"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.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:

It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
you require proof. ]

So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof
of anything?


How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no audible
effect.

Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God.

"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 Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to
believe. :-)

Kal

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:

It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
you require proof. ]

So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof
of anything?


How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no audible
effect.

Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God.



They are not formulating any theories, they
are reading a book, and beleiving what it says.

Believing in God has no audible or other effect.

Nobody has to pay for their belief in Shakti stones.

They have to pay to won them, though, just
as churchgoers have to pay for membership or tithe.

I mean, somebody is paying for them, these churches aren't popping up
all over the place by the grace of God, are they?

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

You are a stupid, ARROGANT asshole

STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!

Stop crossposting youself!!!!!

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to
formualte a theory for something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no
need to believe. :-)

Well, there would be no need for faith.

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.

In article ,
Kalman Rubinson wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to
believe. :-)

Douglas Adams, Intelligent Design and the Babel fish:

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the
non-existence of God.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I
exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am
nothing."

"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could
not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore,
by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes
in a puff of logic.

"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that
black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

End quote.

Stephen

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?

Tne Bug Eater desperately tries to get some of the stink off the Krooborg.

How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you were lying about being an atheist. LOt"S!

" Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art forms
that aren't part of their generation's interest. If you're gonna do that
why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of the 70's or
Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa? "

For the same reason we ask students to consider the art of mathmatics and
history and philosophy. There are in all of them and more those examples
which set standards and the multitude which are throw aways, so too in
music. Also it is impossible to understand music today absent it's roots
in classical forms and why it is so. Jass was a fusion of classical forms
and other traditions. So yes, just hearing the current crop of music is
then gruel when comppared to the feast of music spread in time and place.

Jenn wrote:
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.

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest. If you're gonna
do that why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of
the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa?

Exactly what is cultural literacy? Who decides what is and is not
worthy of cultural maintenance which is what you appear to be
advocating?

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist? I don't think so,
unless you consider learning to appreciate anything well-constructed
to be elitist. But I think learning the process of appreciation is
more important than the music itself.

If you're gonna
do that why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of
the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa?

I don't think I would complain about that. But the real issue is to learn
to listen to the music, to understand how the music is put together, and
what the techniques used are. I think once you learn to listen properly,
you can apply this to any sort of music.

Exactly what is cultural literacy? Who decides what is and is not
worthy of cultural maintenance which is what you appear to be
advocating?

For the most part, it is a matter of the culture itself that decides this.
Beethoven is worthy of cultural maintenance for the same reason that the
Beatles are, and obscure 18th century composers have become deservedly
obscure for the same reason that Toto has.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

writes:

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences

I think you're right-on there, outsor. I loved my 20-year subscription
to the magazine and was really disappointed when I learned they were
turning off their printers.
--
% Randy Yates % "Maybe one day I'll feel her cold embrace,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % and kiss her interface,
%%% 919-577-9882 % til then, I'll leave her alone."
%%%% % 'Yours Truly, 2095', *Time*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

"I resist anyone imposing their perception of feast or gruel on anyone
else. Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and
what is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman)."

Indeed, and it is the elders who pass on that which culture has selected,
just as in math and history and art and many more things that go into an
education and continuation between generations of that which culture has
selected. Education imposes and content is not left to the recievers of
the content of culture. Just as 99 percent of math is 200 years or older
as taught in 1-12, it is not left to the current generation to pick and
choose among tha history of the art of math what floats their boat because
it is the "in thing" just now in their peer group.

wrote:
" Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art forms
that aren't part of their generation's interest. If you're gonna do that
why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of the 70's or
Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa? "

For the same reason we ask students to consider the art of mathmatics and
history and philosophy.

I've taken a lot of math and none of it was art. Pure science.

There are in all of them and more those examples
which set standards and the multitude which are throw aways, so too in
music.

I've no problem with people interested in voluntarily pursuing study
of music... but I do have a problem with it being deemed necessary in
an effort to preserve culture. To preserve culture is to kill it and
make it stagnant.

Also it is impossible to understand music today absent it's roots
in classical forms and why it is so. Jass was a fusion of classical forms
and other traditions. So yes, just hearing the current crop of music is
then gruel when comppared to the feast of music spread in time and place.

While I tend to subjectively agree with your assessment of the current
crop I resist anyone imposing their perception of feast or gruel on
anyone else.
Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and what
is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman).

ScottW

Scott Dorsey said to the Terrierborg:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist?

Terrierborg has a major case of class envy. He still can't believe he gets to
work in an office with educated people.

Terrierborg yapped:

For the same reason we ask students to consider the art of mathmatics and
history and philosophy.

I've taken a lot of math and none of it was art. Pure science.

You're insensate. Go dig a hole and bury something.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to
believe. :-)

Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear
under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith.

In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

wrote:
" Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art forms
that aren't part of their generation's interest. If you're gonna do that
why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of the 70's or
Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa? "

For the same reason we ask students to consider the art of mathmatics and
history and philosophy.

I've taken a lot of math and none of it was art. Pure science.

There are in all of them and more those examples
which set standards and the multitude which are throw aways, so too in
music.

I've no problem with people interested in voluntarily pursuing study
of music... but I do have a problem with it being deemed necessary in
an effort to preserve culture. To preserve culture is to kill it and
make it stagnant.

Music has always been part of the Western educational tradition, back to
the Liberal Arts of the Middle Ages.

Also it is impossible to understand music today absent it's roots
in classical forms and why it is so. Jass was a fusion of classical forms
and other traditions. So yes, just hearing the current crop of music is
then gruel when comppared to the feast of music spread in time and place.

While I tend to subjectively agree with your assessment of the current
crop I resist anyone imposing their perception of feast or gruel on
anyone else.
Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth preserving and what
is not which I think is beyond the control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to appreciate the
qualities of art-music, it's deciding from ignorance.

Stephen

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
k.net...

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" said:

It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
you require proof. ]

So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof
of anything?


How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no audible
effect.

Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God.



They are not formulating any theories, they
are reading a book, and beleiving what it says.

Believing in God has no audible or other effect.

Nobody has to pay for their belief in Shakti stones.

They have to pay to won them, though, just
as churchgoers have to pay for membership or tithe.

I mean, somebody is paying for them, these churches aren't popping up
all over the place by the grace of God, are they?

You don't have to belong to a church to believe in God.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Tne Bug Eater desperately tries to get some of the stink off the Krooborg.

How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you were lying about being an atheist.
LOt"S!

Thanks for admitting you don't understand what the **** is going on if the
discussion rises above the level of name calling.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:34:22 GMT, "
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to
believe. :-)

Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear
under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith.

But the latter is testable. ;-)

Kal

Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist?

What is hight art? What is low art? Those are the distinctions only
the elitist make.

I don't think so,
unless you consider learning to appreciate anything well-constructed
to be elitist. But I think learning the process of appreciation is
more important than the music itself.

If you're gonna
do that why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite) bands of
the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa?

I don't think I would complain about that. But the real issue is to learn
to listen to the music, to understand how the music is put together, and
what the techniques used are. I think once you learn to listen properly,
you can apply this to any sort of music.

Will it increase or diminish one's ability to derive pleasure from
music?
I've seen musicians lose sight of the resulting sound while
overemphasising the mechanics of creation. Like guys who only want to
show off their chops on guitar but can't create a melody to save their
ass.

Exactly what is cultural literacy? Who decides what is and is not
worthy of cultural maintenance which is what you appear to be
advocating?

For the most part, it is a matter of the culture itself that decides this.

Exactly... and efforts of man to redirect or influence culture are
doomed to failure IMO.

Beethoven is worthy of cultural maintenance for the same reason that the
Beatles are, and obscure 18th century composers have become deservedly
obscure for the same reason that Toto has.

I think the Beatles are slowly tending toward obscurity as well. In
the scope of cultural history.. they remain a relatively recent
phenom... compared to Beethoven anyway.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist?

What is hight art? What is low art? Those are the distinctions only
the elitist make.

Well, then count me as an elitist. If standing up for quality is
considered elitism, then I am all for it.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

MINe 109 said:

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to appreciate the
qualities of art-music, it's deciding from ignorance.

Have you been watching "Over There"? They just had a poignant episode with a
similar theme. An Ugly American (a caricature, but the episode played like a
fable) acted the tinpot dictator and got a **** sandwich for his efforts.
Ignorance comes in all forms, even dressed in good intentions.

Not that I believe Scottie has good intentions. The more things are forced to be
the same, the better he likes it. Culturecide for Scottie.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
"ScottW" wrote:

wrote:
" Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO.
You seem to be asking that young people be forced to
understand and appreciate art forms that aren't part of
their generation's interest. If you're gonna do that
why not impose appreciation of the best (my favorite)
bands of the 70's or Jazz greats...or Frank Zappa? "

For the same reason we ask students to consider the art
of mathmatics and history and philosophy.

I've taken a lot of math and none of it was art. Pure
science.

There are in all of them and more those examples
which set standards and the multitude which are throw
aways, so too in music.

I've no problem with people interested in voluntarily
pursuing study of music... but I do have a problem with
it being deemed necessary in an effort to preserve
culture. To preserve culture is to kill it and make it
stagnant.

Music has always been part of the Western educational
tradition, back to the Liberal Arts of the Middle Ages.


Stephen, do you seriously think that this is a relevant
response to Scott's declaration?

It looks like a platitude to me.

Also it is impossible to understand music today absent
it's roots
in classical forms and why it is so. Jass was a fusion
of classical forms and other traditions. So yes, just
hearing the current crop of music is then gruel when
comppared to the feast of music spread in time and
place.

While I tend to subjectively agree with your assessment
of the current crop I resist anyone imposing their
perception of feast or gruel on anyone else.
Culture itslef will ultimately decide what is worth
preserving and what is not which I think is beyond the
control of man (or woman).

Of course, if that culture isn't educated enough to
appreciate the qualities of art-music, it's deciding from
ignorance.

This isn't about art in general or music in general. It's
about very specific music. Is it really art if people have
to be forced through elaborate reprogramming exercises
before they act like they like it?

duh-Mikey grunted:

Tne Bug Eater desperately tries to get some of the stink off the Krooborg.

How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
exists?

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

Thanks Mr. McMickey for admitting you were lying about being an atheist.
LOt"S!

Thanks for admitting you don't understand what the **** is going on if the
discussion rises above the level of name calling.

Take responsibility for your own goof, Mickey. Say what you meant instead of
relying on Normals to read your murky mire of a mind.

In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist? I don't think so,
unless you consider learning to appreciate anything well-constructed
to be elitist. But I think learning the process of appreciation is
more important than the music itself.

Define "high art" and "well-constructed".

--
Aaron

Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:34:22 GMT, "
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to
believe. :-)

Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear
under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith.

But the latter is testable. ;-)

Kal

How do we define "proof"? Some would say that "God" has been
proved-others not. Some would say evolution has been "proved", others
would say it takes God to create. "Proof" seems to be in the eye of
the beholder especially when it comes to all things religion, politics,
and maybe audio

wrote:
In rec.audio.pro Scott Dorsey wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Uuugh.... the elitism of this is a bit shocking IMO. You seem to be
asking that young people be forced to understand and appreciate art
forms that aren't part of their generation's interest.

So, learning to appreciate high art is elitist? I don't think so,
unless you consider learning to appreciate anything well-constructed
to be elitist. But I think learning the process of appreciation is
more important than the music itself.

Define "high art" and "well-constructed".

Both of these are in a constant state of flux, but I commend you to
Ernst Gombrich's essay on the subject. In a pinch, you might be able
to get by with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 20 Sep 2005 13:30:08 -0700, "randy"
wrote:


Kalman Rubinson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:34:22 GMT, "
wrote:


"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
news On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
wrote:

At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists.

If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no need to
believe. :-)

Just like there's no proof of the differences that people claim to hear
under sighted conditions, yet people still take such claims on faith.

But the latter is testable. ;-)

Kal

How do we define "proof"? Some would say that "God" has been
proved-others not. Some would say evolution has been "proved", others
would say it takes God to create. "Proof" seems to be in the eye of
the beholder especially when it comes to all things religion, politics,
and maybe audio

My first response was a play on the tautology that evoked it.

I intentionally did not use the word proof in that second statement.
However, certain areas of inquiry are testable by controlled
experiment and objective observation. Whether the results constitute
proof depends on the standards one applies. Other areas are simply
not testable, so the term doesn't apply.

Kal