Re: -Question for John Atkinson-

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield
> Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality of an audio system?

You tell me, Mr. Welch.

> Why does your magazine give positive reviews to such do-nothing
> frauds?

When was that, Mr. Welch?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> wrote:
>> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
>> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
>> of an audio system?
>
> You tell me, Mr. Welch.
>
>> Why does your magazine give positive reviews to such
>> do-nothing frauds?
>
> When was that, Mr. Welch?

Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such a
major issue? ;-)

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
> > wrote:
> >> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
> >> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
> >> of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
> >> positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
> >> frauds?
> >
> > When was that, Mr. Welch?
>
> Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
> a major issue? ;-)

It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
"Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
for help in finding it.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message

oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message

>> ups.com
>>> wrote:

>>>> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
>>>> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound
>>>> quality of an audio system?...Why does your magazine
>>>> give positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining)
>>>> do-nothing frauds?
>>>
>>> When was that, Mr. Welch?
>>
>> Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
>> a major issue? ;-)
>
> It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> for help in finding it.

Here's a little tip about reading English, John. Mr Welch
qualified his statement with the word "such".

That means that finding or not finding a review on a
specific product is far from definitive.

Odd that I'm being forced to give you practical lessons in
reading rhetoric, John. Mini-strokes?

[dave weil]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:41:38 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote
>in message
>
oups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>>> in message
>
>>> ups.com
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
>>>>> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound
>>>>> quality of an audio system?...Why does your magazine
>>>>> give positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining)
>>>>> do-nothing frauds?
>>>>
>>>> When was that, Mr. Welch?
>>>
>>> Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
>>> a major issue? ;-)
>>
>> It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
>> my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
>> referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
>> "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
>> find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
>> for help in finding it.
>
>Here's a little tip about reading English, John. Mr Welch
>qualified his statement with the word "such".
>
>That means that finding or not finding a review on a
>specific product is far from definitive.
>
>Odd that I'm being forced to give you practical lessons in
>reading rhetoric, John. Mini-strokes?

Well, you certainly give lessons in debating trade tactics. "Mr.
Welch" has learned well.
>
>

[BD]

So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for something it
did not do and get away with it, just by using the 'such as' clause? I
think not:

The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an article on the
quoted piece of gear.... regardless how much 'slippery' wording is
used.

[Arny Krueger]

"BD" > wrote in message
ups.com
> So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for
> something it did not do and get away with it, just by
> using the 'such as' clause? I think not:
>
> The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an
> article on the quoted piece of gear.... regardless how
> much 'slippery' wording is used.


Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording, or
what have you:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html

"Mpingo Discs are small, ebony discs that measure about 1
(5/8" in diameter and about 1/2" thick. They're meant to be
placed face- (logo-) side down on turn-tables and all
front-end electronics; eg, CD transports, DACs, preamps.
Like all Shun Mook products, the Discs are directional. They
cost $50 each, so you can buy a few to experiment with in
your system and then buy a few more, which I know you'll do
after hearing them. The Mpingo I use on the large, flat VTA
adjuster knob on the Forsell Air Force One Mk.II gives an
excellent effect; I've placed three of them in a triangle
around the turntable's platter, tangent to the direction of
platter spin.
"On some turntables, it works better to orient the Mpingos
in toward the spindle. We entertained a friend from another
audio magazine the other day, and as I lifted the four
Mpingos from the Forsell and then replaced them, he was in
awe: With the Discs in place, the sound was richer and more
extended, and all aspects of the soundstage reproduction
were enhanced---you don't need gold-plated ears to hear the
difference.

"I've got a Mpingo on the top of my CAT preamp; I move it to
the top of the Jadis JP 80 MC's chassis near the line-stage
tubes when that sexy French preamp is in the system. (It
becomes a strange-looking beast with its Mpingo and Ensemble
Tubesox in place.) There are three Mpingos on top of the
Timbre Technology digital processor---its case is rigid and
damped by design, and it takes all three to make the
difference here, although usually one is sufficient on
electronics. I've also got a Mpingo slotted in between the
twin pair of speaker binding posts on each Jadis JA 200, and
move them to the same or similar positions when switching
amps.

*Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of this
Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and stranger
and stranger...

[[email protected]]

Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield Optimizer" with
the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer". This is akin to confusing the
Green Bottle of "medicine" with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old
traveling "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
fraudulent.

Let me ask the question again:

Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the "Shakti
Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve the sound quality of
an audio system?

Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol. 19 no.2 and vol.
19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to such do-nothing
frauds?

Is that clear enough, Mr. Atkinson?

John Atkinson wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > in message
> > ups.com
> > > wrote:
> > >> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
> > >> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
> > >> of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
> > >> positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
> > >> frauds?
> > >
> > > When was that, Mr. Welch?
> >
> > Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
> > a major issue? ;-)
>
> It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> for help in finding it.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[Len Moskowitz]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

>http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html

This was published back in 1994, written by Jonathan Scull.

I don't have a problem with a writer talking about how something that
seems patently irrational to many of us affects their perception of
music played back over their audio systems.

The whole article is clearly subjective. I can't argue with what people
say that they perceive.


I don't see a single measurement there, and nothing that I would call
misleading.

Personally, I don't believe that the Mpingo disks do anything at all,
but I don't have any problems with folks who don't agree with me. If
they want to spend their money, God bless 'em.

I particularly liked the last two sentences:

"Beware of imitations that won't stand an A/B test!" intoned
Mr. Ying. Bill usually doesn't say much, but when he does talk, he
roars.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[George Middius]

BD said to DebatingTradeBorg:

>So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for something it
>did not do and get away with it, just by using the 'such as' clause? I
>think not:
>
>The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an article on the
>quoted piece of gear.... regardless how much 'slippery' wording is
>used.

The "debating trade" is not recommended for sane persons. Please be cautious.

[George Middius]

Len Moskowitz said:

>I don't have a problem with a writer talking about how something that
>seems patently irrational to many of us affects their perception of
>music played back over their audio systems.
>
>The whole article is clearly subjective. I can't argue with what people
>say that they perceive.

>I don't see a single measurement there, and nothing that I would call
>misleading.
>
>Personally, I don't believe that the Mpingo disks do anything at all,
>but I don't have any problems with folks who don't agree with me. If
>they want to spend their money, God bless 'em.

Talk like this will kill your induction into the aBxism priesthood, and it will
likely get your Hive membership revoked. Also, if you want the Krooborg to
recognize you as a sicicccncndcitits, you'll have to show the proper obeisance
to religious authority.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > > in message
> > > ups.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >>> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
> > >>> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
> > >>> of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
> > >>> positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
> > >>> frauds?
> > >>
> > >> When was that, Mr. Welch?
> > >
> > > Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
> > > a major issue? ;-)
> >
> > It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> > my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> > referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> > "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> > find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> > for help in finding it.
>
> Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
> Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".

Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?

> This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
> with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
> "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
> fraudulent.

And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
devices for yourself?

> Let me ask the question again:
> Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
> "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
> the sound quality of an audio system?

I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
have an effect, of course.

> Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
> and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
> such do-nothing frauds?

Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Len Moskowitz]

George Middius > wrote:

>Talk like this will kill your induction into the aBxism priesthood, and it will
>likely get your Hive membership revoked. Also, if you want the Krooborg to
>recognize you as a sicicccncndcitits, you'll have to show the proper obeisance
>to religious authority.

I'll take that as good-humored sarcasm.

I understand and respect Arny's appreciation of the ABX methodology. I
too appreciate it for objective, analytical parameter-based testing.

To my mind, it just doesn't apply to subjective perceptions. And I
don't have a beef with a very entertaining and informative magazine
publishing subjective opinion articles.

John Atkinson's tech measurements are reliable and informative. I've
learned that our opinions about sound quality are similar, and I respect
most of what he has to say.

I can't say that for many of his writers, but that's okay -- I enjoy
them as entertainment rather than as engineering or science.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > > > in message
> > > > ups.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >>> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
> > > >>> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
> > > >>> of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
> > > >>> positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
> > > >>> frauds?
> > > >>
> > > >> When was that, Mr. Welch?
> > > >
> > > > Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
> > > > a major issue? ;-)
> > >
> > > It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> > > my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> > > referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> > > "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> > > find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> > > for help in finding it.
> >
> > Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
> > Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".
>
> Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
> website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
> Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?
>

If I were easily misled, Mr. Atkinson, I would be a loyal Stereophile
reader. Do you see Randi everywhere, Mr. Atkinson? If I were a huckster
and conman like yourself, an intelligent, persistent, hard-nosed
sceptic like Randi would get under my skin, too.

> > This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
> > with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
> > "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
> > fraudulent.
>
> And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
> devices for yourself?
>

Which one? The Blue Bottle or the Green Bottle?

> > Let me ask the question again:
> > Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
> > "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
> > the sound quality of an audio system?
>
> I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
> have an effect, of course.
>

You sound like an astrologist, Mr. Atkinson. Do you also believe in the
Akashic record? Tarot cards? Tea leaves?

> > Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
> > and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
> > such do-nothing frauds?
>
> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?
>

A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.


> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > > It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> > > > my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> > > > referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> > > > "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> > > > find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> > > > for help in finding it.
> > >
> > > Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
> > > Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".
> >
> > Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
> > website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
> > Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?
>
> If I were easily misled, Mr. Atkinson, I would be a loyal
> Stereophile reader. Do you see Randi everywhere, Mr. Atkinson?

No, I was specifically referring to a message in another current thread
to which you are posting, specifically:
--------------------------------------------
(Chevdo) wrote to joseph_welch in
message <MQrVe.269840$on1.40437@clgrps13> on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:38:20
GMT
>In article . com>,
says...
>>The man is a repugnant malignancy:
>>http://snipurl.com/hmrq
>...
>http://www.randi.org/jr/120304youve.html#2
---------------------------------------------

The URL above takes you to an essay by Randi in which he presents
a review of the "Hallograph" as though it had appeared in
Stereophile. As the posting was in response to you, I assumed
that it was that that had triggered your outburst of bile.

> If I were a huckster and conman like yourself, an intelligent,
> persistent, hard-nosed sceptic like Randi would get under my
> skin, too.

Oh dear, Mr. Welch, you really do appear to have got panties in
a wad. :-)

> > > This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
> > > with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
> > > "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
> > > fraudulent.
> >
> > And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
> > devices for yourself?
>
> Which one? The Blue Bottle or the Green Bottle?

Don't be coy, Mr. Welch, You have expressed a strong opinion
on these accessories. Surely you have tried them, to be so sure
that they are ineffective? Or are you, like Randi, simply
making things up?

Perhaps oou need to try some anger-managment strategies before you
next come out from behind the safety of your PC screen. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> in message
>> ups.com
>> > wrote:
>> >> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
>> >> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
>> >> of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
>> >> positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
>> >> frauds?
>> >
>> > When was that, Mr. Welch?
>>
>> Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
>> a major issue? ;-)
>
> It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> my response, Mr. Krueger.

It appears you are parsing words. Mr. Welch asked 2 separate questions.
How could the Shakti device do what it claimed, and why would your magazie
review things that can't possibly do what is claimed of them? If your mag
ever did a review of the Shakti device he mentioned, then you could answer
as to why. If you didn't review it then why review other devices that are
snake oil?

Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> for help in finding it.
>
See above and stop the stupid dancing.

> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

[[email protected]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "BD" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for
>> something it did not do and get away with it, just by
>> using the 'such as' clause? I think not:
>>
>> The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an
>> article on the quoted piece of gear.... regardless how
>> much 'slippery' wording is used.
>
>
> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording, or what have you:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>
> "Mpingo Discs are small, ebony discs that measure about 1 (5/8" in
> diameter and about 1/2" thick. They're meant to be placed face- (logo-)
> side down on turn-tables and all front-end electronics; eg, CD transports,
> DACs, preamps. Like all Shun Mook products, the Discs are directional.
> They cost $50 each, so you can buy a few to experiment with in your system
> and then buy a few more, which I know you'll do after hearing them. The
> Mpingo I use on the large, flat VTA adjuster knob on the Forsell Air Force
> One Mk.II gives an excellent effect; I've placed three of them in a
> triangle around the turntable's platter, tangent to the direction of
> platter spin.
> "On some turntables, it works better to orient the Mpingos in toward the
> spindle. We entertained a friend from another audio magazine the other
> day, and as I lifted the four Mpingos from the Forsell and then replaced
> them, he was in awe: With the Discs in place, the sound was richer and
> more extended, and all aspects of the soundstage reproduction were
> enhanced---you don't need gold-plated ears to hear the difference.
>
> "I've got a Mpingo on the top of my CAT preamp; I move it to the top of
> the Jadis JP 80 MC's chassis near the line-stage tubes when that sexy
> French preamp is in the system. (It becomes a strange-looking beast with
> its Mpingo and Ensemble Tubesox in place.) There are three Mpingos on top
> of the Timbre Technology digital processor---its case is rigid and damped
> by design, and it takes all three to make the difference here, although
> usually one is sufficient on electronics. I've also got a Mpingo slotted
> in between the twin pair of speaker binding posts on each Jadis JA 200,
> and move them to the same or similar positions when switching amps.
>
> *Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of this Atkinson-approved
> article just gets stranger and stranger and stranger...
>
It is one of the reasons I stopped subscribing in the first place.
The only reason I get it now is because my wife re-subscribed in order to
help with a fundraiser for my son's school.

The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud..

[surf]

> wrote

> A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
> either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.


A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived something
you don't understand. Given the possible scenario you've pointed out,
a certainty is that you're an asshole.

[[email protected]]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote:
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > > "John Atkinson" > wrote
>> > > in message
>> > > ups.com
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >>> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
>> > >>> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
>> > >>> of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
>> > >>> positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
>> > >>> frauds?
>> > >>
>> > >> When was that, Mr. Welch?
>> > >
>> > > Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
>> > > a major issue? ;-)
>> >
>> > It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
>> > my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
>> > referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
>> > "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
>> > find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
>> > for help in finding it.
>>
>> Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
>> Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".
>
> Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
> website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
> Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?
>
>> This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
>> with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
>> "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
>> fraudulent.
>
> And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
> devices for yourself?
>
>> Let me ask the question again:
>> Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
>> "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
>> the sound quality of an audio system?
>
> I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
> have an effect, of course.
>
>> Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
>> and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
>> such do-nothing frauds?
>
> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?
>
Let's see the before and after measurements so we can decide.


The odds of them being right are roughly the same as Bush serving a 3rd term
as President.

[George M. Middius]

surf said:

> > A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
> > either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.

> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived something
> you don't understand. Given the possible scenario you've pointed out,
> a certainty is that you're an asshole.


Now cut that out! If you don't watch out, joseph will hire himself a bully
to lay you out.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "BD" > wrote in message
> > ups.com
> >> The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an
> >> article on the quoted piece of gear.... regardless how
> >> much 'slippery' wording is used.
> >
> > Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording, or what
> > have you: http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>
> The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud.

It appears you haven't read it, Mr. McKelvy. Because if you had've
done, you would see that it contains strong opinions for but also
_against_ the efficacy of the Mpingo discs.

First we see Joseph Welch dissing Stereophile in this thread for a
review that had actually appeared in TAS, then we have Arny Kreuger
up to his old debating trade tricks, presenting part of a Web article
as though it were the whole (and taking you in), and now here you are,
dissing an article you don't appear to have read.

Not a very good track record for those who claim to believe in
Science, eh.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[ScottW]

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > "John Atkinson" > wrote
> > > > in message
> > > > ups.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >>> How can a product such as the "Shakti Hallographic
> > > >>> Soundfield Optimizer" possibly improve the sound quality
> > > >>> of an audio system?...Why does your magazine give
> > > >>> positive reviews to _such_ (my underlining) do-nothing
> > > >>> frauds?
> > > >>
> > > >> When was that, Mr. Welch?
> > > >
> > > > Wow, ever see an editor go backwards that fast over such
> > > > a major issue? ;-)
> > >
> > > It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> > > my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> > > referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> > > "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> > > find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> > > for help in finding it.
> >
> > Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
> > Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".
>
> Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
> website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
> Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?
>
> > This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
> > with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
> > "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
> > fraudulent.
>
> And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
> devices for yourself?
>
> > Let me ask the question again:
> > Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
> > "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
> > the sound quality of an audio system?
>
> I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
> have an effect, of course.
>
> > Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
> > and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
> > such do-nothing frauds?
>
> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

I just sped through the Willis article and I can't find anywhere where
he says they work. He spends a lot of time discussing cultures and
open mindedness and that he isn't saying they don't work... just that
they didn't work for him in the 20 minutes he spent listening to 'em at
WCES. Am I missing something?

BTW... if Barry Willis is an avowed skeptic than Arny Krueger is most
personable character on usenet.

ScottW

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "BD" > wrote in message
> ups.com
>> So does that mean that I could criticize the magazine for
>> something it did not do and get away with it, just by
>> using the 'such as' clause? I think not:
>>
>> The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an
>> article on the quoted piece of gear.... regardless how
>> much 'slippery' wording is used.
>
>
> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording, or what have you:
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>
> "Mpingo Discs are small, ebony discs that measure about 1 (5/8" in
> diameter and about 1/2" thick. They're meant to be placed face- (logo-)
> side down on turn-tables and all front-end electronics; eg, CD transports,
> DACs, preamps. Like all Shun Mook products, the Discs are directional.
> They cost $50 each, so you can buy a few to experiment with in your system
> and then buy a few more, which I know you'll do after hearing them. The
> Mpingo I use on the large, flat VTA adjuster knob on the Forsell Air Force
> One Mk.II gives an excellent effect; I've placed three of them in a
> triangle around the turntable's platter, tangent to the direction of
> platter spin.
> "On some turntables, it works better to orient the Mpingos in toward the
> spindle. We entertained a friend from another audio magazine the other
> day, and as I lifted the four Mpingos from the Forsell and then replaced
> them, he was in awe: With the Discs in place, the sound was richer and
> more extended, and all aspects of the soundstage reproduction were
> enhanced---you don't need gold-plated ears to hear the difference.
>
> "I've got a Mpingo on the top of my CAT preamp; I move it to the top of
> the Jadis JP 80 MC's chassis near the line-stage tubes when that sexy
> French preamp is in the system. (It becomes a strange-looking beast with
> its Mpingo and Ensemble Tubesox in place.) There are three Mpingos on top
> of the Timbre Technology digital processor---its case is rigid and damped
> by design, and it takes all three to make the difference here, although
> usually one is sufficient on electronics. I've also got a Mpingo slotted
> in between the twin pair of speaker binding posts on each Jadis JA 200,
> and move them to the same or similar positions when switching amps.
>
> *Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of this Atkinson-approved
> article just gets stranger and stranger and stranger...


As usual, Arny, you are being disingenuous. You don't reveal that what you
are quoting from is a man's column, not a review. Nor do you reveal that
that man's column's are generally *NOT* viewed by the average Stereophile
reader as a review, but rather as the musings including personal
idiosyncracies, of the columnist. What self-respecting columnist, with his
own byline, would allow his columns to be edited. And what self-respecting
editor would attempt to do so.

ARNY, there is a difference between a review and a column. AND THAT GOES
FOR YOU OTHERS HERE who keep on insisting that Stereophile endorse all sorts
of audio tweaks and stuff...it has all been done in one man's column. Not
in reviews. Can't you be honest even with yourselves?

[Mr.T]

"Len Moskowitz" > wrote in message
...
> I don't have a problem with a writer talking about how something that
> seems patently irrational to many of us affects their perception of
> music played back over their audio systems.
>
> The whole article is clearly subjective. I can't argue with what people
> say that they perceive.
>
> I don't see a single measurement there, and nothing that I would call
> misleading.

Or indeed anything approaching a disclaimer that it IS only the
unsubstantiated opinion of one person.
So *everything* in that magazine should be viewed with great suspicion by
the non technical readers.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> > Let me ask the question again:
> > Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
> > "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
> > the sound quality of an audio system?
>
> I have no idea, Mr. Welch.

Truth at last!

>But that doesn't mean it can't have an effect, of course.

So why not provide some objective proof. Maybe because you can't?

> > Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
> > and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
> > such do-nothing frauds?
>
> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

If they were, they would have provided proof. Since they didn't, you can
assume they are just writing words for money. And those words are usually
what is asked for, or what is expected by the publisher.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The odds of them being right are roughly the same as Bush serving a 3rd
term
> as President.

I'd rate that a Billion times more likely. He already has a record of fixing
elections and bypassing the constitution.
The others have no record of proof, other than by assertion. (just like GWB
come to think of it :-)

MrT.

[George M. Middius]

Mr.T said:

> > Could it possibly be that Scull and
> > Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

> If they were, they would have provided proof.

I can see why you hide behind an anonym. Nobody as dumb as you wants his
real identity known.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:17:36 GMT, "
> wrote:

>It is one of the reasons I stopped subscribing in the first place.
>The only reason I get it now is because my wife re-subscribed in order to
>help with a fundraiser for my son's school.
>
>The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud..

The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.

Mr. Atkinson is laughing all the way to the bank.

[Mr.T]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
> I can see why you hide behind an anonym. Nobody as dumb as you wants his
> real identity known.

Actually it is far more stupid to expose your ignorance openly to the world
as you do.

MrT.

[John Atkinson]

ScottW wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
> > > "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
> > > the sound quality of an audio system?
> >
> > I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
> > have an effect, of course.
> >
> > > Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
> > > and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
> > > such do-nothing frauds?
> >
> > Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> > that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> > I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> > of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> > other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> > surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> > that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> > sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> > Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?
>
> I just sped through the Willis article and I can't find anywhere
> where he says they work. He spends a lot of time discussing
> cultures and open mindedness and that he isn't saying they don't
> work... just that they didn't work for him in the 20 minutes he
> spent listening to 'em at WCES. Am I missing something?

I believe you are talking about Barry's report on Mpingo discs, ScottW,
whereas Mr. Welch was asking about the Shakti Stones.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com

> then we have Arny Kreuger up to his old debating trade
> tricks, presenting part of a Web article as though it
> were the whole (and taking you in),

Here we have John Atkinson being as deceptive as ever. I
cited the entire article and provided the following advice
which Atkinson cheerfully and deceptively removed prior when
quoting, so he could appear to be justified while whining
about its absence:

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html

"*Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of this
Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and stranger
and stranger..."

Apparently when I ask readers to read "the rest of the
article", in Atkinson's mind this means telling people to
ignore most of the article.

Talk about truth being stranger than fiction, we have here
another example of "Atkinson truth".

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording,
>> or what have you:
>> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>>
>> "Mpingo Discs are small, ebony discs that measure about
>> 1 (5/8" in diameter and about 1/2" thick. They're meant
>> to be placed face- (logo-) side down on turn-tables and
>> all front-end electronics; eg, CD transports, DACs,
>> preamps. Like all Shun Mook products, the Discs are
>> directional. They cost $50 each, so you can buy a few to
>> experiment with in your system and then buy a few more,
>> which I know you'll do after hearing them. The Mpingo I
>> use on the large, flat VTA adjuster knob on the Forsell
>> Air Force One Mk.II gives an excellent effect; I've
>> placed three of them in a triangle around the
>> turntable's platter, tangent to the direction of platter
>> spin. "On some turntables, it works better to orient the
>> Mpingos in toward the spindle. We entertained a friend
>> from another audio magazine the other day, and as I
>> lifted the four Mpingos from the Forsell and then
>> replaced them, he was in awe: With the Discs in place,
>> the sound was richer and more extended, and all aspects
>> of the soundstage reproduction were enhanced---you don't
>> need gold-plated ears to hear the difference. "I've
>> got a Mpingo on the top of my CAT preamp; I move
>> it to the top of the Jadis JP 80 MC's chassis near the
>> line-stage tubes when that sexy French preamp is in the
>> system. (It becomes a strange-looking beast with its
>> Mpingo and Ensemble Tubesox in place.) There are three
>> Mpingos on top of the Timbre Technology digital
>> processor---its case is rigid and damped by design, and
>> it takes all three to make the difference here, although
>> usually one is sufficient on electronics. I've also got
>> a Mpingo slotted in between the twin pair of speaker
>> binding posts on each Jadis JA 200, and move them to the
>> same or similar positions when switching amps. *Please
>> follow up on the URL above - the rest of this
>> Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and
>> stranger and stranger...

> As usual, Arny, you are being disingenuous. You don't
> reveal that what you are quoting from is a man's column,
> not a review.

I provided a link to the *entire article*. Pardon me for
presuming that your attention span is still long enough to
read all of it, Harry.

> Nor do you reveal that that man's column's
> are generally *NOT* viewed by the average Stereophile
> reader as a review, but rather as the musings including
> personal idiosyncracies, of the columnist.

Anybody who can follow a link and read the entire article
now knows that. Why in the 21st century do I need to fully
quote an entire article on Usenet?

> What self-respecting columnist, with his own byline, would
> allow his columns to be edited. And what self-respecting
> editor would attempt to do so.

Sorry Harry, editing rags like Stereophile is something
that's not my job. I have edited technical works, and my
readers have allowed me to have a free hand, probably
because they know that:

(1) They aren't perfect
(2) There is no such thing as something that one man can do
that another man can't in some sense improve on.

> ARNY, there is a difference between a review and a
> column. AND THAT GOES FOR YOU OTHERS HERE who keep on
> insisting that Stereophile endorse all sorts of audio
> tweaks and stuff...it has all been done in one man's
> column. Not in reviews. Can't you be honest even with
> yourselves?

Harry, you're whining again. Grow up! ;-(

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
oups.com

> Mr. Welch,
> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers,
> one
> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a
> subjectivist, the other of whom, Barry Willis, is an
> avowed skeptic. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when
> _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found that the Shakti
> devices had a positive audible effect on the sounds of
> their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and Willis
> are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

John, it just goes to show that your idea of a skeptic
corresponds to most people's idea of a born sucker.

The mind boggles at the idea of Stereophile publishing a
review of Shatki devices written by say, David Clark or for
that part, Richard Clark.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your
> reviewers are either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt
> and cynical.

I've learned the merit of the old saw about "Why presume
malice when simple incompetence will suffice?".

[Arny Krueger]

"surf" > wrote in message

> > wrote
>
>> A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your
>> reviewers are either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt
>> and cynical.
>
>
> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived
> something you don't understand.

Actually, they perceive audio illusions that are very
well-understood.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> " > wrote in
> message
> ink.net...

>> The odds of them being right are roughly the same as
>> Bush serving a 3rd term as President.

> I'd rate that a Billion times more likely. He already has
> a record of fixing elections and bypassing the
> constitution.

Hmm, you do have a point there! ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Mr.T said:

> > I can see why you hide behind an anonym. Nobody as dumb as you wants his
> > real identity known.
>
> Actually it is far more stupid to expose your ignorance openly to the world
> as you do.

I guess in your circles, grinding out lame IKYABWAIs passes for smarts.

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message


> Mr.T said:
>
>>> I can see why you hide behind an anonym. Nobody as dumb
>>> as you wants his real identity known.

>> Actually it is far more stupid to expose your ignorance
>> openly to the world as you do.

> I guess in your circles, grinding out lame IKYABWAIs
> passes for smarts.

Grinding out lame IKYABWAIs clearly passes for smarts in
your group, George. As usual, you can't see it, or are too
big of a hypocrite to admit it. Right now you've got some of
the biggest boobs in the history of Usenet on your team.
Quite a slide from the days of Bamborough licking your
chops, eh?

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording,
> >> or what have you:
> >> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
> >> ...Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of
> >> this Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and
> >> stranger and stranger...
>
> > As usual, Arny, you are being disingenuous. You
> > don't reveal that what you are quoting from is a
> > man's column, not a review.
>
> I provided a link to the *entire article*.

No, Mr. Krueger, your link takes the reader to _page 3_
of the Web reprint, _not_ the entire article. This is
what I was referring to in the posting to which to you
seem to have taken exception. The correct URL, which takes readers to
the beginning of the full reprint, which
includes an introductory comment by myself, is
http://www.stereophile.com/features/69 .

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording,
>>>> or what have you:
>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>>>> ...Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of
>>>> this Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and
>>>> stranger and stranger...
>>
>>> As usual, Arny, you are being disingenuous. You
>>> don't reveal that what you are quoting from is a
>>> man's column, not a review.
>>
>> I provided a link to the *entire article*.
>
> No, Mr. Krueger, your link takes the reader to _page 3_
> of the Web reprint, _not_ the entire article.

Hair splitting, anyone?

I guess Atkinson wants people to believe that his site is so
badly designed that there's no way to link the rest of the
article from the page which I pointed to, being that it
contains the text I quoted.

Even though I keep tripping Atkinson up in childish
deceptions, someone at least semi-competent did the site
design for his ragazine.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 09:37:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"John Atkinson" > wrote
>in message
ups.com
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording,
>>>>> or what have you:
>>>>> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>>>>> ...Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of
>>>>> this Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and
>>>>> stranger and stranger...
>>>
>>>> As usual, Arny, you are being disingenuous. You
>>>> don't reveal that what you are quoting from is a
>>>> man's column, not a review.
>>>
>>> I provided a link to the *entire article*.
>>
>> No, Mr. Krueger, your link takes the reader to _page 3_
>> of the Web reprint, _not_ the entire article.
>
>Hair splitting, anyone?
>
>I guess Atkinson wants people to believe that his site is so
>badly designed that there's no way to link the rest of the
>article from the page which I pointed to, being that it
>contains the text I quoted.

>Even though I keep tripping Atkinson up in childish
>deceptions, someone at least semi-competent did the site
>design for his ragazine.

You should probably give that person a call.

[George Middius]

IKYABWAIBorg shows "Mr T" how it's done.

>> I guess in your circles, grinding out lame IKYABWAIs
>> passes for smarts.

>Grinding out lame IKYABWAIs clearly passes for smarts in
>your group, George.

LOL!

[ScottW]

John Atkinson wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Mr. Atkinson, can you explain how a product such as the
> > > > "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" could possibly improve
> > > > the sound quality of an audio system?
> > >
> > > I have no idea, Mr. Welch. But that doesn't mean it can't
> > > have an effect, of course.
> > >
> > > > Why does your magazine give positive reviews (in vol.19 no.2
> > > > and vol.19 no.4, by J. Scull and B. Willis, respectively) to
> > > > such do-nothing frauds?
> > >
> > > Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> > > that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> > > I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> > > of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> > > other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> > > surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> > > that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> > > sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> > > Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?
> >
> > I just sped through the Willis article and I can't find anywhere
> > where he says they work. He spends a lot of time discussing
> > cultures and open mindedness and that he isn't saying they don't
> > work... just that they didn't work for him in the 20 minutes he
> > spent listening to 'em at WCES. Am I missing something?
>
> I believe you are talking about Barry's report on Mpingo discs, ScottW,
> whereas Mr. Welch was asking about the Shakti Stones.

Your correct. The question of his skepticism remains. His take on
Mpingo discs didn't support that characterization IMO.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "BD" > wrote in message
>> > ups.com
>> >> The OP clearly implies that the magazine published an
>> >> article on the quoted piece of gear.... regardless how
>> >> much 'slippery' wording is used.
>> >
>> > Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording, or what
>> > have you: http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>>
>> The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud.
>
> It appears you haven't read it, Mr. McKelvy. Because if you had've
> done, you would see that it contains strong opinions for but also
> _against_ the efficacy of the Mpingo discs.
>
> First we see Joseph Welch dissing Stereophile in this thread for a
> review that had actually appeared in TAS, then we have Arny Kreuger
> up to his old debating trade tricks, presenting part of a Web article
> as though it were the whole (and taking you in), and now here you are,
> dissing an article you don't appear to have read.
>
> Not a very good track record for those who claim to believe in
> Science, eh.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

So, you didn't actually read the review then? If you had you know that the
tenor was very poisitive and offered no measurements or tchnical info of any
kind, just blind drooling approval.

"With a number of the synergistic Cable Jackets, careful attention paid to
grounding, the Mpingo Discs on the front end, and the Spatial Control Kit, I
found the effects on the sound were shockingly as advertised---the size of
the soundstage, its tonal balance, and the focus we achieved were
astonishing. The soundstage was as big as the Great Outdoors (or at least as
big as whatever acoustic was on the source material)---we're not talkin' Big
Audio Bloat here. The Harmonix room-tuning products stopped the walls from
grossly resonating in the audio band, but the Shun Mook treatments enabled
us to tweak and micro-adjust the sound to absolute best effect. We were able
to dial in frequency response for a smooth, seamless, top-to-bottom,
cohesive, Zen-like, harmonious presentation. Images took on a solidity and
palpability that was positively scary. I've used that term before, but
instead of drawing attention to the pyrotechnics, these treatments allowed
me to sink deeply into the music's wash and feel its meaning---with rock,
pop, jazz, classical, you name it. That's what it's all about, no? "

And BTW, what kind of moron would spend $800-1500.00 for a record weight?

[[email protected]]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording,
>> >> or what have you:
>> >> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>> >> ...Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of
>> >> this Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and
>> >> stranger and stranger...
>>
>> > As usual, Arny, you are being disingenuous. You
>> > don't reveal that what you are quoting from is a
>> > man's column, not a review.
>>
>> I provided a link to the *entire article*.
>
> No, Mr. Krueger, your link takes the reader to _page 3_
> of the Web reprint, _not_ the entire article.

I guess the average retard that reads SP would be too stupid to find the
rest of the article from there.

This is
> what I was referring to in the posting to which to you
> seem to have taken exception. The correct URL, which takes readers to
> the beginning of the full reprint, which
> includes an introductory comment by myself, is
> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69 .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
And the thing reads as an endorsement for snake oil which is what it is.

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech John Atkinson > wrote:


> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?

Was the 'avowed skeptic' skeptical enough to actually subject
the 'device' to a controlled comparison?

Could it be possible that neither Scull nor Willis actually
evaluated the device in a manner that would actually
identify whether the *cause* of the 'positive audible effect'
was subjective or objective?




--

-S

[Steven Sullivan]

In rec.audio.tech Len Moskowitz > wrote:

> Arny Krueger > wrote:

> >http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html

> This was published back in 1994, written by Jonathan Scull.

> I don't have a problem with a writer talking about how something that
> seems patently irrational to many of us affects their perception of
> music played back over their audio systems.

> The whole article is clearly subjective. I can't argue with what people
> say that they perceive.

> I don't see a single measurement there, and nothing that I would call
> misleading.

So, let's see, he said that putting a Mpingo disc on gear makes
it sound better than before.

If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong about
that either?

You wouldn't want, say, some sort of independent evidence that
it actually did what it was claimed to do?

> Personally, I don't believe that the Mpingo disks do anything at all,
> but I don't have any problems with folks who don't agree with me. If
> they want to spend their money, God bless 'em.

But that's a different issue. If people want to spend their money,
they're free to. If they want to claim that they've jsut bought
a perpetual motion machine, they're free to do that too. But they
can't demand , or even expect, that their claims go unchallenged.

For a magazine devoted to consumer audio to publish rather far-fetched
claims for a product without any attempt to substantiate them
other than by patently flawed methods -- should that be of concern to
people interested in consumer audio?


> I particularly liked the last two sentences:

> "Beware of imitations that won't stand an A/B test!" intoned
> Mr. Ying. Bill usually doesn't say much, but when he does talk, he
> roars.

That was perhaps the most amusing part of the article, yes -- the idea
that an 'A/B' as performed by these clowns would reveal any
accurate information.


--

-S

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> In rec.audio.tech John Atkinson
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your
>> knowledge that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing
>> frauds," Mr. Welch,
>> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers,
>> one
>> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a
>> subjectivist, the other of whom, Barry Willis, is an
>> avowed skeptic. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when
>> _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found that the Shakti
>> devices had a positive audible effect on the sounds of
>> their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
>> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?
>
> Was the 'avowed skeptic' skeptical enough to actually
> subject the 'device' to a controlled comparison?

> Could it be possible that neither Scull nor Willis
> actually
> evaluated the device in a manner that would actually
> identify whether the *cause* of the 'positive audible
> effect'
> was subjective or objective?

I checked the Stereophile site and confirmed that "avowed
skeptic" Barry Willis did indeed swallow Ray Kimber's
infamous Diaural loudspeaker sanke oil spew hook, line, and
sinker.

Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic? If you believe that,
than you'll believe that John Atkinson tells the whole
truth! ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

Steven Sullivan > said:

>If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong about
>that either?


But that's true.

Ever seen a green Ferrari? :-)

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[[email protected]]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:17:36 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>>It is one of the reasons I stopped subscribing in the first place.
>>The only reason I get it now is because my wife re-subscribed in order to
>>help with a fundraiser for my son's school.
>>
>>The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud..
>
> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>
I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.

> Mr. Atkinson is laughing all the way to the bank.

As do many con artists.

[George Middius]

duh-Mikey falls down and goes splat.

>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.

>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.

What does that tell you, Mickey?

[[email protected]]

Having read this tale:

> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html

I was reminded of this tale:

http://snipurl.com/hom4

I think the latter tale would make a splendid production for the
Stereophile Little Theatre with the following cast:

The Emperor - Jonathan Scull (is this "type casting"?)
The Prime Minister - John Atkinson
The tailors - Yu Wah Tan and Bill Ying
The little boy - Arny Krueger (no offence intended, Mr. Krueger)

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > > > It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> > > > > my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> > > > > referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> > > > > "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> > > > > find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> > > > > for help in finding it.
> > > >
> > > > Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
> > > > Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".
> > >
> > > Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
> > > website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
> > > Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?
> >
> > If I were easily misled, Mr. Atkinson, I would be a loyal
> > Stereophile reader. Do you see Randi everywhere, Mr. Atkinson?
>
> No, I was specifically referring to a message in another current thread
> to which you are posting, specifically:
> --------------------------------------------
> (Chevdo) wrote to joseph_welch in
> message <MQrVe.269840$on1.40437@clgrps13> on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:38:20
> GMT
> >In article . com>,
> says...
> >>The man is a repugnant malignancy:
> >>http://snipurl.com/hmrq
> >...
> >http://www.randi.org/jr/120304youve.html#2
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> The URL above takes you to an essay by Randi in which he presents
> a review of the "Hallograph" as though it had appeared in
> Stereophile. As the posting was in response to you, I assumed
> that it was that that had triggered your outburst of bile.
>

Surely you know the old saw regarding "when you assume". It describes
you _perfectly_, Mr. Atkinson.


> > If I were a huckster and conman like yourself, an intelligent,
> > persistent, hard-nosed sceptic like Randi would get under my
> > skin, too.
>
> Oh dear, Mr. Welch, you really do appear to have got panties in
> a wad. :-)
>

You mistake my utter lack of respect for you, my contempt of you and my
derision of you for anger, Mr. Atkinson. You're none too smart, are
you?

[dave weil]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 17:44:57 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>> I don't see a single measurement there, and nothing that I would call
>> misleading.
>
>So, let's see, he said that putting a Mpingo disc on gear makes
>it sound better than before.
>
>If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong about
>that either?

Well, what if he said that painting a car red made it look better,
would you have a problem with that?

Because that's a better analogy, due to the subjective nature of
evaluating sound.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:58:28 GMT, "
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:17:36 GMT, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>It is one of the reasons I stopped subscribing in the first place.
>>>The only reason I get it now is because my wife re-subscribed in order to
>>>help with a fundraiser for my son's school.
>>>
>>>The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud..
>>
>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>>
>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.

Why didn't you cancel the subscription.

>> Mr. Atkinson is laughing all the way to the bank.
>
>As do many con artists.

You are acquainted with a lot of them, are you?

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > > > It appears you misunderstood both Mr. Welch's question and
> > > > > my response, Mr. Krueger. Mr. Welch was quite clearly
> > > > > referring to a purported Stereophile review of the
> > > > > "Shakti Hallographic Soundfield Optimizer." As I can't
> > > > > find any such review in my index, I was asking Mr. Welch
> > > > > for help in finding it.
> > > >
> > > > Mea Culpa! I confused the "Shakti Hallograph Soundfield
> > > > Optimizer" with the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer".
> > >
> > > Or perhaps you were misled by James Randi's implication on his
> > > website that Wayne Donnelly's review of the "Hallographic
> > > Soundfield Optimizer" had appeared in Stereophile?
> >
> > If I were easily misled, Mr. Atkinson, I would be a loyal
> > Stereophile reader. Do you see Randi everywhere, Mr. Atkinson?
>
> No, I was specifically referring to a message in another current thread
> to which you are posting, specifically:
> --------------------------------------------
> (Chevdo) wrote to joseph_welch in
> message <MQrVe.269840$on1.40437@clgrps13> on Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:38:20
> GMT
> >In article . com>,
> says...
> >>The man is a repugnant malignancy:
> >>http://snipurl.com/hmrq
> >...
> >http://www.randi.org/jr/120304youve.html#2
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> The URL above takes you to an essay by Randi in which he presents
> a review of the "Hallograph" as though it had appeared in
> Stereophile. As the posting was in response to you, I assumed
> that it was that that had triggered your outburst of bile.
>
> > If I were a huckster and conman like yourself, an intelligent,
> > persistent, hard-nosed sceptic like Randi would get under my
> > skin, too.
>
> Oh dear, Mr. Welch, you really do appear to have got panties in
> a wad. :-)
>
> > > > This is akin to confusing the Green Bottle of "medicine"
> > > > with the Blue Bottle of "medicine" at an old traveling
> > > > "Medicine Show"; both are likely equally ineffective and
> > > > fraudulent.
> > >
> > > And you know that how, Mr. Welch? When did you try these
> > > devices for yourself?
> >
> > Which one? The Blue Bottle or the Green Bottle?
>
> Don't be coy, Mr. Welch, You have expressed a strong opinion
> on these accessories. Surely you have tried them, to be so sure
> that they are ineffective? Or are you, like Randi, simply
> making things up?
>
> Perhaps oou need to try some anger-managment strategies before you
> next come out from behind the safety of your PC screen. :-)
>

The safety of my PC screen, Mr. Atkinson? Would you like me to publicly
call you out for being the conman and huckster that you are at the next
Stereophile event, Mr. Atkinson? If so, please let me know. It would
be my great pleasure to grant you your wish, Mr. Atkinson.

> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

surf wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
> > either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.
>
>
> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived something
> you don't understand. Given the possible scenario you've pointed out,
> a certainty is that you're an asshole.


Ah, a True Believer, gullible and credulous! Without doubt, Mr.
Atkinsons's favorite type; the very foundation of his scams. What else
do you believe in? Astrology? The Akashic record? Psychic readings?
Tarot Cards? The Afterlife?

Oh, and can't you do better than juvenile insults, grasshopper?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> John Atkinson wrote:

>> Perhaps oou need to try some anger-managment strategies
>> before you next come out from behind the safety of your
>> PC screen. :-)

> The safety of my PC screen, Mr. Atkinson? Would you like
> me to publicly call you out for being the conman and
> huckster that you are at the next Stereophile event, Mr.
> Atkinson? If so, please let me know. It would be my
> great pleasure to grant you your wish, Mr. Atkinson.

Atkinson tried to pull this same BS with me, apparently
forgetting that he and I were face-to-face for about an hour
at HE2005 just a few months before. Since he was present at
Fremer's little hissy fit, he knows that I stand my ground
pretty well.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Perhaps [you] need to try some anger-management strategies before
> > you next come out from behind the safety of your PC screen. :-)
>
> The safety of my PC screen, Mr. Atkinson? Would you like me to
> publicly call you out for being the conman and huckster that you
> are at the next Stereophile event, Mr. Atkinson?

Why not, Mr. Welch. Your dime, your foot, so to speak. The
next Stereophile Show takes palce at the Sheraton Gateway
Hotel at LAX, June 1-4, 2006. If you want to turn up at one
of the "Ask the Editors" sessions and confront me and my
writers, you have every right to do so.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[George M. Middius]

said:

> > A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived something
> > you don't understand. Given the possible scenario you've pointed out,
> > a certainty is that you're an asshole.

> Ah, a True Believer, gullible and credulous! Without doubt, Mr.
> Atkinsons's favorite type; the very foundation of his scams. What else
> do you believe in? Astrology? The Akashic record? Psychic readings?
> Tarot Cards? The Afterlife?

> Oh, and can't you do better than juvenile insults, grasshopper?

Mirror, mirror.....

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Right now you've got some of the biggest boobs in the history of Usenet on
> your team.

Admit it, you have no chanc at all with Maggie.

[Clyde Slick]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>>
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> Hmm, truth is stranger than fiction, slippery wording,
>> >> or what have you:
>> >> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>> >> ...Please follow up on the URL above - the rest of
>> >> this Atkinson-approved article just gets stranger and
>> >> stranger and stranger...
>>
>> > As usual, Arny, you are being disingenuous. You
>> > don't reveal that what you are quoting from is a
>> > man's column, not a review.
>>
>> I provided a link to the *entire article*.
>
> No, Mr. Krueger, your link takes the reader to _page 3_
> of the Web reprint, _not_ the entire article. This is
> what I was referring to in the posting to which to you
> seem to have taken exception. The correct URL, which takes readers to
> the beginning of the full reprint, which
> includes an introductory comment by myself, is
> http://www.stereophile.com/features/69 .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

Is this due to Arny's debating trade tactics
or to his general ineptness on web issues?

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Even though I keep tripping Atkinson up in childish deceptions, someone
> at least semi-competent did the site design for his ragazine.

Maybe JA will be nice enough to give you his name.

[[email protected]]

"George Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> duh-Mikey falls down and goes splat.
>
>>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>
>>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.
>
> What does that tell you, Mickey?
>
That I know more about audio magazines than she does.
She knew only that it was about audio and figured I would enjoy it.

[[email protected]]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:58:28 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:17:36 GMT, "
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is one of the reasons I stopped subscribing in the first place.
>>>>The only reason I get it now is because my wife re-subscribed in order
>>>>to
>>>>help with a fundraiser for my son's school.
>>>>
>>>>The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud..
>>>
>>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>>>
>>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.
>
> Why didn't you cancel the subscription.
>
Unlike some people, I can separate the gibberish from the worthwhile.
It was part of a fundraiser for my son's school.


>>> Mr. Atkinson is laughing all the way to the bank.
>>
>>As do many con artists.
>
> You are acquainted with a lot of them, are you?
>
Only from seeing their names in the news.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Mr.T said:
>
>> > Could it possibly be that Scull and
>> > Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?
>
>> If they were, they would have provided proof.
>
> I can see why you hide behind an anonym. Nobody as dumb as you wants his
> real identity known.
>

If irony killed.

[[email protected]]

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
u...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote
> in message ...
>> I can see why you hide behind an anonym. Nobody as dumb as you wants his
>> real identity known.
>
> Actually it is far more stupid to expose your ignorance openly to the
> world
> as you do.
>

He'snot really exposing anything since there is no such person as George
Middius posting to RAO.

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> Steven Sullivan > said:
>
>>If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>>go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong about
>>that either?
>
>
> But that's true.
>
> Ever seen a green Ferrari? :-)
>

only in my rear view mirror.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "George Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> duh-Mikey falls down and goes splat.
>>
>>>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>>>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>>
>>>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.
>>
>> What does that tell you, Mickey?
>>
> That I know more about audio magazines than she does.
> She knew only that it was about audio and figured I would enjoy it.
>

perhaps this mag is more to your liking.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/04/eatingbugs.html

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:58:28 GMT, "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:17:36 GMT, "
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It is one of the reasons I stopped subscribing in the first place.
>>>>>The only reason I get it now is because my wife re-subscribed in order
>>>>>to
>>>>>help with a fundraiser for my son's school.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud..
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>>>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>>>>
>>>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.
>>
>> Why didn't you cancel the subscription.
>>
> Unlike some people, I can separate the gibberish from the worthwhile.
> It was part of a fundraiser for my son's school.
>

She should have chosen this one from the 'menu'.
http://www.planetscott.com/babes/wavearticle.asp

[surf]

> wrote ...
> surf wrote:
>> > wrote
>>
>> > A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
>> > either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.
>>
>>
>> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived something
>> you don't understand. Given the possible scenario you've pointed out,
>> a certainty is that you're an asshole.
>
>
> Ah, a True Believer, gullible and credulous! Without doubt, Mr.
> Atkinsons's favorite type; the very foundation of his scams. What else
> do you believe in? Astrology? The Akashic record? Psychic readings?
> Tarot Cards? The Afterlife?

oops, now you've made an assumption. I was merely pointing out the
possible scenario that YOU alluded to above.

> Oh, and can't you do better than juvenile insults, grasshopper?

not an insult - just an observation, esquire.

[[email protected]]

John Atkinson wrote:
> wrote:
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > Perhaps [you] need to try some anger-management strategies before
> > > you next come out from behind the safety of your PC screen. :-)
> >
> > The safety of my PC screen, Mr. Atkinson? Would you like me to
> > publicly call you out for being the conman and huckster that you
> > are at the next Stereophile event, Mr. Atkinson?
>
> Why not, Mr. Welch. Your dime, your foot, so to speak. The
> next Stereophile Show takes palce at the Sheraton Gateway
> Hotel at LAX, June 1-4, 2006. If you want to turn up at one
> of the "Ask the Editors" sessions and confront me and my
> writers, you have every right to do so.
>

It's a date then, Mr. Atkinson! See you in Los Angeles next June, you
conman, huckster and fraud.

And tell Mr. Fremer that he best behave himself.


> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

[dizzy]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:07:00 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:17:36 GMT, "
> wrote:
>
>>It is one of the reasons I stopped subscribing in the first place.
>>The only reason I get it now is because my wife re-subscribed in order to
>>help with a fundraiser for my son's school.
>>
>>The Mpingo disk article, is a classic case of stupidity and fraud..
>
>The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>
>Mr. Atkinson is laughing all the way to the bank.

Well, they damn-near GIVE the thing away...

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > John Atkinson wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps oou need to try some anger-managment strategies
> >> before you next come out from behind the safety of your
> >> PC screen. :-)
>
> > The safety of my PC screen, Mr. Atkinson? Would you like
> > me to publicly call you out for being the conman and
> > huckster that you are at the next Stereophile event, Mr.
> > Atkinson? If so, please let me know. It would be my
> > great pleasure to grant you your wish, Mr. Atkinson.
>
> Atkinson tried to pull this same BS with me, apparently
> forgetting that he and I were face-to-face for about an hour
> at HE2005 just a few months before. Since he was present at
> Fremer's little hissy fit, he knows that I stand my ground
> pretty well.

Not a surprise, really. Mr. Atkinson is the one who hides behind his
magazine and his PC. He'll probably crap his trousers come next June.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Right now you've got some of the biggest boobs in the
>> history of Usenet on your team.
>
> Admit it, you have no chance at all with Maggie.

Never have been attracted to big boobs.

[George M. Middius]

dizzy said:

> >The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
> >that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.

> >Mr. Atkinson is laughing all the way to the bank.

> Well, they damn-near GIVE the thing away...

So a few more paid subs won't benefit the Lords of Subjectivism at all,
right?

[George M. Middius]

Arnii has a new wind-up toy. Probably Petey Axelgrease's sockpuppet.

> Not a surprise, really. Mr. Atkinson is the one who hides behind his
> magazine and his PC. He'll probably crap his trousers come next June.

Did you ever try to actually hit somebody with those stumpy little
midget-arms?

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> duh-Mikey falls down and goes splat.
>>>
>>>>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>>>>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>>>
>>>>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.
>>>
>>> What does that tell you, Mickey?
>>>
>> That I know more about audio magazines than she does.
>> She knew only that it was about audio and figured I would enjoy it.
>>
>
> perhaps this mag is more to your liking.
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/04/eatingbugs.html
Still George's bitch I see.

[[email protected]]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote
>
>> A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
>> either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.
>
>
> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived something
> you don't understand.

How could they perceive the impossible without being both deluded and
incompetent?

Don't you think a claim as wierd as those being made for Mpingo disks or
Shakti Stones deserves some technical measurments?

That none have been offered pretty much says it all IMO.

Given the possible scenario you've pointed out,
> a certainty is that you're an asshole.
>

[Arny Krueger]

"surf" > wrote in message

> > wrote
>
>> A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your
>> reviewers are either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt
>> and cynical.
>
>
> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived
> something you don't understand.

Not likely given that I understand the smell of money well
enough.

[surf]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote...
> "surf" > wrote in message
>
>> > wrote
>>
>>> A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your
>>> reviewers are either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt
>>> and cynical.
>>
>>
>> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived
>> something you don't understand.
>
> Not likely given that I understand the smell of money well enough.


thank you for confirming joey's assertion that one unlikely
scenario is that people sense things you don't understand.

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> " > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>>
>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> duh-Mikey falls down and goes splat.
>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>>>>>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>>>>
>>>>>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> What does that tell you, Mickey?
>>>>
>>> That I know more about audio magazines than she does.
>>> She knew only that it was about audio and figured I would enjoy it.
>>>
>>
>> perhaps this mag is more to your liking.
>>
>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/04/eatingbugs.html
> Still George's bitch I see.
>

I see you're still Arny's ass wipe.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> Not likely given that I understand the smell of money well enough.
>

After you've wiped your ass on another thousand dollar check.

[surf]

" > wrote...
>
> "surf" > wrote ...
>> > wrote
>>
>>> A much more likely scenario, Mr. Atkinson, is that your reviewers are
>>> either deluded, incompetent and/or corrupt and cynical.
>>
>> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived something
>> you don't understand.
>
> How could they perceive the impossible without being both deluded and
> incompetent?

No one else is saying it's impossible Mike. Joey (McCarty) is saying "a
much
more likely scenario" and Arny is saying "not likely". Please stop saying
the
world is definitely flat.

> Don't you think a claim as wierd as those being made for Mpingo disks or
> Shakti Stones deserves some technical measurments?

A likely scenario is that they have no audible effect. And even if they
have
no audible effect, how can you say they didn't perceive something? You've
already stated that sighted listening is unreliable. duh.

> That none have been offered pretty much says it all IMO.

Nope. It doesn't say it all.

But thanks for saying Malesweski is an asshole.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> Right now you've got some of the biggest boobs in the
>>> history of Usenet on your team.
>>
>> Admit it, you have no chance at all with Maggie.
>
> Never have been attracted to big boobs.
>

your wife has a small rack?

[surf]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote ...
>
> For a magazine devoted to consumer audio to publish rather far-fetched
> claims for a product without any attempt to substantiate them
> other than by patently flawed methods -- should that be of concern to
> people interested in consumer audio?


Have your concern, Steve. Share your concern.

These people hear beautiful music. When they try to compare two
setups and listen for differences, they're unable to hear what they
heard when they were listening to music, so they discard the testing
methodology as ineffective. They listen to music. They describe
what they hear. That's what the magazine is. You don't like it.
OK. Move on. You don't have to be a dick. You could be
wrong. The world may not be flat.

[Len Moskowitz]

Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

>Or indeed anything approaching a disclaimer that it IS only the
>unsubstantiated opinion of one person.
>So *everything* in that magazine should be viewed with great suspicion by
>the non technical readers.

Isn't that true for every magazine? At least there are some wonderful
nuggets of solid information there -- most magazine don't even give you
that.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[Len Moskowitz]

Steven Sullivan > wrote:

>So, let's see, he said that putting a Mpingo disc on gear makes
>it sound better than before.
>
>If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong about
>that either?

Auto speed is measurable. My perceptions are not.

(A bit of my background: My educational background is in
EE/Comp. Sci. and Psychology. My Psych interests are perception,
attention and cognition, while my EE interests are currently
audio-related. They both expressed by doing R&D in Artificial
Intelligence and designing binaural field recording equipment.)

The question for you is: what's the difference between loudness and SPL
(sound pressure level)?

You can measure SPL directly and objectively.

Loudness, in contrast, is a subjective perception and can't be measured
by test equipment. You can amass statistical data for groups (as in the
Fletcher-Munson curves) but a single-subject loudness evaluation tells
you essentially nothing.

So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if someone says that
the Mpingo Disks makes his audio system sound better, I can't disprove
it and neither can you.

If large groups of people say that they hear a difference, then there'd
be some statistical "proof" that there's a difference. But you, as an
individual, might not hear a difference.

So what's to argue about?

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[andy]

> So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if someone says that
> the Mpingo Disks makes his audio system sound better, I can't disprove
> it and neither can you.

Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see Mpingo Disks
(whatever they are) is a requirement then simply blindfolding the
subject while adding or subtracting the disks will determine the truth
of what is perceived or not.

[George Middius]

Mr. **** doffs his raincoat.

>> Admit it, you have no chance at all with Maggie.

>Never have been attracted to big boobs.

Firehoses are another matter, however.

[Arny Krueger]

"Len Moskowitz" > wrote in message


> Steven Sullivan > wrote:
>
>> So, let's see, he said that putting a Mpingo disc on
>> gear makes it sound better than before.
>>
>> If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>> go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong
>> about that either?
>
> Auto speed is measurable. My perceptions are not.

Perceptions come in at least two different flavors: naive
and informed.

Informed people now know that the world is not at all
exactly what we perceive naively. That solid object is
really composed of atoms and space-wise mostly vacuum. The
perception that component A sounds different than component
B could be due to differences in loudness, timing or natural
variations in the listener's state of mind.

Things have gone downhill so far at Stereophile, that mere
mention of level matching, time synch and bias controls on
almost all of Stereophile's forums comes with a promise of
severe sanctions.

[Arny Krueger]

"andy" > wrote in message
oups.com
>> So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if
>> someone says that the Mpingo Disks makes his audio
>> system sound better, I can't disprove it and neither can
>> you.
>
> Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see
> Mpingo Disks (whatever they are) is a requirement then
> simply blindfolding the subject while adding or
> subtracting the disks will determine the truth of what is
> perceived or not.

Len is merely playing with words. The idea that Mpingo disks
are ineffective is a negative hypothesis, and is therefore
difficult or impossible to prove.

However, the idea that Mpingo disks are effective is a
positive hypothesis, and could possibly be proven.

But, the absence of proof is not proof of the absence.

OTOH, saying that you put forth a heck of an effort into
proving that Mpingo disks do something audible, and either
came up negative or had to do something impractical or
illogical is pretty meaningful. In these cases the truth is
in the eye of the beholder.

Note that some beholders couldn't see truth if it bit them
on the nose. Politics anybody? ;-)

[George Middius]

Fun, fun, fun!

>Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see Mpingo Disks
>(whatever they are) is a requirement then simply blindfolding the
>subject while adding or subtracting the disks will determine the truth
>of what is perceived or not.

This is what the audio hobby is all about. You're an inspiration.

[George Middius]

The Rev. Kroofeces takes a dump and prepares to deliver a sermonette.

>> Auto speed is measurable. My perceptions are not.

>Perceptions come in at least two different flavors: naive
>and informed.

IOW, some have faith in what they can't perceive, and others don't.

>Things have gone downhill so far at Stereophile, that mere
>mention of level matching, time synch and bias controls on
>almost all of Stereophile's forums comes with a promise of
>severe sanctions.

Really? If I were the one laying the "sanctions", my first choice would be to
banish a reviewer to Michigan for a week of audio torture. "Get thee to the
Krooborg's hovel, and listen ye well to the cacophony of a Hive-approved system,
and stay ye there until ye have learned thy lesson!" And that lesson would be
that "level matching" is the first step on the road to audio 'borgism.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message


> Really? If I were the one laying the "sanctions", my
> first choice would be to banish a reviewer to Michigan
> for a week of audio torture. "Get thee to the Krooborg's
> hovel, and listen ye well to the cacophony of a
> Hive-approved system, and stay ye there until ye have
> learned thy lesson!" And that lesson would be that "level
> matching" is the first step on the road to audio
> 'borgism.

So George, you're saying that listening to a pair of HD580s
would be too much pain for you to bear?

[George Middius]

The Krooborg is chowing down on a fresh turd. Everybody watch for flying
dingleberries.

>> Really? If I were the one laying the "sanctions", my
>> first choice would be to banish a reviewer to Michigan
>> for a week of audio torture. "Get thee to the Krooborg's
>> hovel, and listen ye well to the cacophony of a
>> Hive-approved system, and stay ye there until ye have
>> learned thy lesson!" And that lesson would be that "level
>> matching" is the first step on the road to audio
>> 'borgism.

>So George, you're saying that listening to a pair of HD580s
>would be too much pain for you to bear?

Tnanks Mr. **** for admitting that your best "system" is a pair of headphones.

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Arny,

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in news:W6ydnUUJFabDGrTeRVn-
:
....
> But, the absence of proof is not proof of the absence.

true, but the negative results IMHO could still be quite useful. For
example to me the fact that nobody has been able so far to prove under DBT
conditions that cables make an audible difference (apart from few
pathological cases) is enough to avoid worrying about cables at all. Even
in the worst case that all concerns about supposed reduced sensitivity of
DBTs are true (and to be clear I don't think they are true) all the
negative results collected so far clearly show that any supposed difference
between cables is subtle enough to escape many DBTs performed by many
different peoples under many different conditions.
Considering that there are parts of an audio chain that are so weak
that could be probably proven as audibly different even if the DBT is
performed while wearing eraplugs, I wonder why I should worry about the
effects of components that have been so far negative even after many
different trials. I prefer to concentrate on the proven weak parts of the
chain, because there changes are probably going to provide the greatest
improvements.
English speaking peoples use to call this "the biggest bang for the
buck", isn't it?

Bye,

--
Denis Sbragion
InfoTecna
Tel: +39 0362 805396, Fax: +39 0362 805404
URL: http://www.infotecna.it

[Arny Krueger]

"Denis Sbragion" > wrote in message
6.1
> Hello Arny,
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in
> news:W6ydnUUJFabDGrTeRVn- :
> ...
>> But, the absence of proof is not proof of the absence.
>
> true, but the negative results IMHO could still be quite
> useful. For example to me the fact that nobody has been
> able so far to prove under DBT conditions that cables
> make an audible difference (apart from few pathological
> cases) is enough to avoid worrying about cables at all.

That would be a tiny leap of faith that most rational people
are able to make.

> Even in the worst case that all concerns about supposed
> reduced sensitivity of DBTs are true (and to be clear I
> don't think they are true) all the negative results
> collected so far clearly show that any supposed
> difference between cables is subtle enough to escape
> many DBTs performed by many different peoples under many
> different conditions.

Well, consider all the reports of "mind-blowing differences"
that turn to mush when levels are matched, etc.

>Considering that there are parts of
> an audio chain that are so weak
> that could be probably proven as audibly different even
> if the DBT is performed while wearing eraplugs, I wonder
> why I should worry about the effects of components that
> have been so far negative even after many different
> trials. I prefer to concentrate on the proven weak parts
> of the chain, because there changes are probably going to
> provide the greatest improvements.

Exactly.



>English speaking
> peoples use to call this "the biggest bang for the
> buck", isn't it?

I'm more likely to consider removing the beam from the eye
before going after the dust under the rug.

[Arny Krueger]

"George Middius" > wrote in
message
> The Krooborg is chowing down on a fresh turd. Everybody
> watch for flying dingleberries.
>
>>> Really? If I were the one laying the "sanctions", my
>>> first choice would be to banish a reviewer to Michigan
>>> for a week of audio torture. "Get thee to the Krooborg's
>>> hovel, and listen ye well to the cacophony of a
>>> Hive-approved system, and stay ye there until ye have
>>> learned thy lesson!" And that lesson would be that
>>> "level matching" is the first step on the road to audio
>>> 'borgism.
>
>> So George, you're saying that listening to a pair of
>> HD580s would be too much pain for you to bear?
>
> Tnanks Mr. **** for admitting that your best "system" is
> a pair of headphones.

All things considered that would be an admission of your
ignorance, George. The world is full of really pretty
credible speakers that sonically underperform a pair of
HD580s.

BTW, who exactly is this person that you are *tnanking*,
George?

[dave weil]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 21:26:24 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> A possible scenario then, is that the reviewers perceived
>> something you don't understand.
>
>Not likely given that I understand the smell of money well
>enough.

Yes, you've claimed in the past that it smells like your toilet.

[Len Moskowitz]

andy > wrote:

>> So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if someone says that
>> the Mpingo Disks makes his audio system sound better, I can't disprove
>> it and neither can you.
>
>Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see Mpingo Disks
>(whatever they are) is a requirement then simply blindfolding the
>subject while adding or subtracting the disks will determine the truth
>of what is perceived or not.

Nonsense (to use your words)! Blindfolding someone changes their
perceptual gestalt, so you've proven nothing.

Perhaps everything about the listening experience matters? Quantifying
perceptions is a lot different that Test & Measurement.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[John Atkinson]

George Middius wrote:
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >Things have gone downhill so far at Stereophile, that mere
> >mention of level matching, time synch and bias controls on
> >almost all of Stereophile's forums comes with a promise of
> >severe sanctions.
>
> Really? If I were the one laying the "sanctions", my first
> choice would be to banish a reviewer to Michigan for a week
> of audio torture.

Arny is not being totally forthcoming with the truth, George.
There are no "sanctions" on the forums at www.stereophile.com.
Instead, we decided to implement the same rule that r.a.h-e
applies wrt blind testing comments: that they be restricted to
threads that are specifically _about_ blind testing. In other
threads, posters are free to make comments about sound quality
without being subjected to demands for "proof" and questions
along the lines of "how many blind tests have you performed to
be so sure of what you say?"

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:


>>>If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>>>go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong about
>>>that either?


>> But that's true.

>> Ever seen a green Ferrari? :-)


>only in my rear view mirror.


**grin**

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Len Moskowitz]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

>Informed people now know that the world is not at all
>exactly what we perceive naively. That solid object is
>really composed of atoms and space-wise mostly vacuum. The
>perception that component A sounds different than component
>B could be due to differences in loudness, timing or natural
>variations in the listener's state of mind.

If there ever was a rationale for subjective opinion columns, you've
stated it quite precisely.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[Arny Krueger]

"Len Moskowitz" > wrote in message

> andy > wrote:
>
>>> So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if
>>> someone says that the Mpingo Disks makes his audio
>>> system sound better, I can't disprove it and neither
>>> can you.
>>
>> Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see
>> Mpingo Disks (whatever they are) is a requirement then
>> simply blindfolding the subject while adding or
>> subtracting the disks will determine the truth of what
>> is perceived or not.
>
> Nonsense (to use your words)! Blindfolding someone
> changes their perceptual gestalt,

Of course.

> so you've proven nothing.

Wrong Len. You've shown something with respect to the
changed perceptual gestalt.

Really Len, when is the last time that this kind of
double-talk work on a mentally competent adult? Or even an
older teenager?


> Perhaps everything about the listening experience
> matters?

Perhaps an occasional individual doesn't think that looks
are all that matters?

> Quantifying perceptions is a lot different that
> Test & Measurement.

My life was never the same after I fell in love with an
experimental psychologist.

[George M. Middius]

John Atkinson said:

> > >Things have gone downhill so far at Stereophile, that mere
> > >mention of level matching, time synch and bias controls on
> > >almost all of Stereophile's forums comes with a promise of
> > >severe sanctions.

> > Really? If I were the one laying the "sanctions", my first
> > choice would be to banish a reviewer to Michigan for a week
> > of audio torture.

> Arny is not being totally forthcoming with the truth, George.
> There are no "sanctions" on the forums at www.stereophile.com.
> Instead, we decided to implement the same rule that r.a.h-e
> applies wrt blind testing comments: that they be restricted to
> threads that are specifically _about_ blind testing. In other
> threads, posters are free to make comments about sound quality
> without being subjected to demands for "proof" and questions
> along the lines of "how many blind tests have you performed to
> be so sure of what you say?"

That's a reasonable policy, but this is Arnii Krooborg, not a reasonable
person. I believe that for Turdborg, your policy amounts to religious
discrimination. <G>

[EddieM]

> Denis Sbragion wrote
>
> Hello Arny,
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote
>
>
>
> ...
>> But, the absence of proof is not proof of the absence.
>
>
>

Hello.


> true, but the negative results IMHO could still be quite useful. For
> example to me the fact that nobody has been able so far to prove under DBT
> conditions that cables make an audible difference (apart from few
> pathological cases) is enough to avoid worrying about cables at all. Even
> in the worst case that all concerns about supposed reduced sensitivity of
> DBTs are true (and to be clear I don't think they are true) all the
> negative results collected so far clearly show that any supposed difference
> between cables is subtle enough to escape many DBTs performed by many
> different peoples under many different conditions.


You seems to be saying then that when the differences among the components
you wish to upgrade are subtle, then the dbt may not be a viable test to use
in detecting differences between those units. I thought all along that dbt is
use to detect subtle sound differences.

With regards to your confidence about DBT above, what do you think, in your
opinion, does the "test" or the "proctor" or the "methodology" ...etc. do in
proving beyond doubt (to you) that the components involve, indeed, sound
alike 'cause, as it show, each time test comparisons were made, they sound
the same.


> Considering that there are parts of an audio chain that are so weak
> that could be probably proven as audibly different even if the DBT is
> performed while wearing earplugs, I wonder why I should worry about the
> effects of components that have been so far negative even after many
> different trials. I prefer to concentrate on the proven weak parts of the
> chain, because there changes are probably going to provide the greatest
> improvements.
> English speaking peoples use to call this "the biggest bang for the
> buck", isn't it?
>
>
> --
> Denis Sbragion

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" emitted :
>
>> OTOH, saying that you put forth a heck of an effort into
>> proving that Mpingo disks do something audible, and
>> either came up negative or had to do something
>> impractical or illogical is pretty meaningful.
>
> It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
> ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
> you require proof. ]

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "andy" emitted :
>
>>> So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if
>>> someone says that the Mpingo Disks makes his audio
>>> system sound better, I can't disprove it and neither
>>> can you.
>>
>> Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see
>> Mpingo Disks (whatever they are) is a requirement then
>> simply blindfolding the subject while adding or
>> subtracting the disks will determine the truth of what
>> is perceived or not.
>
> Thank you for exposing the irrelevancy of DBTs for
> consumers so succinctly...
>
> Question.. do you routinely blindfold yourself when
> listening?

Just shows that Dormer is so out-of-it that he thinks that
DBTs necessarily involve blindfolding.

[George Middius]

dave weil said to FecesBorg:

>>Not likely given that I understand the smell of money well
>>enough.

>Yes, you've claimed in the past that it smells like your toilet.

I thought he meant the sight of money makes him want to take a dump.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> In rec.audio.tech Len Moskowitz >
> wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>>> Informed people now know that the world is not at all
>>> exactly what we perceive naively. That solid object is
>>> really composed of atoms and space-wise mostly vacuum.
>>> The perception that component A sounds different than
>>> component B could be due to differences in loudness,
>>> timing or natural variations in the listener's state of
>>> mind.
>
>> If there ever was a rationale for subjective opinion
>> columns, you've stated it quite precisely.

I don't think so. the key words are "listener's state of
mind". In truth, the listener's state of mind". is
unknowable. Subjective opinions are always unknowable. What
we get in audio subjective opinion columns is what the
writer wants us to believe about his state of mind.

Most people read them to find out about the state of
equipment, not the state of some journalist's mind. The
state of the writer's mind usually has a liberal dose of
intellectual noise.

> If there ever was a rationale for ignoring subjective
> opinion columns about components, he's stated that quite
> well here too.

Exactly.

That Len didn't get that tells me a little something about
his ummm, state of mind. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" emitted :
>
>>>> So, let's see, he said that putting a Mpingo disc on
>>>> gear makes it sound better than before.
>>>>
>>>> If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>>>> go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong
>>>> about that either?
>>>
>>> Auto speed is measurable. My perceptions are not.
>>
>> Perceptions come in at least two different flavors: naive
>> and informed.
>
> Oh yes... the moral crusade!

No, support for education.

So Paul, you are against education?

<Snip gratuitous insults>

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message


> That's a reasonable policy, but this is Arnii Krooborg,

Given your past criticisims of less-than-perfect spelling
George, this can't be a tyop.

Who is Arnii Krooborg?

[George Middius]

PD said:

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

One of Krooger's many problems is that he assumes all tweaks are phoney and
their proponents are all lying. If the scientific establishment were run by
'borgs, no investigations of perceived phenomena would be permitted because
"proof" would be required before data can be collected.

>Remind me.. why do have faith in god?
>One born every minute...

Good to have you back. What's kept you away?

Watch out for Sillyborg. He's been prattling on like a ninny about DBTs and it
turns out his entire system is some cheapo speakers and a low-end Pioneer
receiver.

[Arny Krueger]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" emitted :
>
>>>>> So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if
>>>>> someone says that the Mpingo Disks makes his audio
>>>>> system sound better, I can't disprove it and neither
>>>>> can you.
>>>>
>>>> Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see
>>>> Mpingo Disks (whatever they are) is a requirement then
>>>> simply blindfolding the subject while adding or
>>>> subtracting the disks will determine the truth of what
>>>> is perceived or not.
>>>
>>> Nonsense (to use your words)! Blindfolding someone
>>> changes their perceptual gestalt,
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>>> so you've proven nothing.
>>
>> Wrong Len. You've shown something with respect to the
>> changed perceptual gestalt.
>>
>> Really Len, when is the last time that this kind of
>> double-talk work on a mentally competent adult? Or even
>> an older teenager?
>
> Oh dear Len, you have caused offense by making a valid
> rational point.
>
> Let the snot storm begin!

Looks like you've already provided the first squall of that
snot storm, Dormer.

Do you really lack that much personal insight?

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Signal" > wrote in message

>> "andy" emitted :


>>> Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see
>>> Mpingo Disks (whatever they are) is a requirement then
>>> simply blindfolding the subject while adding or
>>> subtracting the disks will determine the truth of what
>>> is perceived or not.


>> Thank you for exposing the irrelevancy of DBTs for
>> consumers so succinctly...

>> Question.. do you routinely blindfold yourself when
>> listening?


>Just shows that Dormer is so out-of-it that he thinks that
>DBTs necessarily involve blindfolding.


The unknown poster known as "Andy" used that phrase first.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

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

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


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

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Given your past criticisims of less-than-perfect spelling
>George, this can't be a tyop.


LOL!

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[George Middius]

Talk about tripping over your own feet....

>George, this can't be a tyop.

Riiiight........

[andy]

>>> So getting to the point that perhaps you missed, if someone says that
>>> the Mpingo Disks makes his audio system sound better, I can't disprove
>>> it and neither can you.

>> Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see Mpingo Disks
>> (whatever they are) is a requirement then simply blindfolding the
>> subject while adding or subtracting the disks will determine the truth
>> of what is perceived or not.

> Nonsense (to use your words)! Blindfolding someone changes their
> perceptual gestalt, so you've proven nothing.

The nonsense referred to your daft assertion that one cannot test a
persons perception. If you believe that sight is important in this case
then simply substitute the Mpingo Discs with ones that look the same
but contain no working parts (assuming they have any).

> Perhaps everything about the listening experience matters? Quantifying
> perceptions is a lot different that Test & Measurement.

This statement is also largely nonsense. The act of measurement is
quantification.

[andy]

> Question.. do you routinely blindfold yourself when listening?

I fail to see the relevance of the question but when listening to music
on my own I usually close my eyes which has pretty much the same
effect.

> Even sceptics acknowledge that they perceive audible
> differences between components they claim are sonically
> indistinguishable. If this were NOT true, what would be the
> point in DBT?

I think you may be lacking a degree of perspective here. A DBT (Double
Blind Test?) would presumably be a means of ensuring the elimination of
bias due to seeing which components are connected. Seeking to eliminate
all identifiable sources of bias in a test is only sensible if one
wants the results to stand up. However, it does not follow that
experienced people normally fool themselves just that they can be
fooled under some circumstances. For example, I strongly suspect that
most experienced reviewers of audio silliness do not fool themselves.

> So if somebody feels a benefit from Mpingo Disks... who
> cares.

I suspect most people with audio as a hobby care about the consequences
of this sort of dishonesty. In the early 70s audio silliness like
Mpingo Disks was a bit of entertainment because the mainstream audio
industry and press did not support it. Instead they concentrated on
improving the quality of audio components. Since the late 70s the
adoption of audio silliness by the mainstream manufacturers and press
has resulted in the current state.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
>>> ability to make rational judgements to such a degree
>>> that you require proof. ]
>
>> So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want
>> proof of anything?
>
>
> How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any
> proof that it exists?

Pretty irrational.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> John Atkinson said:
>
>> > >Things have gone downhill so far at Stereophile, that mere
>> > >mention of level matching, time synch and bias controls on
>> > >almost all of Stereophile's forums comes with a promise of
>> > >severe sanctions.
>
>> > Really? If I were the one laying the "sanctions", my first
>> > choice would be to banish a reviewer to Michigan for a week
>> > of audio torture.
>
>> Arny is not being totally forthcoming with the truth, George.
>> There are no "sanctions" on the forums at www.stereophile.com.
>> Instead, we decided to implement the same rule that r.a.h-e
>> applies wrt blind testing comments: that they be restricted to
>> threads that are specifically _about_ blind testing. In other
>> threads, posters are free to make comments about sound quality
>> without being subjected to demands for "proof" and questions
>> along the lines of "how many blind tests have you performed to
>> be so sure of what you say?"
>
> That's a reasonable policy, but this is Arnii Krooborg, not a reasonable
> person. I believe that for Turdborg, your policy amounts to religious
> discrimination. <G>
>


Like removing "under ABX" from the Borg pledge of allegeiance.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>
> Who is Arnii Krooborg?
>


the Big **** from Michigan.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Really Len, when is the last time that this kind of double-talk work on a
> mentally competent adult? Or even an older teenager?
>

the last time it worked was the last time you had
one down in your basment.

>
>> Perhaps everything about the listening experience
>> matters?
>
> Perhaps an occasional individual doesn't think that looks are all that
> matters?
>

Evidently, your wife feels that way.

>
> My life was never the same after I fell in love with an experimental
> psychologist.

Really? Do you like your Skinner box?

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any
>> proof that it exists?
>
> Pretty irrational.

If I beleived in irony, without any proof that it exists!
>
>

[[email protected]]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> " > wrote in message
> link.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> " > wrote in message
>>> link.net...
>>>>
>>>> "George Middius" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> duh-Mikey falls down and goes splat.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that you have spent good money to subscribe to a magazine
>>>>>>> that you detest is the classic case of stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I didn't, my wife did without my knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that tell you, Mickey?
>>>>>
>>>> That I know more about audio magazines than she does.
>>>> She knew only that it was about audio and figured I would enjoy it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> perhaps this mag is more to your liking.
>>>
>>> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/04/eatingbugs.html
>> Still George's bitch I see.
>>
>
> I see you're still Arny's ass wipe.

Thanks for the admission.

[Len Moskowitz]

Arny Krueger > wrote:

>I don't think so. the key words are "listener's state of
>mind". In truth, the listener's state of mind" is
>unknowable. Subjective opinions are always unknowable. What
>we get in audio subjective opinion columns is what the
>writer wants us to believe about his state of mind.
>
>Most people read them to find out about the state of
>equipment, not the state of some journalist's mind. The
>state of the writer's mind usually has a liberal dose of
>intellectual noise.

There's where we differ. When you read a column you seem to expect to
read objective statements of "truth" about a product. When I read a
columnist's musings, I take them as opinions based on the current state
of their mind, pieces written to draw and keep the readers' interest and
to earn a paycheck; they're not intended to be objective statements
about a product's performance. I suspect that many readers do the same.
After all, they're not technical reviews -- they're opinion pieces.

Anyone who's read them consistently knows that they change their minds
every few issues (or sooner). One month it's the Italians who make the
finest speakers and the next it's the English. One month this turntable
sounds heavenly, and next month it's another. One month budget systems
are the big thing and the next, systems with beyond-reach-for-all-but-
Croesus price tages.

New opinions are their stock in trade. After all, it wouldn't be very
interesting if every month they told us about the same old products that
they've loved for the last two years. Something new has to be the
"latest thing".

>> If there ever was a rationale for ignoring subjective
>> opinion columns about components, he's stated that quite
>> well here too.
>
>Exactly.
>
>That Len didn't get that tells me a little something about
>his ummm, state of mind. ;-)

:^)

I got it, but don't feel it applies to opinion columns. I wonder why
you do?

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[George M. Middius]

Len Moskowitz said to ****-for-Brains:

> I got it, but don't feel it applies to opinion columns. I wonder why
> you do?

Allow me to elucidate. The Krooborg is deathly afraid of human-style
feelings. They interfere with his Borgtronic™ programming.

To illustrate how deeply twisted the Beast's CPU is, try using figures of
speech on him. The results will be at once enlightening and horrifying.

[[email protected]]

Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
sceptic Barry Willis
(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?

How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
info you would care to pass along?

TIA!

[[email protected]]

Len Moskowitz wrote:
> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
> >http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index2.html
>
> This was published back in 1994, written by Jonathan Scull.
>
> I don't have a problem with a writer talking about how something that
> seems patently irrational to many of us affects their perception of
> music played back over their audio systems.
>
> The whole article is clearly subjective. I can't argue with what people
> say that they perceive.
>
>
> I don't see a single measurement there, and nothing that I would call
> misleading.
>
> Personally, I don't believe that the Mpingo disks do anything at all,
> but I don't have any problems with folks who don't agree with me. If
> they want to spend their money, God bless 'em.
>

You don't believe that Mpingo disks do anything at all? So we agree
that whatever effect they do have is psychological in nature, then?

Doesn't this then come down to a couple of con artists scamming the
public into buying expensive wooden discs which, in point of fact, _do
nothing_? And aren't they being aided and abbeted in this scam by the
likes of Jonatahn Scull, John Atkinson et al (whose quid pro quo in the
scam is advertising revenue for Atkinson and a paycheck for Scull)?

[[email protected]]

George Middius wrote:
> Fun, fun, fun!
>
> >Nonsense. Unless the person claims being able to see Mpingo Disks
> >(whatever they are) is a requirement then simply blindfolding the
> >subject while adding or subtracting the disks will determine the truth
> >of what is perceived or not.
>
> This is what the audio hobby is all about. You're an inspiration.


What is the hobby all about to you? Do you enjoy being misinformed, if
not willfully deceived, by a group of
deluded/imcompetent/cynical/corrupt (choose all that apply) clowns
working under the direction of a greedy prick? Is that your idea of fun?

[George M. Middius]

joey willywhacker said:

> > >blindfolding

> > This is what the audio hobby is all about. You're an inspiration.

> What is the hobby all about to you? Do you enjoy being misinformed, if
> not willfully deceived, by a group of
> deluded/imcompetent/cynical/corrupt (choose all that apply) clowns
> working under the direction of a greedy prick? Is that your idea of fun?

I'd chuck all that if I could have you tied up in a chair and showered
with Arnii Krooger's used bank checks. Deal?

>
> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your knowledge
> that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing frauds," Mr. Welch,
> I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis from 2 reviewers, one
> of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a subjectivist, the
> other of whom, Barry Willis, is an avowed skeptic. Imagine my
> surprise, therefore, when _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found
> that the Shakti devices had a positive audible effect on the
> sounds of their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch?
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

Can I assume that these Shakti devices were purchased by Scull and Willis,
and they are currently installed in their systems?

Norm Strong

[Mr.T]

> wrote in message
...
> Can I assume that these Shakti devices were purchased by Scull and Willis,
> and they are currently installed in their systems?

Watch out for those flying pigs :-)

MrT.

[Arny Krueger]

"Len Moskowitz" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
>> I don't think so. the key words are "listener's state of
>> mind". In truth, the listener's state of mind" is
>> unknowable. Subjective opinions are always unknowable.
>> What we get in audio subjective opinion columns is what
>> the writer wants us to believe about his state of mind.
>>
>> Most people read them to find out about the state of
>> equipment, not the state of some journalist's mind. The
>> state of the writer's mind usually has a liberal dose of
>> intellectual noise.
>
> There's where we differ. When you read a column you seem
> to expect to read objective statements of "truth" about a
> product.

Not entirely. I expect to read a mixture of facts and
opinion. OTOH, I expect that the columnist is writing
competently. I would hope that he's qualified to make
reliable relevant observations about what he's writing about
in a factual way.

> When I read a columnist's musings, I take them
> as opinions based on the current state of their mind,
> pieces written to draw and keep the readers' interest and
> to earn a paycheck; they're not intended to be objective
> statements about a product's performance. I suspect that
> many readers do the same. After all, they're not
> technical reviews -- they're opinion pieces.

I'm buying a piece of gear, not a piece of some columnist's
mind.

> Anyone who's read them consistently knows that they
> change their minds every few issues (or sooner). One
> month it's the Italians who make the finest speakers and
> the next it's the English. One month this turntable
> sounds heavenly, and next month it's another. One month
> budget systems are the big thing and the next, systems
> with beyond-reach-for-all-but- Croesus price tages.

IOW, they are sources of intellectual noise.

> New opinions are their stock in trade. After all, it
> wouldn't be very interesting if every month they told us
> about the same old products that they've loved for the
> last two years. Something new has to be the "latest
> thing".

They appeal to the audio voyeur market. I've got work to do.

>>> If there ever was a rationale for ignoring subjective
>>> opinion columns about components, he's stated that quite
>>> well here too.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> That Len didn't get that tells me a little something
>> about his ummm, state of mind. ;-)

> :^)

> I got it, but don't feel it applies to opinion columns.

I guess you're willing to give columnists a pass to
figuratively spew all over their readers.

> I wonder why you do?

I think that people should be responsible for their acts.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message

>> Putting to one side precisely _how_ you came by your
>> knowledge that the Shakti Stones are "do-nothing
>> frauds," Mr. Welch, I commissioned reviews of the Shaktis
>> from 2 reviewers,
>> one of whom. Mr. Scull, is by hs own admission a
>> subjectivist, the other of whom, Barry Willis, is an
>> avowed skeptic. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when
>> _both_ subjectivist and skeptic found that the Shakti
>> devices had a positive audible effect on the sounds of
>> their systems. Could it possibly be that Scull and
>> Willis are right and you are wrong, Mr. Welch? John
>> Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>
> Can I assume that these Shakti devices were purchased by
> Scull and Willis, and they are currently installed in
> their systems?

LOL!

[Len Moskowitz]

> wrote:

>You don't believe that Mpingo disks do anything at all? So we agree
>that whatever effect they do have is psychological in nature, then?

All perception is psychological. What test & measurement instruments
measure isn't, but everything that we hear and see and feel is.

>Doesn't this then come down to a couple of con artists scamming the
>public into buying expensive wooden discs which, in point of fact, _do
>nothing_? And aren't they being aided and abbeted in this scam by the
>likes of Jonatahn Scull, John Atkinson et al (whose quid pro quo in the
>scam is advertising revenue for Atkinson and a paycheck for Scull)?

There's an interesting book that was recently released called "Blink" by
Malcolm Gladwell. It's a very enjoyable read. It draws on some of the
key scientific and social research of the last few decades -- you might
enjoy it and perhaps also learn something from it.

It's about how and what we think and perceive, and how the two are not
necessarily connected (or often even related).

If you feel that the advertising people and marketing people who study
about what drives our perceptions, preferences and desires, and then
apply that knowledge to product design, package design and advertising
are "con artists scamming the public", then it's likely that you won't
appreciate it.

If you feel that every decision should be a logical one based on correct
information and reasoned evaluation, you'll be quite aghast.

But if you feel that there might be something to learn about our
unconscious and subconscious minds, and about how much of how we
perceive and interact with the world is not within the reach of our
conscious minds, you might find it interesting.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[Len Moskowitz]

> wrote:

> ...And aren't they being aided and abbeted in this scam by the
>likes of Jonatahn Scull, John Atkinson et al (whose quid pro quo in the
>scam is advertising revenue for Atkinson and a paycheck for Scull)?

I don't why you call a very entertaining and informative magazine a
"scam". Perhaps you're only referring to the Mpingo-type columns?

For me, Stereophile is great fun. It has enough solid technical
information (in the form of the tech parts of the reviews) and recording
reviews from a few folks whose opinions I trust, along with recent
industry news, to make it something I look forward to receiving each
month.

Of the columnists, my opinion is that some are wonderful, some are less
wonderful and a scant few are full of baloney. I enjoy reading pretty
much all of their columns, even the ones that are full of baloney. They
can be pretty funny!

Taken as a whole, the magazine is good (and low cost) entertainment,
well worth the few hours I spend enjoying it each month.

--
Len Moskowitz PDAudio, Binaural Mics, Cables, DPA, M-Audio
Core Sound http://www.stealthmicrophones.com
Teaneck, New Jersey USA http://www.core-sound.com
Tel: 201-801-0812, FAX: 201-801-0912

[George M. Middius]

Len Moskowitz said to joey willywhacker:

> > ...And aren't they being aided and abbeted in this scam by the
> >likes of Jonatahn Scull, John Atkinson et al (whose quid pro quo in the
> >scam is advertising revenue for Atkinson and a paycheck for Scull)?

> I don't why you call a very entertaining and informative magazine a
> "scam".

willywhacker uses "scam" in the 'borg sense of the word. It's code for
"anything a grubby, impoverished, low-class 'borg can't afford". The term
has nothing to do with reason or balance and everything to do with class
envy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Len Moskowitz" > wrote in message


> If you feel that the advertising people and marketing
> people who study about what drives our perceptions,
> preferences and desires, and then apply that knowledge to
> product design, package design and advertising are "con
> artists scamming the public", then it's likely that you
> won't appreciate it.

Excluded middle argument #1

> If you feel that every decision should be a logical one
> based on correct information and reasoned evaluation,
> you'll be quite aghast.

Excluded middle argument #2

> But if you feel that there might be something to learn
> about our unconscious and subconscious minds, and about
> how much of how we perceive and interact with the world
> is not within the reach of our conscious minds, you might
> find it interesting.

Finally, a little sanity break from all the posturing! ;_)

[Clyde Slick]

"andy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Question.. do you routinely blindfold yourself when listening?
>
> I fail to see the relevance of the question but when listening to music
> on my own I usually close my eyes which has pretty much the same
> effect.
>

I wear earplugs when I visit the art museum.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> I think that people should be responsible for their acts.


I guess that includes you falsley accusing at least a
dozen people of sending you kiddie porn.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > I usually close my eyes which has pretty much the same effect.

> I wear earplugs when I visit the art museum.

Krooger puts on his chastity belt when he has a "training" session.

[[email protected]]

"Len Moskowitz" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
>
>> ...And aren't they being aided and abbeted in this scam by the
>>likes of Jonatahn Scull, John Atkinson et al (whose quid pro quo in the
>>scam is advertising revenue for Atkinson and a paycheck for Scull)?
>
> I don't why you call a very entertaining and informative magazine a
> "scam". Perhaps you're only referring to the Mpingo-type columns?
>

Probably because they constantly mislead people, or try to. How else do you
explain CD Stoplight from finding its way onto the recomended components
list?

> For me, Stereophile is great fun. It has enough solid technical
> information (in the form of the tech parts of the reviews) and recording
> reviews from a few folks whose opinions I trust, along with recent
> industry news, to make it something I look forward to receiving each
> month.
>
Nobody said it was entirely worthless.

> Of the columnists, my opinion is that some are wonderful, some are less
> wonderful and a scant few are full of baloney. I enjoy reading pretty
> much all of their columns, even the ones that are full of baloney. They
> can be pretty funny!
>
It's not nice to ock the afflicted.

> Taken as a whole, the magazine is good (and low cost) entertainment,
> well worth the few hours I spend enjoying it each month.
>
It's just not a good place to get the most factual information about audio.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Len Moskowitz said to joey willywhacker:
>
>> > ...And aren't they being aided and abbeted in this scam by the
>> >likes of Jonatahn Scull, John Atkinson et al (whose quid pro quo in the
>> >scam is advertising revenue for Atkinson and a paycheck for Scull)?
>
>> I don't why you call a very entertaining and informative magazine a
>> "scam".
>
> willywhacker uses "scam" in the 'borg sense of the word. It's code for
> "anything a grubby, impoverished, low-class 'borg can't afford". The term
> has nothing to do with reason or balance and everything to do with class
> envy.
>
>
Wrong again needle dick. It's about things that actually work vs. those
that are snake oil. Nobody begrudges people spoending whatever they want on
the gear they want. People have a right to know about what their money
actually buys.

I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers,
because they are the most important part of any system.

[Chevdo]

In article . com>,
says...
>
>Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
>subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
>sceptic Barry Willis
>(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
>Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
>marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?
>
>How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
>insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
>info you would care to pass along?
>
>TIA!
>

Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest people
are.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 22:28:30 GMT, "
> wrote:

>I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers,
>because they are the most important part of any system.

Said the defunct speaker "manufacturer".

[dave weil]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:45:56 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

>In article . com>,
says...
>>
>>Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
>>subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
>>sceptic Barry Willis
>>(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
>>Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
>>marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?
>>
>>How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
>>insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
>>info you would care to pass along?
>>
>>TIA!
>>
>
>Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest people
>are.

Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.

So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
>> as most dishonest people are.

> Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
> So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic, not
idiotic.

In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have any kind of
intelligent discussion about anything with him. His points of view are
fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any other point of view.

Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance. It could also be the
fear (no doubt unconscious) that his ignorance will be "caught out" in a
serious discussion. (I was told by someone in the audio industry that his
claim to have a degree is physics is a lie. I can't confirm or deny this. Of
course, one need not have a degree in any particular subject to have a
useful understanding of it.)

But I can't read John's mind, I can only judge his behavior. And it's not
what you would expect from a thoughtful, well-educated, intellectually
curious person. I can have insightful conversations with most of my friends
and acquaintances, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me on
any particular topic, social, political, or audiophilic. This is impossible
with John. Like Wallace Shawn's tyrannosaur, he simply avoids
confrontations.

I've never met anyone as intelligent as John Atkinson who uses his intellect
so poorly. * When he became Stereophile's editor, I looked forward to
learning a lot from him, as he had considerably more experience in many
areas than I did. I quickly discovered there was no way to learn anything
from John, unless you accepted what he already believed.

By the way... During the last Stereophile Writer's Conference I attended,
the question came up of why the Apogee Divas, which had gotten rave reviews
from Arnis Balgalvis, and which most of the rest of us thought very highly
of, had never appeared in Recommended Components. His reply? "I don't like
them."

Jesus H. Christ.

* The author has utterly wasted his life and talents, but that isn't quite
the same thing.

[John Atkinson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >> Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
> >> as most dishonest people are.
>
> > Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
> > So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.
>
> Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic,
> not idiotic.

Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
"sarcastic," I have already addressed the topic at length on r.a.o.
I fail to see why I have to repeat myself because someone is too
lazy to use the Google search engine.

> In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have
> any kind of intelligent discussion about anything with him. His
> points of view are fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any
> other point of view.
>
> Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance.

I guess you are never going to forgive me for firing you as a
Stereophile reviewer, are you Bill?

> It could also be the fear (no doubt unconscious) that his
> ignorance will be "caught out" in a serious discussion. (I was
> told by someone in the audio industry that his claim to have a
> degree is physics is a lie. I can't confirm or deny this.

B.Sc, 2nd-class honors (lower division) in chemistry and physics,
University of London, 1972. Post-graduate qualification in the
teaching of science with Merit (one rung below the highest grade),
University of London, 1974.

> During the last Stereophile Writer's Conference I attended, the
> question came up of why the Apogee Divas, which had gotten rave
> reviews from Arnis Balgalvis, and which most of the rest of us
> thought very highly of, had never appeared in Recommended
> Components. His reply? "I don't like them."

That would be a damning indictment if it were true, Bill. Except
that it's _not_ true. Following its review in August 1988 by Arnie,
the Diva _was_ featured in "Recommended Components." See, for example,
the April 1989 issue of Stereophile, Vol.12 No.4, p.99, where it
heads the list of Class A loudspeakers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[William Sommerwerck]

>> In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have
>> any kind of intelligent discussion about anything with him. His
>> points of view are fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any
>> other point of view.

> > Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance.

> I guess you are never going to forgive me for firing you as a
> Stereophile reviewer, are you Bill?

Liar, liar, liar.

I quit, for a number of reasons. (My disappointment with JA as editor was
one of them, but not the most-significant.) Then, after the fracas over
reviewing ethics, * you removed me from the Contributing Editors list (where
I would otherwise have remained indefinitely, even after I stopped
contributing). You did not fire me (unless you consider the removal a
"firing"), however much you would like to think you did.

You still refuse to address the issue of why you refuse to have serious
conversations with people.

* In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule
that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and
which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is
interested.


>> During the last Stereophile Writer's Conference I attended, the
>> question came up of why the Apogee Divas, which had gotten rave
>> reviews from Arnis Balgalvis, and which most of the rest of us
>> thought very highly of, had never appeared in Recommended
>> Components. His reply? "I don't like them."

> That would be a damning indictment if it were true, Bill. Except
> that it's _not_ true. Following its review in August 1988 by Arnie,
> the Diva _was_ featured in "Recommended Components." See,
> for example, the April 1989 issue of Stereophile, Vol.12 No.4, p.99,
> where it heads the list of Class A loudspeakers.

Then why I do remember it so well? (Yes, yes, yes...) Any other Stereophile
reviewers out there who were at the meeting?

By the way, an audio tape was made of the meeting. Does it still exist?

[dave weil]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:30:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have
>>> any kind of intelligent discussion about anything with him. His
>>> points of view are fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any
>>> other point of view.
>
>> > Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance.
>
>> I guess you are never going to forgive me for firing you as a
>> Stereophile reviewer, are you Bill?
>
>Liar, liar, liar.
>
>I quit, for a number of reasons. (My disappointment with JA as editor was
>one of them, but not the most-significant.) Then, after the fracas over
>reviewing ethics, * you removed me from the Contributing Editors list (where
>I would otherwise have remained indefinitely, even after I stopped
>contributing). You did not fire me (unless you consider the removal a
>"firing"), however much you would like to think you did.

Sounds like a firing to me. Because, if you had "quit", wouldn't you
have demanded that your name be removed at that time?

>You still refuse to address the issue of why you refuse to have serious
>conversations with people.

Hmmm, sounds like there are a bunch of issues that you have with the
man. Nothing wrong with holding a grudge I guess, but thiis is a weak
sort of indictment, since it *sounds* like a factual charge, but
really, when you look closely, it's just somebody who doesn't like
somebody else saying something pretty subjective about that somebody.

>* In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule
>that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and
>which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is
>interested.

I, for one, am not.

>>> During the last Stereophile Writer's Conference I attended, the
>>> question came up of why the Apogee Divas, which had gotten rave
>>> reviews from Arnis Balgalvis, and which most of the rest of us
>>> thought very highly of, had never appeared in Recommended
>>> Components. His reply? "I don't like them."
>
>> That would be a damning indictment if it were true, Bill. Except
>> that it's _not_ true. Following its review in August 1988 by Arnie,
>> the Diva _was_ featured in "Recommended Components." See,
>> for example, the April 1989 issue of Stereophile, Vol.12 No.4, p.99,
>> where it heads the list of Class A loudspeakers.
>
>Then why I do remember it so well? (Yes, yes, yes...) Any other Stereophile
>reviewers out there who were at the meeting?

It's not true BECAUSE the speakers actually made the list. I can see
someone making a sarcastic comment like that though - and someone who
already had a axe to grind taking it as a literal statement though.

>By the way, an audio tape was made of the meeting. Does it still exist?

Who cares? The speaker was promptly put on the list, so the behavior
that you claim was either a joke *or* irrelevant.

[Chevdo]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:45:56 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:
>
>>In article . com>,
says...
>>>
>>>Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
>>>subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
>>>sceptic Barry Willis
>>>(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
>>>Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
>>>marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?
>>>
>>>How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
>>>insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
>>>info you would care to pass along?
>>>
>>>TIA!
>>>
>>
>>Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest
people
>>are.
>
>Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
>
>So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine.

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 7:53 AM, in article , "William
Sommerwerck" > wrote:

>>> Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
>>> as most dishonest people are.
>
>> Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
>> So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.
>
> Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic, not
> idiotic.

Bill, I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you please do
The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the crosspost on this
newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off
except your fav... thanks

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 9:03 AM, in article
om, "John Atkinson"
> wrote:


> Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
> "sarcastic,"

John, sarcastic, idiotic, whatever, it's a waste of time outside of it's
singular NG home and I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so
could you please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the
crosspost on this
newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off
except your fav... Thanks

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article ,
"dave weil" > wrote:

> Who cares?

Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
and just drop the crosspost on this
newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off
except your fav... thanks

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 11:27 AM, in article ZBWWe.255002$tt5.90321@edtnps90, "Chevdo"
> wrote:

> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff

Chevdo, fraudulent and idiotic pretty much fit this sort of crosspost
nonsense... I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you
please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the crosspost
on this newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so
that remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and
let it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off
except your fav... Thanks

" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers,
> because they are the most important part of any system.

The implication here is that spending more on speakers will make your system
sound better. "As much as they can afford" suggests that there is no
practical limit to the improvement you can make in this fashion; that the
sound quality of your system ultimately depends on how much money you spend
on your speakers.

I don't believe either of these things. I've not noticed any correlation
between the price of speakers and their sound quality.

Norm Strong

[George M. Middius]

Chevdo said:

> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine.

Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad!

[dave weil]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:27:53 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:

>>Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
>>
>>So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.
>
>Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine.

And apparently all you do is sit in your easy chair and bitch and moan
in a fairly idiotic fashion. He looks better and better by comparison
with every one of your posts.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:01:58 GMT, SSJVCmag >
wrote:

>On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article ,
>"dave weil" > wrote:
>
>> Who cares?
>
>Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
>sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
>and just drop the crosspost on this
>newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
>it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off
>except your fav... thanks

Maybe when you take your own advice...

[George M. Middius]

Uncle Troll said:

> > I always urge people to spend as much as they can afford on speakers,
> > because they are the most important part of any system.

> The implication here is that spending more on speakers will make your system
> sound better.

No, Normy, it's not. In this case duh-Mikey is absolutely right (although
he'd be hard-pressed to explain the real point).

For most people, the speakers (and the room) ARE the system. The
electronics are just slaves to the speakers. The best electronics are the
ones that bring out the best performance the speakers are capable of, not
the ones that have the best measurements.

Another way to understand this simple point is that great speakers with
poor electronics might sound only pretty good, but great electronics with
poor speakers will most likely sound dreadful. I know you never hear any
differences among amps, preamps, or source players, but even you must be
able to hear some differences among loudspeakers.

[Denis Sbragion]

Hello Eddie,

EddieM wrote:

> You seems to be saying then that when the differences among the components
> you wish to upgrade are subtle, then the dbt may not be a viable test to use
> in detecting differences between those units. I thought all along that dbt is
> use to detect subtle sound differences.

sorry if I gave that impression, may be my English isn't good enough,
but this isn't what I meant. I think that DBTs are the only reliable
way to verify audio differences, and among DBTs I think that the ABX
DBT is the most sensitive audio test available.

In the past on this NG, and on many other forums, some doubt have been
arised about the sensitivity of DBTs. I think that most concerns don't
hold considering the available evidence, but even supposing that those
concerns are true DBT results still teach something useful. There are
components that so far no one has been able to prove as audibily
different under DBT conditions, and there are
other components, notably speakers, that are quite easy to prove as
audibly different under the same exact conditions.

Considering that the same exact components that are so easy on the DBTs
are also really different under the most common measurement conditions,
I'm quite confident that those are the components introducing the
biggest inaccuracies in the reproduction chain. So IMHO to improve the
reproduction accuracy most of the efforts should be placed first on
those components, 'cause those components are the best candidate to
provide the biggest improvement. In other words, why should I bother
about cables, whoose effect is at least questionable, when there are
the microphones, the speakers, and the room that introduce such evident
and unquestioned inaccuracies in the reproduction chain?

> With regards to your confidence about DBT above, what do you think, in your
> opinion, does the "test" or the "proctor" or the "methodology" ...etc. do in
> proving beyond doubt (to you) that the components involve, indeed, sound
> alike 'cause, as it show, each time test comparisons were made, they sound
> the same.

AFAIK some positive results have beed reported also on this NG (Was it
RAHE instead? Sorry, I don't remember.) BTW, I really don't care.
Speakers DBTs are most of the times so easy that usually they aren't
even performed at all. At least building some loudspeakers capable of
passing a DBT test with a negative result is something that scares
almost any competent speaker designer, and I really don't know if it is
possible at all. The effects of the room usually are even bigger than
those of the speakers, and I know of no people that is questioning
this.

So I will start worrying about the supposed side effects of DBTs,
provided that there really are side effects, and also about the best
way of doing DBT, when designing a speaker capable of passing a DBT
with a negative result will be as easy as building some cable capable
of passing a DBT results, and the room effects will be reduced to a
comparable magnitude. I suspect this isn't going to happen anytime
soon.

Bye,

Denis Sbragion

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 12:53 PM, in article ,
"dave weil" > wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:01:58 GMT, SSJVCmag >
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article ,
>> "dave weil" > wrote:
>>
>>> Who cares?
>>
>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
>> and just drop the crosspost on this
>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off
>> except your fav... thanks
>
> Maybe when you take your own advice...

Ahhh Dave, so smart, so hip, so... Well, It takes a tough man to actually
ADD crossposts when politely asked to cut 'em down. You really rock, dude...
Just can't tell ya how much. Get yourself a life and maybe you can get past
this stuff in your head. Farting in elevators wasn't even funny for most of
us WHEN we were 10, we hardly KEPT it as a Personality Choice, but try...
Really, keep trying, you CAN get past this.
Just don't give up. We're pullin' for ya.

My own advice was that we can all help cut down on this crosspost
dunderheadedness but It'd be ALMOST as rude as the original prank to just
wipe em all off, not knowing which NG actually might WANT this thread, so
asking all to just speak up and/or remove their own does it quick, polite
and considerately. For folks like you that's not really Job One so I guess
the rest of you, just look to this poor guy as a reverse role model. There's
a lesson to be learned from everyone.

Thanks.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 18:17:11 GMT, SSJVCmag >
wrote:

>On 9/17/05 12:53 PM, in article ,
>"dave weil" > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:01:58 GMT, SSJVCmag >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article ,
>>> "dave weil" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
>>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
>>> and just drop the crosspost on this
>>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
>>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses off
>>> except your fav... thanks
>>
>> Maybe when you take your own advice...
>
>Ahhh Dave, so smart, so hip, so... Well, It takes a tough man to actually
>ADD crossposts when politely asked to cut 'em down.

I didn't ADD any crossposts, I just continued YOURS.

>You really rock, dude...

But not as much as you, it seems.

>Just can't tell ya how much. Get yourself a life and maybe you can get past
>this stuff in your head.

Hey, it's YOU who seems to have something stuck in his head - so much
that you flood newsgroups with your holier-than-thou posts. I just
hope that it isn't a ticking time bomb.

>Farting in elevators wasn't even funny for most of
>us WHEN we were 10, we hardly KEPT it as a Personality Choice, but try...
>Really, keep trying, you CAN get past this.
>Just don't give up. We're pullin' for ya.
>
>My own advice was that we can all help cut down on this crosspost
>dunderheadedness but It'd be ALMOST as rude as the original prank to just
>wipe em all off, not knowing which NG actually might WANT this thread, so
>asking all to just speak up and/or remove their own does it quick, polite
>and considerately. For folks like you that's not really Job One

Certainly "Job One" for me isn't eliminating crossposts, that's for
sure. Why it is for you is a personal issue for you, but until you
take your own advice, you're no better than the orginating poster.

> so I guess
>the rest of you, just look to this poor guy as a reverse role model. There's
>a lesson to be learned from everyone.

Except that you yourself are flooding 3 newsgroups with your snide
posts. It's just as annoying to OTHERS to see your multiple no-content
posts clogging up newsgroups several times a day.

Just ask yourself this - how much support have you gotten for your
windmill-tilting? Zero.

And now, I'll bid you adieu and hope that your demons don't consume
you.

[Sander deWaal]

SSJVCmag > said:

<snip>

Dude, you're only making things worse.
No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.

PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.

As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"

Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Chevdo]

In article >,
says...
>
>On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:27:53 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:
>
>>>Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
>>>
>>>So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.
>>
>>Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his
magazine.
>
>And apparently all you do is sit in your easy chair and bitch and moan
>in a fairly idiotic fashion. He looks better and better by comparison
>with every one of your posts.

hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important to Atkinson, why doesn't
he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for demonstrating the shakti stones?
Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and ridiculing a fool, and
apparently also his lickspittle side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.

[Chevdo]

In article >,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...
>
>
>
>Chevdo said:
>
>> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his
magazine.
>
>Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad!
>
>

You wish. It makes me laugh at losers like you who obviously still buy the
rag. You probably even have a subscription because being a 'stereophile' is
part of your 'interesting personality'.

[George M. Middius]

Chevdoborg whined:

> >> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his magazine.

> >Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad!

> You wish.

I know.

> It makes me laugh

You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the
purple color of your pimply face.

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 3:12 PM, in article ,
"Sander deWaal" > wrote:

> SSJVCmag > said:
>
> <snip>
>
> Dude, you're only making things worse.
> No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
> No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
> deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.
>
> PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
> to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
> you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.
>
> As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"
>
> Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.

Refreshing is the thought: what's so hard about the folks that ORIGINATED
the crosspost mess FIXING it?
A simple polite request fosters THIS sort of crap... Says much.
Get over it kids. The chip on the little shoulder there just hasn;t been
trendy since like you were 6...

Just fix the crossposts (BTW, just to help you keep it straight, that means
REMOVE some, not ADD some), a polution as you like to call it that came from
somewhere out your way in the first place, and things are peachy! Dump your
vitriol on the wizard that STARTED this, not me...
It's really -Not- rocket science kids!

And because I KNOW you're totally hung up on it: here it is:
Your turn for the last word...

And thanks, as always!

[surf]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote..

> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
> and just drop the crosspost on this
> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> off
> except your fav... thanks


ooops.... SSjcv - you forgot to remove your group!

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 6:49 PM, in article , "surf"
> wrote:

> "SSJVCmag" > wrote..
>
>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
>> and just drop the crosspost on this
>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
>> off
>> except your fav... thanks
>
>
> ooops.... SSjcv - you forgot to remove your group!

Thanks!
You guys are GREAT!

[Clyde Slick]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/17/05 9:03 AM, in article
> om, "John Atkinson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
>> "sarcastic,"
>
> John, sarcastic, idiotic, whatever, it's a waste of time outside of it's
> singular NG home and I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so
> could you please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop
> the
> crosspost on this
> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> off
> except your fav... Thanks
>

Stop crossposting yourself, asshole

[Clyde Slick]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article
> ,
> "dave weil" > wrote:
>
>> Who cares?
>
> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
> and just drop the crosspost on this
> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> off
> except your fav... thanks
>

Stop it yourself, ASSHOLE

[Clyde Slick]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/17/05 11:27 AM, in article ZBWWe.255002$tt5.90321@edtnps90, "Chevdo"
> > wrote:
>
>> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff
>
> Chevdo, fraudulent and idiotic pretty much fit this sort of crosspost
> nonsense... I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you
> please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the
> crosspost
> on this newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess
> so
> that remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish
> and
> let it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> off
> except your fav... Thanks
>

MOMMY, MOMMY, he crossposted. BWAAAAH

[Clyde Slick]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/17/05 11:27 AM, in article ZBWWe.255002$tt5.90321@edtnps90, "Chevdo"
> > wrote:
>
>> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff
>
> Chevdo, fraudulent and idiotic pretty much fit this sort of crosspost
> nonsense... I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you
> please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the
> crosspost
> on this newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess
> so
> that remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish
> and
> let it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> off
> except your fav... Thanks
>

MOMMY, MOMMY, HE CROSSPOSTED,,bwaahhhhh!

[Clyde Slick]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/17/05 12:53 PM, in article
> ,
> "dave weil" > wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:01:58 GMT, SSJVCmag >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article
>>> ,
>>> "dave weil" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who cares?
>>>
>>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about
>>> this
>>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several
>>> others)
>>> and just drop the crosspost on this
>>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and
>>> let
>>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
>>> off
>>> except your fav... thanks
>>
>> Maybe when you take your own advice...
>
> Ahhh Dave, so smart, so hip, so... Well, It takes a tough man to actually
> ADD crossposts when politely asked to cut 'em down. You really rock,
> dude...
> Just can't tell ya how much. Get yourself a life and maybe you can get
> past
> this stuff in your head. Farting in elevators wasn't even funny for most
> of
> us WHEN we were 10, we hardly KEPT it as a Personality Choice, but try...
> Really, keep trying, you CAN get past this.
> Just don't give up. We're pullin' for ya.
>
> My own advice was that we can all help cut down on this crosspost
> dunderheadedness but It'd be ALMOST as rude as the original prank to just
> wipe em all off, not knowing which NG actually might WANT this thread, so
> asking all to just speak up and/or remove their own does it quick, polite
> and considerately. For folks like you that's not really Job One so I guess
> the rest of you, just look to this poor guy as a reverse role model.
> There's
> a lesson to be learned from everyone.
>
> Thanks.
>

When will YOU learn the lesson.
You can't get us to stop crossposting
when you yourself are crossposting.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT

[Clyde Slick]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/17/05 3:12 PM, in article ,
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote:
>
>> SSJVCmag > said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Dude, you're only making things worse.
>> No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
>> No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
>> deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.
>>
>> PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
>> to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
>> you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.
>>
>> As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"
>>
>> Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.
>
> Refreshing is the thought: what's so hard about the folks that ORIGINATED
> the crosspost mess FIXING it?
> A simple polite request fosters THIS sort of crap... Says much.
> Get over it kids. The chip on the little shoulder there just hasn;t been
> trendy since like you were 6...
>
> Just fix the crossposts (BTW, just to help you keep it straight, that
> means
> REMOVE some, not ADD some), a polution as you like to call it that came
> from
> somewhere out your way in the first place, and things are peachy! Dump
> your
> vitriol on the wizard that STARTED this, not me...
> It's really -Not- rocket science kids!
>
> And because I KNOW you're totally hung up on it: here it is:
> Your turn for the last word...
>
> And thanks, as always!
>

You are a stupid, ARROGANT asshole

[Clyde Slick]

"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
> On 9/17/05 6:49 PM, in article , "surf"
> > wrote:
>
>> "SSJVCmag" > wrote..
>>
>>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about
>>> this
>>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several
>>> others)
>>> and just drop the crosspost on this
>>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and
>>> let
>>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
>>> off
>>> except your fav... thanks
>>
>>
>> ooops.... SSjcv - you forgot to remove your group!
>
> Thanks!
> You guys are GREAT!
>

**** YOU, SSJVC

[SSJVCmag]

On 9/17/05 11:01 PM, in article , "Clyde
Slick" > wrote:

> Stop crossposting yourself, asshole


Ok Slick. If this is where you hang, deal with it.
If not, the folks here can handle this internally by smiling and ignoring
and thus KILLING the problem.
Polite requests to stifle someone-else's pudding-brained forced initial
crosspost are best met with simply CHECKING (to see that you're not
inadvertantly allowing them to use you as a crosspost-continuer, splattering
your single-NG interest responses all over hell and back where indeed nobody
cares) and then ERASING any further annoyance beyond your immediate NG. Most
folks get it. They look, smile, erase all the extra crosspostings and move
on. Some though, like you, -ADD- crossposts where none are. Enjoy. Just
don't be surprised down the road.
Enjoy... All the rest of you Nicer folks- sorry abut the hoseheads.

[SSJVCmag]

Separate messages crossposted at
11:00
11:01
11:02
11:03
11:06
11:09
11:10

Such effort and trouble to force words where they're not wanted.
Somebody PLEASE tell Clyde he really doesn't have to email 4 newsgroups
every 60 sec or so, it's easier to just make sure he's only sending
responses to the one newsgroup that the thread started in.
With any luck this will ease it out of existance.

The rest of you: thanks for trimming the crossposts!

[EddieM]

> Denis Sbragion wrote
>> Hello Eddie,
>
> EddieM wrote:
>
>> You seems to be saying then that when the differences among the components
>> you wish to upgrade are subtle, then the dbt may not be a viable test to
>> use
>> in detecting differences between those units. I thought all along that dbt
>> is
>> use to detect subtle sound differences.
>
> sorry if I gave that impression, may be my English isn't good enough,
> but this isn't what I meant. I think that DBTs are the only reliable
> way to verify audio differences, and among DBTs I think that the ABX
> DBT is the most sensitive audio test available.
>
> In the past on this NG, and on many other forums, some doubt have been
> arised about the sensitivity of DBTs. I think that most concerns don't
> hold considering the available evidence, but even supposing that those
> concerns are true DBT results still teach something useful. There are
> components that so far no one has been able to prove as audibily
> different under DBT conditions, and there are
> other components, notably speakers, that are quite easy to prove as
> audibly different under the same exact conditions.
>
> Considering that the same exact components that are so easy on the DBTs
> are also really different under the most common measurement conditions,
> I'm quite confident that those are the components introducing the
> biggest inaccuracies in the reproduction chain. So IMHO to improve the
> reproduction accuracy most of the efforts should be placed first on
> those components, 'cause those components are the best candidate to
> provide the biggest improvement. In other words, why should I bother
> about cables, whoose effect is at least questionable, when there are
> the microphones, the speakers, and the room that introduce such evident
> and unquestioned inaccuracies in the reproduction chain?
>
>> With regards to your confidence about DBT above, what do you think, in your
>> opinion, does the "test" or the "proctor" or the "methodology" ...etc. do
>> in
>> proving beyond doubt (to you) that the components involve, indeed, sound
>> alike 'cause, as it show, each time test comparisons were made, they sound
>> the same.
>
> AFAIK some positive results have beed reported also on this NG (Was it
> RAHE instead? Sorry, I don't remember.) BTW, I really don't care.
> Speakers DBTs are most of the times so easy that usually they aren't
> even performed at all. At least building some loudspeakers capable of
> passing a DBT test with a negative result is something that scares
> almost any competent speaker designer, and I really don't know if it is
> possible at all. The effects of the room usually are even bigger than
> those of the speakers, and I know of no people that is questioning
> this.
>
> So I will start worrying about the supposed side effects of DBTs,
> provided that there really are side effects, and also about the best
> way of doing DBT, when designing a speaker capable of passing a DBT
> with a negative result will be as easy as building some cable capable
> of passing a DBT results, and the room effects will be reduced to a
> comparable magnitude. I suspect this isn't going to happen anytime
> soon.
>
> Bye,
>
> Denis Sbragion


Thanks Denis, thank you for your kind reply. There are obvious key issues
I find disagreeable in your statements above concerning dbt. I suppose it's
better to just leave it to that.

[EddieM]

> (Chevododo) wrote:
>
>
>
> hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important to Atkinson, why
> doesn't
> he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for demonstrating the shakti
> stones?
> Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and ridiculing a fool, and
> apparently also his lickspittle side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.



Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
pay for it, what is it to you?

How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?

[Carl Valle]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > said:
>
>
>>>>If he'd written instead that painting a car red made it
>>>>go faster than before, you wouldn't find anything wrong about
>>>>that either?
>
>
>>> But that's true.
>
>>> Ever seen a green Ferrari? :-)
>
>
>>only in my rear view mirror.
>
>
> **grin**
>
> --
>
> "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
> - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
>

No doubt you was also headed in the other direction at the time.

[Sander deWaal]

SSJVCmag > said:

>On 9/17/05 3:12 PM, in article ,
>"Sander deWaal" > wrote:
>
>> SSJVCmag > said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Dude, you're only making things worse.
>> No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
>> No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
>> deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.
>>
>> PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
>> to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
>> you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.
>>
>> As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"
>>
>> Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.
>
>Refreshing is the thought: what's so hard about the folks that ORIGINATED
>the crosspost mess FIXING it?
>A simple polite request fosters THIS sort of crap... Says much.
>Get over it kids. The chip on the little shoulder there just hasn;t been
>trendy since like you were 6...
>
>Just fix the crossposts (BTW, just to help you keep it straight, that means
>REMOVE some, not ADD some), a polution as you like to call it that came from
>somewhere out your way in the first place, and things are peachy! Dump your
>vitriol on the wizard that STARTED this, not me...
>It's really -Not- rocket science kids!
>
>And because I KNOW you're totally hung up on it: here it is:
>Your turn for the last word...
>
>And thanks, as always!

Dude, you're only making things worse.
No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.

PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.

As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"

When you stop, the crossposting will stop. Simple, really.

Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

SSJVCmag > said:

>On 9/17/05 6:49 PM, in article , "surf"
> wrote:
>
>> "SSJVCmag" > wrote..
>>
>>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
>>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
>>> and just drop the crosspost on this
>>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
>>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
>>> off
>>> except your fav... thanks
>>
>>
>> ooops.... SSjcv - you forgot to remove your group!
>
>Thanks!
>You guys are GREAT!

Dude, you're only making things worse.
No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.

PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.

As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"

When you stop, the crossposting will stop. Simple, really.

Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>
>"SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
...
>> On 9/17/05 9:03 AM, in article
>> om, "John Atkinson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
>>> "sarcastic,"
>>
>> John, sarcastic, idiotic, whatever, it's a waste of time outside of it's
>> singular NG home and I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so
>> could you please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop
>> the
>> crosspost on this
>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
>> off
>> except your fav... Thanks
>>
>
>Stop crossposting yourself, asshole
>
Dude, you're only making things worse.
No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.

PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.

As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"

When you stop, the crossposting will stop. Simple, really.

Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.


--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
> and posted to 3 other groups
>
> ...
> > On 9/17/05 7:53 AM, in article ,
> > "William
> > Sommerwerck" > wrote:
> >
> >>>> Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
> >>>> as most dishonest people are.
> >>
> >>> Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
> >>> So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.
> >>
> >> Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic, not
> >> idiotic.
> >
> > Bill, I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you please
> > do
> > The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the crosspost on this
> > newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
> > remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
> > it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> > impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> > off
> > except your fav... thanks
> >
>
> Yes, Do the right thing, you asshole moron.
> Stop YOUR crossposting to groups that have
> ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST IN YOU.

STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!!!

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article
> > ,
> > "dave weil" > wrote:
> >
> >> Who cares?
> >
> > Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about this
> > sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several others)
> > and just drop the crosspost on this
> > newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
> > remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and let
> > it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> > impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> > off
> > except your fav... thanks
> >
>

STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!!!
> Stop it yourself, ASSHOLE

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 9/17/05 11:27 AM, in article ZBWWe.255002$tt5.90321@edtnps90, "Chevdo"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff
> >
> > Chevdo, fraudulent and idiotic pretty much fit this sort of crosspost
> > nonsense... I know you have a clue about this sort of thing so could you
> > please do The Right Thing (like several others) and just drop the
> > crosspost
> > on this newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess
> > so
> > that remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish
> > and
> > let it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> > impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> > off
> > except your fav... Thanks
> >
>
> MOMMY, MOMMY, HE CROSSPOSTED,,bwaahhhhh!


STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!!

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 9/17/05 12:53 PM, in article
> > ,
> > "dave weil" > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:01:58 GMT, SSJVCmag >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/17/05 10:35 AM, in article
> >>> ,
> >>> "dave weil" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Who cares?
> >>>
> >>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about
> >>> this
> >>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several
> >>> others)
> >>> and just drop the crosspost on this
> >>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
> >>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and
> >>> let
> >>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> >>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> >>> off
> >>> except your fav... thanks
> >>
> >> Maybe when you take your own advice...
> >
> > Ahhh Dave, so smart, so hip, so... Well, It takes a tough man to actually
> > ADD crossposts when politely asked to cut 'em down. You really rock,
> > dude...
> > Just can't tell ya how much. Get yourself a life and maybe you can get
> > past
> > this stuff in your head. Farting in elevators wasn't even funny for most
> > of
> > us WHEN we were 10, we hardly KEPT it as a Personality Choice, but try...
> > Really, keep trying, you CAN get past this.
> > Just don't give up. We're pullin' for ya.
> >
> > My own advice was that we can all help cut down on this crosspost
> > dunderheadedness but It'd be ALMOST as rude as the original prank to just
> > wipe em all off, not knowing which NG actually might WANT this thread, so
> > asking all to just speak up and/or remove their own does it quick, polite
> > and considerately. For folks like you that's not really Job One so I guess
> > the rest of you, just look to this poor guy as a reverse role model.
> > There's
> > a lesson to be learned from everyone.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> When will YOU learn the lesson.
> You can't get us to stop crossposting
> when you yourself are crossposting.
> YOU ARE AN IDIOT


STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 9/17/05 3:12 PM, in article ,
> > "Sander deWaal" > wrote:
> >
> >> SSJVCmag > said:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> Dude, you're only making things worse.
> >> No one is complaining about crossposting but you.
> >> No one is sending the same message hundreds of times, while
> >> deceptively snipping the group from where he's posting but you.
> >>
> >> PS. I added your precious little NG so as to get this message through
> >> to you and your buddies, who are probably unaware of the fact that
> >> you're polluting other NGs with your stupid drivel.
> >>
> >> As some usenet icon (Lord Valve) uses to say: "No likee, no clickee!"
> >>
> >> Think about it, it's a refreshing thought.
> >
> > Refreshing is the thought: what's so hard about the folks that ORIGINATED
> > the crosspost mess FIXING it?
> > A simple polite request fosters THIS sort of crap... Says much.
> > Get over it kids. The chip on the little shoulder there just hasn;t been
> > trendy since like you were 6...
> >
> > Just fix the crossposts (BTW, just to help you keep it straight, that
> > means
> > REMOVE some, not ADD some), a polution as you like to call it that came
> > from
> > somewhere out your way in the first place, and things are peachy! Dump
> > your
> > vitriol on the wizard that STARTED this, not me...
> > It's really -Not- rocket science kids!
> >
> > And because I KNOW you're totally hung up on it: here it is:
> > Your turn for the last word...
> >
> > And thanks, as always!
> >
>
> You are a stupid, ARROGANT asshole



STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "SSJVCmag" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 9/17/05 6:49 PM, in article , "surf"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "SSJVCmag" > wrote..
> >>
> >>> Dave.. 'who cares" is truly the pojnt... I know you have a clue about
> >>> this
> >>> sort of thing so could you please do The Right Thing (like several
> >>> others)
> >>> and just drop the crosspost on this
> >>> newly-resplattered-by-elevator-fart-impressed-dork-fostered mess so that
> >>> remaining "what? Who cares?" news groups can have this crap vanish and
> >>> let
> >>> it be left only where it wants to be (RAO being my guess) but it's
> >>> impossible to tell... Everybody just trim all of the crosspost addresses
> >>> off
> >>> except your fav... thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> ooops.... SSjcv - you forgot to remove your group!
> >
> > Thanks!
> > You guys are GREAT!
> >
>
> **** YOU, SSJVC

**** YOU!!! AND **** YOUR MOTHER!!! STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

"EddieM" > wrote in message

>> (Chevododo) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important
>> to Atkinson, why doesn't
>> he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for
>> demonstrating the shakti stones?
>> Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and
>> ridiculing a fool, and apparently also his lickspittle
>> side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.
>
>
>
> Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If
> someone tried the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in
> their system and decide to pay for it, what is it to you?

It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets
are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.

If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the
word "work", then you are willing to accept *anything* as
working. IOW, you have no judgement.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had
no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference,
etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me.
His willingness to post a response, but not to hear the details of my story,
shows this. Because JA is wealthy, "successful,," and holds an important
position at an influential magazine, his point of view must necessarily be
true, and opposing points of view false or misguided.

What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the
editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told readers
what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to hear.
The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most,
but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions.

The Web page damning his editorial actions almost perfectly mirrors my
feelings about these matters. Most of my friends are intellectually honest.
John Atkinson is neither a friend nor intellectually honest.

Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight,
the sort of people Dr. Edwin H. Land described in this way: "There are many
scientists who, for all their marvelous training, are just plain dull. You
sit with them and nothing is happening. They have been stultified somehow
and the world is going by them."

One other point, and I shall let this rest, unless you insist on arguing
what is not debatable. Remeber Star Trek's "Squire of Gothos" episode? Spock
faces Trelaine and delivers one of the great lines in the history of TV: "I
object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power
without contstructive purpose."

I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to
Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose.


"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 06:30:50 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
> >>> In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have
> >>> any kind of intelligent discussion about anything with him. His
> >>> points of view are fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any
> >>> other point of view.
> >
> >> > Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance.
> >
> >> I guess you are never going to forgive me for firing you as a
> >> Stereophile reviewer, are you Bill?
> >
> >Liar, liar, liar.
> >
> >I quit, for a number of reasons. (My disappointment with JA as editor was
> >one of them, but not the most-significant.) Then, after the fracas over
> >reviewing ethics, * you removed me from the Contributing Editors list
(where
> >I would otherwise have remained indefinitely, even after I stopped
> >contributing). You did not fire me (unless you consider the removal a
> >"firing"), however much you would like to think you did.
>
> Sounds like a firing to me. Because, if you had "quit", wouldn't you
> have demanded that your name be removed at that time?
>
> >You still refuse to address the issue of why you refuse to have serious
> >conversations with people.
>
> Hmmm, sounds like there are a bunch of issues that you have with the
> man. Nothing wrong with holding a grudge I guess, but thiis is a weak
> sort of indictment, since it *sounds* like a factual charge, but
> really, when you look closely, it's just somebody who doesn't like
> somebody else saying something pretty subjective about that somebody.
>
> >* In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule
> >that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and
> >which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is
> >interested.
>
> I, for one, am not.
>
> >>> During the last Stereophile Writer's Conference I attended, the
> >>> question came up of why the Apogee Divas, which had gotten rave
> >>> reviews from Arnis Balgalvis, and which most of the rest of us
> >>> thought very highly of, had never appeared in Recommended
> >>> Components. His reply? "I don't like them."
> >
> >> That would be a damning indictment if it were true, Bill. Except
> >> that it's _not_ true. Following its review in August 1988 by Arnie,
> >> the Diva _was_ featured in "Recommended Components." See,
> >> for example, the April 1989 issue of Stereophile, Vol.12 No.4, p.99,
> >> where it heads the list of Class A loudspeakers.
> >
> >Then why I do remember it so well? (Yes, yes, yes...) Any other
Stereophile
> >reviewers out there who were at the meeting?
>
> It's not true BECAUSE the speakers actually made the list. I can see
> someone making a sarcastic comment like that though - and someone who
> already had a axe to grind taking it as a literal statement though.
>
> >By the way, an audio tape was made of the meeting. Does it still exist?
>
> Who cares? The speaker was promptly put on the list, so the behavior
> that you claim was either a joke *or* irrelevant.

[John Atkinson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline.
> I object to Stereophile's failure to use its power for any
> constructive purpose.

Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to you
holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should I?

What I object to is your spreading of falsehoods about things
I am supposed to have done and your dissemination of false rumors
about, for example, my purported lack of academic qualifications.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Sander deWaal]

"William Sommerwerck" > said:

>What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the
>editorial shift from JGH to JA. What had been a magazine that told readers
>what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to hear.
>The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most,
>but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions.


At the risk of being flamed to death (Hi, SSJVCmag!), part of why this
happened may well be the relative "perfect" state that music
reproduction reached as far back as the eighties.
(I'm still listening to my '80s Maggies and they still sound good, my
amplifier design could have been from that period as well, and it
still sounds good).

After all, when there's little to gain in the technical department,
there's little to write about.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[George M. Middius]

William Sommerdork said:

> His willingness to post a response, but not to hear the details of my story,
> shows this. Because JA is wealthy, "successful,," and holds an important
> position at an influential magazine, his point of view must necessarily be
> true, and opposing points of view false or misguided.

You are a veritable volcano of self-pity.

[George M. Middius]

William Sommerdork said:

> Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight,

The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly. In addition,
you're in love with the sound of your own voice and you seem oblivious to
the concerns of the non-elite who don't get access to the best new
products for free.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 04:27:27 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had
>no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference,
>etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me.

This is untrue. I know you about as much as I know Mr. Atkinson. What
*is* true is that I have no relations with JA. I subscribed to the
magazine for a sum total of a year back in the middle to late 90s (96
I believe). I haven't read a Stereophile in probably 5 years, nor did
I read very many of them in the early days. What is also true is that
I don't really remember any of your reviews, so I have no idea about
your audio philosophy, and it's hard

>His willingness to post a response, but not to hear the details of my story,
>shows this. Because JA is wealthy, "successful,," and holds an important
>position at an influential magazine, his point of view must necessarily be
>true, and opposing points of view false or misguided.

Untrue. I was just pointing out that you seem to have an axe to grind.
It's pretty clear from your postings. I think it IS annoying for
former employees to air their dirty laundry in public. To me, it's a
bit unseemly. So I commented. But Bill, it's not because I "dislike"
you. On the contrary, I don't have enough exposure to you to form any
opinion, although I must say that you are rapidly making it pretty
easy for me TO dislike you.

>What is undebatable is the change that occurred in Stereophile in the
>editorial shift from JGH to JA.

I don't doubt that at all.

>What had been a magazine that told readers
>what they needed to know became one that told them what they wanted to hear.
>The belief in "high fidelity" was gradually discarded (as it has at most,
>but not all, other magazines) and replaced with a rainbow of opinions.

That could very well be the case as well. Of course, one could argue
that the 90s and 00s are a far different time than the 60s, for better
or worse.

>The Web page damning his editorial actions almost perfectly mirrors my
>feelings about these matters. Most of my friends are intellectually honest.
>John Atkinson is neither a friend nor intellectually honest.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

>Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight,
>the sort of people Dr. Edwin H. Land described in this way: "There are many
>scientists who, for all their marvelous training, are just plain dull. You
>sit with them and nothing is happening. They have been stultified somehow
>and the world is going by them."

Once again, you are entitled to your opinion.

>One other point, and I shall let this rest, unless you insist on arguing
>what is not debatable. Remeber Star Trek's "Squire of Gothos" episode?

No, I don't.

> Spock faces Trelaine and delivers one of the great lines in the history of TV: "I
>object to you. I object to intellect without discipline. I object to power
>without contstructive purpose."

Bill, I knew Spock and you're no Spock <chuckle>.

Seriously, YOUR discipline has been lacking in this post. You let
emotion inform your opinion. I never denigrated you nor showed any
antipathy toward you and yet you ascribe motives to me that are
non-existent. I *will* go out on a limb and say something pretty
personal to you. You're sounding like a little kid whose ball has been
snatched from his arms. Sorry to have to say that, but that's the tone
that you are now setting.

>I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual discipline. I object to
>Stereophile's failure to use its power for any constructive purpose.

J'accuse!

PS, here's a direct question for you. If you "quit", why did you allow
your name to stay on the masthead? It sounds more to me that you quit
in your mind, not in any substantive way (and no, I have no idea about
the ethical storm that you and JA have mentioned). Frankly, looking at
it from the outside, it sounds like it was a passive-aggressive
quitting/firing on BOTH sides.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 09:40:01 -0500, dave weil >
wrote:

>>I'm not going respond in detail to Mr. Weil. He (as far as I know) has had
>>no relations with JA, has never attended a Stereophile Writer's Conference,
>>etc, etc, etc. His blind support of JA seems more to because he dislikes me.
>
>This is untrue. I know you about as much as I know Mr. Atkinson. What
>*is* true is that I have no relations with JA. I subscribed to the
>magazine for a sum total of a year back in the middle to late 90s (96
>I believe). I haven't read a Stereophile in probably 5 years, nor did
>I read very many of them in the early days. What is also true is that
>I don't really remember any of your reviews, so I have no idea about
>your audio philosophy, and it's hard

finishing the part that was accidentally edited out of this paragraph:

....to determine your real views based on my readings of your sporadic
posts here on the internet.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets are said to
> work for some arthritus sufferers.
>
> If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the word "work",
> then you are willing to accept *anything* as working. IOW, you have no
> judgement.

see
www.pcabx.com
for a minimalist definition of "work".

[William Sommerwerck]

> William Sommerdork said:

Note that this is Mr. Middius's idea of "wit". I'm just laughing my ass off.
How terribly clever!


>> Most of the people criticizing my views are dull, lacking wit or insight,

> The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description perfectly.

Lacking wit, perhaps. Lacking insight, no way. Of course, what constitutes
insight might be a matter of opinion. But I think I know it when I see it.


> In addition, you're in love with the sound of your own voice...

Most posters are, as are you...


> and you seem oblivious to the concerns of the non-elite
> who don't get access to the best new products for free.

Excellent point! Glad you brought it up. Because I am not a member of the
"elite", and I am _not_ oblivious to the concerns of those who don't have
huge amounts of money to throw around on audio equipment.

I haven't reviewed audio equipment for any magazine in more than a dozen
years. (I've recently done some record reviews for John Sunier's Website.)

I never had "access to the best new products for free", though I did keep
several items, with the manufacturer's approval -- and at John Atkinson's
encouragement. * This included two Shure surround decoders (one of which I
eventually sold -- the second of which remains in my system), the JVC
XP-A1010 ambience synthesizer (which I also have and use), the Stax Lambda
Pro 'phones, T-1 hybrid amplifier, & ED-1 equalizer), a pair of Yamaha HD-1
headphones (which they didn't want back for "sanitary" reasons) -- and a
pair of Beyer or Sennheiser headphones (I forget which), which were the
cause of JA "firing" me.

One of my arguments in favor of more-rational testing (and this will no
doubt surprise Arny Krueger) is that I was bothered that expensive
amplifiers and fancy accessories did not necessarily result in better sound.
My suggestions to implement test procedures -- both in the listening room
and at the lab bench -- that would give a better idea of what products
"really" sound like were, of course, instantly rejected. At least as far as
I was concerned, John never heard an idea from me he didn't instantly
dislike.

Perhaps John treats other people differently. (And there are people who
immediately dislike me on meeting me.) But I've never met anyone who was
utterly defenive about everything. No one. Not even remotely.


* This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground magazines
don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found a
product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do
a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never discussed
the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product? (Reviewers'
prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money
for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in
the reviwer ultimately owning the product)?

The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent
for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they
can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a loss
than if they'd paid retail.

The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want to
publically discuss it, I'm game.

[Dr. Dolittle]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>>If you're willing to accept that level of the meaning of the word "work",
>>then you are willing to accept *anything* as working. IOW, you have no
>>judgement.
>
>
> see
> www.pcabx.com
> for a minimalist definition of "work".

Hahaha. l.o.l.!

[[email protected]]

One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
tinear scale they fall?

[John Atkinson]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
> This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground
> magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us
> that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to
> hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products.

That is correct. Reviewers cannot produce meaningful results in a
vacuum, whether they work for "underground" magazines or mainstream
magazines.

> Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should
> we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to
> 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should
> we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviewer
> ultimately owning the product)?

Good grief, how selective _is_ your memory, Bill. This subject has
been discussed at length with my writing team, at writers' conferences,
in person, at "Ask the editors" sesions at shows, even in the pages
of the magazine.

There are three things that can happen when a Stereophile reviewer
has finished with a component. In order of frequency, they are:
1) return it, 2) arrange a long-term loan for reference (with the
clear understanding that it remains the manufacturer's property);
3) buy it.

What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation
when you worked for me)?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

"Your expectations of reviews are unrealistic."

Not at all, as I expect nothing of any value from them, except as one may
learn of new gear. What the reviewer concludes as to merits of "sound"
etc. have no value for reasons mentioned. The whole "audition" process
has no reference by which to make an informed conclusion about anything
but that the entertainment value of the articles is one of it's selling
points for some people.

[George M. Middius]

said:

> One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
> even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
> by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
> because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
> sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
> gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
> informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
> point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
> tinear scale they fall?

Your expectations of reviews are unrealistic.

Have you read the Bible? I hope you didn't try to calculate how many
animals Noah took on the ark.

[William Sommerwerck]

> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground
> > magazines don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us
> > that, if we found a product of reference quality, we should try to
> > hang onto it, so we could do a better job of judging future products.

> That is correct. Reviewers cannot produce meaningful results in a
> vacuum, whether they work for "underground" magazines or mainstream
> magazines.

> > Great idea. But he never discussed the ethics of the issue -- should
> > we actually buy the product? (Reviewers' prices generally run 45% to
> > 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money for many items.) Should
> > we get an "extended loan" (which usually results in the reviewer
> > ultimately owning the product)?

> Good grief, how selective _is_ your memory, Bill. This subject has
> been discussed at length with my writing team, at writers' conferences,
> in person, at "Ask the editors" sesions at shows, even in the pages
> of the magazine.

> There are three things that can happen when a Stereophile reviewer
> has finished with a component. In order of frequency, they are:
> 1) return it, 2) arrange a long-term loan for reference (with the
> clear understanding that it remains the manufacturer's property);
> 3) buy it.

> What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation
> when you worked for me)?

Perhaps I have a convenient case of selective memory, no doubt contracted
sometime when I was in your presence.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Signal" > wrote in message
...
> "William Sommerwerck" emitted :
>
> >* This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground
magazines
> >don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found
a
> >product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could
do
> >a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never
discussed
> >the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product?
(Reviewers'
> >prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money
> >for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results
in
> >the reviwer ultimately owning the product)?
> >
> >The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent
> >for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they
> >can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a
loss
> >than if they'd paid retail.
> >
> >The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want
to
> >publically discuss it, I'm game.
>
> Two points here Bill...
>
> Firstly, if the policy is so objectionable why did *you* accept
> products this way?

> Secondly, what is wrong with "..if we found a product of reference
> quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of
> judging future products."? It might be considered a perk of the job,
> but the goal you outlined is to benefit the reviewing process. Isn't
> this in the best interests of the contributors and readers of the
> magazine?

You're reading something into what I wrote that I never intended. I never
said the "policy is ... objectionable", I said that reviewing ethics were a
sticky issue.

Nor did I every suggest that reviewers shouldn't hang on to products for
reference. Quite the opposite. Even JA agrees with me.

It is common knowledge that reviewers often keep review samples indefinitely
without paying for them.

[George M. Middius]

William Sommerdork said:

> > What don't you grasp about this policy, Bill (which was in operation
> > when you worked for me)?

> Perhaps I have a convenient case of selective memory, no doubt contracted
> sometime when I was in your presence.

So aliens ate your brain? <G>

[Dr. Dolittle]

Y A W N

[Chevdo]

In article >,
says...
>
>> (Chevododo) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important to Atkinson, why
>> doesn't
>> he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for demonstrating the shakti
>> stones?
>> Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and ridiculing a fool, and
>> apparently also his lickspittle side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.
>
>
>
>Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
>the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
>pay for it, what is it to you?
>

What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person you're
describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called
authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded, they
would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am
potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result in them
being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that don't
perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim?

It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically state
that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to argue
with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap.


>How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?
>

How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad hominems to
my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a public
forum?

[Chevdo]

In article >,
cmndr[underscore]george[at]comcast[dot]net says...
>
>
>
>Chevdoborg whined:
>
>> >> Right, he just includes and endorses idiotic fraudulent stuff in his
magazine.
>
>> >Ooh! I'll bet that makes you so darned mad!
>
>> You wish.
>
>I know.
>
>> It makes me laugh
>
>You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the
>purple color of your pimply face.
>
>
>

Ad hominems won't make shakti stones work, either. You see when I ridicule
jackasses like you, it's not ad hominem, it's because you have the nerve to
defend fraud. The only ridiculing you are capable of doing is ad hominem
insult, which doesn't amount to jack ****.

Let's spell it out just to rub it in your face.

Shakti Stones don't work.

If they did, John Atkinson or anyone else could collect $1million by
demonstrating them working.

Since nobody has collected the $1million, Shakti Stones don't work.

What DOES work is selling shakti stones to gulliable fools like George M.
Middius. In fact, you've displayed such stupidity, I'd be surprised if you
hadn't bought a second pair of shakti stones after you decided the first pair
wasn't working well enough. In critical thinking nomenclature, it's called a
Sunk Cost Fallacy - once a person invests a considerable chunk of change on
something worthless, there is an inclination to invest more in the item in an
attempt to extract some worth from it. The early days of microcomputers relied
heavily on the sunk cost fallacy by selling $3000 computers to people who soon
realized what a useless device they had purchased, so they bought add-ons and
software trying to make it worthwhile. But at least they weren't being
defrauded by being sold computers that ran on magic.

[Chevdo]

In article >, says...
>
>"EddieM" > wrote in message

>>> (Chevododo) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important
>>> to Atkinson, why doesn't
>>> he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for
>>> demonstrating the shakti stones?
>>> Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and
>>> ridiculing a fool, and apparently also his lickspittle
>>> side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If
>> someone tried the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in
>> their system and decide to pay for it, what is it to you?
>
>It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets
>are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.
>

but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what anyone 'says'. If
shakti stones work, a double-blind test will earn anyone who demonstrates it
ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the shakti stone
believers? Or are there any shakti stone believers? Maybe just ones that
believe on weekends?

[dave weil]

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:19:41 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Signal" > wrote in message
...
>> "William Sommerwerck" emitted :
>>
>> >* This is the "dirty little truth" the publishers of underground
>magazines
>> >don't want you to know. John explicitly told all of us that, if we found
>a
>> >product of reference quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could
>do
>> >a better job of judging future products. Great idea. But he never
>discussed
>> >the ethics of the issue -- should we actually buy the product?
>(Reviewers'
>> >prices generally run 45% to 50% off list, but that's still a lot of money
>> >for many items.) Should we get an "extended loan" (which usually results
>in
>> >the reviwer ultimately owning the product)?
>> >
>> >The fact is that many reviewers have products they never paid a red cent
>> >for. Even when they buy the product, it's at accomodation price, and they
>> >can sometimes sell it for more than paid for it -- or at much less of a
>loss
>> >than if they'd paid retail.
>> >
>> >The question of reviewing ethics is, to me, a sticky one, and if you want
>to
>> >publically discuss it, I'm game.
>>
>> Two points here Bill...
>>
>> Firstly, if the policy is so objectionable why did *you* accept
>> products this way?
>
>> Secondly, what is wrong with "..if we found a product of reference
>> quality, we should try to hang onto it, so we could do a better job of
>> judging future products."? It might be considered a perk of the job,
>> but the goal you outlined is to benefit the reviewing process. Isn't
>> this in the best interests of the contributors and readers of the
>> magazine?
>
>You're reading something into what I wrote that I never intended. I never
>said the "policy is ... objectionable", I said that reviewing ethics were a
>sticky issue.

So, when you said "dirty little secret", we're supposed to think you
meant something other than "objectionable"?

>Nor did I every suggest that reviewers shouldn't hang on to products for
>reference. Quite the opposite. Even JA agrees with me.


>It is common knowledge that reviewers often keep review samples indefinitely
>without paying for them.

Yes, it's common knowledge, not a "dirtly little secret" that " the
publishers of underground magazines don't want you to know".

[George M. Middius]

Chevdo said:

> >> It makes me laugh

> >You're not laughing, 'borg. You're screeching in pain. I can tell by the
> >purple color of your pimply face.

> Ad hominems won't make shakti stones work, either. You see when I ridicule

You are soooo angry. Have you met Little ****? He's RAO's nerve center for
unrequited anger.

> Shakti Stones don't work.

Then why did you buy them?

> gulliable
> stupidity
> defrauded

Look out, you just popped another zit.

Do your mommy and daddy know you're whacking off in front of your 'puter
instead of doing your chores?

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ups.com
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual
>> discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its
>> power for any constructive purpose.
>
> Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to
> you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should
> I?

John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so
pompous that they would make a post like this!

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net> wrote in message

> William Sommerdork said:
>
>> Most of the people criticizing my views are dull,
>> lacking wit or insight,
>
> The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description
> perfectly.

If irony killed!

[Arny Krueger]

"Chevdo" > wrote in message
news:aLqXe.262429$tt5.62921@edtnps90
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> "EddieM" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> (Chevododo) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important
>>>> to Atkinson, why doesn't
>>>> he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for
>>>> demonstrating the shakti stones?
>>>> Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and
>>>> ridiculing a fool, and apparently also his lickspittle
>>>> side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If
>>> someone tried the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work
>>> in their system and decide to pay for it, what is it to
>>> you?
>>
>> It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper
>> bracelets are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.

> but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what
> anyone 'says'.

How about that?

> If shakti stones work, a double-blind
> test will earn anyone who demonstrates it ONE MILLION
> DOLLARS.

Just goes to show, money can't buy you Science.

> Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the
> shakti stone believers?

It's easier to make those $million$ with Stereophile's
glowing reviews for snake oil products, as approved by John
Atkinson.

>Or are there any shakti stone believers?

Probably dimwits like Mike Fremer...

> Maybe just ones that believe on weekends?

LOL!

[EddieM]

>(Chevodeevodee-chevedoveedoo) wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>>Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
>>the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
>>pay for it, what is it to you?
>>
>
> What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person
> you're
> describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called
> authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded, they
> would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am
> potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result in
> them
> being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that don't
> perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim?
>
> It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically state
> that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to
> argue
> with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap.
>
>
>>How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?
>>
>
> How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad hominems
> to
> my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a public
> forum?


Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.

[Robert Morein]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
. ..
[snip]
>
> * In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule
> that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and
> which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is
> interested.
>
>
How can I resist?

Please supply details.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual
>>> discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its
>>> power for any constructive purpose.
>>
>> Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to
>> you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should
>> I?
>
> John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so pompous that
> they would make a post like this!
It is completely relevant to the discussion. You're a dirty guy.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
...
> One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
> even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
> by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
> because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
> sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
> gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
> informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
> point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
> tinear scale they fall?

The fancier reviews got, the less use they have been to me. Over the years,
I have progressed from the simply worded pieces of Julian Hirsch, to Audio
Magazine in the late 80's and 90's, and of late, to Stereophile.

Stereophile reviews are too elegant, too entertaining. Literally, this
sounds like an absurd complaint. But perhaps embellishment of prose can lead
to embellishment of the listening experience. Review-speak is an open ended
challenge for the writer. If a reviewer made the case that a particular set
of $50K speakers made him experience spatio-temporal dislocation in five
dimensions, and wrote so well that in a brief reverie, the reader could
imagine the experience, what editor is going to say, "I can't run that,
because it's impossible." ?

Julian Hirsch had a particular way of writing, in which a product was rarely
less than good, but he rewarded only a few with his love. After one took
note of the cabinet construction and the frequency response, one only had
to understand the meaning of a few sentences. A speaker review by Julian
Hirsch was not very entertaining, but it was a marvel of simplicity.

Once one understood Hirsch's code, one could perceive that he was a man of
unshakeable integrity. Many times, he reviewed a component with the remark
that he could not afford to own it. His aspirations seemed limited, because
of his complete immersion in service to the audio community. He was not
employed by Stereo Review because he was an entertaining writer. He was not
a charasmatic person, though I can provide one personal anecdote. It happens
we took the same New Jersey Transit train. One morning, we got off together.
I saw a man of such stunning radiance that I picked him out of a crowd of a
hundred people. In an instant, I understood the meaning of the Quaker
expression "inner light."

[[email protected]]

"Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.

But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
mag filled.

[Ruud Broens]

"Chevdo" > wrote in message
news:aLqXe.262429$tt5.62921@edtnps90...
: In article >, says...
: >
: >It all hangs on what the word "work" means. Copper bracelets
: >are said to work for some arthritus sufferers.
: >
:
: but in double-blind tests, they don't work no matter what anyone 'says'. If
: shakti stones work, a double-blind test will earn anyone who demonstrates it
: ONE MILLION DOLLARS. Shouldn't that offer appeal to any of the shakti stone
: believers? Or are there any shakti stone believers? Maybe just ones that
: believe on weekends?
:

...that still doesn't give us any indication of what 'work' entails.
So, does the great Randy accept 'proof' in the form of NMR scans
- with / without Shakti stones being present -
of brain activity being markedly different in say the cortex area :-) ??
(listening to the same fragment of music)

Too bad i haven't got an MRI in the shack, always some use for a cool million ;-)
Rudy

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ups.com
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> I object to John Atkinson's lack of intellectual
>>> discipline. I object to Stereophile's failure to use its
>>> power for any constructive purpose.
>>
>> Both in your _opinion_, Bill, and I have no objection to
>> you holding such opinions and expressing them. Why should
>> I?
>
> John Atkinson is among the very few people I know that is so pompous that
> they would make a post like this!
>

It sounded lot like duh..Mikey's "It's an
opinion you get to have".

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > * In attempting to be honest with the readers, I publically broke a rule
> > that John Atkinson privately encouraged all the reviewers to break, and
> > which is still commonly broken. I'll supply details, if anyone is
> > interested.

> How can I resist?
> Please supply details.

I'll bet the "rule" had nothing to do with placing humility above all
other virtues.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
...
> "Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
> attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
> hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
> speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
> for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
> fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
> of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.
>
> But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
> count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
> in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
> greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
> mag filled.

Yes, Audio was very much to my taste.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Uberdork" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
> > William Sommerdork said:
> >
> >> Most of the people criticizing my views are dull,
> >> lacking wit or insight,
> >
> > The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description
> > perfectly.
>
> If irony killed!
>
You're dead already.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> "Arny Uberdork"

LOL

> > If irony killed!

> You're dead already.

Can turds die? How do they test for that?

(Note to Mr. Krooborg: This comment should not be taken literally. You are
only a figurative turd, despite being composed of 98% pure feces.)

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
>> attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
>> hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
>> speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the
>> wall
>> for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
>> fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away
>> bits
>> of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.
>>
>> But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
>> count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
>> in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
>> greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
>> mag filled.
>
> Yes, Audio was very much to my taste.
>
>

It tasted best when my eyes were closed.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Robert Morein" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> > One of the most oft repeated mantras of the subjective enterprise is that
> > even a small change in a system can make a great difference. Which means
> > by definition that all of the mag reviews are of no benefit to readers
> > because they can't duplicate the system and listening context and sound
> > sources used in the article. Further, it is oft said that several bits of
> > gear was swapped in and out during the listening period, which makes an
> > informed consumer choice based on the article even more remote. One more
> > point, who reviews the reviewers that the reader may know where on the
> > tinear scale they fall?
>
> The fancier reviews got, the less use they have been to me. Over the years,
> I have progressed from the simply worded pieces of Julian Hirsch, to Audio
> Magazine in the late 80's and 90's, and of late, to Stereophile.
>
> Stereophile reviews are too elegant, too entertaining. Literally, this
> sounds like an absurd complaint. But perhaps embellishment of prose can lead
> to embellishment of the listening experience. Review-speak is an open ended
> challenge for the writer. If a reviewer made the case that a particular set
> of $50K speakers made him experience spatio-temporal dislocation in five
> dimensions, and wrote so well that in a brief reverie, the reader could
> imagine the experience, what editor is going to say, "I can't run that,
> because it's impossible." ?
>
> Julian Hirsch had a particular way of writing, in which a product was rarely
> less than good, but he rewarded only a few with his love. After one took
> note of the cabinet construction and the frequency response, one only had
> to understand the meaning of a few sentences. A speaker review by Julian
> Hirsch was not very entertaining, but it was a marvel of simplicity.
>
> Once one understood Hirsch's code, one could perceive that he was a man of
> unshakeable integrity. Many times, he reviewed a component with the remark
> that he could not afford to own it. His aspirations seemed limited, because
> of his complete immersion in service to the audio community. He was not
> employed by Stereo Review because he was an entertaining writer. He was not
> a charasmatic person, though I can provide one personal anecdote. It happens
> we took the same New Jersey Transit train. One morning, we got off together.
> I saw a man of such stunning radiance that I picked him out of a crowd of a
> hundred people. In an instant, I understood the meaning of the Quaker
> expression "inner light."

Mr. Hirsch changed his reviewing style a bit based, IMO, on comments
about him in Absolute Sound and Stereophile. Again IIRC, in the 70s and
early 80s, JH never mentioned the sound of the piece under review,
including speakers; it was measurements only. Starting sometime in the
80s, he started commenting on the sound of a piece. Concurrently, he
started to make the odd negative comment here and there. It seemed
obvious at the time that this was a reaction from him or his editor to
repeated comments (negative) from the other mags. And, it was a change
that I welcomed. That said, what (very) little I know about the
technical aspects of audio, I learned from JH.

[Jenn]

In article >,
wrote:

> "Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
> attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
> hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
> speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
> for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
> fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
> of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.
>
> But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
> count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
> in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
> greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
> mag filled.

If I may repeat

[Jenn]

In article >,
wrote:

> "Audio Magazine" was for me the best all round publication with it's
> attempts to attach sound differences to technical differences and to the
> hands on diy articles that provided insight from the ground up, so to
> speak. I greave still for it. On reflection the hand writing on the wall
> for it might have been when they hired greenberg to do stereophile type
> fancy writing with heavy breathing and entertaining little throw away bits
> of information and personal perceptions that were of no value to anyone.
>
> But what really killed it was all those tech type nerds, among which I
> count myself, who got their jollies with electronics moving to computers
> in large numbers, or it at least diluted the pool of such people across a
> greater range of diversions which left too few to support the niche the
> mag filled.

If I may repeat something that I've said here before, the same thing is
starting to happen, IMHO, to music in general. The state of cultural
literacy in our county is sickening, and is getting worse. The very
reason for the hobby that we enjoy is in danger. Ask the next 20 people
under age 30 that you meet who George Gershwin (or Bernstein, or
Copland...) was and be ready for a shock. We had best take care of our
cultural institutions and how we educate people about them, or we will
only be playing synthesized violins and pink noise on our beloved audio
systems.

[William Sommerwerck]

I have serious doubts about Julian Hirsch's integrity. He may have felt he
had it, but some of his reviews are questionable. Two stand out.

In one he stated that component A sounded better than component B, but the
difference was of no importance. This rather negates the whole point of
reviewing, does it not?

The other was a 1980 review of a decidedly crummy-sounding EV speaker. He
said it "sounded about as good as you would expect a speaker to sound".
(Interpret that as you like.) A salesman I knew at a competing audio salon
was similarly bothered about that statement, and after demoing the speaker
for me, asked my opinion. There is no doubt that Hirsch did not like the
speaker, and was trying to find some way to avoid saying it. That's hardly
integrity.

As for the length of Stereophile articles... They are way, way, way, too
long. And for no particularly good reason, other than to provide editorial
content to balance advertising space. JGH has often commented negatively on
their length. Even his longest articles for Stereophile don't come anywhere
nearly as close.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
> > William Sommerdork said:
> >
> >> Most of the people criticizing my views are dull,
> >> lacking wit or insight,
> >
> > The bits you've posted on RAO fit that description
> > perfectly.
>
> If irony killed!

....I would be immune...

[Bret Ludwig]

"Audio" was down to one DIY article a year when it went. Ed Dell, for
all his faults, is the last real audio publisher alive.

[[email protected]]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
...
>> (Chevododo) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> hey if making money off fraudulent ads is so important to Atkinson, why
>> doesn't
>> he pick up the $1million offered by Randi for demonstrating the shakti
>> stones?
>> Bitch and moan? No, I'm pointing, sneering, and ridiculing a fool, and
>> apparently also his lickspittle side-kick fraud-facillitator 'dave', too.
>
>
>
> Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
> the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
> pay for it, what is it to you?
>

Inabiltiy to understand that a Shakti Stone can't work ON AUDIO FREQUENCIES,
NOTED.

> How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?
If you say a product does something it is scientifically incapable of doing,
that is fraud.

[[email protected]]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>> It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
>>> ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
>>> you require proof. ]
>
>>So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof
>>of anything?
>
>
> How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
> exists?
>
At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no audible
effect.

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

[[email protected]]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 00:45:56 GMT, (Chevdo) wrote:
>
>>In article . com>,
says...
>>>
>>>Given the enthusiastic reactions in 1994 of both your then-resident
>>>subjectivest Jonathan Scull (in vol.19 no.2) and your avowed staff
>>>sceptic Barry Willis
>>>(in vol.19 no.4) to the "Shakti Electromagnetic Stabilizer" (aka,
>>>Shakti Stone), I'm sure you must have felt the need to experience these
>>>marvels for yourself in your personal music system. How could you not?
>>>
>>>How many Shakti Stones did (do) you use? How did you place them? Any
>>>insider tips on which components they are most effective on? Any other
>>>info you would care to pass along?
>>>
>>>TIA!
>>>
>>
>>Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward, as most dishonest
>>people
>>are.
>
> Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
>
> So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.

Asking why they allow snake oil endorsements in his magazine is idiotic?
Only if you already have demonstrated his dishonesty.

[[email protected]]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> >> Atkinson won't respond to this topic. He is a coward,
>> >> as most dishonest people are.
>>
>> > Actually, he tends not to respond to the idiotic stuff.
>> > So I doubt that he's going to respond to this.
>>
>> Actually, I would call the preceding (snipped) remarks sarcastic,
>> not idiotic.
>
> Whereever these questions lie on the line between "idiotic" and
> "sarcastic," I have already addressed the topic at length on r.a.o.
> I fail to see why I have to repeat myself because someone is too
> lazy to use the Google search engine.
>

Your addressing was simply to say that you're too ****ing lazy to try out
the stones.

>> In the time I knew John Atkinson, I found it impossible to have
>> any kind of intelligent discussion about anything with him. His
>> points of view are fixed, and he is unwilling to consider any
>> other point of view.
>>
>> Why? I don't know. It might be intellectual arrogance.
>
> I guess you are never going to forgive me for firing you as a
> Stereophile reviewer, are you Bill?
>

The dance begins anew.

[[email protected]]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..
> >(Chevodeevodee-chevedoveedoo) wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
>>>the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
>>>pay for it, what is it to you?
>>>
>>
>> What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person
>> you're
>> describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called
>> authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded,
>> they
>> would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am
>> potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result
>> in them
>> being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that
>> don't
>> perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim?
>>
>> It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically
>> state
>> that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to
>> argue
>> with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap.
>>
>>
>>>How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?
>>>
>>
>> How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad
>> hominems to
>> my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a
>> public
>> forum?
>
>
> Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
> by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.
>

[[email protected]]

"EddieM" > wrote in message
. ..
> >(Chevodeevodee-chevedoveedoo) wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Just what in the world is your gripe Chevedovoododo? If someone tried
>>>the Shakti Stone tweak, found it to work in their system and decide to
>>>pay for it, what is it to you?
>>>
>>
>> What is it to YOU? Shakti Stones don't work so the hypothetical person
>> you're
>> describing would have been deluded, possibly by believing a so-called
>> authourity like 'Stereophile' magazine. Since they would be deluded,
>> they
>> would be defrauded. Why does it bother you that I am
>> potentially helping people avoid or overcome delusion that would result
>> in them
>> being defrauded by spending exorbitant amounts of money on items that
>> don't
>> perform in the manner those who sell and promote them claim?
>>
>> It doesn't take some kind of superhero to have the guts to publically
>> state
>> that shakti stones are bullcrap, but it does take a snivelling coward to
>> argue
>> with anyone who states that shakti stones are bullcrap.
>>
>>
>>>How does someone defraud someone of that, Chevodingdong ?
>>>
>>
>> How does adding 'dingdong' and other extremely unsophisticated ad
>> hominems to
>> my posting name help you avoid making a complete ass of yourself in a
>> public
>> forum?
>
>
> Go ahead Doveedoveedo, do share the troubles inflicted upon your mind
> by the Shakti tweak. Let it all out. I enjoy listening to you.
Delusions of being able to "hear" printed words, noted.

[Kalman Rubinson]

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

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

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

Kal

[Clyde Slick]

" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>>
>>>> It's meaningful if you lack confidence in your own
>>>> ability to make rational judgements to such a degree that
>>>> you require proof. ]
>>
>>>So what are you saying Dormer, its irrational to want proof
>>>of anything?
>>
>>
>> How irrational is it to believe in a god, without any proof that it
>> exists?
>>
> At least those who beleive in God are trying to formualte a theory for
> something that actually exists. Shakti sotnes exist, but have no audible
> effect.
>
> Also, nobody HAS to pay for their belief in God.
>>
>

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

Believing in God has no audible or other effect.

Nobody has to pay for their belief in Shakti stones.

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

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

[dizzy]

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

>> You are a stupid, ARROGANT asshole
>
>STOP CROSSPOSTING!!!!!

Stop crossposting youself!!!!!

[Arny Krueger]

"Kalman Rubinson" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:30:11 GMT, "
> > wrote:
>
>> At least those who beleive in God are trying to
>> formualte a theory for something that actually exists.
>
> If there was proof of God's existence, there would be no
> need to believe. :-)

Well, there would be no need for faith.

[Dr. Dolittle]

Like rats in a maze. But there's no cheese!

Hahahaha