[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
net
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona
knows far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's
defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let
me guess Jenn, you never heard of such a thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only
contribution is, "And who is that, Mr. Krueger?"
That is an attack?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

No, it's a simple question. You claim there is a "real
person behind the Middiot persona". John asked you that
person is. Where is the attack?

OK, so you still don't see it.

No, and I'l bet that no one else does either. Why don't
you simply explain how it is an attack?


If you know, simply name him/her.

I don't know for sure the identity of the Middiot's
pupeteer, but it is pretty clear that there is no real
person by the name of Middius. I'm pretty sure that I
know who the pupeteer is, but I know that whatever name
I gave, a pretty big effort would be put into
discrediting it.

If you don't know, simply say so. Seems pretty simple.

Don 't you think its pretty obvious that Atkinson will
stoop to just about any depth to discredit just about
anything I say?

What is pretty obvious is that you said that John
attacked you when all he did was ask a very simple
question.

In Jenn-land, it is impossible to attack a person by asking a simple
question.

Interesting.

Here's an example of a simple question that is obviously not an attack:

Jenn, have you stopped beating your mother?

;-)

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 24, 12:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's defense.

He did?

Yes. *It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let me
guess Jenn, you never heard of such a thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only contribution is, "And who
is that, Mr. Krueger?" *That is an attack?

Apparently a witheringly effective one, Jenn, to judge by
Mr. Krueger's ongoing squeals of outrage in multiple
postings. It's scary to realize that I have such power!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com

A question, Arny: If you were to apply for
employment in the audio field or to apply to
present a paper at a conference in the audio field,
would you list on your resume that "The JAES has
published a number of works that I authored or
co-authored"?

As a rule, I don't answer hypothetical questions.

lol I see.

Here's a hypothetical question for you to answer, Jenn:

If you were you to commit suicide, by what means would
you do yourself in?

That might be relevant if I claimed that I had thought
about committing suicide and had thought through the
possible methods. I've made no such claim.

Then Jen your question would be relevant if I said that
I intended to apply for employment in the audio field or
to apply to present a paper at a conference in the audio
field.

OK, I'll accept that point. But the question seems
simple, and you won't answer it.

Right, in Jenn-land, no simple question is ever an attack.

;-)

That leaves one to wonder why.

Answering hypothetical questions is always foolish. It's like reading
anonymous letters.

As a matter of fact, the second condition is irrelevant
- conference papers are judged by their abstract, not by
the resume of the presenter.

Not NEARLY always. Have you ever applied to present a
conference paper?

Yes, but to head off the subsequent melee, not the AES.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jan 24, 12:16 pm, Jenn
wrote:
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's
defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let me
guess Jenn, you never heard of such a thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only contribution
is, "And who is that, Mr. Krueger?" That is an attack?

Apparently a witheringly effective one, Jenn, to judge by
Mr. Krueger's ongoing squeals of outrage in multiple
postings. It's scary to realize that I have such power!

John, it's scary enough to think that you have any concern about the name of
the person behind the Middiot. Why is that?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to ****-for-Dinner:

But the question seems simple, and you
won't answer it. That leaves one to wonder why.

All this abuse from so many directions! Arnii is working himself into a
lather of pure ecstasy.

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

If I read the above correctly, John's only contribution is, "And who
is that, Mr. Krueger?" *That is an attack?

Apparently a witheringly effective one, Jenn, to judge by
Mr. Krueger's ongoing squeals of outrage in multiple
postings. It's scary to realize that I have such power!

You'd have even more power if you weren't my scokpupeet.

[Jenn]

In article
,
John Atkinson wrote:

On Jan 24, 12:16*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message
.
com
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in
message

gy.
net
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:
Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's defense.

He did?

Yes. *It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let me
guess Jenn, you never heard of such a thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only contribution is, "And who
is that, Mr. Krueger?" *That is an attack?

Apparently a witheringly effective one, Jenn, to judge by
Mr. Krueger's ongoing squeals of outrage in multiple
postings.

Evidently.

It's scary to realize that I have such power!

All hail!

[Arny Krueger]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message


I knew it! This is all about MONEY problems.

Borglet tries to play the class warfare card. Trouble is that being
anonymous, he has no class.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
net
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

om
On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona
knows far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's
defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let
me guess Jenn, you never heard of such a thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only
contribution is, "And who is that, Mr. Krueger?"
That is an attack?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

No, it's a simple question. You claim there is a "real
person behind the Middiot persona". John asked you that
person is. Where is the attack?

OK, so you still don't see it.

No, and I'l bet that no one else does either. Why don't
you simply explain how it is an attack?


If you know, simply name him/her.

I don't know for sure the identity of the Middiot's
pupeteer, but it is pretty clear that there is no real
person by the name of Middius. I'm pretty sure that I
know who the pupeteer is, but I know that whatever name
I gave, a pretty big effort would be put into
discrediting it.

If you don't know, simply say so. Seems pretty simple.

Don 't you think its pretty obvious that Atkinson will
stoop to just about any depth to discredit just about
anything I say?

What is pretty obvious is that you said that John
attacked you when all he did was ask a very simple
question.

In Jenn-land, it is impossible to attack a person by asking a simple
question.

No, I never said that. But in Arny-land, it's impossible to answer the
simple question that John asked.


Interesting.

Here's an example of a simple question that is obviously not an attack:

Jenn, have you stopped beating your mother?

;-)

See Arny, this is what you never get. That question CAN be perceived as
an attack, since it proposes that I have in the past beat my mother. On
the other hand, YOUR statement proposes that there is a person who
"animates" "The Middiot". John asked who that is, which is a question
without any kind of blame pointed toward you. Do you see the
difference? The simple answer to the question to pose to me is, "That's
a nonsense question, because I never have beat my mother." The simple
answer to the question John asked you is, "I don't know." You finally
got there, but it took several posts for you to do so.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com

A question, Arny: If you were to apply for
employment in the audio field or to apply to
present a paper at a conference in the audio field,
would you list on your resume that "The JAES has
published a number of works that I authored or
co-authored"?

As a rule, I don't answer hypothetical questions.

lol I see.

Here's a hypothetical question for you to answer, Jenn:

If you were you to commit suicide, by what means would
you do yourself in?

That might be relevant if I claimed that I had thought
about committing suicide and had thought through the
possible methods. I've made no such claim.

Then Jen your question would be relevant if I said that
I intended to apply for employment in the audio field or
to apply to present a paper at a conference in the audio
field.

OK, I'll accept that point. But the question seems
simple, and you won't answer it.

Right, in Jenn-land, no simple question is ever an attack.

;-)

That leaves one to wonder why.

Answering hypothetical questions is always foolish. It's like reading
anonymous letters.

You don't think much of the Socratic method, do you?


As a matter of fact, the second condition is irrelevant
- conference papers are judged by their abstract, not by
the resume of the presenter.

Not NEARLY always. Have you ever applied to present a
conference paper?

Yes, but to head off the subsequent melee, not the AES.

I've applied to present at many professional conferences. I can't think
of any that didn't ask for a resume. Anyway, you won't answer a simple
question, and that's fine. The reasonable reader will wonder why.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
net
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in
message

om
On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona
knows far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's
defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack.
Let me guess Jenn, you never heard of such a
thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only
contribution is, "And who is that, Mr. Krueger?"
That is an attack?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

No, it's a simple question. You claim there is a
"real person behind the Middiot persona". John asked
you that person is. Where is the attack?

OK, so you still don't see it.

No, and I'l bet that no one else does either. Why don't
you simply explain how it is an attack?


If you know, simply name him/her.

I don't know for sure the identity of the Middiot's
pupeteer, but it is pretty clear that there is no real
person by the name of Middius. I'm pretty sure that I
know who the pupeteer is, but I know that whatever name
I gave, a pretty big effort would be put into
discrediting it.

If you don't know, simply say so. Seems pretty
simple.

Don 't you think its pretty obvious that Atkinson will
stoop to just about any depth to discredit just about
anything I say?

What is pretty obvious is that you said that John
attacked you when all he did was ask a very simple
question.

In Jenn-land, it is impossible to attack a person by
asking a simple question.

No, I never said that. But in Arny-land, it's impossible
to answer the simple question that John asked.


Interesting.

Here's an example of a simple question that is obviously
not an attack:

Jenn, have you stopped beating your mother?

;-)

See Arny, this is what you never get. That question CAN
be perceived as an attack, since it proposes that I have
in the past beat my mother.

And Atkinson's question proposes that:

(1) I don't know who animates the Middiot
(2) That this somehow invalidates my theory

On the other hand, YOUR
statement proposes that there is a person who "animates"
"The Middiot". John asked who that is, which is a
question without any kind of blame pointed toward you.

Wrong. The question puts me on the spot.

Do you see the difference?

What I see Jenn is that you adore John, and pretty much buy the hogwash he
presents, hook, line, and sinker.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 24, 9:37*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On Jan 21, 8:21 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
And thus you find my name in at least one paper that was
published in the JAES....The paper in question would be
the origional [sic] JAES article about ABX.

But not as author [or] co-author, which was the specific
claim you made, Mr. Krueger.

The lack of formal external accreditation does not prove that I
wrote nothing in that article.

I imagine the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, eh.

I guess you don't know what the word author means, Atkinson.
An author is "one who writes".

Not in the context for your original claim, Mr. Krueger. The
discussion involved technical papers published in academic
journals. You jumped into that discussion, saying "The JAES
has published a number of works that I authored or co-authored,"
which, in context, strongly implies you wished to be noted
as an author who had been published in an academic journal.
Academic journals have guidelines concerning who can be
credited as an author or co-author. My use of the word "author"
follows those guidelines. Your being mentioned in passing by
the author of an academic paper does not make _you_ a
co-author of that paper, Mr. Krueger, no matter how much you
might wish it so.

And, as you have already admitted, you are not even a member of the
AES, despite your wanting to be associated with that organziation.
I know, I know, you have also pointed out that some of your friends
are members of the AES. But again, Mr. Krueger, that doesn't make
_you_ a member of the academic society.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Answering hypothetical questions is always foolish. It's
like reading anonymous letters.

You don't think much of the Socratic method, do you?

I think you misunderstand the Socratic method, Jenn.

As you've defined it Jenn, the Socratic method involves asking only
hypothetical questions.

And to head off any number of distracting questions, let me point out that
one key element of the Socratic method is asking relevant questions.
Hypothetical questions have questionable relevance, since they can relate to
situations that need not even be possible.

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Jan 24, 1:43*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Atkinson's question proposes that:
(1) I don't know who animates the Middiot

As you have now admitted that you don't know who
"animates" George Middius, Mr. Krueger, it would
appear that the proposition was correct. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jan 24, 9:37 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in

On Jan 21, 8:21 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
And thus you find my name in at least one paper that
was published in the JAES....The paper in question
would be the origional [sic] JAES article about ABX.

But not as author [or] co-author, which was the specific
claim you made, Mr. Krueger.

The lack of formal external accreditation does not prove
that I wrote nothing in that article.

I imagine the absence of evidence is evidence of absence,
eh.

I guess you don't know what the word author means,
Atkinson. An author is "one who writes".

Not in the context for your original claim, Mr. Krueger.

Prove it, complete with evidence that you can read my mind, John.

The discussion involved technical papers published in
academic journals. You jumped into that discussion,
saying "The JAES
has published a number of works that I authored or
co-authored," which, in context, strongly implies you
wished to be noted
as an author who had been published in an academic
journal. Academic journals have guidelines concerning who
can be credited as an author or co-author.

There's your mistake John. I did not say that I was expecting formal credit
as an author. You supposed that I did, but I didn't.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message

On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
Atkinson's question proposes that:
(1) I don't know who animates the Middiot

As you have now admitted that you don't know who
"animates" George Middius, Mr. Krueger, it would
appear that the proposition was correct. :-)

Since no quote supporting Atkinson's hypothesis is provided, it is clear
that Atkinson doesn't know whether I know or not. He's just joking around.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


Answering hypothetical questions is always foolish. It's
like reading anonymous letters.

You don't think much of the Socratic method, do you?


I think you misunderstand the Socratic method, Jenn.

No, I understand it quite well, thanks.


As you've defined it Jenn, the Socratic method involves asking only
hypothetical questions.

Where did I state or imply that, Arny?


And to head off any number of distracting questions, let me point out that
one key element of the Socratic method is asking relevant questions.

Correct. And my question relates to the truthfulness and confidence of
your statement.

Hypothetical questions have questionable relevance, since they can relate to
situations that need not even be possible.

But my question doesn't do that.

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
com
In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message

od
ig
y.
com
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote
in message
.
pr
od
ig
y.
net
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in
message

.c
om
On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona
knows far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's
defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack.
Let me guess Jenn, you never heard of such a
thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only
contribution is, "And who is that, Mr. Krueger?"
That is an attack?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

No, it's a simple question. You claim there is a
"real person behind the Middiot persona". John asked
you that person is. Where is the attack?

OK, so you still don't see it.

No, and I'l bet that no one else does either. Why don't
you simply explain how it is an attack?


If you know, simply name him/her.

I don't know for sure the identity of the Middiot's
pupeteer, but it is pretty clear that there is no real
person by the name of Middius. I'm pretty sure that I
know who the pupeteer is, but I know that whatever name
I gave, a pretty big effort would be put into
discrediting it.

If you don't know, simply say so. Seems pretty
simple.

Don 't you think its pretty obvious that Atkinson will
stoop to just about any depth to discredit just about
anything I say?

What is pretty obvious is that you said that John
attacked you when all he did was ask a very simple
question.

In Jenn-land, it is impossible to attack a person by
asking a simple question.

No, I never said that. But in Arny-land, it's impossible
to answer the simple question that John asked.


Interesting.

Here's an example of a simple question that is obviously
not an attack:

Jenn, have you stopped beating your mother?

;-)

See Arny, this is what you never get. That question CAN
be perceived as an attack, since it proposes that I have
in the past beat my mother.

And Atkinson's question proposes that:

(1) I don't know who animates the Middiot

Actually, it doesn't, but it turns out that you don't do you? No sin,
so why not just state that?

(2) That this somehow invalidates my theory

It simply shows that he wonders who you think that animator is.


On the other hand, YOUR
statement proposes that there is a person who "animates"
"The Middiot". John asked who that is, which is a
question without any kind of blame pointed toward you.

Wrong. The question puts me on the spot.

ALL questions put someone "on the spot". I don't understand why you
simply wouldn't answer the question to begin with.


Do you see the difference?

What I see Jenn is that you adore John, and pretty much buy the hogwash he
presents, hook, line, and sinker.

lol

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

See Arny, this is what you never get. That question CAN be perceived as
an attack, since it proposes that I have in the past beat my mother. On
the other hand, YOUR statement proposes that there is a person who
"animates" "The Middiot". John asked who that is, which is a question
without any kind of blame pointed toward you. Do you see the
difference? The simple answer to the question [you posed] to me is, "That's
a nonsense question, because I never have beat my mother."

Sorry, Jenn, but you're missing the larger point. What Krooger fears most
in his "debating trade" escapades is that somebody might catch him in a
lie. When that happens, it usually causes Turdy to vanish from the thread.
Being that he doesn't have a clue how to find me -- let alone any sort of
evidence to back up his "animates" blather -- he has to run away from the
issue.

Krooger also said in this thread that he has a "good idea" who I "really"
am, but of course he can't reveal his "idea". Ask him to present a list of
10 names, one of which is the person he believes to be my "real" identity.
I guarantee he will be unable to do even that much.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

I've applied to present at many professional conferences. I can't think
of any that didn't ask for a resume. Anyway, you won't answer a simple
question, and that's fine. The reasonable reader will wonder why.

Actually, we all know why. We stopped wondering years ago.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 9:00*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote
On Jan 23, 5:17 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Stated 2pid emphatically, reversing his self-proclaimed and not-at-
:all hypocritical 'usual' role of one who bitterly opposes name-calling
:and insults or other non-audio-related 'discussion' on RAO.) (lol Lol
:LoL lOl LOL!)

I oppose liars and people of no moral fiber...like you.

I know, 2pid. I admit it: I lack the 'moral fiber' you have.

After all, I twisted and made things up in a recent post where I
claimed someone had said "for you". You then (correctly) pointed out
my lack of 'integrity' and called me some other things for doing so.

Say, do you suppose that the 'moral fiber' you have is what causes
GOIA to poop as often as he does? The results of that 'fiber' seem to
be consistent.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 9:03*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote

:I'm glad to see your recent admission of error has made you more
:humble and less judgmental.

I'm glad your delusions are still rampant.

It was sarcasm, 2pid. Nobody here really thinks you could become more
humble and less judgmental, let alone that you would actually
apologize to someone you've insulted for insulting them when you were
clearly in the wrong.

And you admit that you were wrong? Now that's crazy talk!

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 23, 9:06*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message

...

On Jan 23, 6:56 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ *george @ comcast .
net wrote:
I'm sure you're still at the top of the Krooger Enemies List,
John.

It is my honor, George, to be thus singled out.

As it is apparently your honor to associate yourself with the vile
scum of Middius.

You always condone by associating with people like Middius?

Say, 2pid, do you always attack JA because he doesn't have your brand
of 'moral fiber'?

Is that why you always go after Jenn as well?

Could you define what 'honor', 'integrity' and 'moral fiber' mean to
you, so we can all strive to meet the high standard you set for
yourself?

While you're at it, perhaps you could also include a definition for
'hypocrisy'.

lol Lol LoL lOl LOL!

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:


Answering hypothetical questions is always foolish.
It's like reading anonymous letters.

You don't think much of the Socratic method, do you?


I think you misunderstand the Socratic method, Jenn.

No, I understand it quite well, thanks.


As you've defined it Jenn, the Socratic method involves
asking only hypothetical questions.

Where did I state or imply that, Arny?

You don't know, do you Jenn?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

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


Answering hypothetical questions is always foolish.
It's like reading anonymous letters.

You don't think much of the Socratic method, do you?


I think you misunderstand the Socratic method, Jenn.

No, I understand it quite well, thanks.


As you've defined it Jenn, the Socratic method involves
asking only hypothetical questions.

Where did I state or imply that, Arny?

You don't know, do you Jenn?

No, because I didn't state or imply it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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


Answering hypothetical questions is always foolish.
It's like reading anonymous letters.

You don't think much of the Socratic method, do you?

In the context of a discussion like this one that is following the Socratic
method, this question is particularly indicative of Jenn's total lack of
self-awareness.

I think you misunderstand the Socratic method, Jenn.

No, I understand it quite well, thanks.


As you've defined it Jenn, the Socratic method involves
asking only hypothetical questions.

Where did I state or imply that, Arny?

You don't know, do you Jenn?

No, because I didn't state or imply it.

Then Jenn, you are so lacking in self-awareness that pointing out such an
obvious thing is not worth the effort.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 12:15, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in


A question, Arny: If you were to apply for employment in
the audio field or to apply to present a paper at a
conference in the audio field, would you list on your
resume that "The JAES has published a number of works
that I authored or co-authored"?

As a rule, I don't answer hypothetical questions.

Then I won't ask you anything prefaced by
"if you were a decent human being"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 24, 11:47*am, Oliver Costich
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:31:13 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to





Reason!" wrote:
On Jan 22, 5:12*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:57:41 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to

Reason!" wrote:
On Jan 21, 8:51*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 13:01:21 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to

Reason!" wrote:
On Jan 21, 1:00*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008 10:54:17 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to

Reason!" wrote:
On Jan 19, 3:10*am, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 13:19:23 -0800 (PST), "Shhhh! I'm Listening to
Reason!" wrote:
Oliver Costich wrote

By the way, I don't use lamp cord or Home Depot interconnects in my
system.

I do not use expensive wires or cables in my system. I just don't
really care if others do.

I don't care what they use. I do care that they want to justify it
with sloppy logic and BS.

I haven't seen any justifications, though I haven't read all the posts
in this thread.

As a matter of curiosity, what would happen to the results if, out of
a sample of 100 participants, 50 selected a certain product correctly
100% of the time and the other 50 selected incorrectly 100% of the
time?

Would it be unusual to get 50 heads when flipping a coin 100 times?
Getting 50 correct answers out of 100 participants is exactly what you
would expext from random guessing (flipping coins).

Sorry, I didn't state my question clearly.

Assume a test with 100 participants and 10 trials. 50 of the
participants score 100% on all 10 trials (or correct at a
statistically significant level). 50 score 0% (or at some
statistically insignificant level) on all 10 trials. Would not the
overall results still show "random guessing"? Is so, could you still
reasonably attribute the results of those 50 that got it correct 100%
of the time to random guessing?

What exactly are you testing? If it is whether individuals can
corectly determine what you are testing, the for those who got the all
correct, you can support the claim they are right more than half the
time (guessing). For the others you can support that they are wrong
more than half the time. Alternatively you could be testing the whole
population with 1000 trials, and 50 people get their 500 right and 50
others you'd toss the experiment as simply too bizarre. What do you
think is the likelihood of a randomly selected sample giving that
outcome? You'd look for other factors to explain the results. Maybe a
statistics course is in order

I've taken statistics.

I think a true "random" population is counterproductive for perception
tests, as I said. In a true random sample of which painting someone
preferred, I'd expect the distribution of the random population sample
to approximate the percentages of colorblind, or totally blind, people
found in the general population, for example. One or two of that
sample may even know something about art.

I'm not suggesting that this was the case here, or relating this in
any way to the WSJ article. I'm just curious. It seems to me that for
issues of perception a truly "random" population is counterproductive.

It is unless you are looking to home in on the truth. I don't know of
any statistical method for drawing conclusions about population
parameters from sample statistics that doesn't require that samples be
simple random samples. Randomness alone is not enough. It has to be
simple random which in this particualr case means that every group of
39 has an equally likely chance of being selected. One of the problems
with this test is that the "respondents" were self-selected or
otherwise not randomly selected.

You are going down a road I just specifically excluded. Why?

It's like taking a poll on the death
penalty by asking people who walk by your front door. If the test was
sponsored by anyone who has an interest in speaker cable differences
being heard, then agoin the test is suspect. Virtually every
elementary statisitics text gives similare examples of faulty data
collection.

Tell that to the opponents of global warming here. They do not
understand that. One of those people is even now claiming "proofs" in
this very thread, Isn't that ironic?

I understand that. Critical listening is not something people are born
with. Arny, for example, has stated that several times. So have
several others who are actually involved in audio testing. So you
necessarily have to select from a group of those who are interested in
the thing being tested if you use audio or some other related area of
perception as an example.

Sorry, I sent the response to the first part prematurley.

Otherwise, I would expect the test results to show "random guessing"
100% of the time.

Why? Do you think people who have no interest can't hear?

It's not fair to ask me that question, because I don't think cables
make any difference at all, unless they're made from an insulator or
the RLC is vastly different. For the short runs in a typical home
system, I personally don't think it would matter much, if at all, if
the cable itself was made from aluminum or cast iron, let alone five-
nines copper, silver, or gold.

So I'm biased. :-)

If any differences do exist, I would expect them to be very subtle.
(So subtle, in fact, that they would not be worth any extra money to
me, hence my attitude). Again, from what I've read in the archives
here and in other discussions on audio testing, detecting subtle audio
differences is difficult. I would expect inexperienced listeners to
show random guessing as a result. Perhaps I'm wrong, but since it
really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I'll leave it to
somebody else to test that hypothesis.

Again, I don't really care. If cables were important to me, I'd buy
what I liked regardless. It's just not that big of a deal to me.

That's fine, but a different issue. I also buy what I like. I have
heard cables that sound different from one another and it's usually
due to some measureable characteristic of the cable. Better/worse is
harder.

I would think that once a difference is detected, better/worse would
be easier.

And some individuals can do that but what good does that do for anyone
else? Getting the result, statistically, that John can do it, says
nothing about anyone else's ability to do it and nothing about any
bigger population, whatever you choose it to be.

To me audio is about personal preference. Whether or not some larger
population would agree if my system is "good", "better" or whatever,
is of no importance to me.

For example, I have a very large LP collection. Most of what I have is
either not available on CD, or are of things I don't listen to enough
to justify the cost of replacing, which would cost tens of thousands
of dollars. I still actively seek out rare jazz LPs. Would you believe
that I have been called a "vinyl bigot", had my hearing questioned,
and been insulted by some (insane) people here as a result?

But I don't care. The old jazz on LP provides a very musically-
satisfying listening experience, clicks and pops and non-digital
recording and everything else considered. So I look at those who try
to belittle that as quite insane. This is, after all, about enjoying
music. Some people seem to forget that.

I would think the best way to test those who claim to be able to hear
a difference is to ask them if they think they can. So yes, they would
volunteer. As I said, if the population is just "random Joes" I would
expect the result to show guessing 100% of the time. I don't know how
else you'd get around that. Even those who volunteered would need to
be trained in detecting differences from what I've read.

If the population were "random Joes" and they support the claim, would
you want to disclaim it as using the wrong population?

Again, personally I wouldn't care. I'll buy what I like, even
sometimes basing it on such frivolous things as appearance. So for me,
no I wouldn't. I just wouldn't expect that population to show anything
other than random guessing. If they proved otherwise, more power to
them. Something like that might matter to people who don't have enough
innate reasoning to make up their own minds or to form their own value
judgments.

I would not buy $10,000/meter speaker cables even if there was
overwhelming evidence that the "average Joe" could detect a difference
100% of the time. The cost/value equation would still not pass for me.
I can buy an awful lot of rare jazz LPs for 10K. For others it might.
There's no skin off my back either way. In fact, there is no skin off
my back even if there is no evidence and someone chooses to pay
$10,000/meter for speaker cable. The only way that would even register
on my radar is if someone spent that at the expense of feeding their
family.

I think Arny should go for it. Don't you?

If he wants to, but I don't think the results would influence the
"true believers" in any case.

Then what's the point of discussing/insulting/otherwise belittling
those who will believe what they believe regardless? That seems very
silly. (Not that you are, but there are others here who do.)

I don't belittle their belief, just their contention that they can
prove it.

Isn't it somewhat sad that you have to "prove" something about a
consumer choice you make to somebody else?

Someone might say, "A Ferrari performs far better than a Jeep."

In my case, it doesn't. I have to haul test equipment and other things
around, sometimes over rough and muddy non-improved roads. A minivan
might perform better than my Jeep for my purposes, but I wouldn't be
caught driving one. I don't like the looks or the connotation. So for
my needs, the Jeep outperforms any other vehicle. I'm very happy with
it. Others may disagree. They can buy whatever meets their needs. I
won't ask them to "prove" that their Ferrari is "better".

I'd rather focus that discussion on the truly religious. People who
buy cables don't really affect me. Those other ones are in politics
and they do. ;-)

Another administration led by someone who talks to God scares the hell
out of me too.

I always enjoy this time in an election cycle. The conservatives try
to "out-conservative" each other. Likewise on the other side. Then we
have the inevitable race to the center as the election nears. The end
result? Consistently poor overall representation and politics as
usual.

I just hope that nobody 2pid agrees with gets elected. That's a recipe
for yet another disasterous four-year run.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 12:23, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in




In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message


A question, Arny: If you were to apply for employment
in the audio field or to apply to present a paper at a
conference in the audio field, would you list on your
resume that "The JAES has published a number of works
that I authored or co-authored"?

As a rule, I don't answer hypothetical questions.

lol I see.

Here's a hypothetical question for you to answer, Jenn:

If you were you to commit suicide, by what means would you do yourself in?


LOL!
Explode an IED at your front door.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 12:47, Oliver Costich wrote:



Another administration led by someone who talks to God scares the hell
out of me too.


It's ok by me, as long as God doesn't answer.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 12:50, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:25:57 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick



wrote:
On 23 Ian, 12:49, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 02:58:10 GMT, Andy C wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 10:52:40 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson wrote:

Okay, I was reading the article and noticed some strange things. The
article says the following:

"I set up a room with two sound systems, identical except for one
component. Everything except the speakers was hidden behind screens."

So he is saying that there were actually two separate systems - two source
components, two amplifiers, etc. But were there two different sets of
speakers too? One would hope not! Using a single set of speakers, there
would need to be a switching arrangement to switch the speakers between the
outputs of the two different amplifiers through the two different speaker
cables. But if there were a properly designed switching network, there
would be no need for two different systems at all. There could just be a
transfer switch using the highest quality relays to switch between the two
speaker cables. That is, a two-throw at the amplifier end and a two-throw
at the speaker end of each speaker cable. This would hold everything else
constant. If there were really two different sets of speakers, then the
experiment was so poorly designed it isn't even worth discussing. Just the
speaker position difference alone would likely cause differences in the
sound that would be measureably far greater than any cable could cause.

Then it also says:

"Using two identical CD players, I tested a $2,000, eight-foot pair of
Sigma Retro Gold cables from Monster Cable, which are as thick as your
thumb, against 14-gauge, hardware-store speaker cable."

Two identical CD players and what else? This guy is being very vague. I
guess he is just addressing the typical WSJ reader who isn't familiar with
or does not care about this stuff. There just isn't enough info provided
to evaluate whether the test setup is valid or not.

All good points. This particualr test was badly enough designed to be
flawed from the start, never mind what the data actually conclude.- Ascunde citatul -

Actually, it was entirely useless in concept. All such tests are.

If so, how would you propose the claim other than blind faith?

LOL!
"double blind" faith

really, "Look" at the setup, and listen.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 13:14, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in




In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
net
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's
defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let
me guess Jenn, you never heard of such a thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only contribution
is, "And who is that, Mr. Krueger?" That is an attack?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

No, it's a simple question. You claim there is a "real
person behind the Middiot persona". John asked you that
person is. Where is the attack?

OK, so you still don't see it.

If you know, simply name him/her.

I don't know for sure the identity of the Middiot's pupeteer, but it is
pretty clear that there is no real person by the name of Middius. I'm pretty
sure that I know who the pupeteer is, but I know that whatever name I gave,
a pretty big effort would be put into discrediting it.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 13:14, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in




In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

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

"Jenn" wrote in
message

y.
net
In article
,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

On Jan 23, 1:05 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows
far more than he lets on.

And who is that, Mr. Krueger?

Who cares...he's a jerk whoever he is.

Note that Atkinson has lept to the Middiot's
defense.

He did?

Yes. It is defense by means of counter-attack. Let
me guess Jenn, you never heard of such a thing.

Where is the attack above?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

If I read the above correctly, John's only contribution
is, "And who is that, Mr. Krueger?" That is an attack?

You mean you really don't see it, Jenn?

No, it's a simple question. You claim there is a "real
person behind the Middiot persona". John asked you that
person is. Where is the attack?

OK, so you still don't see it.

If you know, simply name him/her.

I don't know for sure the identity of the Middiot's pupeteer, but it is
pretty clear that there is no real person by the name of Middius. I'm pretty
sure that I know who the pupeteer is, but I know that whatever name I gave,
a pretty big effort would be put into discrediting it.



If you don't want to be ridiculed for answering the question, just say
something
else, and we will ridicule you for that instead. Its entirely your
choice for waht
you want to be ridiculed for.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 13:21, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
messagenews:cskhp35vohlndvv2p3p3oc0bqe8nubvg41@4ax .com



On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:30:37 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
wrote:

On 23 Ian, 14:03, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Oliver Costich" wrote in
messagenews:n50fp3tf29ijgieqr0c520n9nrge0fsdi6@4ax .com

Your knowledge of what real scientists do using
statistics is underwhelming.

The real person behind the Middiot persona knows far
more than he lets on. This particular persona is all
about ridicule. Unless you're particularly fond of
being ridiculed, don't bother.

Oliver, Are you like Arny? Do you enjoy being
ridiculed as much as he does?

Ridicule from such sources has no effect.

Exactly. Gettting rediculed by people like Art can be a bit rewarding -
because Art and his posse are wasting their time with their futile efforts,
and are making themselves look rediculous in the process. Art's posts could
be generated by fairly simple software.

Are you talking about the "prove it" bot, or the
"pot meet kettle" bot?


Art and his possse have pretty much driven off most people with a serious
interest in audio.

Just yesterday, George was running that posse.

[Clyde Slick]

On 24 Ian, 13:49, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


Hypothetical questions have questionable relevance, since they can relate to
situations that need not even be possible.

LOL!!!
Such as you ever having a serious job in the audio industry.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg's bells are ringing.

As you've defined it Jenn, the Socratic method involves
asking only hypothetical questions.

Where did I state or imply that, Arny?

You don't know, do you Jenn?

Do you also get real auditory hallucinations, Turdy?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

As a rule, I don't answer hypothetical questions.

Then I won't ask you anything prefaced by
"if you were a decent human being"

LOL! Good one, Clyde.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

Art and his possse have pretty much driven off most people with a serious
interest in [denigrating] audio.

Just yesterday, George was running that posse.

No, I was in charge last week. This week is Jenn's turn.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 24, 12:14*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Don 't you think its pretty obvious that Atkinson will stoop to just about
any depth to discredit just about anything I say?

Why would he bother? You're incredibly effective at that all by
yourself. ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 24, 12:43*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in

See Arny, this is what you never get. *That question CAN
be perceived as an attack, since it proposes that I have
in the past beat my mother.

And Atkinson's question proposes that:

(1) I don't know who animates the Middiot
(2) That this somehow invalidates my theory

If and only if you either do not know, or you are unwilling to say,
who you feel animates George or what your theory is.

If either of the above cases is true, one would suppose you wouldn't
say such a thing to begin with. Now you have also, BTW, just admitted
that your saying something as simple as "prove it" to an audio-related
claim is both an insult and an attack. I presume that we will never
see such insulting and hateful words from you again.

*On the other hand, YOUR
statement proposes that there is a person who "animates"
"The Middiot". *John asked who that is, which is a
question without any kind of blame pointed toward you.

Wrong. The question puts me on the spot.

Yes, GOIA, that sometimes happens. If I was to say, for example, that
Obama is the best candidate for president, somebody might ask me, "Why
do you think so?"

I would be horrified at that 'attack', of course, just like you would
be. I would be deeply angry at being put on the spot like that.
Perhaps you should rise above it all and fight through your righteous
indignation and answer the question.

Do you see the difference?

What I see Jenn is that you adore John, and pretty much buy the hogwash he
presents, hook, line, and sinker.

Or that she understands that there was no attack made and that you are
once again avoiding backing up a claim that you made.

Ah, well, GOIA, such as it is with those suffereing from insanity and
paranoia.