Robert Morein wrote :

Socially stupid, not technically. I consider him a wasted talent.
He should have continued to work on ABX, rather than allowing it to
crystallize imperfectly.

Even if I don't, philosophically, believe in the ABX vertues, I share your
POV.
BTW "crystallize imperfectly" isn't the best word to describe the state of
the ABX. Encystment would be IMHO a better word to describe it.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Socially stupid, not technically.

Wrong. I'm at least as socially adept as the average person.
.............attending the monthly SWMWTMS meeting.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Socially stupid, not technically.

Wrong. I'm at least as socially adept as the average person. It's just
that on RAO social adeptness has no visible value. Look at yourself for
example Robert. Look at Middius. Posts by both of you are a disaster,
socially speaking.

I consider him a wasted talent.

Coming from you Robert, that's high praise.

He should have continued to work on ABX, rather
than allowing it to crystallize imperfectly.

I quickly realized that further refinements to ABX after PCABX were a case
of casting pearls before swine.
I think the method has a lot of potential. Details of practical test
implementations need to be reexamined. You certainly have the background to
do this. There might even be certain dealers who would promote it, once the
kinks are ironed out that tend to dull discrimination.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote :

Socially stupid, not technically. I consider him a wasted talent.
He should have continued to work on ABX, rather than allowing it to
crystallize imperfectly.

Even if I don't, philosophically, believe in the ABX vertues, I share your
POV.
BTW "crystallize imperfectly" isn't the best word to describe the state of
the ABX. Encystment would be IMHO a better word to describe it.

Good word.
I think it should be available, and it should be good enough to be
respected, even if not widely used.

"EddieM" wrote in message
. net...

Robert Morein wrote


Some people are forever young in attitude, in defiance of their age.
Others become early prisoners of their memories, a loss of free will
that is one of the cruelest tells of aging. Arny is the victim of
demons that do not vanish with a cup of coffee. He will never again
welcome the rising sun as a renaissance of opportunity.

I guess you are not counting opportunities to defecate.

Cheers,

Margaret

He will reach the age where bed is as good a place as any.



Now that Arny (and McKelvy) consider himself a
eunuch, I wonder what the members of his Michigan Audio
Woofer Club think about him being one.

What is your opinion about a list of remaining *******(s)
pestering Rao?
Details. Mere details.

wrote in message
link.net...

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


sigh

duh-Mikey tries to make a joke. Call the sanitation crew.

Indeed, Mr. **** has boasted several times that his wife is a
"back-alley
cock-sucking whore".

That's no way to talk about your mom.

Thanks Mr. McHurtMe for, admitting you are a necrophiliac.


Wouldn't it gruuunnt be better urrrrgh if you greeeeek spoke in your
gruuuuuntttt native urrrrrgghhh language? Urrghhh. Gruuuunt

Is that mckelviphibian for "I want a coprolyte"

Robert Morein wrote
EddieM wrote
Robert Morein wrote


Some people are forever young in attitude, in defiance of their age.
Others become early prisoners of their memories, a loss of free will
that is one of the cruelest tells of aging. Arny is the victim of demons
that do not vanish with a cup of coffee. He will never again welcome the
rising sun as a renaissance of opportunity.

I guess you are not counting opportunities to defecate.

Cheers,

Margaret

He will reach the age where bed is as good a place as any.



Now that Arny (and McKelvy) consider himself a
eunuch, I wonder what the members of his Michigan Audio
Woofer Club think about him being one.

What is your opinion about a list of remaining *******(s)
pestering Rao?


Details. Mere details.



list

*******(s)

Rao

opinion

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:14:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

No, those who are aware that IQ and technical knowledge
are only one aspect of intelligence are justified in
objecting.

Paul, I guess you are unaware of how many times I've tried
to explain the weaknesses of IQ testing to Art and Scott
(Wheeler).

I am unaware of that, yes. However, this awareness does not seem to
show up in your posts.

It should have helped put your delusions
of superiority in their place.

What delusions of superiority? Yours and Morein's? LOL!

Please provide Google references of where I have been putting people
down due to supposed lack of intelligence or some other failing. Two
or three will do--no need to overdo it.

You obviously believe you're more intelligent than
anyone else on this NG.

I really have no idea about that.

Correct.

Just belying the spirit and fact of most of your
contributions to this post, Paul.

And this means what? You said you didn't know if you were more
intelligent than others on this NG. I agreed that indeed you didn't.

Your general technical knowledge seems sound
(not that I'm placed to judge), but that only indicates
intelligence or capacity in one area without proving
overall intelligence.

I have nothing to prove, Paul. What is, is what is.

If you're going to claim intellectual superiority, as you have several
times here and on aus.hi-fi, then you do have something to prove.
Please prove it or refrain from claiming any kind of superiority,
there's a good boy.

On the other hand, believing you're
more intelligent than everyone else because you have
certain technical knowledge is not...er...very
intelligent.

That would be your idea, Paul.

Nope, that would be a fact. You've already indicated that you don't
believe IQ is a very good measure of intelligence. I hope you can take
that a step further in order to realize that technical knowledge and
prowess are a measure of specific aptitude and facility, not
intelligence per se.

Thus I have to ask: what proof do you
have of this? Not your posts, certainly.

What proof do you expect to find in my posts, Paul?
Remember, I have to "dumb down" just about everything I
write to you, for fear of shooting way over your pointy
little head.

More evidence of delusions of superiority.

No, evidence of a correct asessment of your level of
knowlege and thinking, Paul.

Cheap shot without foundation, Arnie. No IQ points there.

Do you imagine
that a professor of mathematics feels superior to those
he passes in the street because he can fathom theorems
that to them would mean nothing?

I know better, because I hang out with a few professors from
time to time.

Glad to hear it.

(The correct answer, in case you were wondering, is no).

Let's talk about delusional behavior like that one, Paul.

Makes no sense. Think again.

How many channels do you need?

As many channels as it takes to satisfy her bloated
ego.

Did you know that good spelling is a sign of
intehlligoence...er.. intelligence?

Very naughthy, Arnie--you corrected your misspelling of
"channels", thus blunting my point. Hopefully you don't
cheat like that regularly.

Obviously Paul your limited mind is unfamiliar with how
spell checkers make it easy to over-correct.

You misspelled "channels". Then in quoting yourself you sneakily
corrected the spelling. Don't try to lay the blame elsewhere.

Yet another example of your lack of intelligence, Paul.
Correct spelling has a lot to do with how much effort one
puts into the writing. There is very little on RAO that
deserves much effort, due to the high prevalence of
stupidity and childishness.

Yet you still take the trouble to post.

I take the trouble to feed my dogs, Paul. I just don't cook
them fancy meals. What's your point?

My point is that if we're so far beneath you, why trouble with us?
Clearly, according to you, we're unable to understand your reasoning
unless you "dumb down" everything. I'd have thought there'd be NGs
with a higher intellectual level to keep you occupied.

I wouldn't have
thought we'd be worthy of such condescension.

If you wouldn't try to lord it over me Paul, I'd let you off
easy.

Please explain exactly how I "lord it over" you. And please don't let
me off easy.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:14:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
[snip]
My point is that if we're so far beneath you, why trouble with us?
Clearly, according to you, we're unable to understand your reasoning
unless you "dumb down" everything. I'd have thought there'd be NGs
with a higher intellectual level to keep you occupied.

I don't know if Arny is a sadistic person, but here, at least, he seems to
want to punish and humiliate those who he "enlightens."
The only person who accepts this willingly is Mikey, which is why I have a
slight disagreement with George about Mikey's primary diet.

I wouldn't have
thought we'd be worthy of such condescension.

If you wouldn't try to lord it over me Paul, I'd let you off
easy.

Combined with the sadism is paranoia.

Please explain exactly how I "lord it over" you. And please don't let
me off easy.

Arny has often spoken of his "enemies" on this group. I don't know anybody
else who thinks they have enemies here, except, of course, McCarty.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:14:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

No, those who are aware that IQ and technical knowledge
are only one aspect of intelligence are justified in
objecting.

Paul, I guess you are unaware of how many times I've
tried to explain the weaknesses of IQ testing to Art and
Scott (Wheeler).

I am unaware of that, yes. However, this awareness does
not seem to show up in your posts.

Thagt would be recent posts.

It should have helped put your delusions
of superiority in their place.

What delusions of superiority? Yours and Morein's? LOL!

Please provide Google references of where I have been
putting people down due to supposed lack of intelligence
or some other failing. Two or three will do--no need to
overdo it.

I'll sidestep this debating trade trick.

Not all delusions of superiority manifest themselves as
putting people down on the grounds of intelligence.

You obviously believe you're more intelligent than
anyone else on this NG.

I really have no idea about that.

Correct.

Just belying the spirit and fact of most of your
contributions to this post, Paul.

And this means what? You said you didn't know if you were
more intelligent than others on this NG. I agreed that
indeed you didn't.

Your general technical knowledge seems sound
(not that I'm placed to judge), but that only indicates
intelligence or capacity in one area without proving
overall intelligence.

I have nothing to prove, Paul. What is, is what is.

If you're going to claim intellectual superiority, as you
have several times here and on aus.hi-fi, then you do
have something to prove.

Not at all.

Please prove it or refrain from
claiming any kind of superiority, there's a good boy.

"...there's a good boy" - a clear pretention of
superiority.

You're obviously not being the least bit serious Paul. End
of discussion.

On Sat, 3 Dec 2005 13:47:14 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Please provide Google references of where I have been
putting people down due to supposed lack of intelligence
or some other failing. Two or three will do--no need to
overdo it.

I'll sidestep this debating trade trick.

I'm not surprised you recognise it, having used it so often yourself.

Please prove it or refrain from
claiming any kind of superiority, there's a good boy.

"...there's a good boy" - a clear pretention of
superiority.

Nope. A kindly nudge to let you know you're being immature.

You're obviously not being the least bit serious Paul. End
of discussion.

Transation: "Damn, can't get a clear win on this one. May as well walk
away."

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:
Schizoid Man wrote:

Hi all,

I'm looking for a sub-$500 pre-owned pre-amp. Phono section not
required. The sources will be Aux1 (TV), Aux2 (DVD) and primarily CD.
Can anyone recommend some makes/models?

Given my budget, or lack thereof, I'm starting out with the usual
suspects - Adcom, Rotel, NAD.


I've got a C-70 which is very functional IMO. I think this will serve
you well. I switched to a passive attenuator for my line level sources
and am hard pressed to tell a difference.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ran&1138482535

Don't let the Yamaha haters give you any crap. The C- series is well
designed and very reliable.

If you really want just line stage and remote control... this looks
interesting. Not sure but it appears passive.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ran&1138349164

When I was looking around for a passive someone was touting these
Parasounds but I don't have any experience with them.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ran&1138203756

ScottW

The C-70 lacks a remote control though, right? Plus, it has a phono
section which I do not need and might lack the required number of inputs.

Correct. Consider a used Audio Alchemy DLC.

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Schizoid Man wrote:

Hi all,

I'm looking for a sub-$500 pre-owned pre-amp. Phono section not
required. The sources will be Aux1 (TV), Aux2 (DVD) and primarily CD.
Can anyone recommend some makes/models?

Given my budget, or lack thereof, I'm starting out with the usual
suspects - Adcom, Rotel, NAD.


I've got a C-70 which is very functional IMO. I think this will serve
you well. I switched to a passive attenuator for my line level sources
and am hard pressed to tell a difference.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ran&1138482535

Don't let the Yamaha haters give you any crap. The C- series is well
designed and very reliable.

If you really want just line stage and remote control... this looks
interesting. Not sure but it appears passive.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ran&1138349164

When I was looking around for a passive someone was touting these
Parasounds but I don't have any experience with them.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....ran&1138203756

ScottW

The C-70 lacks a remote control though, right? Plus, it has a phono
section which I do not need and might lack the required number of inputs.

Actually mines a C-60. I got a C-70 owners manual. Anyway, it has 3
line level inputs and 2 tape monitors. The phono section is just a
bonus.

But no remote control... you have to get off your ass once in a while


ScottW