Howard Tests a 3000 dollar amp [Archive]

Howard Ferstler

September 30th 04, 01:33 AM

Carl Valle wrote:
>
> Howard is gonna test a $3000 amp. He said that about 10 times now...
> But since he already knows it sounds just like a Pioneer receiver, he has a
> different approach.

Not really.

I did very carefully level match the unit against a Yamaha
integrated amp. Using pink noise, you can get the levels
close enough where the four signals (one in each channel
with each amp) sounded the same. And I mean really the same,
which shows that the frequency response of each amp was
subjectively identical. The levels were then matched closely
enough to go on and do some AB comparing with music.

The result, well, the two amps sounded the same (surprise,
surprise), even when I adjusted levels so that both were
occasionally bumping up against their power limits with some
material. (Both amps had roughly equal max power
capabilities into the Dunlavy Cantata speakers.) For really
critical work, I used music with very deep bass content
(Mendelssohn Organ Works, on the Argo label) as well as
music with a very clean midrange and wonderful soundstaging
(from a two-disc Corelli Concerti Grossi set, on the Opus
111 label).

While some of you golden ears might have been able to hear
differences (yeah, sure), I think that no person who had
lived far enough into middle age to afford such an amp would
be able to.

My conclusion, those of you who have spent big bucks on
power amps because you thought they sounded better were
duped. However, we do have to admit that there is something
about a Rolex that makes it seem better than a Timex, even
if both tell time equally well. And a Lexus 300 may have
something over a Toyota Camry that cannot be easily
quantified, even though the latter vehicle is functionally
as good as the former.

So, while I am still an "amps is amps" kind of guy (at least
if we are not talking about goofball amps that sound worse
than neutral), I will admit that there is a certain
something about a really well built upscale unit. (This unit
was not better built than the best of the other amps I have
fooled with, but it was still quite nice.) If you can afford
it, I suppose getting something like that is OK. But if you
have to stretch your budget you are an idiot.

Note that I intend to do some additional comparing, just in
case. However, so far I have not heard differences between
any decent amp and any other decent amp, so I am not
expecting much.

Howard Ferstler

paul packer

September 30th 04, 02:02 AM

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:33:34 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>Note that I intend to do some additional comparing, just in
>case. However, so far I have not heard differences between
>any decent amp and any other decent amp, so I am not
>expecting much.
>
>Howard Ferstler

Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
true many sound the same, others do not. Recently I bought an old
Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not heard
from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as it took
me quite by surprise. I wonder if you have any explanation for that.

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt

September 30th 04, 03:51 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Carl Valle wrote:
>>
>> Howard is gonna test a $3000 amp. He said that about 10 times now...
>> But since he already knows it sounds just like a Pioneer receiver, he has
>> a
>> different approach.
>
> Not really.
>
> I did very carefully level match

<garbage deleted>

Pointless exercise with a cheap inferior system like yours.

Cheers,

Margaret

Sander deWaal

September 30th 04, 09:59 AM

Howard Ferstler > said:

>I did very carefully level match the unit against a Yamaha
>integrated amp. Using pink noise, you can get the levels
>close enough where the four signals (one in each channel
>with each amp) sounded the same. And I mean really the same,
>which shows that the frequency response of each amp was
>subjectively identical. The levels were then matched closely
>enough to go on and do some AB comparing with music.
>
>The result, well, the two amps sounded the same (surprise,
>surprise), even when I adjusted levels so that both were
>occasionally bumping up against their power limits with some
>material.

Like I told you, just write tha it sounds the same as your Yamaha and
be done with it.

The manufacturer of said amp will thank you for your thorough review.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal

September 30th 04, 10:00 AM

(paul packer) said:

>>Note that I intend to do some additional comparing, just in
>>case. However, so far I have not heard differences between
>>any decent amp and any other decent amp, so I am not
>>expecting much.

>Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
>true many sound the same, others do not. Recently I bought an old
>Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not heard
>from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as it took
>me quite by surprise. I wonder if you have any explanation for that.

The copout is bad engineering.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

dave weil

September 30th 04, 10:56 AM

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:33:34 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>So, while I am still an "amps is amps" kind of guy (at least
>if we are not talking about goofball amps that sound worse
>than neutral), I will admit that there is a certain
>something about a really well built upscale unit. (This unit
>was not better built than the best of the other amps I have
>fooled with, but it was still quite nice.) If you can afford
>it, I suppose getting something like that is OK. But if you
>have to stretch your budget you are an idiot.

Ahhh, so you won't be trashing this amp in print. What, you're getting
to keep it or something? I guess now you've changed your tune. Well,
I'll have to say that at least the lightbulb is starting to come on.
Otherwise, you'd be calling anyone who would spend $2600 more than
they need to for an amp a loser, a chump and a buzzkiller for the
hobby.

Arny Krueger

September 30th 04, 12:03 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:33:34 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
>> Note that I intend to do some additional comparing, just in
>> case. However, so far I have not heard differences between
>> any decent amp and any other decent amp, so I am not
>> expecting much.
>>
>> Howard Ferstler
>
> Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
> true many sound the same, others do not. Recently I bought an old
> Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not heard
> from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as it took
> me quite by surprise. I wonder if you have any explanation for that.

(1) It was a sighted evaluation, right?

(2) Frequency response as measured into a loudspeaker load

(3) Remaining standard audio measurements which can be accomplished in an
automated fashion using the Audio Rightmark freeware and a PC with a good
audio interface.

paul packer

September 30th 04, 03:03 PM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:03:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
>> true many sound the same, others do not. Recently I bought an old
>> Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not heard
>> from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as it took
>> me quite by surprise. I wonder if you have any explanation for that.
>
>(1) It was a sighted evaluation, right?

Well, I was wearing glasses, but....

>(2) Frequency response as measured into a loudspeaker load

Eh?

>(3) Remaining standard audio measurements which can be accomplished in an
>automated fashion using the Audio Rightmark freeware and a PC with a good
>audio interface.

That does it.

Arny Krueger

September 30th 04, 04:09 PM

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:03:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>> Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
>>> true many sound the same, others do not. Recently I bought an old
>>> Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not
>>> heard from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as
>>> it took me quite by surprise. I wonder if you have any explanation
>>> for that.
>>
>> (1) It was a sighted evaluation, right?
>
> Well, I was wearing glasses, but....

;-)

>> (2) Frequency response as measured into a loudspeaker load
>
> Eh?

Eh?

>> (3) Remaining standard audio measurements which can be accomplished
>> in an automated fashion using the Audio Rightmark freeware and a PC
>> with a good audio interface.
>
> That does it.

Eh?

Howard Ferstler

October 1st 04, 01:56 AM

paul packer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:33:34 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >Note that I intend to do some additional comparing, just in
> >case. However, so far I have not heard differences between
> >any decent amp and any other decent amp, so I am not
> >expecting much.

> Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
> true many sound the same, others do not.

For sure. Certainly, lower-quality amps, or amps (even
expensive ones) that have been purposely configured to sound
inaccurate to satisfy goofball sensibilities, will sound
different from amps that have no audible distortion.

> Recently I bought an old
> Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not heard
> from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as it took
> me quite by surprise.

Good amps do not sound sweet. Good amps do not "sound" at
all.

> I wonder if you have any explanation for that.

The amp must have been a dud. Of course, it is also possible
that you did not do any serious comparing of the sort I
indicated in the initial posting.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 1st 04, 01:58 AM

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Carl Valle wrote:
> >>
> >> Howard is gonna test a $3000 amp. He said that about 10 times now...
> >> But since he already knows it sounds just like a Pioneer receiver, he has
> >> a
> >> different approach.
> >
> > Not really.
> >
> > I did very carefully level match
>
> <garbage deleted>
>
> Pointless exercise with a cheap inferior system like yours.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Margaret

I wonder if you ever have bothered to do a careful,
level-matched comparison of amplifiers, blind or otherwise.
Perhaps you are just stupid and have not. Or, perhaps you
have and are a con-artist, sockpupped journalist who has
turf to protect.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 1st 04, 02:01 AM

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >I did very carefully level match the unit against a Yamaha
> >integrated amp. Using pink noise, you can get the levels
> >close enough where the four signals (one in each channel
> >with each amp) sounded the same. And I mean really the same,
> >which shows that the frequency response of each amp was
> >subjectively identical. The levels were then matched closely
> >enough to go on and do some AB comparing with music.
> >
> >The result, well, the two amps sounded the same (surprise,
> >surprise), even when I adjusted levels so that both were
> >occasionally bumping up against their power limits with some
> >material.

> Like I told you, just write tha it sounds the same as your Yamaha and
> be done with it.

Still have more comparing to do. The Yamaha is a very good
amp, and so I would be suspicious if the other amp managed
to sound different.

Incidentally, if the Yamaha were distorting (as you guys
would all say such cheap amps are prone to do) it seems
rather preposterous for the other, far more expensive amp to
somehow be able to distort exactly the same. The odds of
that are pretty slim, and so the obvious alternative is to
say that both were not audibly distorting at all.

> The manufacturer of said amp will thank you for your thorough review.

No telling. The amp has other attributes that some people
might consider important, particularly if they have money to
burn.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 1st 04, 02:07 AM

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:33:34 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:
>
> >So, while I am still an "amps is amps" kind of guy (at least
> >if we are not talking about goofball amps that sound worse
> >than neutral), I will admit that there is a certain
> >something about a really well built upscale unit. (This unit
> >was not better built than the best of the other amps I have
> >fooled with, but it was still quite nice.) If you can afford
> >it, I suppose getting something like that is OK. But if you
> >have to stretch your budget you are an idiot.

> Ahhh, so you won't be trashing this amp in print.

Probably not. It is certainly a constructed work of art when
it comes to durability, fit and finish, and, well, just
plain impressive performance below the audible threshold. It
has a world-class S/N, for example and is built to standards
that would shame an M1A1 tank.

> What, you're getting
> to keep it or something?

Hardly. I have all the amps I can use. I'd like some new TV
monitors, however. The HDTV age is leaving me behind.

> I guess now you've changed your tune. Well,
> I'll have to say that at least the lightbulb is starting to come on.

Wait and read the review.

> Otherwise, you'd be calling anyone who would spend $2600 more than
> they need to for an amp a loser, a chump and a buzzkiller for the
> hobby.

Obviously, people with lots of surplus cash need to have
something to spend it on. Big-ticket properties give their
lives meaning. Some people would never own a cheap watch or
cheap car, even though they might work just fine for what
watches and cars are supposed to do. They would want a Rolex
or a Lexus, and would not be satisfied with anything else.
That is not my style (cheap is my middle name), but who am I
to deny the rich the right to blow their cash on overkill?

Howard Ferstler

dave weil

October 1st 04, 02:17 AM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:07:21 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>
>> Otherwise, you'd be calling anyone who would spend $2600 more than
>> they need to for an amp a loser, a chump and a buzzkiller for the
>> hobby.
>
>Obviously, people with lots of surplus cash need to have
>something to spend it on. Big-ticket properties give their
>lives meaning. Some people would never own a cheap watch or
>cheap car, even though they might work just fine for what
>watches and cars are supposed to do. They would want a Rolex
>or a Lexus, and would not be satisfied with anything else.
>That is not my style (cheap is my middle name), but who am I
>to deny the rich the right to blow their cash on overkill?

Hmmmm, almost sounds like things I told you a few years ago. Glad to
hear that you're finally coming around.

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt

October 1st 04, 02:32 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Carl Valle wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Howard is gonna test a $3000 amp. He said that about 10 times now...
>> >> But since he already knows it sounds just like a Pioneer receiver, he
>> >> has
>> >> a
>> >> different approach.
>> >
>> > Not really.
>> >
>> > I did very carefully level match
>>
>> <garbage deleted>
>>
>> Pointless exercise with a cheap inferior system like yours.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Margaret
>
> I wonder if you ever have bothered to do a careful,
> level-matched comparison of amplifiers, blind or otherwise.

Dear Mr. Numbnuts,

My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those test
with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can ONLY
dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second to
none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They also
operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access to
any of it are...like...nonexistent.

> Perhaps you are just stupid and have not.

Could be, but then what does that make you? A librarian?

> Or, perhaps you
> have and are a con-artist, sockpupped journalist who has
> turf to protect.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Or perhaps you are just a desperate conman who is only qualified to shelve
books.

Cheers,

Margaret

S888Wheel

October 1st 04, 04:30 AM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 9/30/2004 5:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Carl Valle wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Howard is gonna test a $3000 amp. He said that about 10 times now...
>> >> But since he already knows it sounds just like a Pioneer receiver, he
>has
>> >> a
>> >> different approach.
>> >
>> > Not really.
>> >
>> > I did very carefully level match
>>
>> <garbage deleted>
>>
>> Pointless exercise with a cheap inferior system like yours.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Margaret
>
>I wonder if you ever have bothered to do a careful,
>level-matched comparison of amplifiers, blind or otherwise.

I wonder if you ever will. Not that it matters. your hearing impairment is a
matter of public record.

>Perhaps you are just stupid and have not.

Like you?

Or, perhaps you
>have and are a con-artist, sockpupped journalist who has
>turf to protect.

Like you?

S888Wheel

October 1st 04, 04:33 AM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 9/30/2004 6:07 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:33:34 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >So, while I am still an "amps is amps" kind of guy (at least
>> >if we are not talking about goofball amps that sound worse
>> >than neutral), I will admit that there is a certain
>> >something about a really well built upscale unit. (This unit
>> >was not better built than the best of the other amps I have
>> >fooled with, but it was still quite nice.) If you can afford
>> >it, I suppose getting something like that is OK. But if you
>> >have to stretch your budget you are an idiot.
>
>> Ahhh, so you won't be trashing this amp in print.
>
>Probably not. It is certainly a constructed work of art when
>it comes to durability, fit and finish, and, well, just
>plain impressive performance below the audible threshold. It
>has a world-class S/N, for example and is built to standards
>that would shame an M1A1 tank.
>
>> What, you're getting
>> to keep it or something?
>
>Hardly. I have all the amps I can use. I'd like some new TV
>monitors, however. The HDTV age is leaving me behind.
>
>> I guess now you've changed your tune. Well,
>> I'll have to say that at least the lightbulb is starting to come on.
>
>Wait and read the review.
>
>> Otherwise, you'd be calling anyone who would spend $2600 more than
>> they need to for an amp a loser, a chump and a buzzkiller for the
>> hobby.
>
>Obviously, people with lots of surplus cash need to have
>something to spend it on. Big-ticket properties give their
>lives meaning. Some people would never own a cheap watch or
>cheap car, even though they might work just fine for what
>watches and cars are supposed to do. They would want a Rolex
>or a Lexus, and would not be satisfied with anything else.
>That is not my style (cheap is my middle name), but who am I
>to deny the rich the right to blow their cash on overkill?
>

Now you can't tell the difference between a Lexus and a Toyota? That's just
funny.

paul packer

October 1st 04, 08:29 AM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:09:25 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:03:33 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
>>>> true many sound the same, others do not. Recently I bought an old
>>>> Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not
>>>> heard from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as
>>>> it took me quite by surprise. I wonder if you have any explanation
>>>> for that.
>>>
>>> (1) It was a sighted evaluation, right?
>>
>> Well, I was wearing glasses, but....
>
>;-)
>
>>> (2) Frequency response as measured into a loudspeaker load
>>
>> Eh?
>
>Eh?
>
>>> (3) Remaining standard audio measurements which can be accomplished
>>> in an automated fashion using the Audio Rightmark freeware and a PC
>>> with a good audio interface.
>>
>> That does it.
>
>Eh?

See how annoying it is when people post posts you can't understand?

paul packer

October 1st 04, 08:42 AM

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:56:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> Howard, I've had many amps in my dubious hi-fi career, and while it's
>> true many sound the same, others do not.
>
>For sure. Certainly, lower-quality amps, or amps (even
>expensive ones) that have been purposely configured to sound
>inaccurate to satisfy goofball sensibilities, will sound
>different from amps that have no audible distortion.

And what has all this to do with the use of expensive or inexpensive
components, good or shoddy design and construction? Do none of these
things affect sound quality?
>
>> Recently I bought an old
>> Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not heard
>> from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as it took
>> me quite by surprise.
>
>Good amps do not sound sweet. Good amps do not "sound" at
>all.

Ah, but acoustic instruments, especially stringed instruments, sound
sweet, as you of all people should know. If therefore my amp caused
instruments to sound sweet that had not done so before, could it be I
was hearing a more truthful sound than hitherto? Careful how you
answer now, Howard.

>
>> I wonder if you have any explanation for that.
>
>The amp must have been a dud.

Why? Why is something a dud because it makes music sound more pleasant
than something else?

>Of course, it is also possible
>that you did not do any serious comparing of the sort I
>indicated in the initial posting.

I've been in hi-fi since 1968 and even contributed to a national hi-fi
mag (so you see you're not the only published audio clown around,
Howard). I've heard quite a few amps and I know what sounds like music
as opposed to mere electronics, accurate or otherwise. If you don't
reject the idea of 'musicality' altogether, I'm sure you'll be
sensitive to my questions.

Howard Ferstler

October 3rd 04, 12:14 AM

paul packer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:56:58 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >> Recently I bought an old
> >> Luxman L200 off Ebay and it has a warmth and sweetness I've not heard
> >> from any other amp, and which is definitely not imaginary as it took
> >> me quite by surprise.

> >Good amps do not sound sweet. Good amps do not "sound" at
> >all.

> Ah, but acoustic instruments, especially stringed instruments, sound
> sweet, as you of all people should know. If therefore my amp caused
> instruments to sound sweet that had not done so before, could it be I
> was hearing a more truthful sound than hitherto? Careful how you
> answer now, Howard.

Good amps merely reproduce what is fed into them, and
amplify, too, of course. If you had a recording that sounded
sour with one amp and sweet with another, they one, or
possibly even both units were defective. I leave "both" as
an option, because it is probably not unusual at all for a
tweako freako to own two bum amps and think that one is
superior in one area and the other is superior in another.

Of course, the guy may just be deluded, and rather than
carefully compare the amps he just speculates and swoons
when he hears his favored unit.

> >> I wonder if you have any explanation for that.

> >The amp must have been a dud.

> Why? Why is something a dud because it makes music sound more pleasant
> than something else?

It might roll off the top octave a bit and that would make
the music sound more pleasant. Of course, a treble tone
control could do the same thing with a sub-par recording.

> >Of course, it is also possible
> >that you did not do any serious comparing of the sort I
> >indicated in the initial posting.

> I've been in hi-fi since 1968 and even contributed to a national hi-fi
> mag (so you see you're not the only published audio clown around,
> Howard). I've heard quite a few amps and I know what sounds like music
> as opposed to mere electronics, accurate or otherwise.

You are deluded.

> If you don't
> reject the idea of 'musicality' altogether, I'm sure you'll be
> sensitive to my questions.

I am aware that you are a tweako freako.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 3rd 04, 12:15 AM

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:

> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>
> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those test
> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can ONLY
> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second to
> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They also
> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access to
> any of it are...like...nonexistent.

What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
the worst.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 3rd 04, 12:16 AM

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >> The manufacturer of said amp will thank you for your thorough review.
>
> >No telling. The amp has other attributes that some people
> >might consider important, particularly if they have money to
> >burn.
>
> What attributes are those?
> Is there perhaps more than just amplifying involved, Howard?

Some people just want bragging rights.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 3rd 04, 12:17 AM

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:07:21 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >Obviously, people with lots of surplus cash need to have
> >something to spend it on. Big-ticket properties give their
> >lives meaning. Some people would never own a cheap watch or
> >cheap car, even though they might work just fine for what
> >watches and cars are supposed to do. They would want a Rolex
> >or a Lexus, and would not be satisfied with anything else.
> >That is not my style (cheap is my middle name), but who am I
> >to deny the rich the right to blow their cash on overkill?

> Hmmmm, almost sounds like things I told you a few years ago. Glad to
> hear that you're finally coming around.

But the amps still sounded the same. For me, that is the
bottom line.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 3rd 04, 12:21 AM

S888Wheel wrote:

> Now you can't tell the difference between a Lexus and a Toyota? That's just
> funny.

Bad analogy, but I had to come up with something fast. I'd
like to assume that you did get the point.

Incidentally, the Camry and the corresponding Lexus model
perform pretty close from what I have heard.

It is one thing to purchase an upscale amp because you are
enamored of its solidity, fit and finish, and perhaps the
warranty.

It is quite another thing to believe that said amp has an
audible advantage over something that might cost
considerably less.

Of course, in the world of hi-fi audio delusions are as
common as audio opinions.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick

October 3rd 04, 01:13 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler > said:
>>
>> >> The manufacturer of said amp will thank you for your thorough review.
>>
>> >No telling. The amp has other attributes that some people
>> >might consider important, particularly if they have money to
>> >burn.
>>
>> What attributes are those?
>> Is there perhaps more than just amplifying involved, Howard?
>
> Some people just want bragging rights.
>
You mean the people who are "at least"
published professional audio clowns.

paul packer

October 3rd 04, 01:59 AM

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:14:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:
>Good amps merely reproduce what is fed into them, and
>amplify, too, of course. If you had a recording that sounded
>sour with one amp and sweet with another, they one, or
>possibly even both units were defective.

"Defective". Is that a scientific term, Howard? Do you mean defective
in operation or design? But surely any amp, unless it conforms to the
'straight wire with gain' ideal. is defective to some degree.

>I leave "both" as
>an option, because it is probably not unusual at all for a
>tweako freako to own two bum amps and think that one is
>superior in one area and the other is superior in another.

One wonders just how man "bum" amps there are out there. It's
frightening.

>
>Of course, the guy may just be deluded, and rather than
>carefully compare the amps he just speculates and swoons
>when he hears his favored unit.

I always swoon when I hear my favoured unit. In fact I've got several
bumps on my forehead from swooning. It doesn't matter to me that the
unit is 'defective'. I'm working out how to make other amps
'defective' in the same way so that I can make my fortune.

>
>> >> I wonder if you have any explanation for that.
>
>> >The amp must have been a dud.
>
>> Why? Why is something a dud because it makes music sound more pleasant
>> than something else?
>
>It might roll off the top octave a bit and that would make
>the music sound more pleasant. Of course, a treble tone
>control could do the same thing with a sub-par recording.

Nope, I'm definitely hearing all the treble notes, Howard. That can't
be it.
>
>> >Of course, it is also possible
>> >that you did not do any serious comparing of the sort I
>> >indicated in the initial posting.
>
>> I've been in hi-fi since 1968 and even contributed to a national hi-fi
>> mag (so you see you're not the only published audio clown around,
>> Howard). I've heard quite a few amps and I know what sounds like music
>> as opposed to mere electronics, accurate or otherwise.
>
>You are deluded.

Howard! This is so sudden. And we've always got on so well too.

>
>> If you don't
>> reject the idea of 'musicality' altogether, I'm sure you'll be
>> sensitive to my questions.
>
>I am aware that you are a tweako freako.

This is terrible, Howard. And I was going to invite you to my next
birthday party in December. Now there'll be an empty place.
>
>Howard Ferstler

S888Wheel

October 3rd 04, 04:40 AM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/2/2004 4:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>> Howard Ferstler > said:
>>
>> >> The manufacturer of said amp will thank you for your thorough review.
>>
>> >No telling. The amp has other attributes that some people
>> >might consider important, particularly if they have money to
>> >burn.
>>
>> What attributes are those?
>> Is there perhaps more than just amplifying involved, Howard?
>
>Some people just want bragging rights.
>
>
Kind of like you eh?

S888Wheel

October 3rd 04, 04:41 AM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/2/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>>
>> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those test
>> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can
>ONLY
>> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second to
>> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
>> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They also
>> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access to
>> any of it are...like...nonexistent.
>
>What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
>the worst.
>

Projecting again.

S888Wheel

October 3rd 04, 04:47 AM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/2/2004 4:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>
>> Now you can't tell the difference between a Lexus and a Toyota? That's just
>> funny.
>
>Bad analogy, but I had to come up with something fast. I'd
>like to assume that you did get the point.

That your senses are dull? Yes I got that point a long time ago.

>
>Incidentally, the Camry and the corresponding Lexus model
>perform pretty close from what I have heard.

I'm sure they are all the same if you don't ever get in anyone of them and
drive them.

>
>It is one thing to purchase an upscale amp because you are
>enamored of its solidity, fit and finish, and perhaps the
>warranty.

Not really. *That* would be a waste of money IMO. Good looking well built amps
can be had for much less than the most expensive ones.

>
>It is quite another thing to believe that said amp has an
>audible advantage over something that might cost
>considerably less.

Yeah, it's called a subjective opinion. Something you can't deal with. Get a
life Clyde.

>
>Of course, in the world of hi-fi audio delusions are as
>common as audio opinions.

You should know, youv'e deluded yourself enough.

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt

October 3rd 04, 05:08 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
>> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>>
>> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those test
>> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can
>> ONLY
>> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second to
>> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
>> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They
>> also
>> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access
>> to
>> any of it are...like...nonexistent.
>
> What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
> the worst.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Looks like I delivered another kidney punch. :-)

I must be a little bit sadistic...

....however, I just want to remind you that not everyone lives in a
manufactured home, Howard.

Cheers,

Margaret

PS. Howard, let me give you some advice regarding your inability
to...ummm..."perform". A fortune cookie says: "A porcelain cup makes a bad
jockstrap."

dave weil

October 3rd 04, 01:23 PM

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:16:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> >> The manufacturer of said amp will thank you for your thorough review.
>>
>> >No telling. The amp has other attributes that some people
>> >might consider important, particularly if they have money to
>> >burn.
>>
>> What attributes are those?
>> Is there perhaps more than just amplifying involved, Howard?
>
>Some people just want bragging rights.

So, will you overtly claim in the article that there are only two
advantages between this amp and a $300 amp, build quality and bragging
rights and that anyone who spends the extra money would be better
served in using the difference to buy more CDs?

dave weil

October 3rd 04, 01:27 PM

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:33:13 -0400, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Brother Pompous said:
>
>> > >The amp has other attributes that some people
>> > >might consider important, particularly if they have money to
>> > >burn.
>
>> > What attributes are those?
>> > Is there perhaps more than just amplifying involved, Howard?
>
>> Some people just want bragging rights.
>
>Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
>you, no matter what brand names you drop?

Or bragging about reviewing a $3000 amp for that matter.

Heck, Marc Phillips *won* one of those by writing a couple of
paragraphs. That's probably more that Howard is paid for a couple of
years worth of reviews.

Of course, if Howard is lucky, the company will go out of business
before he has to return the amp and he'll get to keep the product.
That's how he got his Dunlavys, note. Perhaps that's his hope with
each item that he reviews <shrug>.

Sander deWaal

October 3rd 04, 03:47 PM

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> >> The manufacturer of said amp will thank you for your thorough review.

>> >No telling. The amp has other attributes that some people
>> >might consider important, particularly if they have money to
>> >burn.

>> What attributes are those?
>> Is there perhaps more than just amplifying involved, Howard?

>Some people just want bragging rights.

You've made me *very* curious about this particular review. Really.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal

October 3rd 04, 03:48 PM

Howard Ferstler > said:

>> >Obviously, people with lots of surplus cash need to have
>> >something to spend it on. Big-ticket properties give their
>> >lives meaning. Some people would never own a cheap watch or
>> >cheap car, even though they might work just fine for what
>> >watches and cars are supposed to do. They would want a Rolex
>> >or a Lexus, and would not be satisfied with anything else.
>> >That is not my style (cheap is my middle name), but who am I
>> >to deny the rich the right to blow their cash on overkill?

>> Hmmmm, almost sounds like things I told you a few years ago. Glad to
>> hear that you're finally coming around.

>But the amps still sounded the same. For me, that is the
>bottom line.

Will this conclusion be in the review?

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:29 AM

paul packer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:14:10 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >Good amps merely reproduce what is fed into them, and
> >amplify, too, of course. If you had a recording that sounded
> >sour with one amp and sweet with another, then one, or
> >possibly even both units were defective.

> "Defective". Is that a scientific term, Howard?

Merely descriptive. Certainly some scientists would use the
term on occasion.

> Do you mean defective
> in operation or design?

Either.

> But surely any amp, unless it conforms to the
> 'straight wire with gain' ideal. is defective to some degree.

OK, let's use the phrase audibly or subjectively defective.

> >I leave "both" as
> >an option, because it is probably not unusual at all for a
> >tweako freako to own two bum amps and think that one is
> >superior in one area and the other is superior in another.

> One wonders just how man "bum" amps there are out there. It's
> frightening.

Not many mainstream designs. Some of the esoteric garage
jobs probably are "bum" designs, however. You probably own
one or two yourself.

> >Of course, the guy may just be deluded, and rather than
> >carefully compare the amps he just speculates and swoons
> >when he hears his favored unit.

> I always swoon when I hear my favoured unit.

This does not surprise me.

> In fact I've got several
> bumps on my forehead from swooning.

This also does not surprise me. Wear a helmet.

> It doesn't matter to me that the
> unit is 'defective'. I'm working out how to make other amps
> 'defective' in the same way so that I can make my fortune.

No doubt, you will eventually succeed and your efforts will
be lauded by the tweako press.

> >> >> I wonder if you have any explanation for that.

> >> >The amp must have been a dud.

> >> Why? Why is something a dud because it makes music sound more pleasant
> >> than something else?

> >It might roll off the top octave a bit and that would make
> >the music sound more pleasant. Of course, a treble tone
> >control could do the same thing with a sub-par recording.

> Nope, I'm definitely hearing all the treble notes, Howard.

I did not say they would be eliminated. I indicated that
they would be attenuated a bit. That would make some
recordings sound pleasantly mellow, compared to what we
would have with an amp that accurately reproduced such
sub-par recordings.

> That can't be it.

You need to be able to tell the difference between slightly
attenuated and completely cut off.

> >> >Of course, it is also possible
> >> >that you did not do any serious comparing of the sort I
> >> >indicated in the initial posting.

> >> I've been in hi-fi since 1968 and even contributed to a national hi-fi
> >> mag (so you see you're not the only published audio clown around,
> >> Howard). I've heard quite a few amps and I know what sounds like music
> >> as opposed to mere electronics, accurate or otherwise.

> >You are deluded.

> Howard! This is so sudden.

And accurate.

> And we've always got on so well too.

Only in your mind.

> >> If you don't
> >> reject the idea of 'musicality' altogether, I'm sure you'll be
> >> sensitive to my questions.

> >I am aware that you are a tweako freako.

> This is terrible, Howard.

Only for you.

> And I was going to invite you to my next
> birthday party in December. Now there'll be an empty place.

More cake for you.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:31 AM

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/2/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
> >>
> >> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those test
> >> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can
> >ONLY
> >> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second to
> >> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
> >> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They also
> >> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access to
> >> any of it are...like...nonexistent.

> >What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
> >the worst.

> Projecting again.

You also are deluded at best and a con artist at the worst.
You are cut from the same cloth as Margaret.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:33 AM

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
> >>
> >> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those test
> >> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can
> >> ONLY
> >> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second to
> >> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
> >> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They
> >> also
> >> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access
> >> to
> >> any of it are...like...nonexistent.

> > What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
> > the worst.

> Looks like I delivered another kidney punch. :-)

Only in your mind.

> I must be a little bit sadistic...

Not to mention being either deluded or a con artist - or
both.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:35 AM

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
> you, no matter what brand names you drop?

Nobody? I think that you and your fellow goofballs here have
delusions of grandeur, Middius.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:36 AM

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:16:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >Some people just want bragging rights.

> So, will you overtly claim in the article that there are only two
> advantages between this amp and a $300 amp, build quality and bragging
> rights and that anyone who spends the extra money would be better
> served in using the difference to buy more CDs?

Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:38 AM

Sander deWaal wrote:

> You've made me *very* curious about this particular review. Really.

I hope you are not going to be shocked by it not being an "I
pander to manufacturers" type review.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:39 AM

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:

> >But the amps still sounded the same. For me, that is the
> >bottom line.

> Will this conclusion be in the review?

One of several conclusions.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 5th 04, 02:42 AM

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/2/2004 4:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >It is quite another thing to believe that said amp has an
> >audible advantage over something that might cost
> >considerably less.

> Yeah, it's called a subjective opinion. Something you can't deal with. Get a
> life Clyde.

For me, subjective opinions by other individuals only mean
something if those individuals are intelligent and level
headed. Tweakos need not apply.

> >Of course, in the world of hi-fi audio delusions are as
> >common as audio opinions.

> You should know, youv'e deluded yourself enough.

We all have our delusions at times. However, I have yet to
be deluded when it comes to the sound of amplifiers.

Howard Ferstler

Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt

October 5th 04, 03:54 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>>
>> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>> >>
>> >> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those
>> >> test
>> >> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you
>> >> can
>> >> ONLY
>> >> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second
>> >> to
>> >> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to
>> >> do
>> >> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They
>> >> also
>> >> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having
>> >> access
>> >> to
>> >> any of it are...like...nonexistent.
>
>> > What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
>> > the worst.
>
>> Looks like I delivered another kidney punch. :-)
>
> Only in your mind.
>
>> I must be a little bit sadistic...
>
> Not to mention being either deluded or a con artist - or
> both.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Dear Numbnuts:

Seems like you forgot the rest of my post. It must have caused you excessive
"limpage" so you had to run and get the tweezers. Well, I understand....
;-)

But at least you should go back and then publicly thank me for the advice I
gave you regarding your "performance problem".

Cheers,

Margaret

S888Wheel

October 5th 04, 05:16 AM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/4/2004 6:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/2/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>> >
>> >> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>> >>
>> >> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those test
>> >> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can
>> >ONLY
>> >> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second
>to
>> >> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
>> >> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They
>also
>> >> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access
>to
>> >> any of it are...like...nonexistent.
>
>> >What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
>> >the worst.
>
>> Projecting again.
>
>You also are deluded at best and a con artist at the worst.
>You are cut from the same cloth as Margaret.
>

Now you are copying yourself. There's much better material for you to copy.
Trust me.

S888Wheel

October 5th 04, 05:20 AM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/4/2004 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/2/2004 4:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >It is quite another thing to believe that said amp has an
>> >audible advantage over something that might cost
>> >considerably less.
>
>> Yeah, it's called a subjective opinion. Something you can't deal with. Get
>a
>> life Clyde.
>
>For me, subjective opinions by other individuals only mean
>something if those individuals are intelligent and level
>headed. Tweakos need not apply.

How do you post on Usenet if you are not allowed in your own house?

>
>> >Of course, in the world of hi-fi audio delusions are as
>> >common as audio opinions.
>
>> You should know, youv'e deluded yourself enough.
>
>We all have our delusions at times. However, I have yet to
>be deluded when it comes to the sound of amplifiers.

So you knew your published tests were fraudulant? I thought maybe you were just
deluded. Not really actually. You showed your hand when you tried to pawn
someone else's work as an example of your best efforts.

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 07:12 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...

> You are cut from the same cloth as Margaret.
>

Naugahide?

Marc Phillips

October 5th 04, 07:12 AM

S888Wheel said:

>>From: Howard Ferstler
>>Date: 10/4/2004 6:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>
>>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>>> >Date: 10/2/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> >Margaret von Busenhalter-Butt wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Dear Mr. Numbnuts,
>>> >>
>>> >> My primary dealer has facilities and equipment to conduct all those
>test
>>> >> with accuracy you can't even dream of. They also have equipment you can
>>> >ONLY
>>> >> dream of. They also have professionally designed rooms that are second
>>to
>>> >> none. They also have live music performed in those rooms in order to do
>>> >> comparisons to live microphone feed and other interesting stuff. They
>>also
>>> >> operate on appointment basis only so your chances of ever having access
>>to
>>> >> any of it are...like...nonexistent.
>>
>>> >What baloney. You are deluded at best and a con artist at
>>> >the worst.
>>
>>> Projecting again.
>>
>>You also are deluded at best and a con artist at the worst.
>>You are cut from the same cloth as Margaret.
>>
>
>Now you are copying yourself. There's much better material for you to copy.
>Trust me.

People with Asperger's Syndrome, a form of autism, are known for excessive
copying, not to mention responding to different questions with the same vague
answers over and over.

Boon

Clyde Slick

October 5th 04, 07:14 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
>> Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
>> you, no matter what brand names you drop?
>
> Nobody? I think that you and your fellow goofballs here have
> delusions of grandeur, Middius.
>

Don't worry, Howie, Lionel still respects you.

paul packer

October 5th 04, 08:37 AM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:29:21 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>> >You are deluded.
>
>> Howard! This is so sudden.
>
>And accurate.
>
>> And we've always got on so well too.
>
>Only in your mind.

Howard, don't you remember the nice discussion we had about Vivaldi
and Telemann? Howard you must remember. Howard......

>> And I was going to invite you to my next
>> birthday party in December. Now there'll be an empty place.
>
>More cake for you.

I could still save you a vanilla slice, Howard. Howard, are you
listening to me? Don't keep staring off like that.....

.....Howard!!!

Lionel

October 5th 04, 01:25 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"George M. Middius" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
>>>you, no matter what brand names you drop?
>>
>>Nobody? I think that you and your fellow goofballs here have
>>delusions of grandeur, Middius.
>>
>
>
> Don't worry, Howie, Lionel still respects you.

Who is Howie ?

If he isn't :
- senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
- a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
- a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
- a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
- a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
- a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
- a bee-****er like Dave Weil.

*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
can start, now, to honor him of my interest.

dave weil

October 5th 04, 02:47 PM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:36:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:16:31 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Some people just want bragging rights.
>
>> So, will you overtly claim in the article that there are only two
>> advantages between this amp and a $300 amp, build quality and bragging
>> rights and that anyone who spends the extra money would be better
>> served in using the difference to buy more CDs?
>
>Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.
>
>Howard Ferstler

Unless someone posts it here, or it's posted on a website, I won't see
it. Sorry.

Heck, nobody even knows what amp you're talking about anyway.

Sander deWaal

October 5th 04, 05:27 PM

dave weil > said:

>>Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>>sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.

Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a technically
correct review.

>Unless someone posts it here, or it's posted on a website, I won't see
>it. Sorry.
>Heck, nobody even knows what amp you're talking about anyway.

Might be one of the largest Vincent models, they're in the 3000 euro
range, at least here in Holland.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Bruce J. Richman

October 5th 04, 05:42 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

>dave weil > said:
>
>>>Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>>>sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.
>
>Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a technically
>correct review.
>
>>Unless someone posts it here, or it's posted on a website, I won't see
>>it. Sorry.
>>Heck, nobody even knows what amp you're talking about anyway.
>
>Might be one of the largest Vincent models, they're in the 3000 euro
>range, at least here in Holland.
>
>--
>Sander deWaal
>"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

He's more likely to get free equipment he can mooch (as in the case of the
Cantatas) by reviewing an American-built amp, however. Also, given his lack of
integrity, it''s quite possible that he's going to pander to some manufacturer
that advertises in The Nonsensical Sound by reviewing one of their products.

Bruce J. Richman

Howard Ferstler

October 6th 04, 01:01 AM

Lionel wrote:
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
> > "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"George M. Middius" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
> >>>you, no matter what brand names you drop?
> >>
> >>Nobody? I think that you and your fellow goofballs here have
> >>delusions of grandeur, Middius.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Don't worry, Howie, Lionel still respects you.
>
> Who is Howie ?
>
> If he isn't :
> - senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
> - a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
> - a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
> - a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
> - a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
> - a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
> - a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>
> *IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
> can start, now, to honor him of my interest.

If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
would be.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 6th 04, 01:06 AM

dave weil wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:36:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> > wrote:

> >Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
> >sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.

> Unless someone posts it here, or it's posted on a website, I won't see
> it. Sorry.

So, you depend upon the internet for all your reading
material and you do not read print magazines? I guess this
means that you are a man for the future.

What about books? And I am not just referring to comic
books.

> Heck, nobody even knows what amp you're talking about anyway.

That is why they should be interested in reading the review
when it comes out. After all, you guys are not so much
interested in a specific, fairly expensive amp as you are
about my opinions about amplifiers in general.

OK, not only will the article be a review of the amp, but it
will also be a critique of amp sound and amp reviewing in
general. The draft is now over 4,000 words, which is way
more than needed to just review the amp.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 6th 04, 01:09 AM

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> dave weil > said:
>
> >>Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
> >>sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.

> Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a technically
> correct review.

I am not sure how you came to this conclusion. It is good
literary practice to submit an article to a colleague for
analysis before sending it off for publication. To be
truthful, I am absolutely sure the review will be published
(my status at the magazine guarantees this), but it pays to
have the work checked for details before sending it in.

Actually, it is more than a review of the amp. It is also a
critique of amplifier reviewing in general, as well as an
analysis of just what is required of an amp.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 6th 04, 01:12 AM

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote:

> He's more likely to get free equipment he can mooch (as in the case of the
> Cantatas) by reviewing an American-built amp, however. Also, given his lack of
> integrity, it''s quite possible that he's going to pander to some manufacturer
> that advertises in The Nonsensical Sound by reviewing one of their products.

The amp, good performing though it may be, will be returned
to the manufacturer. Unlike speakers, which are nice to keep
on hand for a while as A/B comparison reference tools, amps,
because all good ones sound the same, need not be retained
for comparison work with other products. Any old, but still
decent amp works just as well as any other.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 6th 04, 01:18 AM

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/4/2004 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >We all have our delusions at times. However, I have yet to
> >be deluded when it comes to the sound of amplifiers.

> So you knew your published tests were fraudulant?

Given what I said, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps you should read some of my published reviews.

> I thought maybe you were just
> deluded.

Only amp-sound goofballs are that way. Oops, CD- and
wire-sound goofballs are also deluded.

> Not really actually. You showed your hand when you tried to pawn
> someone else's work as an example of your best efforts.

The best you can do when you attempt to stand up to me is
bring up the old plagiarism issue, even though it involves
material that was never published. When it comes to debating
audio, you are a lost cause.

Note that I was not trying to show anybody my best effort.
Rather, I was trying to show that I was not automatically
predisposed to dislike Quad. As for my best efforts, I have
submitted some of those articles here on RAO recently, and
yet none of you idiots have managed to deal with those
topics intelligently in the form of rebuttals. The best you
can do is dismiss the material out of hand or change the
subject.

As with so many times before when it comes to posting
on-topic material here: I win; you lose.

Howard Ferstler

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 02:45 AM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> Who is Howie ?
>
> If he isn't :
> - senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
> - a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
> - a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
> - a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
> - a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
> - a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
> - a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>
> *IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
> can start, now, to honor him of my interest.

"At least" Howie isn't a Hamas supporter.

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 03:12 AM

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>> *IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>> can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>
> If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
> would be.
>
> Howard Ferstler

So Howie, do you think you are as equally well balanced as Lionella?

dave weil

October 6th 04, 06:33 AM

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 20:06:30 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:36:56 -0400, Howard Ferstler
>> > wrote:
>
>> >Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>> >sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.
>
>> Unless someone posts it here, or it's posted on a website, I won't see
>> it. Sorry.
>
>So, you depend upon the internet for all your reading
>material and you do not read print magazines?

I don't read the magazine/s that you write for. But don't despair - I
haven't read Stereophile, TAS or any other audio magazine for several
years either.

Frankly Howard, this was a bit of bad logic on your part anyway.

>I guess this
>means that you are a man for the future.
>
>What about books? And I am not just referring to comic
>books.

Yes, I read the occasional book.

>> Heck, nobody even knows what amp you're talking about anyway.
>
>That is why they should be interested in reading the review
>when it comes out. After all, you guys are not so much
>interested in a specific, fairly expensive amp as you are
>about my opinions about amplifiers in general.

Well, not so much.

>OK, not only will the article be a review of the amp, but it
>will also be a critique of amp sound and amp reviewing in
>general. The draft is now over 4,000 words, which is way
>more than needed to just review the amp.

As usual.

Lionel

October 6th 04, 06:34 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Lionel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>>can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>>
>>If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
>>would be.
>>
>>Howard Ferstler
>
>
> So Howie, do you think you are as equally well balanced as Lionella?

I guess he would prefer to be anything rather than a
repressed-homosexual-depressed-hepatic-oldster like you. ;-)

Lionel

October 6th 04, 06:44 AM

Howard Ferstler wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"George M. Middius" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
>>>>>you, no matter what brand names you drop?
>>>>
>>>>Nobody? I think that you and your fellow goofballs here have
>>>>delusions of grandeur, Middius.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Don't worry, Howie, Lionel still respects you.
>>
>>Who is Howie ?
>>
>>If he isn't :
>>- senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
>>- a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
>>- a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
>>- a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
>>- a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
>>- a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
>>- a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>>
>>*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>
>
> If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
> would be.

Any job for me ?

Bruce J. Richman

October 6th 04, 06:47 AM

Art wrote:

>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Who is Howie ?
>>
>> If he isn't :
>> - senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
>> - a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
>> - a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
>> - a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
>> - a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
>> - a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
>> - a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>>
>> *IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>> can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>
>"At least" Howie isn't a Hamas supporter.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lionel's fondest ambition is to bend over on the Gaza Strip, but it won't be
for praying. (He's about to learn a few new Arabic words - "Who's Your Daddy?"

Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman

October 6th 04, 06:47 AM

Art wrote:

>Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>> Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> *IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>> can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>>
>> If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
>> would be.
>>
>> Howard Ferstler
>
>So Howie, do you think you are as equally well balanced as Lionella?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A case of transcontinental folie a deux - quite remarkable.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

October 6th 04, 07:12 AM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Art wrote:
>
>
>
>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Who is Howie ?
>>>
>>>If he isn't :
>>>- senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
>>>- a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
>>>- a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
>>>- a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
>>>- a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
>>>- a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
>>>- a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>>>
>>>*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>>can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>>
>>"At least" Howie isn't a Hamas supporter.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Lionel's fondest ambition is to bend over on the Gaza Strip, but it won't be
> for praying. (He's about to learn a few new Arabic words - "Who's Your Daddy?"

Bruce J. Richman : "I am not xenophobic nor racist".

This is a constant among our modern US Zealots.
Since the 30s, they use watch the most horrible world spectacles
comfortably and quietly installed, drinking Coca-Cola.
Like these stupid spectators watching boxers fights they are full of
"courage" and "determination"... :-(

>
> Bruce J. Richman
> Limited Psychologist
>
>

Lionel

October 6th 04, 08:57 AM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Who is Howie ?
>>
>>If he isn't :
>>- senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
>>- a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
>>- a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
>>- a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
>>- a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
>>- a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
>>- a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>>
>>*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>
>
> "At least" Howie isn't a Hamas supporter.

Say the repressed homosexual hepatic zealot.

Lionel

October 6th 04, 09:04 AM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Art wrote:
>
>
>
>>Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>>>can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>>>
>>>If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
>>>would be.
>>>
>>>Howard Ferstler
>>
>>So Howie, do you think you are as equally well balanced as Lionella?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> A case of transcontinental folie a deux - quite remarkable.

Not really "transcontinental" since Sackman and you are living on the
same continent.
But this rises an interesting point concerning mad-zealots
communication. :-)

> Bruce J. Richman
> Limited Psychologist
>

Clyde Slick

October 6th 04, 01:32 PM

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Howard Ferstler wrote:
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"George M. Middius" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
>>>>>>you, no matter what brand names you drop?
>>>>>
>>>>>Nobody? I think that you and your fellow goofballs here have
>>>>>delusions of grandeur, Middius.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Don't worry, Howie, Lionel still respects you.
>>>
>>>Who is Howie ?
>>>
>>>If he isn't :
>>>- senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
>>>- a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
>>>- a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
>>>- a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
>>>- a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
>>>- a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
>>>- a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>>>
>>>*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>>can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>>
>>
>> If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
>> would be.
>
> Any job for me ?

There are two openings.
1) toting $3,000 amps upand down the stairs
2) Assistant Plagiarizer

Lionel

October 6th 04, 01:38 PM

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Howard Ferstler wrote:
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"George M. Middius" wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Would it surprise you to learn to that nobody on Usenet will respect
>>>>>>>you, no matter what brand names you drop?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nobody? I think that you and your fellow goofballs here have
>>>>>>delusions of grandeur, Middius.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't worry, Howie, Lionel still respects you.
>>>>
>>>>Who is Howie ?
>>>>
>>>>If he isn't :
>>>>- senile, incontinent and pathetic like Richman.
>>>>- a nostalgic fascist veteran like McKelvy
>>>>- a xenophobic-scary-idiot like ScottW
>>>>- a coward hepatic zealot like Sackman
>>>>- a pseudo-sophisticated-dickhead-sucker-dandy like Middius
>>>>- a fat-stupid-narcissistic-pig like Phillips
>>>>- a bee-****er like Dave Weil.
>>>>
>>>>*IF* he is smart, honest, intelligent, nice and well-balanced like me I
>>>>can start, now, to honor him of my interest.
>>>
>>>
>>>If this is not a remarkable post I do not know what else
>>>would be.
>>
>>Any job for me ?
>
>
> There are two openings.
> 1) toting $3,000 amps upand down the stairs
> 2) Assistant Plagiarizer

No problem, as long it is not Middius' ass-licker. :-)

S888Wheel

October 6th 04, 05:56 PM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/5/2004 5:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>> dave weil > said:
>>
>> >>Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>> >>sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.
>
>> Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a technically
>> correct review.
>
>I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.

It's called deductive reasoning. You might want to try it some time.

It is good
>literary practice to submit an article to a colleague for
>analysis before sending it off for publication.

What does that have to do with what you did?

To be
>truthful,

LOL

I am absolutely sure the review will be published
>(my status at the magazine guarantees this),

That being a willingness to work cheap for the audio rag with the lowest
circulation?

but it pays to
>have the work checked for details before sending it in.

You mean to check for fraud and plagiarism? Is that what you are doing here? I
guess it has helped.

>
>Actually, it is more than a review of the amp. It is also a
>critique of amplifier reviewing in general, as well as an
>analysis of just what is required of an amp.

Which will it be, embarrassing to you or boring for us?

>

Arny Krueger

October 6th 04, 06:00 PM

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> From: Howard Ferstler
>> Date: 10/5/2004 5:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> Message-id: >
>>
>> Sander deWaal wrote:
>>>
>>> dave weil > said:
>>>
>>>>> Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>>>>> sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.
>>
>>> Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a
>>> technically correct review.
>>
>> I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.
>
> It's called deductive reasoning. You might want to try it some time.

Amusing that deductive reasoning has a well-known definition that
disqualifies it in this case. IOW, this is another one of Scott's
intellectual train wrecks.

S888Wheel

October 6th 04, 06:06 PM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/5/2004 5:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/4/2004 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>
>> >We all have our delusions at times. However, I have yet to
>> >be deluded when it comes to the sound of amplifiers.
>
>> So you knew your published tests were fraudulant?
>
>Given what I said, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

Wrong. You clearly admitted to deliberately corrupting your own data. That is
fraud Clyde. The funny thing was your ineptitude got in the way of your fraud.
Kind of like your situation with your plagiarism.

>Perhaps you should read some of my published reviews.

I have. That is your problem here.

>
>> I thought maybe you were just
>> deluded.
>
>Only amp-sound goofballs are that way. Oops, CD- and
>wire-sound goofballs are also deluded.

Ah, you are just dishonest. Is that really better?

>
>> Not really actually. You showed your hand when you tried to pawn
>> someone else's work as an example of your best efforts.
>
>The best you can do when you attempt to stand up to me is
>bring up the old plagiarism issue, even though it involves
>material that was never published.

Yeah because you got caught. Not because you didn't go it. I guess you have no
standards at all as a writer. By the way, the best I did with you is expose you
as a fraud. That isn't good enough?

When it comes to debating
>audio, you are a lost cause.

Wrong again Slick.

>
>Note that I was not trying to show anybody my best effort.

Note that you represented someone else's work as your own. Note.

>Rather, I was trying to show that I was not automatically
>predisposed to dislike Quad.

By showing you are a plagiarist? Interesting MO.

As for my best efforts, I have
>submitted some of those articles here on RAO recently,

Yep real caca.

and
>yet none of you idiots have managed to deal with those
>topics intelligently in the form of rebuttals.

Wrong again. They went right over your head. Slick.

The best you
>can do is dismiss the material out of hand or change the
>subject.

Right over your head. You must be a jerk.

>
>As with so many times before when it comes to posting
>on-topic material here: I win; you lose.

You remind me of a boxer who has been so severely knocked out that he can't
figure out why the fight was stopped.

Bruce J. Richman

October 6th 04, 06:19 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>Sluttella said:
>
>> >>Any job for me ?
>
>> > There are two openings.
>> > 1) toting $3,000 amps upand down the stairs
>> > 2) Assistant Plagiarizer
>
>> No problem, as long it is not Middius' ass-licker. :-)
>
>Before I consider your application, send me a recent photo and test
>results. Also, you can't wear a tongue-condom if you want full pay.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he possesses:
(1) extremely low IQ
(2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
(3) long-term job as village idiot
(4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
(5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
(6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
(7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and assume
the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
(8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

October 6th 04, 06:34 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sluttella said:
>>
>>
>>>>>Any job for me ?
>>
>>>>There are two openings.
>>>>1) toting $3,000 amps upand down the stairs
>>>>2) Assistant Plagiarizer
>>
>>>No problem, as long it is not Middius' ass-licker. :-)
>>
>>Before I consider your application, send me a recent photo and test
>>results. Also, you can't wear a tongue-condom if you want full pay.

Before to go further in impossible dreams you should re-read my post.

P.S : you can pour a little fresh water on your nescent weak erection,
or continue to type with one hand only.

> His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he possesses:
> (1) extremely low IQ
> (2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
> (3) long-term job as village idiot
> (4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
> puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
> (5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
> (6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
> (7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and assume
> the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
> (8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity

No problem for me Doc... If you are intelligent, your daily
contributions prove us that it is not the certitude of happiness...

> Bruce J. Richman
> Limited Psychologist
>
>

S888Wheel

October 6th 04, 08:33 PM

>From: "Arny Krueger"
>Date: 10/6/2004 10:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>> From: Howard Ferstler
>>> Date: 10/5/2004 5:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>> Message-id: >
>>>
>>> Sander deWaal wrote:
>>>>
>>>> dave weil > said:
>>>>
>>>>>> Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>>>>>> sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.
>>>
>>>> Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a
>>>> technically correct review.
>>>
>>> I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.
>>
>> It's called deductive reasoning. You might want to try it some time.
>
>Amusing that deductive reasoning has a well-known definition that
>disqualifies it in this case.

Try making sense sometime.

IOW, this is another one of Scott's
>intellectual train wrecks.

It all went over your head Slick.

Sander deWaal

October 7th 04, 02:40 PM

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>
>His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he possesses:
>(1) extremely low IQ
>(2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
>(3) long-term job as village idiot
>(4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
>puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
>(5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
>(6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
>(7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and assume
>the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
>(8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity

You know Bruce, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
above this all?

It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
hostilities for a chance at peace.
Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
what they write. Just a thought.............

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal

October 7th 04, 02:41 PM

Lionel > said:

>Before to go further in impossible dreams you should re-read my post.

>P.S : you can pour a little fresh water on your nescent weak erection,
>or continue to type with one hand only.

>No problem for me Doc... If you are intelligent, your daily
>contributions prove us that it is not the certitude of happiness...

>> Bruce J. Richman
>> Limited Psychologist

You know Lionel, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
above this all?

It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
hostilities for a chance at peace.
Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
what they write. Just a thought.............

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 7th 04, 03:04 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>Before to go further in impossible dreams you should re-read my post.
>
>
>>P.S : you can pour a little fresh water on your nescent weak erection,
>>or continue to type with one hand only.
>
>
>>No problem for me Doc... If you are intelligent, your daily
>>contributions prove us that it is not the certitude of happiness...
>
>
>>>Bruce J. Richman
>>>Limited Psychologist
>
>
> You know Lionel, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
> wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
> status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
> above this all?
>
> It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
> hostilities for a chance at peace.
> Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
> what they write. Just a thought.............

Ok, Sanders just because I appreciate you.

Sander deWaal

October 7th 04, 03:24 PM

Lionel > said:

>> You know Lionel, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
>> wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
>> status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
>> above this all?

>> It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
>> hostilities for a chance at peace.
>> Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
>> what they write. Just a thought.............

>Ok, Sanders just because I appreciate you.

Thanks.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Bruce J. Richman

October 7th 04, 05:17 PM

Sander de Waal wrote:

>Lionel > said:
>
>>> You know Lionel, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
>>> wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
>>> status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
>>> above this all?
>
>>> It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
>>> hostilities for a chance at peace.
>>> Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
>>> what they write. Just a thought.............
>
>>Ok, Sanders just because I appreciate you.
>
>Thanks.
>
>--
>Sander deWaal
>"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree that it would be beneficial to all involved if the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict was solved. However, it should be remembered that during negotiations
at Camp David during the Clinton administration between Arafat and the then
prime minister of Israel, Barak, it was Arafat that refused an offer of about
90% of the disputed territory and terminated negotiations. The Intifada
started soon after that and the rest is history. Arafat never made a
counteroffer, apparently preferring to try and gain through terrorism what he
could not obtain through negotiating -even with a mediator (Clinton).

Regarding Lionel's idiotic claims about myself and many others on RAO (note
that he has smeared many indiduals with an idiotic assortment of lies and
labels), I've killfiled him, don't even see what he writes unless it is
reproduced by somebody else, and don't waste my time talking directly to this
character assassin.

It is also worth noting that while the RAO history of insults and
counterinsults has been going on for a long time, Lionel is one of the few (if
not the only) individual that has every decided to inject his own personal
bigotry against people from a particular religious group into the mix. Even
his role models such as Krueger and Ferstler have never stooped that low.

Bruce J. Richman

Lionel

October 7th 04, 06:29 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Sander de Waal wrote:
>
>
>
>>Lionel > said:
>>
>>
>>>>You know Lionel, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
>>>>wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
>>>>status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
>>>>above this all?
>>
>>>>It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
>>>>hostilities for a chance at peace.
>>>>Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
>>>>what they write. Just a thought.............
>>
>>>Ok, Sanders just because I appreciate you.
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>--
>>Sander deWaal
>>"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I agree that it would be beneficial to all involved if the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict was solved. However, it should be remembered that during negotiations
> at Camp David during the Clinton administration between Arafat and the then
> prime minister of Israel, Barak, it was Arafat that refused an offer of about
> 90% of the disputed territory and terminated negotiations. The Intifada
> started soon after that and the rest is history. Arafat never made a
> counteroffer, apparently preferring to try and gain through terrorism what he
> could not obtain through negotiating -even with a mediator (Clinton).
>
> Regarding Lionel's idiotic claims about myself and many others on RAO (note
> that he has smeared many indiduals with an idiotic assortment of lies and
> labels), I've killfiled him, don't even see what he writes unless it is
> reproduced by somebody else, and don't waste my time talking directly to this
> character assassin.
>
> It is also worth noting that while the RAO history of insults and
> counterinsults has been going on for a long time, Lionel is one of the few (if
> not the only) individual that has every decided to inject his own personal
> bigotry against people from a particular religious group into the mix. Even
> his role models such as Krueger and Ferstler have never stooped that low.
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman

:-|

Lionel

October 7th 04, 07:02 PM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> I agree that it would be beneficial to all involved if the Israeli-Palestinian
> conflict was solved. However, it should be remembered that during negotiations
> at Camp David during the Clinton administration between Arafat and the then
> prime minister of Israel, Barak, it was Arafat that refused an offer of about
> 90% of the disputed territory and terminated negotiations. The Intifada
> started soon after that and the rest is history. Arafat never made a
> counteroffer, apparently preferring to try and gain through terrorism what he
> could not obtain through negotiating -even with a mediator (Clinton).

It is interesting to note that our resident Zealot forgot to give a
little word about this insignificant guy :

http://www.rabin.org/site/en/homepage.asp

This says all about the peace that that Richman wants in Palestine.

Sander deWaal

October 7th 04, 09:27 PM

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>Regarding Lionel's idiotic claims about myself and many others on RAO (note
>that he has smeared many indiduals with an idiotic assortment of lies and
>labels), I've killfiled him, don't even see what he writes unless it is
>reproduced by somebody else, and don't waste my time talking directly to this
>character assassin.

>It is also worth noting that while the RAO history of insults and
>counterinsults has been going on for a long time, Lionel is one of the few (if
>not the only) individual that has every decided to inject his own personal
>bigotry against people from a particular religious group into the mix. Even
>his role models such as Krueger and Ferstler have never stooped that low.

Well, being called a Hamas supporter sure doesn't help, either.
Today, when I asked Lionel in his face to stop making personal attack
posts, he responded positively.

FWIW, based on Lionel's postings, I don't consider him a Hamas
supporter, just as I don't consider you or Art a religious zealot.

Polarizing and generalization are dangerous things.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Bruce J. Richman

October 7th 04, 10:38 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>Regarding Lionel's idiotic claims about myself and many others on RAO (note
>>that he has smeared many indiduals with an idiotic assortment of lies and
>>labels), I've killfiled him, don't even see what he writes unless it is
>>reproduced by somebody else, and don't waste my time talking directly to
>this
>>character assassin.
>
>>It is also worth noting that while the RAO history of insults and
>>counterinsults has been going on for a long time, Lionel is one of the few
>(if
>>not the only) individual that has every decided to inject his own personal
>>bigotry against people from a particular religious group into the mix. Even
>>his role models such as Krueger and Ferstler have never stooped that low.
>
>Well, being called a Hamas supporter sure doesn't help, either.
>Today, when I asked Lionel in his face to stop making personal attack
>posts, he responded positively.
>

His own words indicate that he favors Hamas, however, in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Long before he decided to make religion an issue
- unlike any other RAO poster - he claimed that the assassination of the Hamas
leader, Sheik Yassin by Israeli troops was equivalent or just as bad as the
suicide bombing of buses - i.e. civilians - by Hamas militants. To my way of
thinking, there is a significant difference between targeting a military leader
of a terrorist group (Sheik Yassin gave orders for many suicide bombings) and
targeting buses filled with women and children (noncombattants).

Note that I have never used any person's religion against them, since I don't
believe in religious prejudice and bigotry. It is apparent that Lionel has
some antisemitic prejudices, or why else would he even bring up the subject of
religion? It's not uncommon, although I'll concede not universal, that support
of the Palestinians is motivated at least in part by antisemitism.

All that said, if Lionel ceases his personal attacks against me, I'll respond
in kind. Thus far, I see no evidence that he has ceased his personal attacks
against anybody.

>FWIW, based on Lionel's postings, I don't consider him a Hamas
>supporter, just as I don't consider you or Art a religious zealot.
>

Fine, but Lionel has indicated on RAO his support for Hamas (see above). OTOH,
I doubt if Lionel even knows what the word "zealot" means. Nor can he find any
RAO content from me that indicates that I am zealous about any particular
religion. And I also believe in a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
based on a fair exchange of land for elimination of armed Palestinian terror
groups and terrorism. As I've pointed out in another post in this thread,
Arafat has rejected quite generous land-for-peace proposals in the past. And
it is a matter of public record that Hamas rejects all negotiations and is
committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.

>Polarizing and generalization are dangerous things.
>

Agreed. Lionel needs to be aware of that before spouting his antisemitic
personal attacks and smearing numerous RAO posters.

>--
>Sander deWaal
>"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Bruce J. Richman

Clyde Slick

October 8th 04, 01:15 AM

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> (Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>
>>His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he
>>possesses:
>>(1) extremely low IQ
>>(2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
>>(3) long-term job as village idiot
>>(4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
>>puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
>>(5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
>>(6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
>>(7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and
>>assume
>>the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
>>(8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity
>
> You know Bruce, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
> wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
> status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
> above this all?
>
> It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
> hostilities for a chance at peace.
> Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
> what they write. Just a thought.............
>

it is true that we don't know about Lionel's supposed
dazed and bewidered facial expressions.
Let's cut him some slack.

JBorg

October 8th 04, 02:10 AM

> Sander deWaal wrote in message
>> Bruce J. Richman) said:
>
>>
>> His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he possesses:
>>
>> (1) extremely low IQ
>> (2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
>> (3) long-term job as village idiot
>> (4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
>> puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
>> (5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
>> (6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
>> (7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and assume
>> the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
>> (8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity
>
> You know Bruce, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
> wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
> status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
> above this all?
>
> It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
> hostilities for a chance at peace.
> Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
> what they write. Just a thought.............
>
> --
> Sander deWaal
> "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel is contemptible who talk without thinking if he meant what he say.

Lionel

October 8th 04, 06:52 AM

JBorg wrote:
>>Sander deWaal wrote in message
>>
>>>Bruce J. Richman) said:
>>
>>>His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he possesses:
>>>
>>>(1) extremely low IQ
>>>(2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
>>>(3) long-term job as village idiot
>>>(4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
>>> puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
>>>(5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
>>>(6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
>>>(7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and assume
>>> the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
>>>(8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity
>>
>>You know Bruce, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
>>wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
>>status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
>>above this all?
>>
>>It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
>>hostilities for a chance at peace.
>>Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
>>what they write. Just a thought.............
>>
>>--
>>Sander deWaal
>>"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>
>
>
> Lionel is contemptible who talk without thinking if he meant what he say.

LOL, Borg are you trying to edict the futur RAO ethical chart ?
Considering your RAO past history, you can share the job with me. :-)

JBorg

October 8th 04, 09:25 AM

> Lionel" wrote
>> JBorg wrote:
>>> Sander deWaal wrote
>>>> Bruce J. Richman) said:
>>>
>>>> His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he possesses:
>>>>
>>>> (1) extremely low IQ
>>>> (2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
>>>> (3) long-term job as village idiot
>>>> (4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
>>>> puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
>>>> (5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
>>>> (6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
>>>> (7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and assume
>>>> the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
>>>> (8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity
>>>
>>> You know Bruce, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
>>> wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
>>> status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
>>> above this all?
>>>
>>> It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
>>> hostilities for a chance at peace.
>>> Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
>>> what they write. Just a thought.............
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sander deWaal
>>> "SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>>
>>
>>
>> Lionel is contemptible who talk without thinking if he meant what he say.
>
>
> LOL, Borg are you trying to edict the futur RAO ethical chart ?
> Considering your RAO past history, you can share the job with me. :-)

With regard to Kroo****, I meant everything I said. Unlike others, I got no
blind allegiance to that mother****er.

Lionel

October 8th 04, 10:23 AM

JBorg wrote:
>>Lionel" wrote
>>
>>>JBorg wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sander deWaal wrote
>>>>
>>>>>Bruce J. Richman) said:
>>>>
>>>>>His job options are limited by the following disqualifications he possesses:
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) extremely low IQ
>>>>>(2) dazed & bewildered facial expressions
>>>>>(3) long-term job as village idiot
>>>>>(4) tendencies to imitate Pinocchio (a lying puppet) while worshipping
>>>>> puppeteers in Detroit & North Florida
>>>>>(5) afflicted with verbal diarrhea & factual constipation
>>>>>(6) card-carrying member of Hamas Support Group & Sheik Yassin Fan Club
>>>>>(7) unable to stand erect because of constant requests to "bend over and assume
>>>>> the position" (followed by requests of "may I have anotherr?"
>>>>>(8) chronic delusions of competence and sanity
>>>>
>>>>You know Bruce, if you were to refrain from posts like this, people
>>>>wouldn't point the finger at you as well for maintaining a certain
>>>>status-quo on RAO. Can't you be the more wise person here and rise
>>>>above this all?
>>>>
>>>>It's a bit like Israel and the Palestines: at least one has to stop
>>>>hostilities for a chance at peace.
>>>>Let others post what they want, they're themselves responsible for
>>>>what they write. Just a thought.............
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Sander deWaal
>>>>"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Lionel is contemptible who talk without thinking if he meant what he say.
>>
>>
>>LOL, Borg are you trying to edict the futur RAO ethical chart ?
>>Considering your RAO past history, you can share the job with me. :-)
>
>
>
> With regard to Kroo****, I meant everything I said. Unlike others, I got no
> blind allegiance to that mother****er.

I have the greatest disdain for all "blind allegiances".
This is also true when the object of the vindication is *very* despicable.
This is the very difference for me between the justice and the lynching.

Have a good day.

Lionel

October 8th 04, 11:20 AM

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>
>
>
(Bruce J. Richman) said:
>>
>>
>>>Regarding Lionel's idiotic claims about myself and many others on RAO (note
>>>that he has smeared many indiduals with an idiotic assortment of lies and
>>>labels), I've killfiled him, don't even see what he writes unless it is
>>>reproduced by somebody else, and don't waste my time talking directly to
>>
>>this
>>
>>>character assassin.
>>
>>>It is also worth noting that while the RAO history of insults and
>>>counterinsults has been going on for a long time, Lionel is one of the few
>>
>>(if
>>
>>>not the only) individual that has every decided to inject his own personal
>>>bigotry against people from a particular religious group into the mix. Even
>>>his role models such as Krueger and Ferstler have never stooped that low.
>>
>>Well, being called a Hamas supporter sure doesn't help, either.
>>Today, when I asked Lionel in his face to stop making personal attack
>>posts, he responded positively.
>>
>
>
> His own words indicate that he favors Hamas, however, in the
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Long before he decided to make religion an issue
> - unlike any other RAO poster - he claimed that the assassination of the Hamas
> leader, Sheik Yassin by Israeli troops was equivalent or just as bad as the
> suicide bombing of buses - i.e. civilians - by Hamas militants. To my way of
> thinking, there is a significant difference between targeting a military leader
> of a terrorist group (Sheik Yassin gave orders for many suicide bombings) and
> targeting buses filled with women and children (noncombattants).
>
> Note that I have never used any person's religion against them, since I don't
> believe in religious prejudice and bigotry. It is apparent that Lionel has
> some antisemitic prejudices, or why else would he even bring up the subject of
> religion? It's not uncommon, although I'll concede not universal, that support
> of the Palestinians is motivated at least in part by antisemitism.
>
> All that said, if Lionel ceases his personal attacks against me, I'll respond
> in kind. Thus far, I see no evidence that he has ceased his personal attacks
> against anybody.
>
>
>
>>FWIW, based on Lionel's postings, I don't consider him a Hamas
>>supporter, just as I don't consider you or Art a religious zealot.
>>
>
>
> Fine, but Lionel has indicated on RAO his support for Hamas (see above).

This is totally wrong, and I can prove that Richman is a pathologic liar :
http://groups.google.fr/groups?hl=fr&lr=&selm=40628c88%240%248928%24636a15ce%40news.free.fr&rnum=7
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl4266356230d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&selm=40672ce7%240%249078%24626a14ce%40news.free.fr
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl3782949765d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&selm=40682415%240%2414061%24626a14ce%40news.free.f r
http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl2735416650d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&selm=406855fb%240%248911%24636a15ce%40news.free.fr&rnum=26
http://groups.google.fr/groups?hl=fr&lr=&selm=4063e87e%240%2413361%24626a14ce%40news.free.f r&rnum=51

I challenge Bruce J. Richman to find a link in which I demonstrate that
I am a Hamas supporter.

OTOH,
> I doubt if Lionel even knows what the word "zealot" means. Nor can he find any
> RAO content from me that indicates that I am zealous about any particular
> religion. And I also believe in a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
> based on a fair exchange of land for elimination of armed Palestinian terror
> groups and terrorism. As I've pointed out in another post in this thread,
> Arafat has rejected quite generous land-for-peace proposals in the past. And
> it is a matter of public record that Hamas rejects all negotiations and is
> committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.
>
>
>
>>Polarizing and generalization are dangerous things.
>>
>
>
> Agreed. Lionel needs to be aware of that before spouting his antisemitic
> personal attacks and smearing numerous RAO posters.

I challenge Bruce J. Richman to provide ONE link in which I have
declared man antisemitic opinion.
Note that to answer Sackman Francophobia I have sometime push some
analogies a little bit far, I awove that , but I never have been as far
as Sackman himself. I wrote to Sackman "I am less antiSemitic that you
are Francophobe".

I also note that I *never* read anything from Richman against Sackman
Francophobic deliriums. So I doubt that in fact Richman secretly agree
with Sackman. In this case all his claims that I am antisemitic would be
only a politically correct smoke-screen to cover his own xenophobia.
I wouldn't be surprise.

Lionel

October 8th 04, 12:18 PM

Lionel wrote:
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> (Bruce J. Richman) said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Regarding Lionel's idiotic claims about myself and many others on
>>>> RAO (note
>>>> that he has smeared many indiduals with an idiotic assortment of
>>>> lies and
>>>> labels), I've killfiled him, don't even see what he writes unless it is
>>>> reproduced by somebody else, and don't waste my time talking
>>>> directly to
>>>
>>>
>>> this
>>>
>>>> character assassin.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is also worth noting that while the RAO history of insults and
>>>> counterinsults has been going on for a long time, Lionel is one of
>>>> the few
>>>
>>>
>>> (if
>>>
>>>> not the only) individual that has every decided to inject his own
>>>> personal
>>>> bigotry against people from a particular religious group into the
>>>> mix. Even
>>>> his role models such as Krueger and Ferstler have never stooped that
>>>> low.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, being called a Hamas supporter sure doesn't help, either.
>>> Today, when I asked Lionel in his face to stop making personal attack
>>> posts, he responded positively.
>>>
>>
>>
>> His own words indicate that he favors Hamas, however, in the
>> Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Long before he decided to make religion
>> an issue
>> - unlike any other RAO poster - he claimed that the assassination of
>> the Hamas
>> leader, Sheik Yassin by Israeli troops was equivalent or just as bad
>> as the
>> suicide bombing of buses - i.e. civilians - by Hamas militants. To my
>> way of
>> thinking, there is a significant difference between targeting a
>> military leader
>> of a terrorist group (Sheik Yassin gave orders for many suicide
>> bombings) and
>> targeting buses filled with women and children (noncombattants).
>> Note that I have never used any person's religion against them, since
>> I don't
>> believe in religious prejudice and bigotry. It is apparent that
>> Lionel has
>> some antisemitic prejudices, or why else would he even bring up the
>> subject of
>> religion? It's not uncommon, although I'll concede not universal,
>> that support
>> of the Palestinians is motivated at least in part by antisemitism.
>>
>> All that said, if Lionel ceases his personal attacks against me, I'll
>> respond
>> in kind. Thus far, I see no evidence that he has ceased his personal
>> attacks
>> against anybody.
>>
>>
>>> FWIW, based on Lionel's postings, I don't consider him a Hamas
>>> supporter, just as I don't consider you or Art a religious zealot.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Fine, but Lionel has indicated on RAO his support for Hamas (see above).
>
>
> This is totally wrong, and I can prove that Richman is a pathologic liar :
> http://groups.google.fr/groups?hl=fr&lr=&selm=40628c88%240%248928%24636a15ce%40news.free.fr&rnum=7
>
> http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl4266356230d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&selm=40672ce7%240%249078%24626a14ce%40news.free.fr
>
> http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl3782949765d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&selm=40682415%240%2414061%24626a14ce%40news.free.f r
>
> http://groups.google.fr/groups?q=g:thl2735416650d&dq=&hl=fr&lr=&selm=406855fb%240%248911%24636a15ce%40news.free.fr&rnum=26
>
> http://groups.google.fr/groups?hl=fr&lr=&selm=4063e87e%240%2413361%24626a14ce%40news.free.f r&rnum=51
>
>
>
> I challenge Bruce J. Richman to find a link in which I demonstrate that
> I am a Hamas supporter.
>
>
>
> OTOH,
>
>> I doubt if Lionel even knows what the word "zealot" means. Nor can he
>> find any
>> RAO content from me that indicates that I am zealous about any particular
>> religion. And I also believe in a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
>> conflict
>> based on a fair exchange of land for elimination of armed Palestinian
>> terror
>> groups and terrorism. As I've pointed out in another post in this
>> thread,
>> Arafat has rejected quite generous land-for-peace proposals in the
>> past. And
>> it is a matter of public record that Hamas rejects all negotiations
>> and is
>> committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.
>>
>>
>>> Polarizing and generalization are dangerous things.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Agreed. Lionel needs to be aware of that before spouting his
>> antisemitic
>> personal attacks and smearing numerous RAO posters.
>
>
> I challenge Bruce J. Richman to provide ONE link in which I have
> declared man antisemitic opinion.
> Note that to answer Sackman Francophobia I have sometime push some
> analogies a little bit far, I awove that , but I never have been as far
> as Sackman himself. I wrote to Sackman "I am less antiSemitic that you
> are Francophobe".

This is exactly what Middius has perfectly exprimed by :

"Or so put off by your rabid jingoism that they mock with rhetorical
excesses."

> I also note that I *never* read anything from Richman against Sackman
> Francophobic deliriums. So I doubt that in fact Richman secretly agree
> with Sackman. In this case all his claims that I am antisemitic would be
> only a politically correct smoke-screen to cover his own xenophobia.
> I wouldn't be surprise.

Sander deWaal

October 8th 04, 12:59 PM

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

>His own words indicate that he favors Hamas, however, in the
>Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Long before he decided to make religion an issue
>- unlike any other RAO poster - he claimed that the assassination of the Hamas
>leader, Sheik Yassin by Israeli troops was equivalent or just as bad as the
>suicide bombing of buses - i.e. civilians - by Hamas militants. To my way of
>thinking, there is a significant difference between targeting a military leader
>of a terrorist group (Sheik Yassin gave orders for many suicide bombings) and
>targeting buses filled with women and children (noncombattants).

While I don't recall his exact wording, I remember I took it as him
saying that this event would set up another chain of violence.
He once said "I hate war" and I think his comments should be seen in
that light.
He's also mostly using hyperbole to communicate a certain point of
view.
And in some instances, he's just reacting very emotional.

In his replies to the more right-winged posters here, he wrote things
that I wouldn't have, but that goes for more posters here.
Then again, being told time and time again that the French are frogs,
cowards and worse, doesn't help in keeping things at a civil level.

That is not to say that he isn't partly responsible for the ****
flinging around, but he never denied that fact.

Last but not least, he seems to have some strong opinions, that's his
good right, isn't it?

This is the way it looks to me, I may be wrong of course.

>Note that I have never used any person's religion against them, since I don't
>believe in religious prejudice and bigotry. It is apparent that Lionel has
>some antisemitic prejudices, or why else would he even bring up the subject of
>religion? It's not uncommon, although I'll concede not universal, that support
>of the Palestinians is motivated at least in part by antisemitism.

In my view, he doesn't just support the Palestinians, he wants you and
others here to look at the other side of the medal as well.
Hyperbole again makes it sometimes difficult to get the picture right.

>All that said, if Lionel ceases his personal attacks against me, I'll respond
>in kind. Thus far, I see no evidence that he has ceased his personal attacks
>against anybody.

I have.

>>FWIW, based on Lionel's postings, I don't consider him a Hamas
>>supporter, just as I don't consider you or Art a religious zealot.

>Fine, but Lionel has indicated on RAO his support for Hamas (see above). OTOH,
>I doubt if Lionel even knows what the word "zealot" means. Nor can he find any
>RAO content from me that indicates that I am zealous about any particular
>religion. And I also believe in a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
>based on a fair exchange of land for elimination of armed Palestinian terror
>groups and terrorism. As I've pointed out in another post in this thread,
>Arafat has rejected quite generous land-for-peace proposals in the past. And
>it is a matter of public record that Hamas rejects all negotiations and is
>committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.

I tend to agree with that.
However, like I said before, at least one party has to offer the olive
branch, so to speak.
Remarkable that there are parallels with RAO :-)

>>Polarizing and generalization are dangerous things.

>Agreed. Lionel needs to be aware of that before spouting his antisemitic
>personal attacks and smearing numerous RAO posters.

Again, I don't see him as an antisemite.
His use of hyperbole may make him look that way.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 8th 04, 01:54 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:

[SNIP]

Just a little bit late or you would have been eligible for the peace
Nobel prize.

Sander deWaal

October 8th 04, 06:34 PM

Lionel > said:

>Just a little bit late or you would have been eligible for the peace
>Nobel prize.

Aww c'mon....this is RAO, a tiny unnoticed bit of usenet, which in
turn is a tiny unnoticed bit of the internet, which in turn is a tiny
part of most people's life.

Let alone that I would be noticed in particular academic circles for
just stating my opinions here.

Now, if they would get me the physics prize for my amplifiers..... :-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 8th 04, 07:50 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>Just a little bit late or you would have been eligible for the peace
>>Nobel prize.
>
>
> Aww c'mon....this is RAO, a tiny unnoticed bit of usenet, which in
> turn is a tiny unnoticed bit of the internet, which in turn is a tiny
> part of most people's life.
>
> Let alone that I would be noticed in particular academic circles for
> just stating my opinions here.
>
> Now, if they would get me the physics prize for my amplifiers..... :-)
>

Don't dream Sander, don't you remember what AnnikaBlahBlah does with the
KT88 ?

Lionel

October 8th 04, 09:52 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>Just a little bit late or you would have been eligible for the peace
>>Nobel prize.
>
>
> Aww c'mon....this is RAO, a tiny unnoticed bit of usenet, which in
> turn is a tiny unnoticed bit of the internet, which in turn is a tiny
> part of most people's life.

LOL, you are frequenting too much "US" newsgroups, Sanders.
For me notoriety has nothing to do with the capability of the media...

>
> Let alone that I would be noticed in particular academic circles for
> just stating my opinions here.
>
> Now, if they would get me the physics prize for my amplifiers..... :-)
>

Sander deWaal

October 8th 04, 10:11 PM

Lionel > said:

>> Aww c'mon....this is RAO, a tiny unnoticed bit of usenet, which in
>> turn is a tiny unnoticed bit of the internet, which in turn is a tiny
>> part of most people's life.

>LOL, you are frequenting too much "US" newsgroups, Sanders.

Umm......Jim is probably busy changing diapers now.

>For me notoriety has nothing to do with the capability of the media...

Too bad you're not on the Nobel committee then :-)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 8th 04, 10:17 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>>Aww c'mon....this is RAO, a tiny unnoticed bit of usenet, which in
>>>turn is a tiny unnoticed bit of the internet, which in turn is a tiny
>>>part of most people's life.
>
>
>>LOL, you are frequenting too much "US" newsgroups, Sanders.
>
>
> Umm......Jim is probably busy changing diapers now.
>
>
>>For me notoriety has nothing to do with the capability of the media...
>
>
> Too bad you're not on the Nobel committee then :-)
>

You misread me *SANDER*, I am on the no-bell commitee..........

Sander deWaal

October 8th 04, 10:26 PM

Lionel > said:

>> Too bad you're not on the Nobel committee then :-)

>You misread me *SANDER*, I am on the no-bell commitee..........

Uhuh....but do you use Noble potentiometers?
Now *there's* something that makes a difference!

For all you bachelors out there: fit your amp/microwave/whatever box
with a Noble pot, invite that nicely looking girl that lives across
the street to coffe and...........succes guaranteed once they've
turned it.

Trust me. (©Howard Ferstler)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Sander deWaal

October 8th 04, 10:28 PM

Lionel > said:

>> Too bad you're not on the Nobel committee then :-)

>You misread me *SANDER*, I am on the no-bell commitee..........

Uhuh....but do you use Noble potentiometers?
Now *there's* something that makes a difference!

For all you bachelors out there: fit your amp/microwave/whatever box
with a Noble pot, invite that nicely looking girl that lives across
the street to coffee and...........success guaranteed once they've
turned it.

Trust me. (©Howard Ferstler)

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 8th 04, 10:30 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>>Too bad you're not on the Nobel committee then :-)
>
>
>>You misread me *SANDER*, I am on the no-bell commitee..........
>
>
> Uhuh....but do you use Noble potentiometers?
> Now *there's* something that makes a difference!
>
> For all you bachelors out there: fit your amp/microwave/whatever box
> with a Noble pot, invite that nicely looking girl that lives across
> the street to coffee and...........success guaranteed once they've
> turned it.
>
>
> Trust me. (©Howard Ferstler)
>

Don't need to post twice, you will be never pusblished in "Nature"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sander deWaal

October 8th 04, 10:34 PM

Lionel > said:

>Don't need to post twice, you will be never pusblished in "Nature"
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I corrected the spelling errors.

I'm really off now. Curse my stupid usenet addiction!

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

Lionel

October 8th 04, 10:44 PM

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>Don't need to post twice, you will be never pusblished in "Nature"
>>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> I corrected the spelling errors.
>
> I'm really off now. Curse my stupid usenet addiction!
>

Don't worry, children are out tonight, and I'm listening "Sun died" by
Ellery Eskelin, I still wonder it it's a good deal...
....Eh, I am speaking of Eskelin *ONLY* !

Howard Ferstler

October 11th 04, 05:05 PM

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Brother Horace the Grungy said:
>
> > I am absolutely sure the review will be published
> > (my status at the magazine guarantees this),
>
> My observation about your published "stuff": It's entirely likely the
> "stuff" you generate that editors publish will achieve your stated goal of
> alienating people from high-end audio.

The truth hurts, and I assume that even high enders can feel
pain. If they tweakos would grow up they would not be so
alienated.

> Quite the opposite of the effect
> you have on Usenet, where you are widely ridiculed and your viewpoints
> scorned and mocked.

Fortunately for me, the usenet group is both small and
goofy. It is YOU people who are scorned and mocked. If you
disagree, I suggest you get out more.

Yours is one of the few messages I have bothered to answer
at this time, so you should feel honored.

The interior house painting is done, but now I have to get
back to carpentry work. Expanding my woodworking shop out
back from two rooms to three rooms. Need space for all the
new tools.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

October 11th 04, 05:10 PM

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/5/2004 5:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Sander deWaal wrote:
> >>
> >> dave weil > said:
> >>
> >> >>Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
> >> >>sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.

> >> Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a technically
> >> correct review.

> >I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.
>
> It's called deductive reasoning. You might want to try it some time.

I prefer inductive reasoning, because it starts with the
details and comes to reasoned conclusions.

> It is good
> >literary practice to submit an article to a colleague for
> >analysis before sending it off for publication.

> What does that have to do with what you did?

I sent it to the engineer for fact checking. I do this with
much of my material, at least if it involves product
evaluating.

> I am absolutely sure the review will be published
> >(my status at the magazine guarantees this),

> That being a willingness to work cheap for the audio rag with the lowest
> circulation?

At least I am publishing stuff in a real magazine, Clyde.

> but it pays to
> >have the work checked for details before sending it in.

> You mean to check for fraud and plagiarism? Is that what you are doing here? I
> guess it has helped.

You freaks overrate yourselves if you think that your
proclamations about what I have done, am doing, or will be
doing have zero influence on anyone who matters. Trust me,
your impact on anything related to audio is minimal.

> >Actually, it is more than a review of the amp. It is also a
> >critique of amplifier reviewing in general, as well as an
> >analysis of just what is required of an amp.

> Which will it be, embarrassing to you or boring for us?

You freaks are so easily bored. Throw in a bit of truth an
some level-headed analysis and your eyes roll back into your
heads.

PS: this is one of the few posts I have bothered to deal
with at this time, because I have some carpentry work to do
out back. And no, I am not building a gallows.

Howard Ferstler

dave weil

October 11th 04, 05:15 PM

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:05:20 -0400, Howard Ferstler
> wrote:

>The interior house painting is done, but now I have to get
>back to carpentry work. Expanding my woodworking shop out
>back from two rooms to three rooms. Need space for all the
>new tools.

As well as the old tool.

<bada bing!>

Howard Ferstler

October 11th 04, 05:26 PM

S888Wheel wrote:
>
> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >Date: 10/5/2004 5:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >S888Wheel wrote:
> >>
> >> >From: Howard Ferstler
> >> >Date: 10/4/2004 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >
> >> >We all have our delusions at times. However, I have yet to
> >> >be deluded when it comes to the sound of amplifiers.

> >> So you knew your published tests were fraudulant?

> >Given what I said, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

> Wrong. You clearly admitted to deliberately corrupting your own data. That is
> fraud Clyde. The funny thing was your ineptitude got in the way of your fraud.
> Kind of like your situation with your plagiarism.

You guys are all talk. If what I did was so onerous, why is
it that your protestations have had absolutely no impact at
all, other than within this little goofball circle? If you
are so put off by what I did and so sure of my perfidy, why
not contact editors, publishers, lawyers, cops, etc. and get
them on my case.

The best thing you wimps can do is make a bunch of claims
here in fantasyland and make it look like you are acting
tough. Be a man and do something.

> >Perhaps you should read some of my published reviews.

> I have. That is your problem here.

No, that is your problem.

> >> I thought maybe you were just
> >> deluded.

> >Only amp-sound goofballs are that way. Oops, CD- and
> >wire-sound goofballs are also deluded.

> Ah, you are just dishonest. Is that really better?

Dishonest by your definition. Unfortunately, the opinions of
those like you who are deluded about audio do not amount to
much.

> >> Not really actually. You showed your hand when you tried to pawn
> >> someone else's work as an example of your best efforts.

> >The best you can do when you attempt to stand up to me is
> >bring up the old plagiarism issue, even though it involves
> >material that was never published.

> Yeah because you got caught. Not because you didn't go it. I guess you have no
> standards at all as a writer. By the way, the best I did with you is expose you
> as a fraud. That isn't good enough?

Nope. You still are a full failure when it comes to debating
with me about audio. You could not absorb what I wrote in
the drafts I posted, and you are not able to deal with my
other audio-related posts, either. The best you can do is
harp about one small issue and even then you sound like a
parrot.

> When it comes to debating
> >audio, you are a lost cause.

> Wrong again Slick.

Well, then let's debate. Take some of the points from the
several article drafts I posted and dissect them. Point out
the errors and detail your more correct take on the issues.

Be a man: show everybody that you do indeed know what you
are talking about and are knowledgeable enough to be
considered a true audio enthusiast and not just some
mystery-loving audio goofball who believes in the audio
version of the tooth fairy.

> >Note that I was not trying to show anybody my best effort.

> Note that you represented someone else's work as your own. Note.

Who's work are you referring to? Name the individual who's
work I plagiarized. You should maybe contact them and press
the issue. Do something other than rant here on RAO. Any
goofball can do that sort of thing.

> >Rather, I was trying to show that I was not automatically
> >predisposed to dislike Quad.

> By showing you are a plagiarist? Interesting MO.

You should be able to shut me down if what you claim is
true. Get busy. If you can pull it off you will be tweak
audio's most favored hero. As best I can tell, you are all
wind and no sail.

> As for my best efforts, I have
> >submitted some of those articles here on RAO recently,

> Yep real caca.

In that case, you should have no trouble tearing them down
point by point. Show us that you have what it takes, Mr.
Critic.

> and
> >yet none of you idiots have managed to deal with those
> >topics intelligently in the form of rebuttals.

> Wrong again. They went right over your head. Slick.

Calling something "caca" is not a rebuttal, except among
goofball freakos who are at a loss to discuss audio.

> The best you
> >can do is dismiss the material out of hand or change the
> >subject.

> Right over your head. You must be a jerk.

Haw, haw, haw. You simply are unable to deal with any of the
points I made in those articles. You are an ignoramus when
it comes to actually understanding what is happening with an
audio system. The best you can do is ooh and aah your toys
and assign mysterious attributes to them.

> >As with so many times before when it comes to posting
> >on-topic material here: I win; you lose.

> You remind me of a boxer who has been so severely knocked out that he can't
> figure out why the fight was stopped.

Well, I posted some material that you simply could not deal
with on an intelligent level. You are a typical audio moron
who is in over his head when it comes to understanding what
his audio gear is doing - or not doing.

Howard Ferstler

S888Wheel

October 11th 04, 05:41 PM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/11/2004 9:10 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/5/2004 5:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >Sander deWaal wrote:
>> >>
>> >> dave weil > said:
>> >>
>> >> >>Wait and read the review. It is already written and has been
>> >> >>sent off for some proofing work by an electrical engineer.
>
>> >> Sad when an audio reviewer lacks the knowledge to write a technically
>> >> correct review.
>
>> >I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.
>>
>> It's called deductive reasoning. You might want to try it some time.
>
>I prefer inductive reasoning, because it starts with the
>details and comes to reasoned conclusions.

Are you trying to be funny here? Or do you actually believe that the two
methods of reasoning are options that come with any application of logic?

>
>> It is good
>> >literary practice to submit an article to a colleague for
>> >analysis before sending it off for publication.
>
>> What does that have to do with what you did?
>
>I sent it to the engineer for fact checking.

Right over your head. Hint, engineers are not *your* colleagues. Now go back
and reread what i said. Hopefully you will get the dis the second time around.

I do this with
>much of my material, at least if it involves product
>evaluating.

You should, you need all the help you can get with your writing.

>
>> I am absolutely sure the review will be published
>> >(my status at the magazine guarantees this),
>
>> That being a willingness to work cheap for the audio rag with the lowest
>> circulation?
>
>At least I am publishing stuff in a real magazine, Clyde.

I'll take that as a yes.

>
>> but it pays to
>> >have the work checked for details before sending it in.
>
>> You mean to check for fraud and plagiarism? Is that what you are doing
>here? I
>> guess it has helped.
>
>You freaks overrate yourselves if you think that your
>proclamations about what I have done, am doing, or will be
>doing have zero influence on anyone who matters.

Naturally we don't. Since your articles have no such influence on such people
it would be impossible for our legitimate critiques of those articles to have
any influence on the same poeple.

Trust me,

Never. You are a fraud and a plagiarist.

>your impact on anything related to audio is minimal.

Yeah, but so is yours. The difference is I'm not trying to impact audio. You
are.

>
>> >Actually, it is more than a review of the amp. It is also a
>> >critique of amplifier reviewing in general, as well as an
>> >analysis of just what is required of an amp.
>
>> Which will it be, embarrassing to you or boring for us?
>
>You freaks are so easily bored. Throw in a bit of truth an
>some level-headed analysis and your eyes roll back into your
>heads.

No, it's your style. Something about paraphrasing from audio manufacturers'
copy seems to be inherently boring.

>
>PS: this is one of the few posts I have bothered to deal
>with at this time, because I have some carpentry work to do
>out back. And no, I am not building a gallows.

At least you are doing something.

S888Wheel

October 11th 04, 06:47 PM

>From: Howard Ferstler
>Date: 10/11/2004 9:26 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>
>> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >Date: 10/5/2004 5:18 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >S888Wheel wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >From: Howard Ferstler
>> >> >Date: 10/4/2004 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >> >We all have our delusions at times. However, I have yet to
>> >> >be deluded when it comes to the sound of amplifiers.
>
>> >> So you knew your published tests were fraudulant?
>
>> >Given what I said, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.
>
>> Wrong. You clearly admitted to deliberately corrupting your own data. That
>is
>> fraud Clyde. The funny thing was your ineptitude got in the way of your
>fraud.
>> Kind of like your situation with your plagiarism.
>
>You guys are all talk.

Cliches won't change the facts. You deliberately corrupted the data of your own
published DBTs to get the result you wanted. You are a fraud.

If what I did was so onerous, why is
>it that your protestations have had absolutely no impact at
>all,

Because you have no impact at all.

other than within this little goofball circle?

Your home when it comes to audio. Maybe it would have impacted you if you
weren't so dense.

If you
>are so put off by what I did and so sure of my perfidy, why
>not contact editors, publishers, lawyers, cops, etc. and get
>them on my case.

Because you are painfully insignificant. Don't forget that you had to rewrite
your plagiarized article because somebody did complain to one of your
publishers.

>
>The best thing you wimps can do is make a bunch of claims
>here in fantasyland and make it look like you are acting
>tough. Be a man and do something.

Why? You've been exposed.

>
>> >Perhaps you should read some of my published reviews.
>
>> I have. That is your problem here.
>
>No, that is your problem.

Fair enough, you did manage to waste some of my time. That is my problem.

>
>> >> I thought maybe you were just
>> >> deluded.
>
>> >Only amp-sound goofballs are that way. Oops, CD- and
>> >wire-sound goofballs are also deluded.
>
>> Ah, you are just dishonest. Is that really better?
>
>Dishonest by your definition.

No by the dictionary definition.
Main Entry: dis·hon·est
Pronunciation: (")di-'sä-n&st also -'zä-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French deshoneste, from des- dis- +
honeste honest
Date: 14th century
1 : obsolete : SHAMEFUL, UNCHASTE
2 : characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : UNFAIR,
DECEPTIVE

Unfortunately, the opinions of
>those like you who are deluded about audio do not amount to
>much.

They amount to opinions as do any other opinions.

>
>> >> Not really actually. You showed your hand when you tried to pawn
>> >> someone else's work as an example of your best efforts.
>
>> >The best you can do when you attempt to stand up to me is
>> >bring up the old plagiarism issue, even though it involves
>> >material that was never published.
>
>> Yeah because you got caught. Not because you didn't go it. I guess you have
>no
>> standards at all as a writer. By the way, the best I did with you is expose
>you
>> as a fraud. That isn't good enough?
>
>Nope.

Fair enough you have no standards whatsoever. Nothing embarrasses you.

You still are a full failure when it comes to debating
>with me about audio.

I suggest you reread our recent debate on room acoustics. You had your ass
handed to you quite convincingly.

You could not absorb what I wrote in
>the drafts I posted, and you are not able to deal with my
>other audio-related posts, either.

Nah,you are just full of ****.

The best you can do is
>harp about one small issue and even then you sound like a
>parrot.

Funny that an alleged writer find plagiarism a small issue. So much for
standards.

>
>> When it comes to debating
>> >audio, you are a lost cause.
>
>> Wrong again Slick.
>
>Well, then let's debate. Take some of the points from the
>several article drafts I posted and dissect them.

Been there done that. Right over your head, You lose Clyde. Next...

Point out
>the errors and detail your more correct take on the issues.

Right over you head. Been there done that. You lose Slick.

>
>Be a man: show everybody that you do indeed know what you
>are talking about and are knowledgeable enough to be
>considered a true audio enthusiast and not just some
>mystery-loving audio goofball who believes in the audio
>version of the tooth fairy.

Been there done that. Bight over your head . You must be a jerk if you can't
see that. You lose.

>
>> >Note that I was not trying to show anybody my best effort.
>
>> Note that you represented someone else's work as your own. Note.
>
>Who's work are you referring to?

The actual author of the piece you plagiarized. Not very bright are you?

Name the individual who's
>work I plagiarized.

Oh dear, are you now trying a new angle? It isn't plagairism if *we* don't know
the *name* of the writer you plagiarized? Get a life.

You should maybe contact them and press
>the issue. Do something other than rant here on RAO. Any
>goofball can do that sort of thing.

You have proven that for many years Slick.

>
>> >Rather, I was trying to show that I was not automatically
>> >predisposed to dislike Quad.
>
>> By showing you are a plagiarist? Interesting MO.
>
>You should be able to shut me down if what you claim is
>true.

No, you are still free to post your garbage on Usenet even though you have been
caught plagiarizing.

Get busy.

I am busy. I have a career that keeps me busy along with a family and a few
hobbies.

If you can pull it off you will be tweak
>audio's most favored hero.

It already happened Clyde. You have already been exposed as a fraud and a
plagiarist. Most audiophiles don't know who you are. Don't you know that?

As best I can tell, you are all
>wind and no sail.

But you are dull sensed plagiarist and fraud. Your opinion has no merit.

>
>> As for my best efforts, I have
>> >submitted some of those articles here on RAO recently,
>
>> Yep real caca.
>
>In that case, you should have no trouble tearing them down
>point by point.

Indeed it would be no problem, just as it was no problem shooting holes in your
wierd ideas about fidelity and room acoustics.

Show us that you have what it takes, Mr.
>Critic.

been there done that. Right over your head Clyde. Only a jerk would have not
seen it.

>
>> and
>> >yet none of you idiots have managed to deal with those
>> >topics intelligently in the form of rebuttals.
>
>> Wrong again. They went right over your head. Slick.
>
>Calling something "caca" is not a rebuttal, except among
>goofball freakos who are at a loss to discuss audio.

The rebuttals went right over your head. I was trying to comunicate in a way
you wouldn't go over your head. At least you understood "caca."

>
>> The best you
>> >can do is dismiss the material out of hand or change the
>> >subject.
>
>> Right over your head. You must be a jerk.
>
>Haw, haw, haw. You simply are unable to deal with any of the
>points I made in those articles.

Righ over your head again Haw ahw ahw you must be a jerk.

You are an ignoramus when
>it comes to actually understanding what is happening with an
>audio system.

I know you are but what am I?

The best you can do is ooh and aah your toys
>and assign mysterious attributes to them.

The best you can do is plagiarize so twobit copy guy from Quad.

>
>> >As with so many times before when it comes to posting
>> >on-topic material here: I win; you lose.
>
>> You remind me of a boxer who has been so severely knocked out that he can't
>> figure out why the fight was stopped.
>
>Well, I posted some material that you simply could not deal
>with on an intelligent level.

It went right over your head Slick. You did at least understand "caca" though.

You are a typical audio moron
>who is in over his head when it comes to understanding what
>his audio gear is doing - or not doing.

I know you are but what am I?