[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

JimC wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:




Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
that dare not speak its name.

Normals (black magic flat-earth believers) and 'borgs alike would
surely accept that the purpose of an audio system is to enable us to
enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose the pieces of a
system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying to the god of
"accuracy" help attain that end?

It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
performed. [...]



What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.



The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to be
performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]


Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?

Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?


It's because our
listening pleasure derives from the music itself, George, not from
distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our equipment.

Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the distortion
and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the music
itself ?


For anyone who didn't get it, the purpose of George's original post,
as usual, was to put down anyone who doesn't accept his black-magic
subjectivist biases. (And also, another display of his long-standing
inferiority problems when confronting those who know something about
the science.) It wasn't, of course, derived from an interest on his
part in learning from contributors with various viewpoints.

Jim

[roughplanet]

"JBorg, Jr." wrote in message
news
JimC wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:

Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
that dare not speak its name.

Normals (black magic flat-earth believers) and 'borgs alike would
surely accept that the purpose of an audio system is to enable us to
enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose the pieces of a
system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying to the god of
"accuracy" help attain that end?

It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
performed. [...]

What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.

'You seems bitter on something'? Poor grammar noted. What the hell do you
mean?

The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce Beethoven's
works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to be performed, or to hear
the Rolling Stones in a manner that reproduces their concerts more
nearly as they were performed (more nearly than a small table radio, for
example). [...]

'more nearly' x 3. Poor grammar noted.

Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?

The 'Rolling Stones' I think you mean. The Rolling Stone is a music industry
publication. 'intended their music to be heard'? Poor grammar noted.

Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement where
we can obtain these information so that we can listen to Mr. Beethoven and
the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as they intended them to be
heard when performed inside our home ?

What a load of pompous drivel, and to top it off, your knowledge of the
English language, particularly grammar, is appalling. Talk about a poseur.

It's because our listening pleasure derives from the music itself,
George, not from
distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our equipment.

Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music through
their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the distortion and
manipulation by their equipment, and not from the music itself ?

Mr. Borg, your misuse of the English language is laughable, especially as
you seem to be trying so hard to use it correctly. Forget about it. What
George or Jim do or don't mean by what they have posted here is of little
consequence anyway.
We audiophiles all know that it's NOT the music that matters, it's the HIGH
FIDELITY.

For anyone who didn't get it, the purpose of George's original post,
as usual, was to put down anyone who doesn't accept his black-magic
subjectivist biases. (And also, another display of his long-standing
inferiority problems when confronting those who know something about
the science.) It wasn't, of course, derived from an interest on his
part in learning from contributors with various viewpoints.

ruff

[JimC]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:




Why "accuracy"? For certain Usenet poseurs, this is the question
that dare not speak its name.

Normals (black magic flat-earth believers) and 'borgs alike would
surely accept that the purpose of an audio system is to enable us to
enjoy listening to recorded music. Normals choose the pieces of a
system that maximizes listening pleasure. How does praying to the god of
"accuracy" help attain that end?

It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
performed. [...]




What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.




A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius mean
by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.; and why has he been
spending all that time, year after year, attacking those who disagree
with him on this ng? "Black magic-subjectivism" is the philosopy Mr.
Middius adheres to and promotes. It is characterized by personal attacks
on those who introduce logic into discussions of audio matters, and in
particular, those who have some knowldge of the relevant principles of
physics.




The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to be
performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]



Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?

Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?



The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the first
place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of reproducing
the music with greater fidelity to the performance (greater "accuracy")
is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and enjoyable than listening
to the same music reproduced by a system with minimal accuracy, e.g., a
small table radio. In other words, greater "accuracy" generally provides
a more satisfying listening experience. YOUR interjection of the
suggestion that I somehow expect or require that we listen to Beethoven,
or the RSs or whoever, "precisely and correctly as they intended to be
heard" is, of course, your own invention. - I never said or implied such
a thing. - And I'm well aware that there are limits to realistic
reproduction of an orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was
that most of us generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good
music reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g., listening
to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.




It's because our
listening pleasure derives from the music itself, George, not from
distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our equipment.


Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the distortion
and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the music
itself ?

Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful and
desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a more
satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.



For anyone who didn't get it, the purpose of George's original post,
as usual, was to put down anyone who doesn't accept his black-magic
subjectivist biases. (And also, another display of his long-standing
inferiority problems when confronting those who know something about
the science.) It wasn't, of course, derived from an interest on his
part in learning from contributors with various viewpoints.

Jim

Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that Geroge's
purpose for posting his original note related to a point he was trying
to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than intellectual
curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn from
contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim

[George M. Middius]

Queenie Catie is confused again.

what does Middius mean by ... "Kroogism,"

My guess is that you've lost the last of your marbles.

Don't take your doctor's word for anything, Queenie. If the window is high
enough, you will be squashed into a pulpy mess.

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

JimC wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:

snip



It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
performed. [...]

What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.


A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius
mean by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.; and why has he
been spending all that time, year after year, attacking those who
disagree with him on this ng? "Black magic-subjectivism" is the
philosopy Mr. Middius adheres to and promotes. It is characterized by
personal attacks on those who introduce logic into discussions of
audio matters, and in particular, those who have some knowldge of the
relevant principles of physics.



Okey, so it's about exposing the tedious propaganda that Arny K.
and his ilk demonstrate in audio groups.


The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them
to be performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]

Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?

Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?


The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the
first place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of
reproducing the music with greater fidelity to the performance
(greater "accuracy") is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and
enjoyable than listening to the same music reproduced by a system
with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small table radio. In other words,
greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying listening
experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow expect
or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or whoever,
"precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is, of course,
your own invention. - I never said or implied such a thing. - [...]


What you said then was unclear to me. You stated that:


***
" Those of us ... enjoy listening to recorded music because we
enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or performed."

" The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce
Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed..."

***


Is it my invention then to claim that you implied that we listen as it
was composed and/or performed by whoever in the listening room
inside our home ?


How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?

How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
performing his composition ?

How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
intention when reproducing his works ?

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in these case ?



And I'm
well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.


Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
his composition to be performed ?

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in this case ?




It's because our listening pleasure derives from the music itself,
George, not from distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our
equipment.


Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the
distortion and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the
music itself ?

Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful
and desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a
more satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.

Ok.


snip

Jim

Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn
from contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim



To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.


I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.

[Arny Krueger]

"JimC" wrote in message
t...

A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius mean
by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.;

One reason why I don't feel threatened by the Middiot is that he speaks in
code. Most newbies aren't going to take time to learn it. Therfore, he's
acting like a transmitter with no active receivers.

and why has he been spending all that time, year after year, attacking
those who disagree with him on this ng?

Lack of a life to keep the Middiot busy in productive tasks.

"Black magic-subjectivism" is the philosopy Mr. Middius adheres to and
promotes.

I don't favor sullying subjectivism by characterizing it as being relevant
to Middiot postings.

It is characterized by personal attacks on those who introduce logic into
discussions of audio matters, and in particular, those who have some
knowldge of the relevant principles of physics.

In short, the Middiot attacks people who are better-educated, and think more
clearly than he does.


The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the first
place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of reproducing
the music with greater fidelity to the performance (greater "accuracy")
is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and enjoyable than listening to
the same music reproduced by a system with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small
table radio.


In other words, greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying
listening experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow
expect or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or whoever,
"precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is, of course, your
own invention. - I never said or implied such a thing. - And I'm well
aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an orchestra or
rock group in the home. My point was that most of us generally derive
greater pleasure from listening to good music reproduced with accuracy
(higher fidelity to the original performance) than we do with less
accurate reproduction, e.g., listening to the same music reproduced by a
small table radio.

Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful and
desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a more
satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.

Let's imagine an alternative universe where all audio gear is built
according to Middiot ideology. In the Middiot universe every piece of audio
gear has performance that is tailored by the chief engineer of the company
that builds it, to make all music that passes through it sound the way that
the companies' chief engineer prefers.

In the Middiot universe then, every amplifier has vastly different frequency
response. They all sound different, ironically as Borg and his posse say
they do right now.

In the Middiot universe there are no frequency response specs, no distortion
specs, no noise specs. You have to listen to every amplifier on the market
if you want to make an informed choice, and somehow have a precise memory of
how each amplifier sounds.

So, if you buy a new amplifier in the Middiot universe, your choices are
tremendously limited if you want your system to sound at all the way it did
with your old amplifier. There may be no amplifiers that you can buy without
completely changing the whole rest of your system.

In contrast, consider our present-day universe. Amplifiers tend to sound
pretty much the same within their power ratings. If your old amplifier is
not powerful enough you have a lot of choices as to what your new amplifier
will be.

I guess we can conclude that the Middiot is against people having
alternatives to choose from.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg takes a Kroopaganda dump.

One reason why I don't feel threatened by the Middiot is that he speaks in
code. Most newbies aren't going to take time to learn it. Therfore, he's
acting like a transmitter with no active receivers.

Translation: "I, Arnii Krooborg, have such profound language disabilities
that I cannot distinguish day from night, a multiplicity from a
singularity, or a lie from an easily demonstrated fact."

Lack of a life to keep the Middiot busy in productive tasks.

Translation: "As a born-again religionist who passes off volunteer
recordings of my church choir as 'professional recording experience', I
have shown the world my vast expertiese™ in 'productive tasks'."

I don't favor sullying subjectivism by characterizing it as being relevant
to Middiot postings.

Translation: "I, Arnii Krooborg, am so clueless about how Normals select
and deploy their audio equipment that I hate all women and all human beings
who are not insane like I am."

In short, the Middiot attacks people who are better-educated, and think more
clearly than he does.

Translation: "I, Arnii Krooborg, have falsely claimed to have earned a
B.S.E.E. degree; I am consumed with envy of successful audio designers and
publishers; and I am deeply ashamed of my continuing failure to brainwash
human beings into hating the E.H.E.E."

Let's imagine an alternative universe where all audio gear is built
according to Middiot ideology.

Translation: "I'm about to cum!"

I guess we can conclude that the Middiot is against people having
alternatives to choose from.

Translation: "Good job, Billy. Don't forget your Sunday school book. Tell
your mommy you're coming over for another 'training session' on Friday."

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 4, 5:08 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:

Much blather cut.

The only thing clear from this continued and painfully, insanely
idiotic, meaningless and entirely worthless exchange is that the
"commander" and Krueger would shrivel up and die without each other.

Their collective and several life's blood is the attention they gather
from whatever forum they visit with their inane drivel.

If they receive no attention, they are gone. Not even leaving the
presence and importance of a bad smell. Please consign them to the
same oblivion as is merited by Mr. Ludwig and the world will be
improved by their absence.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 4, 5:08 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:

Much blather cut.

The only thing clear from this continued and painfully, insanely
idiotic, meaningless and entirely worthless exchange is that the
"commander" and Krueger would shrivel up and die without each other.

Peter, your lack of historical perspective is forgiven. I posted on RAO for
many years before the Middiot showed off his butt around here. Therefore, I
have a proven track record of doing quite well without him. OTOH, the
Middiot is quite obviously obsessed with me. Since I'm quite happily
monogamously occupied, his love will go unrequited for eternity.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 4, 7:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Peter, your lack of historical perspective is forgiven. I posted on RAO for
many years before the Middiot showed off his butt around here. Therefore, I
have a proven track record of doing quite well without him. OTOH, the
Middiot is quite obviously obsessed with me. Since I'm quite happily
monogamously occupied, his love will go unrequited for eternity.

Oh, I dunno... the last couple of threads you initiated, and the
various posts made in them make you, Middius, Jute and Ludwig a close-
run thing in terms of differentiating levels of idiocy. And most
certainly the grains of wisdom displayed in the collective product
could be fit on the cover page of a Tom Thumb paperback in 10-point
type... with the majority of the page still blank.

Not meant to be viciously insulting... that I save for Jute & Middius.
But you clearly do not read what you write, for content anyway.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:




Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn
from contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim



To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.


I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.


Mr. Cate, I'm not able to place my anwer because you have not
responded. All that I have learn so far in our exchanges is the
apparent evidence of myself being unfairly and falsely accused
by you of inventing and ascribing thoughts which I know I did
not do.

In lieu of these matter, I succumb to superior force and must,
therefore, disagree with your contention.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 4, 7:41 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Peter, your lack of historical perspective is forgiven. I posted on RAO
for
many years before the Middiot showed off his butt around here. Therefore,
I
have a proven track record of doing quite well without him. OTOH, the
Middiot is quite obviously obsessed with me. Since I'm quite happily
monogamously occupied, his love will go unrequited for eternity.

Oh, I dunno... the last couple of threads you initiated, and the
various posts made in them make you, Middius, Jute and Ludwig a close-
run thing in terms of differentiating levels of idiocy. And most
certainly the grains of wisdom displayed in the collective product
could be fit on the cover page of a Tom Thumb paperback in 10-point
type... with the majority of the page still blank.

Not meant to be viciously insulting... that I save for Jute & Middius.
But you clearly do not read what you write, for content anyway.

OK Peter, so now I can't differentiate you from Middius, Jute and Ludwig
either. Have a stroke lately? ;-(

[JimC]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

JimC wrote:

snip



It's really rather simple, Georgie. - Those of us who are not within
your black magic-subjectivism cult enjoy listening to recorded music
because we enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or
performed. [...]

What does black magic-subjectivism cult imply, Mr. Cate?
What does it signify? You seems bitter on something about
high-end audio in general.



A more helpful line of questions would have been, what does Middius
mean by the term "borg," "normals", "Kroogism," etc.; and why has he
been spending all that time, year after year, attacking those who
disagree with him on this ng? "Black magic-subjectivism" is the
philosopy Mr. Middius adheres to and promotes. It is characterized by
personal attacks on those who introduce logic into discussions of
audio matters, and in particular, those who have some knowldge of the
relevant principles of physics.




Okey, so it's about exposing the tedious propaganda that Arny K.
and his ilk demonstrate in audio groups.



The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them
to be performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]

Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended their
music to be heard when played in the listening room in our home?

So that a cello (violin, organ, drums, piano) would, in general, have
the characteristics of the particular instrument, etc. Not perfectly,
not with the same acoustics heard in the hall itself, but with greater
accuracy, for example, than a small table radio.


Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?


The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the
first place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of
reproducing the music with greater fidelity to the performance
(greater "accuracy") is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and
enjoyable than listening to the same music reproduced by a system
with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small table radio. In other words,
greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying listening
experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow expect
or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or whoever,
"precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is, of course,
your own invention. - I never said or implied such a thing. - [...]



What you said then was unclear to me. You stated that:


***
" Those of us ... enjoy listening to recorded music because we
enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or performed."

" The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce
Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed..."

***


Is it my invention then to claim that you implied that we listen as it
was composed and/or performed by whoever in the listening room
inside our home ?

No, it was your invention to imply that I suggested that we need to
have an exact reproduction in our homes of the original performance. -
You stated:

.....the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone PRECISELY and CORRECTLY as
THEY INTENDED them to be heard WHEN PERFORMED INSIDE OUR HOME.

By posting an exaggerated caricature of my response (to the effect that
I expect the actual performance to be reproduced in our home PRECISELY
as Beethoven intended it to be heard IN OUR HOME), you mock and dismiss
out of hand the underlying meaning of my note. In other words, you
don't want to discuss the underlying intent of my note. - Rather, you
want to pick it apart.



How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?


In general, he intended it to be performed as indicated in his scores.
With cellos, violins, horns, bass drums, etc., played at appropriate
times in the manner indicated in the score. Obviously, one can always
question details of particular stanzas (and I never used the terms
"precisely" or "exactly,"). In general, however, his music is intended
to be performed in the style of the Classical period, occurring prior to
the Romantic period.

How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
performing his composition ?

By obtaining an extensive music education in which he becomes familiar
with music from the various periods, with Beethoven's various works and
style, with the classical period in particular. By interpreting
Beethoven's score for the particular piece in light of all the above.


How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
intention when reproducing his works ?

By having a general knowledge of classical music, as indicated above.


What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in these case ?


What the hell does this sentence mean? Is it intended to be in English?


And I'm
well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.



Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
his composition to be performed ?

Nope. As in the fact that most audiophiles listen to music reproduced by
a system that reproduces recorded music with higher fidelity than a
small table radio.

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in this case ?

Again, write your questions in english and I'll try to answer them.




It's because our listening pleasure derives from the music itself,
George, not from distortion or manipulation of the music caused by our
equipment.


Mr. Cate, are you hinting that audiophiles who listen to music
through their vinyl records derives listening pleasure from the
distortion and manipulation by their equipment, and not from the
music itself ?


Nope. I'm just saying that, in general, accuracy is in fact a useful
and desirable quality in audio, and that, in general, it results in a
more satisfying and enjoyable listening experience.


Ok.



snip

Jim

Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to learn
from contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim




To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.


I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.


What do my answers to your questions (all intended to pick apart my
original note), have to do with your answering this question?

The really unfortunate conclusion of the matter, Mr. Borg, is that
"normals"??? like you and Mr. Middius aren't willing to acknowledge
that the enjoyment of great music available to all of us today is to a
large extent made possible by the work of engineers and scientists
(borgs?) who over the years worked to design and produce audio equipment
capable of recording and accurately reproducing great music. - Instead
of being thankful for the beautiful music available to them through the
dedicated work of the "borgs", the subjectivists ("normals"??) spit in
their face.

Jim

[Clyde Slick]

On 4 Sep, 23:33, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


One reason why I don't feel threatened by the Middiot is that he speaks in
code.


It's called "English".




I guess we can conclude that the Middiot is against people having
alternatives to choose from.


You aren't exactly a world champion guesser.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 5, 3:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

It's called "English".

Sure. Words gathered at random from the English Language, rarely
assembled in a superficially clever way entirely irrespective of
meaning or content.

As to Arny's ability to "guess", I would expect from his manner that
he leaves nothing to guesswork, only certainty. The sign of a closed
mind if nothing else.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 5, 3:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

It's called "English".

Sure. Words gathered at random from the English Language, rarely
assembled in a superficially clever way entirely irrespective of
meaning or content.

As to Arny's ability to "guess", I would expect from his manner that
he leaves nothing to guesswork, only certainty. The sign of a closed
mind if nothing else.

Musta been a mini-stroke that has left your mind in such a confused state,
Peter.

I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work and out-of-the box
thinking. Its an effective pairing - think outside the box and then test
well to know for sure whether the new idea actually works.

[George M. Middius]

Arnii "**** for Dinner" Krooger lashes out at the foolish yob who tries to
befriend him.

Musta been a mini-stroke that has left your mind in such a confused state,
Peter.

Arnii, what would happen if you actually accepted a human being's
friendship? Would your implanted nanites start to decay? Would your cranial
superstructure start leaking acid? Would your caches of preserved feces
start to decompose?

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 5, 6:20 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
and out-of-the box thinking.

Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
your name came up in conversation with someone you have
referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)

But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
and out-of-the box thinking.

Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
your name came up in conversation with someone you have
referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)

I'm surprised you didn't know that in automotive circles, "box" is
synonymous with "ashtray".

But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.

Arnii is perversely proud of the "fact" that the E.H.E.E. has expended so
much time and effort on shutting him up, with the evil Stereophile serving
as their principal anti-Kroo weapon. How can you sleep at night, John?

[JBorg, Jr.[_2_]]

JimC wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
JimC wrote:

snip




The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to
reproduce Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed, or to hear the Rolling Stones in a manner that
reproduces their concerts more nearly as they were performed (more
nearly than a small table radio, for example). [...]

Mr. Cate, how does Mr. Beethoven and The Rolling Stone intended
their music to be heard when played in the listening room in our
home?


So that a cello (violin, organ, drums, piano) would, in general, have
the characteristics of the particular instrument, etc. Not perfectly,
not with the same acoustics heard in the hall itself, but with greater
accuracy, for example, than a small table radio.




In general ? And not perfectly !

Facts only please, Mr. Cate, with verifiable evidence confirmed with
firsthand testimony supported with proof and genuine documents,
free of your opinion and reference to small table radios.




Is there a manifest enumerating all the specific list of
requirement where we can obtain these information so that we can
listen to Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone precisely and correctly
as
they intended them to be heard when performed inside our home ?

The point I was making (which I suspect you knew full well in the
first place) was that listening to music in on a system capable of
reproducing the music with greater fidelity to the performance
(greater "accuracy") is, for most audiophiles, more satisfying and
enjoyable than listening to the same music reproduced by a system
with minimal accuracy, e.g., a small table radio. In other words,
greater "accuracy" generally provides a more satisfying listening
experience. YOUR interjection of the suggestion that I somehow
expect or require that we listen to Beethoven, or the RSs or
whoever, "precisely and correctly as they intended to be heard" is,
of course, your own invention. - I never said or implied such a
thing. - [...]

What you said then was unclear to me. You stated that:

***
" Those of us ... enjoy listening to recorded music because we
enjoy hearing the music as it was composed and/or performed."

" The purpose of a "high-fidelity" audio system is to reproduce
Beethoven's works more nearly as Beethoven intended them to
be performed..."

***
Is it my invention then to claim that you implied that we listen as
it was composed and/or performed by whoever in the listening room
inside our home ?


No, it was your invention to imply that I suggested that we need to
have an exact reproduction in our homes of the original performance. -
You stated:

.....the specific list of requirement
where we can obtain these information so that we can listen to
Mr. Beethoven and the Rolling Stone PRECISELY and CORRECTLY as THEY
INTENDED them to be heard WHEN PERFORMED INSIDE OUR HOME.


But you said "as intended." What did you mean by "as intended",
Mr. Cate?

Did you mean as intended, but not when we're listening (at home or
elsewhere?).


By posting an exaggerated caricature of my response (to the effect
that I expect the actual performance to be reproduced in our home
PRECISELY as Beethoven intended it to be heard IN OUR HOME), you mock and
dismiss out of hand the underlying meaning of my note.

It is you who's making nebulous and fuzzy underlying meaning to
your notes.


In other words, you don't want to discuss the underlying intent of my
note. - Rather, you want to pick it apart.

I am trying to understand you notes, Mr. Cate.


How did Beethoven intended his composition to be performed ?


In general, he intended it to be performed as indicated in his scores.
With cellos, violins, horns, bass drums, etc., played at appropriate
times in the manner indicated in the score. Obviously, one can always
question details of particular stanzas (and I never used the terms
"precisely" or "exactly,"). In general, however, his music is
intended to be performed in the style of the Classical period,
occurring prior to the Romantic period.


In general again? That's rather generous of you Mr. Cate.



How should conductor determine Beethoven's intention when
performing his composition ?

By obtaining an extensive music education [...]


[Hmm, Arny ?]


in which he becomes familiar
with music from the various periods, with Beethoven's various works
and style, with the classical period in particular. By interpreting
Beethoven's score for the particular piece in light of all the above.


How should sound recording engineer determine Beethoven's
intention when reproducing his works ?

By having a general knowledge of classical music, as indicated above.


[Hmm, Arny?]

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in these case ?


What the hell does this sentence mean? Is it intended to be in
English?


What I meant was how would you know that the intended rendition
of Beethoven's composition by the conductor and recording engineer
met the required accuracy as approved by Mr. Beethoven himself,
Mr. Cate?




And I'm
well aware that there are limits to realistic reproduction of an
orchestra or rock group in the home. My point was that most of us
generally derive greater pleasure from listening to good music
reproduced with accuracy (higher fidelity to the original
performance) than we do with less accurate reproduction, e.g.,
listening to the same music reproduced by a small table radio.

Higher fidelity ? As in higher fidelity than Beethoven intended
his composition to be performed ?

Nope. As in the fact that most audiophiles listen to music reproduced
by a system that reproduces recorded music with higher fidelity than a
small table radio.


OK

What would be your prescribe designation when determining
"accuracy" in this case ?

Again, write your questions in english and I'll try to answer them.


snip


Incidentally Mr. Borg, do you disagree with my contention that
Geroge's purpose for posting his original note related to a point he
was trying to make and a philosphy he was tring to push rather than
intellectual curiosity, for example, or a desire on his part to
learn from contributors with various viewpoints?

Jim

To agree, or disagree -- that is the question.

I shall place my answer on hold, Mr. Cate, because a missing
part of my response will be build on the answer you provide to
my questions above.

What do my answers to your questions (all intended to pick apart my
original note), have to do with your answering this question?



Because your question regards contention of whether the original intent
of the post in this thread concern the philosophy that, as you have said,
characterized by personal attacks to those who introduce logic into
audio discussions.


The paragraph below demonstrate "one" example.


The really unfortunate conclusion of the matter, Mr. Borg, is that
"normals"??? like you and Mr. Middius aren't willing to acknowledge
that the enjoyment of great music available to all of us today is to a
large extent made possible by the work of engineers and scientists
(borgs?) who over the years worked to design and produce audio
equipment capable of recording and accurately reproducing great
music. - Instead of being thankful for the beautiful music available
to them through the dedicated work of the "borgs", the subjectivists
("normals"??) spit in their face.

Jim

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 5, 5:50 pm, John Atkinson
wrote:

But thank you for allowing me to end the day on an upbeat note.

Mpfff... Arny has all the single-minded and largely ignorant arrogance
of Mr. Jute without even a scintilla of the latter's entertainment
value. The "commander" is the hagfish that sucks on both of them and
would be inert without them.

http://www.seasky.org/monsters/sea7a1q.html

Just a brief perusal makes the connection clear.

That Arny could be entertaining would only be by accident, never
design.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...

That Arny could be entertaining would only be by accident, never
design.

Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005 was quite
amusing to them.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg tries yet again to revise history.

Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005 was quite
amusing to them.

A human being would never say something so blatantly wrongheaded. Therefore
we know for certain that you, Arnii Krooborg, are not human.

BTW, Turdy, we all heard the recording. Humor was the furthest thing from
your "mind".

[roughplanet]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...

On Sep 5, 3:21 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

It's called "English".

Sure. Words gathered at random from the English Language, rarely
assembled in a superficially clever way entirely irrespective of
meaning or content.

As to Arny's ability to "guess", I would expect from his manner that
he leaves nothing to guesswork, only certainty. The sign of a closed
mind if nothing else.

Musta been a mini-stroke that has left your mind in such a confused state,
Peter.

I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work and out-of-the
box thinking.

Do both of them subscribe to your 'out of the tomb' mythology also?


Its an effective pairing - think outside the box and then test well to
know for sure whether the new idea actually works.

C'mon Arnie; that square head (box) of yours never lets a single idea
escape, be it muse, reverie or lateral logic, much less test it for
accuracy. Even your web site is a testament (no pun intended) to better
times, i.e. when there WERE thoughts of any consequence.
But to (reluctantly) quote the Rolling Stones (take note Mr. Borg) 'It's all
over now".

ruff

[KeithR]

John Atkinson wrote:

On Sep 5, 9:23 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:

The recording of the "Great Debate" can be heard at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Couldn't be bothered to listen to an hour of it, but the article is
interesting. Anybody who can hear a significant improvement in the sound of
a system by replacing the power cable is either seriously deluded or in
possession of a complete piece of crap as a system.

Owning a $2.5K power cable is indicative of two things, an excess of money
and a lack of brains.

Keith

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Sep, 03:02, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
John Atkinson said:

I'm well known among my friends for both my careful work
and out-of-the box thinking.
Snort! Now I've got coffee coming out my nose! The last time
your name came up in conversation with someone you have
referred to on this newsgroup as a "friend," Mr. Krueger, that
wasn't exactly how he characterised your behavior! :-)

I'm surprised you didn't know that in automotive circles, "box" is
synonymous with "ashtray".


I just assumed he finally brought his head out of
the abx box.

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Sep, 03:53, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...

That Arny could be entertaining would only be by accident, never
design.

Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005 was quite
amusing to them.

[John Atkinson]

On Sep 5, 9:23 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:
The Krooborg tries yet again to revise history.
Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005
was quite amusing to them.

...we all heard the recording.

The recording of the "Great Debate" can be heard at
http://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/ .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 7:11 am, John Atkinson
wrote:
On Sep 5, 9:23 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net
wrote:

The Krooborg tries yet again to revise history.
Many have told me that what I did to Mr. Atkinson at HE2005
was quite amusing to them.

...we all heard the recording.

The recording of the "Great Debate" can be heard athttp://www.stereophile.com/news/050905debate/.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Read a bit, listened a bit. Gagged early on.

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

Why isn't this obvious enough to get the keepers of said beliefs (all
sides as there are many more than two) to simpy shut up and enjoy
themselves? The single alternative is continued rancor. And while
invective is good fun it accomplishes little.

Sadly such debates gather hagfish, remora and other bottom feeders
about the combatants searching for cuts to infect and bits of flesh
and blood in the water. Hence we have the likes of the "commander" and
others.

The lot of you, in the words of Howland Owl ought to stick your
collective and several heads in a bucket of water three times, but
pull it out twice.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...

C'mon Arnie; that square head (box) of yours never lets a single idea
escape, be it muse, reverie or lateral logic, much less test it for
accuracy.

Rough, I have to admit that it really makes me chuckle when a know-nothing
like you tries to lecture me about having creative thoughts or sharing
ideas. Other than repackaging poetic prose cribbed from high end ragazines,
what creative thought have you ever expressed on Usenet?

[Laurence Payne]

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:46:19 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.


The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 8:24 am, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:

The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.

So don't. Maintain your own, enjoy what you enjoy and let the devil
take the hindermost. I have quite a number of strongly held opinions
none of which I require to be held or even entertained by others. And
I quite enjoy a full-and-free-exchange-of-ideas with no expectations
whatsoever of converting anyone. Nor do I expect to be converted. At
that level, things remain in good fun and even get a bit serious. But
there is no blood on the floor afterwards nor bridges burnt. Good LORD
would a vanilla world be utterly boring. Or even one entirely butter-
pecan.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 6, 8:24 am, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:

The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.

So don't.

So Peter, don't start tossing gratuitous rocks on people who want to share
and comment on opinions.

Maintain your own, enjoy what you enjoy and let the devil
take the hindermost.

You ain't doing that Peter, so why should I listen to your advice in that
regard?

I have quite a number of strongly held opinions
none of which I require to be held or even entertained by others.

That's your business, Peter. But trying to force others into your code of
silence is not reasonble.

And
I quite enjoy a full-and-free-exchange-of-ideas with no expectations
whatsoever of converting anyone. Nor do I expect to be converted. At
that level, things remain in good fun and even get a bit serious. But
there is no blood on the floor afterwards nor bridges burnt.

You have burned your bridge with me Peter, so why should I listen to your
advice in that regard?

Good LORD
would a vanilla world be utterly boring. Or even one entirely butter-
pecan.

So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 8:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

God Help You Arnie! For ENTIRELY Missing The Point....

Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
and vice-versa. This happens most especially when the one camp
*demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
other necessarily-wrong beliefs. That would be you. Though that
condition is certainly not limited to you.

As I suggested earlier: you are as arrogant as Mr. Jute and about as
credible for it. Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 9:36 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?

For the sake of absolute clarity, as I perceive you, you are not
"flavor tasting" but rather demanding that all accept your singular
flavor. That you mostly interact with those similarly afflicted does
not change the primary condition.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 8:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of
what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established
fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest
and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your
business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present
the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here
would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively
easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably
because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've
vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

God Help You Arnie! For ENTIRELY Missing The Point....

Nope, I know gratuitous personal attacks when I see them.

Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
and vice-versa.

Straw man argument.

This happens most especially when the one camp
*demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
other necessarily-wrong beliefs.

You mean like Krakow did.

That would be you.

That would be your parania speaking, Peter. Remember, you cast the first
stone here.

Though that condition is certainly not limited to you.

So did an engineer scare your mother while you were pregnant, Peter? ;-)

As I suggested earlier: you are as arrogant as Mr. Jute and about as
credible for it.

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
them out and destory them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 9:36 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?

For the sake of absolute clarity, as I perceive you, you are not
"flavor tasting" but rather demanding that all accept your singular
flavor.

The very idea that a demand can be credibly presented on a Usenet newsgroup
is ludicrous enough to justify complete dismissal of such comments as are
made by anybody who would be so silly as to suggest that it could be true.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 6, 9:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
them out and destory them.

No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.

As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be? That is the problem
with closely held beliefs and those who hold them. The "facts" are
filtered, acquired, massaged, altered to fit the peculiar need.
Bluntly, I hold all *opinions* other than mine as equally important to
their holder as mine might be to me. I have my array of facts another
has their array. In a debate between us, we *may* influence others or
each other to further investigation by arranging said facts most
prettily so as to dazzle. But merely to accept an opinion without
independent research and verification makes the listener/viewer not
much more than a sheep... with all the respect attributable thereto.
And damn me if I choose to perceive others as sheep to be converted to
my way of thinking... as comfortable a thought as that might be.

It was not P.T. Barnum that said it, but the sentiment still rings
true (and very seldom fully quoted): There's a sucker (sheep) born
every minute... and two to take 'em.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 9:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to
seek
them out and destory them.

No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.

As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be?

The fact would be the widely-accepted Information Theory.

The fantasy would be the stated notion that medium V delivers more
information then medium C, when Information Theory says the reverse.

That is the problem with closely held beliefs and those who hold them.

I'm used to this sort of rhetoric being thrown up in the face of widely
accepted technology and art, plus minus a 2pid or two, and a Krooborg or
three.

The "facts" are
filtered, acquired, massaged, altered to fit the peculiar need.

That happens. If you can rationally argue that in this specific case, be my
guest.

Bluntly, I hold all *opinions* other than mine as equally important to
their holder as mine might be to me.

So where's the beef?

I have my array of facts another has their array.

Trouble is, not all facts are reliable facts.

In a debate between us, we *may* influence others or
each other to further investigation by arranging said facts most
prettily so as to dazzle.

Or rationally convince, YMMV.

But merely to accept an opinion without
independent research and verification makes the listener/viewer not
much more than a sheep... with all the respect attributable thereto.

Which applies to this situation how?

And damn me if I choose to perceive others as sheep to be converted to
my way of thinking... as comfortable a thought as that might be.

Which applies to this sitaution how?

It was not P.T. Barnum that said it, but the sentiment still rings
true (and very seldom fully quoted): There's a sucker (sheep) born
every minute... and two to take 'em.

Seems like you're trying to gather a few suckers with these irrelevant
accusations, Peter.