[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 9, 7:04 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message

...



"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
roups.com...
Arny:
There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.
Name them, please.

The first is pretty obvious : Arguing with fools.


That is not a fallacy. Just an exercise in futility.

But as Mr. Krueger's recent foray into High-End clearly illustrates,
he is quite *subject* to leaping to conclusions. He is prone to false
premises and to circular reasoning.

In the reference discussion, he suggested that a study referencing 35
- 75 second listening samples and stating that listeners heard little
difference between them is transferrable from sight-impared
individuals using transcription services to general audio listeners in
short and long term auditions. That would be Leaping to Conclusions.

He expects that one must parse all that he writes and respond point-by-
tiresome, repetitive, and typically misrepresentative point. That
falls generally under the False Premises fallacy.

Further, he has no ability to parse the writing of others except in
the same tiresome way, all the while searching for that tangent tp
follow that will divert from the subject at hand and add yet one more
layer of smoke to the discussion. That falls generally under the
Circular Reasoning fallacy.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Sep, 15:03, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Sep 8, 6:11 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Arny: You will have it your way ever and always. And that is your
privilege.

Thank you Peter. I sincerily hope that you will properly inform yourself
on
these topics.

Arny:

What I am writing is that even that bastion of Holy Writ, the Roman
Catholic Church made exceptions for those whom they deemed Invincibly
Ignorant. I make that same exception for you.

There are seven classical fallacies. You are prone to two and subject
to one more.

Name them, please.

Sorry Peter, but claiming to read minds is not one of my faults. If you've
got something to say - say it.

George is funnier than you are,
but "at least" you're funnier than Wicked Pete.
That's a very sad commentary.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

but "at least" you're funnier than Wicked Pete.
That's a very sad commentary.

Krooger doesn't know what's funny and what's ****.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Laurence Payne" NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com wrote in message
...
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.

I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client. He had expressly asked
for a shielded mains cable to be made up. This was duly done.
He was a little disappointed when he saw it, as the cable was
only 10A. He needed the sound of a 20A cooker cable :-)
(The tube power amp has a T2A fuse)

The 20A cable was made up and delivered/fitted the same
day. He was delighted, and paid his bill the following day.
Everyone was happy.

[Mr.T]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...
I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

He had expressly asked
for a shielded mains cable to be made up. This was duly done.
He was a little disappointed when he saw it, as the cable was
only 10A. He needed the sound of a 20A cooker cable :-)
(The tube power amp has a T2A fuse)
The 20A cable was made up and delivered/fitted the same
day. He was delighted, and paid his bill the following day.
Everyone was happy.

I see he isn't so well mentally then.

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...
I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

He had expressly asked
for a shielded mains cable to be made up. This was duly done.
He was a little disappointed when he saw it, as the cable was
only 10A. He needed the sound of a 20A cooker cable :-)
(The tube power amp has a T2A fuse)
The 20A cable was made up and delivered/fitted the same
day. He was delighted, and paid his bill the following day.
Everyone was happy.

I see he isn't so well mentally then.

"Friend of Iain" = non compos mentis. ;-)

[Eeyore]

Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Of course, when I replaced the new electrolytics with new film caps,
it tightened right up to sound identical to the previously modified
unit. So, it was not 'other causes'. It is remarkable how well those
AR amps can sound when the factory errors and/or deteriorated parts
are replaced and the bias is done properly.

Were the caps directly in the signal path i.e coupling capacitors ? Were the film
caps the same value as the electrolytics (they're going to be considerably
physically larger) ?

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives me
a chuckle.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 11, 8:56 am, Eeyore
wrote:

Were the caps directly in the signal path i.e coupling capacitors ? Were the film
caps the same value as the electrolytics (they're going to be considerably
physically larger) ?

Yes, and yes.

Keep in mind that this was a late 60s design executed in the early
70s, so even a 20V @ 1uF cap had a little size on it back then. I used
a modern 250V film cap (screened to measure dead-on with my Fluke)
with the same lead spacing & width but about 2 x taller.

I used modern electrolytics "rated" to be within standard tolerances
(-20/+100% of nameplate) screened to be at least, but not more than
120% of nameplate on my Fluke. Electrolytics simply don't get that
precise, and I am dead-sure that AR bulk-purchased standard stuff.
What came out certainly had no special tolerance markings so anything
I did would be more-than-factory.

This all happened because I did have two identical units on the bench,
and got curious. I then tried it with one of their receivers
(identical amplifier circuit) and got the same (perceived) result.
Then I tried it on the sport tube unit. Same.

If you are curious, I could scan the relevant sections of the
schematic and note which caps were changed.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives me
a chuckle.

What utter crap. My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

Test was at the bench, units side-by-side, using the test-bench
speakers (AR4x) and a chunky DP/DT switch between them, same volume,
same signal (Pre-Amp dual tape-out from a CD player). Sure I
overloaded the output transistors briefly and made a little heat. No
harm done. But I wanted to see if I could really detect a
difference... and whether it was then equally obvious to an unschooled
set of ears.

So, make of it what you will, and denegrate what you will. It is your
wont and you are fully entitled.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication
and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives
me
a chuckle.

What utter crap.

Actually, there's plenty of science to back me up, going back to "Clever
Hans" the horse, in the early 19th century.

My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

With all due respect for your wife, neither did "Clever Hans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Test was at the bench, units side-by-side, using the test-bench
speakers (AR4x) and a chunky DP/DT switch between them, same volume,
same signal (Pre-Amp dual tape-out from a CD player). Sure I
overloaded the output transistors briefly and made a little heat. No
harm done. But I wanted to see if I could really detect a
difference... and whether it was then equally obvious to an unschooled
set of ears.

How many holes can I shoot in this crude procedure? I won't even try!

So, make of it what you will, and denegrate what you will. It is your
wont and you are fully entitled.

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

[Ian Iveson]

Arny said:

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you
harumph and posture.

*What's* all about science?

Is there anything that is *not* all about science?

Can anything be all about science whilst simultaneously
being all about something else?

When I went to the mosque to join up to this Islam thing
they told me I had to renounce all my other beliefs. When I
tried to argue the principle of interpenetration of
opposites, aka superposition, they said I also had to stop
arguing. If it weren't for this characteristic of exclusive
reductionism, I could have been really religious.

Science is different from religion partly in that it is not,
in itself, exclusive.

Ian

[Arny Krueger]

"Ian Iveson" wrote in message
. uk...
Arny said:

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

*What's* all about science?

The stuff you deleted. :-(

Is there anything that is *not* all about science?

Sure. Let's start with art...

Can anything be all about science whilst simultaneously being all about
something else?

Sure, but you've got to look at the context.

When I went to the mosque to join up to this Islam thing they told me I
had to renounce all my other beliefs. When I tried to argue the principle
of interpenetration of opposites, aka superposition, they said I also had
to stop arguing. If it weren't for this characteristic of exclusive
reductionism, I could have been really religious.

I think you made a good choice. I'm sorry to say that you can probably get a
similar "treatment" at a lot of Christian churches. It doesn't have to be
that way.

Science is different from religion partly in that it is not, in itself,
exclusive.

Well, there's religion and there's giving his due to the 1 true God.
Regreattably, those are very often two very different things.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 11, 10:00 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ps.com...





On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...

Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.
Two words: sighted evaluation.
Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication
and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.
Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives
me
a chuckle.
What utter crap.

Actually, there's plenty of science to back me up, going back to "Clever
Hans" the horse, in the early 19th century.

My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

With all due respect for your wife, neither did "Clever Hans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Test was at the bench, units side-by-side, using the test-bench
speakers (AR4x) and a chunky DP/DT switch between them, same volume,
same signal (Pre-Amp dual tape-out from a CD player). Sure I
overloaded the output transistors briefly and made a little heat. No
harm done. But I wanted to see if I could really detect a
difference... and whether it was then equally obvious to an unschooled
set of ears.

How many holes can I shoot in this crude procedure? I won't even try!

So, make of it what you will, and denegrate what you will. It is your
wont and you are fully entitled.

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your suggestion of Clever Hans as a model would be the fallacy of
false premises... as previously noted, one of your typical failings.

Occam's razor would be a much more accurate explanation than a
"trained horse" parable based on repetitive and reinforced behavior
vs. once every other blue-moon behavior.

The simplest explanation for a given result could simply be that there
was a difference.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 11, 10:00 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ps.com...





On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...

Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR -
USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver
board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested
in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board,
but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit,
the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little
fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the
difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words.
She
preferred the film unit.
Two words: sighted evaluation.
Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication
and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.
Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always
gives
me
a chuckle.
What utter crap.

Actually, there's plenty of science to back me up, going back to "Clever
Hans" the horse, in the early 19th century.

My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

With all due respect for your wife, neither did "Clever Hans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Test was at the bench, units side-by-side, using the test-bench
speakers (AR4x) and a chunky DP/DT switch between them, same volume,
same signal (Pre-Amp dual tape-out from a CD player). Sure I
overloaded the output transistors briefly and made a little heat. No
harm done. But I wanted to see if I could really detect a
difference... and whether it was then equally obvious to an unschooled
set of ears.

How many holes can I shoot in this crude procedure? I won't even try!

So, make of it what you will, and denegrate what you will. It is your
wont and you are fully entitled.

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your suggestion of Clever Hans as a model would be the fallacy of
false premises... as previously noted, one of your typical failings.

Try reading again. Clever Hans was a model of the well-known fallacy of
single blind testing. I didn't think I had to spell it out, but there it is.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 11, 12:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Try reading again. Clever Hans was a model of the well-known fallacy of
single blind testing. I didn't think I had to spell it out, but there it is.

OK, from your source on Wiki:
__________________________________________________ _____

After formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst
demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental
tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst
discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the
horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language
of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The
trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.
__________________________________________________ _____

This was not a mathematical problem for which the "trainer" had the
means to determine the answer. This was a "is there a difference
between the two" for which I could give no cues as I was unsure myself
whether it was real or imagined.

Followed by: If you do hear a difference, which do you prefer.

Requiring a sequential response the first of which was perforce
uncontrolled. And the second of which would not be relevant other than
as personal preference given acceptance of the first as being the
case.

So, leaping to conclusions *AND* false premises... reasoning from the
specific to the general.

Sometimes you need to understand that the entire world is not so
dishonest as you are that you need to force their behavior into your
rigid models as you apparently cannot even trust yourself
unconstrained.

And, for the record, why is it such a stretch to accept that changing
four (4) caps (2 per channel) in the signal path with ones of a
substantially different nature and behavior may actually be audible?
Or is it the source of the suggestion? That would be the Ad Hominum
fallacy.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 11, 12:52 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Try reading again. Clever Hans was a model of the well-known fallacy of
single blind testing. I didn't think I had to spell it out, but there it
is.

OK, from your source on Wiki:
__________________________________________________ _____

After formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst
demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental
tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst
discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the
horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language
of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The
trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.

This was not a mathematical problem for which the "trainer" had the
means to determine the answer. This was a "is there a difference
between the two" for which I could give no cues as I was unsure myself
whether it was real or imagined.

There are about 4 variations on this kind of protest:

(1) I didn't want to prefer that one...
(2) I preferred the other one...
(3) I didn't have a preference...
(4) ...

They all presume that there was an audible difference. Once you set the
stage for the perception of an audible difference in these cases, the odds
against a false positive are 50%, which is hardly any kind of a safeguard.

Sometimes you need to understand that the entire world is not so
dishonest as you are that you need to force their behavior into your
rigid models as you apparently cannot even trust yourself
unconstrained.

Sometimes you need to understand that honesty isn't the issue here. The
human animal is wired to generate false positives. If you're normal you
not-infrequently perceive non-existent differences and stimuli.

And, for the record, why is it such a stretch to accept that changing
four (4) caps (2 per channel) in the signal path with ones of a
substantially different nature and behavior may actually be audible?

About 30 years of experience with these and many other kinds of false
positives.

For the record, you can change most caps of most varieties in most places in
most pieces of audio equipment and find zero in the way of measurable or
reliably audible differences in performance. Only prerequisites - the caps
are reasonably operational and resoanble applied, and they have the same
actual capacitance within whatever tolerance it takes to avoid creating an
audible frequency response difference.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

There is also this sigthed issue, just how do you evaluate changes caused by
an alteration of a mics or mic pairs position? - it is pr. definition
sighted, is it also impossible?

As for the science part of it, did we ever get told whether those caps were
biased or unbiased?


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Chris Hornbeck]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 06:31:01 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:

If you are curious,

This bit right here is the fallacy of your argument.

Otherwise, a solid, and thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

[Eeyore]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

There is also this sigthed issue, just how do you evaluate changes caused by
an alteration of a mics or mic pairs position? - it is pr. definition
sighted, is it also impossible?

As for the science part of it, did we ever get told whether those caps were
biased or unbiased?

I'd like to hear more details.

Graham

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

Gosh Arny. It seems that you might have come near
to getting the joke. Unlike the one about
Kruborg from Denmark:-))


He had expressly asked
for a shielded mains cable to be made up. This was duly done.
He was a little disappointed when he saw it, as the cable was
only 10A. He needed the sound of a 20A cooker cable :-)
(The tube power amp has a T2A fuse)
The 20A cable was made up and delivered/fitted the same
day. He was delighted, and paid his bill the following day.
Everyone was happy.

I see he isn't so well mentally then.

You couldn't be more wrong. He is a consultant psychiatrist:-)
He bought a system for Euro (not USD) 50k.

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
oups.com...
On 7 Sep, 14:16, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.


Maybe George wants it!


On a plate. I know a couple of people who refer to
Arny as "John the Baptist" ! Maybe Jenn would become
our Salome.

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

Gosh Arny. It seems that you might have come near
to getting the joke. Unlike the one about
Kruborg from Denmark:-))

Iain, it's too bad that you just failed a simple intelligence test. If you
could count 's, you know that the comment you were responding to came from
a person who posts as "Mr T".

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Larsen" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

There is also this sighted issue, just how do you evaluate changes caused
by
an alteration of a mics or mic pairs position? - it is pr. definition
sighted, is it also impossible?

The order of magnitude of frequency and phase changes caused by choosing
different microphones, moving them around, and changing their orientation
are monumentally gross compared to say, the differences due to different
good SS power amplifiers.

As for the science part of it, did we ever get told whether those caps
were
biased or unbiased?

I have a schematic of the AR amplifier here before me. The AR amplifier is
unusual in that it has a interstage transformer between the driver and the
output stage. A cursory scan finds two electrolytics in the driver stage,
both of which appear to be biased.

If someone wants to give a second opinion, the service manual with schematic
can be found he

http://www.hifiengine.com/manuals_ty...od=Ampli fier

My research shows that there were two AR amplifiers, one an integrated amp,
and one a basic power amp. I presume that the *classic* integrated amp is
being discussed.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:33:54 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 11, 10:00 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

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

My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

With all due respect for your wife, neither did "Clever Hans"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

Test was at the bench, units side-by-side, using the test-bench
speakers (AR4x) and a chunky DP/DT switch between them, same volume,
same signal (Pre-Amp dual tape-out from a CD player). Sure I
overloaded the output transistors briefly and made a little heat. No
harm done. But I wanted to see if I could really detect a
difference... and whether it was then equally obvious to an unschooled
set of ears.

How many holes can I shoot in this crude procedure? I won't even try!

So, make of it what you will, and denegrate what you will. It is your
wont and you are fully entitled.

No Peter, it is all about science, no matter how much you harumph and
posture.

Your suggestion of Clever Hans as a model would be the fallacy of
false premises... as previously noted, one of your typical failings.

Occam's razor would be a much more accurate explanation than a
"trained horse" parable based on repetitive and reinforced behavior
vs. once every other blue-moon behavior.

I'm afraid you're misinterpreting the meaning of the 'Clever Hans'
experiment.

Agreed, because there was enough randomness in how the trick was done, to
preclude specific training.

In the generic it's referred to as the observer expectancy
effect and while it was a 'trained horse' in the Clever Hans case it
doesn't depend on it.

Right. The horse was not trained in math. The horse was trained to respond
in a certain way to his human accomplice. The human knew the answer, the
illusion was lost or made based on the subtleness of the communication to
the horse.

This maps into the wife in the kitchen stories as follows: The wife knows
that a response is expected of her, given that the husband might try to
frame his questions as neutrally as he can. She gathers whatever perceived
evidence as she can and gives the response she thinks will please her
husband the most. This is normal human behavior, husbands and wives get
along by meeting each other expectations, whether said or unsaid.

It's simply that the expectations of the
experimenter/observer unintentionally affect the outcome.

Exactly, and DBT advocates have been forever accused of unintentionally
spurring a response of no differences this way. Being nobody's fools, we
immediately found people who were advocates for the difference being tested
for to both run and take the tests.

Probably the greatest success we've had at not biasing people for a "no
differences" response come out of tests that were structured to produce a
long series of correct positive responses, leading smoothly into basically
identical trials where the results were in question for one and all.

There are many examples of this sort of training listeners in correct
postive test results at www.pcabx.com. I've never had a creative thought in
my life - other people most notably James Johnson, did this long before me.

In the case of your experiment the potential failing is you
unconsciously affecting your wife's responses and the limited nature
of the experiment precludes eliminating it.

Exactly.

Now, I don't know what the 'clues' would be but we could speculate on
possibilities, just as examples.

For one, I presume she knew you were working on an amp, or
'something'. You then asked her to do an AB test. From that, alone, it
wouldn't be surprising if she presumes you think there's a difference
and she might also have a subconscious feeling it's just as much a
'test' of whether she can hear it. She may, then, be predisposed to
hear a difference. The converse might be someone who begins with "I
can't hear a difference, see what you think."

As to 'which' amp, if you were present then the clue possibilities are
endless. Maybe you raise an eyebrow, blink, clench teeth, lean forward
or back, and so on, depending on how she appears to be responding. And
she could be doing similar unconscious movements as she's 'listening'
and 'thinking', giving you clues to then clue back, before she
'concludes'.

Even if you were not present there can be clues because you devised
the experiment. Like maybe you have a tendency to put the 'worked on'
amp on the left or right. Maybe you both subconsciously prefer
whatever is labeled 'A'. Maybe she could tell which one was worked on
because it 'looked better', or worse, or lord know what.

As I said, I don't know but that's the problem with simple
experiments, you *can't* know that you're not affecting the outcome,
and why there is so much emphasis placed on the testing methodology.

Note that I'm not claiming your caps do or don't make a difference,
just that the experiment devised can't prove it one way or the other
because it's inherently susceptible to observer expectations.

The simplest explanation for a given result could simply be that there
was a difference.

The problem with Occam's razor is in determining which is the
'simplest explanation' and, to some, Apollo pulling the sun across the
day time sky fit the bill. Certainly seems simple enough, till you get
down to really trying to 'explain' things.

Nicely said.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 10:55 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Nicely said.

'Cept for the fact that you are requiring a 'false positive'. That a
false positive is possible does not make it necessarily so.

That is the fallacy of your reasoning (Circular). I am simply stating
that my wife heard a difference. It is up to you to prove the contrary
vs. merely suggesting the possibility of the contrary. Yes, you may
claim all sorts of problems with the 'test' and the means-and-methods,
but it is still entirely possible that the results are still valid.
You may not accept them, of course, but you also may not deny that
they are possibly valid.

With respect, that is the problem with Fanatics... the baby is always
sacrificed whether the bathwater is clean or dirty.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 12, 10:55 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Nicely said.

'Cept for the fact that you are requiring a 'false positive'.

Based on other evidence...

That a false positive is possible does not make it necessarily so.

That's weak, very weak. The normal standard of truth is that the opposite is
exceedingly unlikely.

That is the fallacy of your reasoning (Circular).

As you stated it, perhaps, but I'm sitting on this mass of other evidence.

I am simply stating that my wife heard a difference.

No, properly stated she reported a difference and a ranking.

It is up to you to prove the contrary
vs. merely suggesting the possibility of the contrary.

Since you can't seem to muster even a reference to ohm's law in an easy
guestion about why a resistor burned out Peter when one was relevant and
easy to discern, I doubt that you can follow a technical discussion of the
audibility of differences in capacitor dielectrics.

Yes, you may
claim all sorts of problems with the 'test' and the means-and-methods,
but it is still entirely possible that the results are still valid.

No, it is impossible, were you to understand the truth about the change that
you made.

It had a snowball's chance in San Diego of producing an audible difference
(but far from a slam dunk) as long as the electolytics were unbiased, but
regrettably I reached in my pocket and pulled out this schematic of the
piece of equipment in question.

You may not accept them, of course, but you also may not deny that
they are possibly valid.

No, analysis of the AR amplifier schematic sealed the fate of your
comparison long before it was made.

With respect, that is the problem with Fanatics... the baby is always
sacrificed whether the bathwater is clean or dirty.

I've never been known to dump the water without a thorough inspection, even
if the baby was sitting across the room. After all, there might be a wash
cloth in it. ;-)

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

Gosh Arny. It seems that you might have come near
to getting the joke. Unlike the one about
Kruborg from Denmark:-))

Iain, it's too bad that you just failed a simple intelligence test. If you
could count 's, you know that the comment you were responding to came
from a person who posts as "Mr T".

Aaah. The singular Mr.Testicle. It is widely believed that he and you
are the same person.

I had an e-mail today from a chap at the South African Broadcasting
Corporation. His name was Kreuger. He seemed to be intelligent,
well informed and humorous. So he can't be a relation!

Iain

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

I had an e-mail today from a chap at the South African Broadcasting
Corporation. His name was Kreuger. He seemed to be intelligent,
well informed and humorous. So he can't be a relation!

Sure he could. Our Krooger's insanity could be acquired.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR - USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit, the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words. She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always gives me
a chuckle.

What utter crap. My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

Well, that's what you think. But in fact people pick up cues unconsciously.It's why
the most rigorous comparisons are double-blind, for example.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:12 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message

...



Peter Wieck wrote:

As to the capacitor story, I had two identical amplifiers (AR -
USA),
one with new-and-tested electrolytic replacements on the driver
board
as equivalents to the OEM caps, one with 250V film caps also tested
in
place of the OEM electrolytics (also replaced on the tone board, but
at 'flat' settings they are not relevant). From the OEM-like unit,
the
bass was tubbier... softer if you will, and the treble a little
fuzzy
as compared to the film-cap unit. The film-cap unit sounded much
closer to my Citation 16 amp. My wife could also tell the
difference,
although her description of it would perhaps use different words.
She
preferred the film unit.

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Sighted evaluations are the largest single stimulus to the fabrication
and
justification of audio mythologies that have ever existed.

Inclusion of a "even my wife heard the difference" anecdote always
gives me
a chuckle.

What utter crap. My wife would have no clue which was which,
furthermore her actual interest in audio other than as a moderate user
is about the functional equivalent of my interest in knitting. So she
would have no brief either way.

Well, that's what you think. But in fact people pick up cues
unconsciously.It's why
the most rigorous comparisons are double-blind, for example.

It's quite clear that Peter is still fighting a battle against the very
concept of double blind.

[roughplanet]

"George M. Middius" cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote in message
...

Iain Churches said:

I had an e-mail today from a chap at the South African Broadcasting
Corporation. His name was Kreuger. He seemed to be intelligent,
well informed and humorous. So he can't be a relation!

Sure he could. Our Krooger's insanity could be acquired.

That's it. You get it from spending too many hours pawing over (supposed)
holy texts.
Look what it's done to all those Muslim fundamentalists. Obviously Arny has
the Christian fundamentalist version. Mad is mad, no matter what the
flavour.

ruff

[bassett[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

Gosh Arny. It seems that you might have come near
to getting the joke. Unlike the one about
Kruborg from Denmark:-))

Iain, it's too bad that you just failed a simple intelligence test. If
you could count 's, you know that the comment you were responding to
came from a person who posts as "Mr T".

Aaah. The singular Mr.Testicle. It is widely believed that he and you
are the same person.

I had an e-mail today from a chap at the South African Broadcasting
Corporation. His name was Kreuger. He seemed to be intelligent,
well informed and humorous. So he can't be a relation!

Iain


The name Kreuger in South Africa, is as common as brown or smith,
anywhere else .

[Iain Churches[_2_]]

"bassett" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

Gosh Arny. It seems that you might have come near
to getting the joke. Unlike the one about
Kruborg from Denmark:-))

Iain, it's too bad that you just failed a simple intelligence test. If
you could count 's, you know that the comment you were responding to
came from a person who posts as "Mr T".

Aaah. The singular Mr.Testicle. It is widely believed that he and you
are the same person.

I had an e-mail today from a chap at the South African Broadcasting
Corporation. His name was Kreuger. He seemed to be intelligent,
well informed and humorous. So he can't be a relation!

Iain


The name Kreuger in South Africa, is as common as brown or smith,
anywhere else .

Well well. Do you think we didn't know that?
Proper nouns are written with a capital letter, i.e. Brown, Smith.

[bassett[_2_]]

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

"bassett" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
i.fi...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
ti.fi...

I was recently present when a very expensive audio system
was delivered to a well-healed client.

Glad to hear he is well now.

Gosh Arny. It seems that you might have come near
to getting the joke. Unlike the one about
Kruborg from Denmark:-))

Iain, it's too bad that you just failed a simple intelligence test. If
you could count 's, you know that the comment you were responding to
came from a person who posts as "Mr T".

Aaah. The singular Mr.Testicle. It is widely believed that he and you
are the same person.

I had an e-mail today from a chap at the South African Broadcasting
Corporation. His name was Kreuger. He seemed to be intelligent,
well informed and humorous. So he can't be a relation!

Iain


The name Kreuger in South Africa, is as common as brown or
smith, anywhere else .

Well well. Do you think we didn't know that?
Proper nouns are written with a capital letter, i.e. Brown, Smith.

Well if you didn't know, you do now, So as your so bloody informed,
you coulld have lectured everyone on the subject..
It's a wonder you don't personnel know Nelson Mandela, or a few of
his terrorist's mates.

[Arny Krueger]

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...

Obviously Arny has the Christian fundamentalist version.

Speaks to your ignorance of Christian fundamentalism.

Mad is mad, no matter what the flavour.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of, like
Christianity.

[Arny Krueger]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:10:42 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 10:55 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Nicely said.

'Cept for the fact that you are requiring a 'false positive'.

Not at all. As I mentioned, my analysis of the experiment said nothing
about whether there 'really is' a difference or not.

Agreed. Peter seems to have science backwards. It's not up to anybody to
prove anything before the experiment. However, it is a well-known fact that
the expected outcome of Peter's experiment would be a negative. One key to
any experiment is that it could possibly have a negative outcome. So many
critical subjective elements were uncontrolled in Peter's so-called
experiment that we just don't know much from it.

That a false positive is possible does not make it necessarily so.

Quite right. But that means "might be, might not be" so the experiment
doesn't resolve the question.

If there's a reasonble chance of either a false positive or a false
negative, why go forward with an experiment, especially one composed of one
trial.

That is the fallacy of your reasoning (Circular). I am simply stating
that my wife heard a difference.

The point is that the nature of the experiment precludes coming to
that conclusion because you can not know whether you and/or she
unconsciously influenced the outcome.

Exactly. The probability of a false positive (or a false negative) was about
0.5.

It is up to you to prove the contrary
vs. merely suggesting the possibility of the contrary.

Your logic. here, is backwards. The whole point of the experiment was
to 'establish' something and it is up to the experiment to do so, not
someone else to 'prove' the reverse.

Agreed. If an experiment can't shed any light, why bother doing it?

Or, put another way, there's little point to doing an 'experiment' if
you're going disregarding the validity of it, presume the result you
desire is 'true', and demand proof to the contrary. (see, below,
purpose of an experiment)

Agreed, that is essentially what Peter did. Furhtermore he seems to be
unaware of the fact that the probable outcome would be no differences. In
fact he's been pretty forcably arguing that a positive outcome was probable
because of the underlying technology. He's obvously been deceived by the
Marsh-Jung weirdness, and its ongoing negative impacts on general audiophile
wisdom.

Yes, you may
claim all sorts of problems with the 'test' and the means-and-methods,
but it is still entirely possible that the results are still valid.

No, if a test is critically flawed, then it can't have valid results. It
might have results that agree with the actual truth, but that would be mere
luck.

It may seem a fine point but the answer to that, as stated, is no, the
'results' of a flawed experiment cannot be 'valid' (with 'valid'
defined as something you can use as an established premise from which
rational conclusions can be drawn).

Agreed.

The confusion comes from confounding whether the thing you wished were
'true' is, in fact, 'true' (the 'real world') with the experimental
'results' of the test (a 'constructed' world). So, while it may be the
case that 'there is a difference', the experiment is, by it's nature,
incapable of producing a 'valid' result with which to resolve the
question.

There's a way to double-check an experiment like this. Measure the
performance of the gear before and after the change. If there are no
significant differences based on a comprehensive battery of tests, then the
original hypothesis is seriously in doubt. This is not mission impossible
for amateurs any more, because an adequate battery of tests has been
packaged up and delivered as the Audio Rightmark (RMAA) which is freeware.
With a little cleverness and a reasonably modern Windows computer, you can
insert any piece of audio gear with line level electrical inputs and any
output as long as there is at least unity gain, and get at least an estimate
of how it shapes up.

It is truely amazing what you can change in a piece of gear, with no
measurable affect on its performance, even in sensitive tests. One such
thing would be those op-amp *upgrades* that so many swear by. Ditto for
those passive component *upgrades*, that again many have so many favorable
things to say about.

Another thing that is truely amazing is the size of performance changes and
improvements that you can make by more valid means, and still not have an
audible difference, let alone an improvement.

I.E. The 'result' might be right or it might be wrong, and that makes
it invalid (or maybe we should say "inconclusive").

Note that 'invalid', here, does not mean 'backwards' or that the
reverse is 'true'. It simply means you cannot draw conclusions from
it.

You may not accept them, of course, but you also may not deny that
they are possibly valid.

The purpose of a properly constructed experiment is to preclude
'choice' in 'accepting' the results, which gets back to 'valid'. If
the experiment is valid then the results are valid and one must accept
the data, although there may still be room for disagreement on
conclusions derived from it.

But that one must accept (in science, anyway) the data of a valid
experiment is why there is so much emphasis placed on the testing
methodology. In fact, in the scientific community, that is always the
first bone of contention: was the experiment properly constructed?
Because, if not, then the results are invalid.

Agreed.

With respect, that is the problem with Fanatics... the baby is always
sacrificed whether the bathwater is clean or dirty.

IMO, a 'fanatic', in this context, would be someone who holds to a
particular belief, or set of beliefs, despite seemingly
incontrovertible and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But the
evidence would need to be valid, wouldn't you agree?

Good point. Case in point would be the Moslem extremists who demand a return
to traditional Moslem law. We know where that sort of thing leads because
it held the middle east in a vice grip for at least half a millenium.
Frankly, at the beginning of the past millenium, it might have been
anybody's guess whether the prevailing law in Europe was any more effective
than traditional Moslem law. However, Europe went through a lot of dramatic
changes while the Moslem world stagnated. Eventually, European culture
became more effective and dominated. Now the Moslem fundamentalists want to
turn the clock backwards for the whole world. Their major accomplishment to
date in Western society has been some messy urban renewal in lower
Manhattan. :-(

Even a fanatic can be 'right', though, because one of the amusing
aspects to science is it's propensity for controverting the seemingly
incontrovertible.

That's why all results of scientific investigation are provisional until we
do something better. However, many of those provisional things have been
remarkably durable and effective, such as Newton's calculus and laws of
motion.

[roughplanet]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...

Obviously Arny has the Christian fundamentalist version.

Speaks to your ignorance of Christian fundamentalism.

No Arny, you have no idea how much I know or don't know about Christian
fundamentalism, which, incidentally, is now referred to as Evangelical
Christianity in a bid to shed any association with other less-popular
fundamentalist movements.

Mad is mad, no matter what the flavour.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of, like
Christianity.

Again Arny, you are merely making assumptions about something of which you
have no knowledge at all. It's you who know nothing of what areas I am
expert in and what areas I'm not.
Incidentally, you're wrong, but that's never stopped your know-all behaviour
in the past, so I'm pretty sure it won't stop you now.
Besides, as you have no sense of humour whatsoever, any jokes made at your
expense go straight over your head. As I've said before, lighten up and stop
being a silly old bugger Arny, although I suspect that it's probably too
late to change.

ruff

[Arny Krueger]

"roughplanet" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"roughplanet" wrote in message
u...

Obviously Arny has the Christian fundamentalist version.

Speaks to your ignorance of Christian fundamentalism.

No Arny, you have no idea how much I know or don't know about Christian
fundamentalism, which, incidentally, is now referred to as Evangelical
Christianity in a bid to shed any association with other less-popular
fundamentalist movements.

Thanks for exposing your ignorance further, Ruff. Christian fundamentalism
continues to exist concurrently with evangelicalism.

Authorities:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1135048AAI7A5x (answer 2
by JC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...angel icalism

Compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christian


Mad is mad, no matter what the flavour.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of, like
Christianity.

Again Arny, you are merely making assumptions about something of which you
have no knowledge at all.

I dunno ruff. I said you were ignorant and you proved it twice.

It's you who know nothing of what areas I am expert in and what areas I'm
not.

I'm ROTFLMAO at your excursions into genres of Christianty, Ruff. You need a
bumper car!

[roughplanet]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..

"roughplanet" wrote in message
...

Obviously Arny has the Christian fundamentalist version.

Speaks to your ignorance of Christian fundamentalism.

No Arny, you have no idea how much I know or don't know about Christian
fundamentalism, which, incidentally, is now referred to as Evangelical
Christianity in a bid to shed any association with other less-popular
fundamentalist movements.

Thanks for exposing your ignorance further, Ruff. Christian fundamentalism
continues to exist concurrently with evangelicalism.

Authorities:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1135048AAI7A5x (answer
2 by JC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...angel icalism

Compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christian

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! You are quoting the answers given by anonymous
nobodies to questions asked by ignorant nobodies, and if you read JC's
answer completely, he/she says:

'Evangelical Christians: Usually about the same as fundies. They are not
liturgical in their worship style for the most part either.

It's you who are ignorant Arny, and pig-headed as well.

An interesting documentary made by Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of leading
Democrat politician and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/conte...7/s2006096.htm

highlighted the new title of 'Evangelical Christians' that is currently
being used by groups/sects/churches that previously (i.e. pre 9/11)
classified themselves as Christian Fundamentalists.

I suggest that it's you who are confused Arny, or perhaps you're just
regurgitating the beliefs of the leader of your particular sect. Hmm?

Mad is mad, no matter what the flavour.

Mad is trying to talk like an expert in areas you know nothing of, like
Christianity.

Again Arny, you are merely making assumptions about something of which
you have no knowledge at all.

I dunno ruff. I said you were ignorant and you proved it twice.

No Arny, I'll say it again. It's you who are ignorant, quoting anonymous
posters as if they were authorities on the point you are trying so stupidly
to defend.

It's you who know nothing of what areas I am expert in and what areas I'm
not.

I'm ROTFLMAO at your excursions into genres of Christianty, Ruff. You need
a bumper car!

Then you need a tank Arny. You profess to be a BAC, but you're not even up
with the current position/fad on just what you people are calling yourselves
these days.

What a great advert for the bible belt you are. From the above arguments,
I'd say you probably think it's something to hold up your trousers, with
quotations from the gospels stamped all over it :-).

Back to basics, or should that be fundamentals, sorry, evangelicals Arny.
And try to quote people with (a) names & (b) credentials next time.

ruff