"Jenn" wrote in message


I don't weasel out of things, Arny.

Sure Jenn, you turn a blind eye to real-world (such as Usenet is real)
egregioius behavior by people who also sympathize with you on some abstract
issues.

Jenn said:

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

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

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

Jenn, you can't debug Kroologic with rules of normative human behavior.
Sorry.

Jenn said:

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

That any do is a sad statement.

I agree.

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

Jenn said:

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

You don't say. Really? That Arnii must be very unpopular.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


I don't weasel out of things, Arny.

Sure Jenn, you turn a blind eye to real-world (such as Usenet is real)
egregioius behavior by people who also sympathize with you on some abstract
issues.

I generally don't comment on "flame wars" from either side; perhaps you
haven't noticed that. I think that they are a childish waste of time.
I've commented on them (both sides) from time to time. I've also sent
private emails once in a while protesting some behavior or another.

BTW, your ignoring the rest of my post is noted.

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, Arny is right. What Jenn does is instead of addressing
his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.

I would also comment that subjectivists use this tactic all the time
because very often or always they have no argument except "I hear it,
therefore ..."

vlad

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, Arny is right.

Of course.

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

Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did. Instead of
addressing the point that I don't comment on points where my views are
already expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do),
he calls me a coward (attacking the messenger.)

Now Vlad, you indicate that me "attacking" Arny is "typical". Could you
post some examples of me doing that? Or is that another empty statement
from you, rather like you claiming that I said that I have better
hearing than others do?

I would also comment that subjectivists use this tactic all the time
because very often or always they have no argument except "I hear it,
therefore ..."

vlad

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

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

He's been known insult himself after losing track of who
said what in a thread.

Hmm, I say "coward" and shows his face? :-(

Wouldn't a "coward" hide his face?

Chalk up your troll points for this reply, but your previous post
supports Jenn's implication quite nicely.

Stephen

From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:20 am
Email:

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

Nor yours either, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, Arny is right.

Of course.

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

Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did. Instead of
addressing the point that I don't comment on points where my views are
already expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do),
he calls me a coward (attacking the messenger.)

Now Vlad, you indicate that me "attacking" Arny is "typical". Could you
post some examples of me doing that? Or is that another empty statement
from you, rather like you claiming that I said that I have better
hearing than others do?


Jenn, I understand that your perception of each of my statement is that
it is "empty". Because we are talking about your perception then:

- you are entitled to your perceptions/opinions,
- no amount of logical reasoning will change your "perception",
"violin timbre in LP's" comes to mind :-)

vlad

This assumes that all 'subjectivists' agree that the tweaks proposed by
Soundhaspriority are valid and useful. Clearly not all do.

Did I miss something? By "not all", who here are you implying does?

I'm not implying that anybody does.

I am, I suppose, a 'subjectivist' but I hardly buy the thought that the
tweaks proposed are valid or even worthy of trying.

Yet you have no evidence that they aren't valid or worthy of trying.
Which proves that you're really no different than Arny, who also
mistakenly believes that the only valid things in audio are those that
conform to his flawed thinking. The rest can be casually dismissed
without trial. With qualifications like that, don't pretend you are a
"subjectivist". At best, you're what Arny calls himself: "a reliable
subjectivist".

No, the difference between the 'usual suspects' and me is that I do not
care if you want to use tweaks. I personally do not think it worth the
time, but if you do, go for it. I am not, and have not, tried to
convince anybody one way or another.

If you are trying to force me to do trials in order to dismiss an idea
that I personally do not agree with or find worthy (conforming to your
thoughts), then it is you who are most like Arny between the two of us.
I will not try to force you to do DBTs any more than I would try to
force Arny to try your tweaks.

You are, however, making Arny's argument for him: that all
'subjectivists' can be pigeonholed into a group.

This last one looks
potentially dangerous to me, at least as far as equipment life is
concerned.

Same ignorant thing that Arny said. Are you sure you're not him? As for
the speaker grounding tweak, not only have I tested it, I've already
given examples of commecial models that incorporate the grounding.
Plus, I've made several offers for people to come and observe my
speaker setup, where I show the speakers being grounded as described,
and the amp working perfectly. That's more evidence I'm supplying than
you've ever shown for any of your false assertions about everything.

If it works for your setup, great. I thought you were stating that it
would work for all setups. My mistake.

Perhaps I've misunderstood some of the posts I've seen from
'objectivists.' Perhaps the 'objectivists' never actually disagree on
anything and they all proceed in lock-step with one another. I hadn't
thought that to be the case.

I've certainly proved it to be the case with subjectivists. Unless you
can come up with one example, that I've asked you for above.

So you actually *are* an objectivist and this is a simple troll. Things
make much more sense now.

I think that trying to pigeonhole either group in such a manner is
counterproductive at best and extremely intellectually dishonest at
worst.

The exception is what I've said here. What Arny said is worthless, but
that describes just about everything he says. But if it's actually
true, it can't be _reasonably_ disproven (among those who listen to
reason).

Something can be true for you and not true for others.

Those silly 'objectivists.' They all lie and then try to get everybody
to agree with their distorted sense of reality.

I've already proven that both of you ideologues do that. You ALL reside
under a distorted sense of reality. At least in relation to audio; if
not many other things.

And I've lied? Please show me where. If something is not true for me,
then it is not true for me. If something is true for you, then it is
true for you. Your tweaks work for you. You believe that they make your
system sound better. I do not wish to try them. I have no problem with
that. Why do you?

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 9:33 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

Jesus. LOL!

Jenn, please become more 'brave.'

This is a matter of life or death.

In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"vlad" wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

m
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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

In my opinion, Arny is right.

Of course.

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

Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did. Instead of
addressing the point that I don't comment on points where my views are
already expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do),
he calls me a coward (attacking the messenger.)

Now Vlad, you indicate that me "attacking" Arny is "typical". Could you
post some examples of me doing that? Or is that another empty statement
from you, rather like you claiming that I said that I have better
hearing than others do?


Jenn, I understand that your perception of each of my statement is that
it is "empty". Because we are talking about your perception then:

- you are entitled to your perceptions/opinions,

Why thanks!

- no amount of logical reasoning will change your "perception",

No, no "reasoning" will change what I hear. Why should it? How can it?

"violin timbre in LP's" comes to mind :-)

vlad

Obviously, you can't find the supposed posts where I "attack" Arny. So
it's yet another false accusation. Is that all that you have? Is all
of this brought on by what I hear? It must be, because every other
accusation you make against me turns out to be false. Are you having
fun?

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

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 9:33 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

Jesus. LOL!

Jenn, please become more 'brave.'

This is a matter of life or death.

LOL

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 9:55 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

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

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

And why should I care if I 'prove' anything to you? LOL!

You really do think that you're a god.

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

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

I'd rather have you explain to me why I should care. I think you and
nob make interesting mental-health studies, which I personally am
finding more fun exploring than tweaks.

Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

Um, because what you are falsely and illogically asserting has nothing
to do with 'cowardice'?

One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups is
that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.
In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

Leaving labels aside, one of the problems with *you* is that you seem
to think that nobody can figure anything out for themselves.

I personally do not care one whit whether or not somebody wants to
spend $1500 on a power cable if that makes them feel good. If they want
to place an aspirin tablet on their speakers because to them it
'reveals hidden inner detail' so what? Why should I post anything about
it?

You obviously think this is a 'war,' apparently replete with casualties
and medals and 'heroism.' Not posting against everything that you don't
agree with is somehow 'cowardice.'

Do you have any idea how screwed up of a view that is?

I'd be more concerned with the technicians. If they try to place an
aspirin tablet on an instrument amplifier in a professional recording
studio, maybe then there's a problem. As for hobbyists, who really
cares? Why should I be interested in trying to 'convert' people to
*any* point of view? And if I choose not to, exactly how does that make
me a 'coward'? If aspirin on their amplifier makes them enjoy their
system more it does not effect me one bit. And it has the benefit, *to
that individual* of making them enjoy their system more. Why should I
care, even if I don't believe it has any basis?

This is not rec.audio.tech. Most people here are not claiming to be
'technicians.' This is not a war. What is most interesting to me is the
view that you and nob (in particular) display. It isn't brave: it's
messed up in a pathological kind of way.

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 11:10 am
Email: Jenn

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

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

I disagree. Perhaps Arny does not read nob's posts. One would call nob
an 'objectivist.' Same for Stewart. He insults all the time.

But then again, Arny's 'biased.';-)

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

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 11:10 am
Email: Jenn

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

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

I disagree. Perhaps Arny does not read nob's posts. One would call nob
an 'objectivist.' Same for Stewart. He insults all the time.

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

But then again, Arny's 'biased.';-)

Of course, everyone is. If that weren't true there would be no need for
blind tests, right? ;-)

From: vlad
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 11:51 am
Email: "vlad"

In my opinion, Arny is right. What Jenn does is instead of addressing
his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.

So in your opinion, calling someone a 'coward' because they do not
address every claim, whether true or false to the individual, is OK and
is also valid.

Interesting view.

I would also comment that subjectivists use this tactic all the time
because very often or always they have no argument except "I hear it,
therefore ..."

No, it's more like "If you hear it and if it makes you happy, why
should I care?"

The only issue I would have with somebody (for example) buying a $1500
power cable is if they stole the money or neglected their children to
get it.

Other than that, WTF should you (or anybody else) care? Please explain.

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 10:46 am
Email: "Arny Krueger"

The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

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

That's the coward's way out. If there is a post that you do not agree
with, you *must* post against it. That is your logic.

Please provide your Google proof that you have ever spoken up against
an 'objectivist' that was using insults, name-calling, or profanity.
Otherwise, STF up, coward.

(This line of reasoning is much like nob justifying his personal
attacks: "They're worse than I am, so it's OK!")

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?


The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL In what way?

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

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

"Jenn" wrote in message


I don't weasel out of things, Arny.

Sure Jenn, you turn a blind eye to real-world (such as Usenet is real)
egregioius behavior by people who also sympathize with you on some
abstract
issues.

I generally don't comment on "flame wars" from either side; perhaps you
haven't noticed that.


That is the cowards way, take no side, treat everyone as if they are morally
equivalent.

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


Jenn said:

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

You don't say. Really? That Arnii must be very unpopular.


Especially with swine.

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


Jenn said:

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

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

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

Jenn, you can't debug Kroologic with rules of normative human behavior.
Sorry.



What does a swine know of normative human behavior?

In article . net,
wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?


The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

LOL In what way?

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

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

From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:52 pm
Email:

nob, I was wrong about you. You actually *do* contribute to discussions
here in a non-insulting way.

Further, you prove Arny's assertion that 'objectivists' do not cast
insults around.

Especially with swine.

Than again, maybe not.

From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 1:19 am
Email:

I say its the exact opposite reason. If you have a brain as you allege,
then why can't you show evidence that you do by proving the tweaks
don't work?

You are an 'objectivist' troll.

'nuff said.

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

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

That's clearly true.

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

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

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

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

That's clearly true.

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

Of course.

Shhhh! said:

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

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

Jesus. LOL!
Jenn, please become more 'brave.'
This is a matter of life or death.

The Krooborg has this persistent delusion that he is a "master of the
debating trade". He believes, truly and deeply, that because he never
admits he lost a debate, that means he never did lose one. His cancerous
egomania then extrapolates from that premise to project onto all of his
snot-victims a certainty of fear and dread. You may have noticed that
duh-Mikey has bought into Mr. ****'s delusions to some degree. The
dumber they are, the more awed they are by Kroologic and the more
impressed by Krooglish.




--
http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:54 pm
Email:

What does a swine know of normative human behavior?

I don't know, nob. What?

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

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

I can prove that little "Morc from Orc" Middius took the tweaks
seriously.

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

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

That's a pretty stupid statement Kreuger, even for you. You're wrong
about this as well, and it's trivial to prove.

Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

Yes, I did notice that you can make general points about the cowardice
of subjecftivists, without Jenn whining about it. Most of the "whining"
seems to come from you.

I also noticed that a general point can be made about the cowardice of
subjectivists and objectivists here. Both camps are too afraid to
venture into unknown territory, and prefer to remain "comfortably
ignorant".

One of the problems with so-called subjectism....

bigoted rant snipped

At this point, you can pretty much turn your tv off folks.

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:59 pm
Email: Jenn

I generally don't comment on "flame wars" from either side; perhaps you
haven't noticed that.

That is the cowards way, take no side, treat everyone as if they are morally
equivalent.

Except that I'm not doing that. I'm not here to argue morality.

But you are arguing morality by default. If you don't argue *against*
the sin of tweaks, or *against* the sin differing views or preferences
(whether or not they are based in technology), that means that you are
(by default) *for* the sins of murder, or blaspheming, or theft, or any
other number of things denoting loose morals.

Therefore, audio = morals. Inability to see that noted.

So now that I have proven this point beyond doubt to any rational
person, do you still like high-quality LPs, you proven thieving,
blasphemous murderer?

And stop coveting those two asses Arny and nob, OK? Their neighbors
have dibs.

George "Morc" Middius, after a date with Pepe, wrote:

Jenn said:

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

That any do is a sad statement.

I agree.

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

There is somebody that did take my "alleged tweaks" seriously, Morc.
That would be YOU. Did you get the name of the mule that kicked you in
the head, and made you forget what you wrote a few weeks ago?:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




--
http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

Arny Krueger hypocritically wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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


In another part of your silly rant, you write:

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

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

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


Arny whines:

It's just an unsupported claim.

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


Arny whines:

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


More hypocristy, hypocrite?

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

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

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

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

wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

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

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

That any do is a sad statement.

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

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

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

Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
offered that they are. So let's take the example of the component rack.
Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
"contstruction parameters").

Hollow metal tubes, such as used by the Target rack, have different
resonant frequencies than say, solid wood for a component rack. This
can be measured (unless you would now like to rewrite science and claim
this is impossible.....). A turntable pickup works by induction of
micro vibrations, and it is well known to be sensitive to plinth
materials, and basically most everything the platter and tonearm are
resting on. This extends beyond the actual record deck itself. So the
support the record deck is sitting on can have an effect on how
resonances are transmitted to and picked up by the deck's pickup
cartridge. Without using special test instruments, you can even hear
the changes in resonant frequencies by tapping the plinth with the
stylus resting on a record on the platter, and the table resting on
either wood or hollow metal stands; they'll make different sounds,
regardless that it is the same turntable used. This is basic physics,
we're talking. Yet you claimed component racks are "snake oil"?!

Let's see you prove that now, with supported evidence. If you can't,
EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT AUDIO FROM NOW ON CAN BE THOROUGHLY DISMISSED.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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


maybe she is merely ignoring the troll.



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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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


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



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

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

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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


Gee, I never noticed that.



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

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

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

Nobody with a brain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoidance of my point noted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups
is that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.
In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.


Then explain your behavior, your having falsely accused a number of
people of sending you kiddie porn email, explain it in absolute
moral terms, no moral relativism, please.



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