wrote in message
ink.net...


Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
offered.


Saved for future reference!!!
Note!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless
than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound
of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power
cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for
snake
oil.

Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
never tested, as "snake oil".

Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
offered.

Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
offered that they are.

You have some to offer?

So let's take the example of the component rack.
Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
"contstruction parameters").

I never said that a component rack isn't goof for turntable damping, it is.
It's other devices that they are sometimes claimed to help, which is utter
nonsense, except for the occaisonal tube amp that happens to be microphonic.

snip

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 6:04 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick"

100,000 posts later, where have your comments gotten you, braveboy?

I can see that he's made lots of friends over the years. It's in
Google. Look it up.

There's nob, and um, er, well, ah, there's nob...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:20 am
Email:

Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
attacks! And it's not *his* fault...

Nor yours either, I suppose.

A subtle difference: you don't see me whining about it.

If you whine about something, while being one of the most egregious
offenders, you are a hypocrite.

I don't whine. I comment. When it comes to George I gave up trying to
appeal to decency, and I let much of what he spews pass without comment.

It always comes down to some sort of sexual thing for you, doesn't it?

I have no idea what this relates to. Where have I 'always' referred to
sex? Enlighten me.

This bit you didn't include, seemed to be a sexual reference to me, or
should I say pur obsessed woth peckers?

I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

From:
Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:33 am
Email:

You shouldn't post after drinking, nob.

It always comes down to some sort of sexual thing for you, doesn't it?

I have no idea what this relates to. Where have I 'always' referred to
sex? Enlighten me.

This bit you didn't include, seemed to be a sexual reference to me, or
should I say pur obsessed woth peckers?

I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

I know what I said. I still don't see how that 'always comes down to
some sort of sexual thing' for me. And you still didn't answer my
question: where is this 'always' you referred to?

Or is this another baseless and twisted claim, as you are so wont to
do?

Go takes your meds, nob. Perhaps the interaction with the booze will
have some positive effect.

wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless
than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound
of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power
cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for
snake
oil.

Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
never tested, as "snake oil".

Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
offered.

Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
offered that they are.

You have some to offer?

So let's take the example of the component rack.
Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
"contstruction parameters").

I never said that a component rack isn't goof for turntable damping, it is.
It's other devices that they are sometimes claimed to help, which is utter
nonsense, except for the occaisonal tube amp that happens to be microphonic.

snip

You wrote: "believe that the construction of their component rack has
anything to do with the sound of anything other than the turntable"

I understood that to mean that you were claiming component racks can
not improve the sound quality of a turntable. Is that not what you were
claiming, and if not, then are you claiming that tweako freako
component racks DO improve the sound of a turntable? Also, WHAT
"devices" are you referring to that qualifies your claim, or do you
want to play mystery games?

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more
useless
than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs
or
that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that
the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the
sound
of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power
cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for
snake
oil.

Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
never tested, as "snake oil".

Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
offered.

Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
offered that they are.

You have some to offer?

So let's take the example of the component rack.
Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
"contstruction parameters").

I never said that a component rack isn't goof for turntable damping, it
is.
It's other devices that they are sometimes claimed to help, which is
utter
nonsense, except for the occaisonal tube amp that happens to be
microphonic.

snip

You wrote: "believe that the construction of their component rack has
anything to do with the sound of anything other than the turntable"

I understood that to mean that you were claiming component racks can
not improve the sound quality of a turntable. Is that not what you were
claiming, and if not, then are you claiming that tweako freako
component racks DO improve the sound of a turntable? Also, WHAT
"devices" are you referring to that qualifies your claim, or do you
want to play mystery games?

So you have a reading problem as well as a temper problem and a problem with
logic.
Clearly I said the only thing a component rack can help is a turntable.
There is nothing tweako freako about having a stable platform that won't
allow footfalls and other noises be introduced into the reproduction chain
of a turntable. Of course the fact that turntables allow this is yet
another indictment of their obsolescence.

I've seen people wondering what racks they should buy because they are
convinced that the right rack improves everything, not jut the turntable,
they're the same kind of folks that buy a $400.00 knob because they believe
it would make things sound better.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Jenn said:

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

I agree.

The difference being that Mickey actually believes somebody does take
those alleged "tweaks" seriously. Only Krooger is krazy enough to do
that, but Mr. ****'s religion is completely hostile to this kind of
inanity.



As opposed to you just being completely hostile.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger hypocritically wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!


In another part of your silly rant, you write:

"Prove me wrong with deeds not empty words, Jenn."

I'm still waiting for YOU to prove me wrong that the tweaks are "crazy"
and need to be "denounced" by any and all here (otherwise, according to
you, they are "cowards" if they don't denounce them, and believe they
are not valid).

If you can't prove that Arny, all you've proven is that you're a mad
bigot making unsupported claims, and not to be taken seriously.


Arny whines:

It's just an unsupported claim.

Everything you said about my tweaks or anything else you disagree with
in audio are "unsupported claims", hypocrite.


Arny whines:

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.


More hypocristy, hypocrite?

More reading problems Mr. S. That was my statement not his.


No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward. You're worse than a coward
you're
a biased coward. Like Weil you go ballistic over minor nits when they
relate
to an so-called objectivist, while you're blind and dumb when
subjectivists
**** all over the place not to mention logic and reason.

Nice rant there, you lunatic hypocrite. What was that you were saying
above about me and other "subjectivists" being foul-mouthed? What was
that you were saying you hypocrite, about "logic and reason", when all
you have offered to discount the tweaks is sweeping dismissals with no
evidence forthcoming? What's that you're saying, weasel Arnold, about
being a "biased coward", when all you've shown is biases towards the
tweaks, and then you run like a coward and ignore all the times I've
asked you to support your assertions?

The burden of proof is yours Mr. S, prove any of this stuff works, but
mostly prove the L shaped tweak, because that is clearly (to me) the most
ludicrous one of al.


Good to see you didn't try to weasel out of that, Jenn.

And yet all you've ever done is weasel out of demands for evidence that
the tweaks are not valid.

Burden of proof is stil yours. You make the claim that they work, it is
your burden to demonstrate they do.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.

Of course.

Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
respond to them when they are flung.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
short, has classed up the place by giving
everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
even more useless than it was. How low can the
so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It
doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.


Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
non-called-for insults by you, for example.

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?


The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
profanity around here. Fact.

Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.


I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
Why weasel out of your statement?

No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.

LOL In what way?

Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?

If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
threads or which people?

wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.

Of course.

Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
respond to them when they are flung.


The irony of it all!
This is in regards to Jenn's comments.
jenn was harrassed by 'obj' ARny's insults, no reason at all
for Arny to start them.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:59:28 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


What Jenn does is instead of addressing
his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.

Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.

Don't argue with Vlad, Jenn. You'll get impaled. :-)

On 16 Mar 2006 17:34:20 -0800, wrote:


paul packer wrote:

On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:

ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
RAO regulars are too stupid
valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
(of their mind).
any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
The primitive thinker of RAO
the RAO lemming

High praise indeed!

(Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

I'm sure I have NO idea. That's just what the insult-o-meter (c) came
up with.
It's kind of outdated (early 50's model). I suppose it does need a
software upgrade.

And perhaps not only it.

From:
Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
Email:

Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
respond to them when they are flung.

Translation: "They make me do it!"

I stated this yesterday and you disagreed. Now you agree.

Make up your 'mind' nob.

From:
Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 3:00 pm
Email:

nob tries to set Jenn up:

If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
threads or which people?

As Arny would say, "Look it up in Google. You want me to do your work
for you?"

And Jenn, if you do decide to post an answer to this, be aware that
you'll most likely be heading into "But you didn't criticize them hard
enough" or "But you didn't say anything to insert name here"
territory.

In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

m
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
short, has classed up the place by giving
everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
even more useless than it was. How low can the
so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It
doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.


Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
non-called-for insults by you, for example.

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?


The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
profanity around here. Fact.

Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.


I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
Why weasel out of your statement?

No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.

LOL In what way?

Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?

If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
threads or which people?

They are in the Google record.

In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.

Of course.

Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
respond to them when they are flung.

I've seen it happen both directions. It's all stupid, IMHO.

Shovels, have you forgiven me? Are we friends again?

The difference being that Mickey actually believes somebody does take
those alleged "tweaks" seriously. Only Krooger is krazy enough to do
that, but Mr. ****'s religion is completely hostile to this kind of
inanity.

There is somebody that did take my "alleged tweaks" seriously, Morc.

I don't know what to make of your butchering of Mork's name. I didn't watch
that show much, a couple times maybe. But you apparently did, enough anyway
so that it's a cultural touchstone for you. And you can't even remember how
the character's name is spelled. For shame. You need to redeploy that
shovel from snow duty to head-bashing duty, starting with your own.

That would be YOU. Did you get the name of the mule that kicked you in
the head, and made you forget what you wrote a few weeks ago?:

Is this what you're babbling about, Shovels?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...d76d3d8?hl=en&

I'm sure that proves something to a loony tune like yourself....

As to the 5-pinhole paper tweak, Morc From Orc says: "Just to clue you
in, I tried it this afternoon"

Yep. I said that. Proceed with your "proof".

Now don't you feel like a silly ass, for saying what you just did?
Seems that your religion, Morc, is completely hostile to the truth.

I dunno, Shovels. You're the one who has the problem with reality.

BTW, you went back on your promise to ignore me forevermore. That was less
than 1 day ago, and here you again, begging for more punishment. When you
were Jamie, you sprayed us with your babble-spittle for a couple of weeks
before you melted down. What's happened since then? You seem even balmier
than before.

From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:24 am
Email:

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
oil.

All of this may or may not be true.

Either way, how does any of this effect you again? (IOW, who cares?)

Oh. I forgot. You're the self-appointed Savior.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
their insults are better, or warranted, or more
justified, for some reason.

Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the insulting posts from
the usual suspects that I slough.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
their insults are better, or warranted, or more
justified, for some reason.

Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the insulting posts from
the usual suspects that I slough.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:24 am
Email:

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
oil.

All of this may or may not be true.

Either way, how does any of this effect you again? (IOW, who cares?)

Oh. I forgot. You're the self-appointed Savior.

Well we have that in common then.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

m
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
short, has classed up the place by giving
everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
even more useless than it was. How low can the
so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It
doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.


Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
non-called-for insults by you, for example.

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?


The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling
and
profanity around here. Fact.

Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.


I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
Why weasel out of your statement?

No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.

LOL In what way?

Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?

If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
threads or which people?

They are in the Google record.

Could you be more vague?

A little help, thread title perhaps some sort of clue.
Please.

In article .net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article et,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

om
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

.co
m
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

gy.
com
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
short, has classed up the place by giving
everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
even more useless than it was. How low can the
so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It
doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.


Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
non-called-for insults by you, for example.

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?


The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling
and
profanity around here. Fact.

Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.


I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
Why weasel out of your statement?

No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.

LOL In what way?

Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?

If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
threads or which people?

They are in the Google record.

Could you be more vague?

It's a response that one receives here quite often from others.


A little help, thread title perhaps some sort of clue.
Please.

I don't recall. There were some recently.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
their insults are better, or warranted, or more
justified, for some reason.

Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the
insulting posts from the usual suspects that I slough.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from the usual list of
suspects that go unanswered. Note all the threads with my name in
conjunction with insults, in their title lines that go from start to finish
without even one response by me.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
their insults are better, or warranted, or more
justified, for some reason.

Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the
insulting posts from the usual suspects that I slough.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from the usual list of
suspects that go unanswered. Note all the threads with my name in
conjunction with insults, in their title lines that go from start to finish
without even one response by me.

Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's equally true that the
"obs" seem to think..." but anyway...
Of course I note those things. And why don't you respond to them? I
suspect that it's because they don't deserve response, and that
responding to them only validates them. That's the reason that **I**
don't respond to them. So you are supporting my point, really. You
were critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars against you.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
justified, for some reason.

Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them.

IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from
the usual list of suspects that go unanswered. Note all
the threads with my name in conjunction with insults, in
their title lines that go from start to finish without
even one response by me.

Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's
equally true that the "obs" seem to think..." but
anyway...

Of course it does, Jen. It's not a matter of the subs throwing around
insults, too. It's a matter of them being the predominate source of insults
on RAO.

In my case its a matter of them throwing several times more insults at me
than I may throw back. Take George, Art and David for example. It appears
that they have very little to do but insult me and belittle my posts. David
hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in years, but he's still at it,
sometimes several times a day.


Of course I note those things. And why don't you respond
to them? I suspect that it's because they don't deserve
response, and that responding to them only validates
them.

Let's get back to the point of your comment Jen. The subs around here in
general make posts that deserve no response.

That's the reason that **I** don't respond to them.

Irrelevant to your claim about the so-called obs, Jen.

So you are supporting my point, really. You were
critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars
against you.

No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the* major source of
insults around here are the so-called subjectivists. I'd go so far as to say
that were Middius, Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away, RAO
might even have some crediblity as an audio group.

It's no secret that along the way several of the so-called subs have said
that they intend to try as hard as they can to trash RAO until the last
so-called ob went away.

are we classed up yet?


From:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Date: 3 Mar 2006 20:46:02 -0800

....

So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars

....

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


Correction:

No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the*
major source of insults around here are the so-called
objectivists. I'd go so far as to say that were Middius,
Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away, RAO
might even have some crediblity as an audio group.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
justified, for some reason.

Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them.

IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from
the usual list of suspects that go unanswered. Note all
the threads with my name in conjunction with insults, in
their title lines that go from start to finish without
even one response by me.

Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's
equally true that the "obs" seem to think..." but
anyway...

Of course it does, Jen. It's not a matter of the subs throwing around
insults, too. It's a matter of them being the predominate source of insults
on RAO.

What I'm saying is that your statement that "there are less of them"
really has nothing to do with Shhh's statement that the obs believe
that their insults are "better" or "more justified". Anyway, I see
your point.

In my case its a matter of them throwing several times more insults at me
than I may throw back. Take George, Art and David for example. It appears
that they have very little to do but insult me and belittle my posts. David
hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in years, but he's still at it,
sometimes several times a day.

I understand, and on the surface, I even agree. People here who would
be labeled as "subjecivists" throw a greater quantity of insults than
do the "objectivists". Who started it? I have no idea, and it isn't
important enough to me to go way back in the record. What I DO think
is that it's ALL silly, from both "sides". But that's just me. If I
don't like it, I can just move on, as can anyone else. If we would all
just treat others as we wish to be treated, all would be good, but I'm
sure that there is too much water under the bridge for that to happen.
Pity.


Of course I note those things. And why don't you respond
to them? I suspect that it's because they don't deserve
response, and that responding to them only validates
them.

Let's get back to the point of your comment Jen. The subs around here in
general make posts that deserve no response.

Then simply don't respond. If you think that my posts, for example,
are not worth responding to, just don't respond.


That's the reason that **I** don't respond to them.

Irrelevant to your claim about the so-called obs, Jen.

I admit to mixing threads here. What I'm referring to above is your
statement that I don't speak up when the "subjs" act up to you.

So you are supporting my point, really. You were
critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars
against you.

No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the* major source of
insults around here are the so-called subjectivists. I'd go so far as to say
that were Middius, Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away, RAO
might even have some crediblity as an audio group.

See above.

It's no secret that along the way several of the so-called subs have said
that they intend to try as hard as they can to trash RAO until the last
so-called ob went away.

That's stupid, IMO.

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about this: The knife
cuts both ways for sure. People who are your "enemies" here obviously
are persistant to a fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it
or not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat people
well, respect their opinions, and you might be surprised at the
long-term result.

In article . com,
"Jenn" wrote:

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about this: The knife
cuts both ways for sure. People who are your "enemies" here obviously
are persistant to a fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it
or not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat people
well, respect their opinions, and you might be surprised at the
long-term result.

I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.

Good times.

Stephen

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:05:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

David hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in years, but he's still at it,
sometimes several times a day.

Just because I'm one of the only people that you are afraid to
address, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that I'm going to stop
commenting when you act like an ass, which is pretty much daily.

It just makes it easier for me not to have to do the inevitable
responding back and forth to your bull**** that Jenn is having to go
through right now.

dave weil said:

It just makes it easier for me not to have to do the inevitable
responding back and forth to your bull**** that Jenn is having to go
through right now.

One day, Jenn may well look back in fondness at her indoctrination into
the morass of "the debating trade".

"Jenn" wrote in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
.com,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
that their insults are better, or warranted, or
more justified, for some reason.

Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them.

IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from
the usual list of suspects that go unanswered. Note all
the threads with my name in conjunction with insults,
in their title lines that go from start to finish
without even one response by me.

Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's
equally true that the "obs" seem to think..." but
anyway...

Of course it does, Jen. It's not a matter of the subs
throwing around insults, too. It's a matter of them
being the predominate source of insults on RAO.

What I'm saying is that your statement that "there are
less of them" really has nothing to do with Shhh's
statement that the obs believe that their insults are
"better" or "more justified". Anyway, I see your point.

In my case its a matter of them throwing several times
more insults at me than I may throw back. Take George,
Art and David for example. It appears that they have
very little to do but insult me and belittle my posts.
David hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in
years, but he's still at it, sometimes several times a
day.

I understand, and on the surface, I even agree. People
here who would be labeled as "subjecivists" throw a
greater quantity of insults than do the "objectivists".
Who started it? I have no idea, and it isn't important
enough to me to go way back in the record. What I DO
think is that it's ALL silly, from both "sides". But
that's just me. If I don't like it, I can just move on,
as can anyone else. If we would all just treat others as
we wish to be treated, all would be good, but I'm sure
that there is too much water under the bridge for that to
happen. Pity.


Of course I note those things. And why don't you
respond to them? I suspect that it's because they
don't deserve response, and that responding to them
only validates them.

Let's get back to the point of your comment Jen. The
subs around here in general make posts that deserve no
response.

Then simply don't respond. If you think that my posts,
for example, are not worth responding to, just don't
respond.


That's the reason that **I** don't respond to them.

Irrelevant to your claim about the so-called obs, Jen.

I admit to mixing threads here. What I'm referring to
above is your statement that I don't speak up when the
"subjs" act up to you.

So you are supporting my point, really. You were
critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars
against you.

No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the*
major source of insults around here are the so-called
subjectivists. I'd go so far as to say that were
Middius, Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go
away, RAO might even have some crediblity as an audio
group.

See above.

It's no secret that along the way several of the
so-called subs have said that they intend to try as hard
as they can to trash RAO until the last so-called ob
went away.

That's stupid, IMO.

Of course it;s stupid. But, we're talking about people who are stupid and
selfish.

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who are
your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a fault.
You, on the other hand, whether you see it or not, tend
to give them a great deal of ammo.

Anybody who advocates reason is their enemy.

Just treat people well, respect their opinions, and you might be
surprised
at the long-term result.

Obfuscation of the true problem noted.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"Jenn" wrote:

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat
people well, respect their opinions, and you might be
surprised at the long-term result.

I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.

I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen because I know you're
hopeless.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"Jenn" wrote:

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat
people well, respect their opinions, and you might be
surprised at the long-term result.

I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.

I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen because I know you're
hopeless.

As you can see, he didn't follow my advice then or now.

Five years. Just flies by, doesn't it?

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"Jenn" wrote:

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just
treat people well, respect their opinions, and you
might be surprised at the long-term result.

I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.

I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen
because I know you're hopeless.

As you can see, he didn't follow my advice then or now.

I considered the source - sue me!

Five years. Just flies by, doesn't it?

Whatever that means.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"Jenn" wrote:

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just
treat people well, respect their opinions, and you
might be surprised at the long-term result.

I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.

I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen
because I know you're hopeless.

As you can see, he didn't follow my advice then or now.

I considered the source - sue me!

It was good advice then and it's good advice now, no matter the source.
However, it's clear that you *can't* follow it.

Five years. Just flies by, doesn't it?

Whatever that means.

Time flies like an arrow.

You know the rest.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from the usual list of
suspects that go unanswered. Note all the threads with my name in
conjunction with insults, in their title lines that go from start to
finish without even one response by me.


Ha! You're lack of rsponse indicates your agreement.
I thought I'd throw a little Kroologic at ya.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access