| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#441
|
|||
|
|||
On 9/21/05 10:59 PM, in article , "Clyde
Slick" wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:YNoYe.120965$Ep.68474@lakeread02... "SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/21/05 2:34 PM, in article , "Sander deWaal" wrote: SSJVCmag said: Thanks for remembering me! How could one forget *you* :-) (newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag) Hardly necessary Good Sir! Come now, you're above this sort of petty vandalism! Live up to your promise! Be All You Can Be!! Would someone at RAP please kill this SSJVC fool? He's on the edge of inspiring an allout group to group spam war... and frankly, there's very little he can do to diminish RAO anyway. You have much to loose and little to gain. yeah, but remember, he claims that somehow he gets paid for this. It's like swatting flies on a bad day at work when you're just tending the machinery waiting for the next batch to come out. |
|
#442
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:37:51 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: said: One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the tinear scale they fall? Your expectations of reviews are unrealistic. Actually, George, this poster is touching on something you brought up in another thread when you talked about synergy. And he has a valid point, I think. Many moons ago I wrote an article for an Oz hi-fi mag where I raised this same question: how does one grade components on an absolute sound quality (as opposed to measurement) basis when no component operates in isolation, when every component's sound is determined by its synergy with the other components in the system? Taken logically, a group test of amplifiers, say, is undermined by the inevitability of some of the amps better matching the speakers being used, or the speakers providing an easier load for certain amps. Given that no component can be operated in isolation, but must be used with other, necessarily imperfect components, surely the only review with any real validity is a review of a complete system, the proviso being that if the reader fails to duplicate that exact system in every detail, the review is invalid. That said, I enjoy reviews and use them as a guide, though not as a bible. If reviewers from two or three different mags agree that a component is exceptional, it probably is--which however doesn't change what I've said above. Even the best gear must be used with sympathetic equipment, and I strongly suspect that over the years I've sold a lot of good equipment I should have kept and tried to match better. This is where an experienced dealer is probably of more use than a reviewer. Incidentally, one other area where reviews have their limitations is in their failure to tell you how reliable something is likely to be. In the end, this is vastly more important than minute differences in sound quality. |
|
#443
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9/22/05 7:42 AM, in article , "Clyde
Slick" wrote: "SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/22/05 6:48 AM, in article , "dave weil" wrote: Even Arnold isn't THAT annoying. Annoying is in the mind of the annoyed... What a hypocrite! This whole thing with started because YOU were annoyed and YOU asked us to do something about it. You could say that, but only IF you ignored the even earlier inexplicable sudden crossposting of SEVERAL RAO threads to a bunch of groups, said splatter apparently not fostered by any point other than to foster just that sort of response. REGARDLESS of the vacuous reason for that RAO hornet-baiting, a simple polite request that folks just trim it down seems to hit the Xtra-Sensitive folks here like some sort of religious attack, like a 'DON:T WALK sign were some sort of impingement on persoonal freedom and thus cause for blows. Is a confirmed lack of even a vestigal sense of humor a requirement for being an accepted regular here? |
|
#444
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#445
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 12:38:12 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote: You could say that, but only IF you ignored the even earlier inexplicable sudden crossposting of SEVERAL RAO threads to a bunch of groups, said splatter apparently not fostered by any point other than to foster just that sort of response. REGARDLESS of the vacuous reason for that RAO hornet-baiting, a simple polite request that folks just trim it down seems to hit the Xtra-Sensitive folks here like some sort of religious attack, like a 'DON:T WALK sign were some sort of impingement on persoonal freedom and thus cause for blows. Is a confirmed lack of even a vestigal sense of humor a requirement for being an accepted regular here? You yourself have been guilty of crossposting, as recently as yesterday. And if you think you're being "polite" with your comments, you're just nuts. Get over yourself and quick. The idea of repeating a crosspost is simple - SOMEONE thought it was worth sharing. If you don't like the share, it's simple - just ignore it. The rest of us MIGHT pass it along, as there are now people from the other groups possibly following the thread. You don't speak for everyone, you know. In fact, that's how you ended up infesting RAO. You have to be a bit disconcerted to be played like a fiddle by being drawn into the mire that is RAO chuckle. |
|
#446
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#447
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
pH wrote: On 21 Sep 2005 13:58:43 GMT, wrote: In rec.audio.pro pH wrote: On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: What is hight art? Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill / talent, the higher the art. What is low art? Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish. So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire airplane (the only person to ever do so - very rare skill) A rare feat, perhaps, but... "skill"? If you say so... I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum in DC with my father. There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and squirted them out on canvas. My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and that anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid $250,000 for this work. I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said that not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema. "That," I replied, "is what makes it art." He glared pretty hard at me. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#448
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#449
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum in DC with my father. There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and squirted them out on canvas. My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and that anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid $250,000 for this work. I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said that not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema. "That," I replied, "is what makes it art." He glared pretty hard at me. I even see parallels to what passes for "music" these days. Gotta agree with your father. :-) |
|
#451
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... :..continued tossing of streams of trash into the neighbor's grass, .. he, you Arny's bro, bro ? :-) on the lawn, not just the dawn |
|
#452
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: Actually, George, this poster is touching on something you brought up in another thread when you talked about synergy. And he has a valid point, I think. Many moons ago I wrote an article for an Oz hi-fi mag where I raised this same question: how does one grade components on an absolute sound quality (as opposed to measurement) basis when no component operates in isolation, when every component's sound is determined by its synergy with the other components in the system? Did you get paid by the word? ;-) I agree with Mr. Weil's opinion. Unless you can establish a correlation between your preferences and the reviewer's preferences, a review is only a rough guideline. |
|
#453
|
|||
|
|||
|
"I agree with Mr. Weil's opinion. Unless you can establish a correlation
between your preferences and the reviewer's preferences, a review is only a rough guideline." This helps not at all. If a reviewer says he likes a hot top end etc. and you concur, any gear in his current review still has no meaning to you because you haven't the duplicate system etc. by which he reports his perceptions. The mags often take the dodge suggested, find a reviewer you like because you agree and follow him. Which of course has all manner of inherent non audio mine fields and really lends nothing about really knowing about the reality of perceptions reported. Most likely the room is the source of hot high end perceptions if he reports it as a particular item in his reviews, it is about dispersion patterns and interactions with the room and the speakers Any amp, for example, said to have one type of high end or another is really a report of what that room interaction is. Reviews are almost useless for any relevant information except what one might deduce from specifications and how they are known to potentially relate to sound, such as would be evident with the radiation pattern of a speaker. |
|
#454
|
|||
|
|||
|
Scott Dorsey wrote:
snip I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum in DC with my father. There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and squirted them out on canvas. That's not art. That's fart. DAve |
|
#455
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 9/22/05 3:03 PM, in article teDYe.22433$zG1.10749@trnddc05, "DaveW"
wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: snip I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum in DC with my father. There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and squirted them out on canvas. That's not art. That's fart. DAve Fine Art... F'art... |
|
#456
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:07:20 GMT, SSJVCmag
wrote: Any crosspost silliness has been fr days now generated soley by RAO denizens intent on re-enacting the French Scene from Holy Grail. Wrong. You crossposted just yesterday. Sorry, you lose. Again. |
|
#457
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message news  On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:34:22 GMT, " wrote: "Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message news On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, " wrote: At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for something that actually exists. If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to believe. :-) Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith. But the latter is testable. ;-) Kal Yes, through a DBT protocol. |
|
#458
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message k.net... "Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" said: It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that you require proof. ] So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof of anything? How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it exists? At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no audible effect. Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God. They are not formulating any theories, they are reading a book, and beleiving what it says. Believing in God has no audible or other effect. Nobody has to pay for their belief in Shakti stones. They have to pay to won them, though, just as churchgoers have to pay for membership or tithe. I mean, somebody is paying for them, these churches aren't popping up all over the place by the grace of God, are they? You don't have to belong to a church to believe in God. nor do you have to own Shakti Stones to believe that somebody, somewhere might percieve a difference when using them. Note, I am an Agnostic. Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies. |
|
#459
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Middius" wrote in message ... duh-Mikey grunted: Tne Bug Eater desperately tries to get some of the stink off the Krooborg. How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it exists? At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for something that actually exists. Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you were lying about being an atheist. LOt"S! Thanks for admitting you don't understand what the **** is going on if the discussion rises above the level of name calling. Take responsibility for your own goof, Mickey. Say what you meant instead of relying on Normals to read your murky mire of a mind. Nowhere did I say I am now a theist. I was simply pointing out that there is a basis, albeit a flawed one) for positing the existence of a Supreme Being. |
|
#460
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Middius" wrote in message ... PD said: It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that you require proof. One of Krooger's many problems is that he assumes all tweaks are phoney and their proponents are all lying. That's a lie. Tweaks are testable and many of them are simply fraudulent on their face. If the scientific establishment were run by 'borgs, no investigations of perceived phenomena would be permitted because "proof" would be required before data can be collected. Another lie, it is perceptions that give rise to the investigation into phenomena. |
|
#461
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... " wrote in message hlink.net... I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers, because they are the most important part of any system. The implication here is that spending more on speakers will make your system sound better. Are you disputing that better speakers will make a system sound better? "As much as they can afford" suggests that there is no practical limit to the improvement you can make in this fashion; that the sound quality of your system ultimately depends on how much money you spend on your speakers. It was not my intention to imply that, most people involved in audio IME, have some idea of where the law of diminishing returns takes hold. I don't believe either of these things. I've not noticed any correlation between the price of speakers and their sound quality. I don't know what speakers you've listened to, but IME better speakers tend to be more expensive than lesser ones. Try listening to a set of Merlin VSM's and compare them to anything else at a lesser price. I predict you'll likely be hard pressed to find very many that equal their sound, and they will likely be from Dynaudio or someone using Dynaudio or Scan-Speak drivers. This is not to say that it ismpossible to build a great sounding speaker for a low price, only that the technology of driver design and speaker building comes at a price. |
|
#463
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: wrote: " Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art forms that aren't part of their generation's interest. If you're gonna do that why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa? " For the same reason we ask students to consider the art of mathmatics and history and philosophy. I've taken a lot of math and none of it was art. Pure science. There are in all of them and more those examples which set standards and the multitude which are throw aways, so too in music. I've no problem with people interested in voluntarily pursuing study of music... but I do have a problem with it being deemed necessary in an effort to preserve culture. To preserve culture is to kill it and make it stagnant. Music has always been part of the Western educational tradition, back to the Liberal Arts of the Middle Ages. Stephen, do you seriously think that this is a relevant response to Scott's declaration? It looks like a platitude to me. Also it is impossible to understand music today absent it's roots in classical forms and why it is so. Jass was a fusion of classical forms and other traditions. So yes, just hearing the current crop of music is then gruel when comppared to the feast of music spread in time and place. While I tend to subjectively agree with your assessment of the current crop I resist anyone imposing their perception of feast or gruel on anyone else. Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman). Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding from ignorance. This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's about very specific music. Is it really art if people have to be forced through elaborate reprogramming exercises before they act like they like it? Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last sentence contains several! |
|
#464
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman). Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding from ignorance. This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's about very specific music. Is it really art if people have to be forced through elaborate reprogramming exercises before they act like they like it? Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last sentence contains several! If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em |
|
#465
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman). Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding from ignorance. This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's about very specific music. Is it really art if people have to be forced through elaborate reprogramming exercises before they act like they like it? Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last sentence contains several! If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em 1. Forced? 2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises? 3. ACT like they like it? |
|
#466
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman). Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding from ignorance. This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's about very specific music. Is it really art if people have to be forced through elaborate reprogramming exercises before they act like they like it? Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last sentence contains several! If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em 1. Forced? possibly a synonym for "educated" above. 2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises? again see "education" 3. ACT like they like it? Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises didn't like the music they were being "educated" to like before they were "educated". IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same music from 50+ years later. |
|
#467
|
|||
|
|||
|
One can overdo it!
|
|
#468
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum in DC with my father. There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and squirted them out on canvas. I believe the piece is called Breakfast at Arny's. Cheers, Margaret |
|
#469
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "MINe 109" wrote in message In article . com, "ScottW" wrote: Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman). Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding from ignorance. This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's about very specific music. Is it really art if people have to be forced through elaborate reprogramming exercises before they act like they like it? Wow! Talk about a bunch of presumptions! Your last sentence contains several! If you're brave, list 'em and address 'em 1. Forced? possibly a synonym for "educated" above. Two different ways of seeing education, I suppose. 2. Elaborate reprogramming exercises? again see "education" Ditto my last comment. 3. ACT like they like it? Obviously the subjects of the "education" exercises didn't like the music they were being "educated" to like before they were "educated". In what way is that obvious? IOW, I like classical and certain kinds of traditional music, but I realize that my grandchildren see the same music from 50+ years later. Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important now than it was 50 years ago? |
|
#470
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... In article , pH wrote: On 21 Sep 2005 13:58:43 GMT, wrote: In rec.audio.pro pH wrote: On 20 Sep 2005 12:49:32 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: What is hight art? Something which takes skill / talent to accomplish; the rarer the skill / talent, the higher the art. What is low art? Something which takes no skill / talent to accomplish. So that guy in the Guinness Book of World records who ate an entire airplane (the only person to ever do so - very rare skill) A rare feat, perhaps, but... "skill"? If you say so... I remember being about nine years old and going through the Hirschorn museum in DC with my father. There was an exhibit from a fellow who took enemas of tempera paint and squirted them out on canvas. My father claimed that this was not art, that it was disgusting, and that anybody could do it. He was horrified that the artist was paid $250,000 for this work. I asked if he would be willing to do this for $250,000, and he said that not for a million dollars would he be willing to paint with an enema. "That," I replied, "is what makes it art." He glared pretty hard at me. --scott Arny might be interested in a modeling job. |
|
#471
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message k.net... "Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" said: It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that you require proof. ] So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof of anything? How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it exists? At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no audible effect. Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God. They are not formulating any theories, they are reading a book, and beleiving what it says. Believing in God has no audible or other effect. Nobody has to pay for their belief in Shakti stones. They have to pay to won them, though, just as churchgoers have to pay for membership or tithe. I mean, somebody is paying for them, these churches aren't popping up all over the place by the grace of God, are they? You don't have to belong to a church to believe in God. nor do you have to own Shakti Stones to believe that somebody, somewhere might percieve a difference when using them. Note, I am an Agnostic. Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies. |
|
#472
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... Perception is not the question, performance is. Either they perform some audible function or not. People can perceive things that aren't really happening, which is the case with Shakti Stones. The only known effect they have is in the RF area, not at audible freqencies. No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to play music for our enjoyment. Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy listening to and through is what counts |
|
#473
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/22/05 7:42 AM, in article , "Clyde Slick" wrote: "SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/22/05 6:48 AM, in article , "dave weil" wrote: Even Arnold isn't THAT annoying. Annoying is in the mind of the annoyed... What a hypocrite! This whole thing with started because YOU were annoyed and YOU asked us to do something about it. You could say that, but only IF you ignored the even earlier inexplicable sudden crossposting of SEVERAL RAO threads to a bunch of groups, said splatter apparently not fostered by any point other than to foster just that sort of response. REGARDLESS of the vacuous reason for that RAO hornet-baiting, a simple polite request that folks just trim it down seems to hit the Xtra-Sensitive folks here like some sort of religious attack, like a 'DON:T WALK sign were some sort of impingement on persoonal freedom and thus cause for blows. Is a confirmed lack of even a vestigal sense of humor a requirement for being an accepted regular here? your annoyance is no more imporant than anyone else's. |
|
#474
|
|||
|
|||
|
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 15:07:20 GMT, SSJVCmag wrote: Any crosspost silliness has been fr days now generated soley by RAO denizens intent on re-enacting the French Scene from Holy Grail. Wrong. You crossposted just yesterday. Sorry, you lose. And now we founsd out that this FRAUD has been doing the same thing on ahost of other newsgroups. He is THE BIGGEST crossposter around here!! |
|
#475
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/21/05 10:37 PM, in article YNoYe.120965$Ep.68474@lakeread02, "ScottW" wrote: "SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/21/05 2:34 PM, in article , "Sander deWaal" wrote: SSJVCmag said: Thanks for remembering me! How could one forget *you* :-) (newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag) Hardly necessary Good Sir! Come now, you're above this sort of petty vandalism! Live up to your promise! Be All You Can Be!! Would someone at RAP please kill this SSJVC fool? He's on the edge of inspiring an allout group to group spam war... and frankly, there's very little he can do to diminish RAO anyway. You have much to loose and little to gain. ScottW "SPAM WARRIOR"? Maybe Mel Gibson will play the part in the film version. |
|
#476
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/21/05 10:37 PM, in article YNoYe.120965$Ep.68474@lakeread02, "ScottW" wrote: "SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/21/05 2:34 PM, in article , "Sander deWaal" wrote: SSJVCmag said: Thanks for remembering me! How could one forget *you* :-) (newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag) Hardly necessary Good Sir! Come now, you're above this sort of petty vandalism! Live up to your promise! Be All You Can Be!! Would someone at RAP please kill this SSJVC fool? He's on the edge of inspiring an allout group to group spam war... and frankly, there's very little he can do to diminish RAO anyway. You have much to loose and little to gain. ScottW "SPAM WARRIOR"? Maybe Mel Gibson will play the part in the film version. More like Ron Levy! |
|
#477
|
|||
|
|||
|
"SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/21/05 10:59 PM, in article , "Clyde Slick" wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message news:YNoYe.120965$Ep.68474@lakeread02... "SSJVCmag" wrote in message ... On 9/21/05 2:34 PM, in article , "Sander deWaal" wrote: SSJVCmag said: Thanks for remembering me! How could one forget *you* :-) (newsgroup RAPro added as to reach mr. SSJVCmag) Hardly necessary Good Sir! Come now, you're above this sort of petty vandalism! Live up to your promise! Be All You Can Be!! Would someone at RAP please kill this SSJVC fool? He's on the edge of inspiring an allout group to group spam war... and frankly, there's very little he can do to diminish RAO anyway. You have much to loose and little to gain. yeah, but remember, he claims that somehow he gets paid for this. It's like swatting flies on a bad day at work when you're just tending the machinery waiting for the next batch to come out. Having a good day at the chicken rendering plant? |
|
#478
|
|||
|
|||
|
Goofy said: One can overdo it! Moderation in all things, foolish or wise. |
|
#479
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn said: Is teaching about the Revolutionary War less important now than it was 50 years ago? The state of Kroofulness does not admit to the possibility of learning new things. |
|
#480
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick said: No, the ultimate purpose of an audio system is to provide a means to play music for our enjoyment. Perception is IT. Whay you enjoy listening to and through is what counts For Mickey, audio has nothing to do with enjoyment. In fact, nothing in Mickey's sad existence has anything to do with enjoyment. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| John Atkinson: audio ignoramus or sleazebag? | Audio Opinions | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
