Chevdo said:

It makes me laugh

You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the
purple color of your pimply face.

Ad hominems won't make shakti stones work, either. You see when I ridicule

You are soooo angry. Have you met Little ****? He's RAO's nerve center for
unrequited anger.

Shakti Stones don't work.

Then why did you buy them?

gulliable
stupidity
defrauded

Look out, you just popped another zit.

Do your mommy and daddy know you're whacking off in front of your 'puter
instead of doing your chores?

In , Jenn
wrote :

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"SSJVCmag"

Do you understand that the vast majority of people who read RAO do NOT
spam your newsgroup, therefore all of your myriad posts are, in fact,
spam to RAO for the vast majority of us?

Art Sackman is the living proof that ridicule doesn't kill.

In article ,
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"SSJVCmag"

Do you understand that the vast majority of people who read RAO do NOT
spam your newsgroup, therefore all of your myriad posts are, in fact,
spam to RAO for the vast majority of us?

I believe the forged postings under Johnny's name appear to come from
one of the RAO regulars. So in fact it is an RAO guy who is spamming
the rest of _us_.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual
discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its
power for any constructive purpose.

Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to
you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should
I?

John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so
pompous that they would make a post like this!

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

William Sommerdork said:

Most of the people criticizing my views are dull,
lacking wit or insight,

The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description
perfectly.

If irony killed!

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:aLqXe.262429$tt5.62921@edtnps90
In article ,
says...

"EddieM" wrote in message

(Chevododo) wrote:



hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important
to Atkinson, why doesn't
he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for
demonstrating the shakti stones?
Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and
ridiculing a fool, and apparently also his lickspittle
side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.



Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If
someone tried the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work
in their system and decide to pay for it, what is it to
you?

It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper
bracelets are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.

but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what
anyone 'says'.

How about that?

If shakti stones work, a double-blind
test will earn anyone who demonstrates it ONE MILLION
DOLLARS.

Just goes to show, money can't buy you Science.

Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the
shakti stone believers?

It's easier to make those $million$ with Stereophile's
glowing reviews for snake oil products, as approved by John
Atkinson.

Or are there any shakti stone believers?

Probably dimwits like Mike Fremer...

Maybe just ones that believe on weekends?

LOL!

(Chevodeevodee-chevedoveedoo) wrote





Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
pay for it, what is it to you?


What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person
you're
describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called
authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded, they
would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am
potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result in
them
being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that don't
perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim?

It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically state
that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to
argue
with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap.


How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?


How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad hominems
to
my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a public
forum?


Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.

Scott Dorsey a écrit :
In article ,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:


"SSJVCmag"

Do you understand that the vast majority of people who read RAO do NOT
spam your newsgroup, therefore all of your myriad posts are, in fact,
spam to RAO for the vast majority of us?


I believe the forged postings under Johnny's name appear to come from
one of the RAO regulars. So in fact it is an RAO guy who is spamming
the rest of _us_.
--scott

IMHO it's George M. Middius. ;-)

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
. ..
[snip]

* In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule
that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and
which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is
interested.


How can I resist?

Please supply details.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual
discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its
power for any constructive purpose.

Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to
you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should
I?

John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so pompous that
they would make a post like this!
It is completely relevant to the discussion. You're a dirty guy.

wrote in message
...
One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
tinear scale they fall?

The fancier reviews got, the less use they have been to me. Over the years,
I have progressed from the simply worded pieces of Julian Hirsch, to Audio
Magazine in the late 80's and 90's, and of late, to Stereophile.

Stereophile reviews are too elegant, too entertaining. Literally, this
sounds like an absurd complaint. But perhaps embellishment of prose can lead
to embellishment of the listening experience. Review-speak is an open ended
challenge for the writer. If a reviewer made the case that a particular set
of $50K speakers made him experience spatio-temporal dislocation in five
dimensions, and wrote so well that in a brief reverie, the reader could
imagine the experience, what editor is going to say, "I can't run that,
because it's impossible." ?

Julian Hirsch had a particular way of writing, in which a product was rarely
less than good, but he rewarded only a few with his love. After one took
note of the cabinet construction and the frequency response, one only had
to understand the meaning of a few sentences. A speaker review by Julian
Hirsch was not very entertaining, but it was a marvel of simplicity.

Once one understood Hirsch's code, one could perceive that he was a man of
unshakeable integrity. Many times, he reviewed a component with the remark
that he could not afford to own it. His aspirations seemed limited, because
of his complete immersion in service to the audio community. He was not
employed by Stereo Review because he was an entertaining writer. He was not
a charasmatic person, though I can provide one personal anecdote. It happens
we took the same New Jersey Transit train. One morning, we got off together.
I saw a man of such stunning radiance that I picked him out of a crowd of a
hundred people. In an instant, I understood the meaning of the Quaker
expression "inner light."

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...
:
: I know how to spell, I just can't type.
: You, OTOH, don't know how to spell.

Proof it :-)
Reader

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
mag filled.

"Chevdo" wrote in message
news:aLqXe.262429$tt5.62921@edtnps90...
: In article , says...
:
: It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets
: are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.
:
:
: but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what anyone 'says'. If
: shakti stones work, a double-blind test will earn anyone who demonstrates it
: ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the shakti stone
: believers? Or are there any shakti stone believers? Maybe just ones that
: believe on weekends?
:

...that still doesn't give us any indication of what 'work' entails.
So, does the great Randy accept 'proof' in the form of NMR scans
- with / without Shakti stones being present -
of brain activity being markedly different in say the cortex area :-) ??
(listening to the same fragment of music)

Too bad i haven't got an MRI in the shack, always some use for a cool million ;-)
Rudy

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual
discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its
power for any constructive purpose.

Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to
you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should
I?

John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so pompous that
they would make a post like this!


It sounded lot like duh..Mikey's "It's an
opinion you get to have".

Robert Morein said:

* In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule
that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and
which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is
interested.

How can I resist?
Please supply details.

I'll bet the "rule" had nothing to do with placing humility above all
other virtues.

wrote in message
...
"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
mag filled.

Yes, Audio was very much to my taste.

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

William Sommerdork said:

Most of the people criticizing my views are dull,
lacking wit or insight,

The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description
perfectly.

If irony killed!

You're dead already.

Robert Morein said:

"Arny Uberdork"

LOL

If irony killed!

You're dead already.

Can turds die? How do they test for that?

(Note to Mr. Krooborg: This comment should not be taken literally. You are
only a figurative turd, despite being composed of 98% pure feces.)

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the
wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away
bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
mag filled.

Yes, Audio was very much to my taste.



It tasted best when my eyes were closed.

In article ,
"Robert Morein" wrote:

wrote in message
...
One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
tinear scale they fall?

The fancier reviews got, the less use they have been to me. Over the years,
I have progressed from the simply worded pieces of Julian Hirsch, to Audio
Magazine in the late 80's and 90's, and of late, to Stereophile.

Stereophile reviews are too elegant, too entertaining. Literally, this
sounds like an absurd complaint. But perhaps embellishment of prose can lead
to embellishment of the listening experience. Review-speak is an open ended
challenge for the writer. If a reviewer made the case that a particular set
of $50K speakers made him experience spatio-temporal dislocation in five
dimensions, and wrote so well that in a brief reverie, the reader could
imagine the experience, what editor is going to say, "I can't run that,
because it's impossible." ?

Julian Hirsch had a particular way of writing, in which a product was rarely
less than good, but he rewarded only a few with his love. After one took
note of the cabinet construction and the frequency response, one only had
to understand the meaning of a few sentences. A speaker review by Julian
Hirsch was not very entertaining, but it was a marvel of simplicity.

Once one understood Hirsch's code, one could perceive that he was a man of
unshakeable integrity. Many times, he reviewed a component with the remark
that he could not afford to own it. His aspirations seemed limited, because
of his complete immersion in service to the audio community. He was not
employed by Stereo Review because he was an entertaining writer. He was not
a charasmatic person, though I can provide one personal anecdote. It happens
we took the same New Jersey Transit train. One morning, we got off together.
I saw a man of such stunning radiance that I picked him out of a crowd of a
hundred people. In an instant, I understood the meaning of the Quaker
expression "inner light."

Mr. Hirsch changed his reviewing style a bit based, IMO, on comments
about him in Absolute Sound and Stereophile. Again IIRC, in the 70s and
early 80s, JH never mentioned the sound of the piece under review,
including speakers; it was measurements only. Starting sometime in the
80s, he started commenting on the sound of a piece. Concurrently, he
started to make the odd negative comment here and there. It seemed
obvious at the time that this was a reaction from him or his editor to
repeated comments (negative) from the other mags. And, it was a change
that I welcomed. That said, what (very) little I know about the
technical aspects of audio, I learned from JH.

In article ,
wrote:

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
mag filled.

If I may repeat

In article ,
wrote:

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
mag filled.

If I may repeat something that I've said here before, the same thing is
starting to happen, IMHO, to music in general. The state of cultural
literacy in our county is sickening, and is getting worse. The very
reason for the hobby that we enjoy is in danger. Ask the next 20 people
under age 30 that you meet who George Gershwin (or Bernstein, or
Copland...) was and be ready for a shock. We had best take care of our
cultural institutions and how we educate people about them, or we will
only be playing synthesized violins and pink noise on our beloved audio
systems.

I have serious doubts about Julian Hirsch's integrity. He may have felt he
had it, but some of his reviews are questionable. Two stand out.

In one he stated that component A sounded better than component B, but the
difference was of no importance. This rather negates the whole point of
reviewing, does it not?

The other was a 1980 review of a decidedly crummy-sounding EV speaker. He
said it "sounded about as good as you would expect a speaker to sound".
(Interpret that as you like.) A salesman I knew at a competing audio salon
was similarly bothered about that statement, and after demoing the speaker
for me, asked my opinion. There is no doubt that Hirsch did not like the
speaker, and was trying to find some way to avoid saying it. That's hardly
integrity.

As for the length of Stereophile articles... They are way, way, way, too
long. And for no particularly good reason, other than to provide editorial
content to balance advertising space. JGH has often commented negatively on
their length. Even his longest articles for Stereophile don't come anywhere
nearly as close.

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

William Sommerdork said:

Most of the people criticizing my views are dull,
lacking wit or insight,

The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description
perfectly.

If irony killed!

....I would be immune...

"Audio" was down to one DIY article a year when it went. Ed Dell, for
all his faults, is the last real audio publisher alive.

"EddieM" wrote in message
...
(Chevododo) wrote:



hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important to Atkinson, why
doesn't
he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for demonstrating the shakti
stones?
Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and ridiculing a fool, and
apparently also his lickspittle side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.



Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
pay for it, what is it to you?


Inabiltiy to understand that a Shakti Stone can't work ON AUDIO FREQUENCIES,
NOTED.

How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?
If you say a product does something it is scientifically incapable of doing,
that is fraud.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:45:56 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

In article .com,
says...

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!


Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest
people
are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.

So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Asking why they allow snake oil endorsements in his magazine is idiotic?
Only if you already have demonstrated his dishonesty.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
as most dishonest people are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic,
not idiotic.

Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
"sarcastic," I have already addressed the topic at length on r.a.o.
I fail to see why I have to repeat myself because someone is too
lazy to use the Google search engine.


Your addressing was simply to say that you're too ****ing lazy to try out
the stones.

In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have
any kind of intelligent discussion about anything with him. His
points of view are fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any
other point of view.

Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance.

I guess you are never going to forgive me for firing you as a
Stereophile reviewer, are you Bill?


The dance begins anew.

"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..
(Chevodeevodee-chevedoveedoo) wrote





Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
pay for it, what is it to you?


What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person
you're
describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called
authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded,
they
would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am
potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result
in them
being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that
don't
perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim?

It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically
state
that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to
argue
with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap.


How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?


How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad
hominems to
my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a
public
forum?


Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.

"EddieM" wrote in message
. ..
(Chevodeevodee-chevedoveedoo) wrote





Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
pay for it, what is it to you?


What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person
you're
describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called
authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded,
they
would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am
potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result
in them
being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that
don't
perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim?

It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically
state
that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to
argue
with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap.


How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?


How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad
hominems to
my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a
public
forum?


Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.
Delusions of being able to "hear" printed words, noted.

On 18 Sep 2005 03:56:01 -0700, wrote:

You are a stupid, ARROGANT asshole

STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!

Stop crossposting youself!!!!!

Like rats in a maze. But there's no cheese!

Hahahaha

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
I have serious doubts about Julian Hirsch's integrity. He may have felt he
had it, but some of his reviews are questionable. Two stand out.

In one he stated that component A sounded better than component B, but the
difference was of no importance. This rather negates the whole point of
reviewing, does it not?

The other was a 1980 review of a decidedly crummy-sounding EV speaker. He
said it "sounded about as good as you would expect a speaker to sound".
(Interpret that as you like.) A salesman I knew at a competing audio salon
was similarly bothered about that statement, and after demoing the speaker
for me, asked my opinion. There is no doubt that Hirsch did not like the
speaker, and was trying to find some way to avoid saying it. That's hardly
integrity.

Hirsch was trying to get the word out while under a corporate thumb
considerably tighter than Stereophile's. Anyone who read the magazine
regularly learned to interpret Hirsch's remarks as he intended. The
information was there, phrased in a way acceptable to the publishers. To
John Atkinson's credit, there appears to be no pro-forma forbidding of
negative comment about a product.


I would have nothing negative to say about Stereophile reviews, except that
I too often find positive reviews of equipment I can't stand to be in the
room with, such as the early Aragon 8008, the low end or Von Schwekert
loudspeakers. I haven't heard every Von Schweikert, but in the ones I have
auditioned just I sense too many peculiarities. It causes suspicion in my
mind that Stereophile reviewers are too easily impressed by novel
presentations, or appearances.

In the past, I suggested to Atkinson that an attempt be made to broaden the
appeal of the magazine, but he knows his audience. He is a successful
businessman, architect of a magazine that is very interesting to many
people. Look at it this way: everybody who participates in rec.audio.opinion
is, in a tiny way, publisher of his own audio press. We share the active
impulse. We have a need to be heard far above that of the average man. We
argue in public, and are watched by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people,
who rarely, if ever, post here. Stereophile's audience is in the main a
silent majority. We are the exception to the rule. We can't expect Atkinson
to remake the magazine for us.

Everyone here has an active impulse. We are self-learners. When we were
introduced to hifi, we avidly self-educated ourselves, until we reached the
levels of our mentors. For some of us, our mentors were magazines, and it's
natural that we should outgrow them. As self-publishers, we have no need to
rely on what magazine reviewers tell us. We are the minority that form our
own opinions.

We presaged the bloggers. Rec.audio.opinion is as anachronistic as a paper
magazine, but we were the start of the future.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:40:36 -0400, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Any chance you could keep from crossposting into
r.a.p.?

Didn't think so,

Chris Hornbeck

Dr. Dolittle observed:

Like rats in a maze. But there's no cheese!

It got cut in the elevator.


GeoSynch

In article , "Robert Morein"
wrote:

He was not
a charasmatic person, though I can provide one personal anecdote. It happens
we took the same New Jersey Transit train. One morning, we got off together.
I saw a man of such stunning radiance that I picked him out of a crowd of a
hundred people


This anecdote resulted in a visit from the police after Hirsch complained
that my son was stalking him, it wasn't happenstance at all. Sadly, it
wasn't the first time, and hasn't been the last, either.

Unfortunately, Bob can NEVER admit he's been beaten, or he's wrong. He
spent 12 years in college trying to write a thesis that was totally without
any scientific merit. When Drexel got tired of his bleating about not
giving him a degree, he sued them. And even after he was proven IN COURT to
have been wrong, he insisted on appealing to the Supreme Court in
Washington. And then he criticized THE SUPREME COURT and HIS OWN LAWYER for
"erroneous legal reasoning"!

He then wanted ME to fund a lawsuit against his LAWYER!

So you're not going to change him, god knows his mother tried and it killed
her.



Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS

PROVEN PUBLISHED FACTS about my Son, Robert Morein
--

Bob Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...ws/4853918.htm

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.


In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.


Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.


Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.


Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!


Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.


Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.

Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.


"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.


FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:
[snip]
If I may repeat something that I've said here before, the same thing is
starting to happen, IMHO, to music in general. The state of cultural
literacy in our county is sickening, and is getting worse. The very
reason for the hobby that we enjoy is in danger. Ask the next 20 people
under age 30 that you meet who George Gershwin (or Bernstein, or
Copland...) was and be ready for a shock. We had best take care of our
cultural institutions and how we educate people about them, or we will
only be playing synthesized violins and pink noise on our beloved audio
systems.

Are you into Pink Noise too? Pink Noise really rocks, man!
I also like the group Equalize.

Brian McCarty wrote

bla, bla, bla...........


How does it feel to be the most despised person in RAO history?

On 9/19/05 9:47 AM, in article , "Scott Dorsey"
wrote:

In article ,
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

"SSJVCmag"

Do you understand that the vast majority of people who read RAO do NOT
spam your newsgroup, therefore all of your myriad posts are, in fact,
spam to RAO for the vast majority of us?

I believe the forged postings under Johnny's name appear to come from
one of the RAO regulars. So in fact it is an RAO guy who is spamming
the rest of _us_.
--scott

You can lead a horse to water, Scott...