| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in
message et "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: His constant dance around the ABX question,while entertaining is still a dance, and he's dishonest about it. In what way am I being dishonest, Mr. McKelvy? That it, (DBT) would be of no interest to your readers. I receive much mail on this subject. As a result, I am certain that the call for Stereophile's reviews to be based on double-blind testing comes from a minority of actual readers. Most of it comes from people like Arny Krueger who are _not_ readers, to the best of my knowledge. I am expressing opinions formed as the result of my quite extensive experience. And opinions are like.....................? Aren't facts more usuful? Opinions _based_ on experience and first-hand knowledge, Mr. McKelvy. I find it curious that some of you ABX advocates have little or no experience of that which you profess such faith in. Why not just admit that the first duty you adhere to is the one that keeps ad dollars coming in, and that accurate reviews of products is a distand second or third? Ah, that old canard. Tell me. Mr. McKelvy, if your statement is correct, how do you explain the fact that I often give positive reviews to non-advertisers, or that fact that I publish critical reviews of products made by advertisers? And to return to my question, which you conveniently snipped. I asked: If you think this is dishonest, do you think the same about Arny Krueger's false and unsubstantiated accusations that I have attacked his children, his wife, and his religious beliefs? Or that I have welched on a debt I owe him? I haven't done any of these things, as the record is clear, yet I don't see you criticizing AK for being "dishonest." You had no reply to what I thought was an unambiguous question. I asked it because in a previous message in this thread, you were just as unambiguous regarding your views of Arny Krueger's behavior: On Friday, 12 Aug 2005 03:30:59 GMT " wrote in message et I have yet to see him [Arny Krueger] tell a flat out lie, he does the same thing I do, he just fires back the same kind of things people make up about him....If on some rare occasion, Arny gets some bit of data wrong, he cops to it. So I ask again, given that I have _never_ attacked Arny Krueger's children, his wife, or his religious beliefs and that I do not owe Mr. Krueger any money, how do you explain his accusations that I _have_ done all these things, Mr. McKelvy? They are, to be blunt, "flat-out lies," as the Google record makes clear, yet you are on record as saying that Mr. Krueger has _never_ told a "flat-out lie." And far from "copping" that he was wrong about these matters, Mr. Krueger has first repeated the lies, without offering any substantiation, then has ducked out the discussion. You also say that Arny Krueger abuses people in response to things they have said about him, yet I have tried very hard to treat Mr. Krueger with civility, again as the Google record, which you have said you trust, reveals. How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" said:
How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson:
In what way am I being dishonest, Mr. McKelvy? I am expressing opinions formed as the result of my quite extensive experience. Mike McKelvy: And opinions are like.....................? Aren't facts more usuful? Why not just admit that the first duty you adhere to is the one that keeps ad dollars coming in, and that accurate reviews of products is a distant second or third? Second or third???? You're giving the Slimey Limey _way_ too much credit! ;-) Accurate reviews and an honest editorial position would quickly sink the good ship Stereophile. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. The insult lies not in sighted tests, but in deceiving the readers (e.g., a positive "review" of Shakti Stones) for the sake of advertising revenue. Stereophile has morphed from a publication that sought to serve the interests of it's readers into a publication that always serves the interests of the advertisers at the expense of the readers. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Albertz, you are tired and cranky. Get your ass home now, we have
to go out to have our ears candled tonight. sam wrote: " wrote An assertion is an idea that has not been proven. So? It's an idea, and only an idea until proven to be something more. Incorrect. Whether or not differences exist is a state of reality. Differences exist or they don't - whether someone asserts they exist or not - whether someone proves they exist or not. I never discount that possibility. I do discount anecdotes as proof. Anecdotes aren't proof. No one presents an anecdote as proof. There may be strongly held beliefs associated with anecdotes. Which still means they mean nothing. I never said otherwise. And no one can discount those beliefs as untrue or whimsical because you can't prove a negative. They may be true - just as yet unproven. Then prove them and stop complaining about how they are criticised because they have no supporting evidence. Eat me, Mike. I don't have to prove ****. I don't intend to prove ****. Tell your ****ing engineer buddy Arny to prove it. People were criticized for asserting that the world was round, weren't they Mike? The simple fact is that in countless ABX DBT's alleged differences disappear. While you may not consider this as proof that amps, etc sound the same, it is evidence, and it is relaible. Evidence of what? Many people assert they hear differences and when put to the test, they're unable to support their assertions. No argument. When people assert that they're unsatisfied or fatigued after extended listening periods, you have no *evidence* to discount those kinds of assertions. So eat me. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown Supporting Ak is quite tricky It's much like doin' a quickie. If you don't take care You'll be the worse for wear In fact it can get quite sticky... Hammingaway Inc. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"sam" wrote in message ... " wrote An assertion is an idea that has not been proven. So? It's an idea, and only an idea until proven to be something more. Incorrect. Whether or not differences exist is a state of reality. Differences exist or they don't - whether someone asserts they exist or not - whether someone proves they exist or not. I never discount that possibility. I do discount anecdotes as proof. Anecdotes aren't proof. No one presents an anecdote as proof. There may be strongly held beliefs associated with anecdotes. Which still means they mean nothing. I never said otherwise. And no one can discount those beliefs as untrue or whimsical because you can't prove a negative. They may be true - just as yet unproven. Then prove them and stop complaining about how they are criticised because they have no supporting evidence. Eat me, Mike. I don't have to prove ****. I don't intend to prove ****. Tell your ****ing engineer buddy Arny to prove it. People were criticized for asserting that the world was round, weren't they Mike? And until there was evidence to the contrary that was a perfectly reasonable position. When new evidence is available that shows that DBT's aren't effective, I'll consider it. There seems to plenty of criticism but no evidence that something else is better. The simple fact is that in countless ABX DBT's alleged differences disappear. While you may not consider this as proof that amps, etc sound the same, it is evidence, and it is relaible. Evidence of what? That there are not many different sounding amps. Many people assert they hear differences and when put to the test, they're unable to support their assertions. No argument. When people assert that they're unsatisfied or fatigued after extended listening periods, you have no *evidence* to discount those kinds of assertions. So eat me. Stunningly argued. Fatigue can be from lots of sources, what proof do you or anyone have that it is because of some aspect of the amp or other equipment, that isn't already known or tested for? |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote
People were criticized for asserting that the world was round, weren't they Mike? And until there was evidence to the contrary that was a perfectly reasonable position. It was an incorrect position. Just as the assertion that music reproduction systems all have the same effect on human beings unless clipping or broken may be an incorrect position. You've already agreed with this. .......When new evidence is available that shows that DBT's aren't effective, I'll consider it. There seems to plenty of criticism but no evidence that something else is better. Jeez Mike, no one said DBT's aren't effective and I'm not criticizing them for their effective use. What did I say, Mike? You agreed with it - remember? Maybe Arny should try to invent something better instead of flapping his jaw and ****ing people off. Fatigue can be from lots of sources, what proof do you or anyone have that it is because of some aspect of the amp or other equipment, that isn't already known or tested for? No proof. Just scores of anecdotes which you can no better prove false. I'm getting tired of this discussion, Mike. Haven't we been all the way around it? |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... " wrote in message et "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: His constant dance around the ABX question,while entertaining is still a dance, and he's dishonest about it. In what way am I being dishonest, Mr. McKelvy? That it, (DBT) would be of no interest to your readers. I receive much mail on this subject. As a result, I am certain that the call for Stereophile's reviews to be based on double-blind testing comes from a minority of actual readers. That's part of the dance. Nobody asked you to BASE your reviews on DBT's, no traw men please. Most of it comes from people like Arny Krueger who are _not_ readers, to the best of my knowledge. We have been given to understand that your knowledge is limited. I am expressing opinions formed as the result of my quite extensive experience. And opinions are like.....................? Aren't facts more usuful? Opinions _based_ on experience and first-hand knowledge, Mr. McKelvy. I find it curious that some of you ABX advocates have little or no experience of that which you profess such faith in. I have no FAITH in anything. Things are either real or not. The kinds of differences your reviewers claim to hear are often times at odds with reality, end of story. I don't have to stick my hand in the fire to know it burns, but thanks for yet another straw man. Why not just admit that the first duty you adhere to is the one that keeps ad dollars coming in, and that accurate reviews of products is a distand second or third? Ah, that old canard. Tell me. Mr. McKelvy, if your statement is correct, how do you explain the fact that I often give positive reviews to non-advertisers, Bait. or that fact that I publish critical reviews of products made by advertisers? Because if you published honest reviews, that included DBT's, you'd have a very boring magazine. It's all kinda meaningless, since the negative reviews are often no more real than the glowing ones, they are based on the worst possible scenario for determining if any of the things claimed could be real. And to return to my question, which you conveniently snipped. I asked: If you think this is dishonest, do you think the same about Arny Krueger's false and unsubstantiated accusations that I have attacked his children, his wife, and his religious beliefs? I think I'm not going to discuyss issues that I haven't any first hand knowledge of. I will say if such happend, that they are no better or worse than the vitriol that has been directed at Arny from a variety of sources. That doesn't excuse it. People who get their panties in a twist over what gets said here, probably shouldn't play here. That being said, the death of Arny's son should have been and should remain off limits, and anyone who made such comments, IMO should be shuned, would you agree? Or that I have welched on a debt I owe him? I haven't done any of these things, as the record is clear, yet I don't see you criticizing AK for being "dishonest." See above. You had no reply to what I thought was an unambiguous question. It's more of your dancing and misdirection, I won't discuss it again in this thread, if you want to start one and prove your case, I might read that one. I asked it because in a previous message in this thread, you were just as unambiguous regarding your views of Arny Krueger's behavior: On Friday, 12 Aug 2005 03:30:59 GMT " wrote in message et I have yet to see him [Arny Krueger] tell a flat out lie, he does the same thing I do, he just fires back the same kind of things people make up about him....If on some rare occasion, Arny gets some bit of data wrong, he cops to it. So I ask again, given that I have _never_ attacked Arny Krueger's children, his wife, or his religious beliefs and that I do not owe Mr. Krueger any money, how do you explain his accusations that I _have_ done all these things, Mr. McKelvy? They are, to be blunt, "flat-out lies," as the Google record makes clear, yet you are on record as saying that Mr. Krueger has _never_ told a "flat-out lie." And far from "copping" that he was wrong about these matters, Mr. Krueger has first repeated the lies, without offering any substantiation, then has ducked out the discussion. You also say that Arny Krueger abuses people in response to things they have said about him, yet I have tried very hard to treat Mr. Krueger with civility, again as the Google record, which you have said you trust, reveals. How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile How do you explain your constant obfuscations made in you rmagazine? How do you expalin Fremer attacking Nousaine because of what he daid? |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. I said I had not seen him do it. I also said that when he sometimes has obviously stretched the truth, that it was in response to same, IME. You have yet to adequately address why you magazine has zero oversight on things like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, that make people laugh at you when you try to claim any sort of crediblity. They are fraud, and anyone with a shred of integrity would be offended to let the glowing reviews that the dolts at SP penned ever see light of day. (Begin Dance here) |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike McKelvy said to John Atkinson:
You have yet to adequately address why your magazine has zero oversight on things like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, that make people laugh at you when you try to claim any sort of crediblity. They are fraud, and anyone with a shred of integrity would be offended to let the glowing reviews that the dolts at SP penned ever see light of day. (Begin Dance here) The "Atkinson Two-step"! |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com Mike McKelvy said to John Atkinson: You have yet to adequately address why your magazine has zero oversight on things like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, that make people laugh at you when you try to claim any sort of crediblity. They are fraud, and anyone with a shred of integrity would be offended to let the glowing reviews that the dolts at SP penned ever see light of day. (Begin Dance here) The "Atkinson Two-step"! I wonder at Audiophools like Paul Packer and the rest of the Middius dupes who don't seem to understand that SP's economically efficacious promotion of snake oil like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, is based on how incredibly easy it is to manipulate sighted evaluations. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Mike McKelvy said to John Atkinson: You have yet to adequately address why your magazine has zero oversight on things like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, that make people laugh at you when you try to claim any sort of crediblity. They are fraud, and anyone with a shred of integrity would be offended to let the glowing reviews that the dolts at SP penned ever see light of day. (Begin Dance here) The "Atkinson Two-step"! I wonder at Audiophools like Paul Packer and the rest of the Middius dupes who don't seem to understand that SP's economically efficacious promotion of snake oil like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, is based on how incredibly easy it is to manipulate sighted evaluations. Could it be that Shakti Stones, Mpingo disks and other snakeoil crapola have a "subconcious effect" on the "vibrations"? :-D |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson asked of Mike McKelvy: why, in the face of the evidence that I haven't done the things Arny accuses me of, do you cling to your faith that Arny has never told a "flat-out lie,"to quote from the section of my message that you snipped? Sorry, I didn't mean "snipped," I meant your August 12 posting where you made the unambiguous claim that Arny Krueger has "never" told a "flat-out lie." John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. I said I had not seen him do it. I also said that when he sometimes has obviously stretched the truth, that it was in response to same, IME. You are negligent. You have made Arny Krueger into your personal idol. If you must do this, then you owe it to yourself and others to exercise diligence in understanding this man, what he says, and what he does. It is incontestable that Arny Krueger has lied many times, persistently, on multiple occasions, and on multiple subjects. If you haven't seen this, it's because you don't care to look. If you insist on being a follower, at least understand what you are following. What a trusting guy you are! Another fate would find you drinking KoolAid courtesy of Jim Jones. Do you endorse the idea of stretching the truth because the opponent does the same? Is your creed "Fight lies with lies" ? |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
"sam" wrote in message ... " wrote People were criticized for asserting that the world was round, weren't they Mike? And until there was evidence to the contrary that was a perfectly reasonable position. It was an incorrect position. It wasw factually incorrect, but until new evidence emerged it was the logical position to hold. Just as the assertion that music reproduction systems all have the same effect on human beings unless clipping or broken may be an incorrect position. But until evidence emerges showing otherwise, it is the correct position to hold. You've already agreed with this. I've agreed that there might be data which has not emerged, but until it does, and may not, since it's likely untrue, then the current position that things that sound the same don't have any other effects, is the correct one. .......When new evidence is available that shows that DBT's aren't effective, I'll consider it. There seems to plenty of criticism but no evidence that something else is better. Jeez Mike, no one said DBT's aren't effective and I'm not criticizing them for their effective use. What did I say, Mike? You agreed with it - remember? Maybe Arny should try to invent something better instead of flapping his jaw and ****ing people off. Fatigue can be from lots of sources, what proof do you or anyone have that it is because of some aspect of the amp or other equipment, that isn't already known or tested for? No proof. Just scores of anecdotes which you can no better prove false. That's asking to prove a negative again. There's nothing but anecdotes and no confirmation of them as anything more. When there's evidence other than such anecdotes, present it, although I'm fairly confident that somewhere in the field of psychoaccoustics, it's been looked into. I'm getting tired of this discussion, Mike. Haven't we been all the way around it? Only because you don't seem to want to acknowledge you have a claim with no evidence. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike McKelvy asked John Atkinson
snipped Now, how about answering where the integrity goes when SP prints glowing reviews of crap like Mpingo disks, or why you can't hire people who won't get into screaming matches in public, like Fremer did with Nousaine? Atkinson is running away from such questions, eh? The dance continues. Or is he just dancing away? ;-) |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. I said I had not seen him do it. I also said that when he sometimes has obviously stretched the truth, that it was in response to same, IME. You are negligent. You have made Arny Krueger into your personal idol. No, not anymore than you have made Middius yours. I simply trust him to give me good info on audio. Just like you can count on George to be smarmy. If you must do this, then you owe it to yourself and others to exercise diligence in understanding this man, what he says, and what he does. Outside the are of audio, I have no reason to care what he does and involve myself in other discussions if I feel like it. It is incontestable that Arny Krueger has lied many times As it is incontestable that you get technical issues wrong many times. , persistently, on multiple occasions, and on multiple subjects. How about on the subjectof audio? If you haven't seen this, it's because you don't care to look. Could be, especially if they don't have anything to with audio, or if it's just the usual carping between the usual suspects. If you insist on being a follower, at least understand what you are following. I'm not following, I'm just reading. What a trusting guy you are! Another fate would find you drinking KoolAid courtesy of Jim Jones. Not bloody likely, that would be the subjectivists, they'd drink the KoolAid if someone told them it gave a better sense of rhythm and pace. Atkinson would no doubt review the effect in a very positive way. Do you endorse the idea of stretching the truth because the opponent does the same? Is your creed "Fight lies with lies" ? My creed is leave people the **** alone on usenet, if you don't want to be bothered. If you want to disagree on technical grounds, do so on an equal footing. I suspect that's why you have such a problem with Arny, he knows more than you about audio. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. I said I had not seen him do it. I also said that when he sometimes has obviously stretched the truth, that it was in response to same, IME. You are negligent. You have made Arny Krueger into your personal idol. No, not anymore than you have made Middius yours. I simply trust him to give me good info on audio. Just like you can count on George to be smarmy. If you must do this, then you owe it to yourself and others to exercise diligence in understanding this man, what he says, and what he does. Outside the are of audio, I have no reason to care what he does and involve myself in other discussions if I feel like it. It is incontestable that Arny Krueger has lied many times As it is incontestable that you get technical issues wrong many times. , persistently, on multiple occasions, and on multiple subjects. How about on the subjectof audio? If you haven't seen this, it's because you don't care to look. Could be, especially if they don't have anything to with audio, or if it's just the usual carping between the usual suspects. If you insist on being a follower, at least understand what you are following. I'm not following, I'm just reading. What a trusting guy you are! Another fate would find you drinking KoolAid courtesy of Jim Jones. Not bloody likely, that would be the subjectivists, they'd drink the KoolAid if someone told them it gave a better sense of rhythm and pace. Atkinson would no doubt review the effect in a very positive way. Do you endorse the idea of stretching the truth because the opponent does the same? Is your creed "Fight lies with lies" ? My creed is leave people the **** alone on usenet, Oops! Mikey lies again! Try "LieAlot Lozenges". They taste like ****, and they stick in your throat when you try to tell a Big One. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. I said I had not seen him do it. I find this hard to believe, given that you both responded to the message in which Arny Krueger said I had attacked his children and subsequently challenged me to state for the record that Google would not uncover any messages in which I had atacked Arny's chidren. Careful your optional spelling of children (chidren) will get Mr . moreing tinking you're not too smart. Oh come on, Mr. McKelvy. Yes, I made a couple of typos. So what? It's Arny Krueger who gets so upset by typos, as readily revealed by the Google record. So I ask again: your poor memory for your own actions notwithstanding, why, in the face of the evidence that I haven't done the things Arny accuses me of, do you cling to your faith that Arny has never told a "flat-out lie"... I won't comment on it until or unless I review the context of the discussion. What's to review? You made an an unambiguous, unqualified statement that "Arny Krueger has never told a flat-out lie." I have repeatedly offered you factual evidence that you were incorrect. All you have left to support your position is your unsupported faith in Mr. Krueger's honesty. Now, how about answering where the integrity goes when SP prints glowing reviews of crap like Mpingo disks... Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. Why is it so hard for you faith-based critics to even do the minumum amount of research before you issue your pronouncements? why you can't hire people who won't get into screaming matches in public, like Fremer did with Nousaine? I am not aware of this happening, Mr. McKelvy. More faith-based projection on your part, I suggest. Yes, Michael Fremer did get into a shouting match with Arny Krueger at HE2005, but that was because Mr. Krueger started screaming "Demonstration" at the top of his voice, drowning out Mr. Fremer's reporting of having achieved what he felt to be identification in a blind test of amplifiers that took place at the 1988 AES convention. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com... Mike McKelvy said to John Atkinson: You have yet to adequately address why your magazine has zero oversight on things like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, that make people laugh at you when you try to claim any sort of crediblity. They are fraud, and anyone with a shred of integrity would be offended to let the glowing reviews that the dolts at SP penned ever see light of day. Remember the days when Harry Pearson, et al, would say things like, "This is the same crap that XYZ has been putting out ..." I suppose money wins out in the end because you can't bite the hand that feeds you. If any one knows of a rebel, non-advertising audio magazine, please tell. Cordially, west |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
Robert Morein said: My creed is leave people the **** alone on usenet, Oops! Mikey lies again! Try "LieAlot Lozenges". They taste like ****, and they stick in your throat when you try to tell a Big One. Mickey may not be lying. He's the dullest knife in the drawer, you know, so maybe he's just too dumb to figure it out. Check out the thread where he's weaseling around trying to defend the flat-earthers. "Logical" indeed. Mickey has elevated cluelessness to an art form. |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jon Yaeger said: If any one knows of a rebel, non-advertising audio magazine, please tell. I don't think there is one, West. Why don't you start one? He can't. He doesn't have the $30 per month for web hosting. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
George Middius lied: Robert Morein said: My creed is leave people the **** alone on usenet, Oops! Mikey lies again! Try "LieAlot Lozenges". They taste like ****, and they stick in your throat when you try to tell a Big One. Mickey may not be lying. He's the dullest knife in the drawer, you know, so maybe he's just too dumb to figure it out. Check out the thread where he's weaseling around trying to defend the flat-earthers. "Logical" indeed. Mickey has elevated cluelessness to an art form. Do you mean the thread where Mike McKelvy has your HeroLiar, John "Slimey Limey" Atkinson, running for cover? ;-) |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson lied: snipped Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. I went to the SP website and found three effusive, glowing "reviews" ( two by the notorious shill Jonathan Scull and one by Sam Tellig) and one sorta non-committal review by Barry Willis. Am I missing something, or is any review that doesn't kiss the advertiser's ass qualify as "negative" at SP these days? Why is it so hard for you faith-based critics to even do the minumum amount of research before you issue your pronouncements? Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth, scumball? |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. I said I had not seen him do it. I find this hard to believe, given that you both responded to the message in which Arny Krueger said I had attacked his children and subsequently challenged me to state for the record that Google would not uncover any messages in which I had atacked Arny's chidren. Careful your optional spelling of children (chidren) will get Mr . moreing tinking you're not too smart. Oh come on, Mr. McKelvy. Yes, I made a couple of typos. So what? I was commenting on Morein's remarks about my typos and misspellings. Frankly, I understand that people make such mistakes and seldom on them. It's Arny Krueger who gets so upset by typos, as readily revealed by the Google record. Only after comments about his mistakes have been made, IME. So I ask again: your poor memory for your own actions notwithstanding, why, in the face of the evidence that I haven't done the things Arny accuses me of, do you cling to your faith that Arny has never told a "flat-out lie"... I won't comment on it until or unless I review the context of the discussion. What's to review? Context. Look it up. You made an an unambiguous, unqualified statement that "Arny Krueger has never told a flat-out lie." That I am awarre of. I have repeatedly offered you factual evidence that you were incorrect. All you have left to support your position is your unsupported faith in Mr. Krueger's honesty. Now, how about answering where the integrity goes when SP prints glowing reviews of crap like Mpingo disks... Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. Why? What positives could there be for something that doesn't do anything? Where FR measurements made? Why is it so hard for you faith-based critics to even do the minumum amount of research before you issue your pronouncements? If irony killed. why you can't hire people who won't get into screaming matches in public, like Fremer did with Nousaine? I am not aware of this happening, Mr. McKelvy. More faith-based projection on your part, I suggest. Fremer does work for you right? Did you ask him? Nousaine reported it in the Audio Critic. Yes, Michael Fremer did get into a shouting match with Arny Krueger at HE2005, but that was because Mr. Krueger started screaming "Demonstration" at the top of his voice, drowning out Mr. Fremer's reporting of having achieved what he felt to be identification in a blind test of amplifiers that took place at the 1988 AES convention. So Arny wanted proof, what a *******/ Let me guess, Fremer, the guy who can't hear what a piece of crap a WAVAC amp is, has not come forth to prove he can do what he claims. Big surprise. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Sander deWaal wrote: "John Atkinson" said to Mike McKelvy, regarding his claims about Arny Krueger's truthfulness: How, then do you excuse the unwarranted accusations he has made of me and the lack of civility which which he addresses me? You're a (the!) heretic. Relying on sighted tests is insulting all by itself, apparently. It certainly echoes the moral blinkers shown, for example, by Steven Sullivan in the "Don Pearce" thread who is very quick to condemn sighted listening as practiced by those he disagrees with but equally slow to condemn confirmed unethical behavior in those whose audio philosophy aligns with his own. But Mr. McKelvy having made such a strong, unambiguous statement about Arny Krueger's truthfulness, one that is contrary to all the evidence, I would be interested in learning from him why he feels his faith-based workd-view is superior to actual reality. I said I had not seen him do it. I also said that when he sometimes has obviously stretched the truth, that it was in response to same, IME. You are negligent. You have made Arny Krueger into your personal idol. No, not anymore than you have made Middius yours. I simply trust him to give me good info on audio. Just like you can count on George to be smarmy. If you must do this, then you owe it to yourself and others to exercise diligence in understanding this man, what he says, and what he does. Outside the are of audio, I have no reason to care what he does and involve myself in other discussions if I feel like it. It is incontestable that Arny Krueger has lied many times As it is incontestable that you get technical issues wrong many times. , persistently, on multiple occasions, and on multiple subjects. How about on the subjectof audio? If you haven't seen this, it's because you don't care to look. Could be, especially if they don't have anything to with audio, or if it's just the usual carping between the usual suspects. If you insist on being a follower, at least understand what you are following. I'm not following, I'm just reading. What a trusting guy you are! Another fate would find you drinking KoolAid courtesy of Jim Jones. Not bloody likely, that would be the subjectivists, they'd drink the KoolAid if someone told them it gave a better sense of rhythm and pace. Atkinson would no doubt review the effect in a very positive way. Do you endorse the idea of stretching the truth because the opponent does the same? Is your creed "Fight lies with lies" ? My creed is leave people the **** alone on usenet, Oops! Mikey lies again! Try "LieAlot Lozenges". They taste like ****, and they stick in your throat when you try to tell a Big One. How many do you usually take in a day? |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr. Morein:
How goes the FM Listening Survey? |
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote:
In article .com, wrote: John Atkinson lied: snipped Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. I went to the SP website and found three effusive, glowing "reviews" ( two by the notorious shill Jonathan Scull and one by Sam Tellig) and one sorta non-committal review by Barry Willis. Am I missing something, or is any review that doesn't kiss the advertiser's ass qualify as "negative" at SP these days? There is nothing in Barry Willis' writing on these products that could be taken as anything but negative. I disagree, see below. "Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned" for example. Which allows for the idea that that the reviewer (Willis) failed to hear the difference, not that said difference did not exist. Contrast this with the unambiguous, effusive praise from Scull and Tellig. You toss around the word "lied" quite loosely, in my opinion. It's my "expectation effect" when dealing with Atkinson. :-) |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: John Atkinson lied: snipped Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. I went to the SP website and found three effusive, glowing "reviews" ( two by the notorious shill Jonathan Scull and one by Sam Tellig) and one sorta non-committal review by Barry Willis. Am I missing something, or is any review that doesn't kiss the advertiser's ass qualify as "negative" at SP these days? There is nothing in Barry Willis' writing on these products that could be taken as anything but negative. I disagree, see below. "Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned" for example. Which allows for the idea that that the reviewer (Willis) failed to hear the difference, not that said difference did not exist. Contrast this with the unambiguous, effusive praise from Scull and Tellig. If you read all of Willis' pieces, he clearly belittles the item. He speaks at length about the need for "belief" in regards to them. |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: John Atkinson lied: snipped Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. I went to the SP website and found three effusive, glowing "reviews" ( two by the notorious shill Jonathan Scull and one by Sam Tellig) and one sorta non-committal review by Barry Willis. Am I missing something, or is any review that doesn't kiss the advertiser's ass qualify as "negative" at SP these days? There is nothing in Barry Willis' writing on these products that could be taken as anything but negative. I disagree, see below. "Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned" for example. Which allows for the idea that that the reviewer (Willis) failed to hear the difference, not that said difference did not exist. Contrast this with the unambiguous, effusive praise from Scull and Tellig. If you read all of Willis' pieces, he clearly belittles the item. He speaks at length about the need for "belief" in regards to them. Jenn, I did read all of Willis' pieces regarding Mpingo discs, as well as all of Scull and Tellig. IMO, to see Willis as purely "negative" requires being a bit sceptical about such products to begin with. The need for belief part follows from there. OTOH, the Scull/Tellig "reviews" are unambiguous in their praise. They make the Mpingo discs seem magical, changing the soundstage, etc., etc. This is far from the "balance" that Atkinson implied ("both positive and negative coverage"). |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: John Atkinson lied: snipped Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. I went to the SP website and found three effusive, glowing "reviews" ( two by the notorious shill Jonathan Scull and one by Sam Tellig) and one sorta non-committal review by Barry Willis. Am I missing something, or is any review that doesn't kiss the advertiser's ass qualify as "negative" at SP these days? There is nothing in Barry Willis' writing on these products that could be taken as anything but negative. I disagree, see below. "Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned" for example. Which allows for the idea that that the reviewer (Willis) failed to hear the difference, not that said difference did not exist. Contrast this with the unambiguous, effusive praise from Scull and Tellig. If you read all of Willis' pieces, he clearly belittles the item. He speaks at length about the need for "belief" in regards to them. Jenn, I did read all of Willis' pieces regarding Mpingo discs, as well as all of Scull and Tellig. IMO, to see Willis as purely "negative" requires being a bit sceptical about such products to begin with. The need for belief part follows from there. Some quotes from Willis: "He cued up some music, let it play for a minute, walked over to one of his small loudspeakers---which bore a Mpingo disc on its far right corner---gave the disc a 180-degree twist, and looked expectantly at us for our reaction. Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned." "In Hi-Fi Land, faith has traditionally prevailed over reason, often to the benefit of people who make items of marginal or imaginary value." "In other words, they work to the limits of their users' belief." Yes, he "leaves the door open" to the possibility that these things do indeed affect sound. He clearly states, however, that he doesn't hear it. If you were the maker of a product that received such a review, you no doubt would consider it to be a negative one, thus disproving your accusation of JA lying when he stated, "Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy." |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: John Atkinson lied: snipped Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. I went to the SP website and found three effusive, glowing "reviews" ( two by the notorious shill Jonathan Scull and one by Sam Tellig) and one sorta non-committal review by Barry Willis. Am I missing something, or is any review that doesn't kiss the advertiser's ass qualify as "negative" at SP these days? There is nothing in Barry Willis' writing on these products that could be taken as anything but negative. I disagree, see below. "Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned" for example. Which allows for the idea that that the reviewer (Willis) failed to hear the difference, not that said difference did not exist. Contrast this with the unambiguous, effusive praise from Scull and Tellig. If you read all of Willis' pieces, he clearly belittles the item. He speaks at length about the need for "belief" in regards to them. Jenn, I did read all of Willis' pieces regarding Mpingo discs, as well as all of Scull and Tellig. IMO, to see Willis as purely "negative" requires being a bit sceptical about such products to begin with. The need for belief part follows from there. Some quotes from Willis: "He cued up some music, let it play for a minute, walked over to one of his small loudspeakers---which bore a Mpingo disc on its far right corner---gave the disc a 180-degree twist, and looked expectantly at us for our reaction. Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned." "In Hi-Fi Land, faith has traditionally prevailed over reason, often to the benefit of people who make items of marginal or imaginary value." "In other words, they work to the limits of their users' belief." These quotes are faint, indeed, compared to the unambiguous, glowing praise from Scull and Tellig. Did you read their crap? Yes, he "leaves the door open" to the possibility that these things do indeed affect sound. Whilst Scull/Tellig never allow the possibility that they *do not*. He clearly states, however, that he doesn't hear it. Scull and Tellig clearly do hear it, obvious and dramatic. If you were the maker of a product that received such a review, you no doubt would consider it to be a negative one, Willis' review, standing alone, might be taken thus. However, taken against the glowing praise from Scull and Tellig, the maker should happily sign another advertising contract: Atkinson has delivered as promised. thus disproving your accusation of JA lying when he stated, "Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy." Disagreeed. YMMV |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: Jenn wrote: In article .com, wrote: John Atkinson lied: snipped Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy. I went to the SP website and found three effusive, glowing "reviews" ( two by the notorious shill Jonathan Scull and one by Sam Tellig) and one sorta non-committal review by Barry Willis. Am I missing something, or is any review that doesn't kiss the advertiser's ass qualify as "negative" at SP these days? There is nothing in Barry Willis' writing on these products that could be taken as anything but negative. I disagree, see below. "Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned" for example. Which allows for the idea that that the reviewer (Willis) failed to hear the difference, not that said difference did not exist. Contrast this with the unambiguous, effusive praise from Scull and Tellig. If you read all of Willis' pieces, he clearly belittles the item. He speaks at length about the need for "belief" in regards to them. Jenn, I did read all of Willis' pieces regarding Mpingo discs, as well as all of Scull and Tellig. IMO, to see Willis as purely "negative" requires being a bit sceptical about such products to begin with. The need for belief part follows from there. Some quotes from Willis: "He cued up some music, let it play for a minute, walked over to one of his small loudspeakers---which bore a Mpingo disc on its far right corner---gave the disc a 180-degree twist, and looked expectantly at us for our reaction. Perhaps Shun Mook's products perform in a realm to which I am not psychically attuned." "In Hi-Fi Land, faith has traditionally prevailed over reason, often to the benefit of people who make items of marginal or imaginary value." "In other words, they work to the limits of their users' belief." These quotes are faint, indeed, compared to the unambiguous, glowing praise from Scull and Tellig. Did you read their crap? Yes, I read what they wrote. But my point is that Willis does indeed give a negative review, which is what JA said. Yes, he "leaves the door open" to the possibility that these things do indeed affect sound. Whilst Scull/Tellig never allow the possibility that they *do not*. He clearly states, however, that he doesn't hear it. Scull and Tellig clearly do hear it, obvious and dramatic. If you were the maker of a product that received such a review, you no doubt would consider it to be a negative one, Willis' review, standing alone, might be taken thus. However, taken against the glowing praise from Scull and Tellig, the maker should happily sign another advertising contract: Atkinson has delivered as promised. JA said that the product received both positive and negative coverage in SP. He was correct. thus disproving your accusation of JA lying when he stated, "Stereophile published both positive and negative coverage of the Mpingo discs, Mr. McKelvy." Disagreeed. YMMV Of course. :-) |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
In rec.audio.opinion west wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Mike McKelvy said to John Atkinson: You have yet to adequately address why your magazine has zero oversight on things like Shakti Stones and Mpingo disks, that make people laugh at you when you try to claim any sort of crediblity. They are fraud, and anyone with a shred of integrity would be offended to let the glowing reviews that the dolts at SP penned ever see light of day. Remember the days when Harry Pearson, et al, would say things like, "This is the same crap that XYZ has been putting out ..." I suppose money wins out in the end because you can't bite the hand that feeds you. If any one knows of a rebel, non-advertising audio magazine, please tell. Cordially, west here you go: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Web_Zine/ -- -S "God is an asshole!" -- Ruth Fisher, 'Six Feet Under' |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| English lesson for Arnii Krooborg | Audio Opinions | |||
| Lesson from "Meet the Press" | Audio Opinions | |||
| Lesson Learned | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
