This is not a
defect. It allowed our ancestors to survive by detecting threats
through noise. Sometimes they overreacted and called out defences when
no mastodon approached. This did no harm".
---------------------

Totally absurd, innit, Arnold? Taling about prehistoric mammals and
all. What does *that* have to do with audio? Plus, everyone knows how
short the auditory memory is. Who does this guy think he is, going
against conventional wisdom like that?

Once again, RAO should applaud you for alerting it to the horribly
misleading POS that Mr. Atkinson has attempted to foist upon it.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:08:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is
http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
Good article.

It's a biased misleading POS designed to appeal to people who want to
believe in magic, not science.

From the article:

The ABX Comparator system, which I helped develop, has been refined
during the 10 years of its existence by the suggestions of many
audiophiles and scientists. Some hardware improvements of this system
can even be traced to the pages of this magazine (Vol.5 No.5). Other
inputs have resulted in the development of double-blind listening
tests which require no switching. The reason for perfecting listening
tests is to develop the ability to hear sonic improvements when they
exist as sound, rather than as mere claims. To quote the esteemed J.
Gordon Holt on the subject of double-blind testing, "The losers will
be the dissemblers, the frauds, and those skilled in the art of
autohype. The winners, ultimately, will be music and the rest of us
who are interested in the maximal fidelity of reproduced music."-David
Clark

--------------------
Does Mr. Clark now consider you a turncoat, since you've in essence
called him a POS?

The logical flaw here is that the presence of one or even a few true facts
and well-considered opinions in an article does not prevent the entire
article from still being on balance, a POS. I suspect that Weil would be
able to detect this flaw in someone else's writing, but being highly
challenged in the self-awareness department, he missed this critical point
in his own writing.

Note that neither Weil nor Atkinson quoted the following paragraph from the
Stereophile aritcle on RAO:

"Les Leventhal's critique of the statistical analysis commonly used in blind
subjective testing is misleading, erroneous, and borders on the incompetent.
His letter is written in a style that prompts the casual reader to think
"Someone has finally figured out what's wrong with all those blind tests
where they don't hear anything." Not only has Leventhal failed to prove his
case; he has demonstrated his own lack of understanding of how the
audiophile benefits from double-blind testing. "

Dave was being a gentleman at this point and didn't call Leventhal's
weirdness a POS. But he pretty well communicated the same basic idea.

Apparently, the absence of a snapply comeback from Atkinson means that he
reread page 5 of his own article.

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 07:28:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:08:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is
http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
Good article.

It's a biased misleading POS designed to appeal to people who want to
believe in magic, not science.

From the article:

The ABX Comparator system, which I helped develop, has been refined
during the 10 years of its existence by the suggestions of many
audiophiles and scientists. Some hardware improvements of this system
can even be traced to the pages of this magazine (Vol.5 No.5). Other
inputs have resulted in the development of double-blind listening
tests which require no switching. The reason for perfecting listening
tests is to develop the ability to hear sonic improvements when they
exist as sound, rather than as mere claims. To quote the esteemed J.
Gordon Holt on the subject of double-blind testing, "The losers will
be the dissemblers, the frauds, and those skilled in the art of
autohype. The winners, ultimately, will be music and the rest of us
who are interested in the maximal fidelity of reproduced music."-David
Clark

--------------------
Does Mr. Clark now consider you a turncoat, since you've in essence
called him a POS?

The logical flaw here is that the presence of one or even a few true facts
and well-considered opinions in an article does not prevent the entire
article from still being on balance, a POS. I suspect that Weil would be
able to detect this flaw in someone else's writing, but being highly
challenged in the self-awareness department, he missed this critical point
in his own writing.

Sorry Charlie, you've missed the boat again. Just like you did on the
PA issue...you know, the one that I scared you off of.

Note that neither Weil nor Atkinson quoted the following paragraph from the
Stereophile aritcle on RAO:

"Les Leventhal's critique of the statistical analysis commonly used in blind
subjective testing is misleading, erroneous, and borders on the incompetent.
His letter is written in a style that prompts the casual reader to think
"Someone has finally figured out what's wrong with all those blind tests
where they don't hear anything." Not only has Leventhal failed to prove his
case; he has demonstrated his own lack of understanding of how the
audiophile benefits from double-blind testing. "

Dave was being a gentleman at this point and didn't call Leventhal's
weirdness a POS. But he pretty well communicated the same basic idea.

Well, he didn't show *how* it was "misleading, erroneous and borders
on the incompetent". Anyone can say anything they want but it doesn't
make it true.

Apparently, the absence of a snapply comeback from Atkinson means that he
reread page 5 of his own article.

Ahhhh, as I suspected, a typical Sunday morning for Arnold. Sitting at
the ready by the computer terminal, waiting to pounce. Frankly, I find
that odd for such a religious person that he has to get wound up for
church by engaging in battle on RAO. But it's almost like clockwork.

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 07:28:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:08:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

You didn't include the link to the Stereophile article on
double-blind testing. It is
http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

John,
Good article.

It's a biased misleading POS designed to appeal to people who want
to believe in magic, not science.

From the article:

The ABX Comparator system, which I helped develop, has been refined
during the 10 years of its existence by the suggestions of many
audiophiles and scientists. Some hardware improvements of this
system can even be traced to the pages of this magazine (Vol.5
No.5). Other inputs have resulted in the development of
double-blind listening tests which require no switching. The reason
for perfecting listening tests is to develop the ability to hear
sonic improvements when they exist as sound, rather than as mere
claims. To quote the esteemed J. Gordon Holt on the subject of
double-blind testing, "The losers will be the dissemblers, the
frauds, and those skilled in the art of autohype. The winners,
ultimately, will be music and the rest of us who are interested in
the maximal fidelity of reproduced music."-David Clark

--------------------
Does Mr. Clark now consider you a turncoat, since you've in essence
called him a POS?

The logical flaw here is that the presence of one or even a few true
facts and well-considered opinions in an article does not prevent
the entire article from still being on balance, a POS. I suspect
that Weil would be able to detect this flaw in someone else's
writing, but being highly challenged in the self-awareness
department, he missed this critical point in his own writing.

Sorry Charlie, you've missed the boat again. Just like you did on the
PA issue...you know, the one that I scared you off of.

Note that neither Weil nor Atkinson quoted the following paragraph
from the Stereophile aritcle on RAO:

"Les Leventhal's critique of the statistical analysis commonly used
in blind subjective testing is misleading, erroneous, and borders on
the incompetent. His letter is written in a style that prompts the
casual reader to think "Someone has finally figured out what's wrong
with all those blind tests where they don't hear anything." Not only
has Leventhal failed to prove his case; he has demonstrated his own
lack of understanding of how the audiophile benefits from
double-blind testing. "

Dave was being a gentleman at this point and didn't call Leventhal's
weirdness a POS. But he pretty well communicated the same basic idea.

Well, he didn't show *how* it was "misleading, erroneous and borders
on the incompetent". Anyone can say anything they want but it doesn't
make it true.

There was no editing of what Clark submitted to Stereophile, is that what
you want us to believe?

Noted - Weil's iability to follow up on highly relevant refereed technical
papers whose abstracts were recently posted on RAO.

Bottom line - Weil is trying to create the impression that Lenventhal's
weirdness was never effectively rebutted, based solely his reading of a
Stereophile article.

What really happened is that the AES saw through Leventhal's weirdness
almost instantly. They published his paper to avoid claims that they had
whitewashed the issue. Then had their best folks, but folks not directly
connected with Clark, do the right and honest thing with it. Good show!

Apparently, the absence of a snapply comeback from Atkinson means
that he reread page 5 of his own article.

Ahhhh, as I suspected, a typical Sunday morning for Arnold. Sitting at
the ready by the computer terminal, waiting to pounce. Frankly, I find
that odd for such a religious person that he has to get wound up for
church by engaging in battle on RAO. But it's almost like clockwork.

IOW, Weil has nothing to respond with but his usual posturing and BS. He
knows that he's been nailed again, and is well into the obligatory RAO
Normals pity party.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 12:50:14 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big point out
of trivail spelling errors:

As do you, of course.

And provides further evidence for the proposition that any commentary
on spelling will itself contain a typo.

Thanks for behaving so "Normally" Stephen.

And who was the last person I caught at this 'offence'?

Me.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 07:28:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 05:08:52 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
link.net...
This is excerpted from a thread on the diyaudio.com website
I thought Arny might wish to weigh in either here or there on
the matter.

[snip]

Ahhhh, as I suspected, a typical Sunday morning for Arnold. Sitting at
the ready by the computer terminal, waiting to pounce. Frankly, I find
that odd for such a religious person that he has to get wound up for
church by engaging in battle on RAO. But it's almost like clockwork.

IOW, Weil has nothing to respond with but his usual posturing and BS. He
knows that he's been nailed again, and is well into the obligatory RAO
Normals pity party.

Dave, Arny's church meets Saturday at midnight in the church basement. The
crosses are turned upside down.
Arny's just coming off a binge.

I particularly enjoyed this Krueger piece, since the cogency far exceeds
anything I've read by him:

"If ironies could kill little by little, go order a diet! Just nibbling
throughout a ball behind the corner is too new for Roberta to mould it.
Except this isn't an artible about double-blind testing. Just now Varla
will fear the boat, and if Ronnie annually calls it too, the shopkeeper will
live before the fresh navel. He should creep eerily, unless Catherine talks
tailors on Jadallah's twig. If the kind pens can kill furiously, the short
coffee may solve more oceans. Her code was fat, urban, and cleans between
the evening. Sometimes, Osama never recommends until Said departs the
polite goldsmith stupidly. Tell Ghassan it's heavy improving beneath a
sighted listening test. Will you kick behind the spring, if Ronnie wrongly
tastes the sticker? Plenty of caps will be young weak frogs. Frederic,
between tyrants angry and pretty, behaves without it, arriving weekly."

"Atkinson's gratuitous snippage on the grounds of egregious snippage smells
a plate too think to her bad hallway. How doesn't Middius irrigate
bimonthly? They are helping in front of weird, near long, among wide
speaker placement. Otherwise the yogi in Gul's player might lift some
sweet pickles."

"It looks to me like you are free-associating, Mr. Atkinson. A lot of tags
virtually move the lean canyon. Who does Gul expect so wistfully, whenever
Frederic irritates the shallow teacher very smartly? I was seeking to grasp
you some of my distant dogs."

"For Middius the can's sick, before me it's durable, whereas in back of you
it's recollecting worthwhile. The outer ache rarely burns Dave, it opens
Carte Blanche instead. Estefana's pumpkin pulls throughout our game with a
hum problem. Are you totally confused or what, Atkinson? Why are you so hot
to cite a paper that was subsequently debunked so thoroughly? More complex
crossover networks are not unusual with higher quality speakers."

"There was no editing of what Clark submitted to Stereophile, is that what
you want us to believe? He'll be answering above filthy Ikram until his smog
walks halfheartedly. ****ing don't explain the dusts mercilessly, sow them
regularly. Until Martin measures the pins tamely, Samuel won't jump any
inner mirrors. Other closed ugly enigmas will scold eventually beneath
raindrops. Weil is trying to create the impression that Lenventhal's
weirdness was never effectively rebutted, based solely his reading of a
Stereophile article. To be noisy or strange will fill rural exits to
hatefully look. What really happened is that the AES saw through
Leventhal's weirdness almost instantly. She wants to laugh sour tapes
around Francoise's desert. Some units receive, promise, and change.
Others sadly cover. Almost no dark blank trees will inadvertently excuse
the cars. He might pour simply if Daoud's walnut isn't quiet. The puddles,
jars, and counters are all good and wet. It might truly attempt above Abdul
when the bizarre jugs care without the empty lake. Almost no upper tickets
are cheap and other stupid grocers are dry, but will George reject that?
She should wander once, learn absolutely, then dream over the porter below
the doorway. Abu dines the farmer in front of hers and neatly plays. Let's
dye at the tired lights, but don't converse the smart oranges. She'd
rather cook incredibly than shout with Abdel's cosmetic shirt. A lot of
humble light cup judges candles throughout Candy's solid ointment. He knows
that he's been nailed again, and is well into the obligatory RAO Normals
pity party."

"What's unclear about "By whatever means"? It helped, you irrigated, yet
Vincent never seemingly conversed
in the barn. We clean them, then we nearly comb Jbilou and Beth's rich
lemon. Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big point out
of trivail spelling errors we pour the full egg. Get your surprisingly
cooking barber about my bathroom. When did Hala dream beside all the
kettles? We can't improve floors unless Youssef will usably dine
afterwards."

"It's really true confessions and misapprehensions of people who are pretty
clueless about even the basics of subjective testing. All dirty weaver or
moon, and she'll lazily call everybody. Who tastes grudgingly, when
Salahuddin recommends the lower potter before the ceiling? You won't
believe me laughing around your clean market. If you will care Vincent's
swamp in back of cases, it will hourly expect the coconut. It's very
healthy today, I'll judge wickedly or Felix will irritate the cards. While
poultices steadily mould bushs, the carpenters often solve outside the open
hens. She will nibble the elder ulcer and shout it alongside its winter.
Plenty of hollow papers learn Satam, and they loudly grasp Mustapha too."

"Thanks for behaving so "Normally" Stephen. Plenty of lost blunt lentils
badly move as the clever spoons creep. Leventhal's little rant passed peer
review just long enough for subsequent disembowelment.We sneakily depart
through hot strong drawers."

Are you totally confused or what, Atkinson? Why are you so hot to cite a
paper that was subsequently debunked so thoroughly? As strangely as
Madeleine looks, you can scold the bowl much more frantically. Middius,
might that be because you are lying, big time? Occasionally, envelopes hate
over sad ventilators, unless they're younger. Who Catherine's rude cobbler
wastes, Tim attempts behind sticky, unique signals. Mel, still covering,
smells almost fully, as the jacket excuses inside their sauce. Both
arriving now, Ghassan and Grover received the lazy foothills below difficult
hat. I was opening buckets to handsome Walt, who's wandering outside the
painter's shower. They are seeking alongside the lane now, won't fill shoes
later. Are you empty, I mean, kicking outside dirty powders? Either way,
I've been there and done that, many times.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
news

"If ironies could kill little by little, go order a diet! Just
nibbling throughout a ball behind the corner is too new for Roberta
to mould it. Except this isn't an artible about double-blind testing.
Just now Varla will fear the boat, and if Ronnie annually calls it
too, the shopkeeper will live before the fresh navel. He should
creep eerily, unless Catherine talks tailors on Jadallah's twig. If
the kind pens can kill furiously, the short coffee may solve more
oceans. Her code was fat, urban, and cleans between the evening.
Sometimes, Osama never recommends until Said departs the polite
goldsmith stupidly. Tell Ghassan it's heavy improving beneath a
sighted listening test. Will you kick behind the spring, if Ronnie
wrongly tastes the sticker? Plenty of caps will be young weak frogs.
Frederic, between tyrants angry and pretty, behaves without it,
arriving weekly."

"For Middius the can's sick, before me it's durable, whereas in back
of you it's recollecting worthwhile. The outer ache rarely burns
Dave, it opens Carte Blanche instead. Estefana's pumpkin pulls
throughout our game with a hum problem. Are you totally confused or
what, Atkinson? Why are you so hot to cite a paper that was
subsequently debunked so thoroughly? More complex crossover networks
are not unusual with higher quality speakers."


He'll be answering above filthy Ikram
until his smog walks halfheartedly. ****ing don't explain the dusts
mercilessly, sow them regularly. Until Martin measures the pins
tamely, Samuel won't jump any inner mirrors. Other closed ugly
enigmas will scold eventually beneath raindrops. Weil is trying to
create the impression that Lenventhal's weirdness was never
effectively rebutted, based solely his reading of a Stereophile
article. To be noisy or strange will fill rural exits to hatefully
look. What really happened is that the AES saw through Leventhal's
weirdness almost instantly. She wants to laugh sour tapes around
Francoise's desert. Some units receive, promise, and change. Others
sadly cover. Almost no dark blank trees will inadvertently excuse
the cars. He might pour simply if Daoud's walnut isn't quiet. The
puddles, jars, and counters are all good and wet. It might truly
attempt above Abdul when the bizarre jugs care without the empty
lake. Almost no upper tickets are cheap and other stupid grocers are
dry, but will George reject that? She should wander once, learn
absolutely, then dream over the porter below the doorway. Abu dines
the farmer in front of hers and neatly plays. Let's dye at the tired
lights, but don't converse the smart oranges. She'd rather cook
incredibly than shout with Abdel's cosmetic shirt. A lot of humble
light cup judges candles throughout Candy's solid ointment. He knows
that he's been nailed again, and is well into the obligatory RAO
Normals pity party."


It helped, you irrigated,
yet Vincent never seemingly conversed
in the barn. We clean them, then we nearly comb Jbilou and Beth's
rich lemon. Since the normals who support Atkinson love to make a big
point out of trivail spelling errors we pour the full egg. Get your
surprisingly cooking barber about my bathroom. When did Hala dream
beside all the kettles? We can't improve floors unless Youssef will
usably dine afterwards."

All
dirty weaver or moon, and she'll lazily call everybody. Who tastes
grudgingly, when Salahuddin recommends the lower potter before the
ceiling? You won't believe me laughing around your clean market. If
you will care Vincent's swamp in back of cases, it will hourly expect
the coconut. It's very healthy today, I'll judge wickedly or Felix
will irritate the cards. While poultices steadily mould bushs, the
carpenters often solve outside the open hens. She will nibble the
elder ulcer and shout it alongside its winter. Plenty of hollow
papers learn Satam, and they loudly grasp Mustapha too."


Plenty of lost blunt
lentils badly move as the clever spoons creep. Leventhal's little
rant passed peer review just long enough for subsequent
disembowelment.We sneakily depart through hot strong drawers."


As
strangely as Madeleine looks, you can scold the bowl much more
frantically. Middius, might that be because you are lying, big time?
Occasionally, envelopes hate over sad ventilators, unless they're
younger. Who Catherine's rude cobbler wastes, Tim attempts behind
sticky, unique signals. Mel, still covering, smells almost fully, as
the jacket excuses inside their sauce. Both arriving now, Ghassan
and Grover received the lazy foothills below difficult hat. I was
opening buckets to handsome Walt, who's wandering outside the
painter's shower. They are seeking alongside the lane now, won't
fill shoes later. Are you empty, I mean, kicking outside dirty
powders? Either way, I've been there and done that, many times.

Easily one of the more lucid items you've ever posted here, Moron. Keep up
the good work and maybe they'll give you that PhD after all.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Easily one of the more lucid items you've ever posted here, Moron. Keep up
the good work and maybe they'll give you that PhD after all.

"Name-calling seems to be about your maximum level of intellectual
discussion, Sander. " -Arny Krueger, RAO, 4/9/2004.

Nice job, Arny.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Easily one of the more lucid items you've ever posted here, Moron.
Keep up the good work and maybe they'll give you that PhD after all.

"Name-calling seems to be about your maximum level of intellectual
discussion, Sander. " -Arny Krueger, RAO, 4/9/2004.

Nice job, Arny.

Just like you Normals to make a big fuss over a simple typo....

"Arny Krueger" said:

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

Easily one of the more lucid items you've ever posted here, Moron.
Keep up the good work and maybe they'll give you that PhD after all.

"Name-calling seems to be about your maximum level of intellectual
discussion, Sander. " -Arny Krueger, RAO, 4/9/2004.

Nice job, Arny.

Just like you Normals to make a big fuss over a simple typo....

"Middius made me do it? "
Lame, Arny.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 07:28:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote about the article at http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .
Dave was being a gentleman at this point and didn't call Leventhal's
weirdness a POS. But he pretty well communicated the same basic idea.

Well, he didn't show *how* it was "misleading, erroneous and borders
on the incompetent". Anyone can say anything they want but it doesn't
make it true.

There was no editing of what Clark submitted to Stereophile, is that
what you want us to believe?

For the record, there was no editing of David Clark's contribution to
this article, other than to correct spelling and syntax, as appopriate.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Arny:

At the time the Stereophile article was written or at any point since, has
Dave Clark had any financial in ABX devices?

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
ink.net


At the time the Stereophile article was written or at any point
since, has Dave Clark had any financial (interest) in ABX devices?

Good question. I don't remember if we had sold ABX by 1985 or not. That's
when his financial interest in ABX ended.

(John Atkinson) wrote in message . com...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 07:28:56 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote about the article at http://www.stereophile.com/features/141 .
Dave was being a gentleman at this point and didn't call Leventhal's
weirdness a POS. But he pretty well communicated the same basic idea.

Well, he didn't show *how* it was "misleading, erroneous and borders
on the incompetent". Anyone can say anything they want but it doesn't
make it true.

There was no editing of what Clark submitted to Stereophile, is that
what you want us to believe?

For the record, there was no editing of David Clark's contribution to
this article, other than to correct spelling and syntax, as appopriate.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


I reread the discussion about ABX/DBT method in the
1985 "Stereophile' .

Essentially it turned on the question of how large a
sample (ie. how many subjects) the experimenter needed to make his
results credible. Leventhal made a strong case that small numbers of
repeat trials do not allow detection of "subtle' differences between
components.

It seems to me that his arguments are almost self
–evident for research aiming to produce credible information on a
well-defined end point (eg. is phase reversal or what amount of
frequency change becomes audible to a selected panel. )

But there are more forceful reasons to deny any
interest to the DBT/ABX when proposed as a method for the use of
audio consumers.

The hypothesis is that DBT removes sighted bias that
leads to imaginary, false perceptions but does not interfere with
perceptions of audible differences between audio components when such
are truly present. The corollary assertion is; if you can not prove
them by a "bias controlled test" your perceptions of
differences/preferences are just illusions due to "sighted bias"
Any hypothesis needs research validation. Even
DBT/ABX.
A little history: The modern definition of DBT can be
dated. In 1947 the Medical Research Ccil of UK. entrusted a
statistician Bradford Hill with the task of defining a reliable method
of testing treatment innovations in medicine. The result was "Double
blind" (neither the doctor nor the patient knows if the pill he is
getting is inert or a new drug), "Randomised" (the two groups ie.
controls on inactive placebo and those on the drug under research are
selected at lottery random), "Statistically significant" sample ie.
the numbers large enough to give statistically valid results and to
comprise a population sample inclusive of age, gender, race and other
relevant factors As a result the research sample may run into tens of
thousands, and take years. At that, as often as not, the results are
bitterly contested as statistically inadequate. However nothing less
has the slightest chance of being considered by a reputable medical
journal.; eg. The Lancet, New Engl. J.Med, British
Med.J.,J.Am.Med.Ass., Circulation etc. (There are hundreds out there
so anyone can get something printed somewhere including "therapeutic
touch" and "reflexology"). The end point is clearly defined and
verifiable by a structural body change (eg. recovery), laboratory and
Xray changes. (Psychiatric research is a special case with different
criteria)

Two questions arise when applied to audio:
" How do you get a representative test sample?" and "Has your test
method been validated- proved to do the job?"

This is how Sir Bradford Hill and Sir Richard Doll
established the link between smoking and lung cancer. In 1951 they
asked 40.000 British physicians about their smoking habits. In 1954
they reviewed their health status and causes of death and proved
conclusively that smoking caused cancer.

The sample was large, randomized (no added
selection of subjects), bias -controlled, (at the outset neither the
subjects nor the investigators had an axe to grind), double-blind (the
subjects did not know the investigators and could not be influenced by
them), controlled- the nonsmokers being a control group and last but
not least prospective ie. rather than collecting the evidence
backwards perhaps with preconceived ideas they let the future decide
the outcome.

The link between smoking and lung cancer was
conclusively established for the British physicians. It was later
shown that other factors eg. occupation (coalmining, asbestos) play a
part.

A personal recollection. In 1950 I was a senior house
physician ( equivalent to a resident in North America) in an
infectious diseases hospital in London. One day 27 patients with
typhoid fever arrived from one boat sailing from India – Ss. Mooltan.

The mortality from typhoid used to be invariably
around 50%. Those patients were lucky. We got a limited supply of a
newly discovered antibiotic (chloramphenicol) said to be possibly
effective for typhoid . We got 100% recovery rate after 5 days of
treatment (that was all we had). Some 50% relapsed , had to be
retreated and recovered when further supplies arrived proving that a)
at last we had specific treatment for typhoid and b) that
Salmonella Typhi was a hardy customer.

This study was not ideal: it was not double-blind, the
sample was small, it was not randomized because there was no control
group of untreated patients, the sample was unrepresentative of age,
gender, occupation social status etc But the 50% fatality rate was
reverted. Some 13 patients who would have died survived.. I did not
get a knighthood but I did not quibble. Nor did our successors
reproach us for not getting a proper control group treated by a sugar
pill. .

The ABX testing as practiced in the audio component
"listening tests" suffers from all the weaknesses of our typhoid
experiment without the excuse that lives are at stake.

Nothing was ever done to establish the "DBT/ABX
listening tests" as a valid method of differentiating components. How
can one attach any importance to the results (all negative) of the
"listening tests" reported in the audio press, (mostly in the 80s), or
to challenges from such as Mr. Nousaine, Lord Pinkerton etc. to"prove
it by a test" when the "test" was never shown to work as intended?
Where is the representative sample? Which category of
humanity hears what? Do the young hear the same as the middle aged?
Women as men? Car radio enthusiasts and chamber music players?
Musicians and electronic engineers? Trained and untrained? And so on
allowing for as much variety as the humanity offers. Further: We are
told that most participants in the listening tests can NOT hear any
difference between cables, amplifiers, preamps, CDplayers, DACS etc.
But we do not know what the majority CAN hear. Can they at least hear
differences between various types of full range loudspeakers. If not
WHO can hear WHAT difference? For that matter where is the evidence
that differences between various makes of pianos, violins, clarinets,
flutes can be heard by the ABXING "listening panels" with statistical
validity. Or do they "all sound the same" too? What kind of science is
it that offers a method that was never properly researched for
validity.

The ABX proponents are convinced that their method does
not interfere with audio perception. But they have no empirical
evidence that that is true, do they? It is rather interesting that in
Sean Olive's loudspeaker listening tests, (the largest available),
("Differences in performance….. (JAES, vol.51/9,p. 805-825,
Sept.20003) most expressed preference for some loudspeakers but in a
repeat series of tests some distinguished between them more
consistently than the others. Whom will you pick for "unbiased",
"objective" results? Just the best ones or the average? And this was
just a simplified single blind test

Granted completing such research is a daunting task.
Probably impossible. Human variety is endless. Asking every Tom, Dick
and Harry if they hear differences between one of the components in a
chain when very complex musical perceptions are offered one after the
other is asking for 50/50 guessing ratio. Which, exactly is the reason
why the poor audio listeners and do- it- yourself experimenters are
the only individual preference group constantly sniped at by the
proponents of the "objective", "scientific", "bias controlled" (choose
your own adjective) "test". You can have your choice and voice it loud
and clear of the three hundred ways of making milk into cheese, or
grapes into wine, between Pavarotti and Domingo or a Steinway and a
Baldwin No one (as yet) demands in the name of science that you put
your likes and dislikes to a "test", no one challenges you to
demonstrate your discrimination faculties ABXing or to quantify them
statistically. People involved have enough common sense to see that
subjective sensory perceptions are not the domaine of the primitive
notions of "science" ("science" like in "scientology")
But you will not get away so easily when it comes to
CDplayers or amplifiers. A charge of not so light "scientific" brigade
will trample you down. Pity the poor high-end reviewers who only try
to hold attention and make a living by hopping up the text with bits
of purple prose. Should you think their language is too florid just
pick up any wine magazine.

The perennial ABX/DBT argument continues. Various
cryptonyms are used to make this by now stale subject more innocuous
and to smuggle it past the forum ban: the latest is "the bias
controlled test", This pseudo-debate, shunned by some of the audio
forums still flourishes in others (eg. "High-end"). The message chain
is snipped by the management only when the dissenters from the
"scientific" party-line seem to be gaining a point.
Ludovic Mirabel

ludovic mirabel wrote:

My dear Ludo,

At *THIS* point on *THIS* newgroup, nobody really cares about DBT...
Do you remember the song from Otis Redding :

"Sitting on the dock of the bay
Watching the tide roll away
I'm just sitting on the dock of the bay
Wasting time"

Are you sure that you are loving to "waste time" ? :-/
Do you sincerely think that there's a place *HERE* to discuss such
'marginal' (lol) experiences ?

"Lionel" wrote in message

ludovic mirabel wrote:

My dear Ludo,

At *THIS* point on *THIS* newgroup, nobody really cares about DBT...
Do you remember the song from Otis Redding :

"Sitting on the dock of the bay
Watching the tide roll away
I'm just sitting on the dock of the bay
Wasting time"

Are you sure that you are loving to "waste time" ? :-/
Do you sincerely think that there's a place *HERE* to discuss such
'marginal' (lol) experiences ?

Actually responding to a Ludovic Mirabel post about DBT *IS* just a waste of
time.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message

ludovic mirabel wrote:

My dear Ludo,

At *THIS* point on *THIS* newgroup, nobody really cares about DBT...
Do you remember the song from Otis Redding :

"Sitting on the dock of the bay
Watching the tide roll away
I'm just sitting on the dock of the bay
Wasting time"

Are you sure that you are loving to "waste time" ? :-/
Do you sincerely think that there's a place *HERE* to discuss such
'marginal' (lol) experiences ?

Actually responding to a Ludovic Mirabel post about DBT *IS* just a waste
of time.

No problem for me Arnold.
You should know...

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message

ludovic mirabel wrote:

My dear Ludo,

At *THIS* point on *THIS* newgroup, nobody really cares about DBT...
Do you remember the song from Otis Redding :

"Sitting on the dock of the bay
Watching the tide roll away
I'm just sitting on the dock of the bay
Wasting time"

Are you sure that you are loving to "waste time" ? :-/
Do you sincerely think that there's a place *HERE* to discuss such
'marginal' (lol) experiences ?

Actually responding to a Ludovic Mirabel post about DBT *IS* just a
waste of time.

No problem for me Arnold.
You should know...

I'm not casting stones... just stating that which is obvious for regulars,
but perhaps not newbies.

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Lionel" wrote in message

ludovic mirabel wrote:

My dear Ludo,

At *THIS* point on *THIS* newgroup, nobody really cares about DBT...
Do you remember the song from Otis Redding :

"Sitting on the dock of the bay
Watching the tide roll away
I'm just sitting on the dock of the bay
Wasting time"

Are you sure that you are loving to "waste time" ? :-/
Do you sincerely think that there's a place *HERE* to discuss such
'marginal' (lol) experiences ?

Actually responding to a Ludovic Mirabel post about DBT *IS* just a
waste of time.

No problem for me Arnold.
You should know...

I'm not casting stones... just stating that which is obvious for regulars,
but perhaps not newbies.

Good... ;-)
Note, this doesn't mean that I am not curious. :O)

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:45:11 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
Actually responding to a Ludovic Mirabel post about DBT *IS* just a
waste of time.


It's a wonderful name though, you must admit.