Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Clyde Slick" wrote: "124" wrote in message oups.com... Jenn wrote: I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets. Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and it leaves a bit of an empty feeling. I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never gave any evidence to support his claim. I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet, That's a relief. however; you remain anonymous. Well, a website with my bio has been referenced here. Right now it doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive, as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh! Jenn, I was talking to the man who cannot count, not to you. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#42
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey: I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly, smelly creature. No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey (on the left) and another diehard Kroopologist (real name dickless maletwitski, aka torrie****s, aka dippyborg). Check it out: http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RA..._and_Thing.jpg Looks like Middius screwed up and posted a picture of himself and Sackman instead. Looks like two of your boys in your basment, during one of your training sessions -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#43
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" said: Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves. Really Arn? By what standard? By the standard of - - - he hasn't yet accused her of sending him kiddie porn emails. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
#44
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Our minds have a lot to do with what our ears pick up. And we don't disconnect our minds when we listen to music. Precisely. That would be impossible. |
#45
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message ... In article , "Clyde Slick" wrote: "124" wrote in message oups.com... Jenn wrote: I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets. Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and it leaves a bit of an empty feeling. I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never gave any evidence to support his claim. I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet, That's a relief. however; you remain anonymous. Well, a website with my bio has been referenced here. Right now it doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive, as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh! Jenn, I was talking to the man who cannot count, not to you. I see; thanks |
#46
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:47 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity. I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to making things up all the time. What purpose does that serve? Do you possess a basic understanding of communication? Even a first-grader could read what I wrote and not come up with a statement that butchers the meaning of what was said in quite such a juvenile way. I admit no such thing, as to do so would be a lie. Some of us listen for the music. Which is the whole point of high fidelity. That would be the point of audio. You seek your definition of 'high-fidelity.' As in the poor-sounding CD analogy, even if the CD accurately reports the information, they can still sound like **** to me. Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an afternoon on the beach. The point, which you apparently cannot understand for whatever reason, is this: there is more to enjoying music for some people than 'absolute accuracy' (whatever that is). CD and LP are not the same. LP is high-fidelity. A tuner is high-fidelity. Tape is high-fidelity. CD is high-fidelity. Tubes are high-fidelity. Setting has an effect. I would much rather listen to a recording, for example, in my living room than in a lab, or at work. I enjoy music through a boom-box in the proper setting than through a killer stereo. Many people do not care how 'accurate' one piece of equipment measures over another. Why do you insist on obfuscation and making things up, as you did with me (and with misquoting Jenn's stated position) above? Like someone who cannot (or will not) even take the basic care to transcribe a quote properly when it's imbedded in the post that they respond to, or to understand what is said without distorting it, has the corner on 'accuracy?' LOL! To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them, regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of accuracy. Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and distortion unecessarily added. Kind of like your posts? LOL! It's very relevant. It's even the point of it. What's more alarming is someone who can't even accurately read what is written. Unless... Are you really a shill trying to trump up interest in LPs? You and nob are doing a very good job of that... |
#47
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" I don't know if they wised up or just learned that the bogus claims they made about digital got them into trouble. The problem with this statement is that the only claim that I have seen Jenn make is this: "The best recorded LPs have violins that sound more natural to me than they do on CD." This cannot be a 'bogus claim.' It is, pure and simple, a statement of preference. It has, however, somehow (and for some 'reason') gotten her in 'trouble' with you and nob. If this is not true, then you are saying that my statement, "I prefer cherry ice cream to vanilla ice cream" could somehow be invalid. Sorry, but most thinking people would see through that position for the bull**** that it is. |
#48
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:41 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct established on RAO by George Middius, Greg Singh, Allan Derrida, and Roy Briggs? So, in your mind, it appears to me that you feel that if you compare your conduct with these people whose 'standard of conduct' you clearly do not approve of, and if you do "just a little bit better" than they do, then your treatment of Jenn is justified. Is that about it? |
#49
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com audio components and accessories, like wire, cable, isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening skills. "listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief. Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend disbelief" when you listen, analytically or otherwise. That is a sign of an open and objective mind. Intellectual beliefs should not have anything to do with perception of sound, OR enjoyment of music. You so-called "objectivists" who staunchly believe otherwise are, I find, anything _but_ "objective". A good example of this kind of mistake would be you. You believe that even if you hear differences between, say, CD players, you fight that perception using your belief system, and convince yourself the differences aren't there, because your silly meaningless tests misguided you to believe otherwise. This means you have no listening skills of any merit. No wonder you can't appreciate the differences between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000 SME record deck. (At least it saves you some money to put toward test instruments...). It also means you have not just been waging war with every audiophile on this newsgroup, you are also, essentially, at war with your own mind. I can only imagine how it must suck to be you. |
#50
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com From: Arny Krueger Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion is hypocritical and self-contradictory. Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity* Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity. As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not all. There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is she? But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've seen), etc. are all audio. You forgot cassette! Did they start putting something in cassettes besides TAPE? Some of us listen for the music. Which is the whole point of high fidelity. Some of the most enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom box at a beach. Good for you! A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.' Well, audio of a kind. Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't valid. Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an afternoon on the beach. Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and that courtesy of high quality portable digital players, its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at home when going to the beach. To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them, regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of accuracy. Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and distortion unecessarily added. Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today concerning me alone. Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or not? On the best LPs, yes. Now, how does that differ from, "...Jenn's global preference for music ..." The global part is the comparison of two global formats - LP versus CD. Settle down, Jenn! |
#51
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com audio components and accessories, like wire, cable, isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening skills. "listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief. Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend disbelief" when you listen, analytically or otherwise. During listening in blind tests, we go further than merely suspending disbelief. We imagine that the difference exists. We think speculatively about what forms it might take. Since blind tests have almost perfect resistance to false positives, we can take this as far as we would like without any fear of actually being mislead in the end. That is a sign of an open and objective mind. Doing blind tests related to things that "cant' exist" is a good example of that, and its something that my friends and I have done repeatedly. Given the not inconsiderable effort that it takes to set up a proper blind test, that's actually saying quite a bit. Intellectual beliefs should not have anything to do with perception of sound, OR enjoyment of music. You so-called "objectivists" who staunchly believe otherwise are, I find, anything _but_ "objective". That's easier done than said. A good example of this kind of mistake would be you. You believe that even if you hear differences between, say, CD players, you fight that perception using your belief system, and convince yourself the differences aren't there, because your silly meaningless tests misguided you to believe otherwise. I don't know which tests you're referring to. I suspect that they are things you imagine. Given that you have no means for separating illusion from reliable perception, and seemingly no interest in ever doing so, you're on your own with that. This means you have no listening skills of any merit. No wonder you can't appreciate the differences between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000 SME record deck. (At least it saves you some money to put toward test instruments...). Who said we can't appreciate the difference between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000? That would be another unrealiable fantasy of yours Mr. Priority-less. Many real attributes such as appearance and build quality are vastly different. It also means you have not just been waging war with every audiophile on this newsgroup, you are also, essentially, at war with your own mind. No, there's no unusual degree of disunity in my mind. Note that many complain about how certain I am of certain things, such as the principles and practical application of science. That's me, through and through. I can only imagine how it must suck to be you. Again, your imaginings are very unreliable - no doubt becuase you have rejected all of the usual external sources of guidance in your life. It's just you, your perceptions and your illusions. I'm happy to see that the three of you are so happy together! |
#52
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
wrote in message
oups.com Clyde Slick wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Our minds have a lot to do with what our ears pick up. And we don't disconnect our minds when we listen to music. Precisely. That would be impossible. Thanks for admitting that it is impossible to disconnect one's mind while listening. |
#53
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
Arny Krueger wrote:
"124" wrote in message For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is a sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks I made this claim should provide the evidence that shows that I made this claim. I, moreover, in a previous post told JA that I knew that George was not JA. What makes you think that George is most certainly not JA? BTW I agree with your analysis, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. George has, according to Google, made 54 600 posts to Usenet forums. JA has, according to Google, made 3512 posts to Usenet forums. JA has also posted to at least one other--a Web-based--forum. If JA made more than 58 000 posts over these last few years, where does he find the time to do any editing? I am not suggesting that this is impossible, merely that it could be difficult. George and JA appear to have different personalities. George is nasty and vicious. JA can be civil. George almost never discusses anything related to audio. His posts here are almost always personal attacks. JA, to his credit, often keeps his posts here related to audio. My gut says that they are two persons. --124 |
#54
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Arny Krueger" said:
Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves. Really Arn? By what standard? How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct established on RAO by George Middius, Greg Singh, Allan Derrida, and Roy Briggs? I'm terribly sorry, for a moment there I thought you had some standard of your own. After all, the "Middius made me do it" argument is beyond someone of your elevated character and moral, hm? ;-) I believe that all of these distinguished *gentlemen* have used various violent and sexual phrases and activities to characterize and threaten people they disagreed with, right? While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues sometimes goes beyond where I would go, is that a reason for you to engage in a hostile approach towards people like Jenn (and many others like Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston, Parker etc.)? While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how you respond to me all over myself, how do you justify yout hostility towards John Atkinson? He's been only generous and friendly towards you, as far as I have seen here in RAO. How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind his back, and accusing him of having no backbone? You have a lot to answer for, my friend, and you're the only one who has to live with that. Note that this has nothing to do with Middius, "Briggs", Derrida, Zipser, Singh, Sackman, Richman, myself or a host of others. -- - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. - |
#55
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
Jenn wrote:
Do you believe that John has sockpuppets here? No. --124 |
#56
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" said: Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves. Really Arn? By what standard? How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct established on RAO by George Middius, Greg Singh, Allan Derrida, and Roy Briggs? I'm terribly sorry, for a moment there I thought you had some standard of your own. I do, which keeps me from descending to their level, before after or while they established it. After all, the "Middius made me do it" argument is beyond someone of your elevated character and moral, hm? ;-) The deafening silence on the topic of abuse by subjectivists is no surprise. I believe that all of these distinguished *gentlemen* have used various violent and sexual phrases and activities to characterize and threaten people they disagreed with, right? While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues sometimes goes beyond where I would go, is that a reason for you to engage in a hostile approach towards people like Jenn (and many others like Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston, Parker etc.)? Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint Bamborough went beyond the pale. Oh, you can't remember that can you, Sander? BTW who is Parker? While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how you respond to me all over myself, how do you justify your hostility towards John Atkinson? Again, its clear Sander that you can't remember any of the trips that Saint John took beyond the pale, both in the past or in the past few weeks. He's been only generous and friendly towards you, as far as I have seen here in RAO. Oh come on Sander. How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind his back, and accusing him of having no backbone? Simple, he's not here to say it to his face. I suspect that his regrettable behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his face around here. You have a lot to answer for, my friend, and you're the only one who has to live with that. Asked and answered. Note that this has nothing to do with Middius, "Briggs", Derrida, Zipser, Singh, Sackman, Richman, myself or a host of others. Right, they are so-called subjectivists and therefore their behavior is entirely in character and justifiable according you, Sander. As is the ongoing bad behavior of Fella, etc. Pile on fellows, it's what you do! ;-) |
#57
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
"124" wrote in
message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "124" wrote in message For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is a sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks I made this claim should provide the evidence that shows that I made this claim. I, moreover, in a previous post told JA that I knew that George was not JA. What makes you think that George is most certainly not JA? BTW I agree with your analysis, but I'm curious as to your reasoning. George has, according to Google, made 54 600 posts to Usenet forums. JA has, according to Google, made 3512 posts to Usenet forums. JA has also posted to at least one other--a Web-based--forum. If JA made more than 58 000 posts over these last few years, where does he find the time to do any editing? I am not suggesting that this is impossible, merely that it could be difficult. George and JA appear to have different personalities. George is nasty and vicious. JA can be civil. George almost never discusses anything related to audio. His posts here are almost always personal attacks. JA, to his credit, often keeps his posts here related to audio. My gut says that they are two persons. I agree with your analysis on all points, except to observe one thing. George's avoidance of audio topics is I believe a ruse. I believe his animator knows a fair amount about audio (at least in his own eyes), but avoids commenting on audio to keep from revealing his true identity. |
#58
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
"124" wrote in
message oups.com There is no nasty little twist. You said that you are not George. _You_ are the one who introduced the idea of identity. Mr. Atkinson, I apologize for any misunderstanding. As you correcly point out, George is incredibly prolific for a person who has a life outside of RAO. As George Middius would say, just another day's work in the "debating trade" for members of what he terms the "Hive." And subjectivists have never taken part in the debating trade? Good point. My goodness, Mr. Atkinson, you do have unusual standards, especially when in a previous post in this thread you complained about hypocrisy. Indeed. Remember, John directs the payment of a salary to such as Mikey Fremer. Disinterested readers should examine evidence. By the way, Mr. Atkinson, where is the evidence that supports your position? Please provide some URLs so that disinterested readers can examine the evidence on your side. I think that the strongest evidence indicting Atkinson can be found in the pages of Stereophile. These readers can then compare it to the evidence on the objectivists' side and therefore ignore the debating trade by only looking at evidence. I think that Sander's recent post piling on the current preferred line of attack on me is a good example. To have any ground to stand on to attack me, Sander has to demand that we totally ignore the activities of six or more of the most prolific and agressive posters on this group, all supporters of Sander and his viewpoint. BTW one of the names Sander mentioned is the late Steve Zipser who was well known for saying catchy phrases like "Toobs are for Boobs" right up until he managed to get a tube equipment manufacturer's franchise for his shop in Miami. reference: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...818421d8afcbd2 |
#59
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Arny Krueger" said:
While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues sometimes goes beyond where I would go, is that a reason for you to engage in a hostile approach towards people like Jenn (and many others like Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston, Parker etc.)? Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint Bamborough went beyond the pale. Oh, you can't remember that can you, Sander? IIRC, that was only after you started it. The funny thing is, again, that their audio viewpoints don't differ very much from your own. BTW who is Parker? Paul Packer, sorry for the typo. While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how you respond to me all over myself, how do you justify your hostility towards John Atkinson? Again, its clear Sander that you can't remember any of the trips that Saint John took beyond the pale, both in the past or in the past few weeks. He surely didn't descend to your level of 'debate'. How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind his back, and accusing him of having no backbone? Simple, he's not here to say it to his face. That's a good reason, for sure. It makes me wonder though how you speak of your other friends and fellows in places they are not present. I suspect that his regrettable behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his face around here. Yep, that must be it. Sorry for not getting this earlier, Arny, I'm happy you cleared it up for me ;-) -- - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. - |
#60
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
"Arny Krueger" said:
I think that Sander's recent post piling on the current preferred line of attack on me is a good example. To have any ground to stand on to attack me, Sander has to demand that we totally ignore the activities of six or more of the most prolific and agressive posters on this group, all supporters of Sander and his viewpoint. Could you elaborate on that? What viewpoint might that be? Audio, or *you* specifically? To evaluate the behaviour you've shown towards Jenn, one doesn't have to look at what any other member of this group has posted, we only have to look at what *you* and Jenn have posted. As far as I can tell, Jenn never crossed the line. You did, however. BTW one of the names Sander mentioned is the late Steve Zipser who was well known for saying catchy phrases like "Toobs are for Boobs" right up until he managed to get a tube equipment manufacturer's franchise for his shop in Miami. reference: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...818421d8afcbd2 And that has relevance to what in this thread exactly? -- - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. - |
#61
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" said: While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues sometimes goes beyond where I would go, is that a reason for you to engage in a hostile approach towards people like Jenn (and many others like Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston, Parker etc.)? Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint Bamborough went beyond the pale. Oh, you can't remember that can you, Sander? IIRC, that was only after you started it. Of course Sander, you hereby grant them permission to exercise the "Arny made me do it" option. In Zelniker's case it was totally out of the blue, but why should I disturb you with the facts? The funny thing is, again, that their audio viewpoints don't differ very much from your own. What????? BTW who is Parker? Paul Packer, sorry for the typo. Yet another gentle little lamb who couldn't melt butter with his mouth, he's so sweet. While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how you respond to me all over myself, how do you justify your hostility towards John Atkinson? Again, its clear Sander that you can't remember any of the trips that Saint John took beyond the pale, both in the past or in the past few weeks. He surely didn't descend to your level of 'debate'. Says you, Sander. How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind his back, and accusing him of having no backbone? Simple, he's not here to say it to his face. That's a good reason, for sure. It makes me wonder though how you speak of your other friends and fellows in places they are not present. Many of them are true gentlemen who would never lower themselves to talk to any of the regulars around here, yourself included. I suspect that his regrettable behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his face around here. Yep, that must be it. Well that and the ongoing abuse from Middius, and others. Frankly, RAO has been a highly unproductive place for years. Thank you Sander for your ongoing efforts to keep it that way! Sorry for not getting this earlier, Arny, I'm happy you cleared it up for me ;-) What's clear are your biases, Sander. If nothing else I've learned how biases blind people to obvious faults in both technology and the behavior of others. I've learned not to take it personally. It's even a bit funny to watch. But sad. |
#62
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Arny Krueger" said:
Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint Bamborough went beyond the pale. Oh, you can't remember that can you, Sander? IIRC, that was only after you started it. Of course Sander, you hereby grant them permission to exercise the "Arny made me do it" option. Well, how does that expression go? 'What's good for the goose, is good for the gander' , or should that be 'Sander"? ;-) IOW. if you plead innocent, why shouldn't others? In Zelniker's case it was totally out of the blue, but why should I disturb you with the facts? I seem to recall something different, but that would require some googling. This issue isn't that important to me to warrant much effort. The funny thing is, again, that their audio viewpoints don't differ very much from your own. What????? That hurt, didn't it? How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind his back, and accusing him of having no backbone? Simple, he's not here to say it to his face. That's a good reason, for sure. It makes me wonder though how you speak of your other friends and fellows in places they are not present. Many of them are true gentlemen who would never lower themselves to talk to any of the regulars around here, yourself included. Which explains your presence here, of course. Do they have boats, perchance, or do they just know people who have boats? ;-) I suspect that his regrettable behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his face around here. Yep, that must be it. Well that and the ongoing abuse from Middius, and others. Frankly, RAO has been a highly unproductive place for years. Thank you Sander for your ongoing efforts to keep it that way! Any time, Arny. Thanks for admitting that my scarce postings here have that much influence! Sorry for not getting this earlier, Arny, I'm happy you cleared it up for me ;-) What's clear are your biases, Sander. If nothing else I've learned how biases blind people to obvious faults in both technology and the behavior of others. I've learned not to take it personally. It's even a bit funny to watch. But sad. That's odd, I feel exactly the same way! ;-) -- - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. - |
#63
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
124 wrote: John Atkinson wrote: Jenn wrote: 124 wrote: John Atkinson wrote: I am not George, nor is he me. I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets. Who is one? No one. I don't have any sockpuppets. Every posting I make to the newsgroups, to the evident chagrin of Mr. Powell :-), is clearly identified as being from me. And note the nasty little twist to "124"'s posting, whereby were I to respond, would mean accepting the premise that I _do_ have sockpuppets. There is no nasty little twist. I was referring to your statement above that you "never claimed [George Middius] was one of [my] sockpuppets." Implicit in this statement is the assumption that I _do_ run sockpuppets. You said that you are not George. _You_ are the one who introduced the idea of identity. Mr. Atkinson, I apologize for any misunderstanding. Thanks. And yes, you were correct, I earlier confused your posting anonymously with your being a sockpuppet. My apologies for that assumption. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#64
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: From: Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 4:42 pm Email: I'm not waging a war on preference, ****. I'm trying to help debunk the notion that anything can sound better or more real on an inferior medium. Not that you care about audio anyway so whynot just **** off? If I said that a seven-transistor radio from 1963 sounded better to me, that is indeed a preference. Preferences cannot be debunked. I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly, smelly creature. One would suppose that your wife, or your children, might feel otherwise. I can't imagine trying to convince them that their preference is wrong. Come to think of it, they're probably just keeping quiet out of pity. All conservatives are alike: they simply make up whatever they want and try to pass it off as truth. Please post the proof where I said, as you allege, that "by [my] own admission [i] don't give a **** about audio" or admit that you are lying (again). There's no middle road, liar. If I said it, it should not be hard for you to find. Since I never did say it, it will be impossible to find. This sure seemed to be you saying it IMO. Your response to J. Major follows: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! - view profile Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 11:16 am Email: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" Groups: rec.audio.opinion Not yet ratedRating: show options From: J.Major Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 1:04 pm Email: "J.Major" What was my surprise to find out that the only audio stuff this guy possess was a mini-stereo that he must have paid at max 200$ (canadian). That's a lot of beer money, ay? So I have (again) a little question: What is the % of people in this newsgroup that really have a true hifi system? I hate music. I am here trying to convert others here to my point of view. There are several of us here with the same agenda. In fact, attacking audio preference is a hobby of mine. I watched in glee recently as some of my minions attacked yours. Thank you for your interest... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- You and Mr. Krueger are birds of a feather: liars with no equal. Since we're not liars, I guess that's true, we have no equals, least of all a Kool-Aid drinking Liberal like you. |
#65
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Jenn" wrote in message In article , "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com From: Arny Krueger Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion is hypocritical and self-contradictory. Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity* Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity. As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not all. There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is she? But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've seen), etc. are all audio. You forgot cassette! Did they start putting something in cassettes besides TAPE? Some of us listen for the music. Which is the whole point of high fidelity. Some of the most enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom box at a beach. Good for you! A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.' Well, audio of a kind. Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't valid. Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an afternoon on the beach. Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and that courtesy of high quality portable digital players, its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at home when going to the beach. To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them, regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of accuracy. Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and distortion unecessarily added. Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today concerning me alone. Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or not? On the best LPs, yes. Now, how does that differ from, "...Jenn's global preference for music ..." The global part is the comparison of two global formats - LP versus CD. And my preference for LP isn't global, as I've stated many, many times. Therefore, you lied. |
#66
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Krooger's lie about GlennZ deconstructed
Sander deWaal said: In Zelniker's case it was totally out of the blue, but why should I disturb you with the facts? I seem to recall something different, but that would require some googling. No problem, I have you ..... ====== Begin Quote ====== Nice revisionist history. Glenn Z hardly posts here any more? Wonder why? I think he finally sobered up and realized what a twit he looked like after he tried the Briggs approach and called me all sorts of names, and slandered me with his delusions about my personal life, pretty thorougly. Then I simply posted a few FFT plots at www.pcabx.com/zelniker that substantiated my claims about dither and room tone. He's been pretty calm since then, which bodes well for him. Nice try, you demented, delusional moron. The reason I hardly post here any more is that there's rarely anything of interest for me to comment on. I check Deja every now and then to see if there's anything that requires my intervention, but I've long since lost the desire to counter your insane, tiresome prattlings. I'm too busy bloating my coffers with ill-gotten high-end gelt. Plus, the shadow government I help run with the rest of the high-end establishment and other members of your enemies list takes up a tremendous amount of my spare time. While we're at it, though, I'll concede that my manner with you is both abrasive and downright rude. I refuse to discuss technical matters with you anymore because you're simply unteachable. It's fine with me if you want to believe that you won our debate and that your cute little plots prove(d) anything. You didn't and they don't (a hint, idiot -- noise modulation). Find me a single technically competent person (besides Anonymous or any of his other various incarnations) who will corroborate your "findings" and I'll be happy to resume the debate. The only support you'll get is agreement from a few humanitarians that feel I've been too mean spirited and that I've lowered myself to the debating tactics of Middius, Briggs, or Singh. Too bad. Yes, your plots, in part, helped drive me away from the group. But not for the reasons you think. BTW, the only slancers I uttered about your personal life were about your profoundly decompensated mental state (or the usenet- related appearance thereof), you nut. I stand by those slancers. Glenn Zelniker Z-Systems Audio Engineering ====== End Quote ====== Funny how Krooger presumes to understand dither better than the guy who is among the leading digital engineers working in America today. Krooger, who got a half-assed "general engineering" degree and, by his own admission, "flogs PCs" for a living, sets himself up as superior to a PhD holder who founded and leads the top producer of studio and mastering electronics in the USA. In passing, I note that Glenn goes out of his way to offer an implicit disapproval of some of my and others' posts about the Krooborg. Also, "slancers" was originally a nugget of Krooglish uttered by you-know-who. And the "Anonymous" Glenn refers to was Sebastian McInturd, an erstwhile Kroopologist who posted to RAO under various netnyms. He's long gone from RAO -- possibly because, if you believe the rumors, he was arrested and prosecuted for breaking Internet privacy laws. A typical Kroopologist. |
#67
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com audio components and accessories, like wire, cable, isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening skills. "listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief. Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend disbelief" when you listen, analytically or otherwise. During listening in blind tests, we go further than merely suspending disbelief. We imagine that the difference exists. We think speculatively about what forms it might take. Since blind tests have almost perfect resistance to false positives, we can take this as far as we would like without any fear of actually being mislead in the end. No, you're being mislead by your blind tests. And I'm sorry, but you're fooling yourself to think otherwise. So if I'm fooling myself to "imagine differences exist", which I'm not, I'd rather it be that than the blind test. A blind test is an attempt to control all variables and only test the DUT. But it is impossible to control all variables. Blind tests have their place, but not in the field of music reproduction. Therefore, any results of a blind test will always be subject to inaccuracy. And any conclusions drawn from the test, will have to be inconclusive. Your "imaginging that things exist" works both ways. You can, and you have, imagined that things DON'T exist. This itself impedes your ability to listen without prejudice, which would negate the results of any blind test. If you know you're testing amplifiers for example, and you already "know" from your previous false conclusions that amplifiers don't sound any different (unless not performing to spec, yadda, yadda, yadda....), then you've already autosuggested that you won't hear a difference and should anyone be surprised that you declare that you don't during the blind trial? That is a sign of an open and objective mind. Doing blind tests related to things that "cant' exist" is a good example of that, and its something that my friends and I have done repeatedly. Given the not inconsiderable effort that it takes to set up a proper blind test, that's actually saying quite a bit. _What_ "things that can't exist" are you referring to? My 5-pinhole paper with aspirin tweak perhaps? You are supplying an example of what I just said above, when you imagine that differences can't exist before a test. Intellectual beliefs should not have anything to do with perception of sound, OR enjoyment of music. You so-called "objectivists" who staunchly believe otherwise are, I find, anything _but_ "objective". That's easier done than said. I agree that's easier to say that you're objective than to be objective. Particularly after reading the kinds of messages on this board, from all contributors. But I personally am able to be objective before I test a condition. That's possible partly from my listening skill, and partly from my personal philosophies. I have my little tricks before a test that help keep me objective, too. I know this for a fact, because I don't always perceive positive changes from a test or an experiment, even if I was expecting it. A good example of this kind of mistake would be you. You believe that even if you hear differences between, say, CD players, you fight that perception using your belief system, and convince yourself the differences aren't there, because your silly meaningless tests misguided you to believe otherwise. I don't know which tests you're referring to. I suspect that they are things you imagine. Given that you have no means for separating illusion from reliable perception, and seemingly no interest in ever doing so, you're on your own with that. I'm referring to you having said that even if you did observe differences between things like cd players, things you "know" don't sound different due to the data from your blind tests, you would not accept that you heard those differences. To you, it's a "placebo", because your (faulty) blind tests told you otherwise. So it is you that I believe does not have an interest in separating illusion from perception. You just delude yourself by a different and more insidious sort of illusion. Given your extremist agenda to propagate your illusions to as many people as possible, I think you need this illusion more than a junkie needs a heroin fix. This means you have no listening skills of any merit. No wonder you can't appreciate the differences between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000 SME record deck. (At least it saves you some money to put toward test instruments...). Who said we can't appreciate the difference between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000? That would be another unrealiable fantasy of yours Mr. Priority-less. So now you're resorting to name-calling are you? Isn't this the last vestige of the empty-handed objectivist, when he fails to prove his assertions? Isn't this what we always hear from the objectivists, in criticism of the subjectivists? Doesn't that make you a lying hypocrite, Mr. Kreuger? Does this quote below look familiar to you Mr. Kreuger? It should, you wrote it to me only a few days ago. Maybe its because you write so much ******** to everyone on the audio groups, you didn't recall this little piece. So is THIS what you call an "unreliable fantasy" Mr. Kreuger?: "Well, for goodness sake buy some good-sounding digital playback equipment! Let me recommend the Coby DVD player - $34.95 in many appliance stores. Given an appropriate CDs to play - it outperforms *any* LP setup and by a rediculous margin." Let me point out again that you emphasized *ANY* LP setup would be beaten by the $35 Coby CD player, your personal recommendation. This would have to include the $30,000 SME turntable I mentioned. So once again, you're proven to be a lying hypocrite. Many real attributes such as appearance and build quality are vastly different. But have little to no effect on the sound quality. They're only important qualities to you objectivists, really. I know audiophiles Mr. Kreuger. You don't, they're simply more things for you to despise in life. And I've never known an audiophile to buy a piece of high end equipment because of its appearance or build quality. With audiophiles, SOUND HAS PRIORITY. It also means you have not just been waging war with every audiophile on this newsgroup, you are also, essentially, at war with your own mind. No, there's no unusual degree of disunity in my mind. Note that many complain about how certain I am of certain things, such as the principles and practical application of science. That's me, through and through. Which brings me to another thought about you.... I could not ever imagine you finally "getting it", and realizing that after so many years of trumpeting the double, triple or quadruple blind test, you were wrong. You were wrong about EVERYTHING. $35 CD players don't sound better than $30,000 turntables, even if your worthless blind tests say otherwise. Amps DO sound different. Cables and wires DO have differences. So do green markers, spikes, funny little feet, 5-pinhole paper with aspirin and a cute little cat underneath.... so on and so forth. You would never admit you're wrong no matter if someone shovelled evidence via direct hook-up to your poisoned mind for 36 hours a day, for the next 3 weeks. I don't even think audio is your hobby. I think audio politics is your hobby. You're an unusual hobbyist, because you need a "cause" to believe in, for whatever reason. I've seen you dismiss evidence from others over and over, with no regard for what may be true or scientific curiousity. Have you tried my pinhole paper with aspirin tweak, after having joined my thread in which I proposed the idea? No, you haven't. Your interest isn't in better sound or even science. You never even talk about improving sound quality. No Mr. Kreuger, I believe your interest is in having something to believe in, other than yourself. I almost understand. Because if I were you, I guess I wouldn't believe in you either. Do you really think anyone else does, who didn't already? I can only imagine how it must suck to be you. Again, your imaginings are very unreliable - no doubt becuase you have rejected all of the usual external sources of guidance in your life. You mean God and Shiva? You're absolutely correct for a (refreshing) change. I have rejected external sources of "guidance". I do not believe in childhood fantasies like "gods", as I believe you do, if what I read about your faith is correct. I believe in myself. I don't believe in audio magazines, and stopped being guided by them about 20 years ago, as I evolved as an audiophile. Because no reviewer could guide me better than my own ears could. Nor am I guided by technical journals or textbooks, as you are. They are merely helpful when designing the equipment, not when evaluating it. I'm an independent mind, and much of my knowledge of audio comes from firsthand experience. Perhaps you are jealous of that, since you are not an independent thinker, and much of your beliefs were fed to you a long time ago. It's just you, your perceptions and your illusions. I'm happy to see that the three of you are so happy together! On the other hand, there's you, your perceptions, your illusions, and your neurosis. Which guides you to spend your entire life on audio groups, attempting to bash people for their preference. Only problem is, you appear to be a rather miserable person, and only too happy to find company for your misery, by trying to rain on the parades of others here. That may be great for your giant-sized ego, but all the negativity you dish out every day like clockwork, can't be doing good things for your perception of sound. |
#68
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com audio components and accessories, like wire, cable, isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening skills. "listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief. Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend disbelief" when you listen, analytically or otherwise. During listening in blind tests, we go further than merely suspending disbelief. We imagine that the difference exists. We think speculatively about what forms it might take. Since blind tests have almost perfect resistance to false positives, we can take this as far as we would like without any fear of actually being mislead in the end. No, you're being mislead by your blind tests. And I'm sorry, but you're fooling yourself to think otherwise. Easy to say, hard to demonstrate. So if i'm fooling myself to "imagine differences exist", which I'm not, I'd rather it be that than the blind test. I simply never said that a person is fooling themselves if they imagine that differences exist. In fact, I recommended it. Therefore it's quite clear that what follows is not at all responsive to what I've said. I'm dealing with an output-only device! And that is simply not worth the trouble to respond to. |
#69
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote: From: Arny Krueger Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:47 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity. I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to making things up all the time. What purpose does that serve? Do you possess a basic understanding of communication? I believe you have no grounds to criticize Mr. Krueger this way. He's a fairly educated chap, and clearly he does possess a basic understanding of communication. As to the reason that he wrote what he did, well that's simple. He's a liar. However, a fairly educated liar with a decent understanding of communication. His belligerence in audio politics implores him to use old "debating tactics" on people, which is what he does with me in this thread, and what he's seen here doing with you, when putting words in your mouth. Or speaking on your behalf. He is attempting to make you appear to say something he perceives is unreasonable, in order to weaken his opponent's arguments and play for an "imaginary audiene" that I believe does not comprise the readership of these messages, but exists only in his head. sigh Such is the life of the neurotic audio politician.... |
#70
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote in message ups.com From: Arny Krueger Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:47 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity. I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to making things up all the time. I don't know why you removed the statement that I responded to. Maybe it would explain what I said. Can't have that, can you? |
#71
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Golden-Ears Myth
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: No, you're being mislead by your blind tests. And I'm sorry, but you're fooling yourself to think otherwise. Easy to say, hard to demonstrate. Yet it's been demonstrated by audio journalists, audiophiles and engineers countless times over. Differences not heard under silly blind test conditions, are later revealed after weeks of normal home listening, when not under the stress influences of the blind test. So if i'm fooling myself to "imagine differences exist", which I'm not, I'd rather it be that than the blind test. I simply never said that a person is fooling themselves if they imagine that differences exist. Did you ever bother to count how many times you contradict yourself in a day's worth of posting (which is about a month's worth for the average poster)? I'm sure you would find the number interesting. You simply said that: "During listening in blind tests, we go further than merely suspending disbelief. We imagine that the difference exists." I'd be interested to hear your explanation on how, if you imagine something is there that isn't, you are NOT fooling yourself. Please elaborate, I could use the laughs. In fact, I recommended it. I'm sure you do, since you imagine that no differences exist all the time. that what follows is not at all responsive to what I've said. I'm dealing with an output-only device! What are you referring to, your brain? And that is simply not worth the trouble to respond to. Oh come on, now. The great Arny Kreuger is "scared" of me? I've read about where you chicken out and run away from a debate, when you find yourself faced with a stronger opponent who is bashing you to pieces, and you can not effectively defend yourself. Then you wander off to try to wage a smaller battle with a weaker opponent, that you can hope to "appear to win", and try to keep your blind testing agenda alive. I just didn't think I would see this same thing happen with you and me so very _quickly_. For someone with such a grand reputation as an "internet bully", you are a MUCH weaker debating opponent than I've been led to believe. To respond to your sorry excuse to bail out of our debate on blind testing, which after all is what your entire life seems to have been devoted to, one can credibly argue that nothing you write is worth responding to. Yet strangely enough, as I see, people still do. I don't know why you removed all the statements that I responded to. Oh wait, now I realize. It's because you could not effectively argue against anything I wrote, knowing that I was right. As for example.... I was right when I said that you were being mislead by your blind tests. I was right when I said that a blind test is an attempt to control all variables and only test the DUT. But it is impossible to control all variables. I was right when I said that your "imaginging that things exist" works both ways You can, and you have, imagined that things DON'T exist. This itself impedes your ability to listen without prejudice, which would negate the results of any blind test. I was right when I said that if you know you're testing amplifiers for example, and you already "know" from your previous false conclusions that amplifiers don't sound any different (unless not performing to spec, yadda, yadda, yadda....), then you've already autosuggested that you won't hear a difference and should anyone be surprised that you declare that you don't during the blind trial? I was right when I said that you are supplying an example of what I just said, when you imagine that differences can't exist before a test. I was right when I said that I agree that's easier to say that you're objective than to be objective. I was right when I said that I'm referring to you having said that even if you did observe differences between things like cd players, things you "know" don't sound different due to the data from your blind tests, you would not accept that you heard those differences. To you, it's a "placebo", because your (faulty) blind tests told you otherwise. I was right when I said that it is you that I believe does not have an interest in separating illusion from perception. You just delude yourself by a different and more insidious sort of illusion. And when you called me "Mr. Priority-less", I was right when I said that "now you're resorting to name-calling are you? Isn't this the last vestige of the empty-handed objectivist, when he fails to prove his assertions? Isn't this what we always hear from the objectivists, in criticism of the subjectivists? Doesn't that make you a lying hypocrite, Mr. Kreuger?" I was right when I said "Does this quote below look familiar to you Mr. Kreuger? It should, you wrote it to me only a few days ago. Maybe its because you write so much ******** to everyone on the audio groups, you didn't recall this little piece. So is THIS what you call an "unreliable fantasy" Mr. Kreuger?: "Well, for goodness sake buy some good-sounding digital playback equipment! Let me recommend the Coby DVD player - $34.95 in many appliance stores. Given an appropriate CDs to play - it outperforms *any* LP setup and by a rediculous margin." Let me point out again that you emphasized *ANY* LP setup would be beaten by the $35 Coby CD player, your personal recommendation. This would have to include the $30,000 SME turntable I mentioned. So once again, you're proven to be a lying hypocrite. " And when you said: No, there's no unusual degree of disunity in my mind. Note that many complain about how certain I am of certain things, such as the principles and practical application of science. That's me, through and through. I was right when I said "Which brings me to another thought about you.... I could not ever imagine you finally "getting it", and realizing that after so many years of trumpeting the double, triple or quadruple blind test, you were wrong. You were wrong about EVERYTHING. $35 CD players don't sound better than $30,000 turntables, even if your worthless blind tests say otherwise. Amps DO sound different. Cables and wires DO have differences. So do green markers, spikes, funny little feet, 5-pinhole paper with aspirin and a cute little cat underneath.... so on and so forth. You would never admit you're wrong no matter if someone shovelled evidence via direct hook-up to your poisoned mind for 36 hours a day, for the next 3 weeks. " I was right when I said that I don't even think audio is your hobby. I think audio politics is your hobby. You're an unusual hobbyist, because you need a "cause" to believe in, for whatever reason. I've seen you dismiss evidence from others over and over, with no regard for what may be true or scientific curiousity. Have you tried my pinhole paper with aspirin tweak, after having joined my thread in which I proposed the idea? No, you haven't. Your interest isn't in better sound or even science. You never even talk about improving sound quality. No Mr. Kreuger, I believe your interest is in having something to believe in, other than yourself. I almost understand. Because if I were you, I guess I wouldn't believe in you either. Do you really think anyone else does, who didn't already? I was also right when I said "On the other hand, there's you, your perceptions, your illusions, and your neurosis. Which guides you to spend your entire life on audio groups, attempting to bash people for their preference. Only problem is, you appear to be a rather miserable person, and only too happy to find company for your misery, by trying to rain on the parades of others here. That may be great for your giant-sized ego, but all the negativity you dish out every day like clockwork, can't be doing good things for your perception of sound. " What's your next cowardly debating trick, Mr. Kreuger? Gonna lay a couple of eggs for us? |
#72
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:20:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message oups.com From: Arny Krueger Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:22 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed my preference for clean sound with mininal unecessarly added noise and distortion? If those 'vinyl bigots' were being treated the same way that you and nob have treated Jenn, then I would say that you got what you deserved. Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves. If you were happily minding your own business, and offered a simple opinion that wasn't geared toward 'debunking' or 'convincing,' someone of their error, then I would say they were as wrong as you are now. Over the years a lot of progress has been made. Vinyl bigots used to believe a lot of weirdness, that has been effectively debunked. I don't know if they wised up or just learned that the bogus claims they made about digital got them into trouble. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone liking either format. Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion is hypocritical and self-contradictory. Correct. Saying that digital has audible forms of distortion such as graininess, or being incapable of reproducing certain tones or timbres is the result of being poorly-informed. Wrong. (How's that for sitting on the fence?) Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with being a hypocrite or self-contradictory, or being intentionally poorly-informed. ;-) Are you making excuses for yourself, Arny? |
#73
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:21:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey: I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly, smelly creature. No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey (on the left) and another diehard Kroopologist (real name dickless maletwitski, aka torrie****s, aka dippyborg). Check it out: http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RA..._and_Thing.jpg Looks like Middius screwed up and posted a picture of himself and Sackman instead. If so they're both wearing well. Though not for long by the looks. :-) |
#74
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:20:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message ups.com From: Arny Krueger Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:22 pm Email: "Arny Krueger" What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed my preference for clean sound with mininal unecessarly added noise and distortion? If those 'vinyl bigots' were being treated the same way that you and nob have treated Jenn, then I would say that you got what you deserved. Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves. If you were happily minding your own business, and offered a simple opinion that wasn't geared toward 'debunking' or 'convincing,' someone of their error, then I would say they were as wrong as you are now. Over the years a lot of progress has been made. Vinyl bigots used to believe a lot of weirdness, that has been effectively debunked. I don't know if they wised up or just learned that the bogus claims they made about digital got them into trouble. There's nothing inherently wrong with someone liking either format. Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion is hypocritical and self-contradictory. Correct. Saying that digital has audible forms of distortion such as graininess, or being incapable of reproducing certain tones or timbres is the result of being poorly-informed. Wrong. (How's that for sitting on the fence?) It's like having a fence pole do something to you that is unmentionable in polite company. |
#75
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you
prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion is hypocritical and self-contradictory. Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity* Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity. I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to making things up all the time. I don't know why you removed the statement that I responded to. Maybe it would explain what I said. I put it back. It still does not say anything like what you stated. Can't have that, can you? Sure! There it is! Will you *ever* engage in honest debate, or are you so intent on getting whatever points that you deem necessary across that you will resort to lies, inaccuracies, and distortions to do so? If you are so sure that the 'truth' is on your side, why do you resort to engaging in these tactics? |
#76
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
nob lies again. When will the lies end?
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:07:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: BTW who is Parker? Paul Packer, sorry for the typo. Yet another gentle little lamb who couldn't melt butter with his mouth, he's so sweet. Why thank you, Arnie. I always thought I was sweet too, but I could never get anyone to agree with me before. Never thought you'd be the first though. :-) |
#77
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Krooger's lie about GlennZ deconstructed
George M. Middius schrieb in Nachricht ... [...] And the "Anonymous" Glenn refers to was S[é]basti[e]n McInt[yre], an erstwhile Kroopologist who posted to RAO under various netnyms. He's long gone from RAO -- possibly because, if you believe the rumors, he was arrested and prosecuted for breaking Internet privacy laws. A typical Kroopologist. "Save your sympathy and know that only a body is in prison. At my will, I walk your streets and am right out there among you." Charles Manson Pimp, thief and mass murderer. (Quoted from "Manson in His Own Words") Translation: The only safe connection is no connection. En passant, Votre Middiotie, vos hémorroïdes ne vous font pas trop souffrir j'espère... Gentil, gentil, le Georgie, hein?... -- Anon E. Mouse [Playing: "Soul Obligation" - Rascalz] |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
FS: Tubes (long list) | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Validity of audio tests | High End Audio | |||
Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Pro Audio | |||
Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Audio Opinions | |||
Power Filtration | Audio Opinions |