Re: What can be heard? What can be seen?

[Lionel]

George M. Middius wrote:

The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
> hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
> class envy.
>
>
Good this statement make us travel in the time.
George is an aristocrat !
Was the ideologues of the "class fight" right ?
Please George, could you please elaborate about "class envy" I love that.

C'est la lutte finale
Groupons nous et demain
L'Internationale sera le genre humain

Debout les damnés de la terre
Debout les forçats de la faim
La raison gronde en son cratère
C'est l'éruption de la faim.

[Bob Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bob Morein said:
>
> > This is an article about astronomers and what they can see.
> > Read and feel the echoes of argument on r.a.o.
> > A different field, yet the same disputes, and, one can imagine, the same
> > personalities.
>
> Not quite. The author gives the one-line essence of the astronomy
> disputes as this: "If I can't see it, neither can you." On RAO,
> hearing ability may ostensibly be the issue, but in reality it's a
> smokescreen. The real divide is "If I can't have it, neither should
> you." The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
> hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
> class envy.
>
Arguably true, but here's a counterargument, based strictly on personal
experience.
I have a friend who has an incessant need to turn over his equipment. I've
been able to hear, and in many cases, borrow, equipment I wouldn't buy. He's
the guy with the Buggtussels; as an example, I've had on loan a Parasound
750 MOSFET preamp for an extended period. He had a Threshold amp with the
IGBT outputs which I've listened to extensively.

My own concentration has been on equipment from the 90's; Hafler, Acoustat,
Sugden, are examples of what I own. So I've had an opportunity to compare
the best of "value" equipment with a portion of the high end.
My conclusion is that sonic quality is not strongly correlated with price,
once a certain threshold has been passed. This is not to say that the most
expensive equipment is indistinguishable from more modestly priced
equipment, but simply that there are some moderately priced standouts. For
example, the Acoustat TNT-200 made the cover of Audio Magazine in the early
80's. It was a phenomena; it was stated to have the greatest clarity of any
amplifier the editors were familiar with. I can attest that it is an
extraordinary piece of equipment.

The anti-audio ideologues can't seem to make the distinction between good
and mediocre equipment, even in the same price class.

[Bob Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
> > hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
> > class envy.
> >
> >
> Good this statement make us travel in the time.
> George is an aristocrat !

George has stated in the past that his system is quite modest.
It would seem that he's made an effort to free himself from cognitive
dissonance on the matter.

[Lionel]

Bob Morein wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George M. Middius wrote:
>>
>> The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
>>
>>>hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
>>>class envy.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Good this statement make us travel in the time.
>>George is an aristocrat !
>
>
> George has stated in the past that his system is quite modest.
> It would seem that he's made an effort to free himself from cognitive
> dissonance on the matter.
>
>
I don't care what he stated in the past,Bob, I don't care about is audio
system.
I'm only interested in how this improbable bricks assembling can stand
up. How this enormous Paradox is balanced to avoid second after second
the inevitable explosion.
I am not interested in his balls sizes, I'm only interested in what he
said here !

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message
...
> This is an article about astronomers and what they can see.
>
> Read and feel the echoes of argument on r.a.o.
>
> A different field, yet the same disputes, and, one can imagine, the same
> personalities.
>
>
>
http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/forum/craterson
mars.html
>

Amusing quote:

"The case of Percival Lowell is a most interesting one. Lowell claimed to
see a Martian canal network with his 24-inch Clark refractor and the
photographs taken using this and similar aperture telescopes tended to
support his view. But Eugene M. Antoniadi, using the great 33-inch refractor
at Meudon, and Barnard and Mellish using the great 40-inch Yerkes refractor,
all claimed to have resolved Lowell's canal network into discrete detail. It
is noteworthy that Lowell's hypotheses of intelligent life on Mars were
based upon incompletely resolved details, but which his telescope "seemed"
to resolve. Lowell was wrong in his interpretation of those details, but he
should not be vilified for his opinions."

Lowell's perceptions of a canal system on Mars could be compared to the way
that Morien hears that virtually all amplifiers (and other audio components)
sound different from each other.

[Bob Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Morein wrote:
> > "Lionel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>George M. Middius wrote:
> >>
> >> The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
> >>
> >>>hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
> >>>class envy.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Good this statement make us travel in the time.
> >>George is an aristocrat !
> >
> >
> > George has stated in the past that his system is quite modest.
> > It would seem that he's made an effort to free himself from cognitive
> > dissonance on the matter.
> >
> >
> I don't care what he stated in the past,Bob, I don't care about is audio
> system.
> I'm only interested in how this improbable bricks assembling can stand
> up. How this enormous Paradox is balanced to avoid second after second
> the inevitable explosion.
> I am not interested in his balls sizes, I'm only interested in what he
> said here !
>
More like two coins balanced on top of each other :).

[Bob Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is an article about astronomers and what they can see.
> >
> > Read and feel the echoes of argument on r.a.o.
> >
> > A different field, yet the same disputes, and, one can imagine, the same
> > personalities.
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/forum/craterson
> mars.html
> >
>
> Amusing quote:
>
> "The case of Percival Lowell is a most interesting one. Lowell claimed to
> see a Martian canal network with his 24-inch Clark refractor and the
> photographs taken using this and similar aperture telescopes tended to
> support his view. But Eugene M. Antoniadi, using the great 33-inch
refractor
> at Meudon, and Barnard and Mellish using the great 40-inch Yerkes
refractor,
> all claimed to have resolved Lowell's canal network into discrete detail.
It
> is noteworthy that Lowell's hypotheses of intelligent life on Mars were
> based upon incompletely resolved details, but which his telescope "seemed"
> to resolve. Lowell was wrong in his interpretation of those details, but
he
> should not be vilified for his opinions."
>
> Lowell's perceptions of a canal system on Mars could be compared to the
way
> that Morien hears that virtually all amplifiers (and other audio
components)
> sound different from each other.
>
But I never said that.
Am I now a member of the "misquoted by Arny" club?

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> This is an article about astronomers and what they can see.
>>>
>>> Read and feel the echoes of argument on r.a.o.
>>>
>>> A different field, yet the same disputes, and, one can imagine, the
>>> same personalities.
>>>
>>>


>
http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/forum/craterson
>> mars.html

>> Amusing quote:

>> "The case of Percival Lowell is a most interesting one. Lowell
>> claimed to see a Martian canal network with his 24-inch Clark
>> refractor and the photographs taken using this and similar aperture
>> telescopes tended to support his view. But Eugene M. Antoniadi,
>> using the great 33-inch refractor at Meudon, and Barnard and Mellish
>> using the great 40-inch Yerkes refractor, all claimed to have
>> resolved Lowell's canal network into discrete detail. It is
>> noteworthy that Lowell's hypotheses of intelligent life on Mars were
>> based upon incompletely resolved details, but which his telescope
>> "seemed" to resolve. Lowell was wrong in his interpretation of those
>> details, but he should not be vilified for his opinions."

>> Lowell's perceptions of a canal system on Mars could be compared to the
way
>> that Morien hears that virtually all amplifiers (and other audio
>> components) sound different from each other.

> But I never said that.

But I never said you did, Morien. I never quoted you saying anything in
particular, I was just reacting to the general tone of your comments.

> Am I now a member of the "misquoted by Arny" club?

Just shows that you don't even know what a quote is, Morien. Here's a hint:
There are these little things called quotation marks...

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "George M. Middius" wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> >Bob Morein said:
> >
> >
> >>This is an article about astronomers and what they can see.
> >>Read and feel the echoes of argument on r.a.o.
> >>A different field, yet the same disputes, and, one can imagine, the same
> >>personalities.
> >
> >Not quite. The author gives the one-line essence of the astronomy
> >disputes as this: "If I can't see it, neither can you." On RAO,
> >hearing ability may ostensibly be the issue, but in reality it's a
> >smokescreen. The real divide is "If I can't have it, neither should
> >you." The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
> >hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
> >class envy.
> >
>
> Arguably true, but here's a counterargument, based strictly on personal
> experience.
> I have a friend who has an incessant need to turn over his equipment. I've
> been able to hear, and in many cases, borrow, equipment I wouldn't
> buy. He's
> the guy with the Buggtussels; as an example, I've had on loan a Parasound
> 750 MOSFET preamp for an extended period. He had a Threshold amp with the
> IGBT outputs which I've listened to extensively.
>
> My own concentration has been on equipment from the 90's; Hafler,
> Acoustat,
> Sugden, are examples of what I own. So I've had an opportunity to compare
> the best of "value" equipment with a portion of the high end.
> My conclusion is that sonic quality is not strongly correlated with price,
> once a certain threshold has been passed. This is not to say that the most
> expensive equipment is indistinguishable from more modestly priced
> equipment, but simply that there are some moderately priced standouts. For
> example, the Acoustat TNT-200 made the cover of Audio Magazine in the
> early
> 80's. It was a phenomena



"Phenomena" is plural, Bob.

[Bob Morein]

"trotsky" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Bob Morein wrote:
>
> > "George M. Middius" wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > >Bob Morein said:
> > >
> > >
> > >>This is an article about astronomers and what they can see.
> > >>Read and feel the echoes of argument on r.a.o.
> > >>A different field, yet the same disputes, and, one can imagine, the
same
> > >>personalities.
> > >
> > >Not quite. The author gives the one-line essence of the astronomy
> > >disputes as this: "If I can't see it, neither can you." On RAO,
> > >hearing ability may ostensibly be the issue, but in reality it's a
> > >smokescreen. The real divide is "If I can't have it, neither should
> > >you." The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
> > >hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
> > >class envy.
> > >
> >
> > Arguably true, but here's a counterargument, based strictly on personal
> > experience.
> > I have a friend who has an incessant need to turn over his equipment.
I've
> > been able to hear, and in many cases, borrow, equipment I wouldn't
> > buy. He's
> > the guy with the Buggtussels; as an example, I've had on loan a
Parasound
> > 750 MOSFET preamp for an extended period. He had a Threshold amp with
the
> > IGBT outputs which I've listened to extensively.
> >
> > My own concentration has been on equipment from the 90's; Hafler,
> > Acoustat,
> > Sugden, are examples of what I own. So I've had an opportunity to
compare
> > the best of "value" equipment with a portion of the high end.
> > My conclusion is that sonic quality is not strongly correlated with
price,
> > once a certain threshold has been passed. This is not to say that the
most
> > expensive equipment is indistinguishable from more modestly priced
> > equipment, but simply that there are some moderately priced standouts.
For
> > example, the Acoustat TNT-200 made the cover of Audio Magazine in the
> > early
> > 80's. It was a phenomena
>
>
>
> "Phenomena" is plural, Bob.
>
Your contribution to the discussion is noted.

[Bob Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> This is an article about astronomers and what they can see.
> >>>
> >>> Read and feel the echoes of argument on r.a.o.
> >>>
> >>> A different field, yet the same disputes, and, one can imagine, the
> >>> same personalities.
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
> >
>
http://www.brayebrookobservatory.org/BrayObsWebSite/HOMEPAGE/forum/craterson
> >> mars.html
>
> >> Amusing quote:
>
> >> "The case of Percival Lowell is a most interesting one. Lowell
> >> claimed to see a Martian canal network with his 24-inch Clark
> >> refractor and the photographs taken using this and similar aperture
> >> telescopes tended to support his view. But Eugene M. Antoniadi,
> >> using the great 33-inch refractor at Meudon, and Barnard and Mellish
> >> using the great 40-inch Yerkes refractor, all claimed to have
> >> resolved Lowell's canal network into discrete detail. It is
> >> noteworthy that Lowell's hypotheses of intelligent life on Mars were
> >> based upon incompletely resolved details, but which his telescope
> >> "seemed" to resolve. Lowell was wrong in his interpretation of those
> >> details, but he should not be vilified for his opinions."
>
> >> Lowell's perceptions of a canal system on Mars could be compared to
the
> way
> >> that Morien hears that virtually all amplifiers (and other audio
> >> components) sound different from each other.
>
> > But I never said that.
>
> But I never said you did, Morien. I never quoted you saying anything in
> particular, I was just reacting to the general tone of your comments.
>
> > Am I now a member of the "misquoted by Arny" club?
>
> Just shows that you don't even know what a quote is, Morien. Here's a
hint:
> There are these little things called quotation marks...
>
OK.
I do not claim that "virtually all amplifiers (and other audio components)
sound different from each other."

[trotsky]

Bob Morein wrote:

> "trotsky" wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> >Bob Morein wrote:
>
>
> >>example, the Acoustat TNT-200 made the cover of Audio Magazine in the
> >>early
> >>80's. It was a phenomena
> >
> >
> >
> >"Phenomena" is plural, Bob.
> >
>
> Your contribution to the discussion is noted.
>
>


Not by any signs of intelligent life.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message


> I do not claim that "virtually all amplifiers (and other audio
> components) sound different from each other."

Please point me to the last time you said that two components sounded the
same to you, Morein. Google searching comes up empty.

I CAN find occasions when you damned for saying that all good electronics
sound the same.

Being sonically transparent is one qualifier for good electronics in my
book, and I've always been clear about that... Of course, all sonically
transparent equipment sounds the same - it sounds like whatever you feed
into it.

Bottom line Morein is you've pulled this same kind of crappy stunt on me
many times, but you scream like a stuck cow when I even come close.

[Lionel]

Bob Morein wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Bob Morein wrote:
>>
>>>"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>George M. Middius wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The anti-audio ideologues may or may not have substandard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>hearing ability, but one thing they do have in abundance is tons of
>>>>>class envy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good this statement make us travel in the time.
>>>>George is an aristocrat !
>>>
>>>
>>>George has stated in the past that his system is quite modest.
>>>It would seem that he's made an effort to free himself from cognitive
>>>dissonance on the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't care what he stated in the past,Bob, I don't care about is audio
>>system.
>>I'm only interested in how this improbable bricks assembling can stand
>>up. How this enormous Paradox is balanced to avoid second after second
>>the inevitable explosion.
>>I am not interested in his balls sizes, I'm only interested in what he
>>said here !
>>
>
> More like two coins balanced on top of each other :).
>
>
I'm afraid that you are right.
;-)

[dave weil]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:21:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> Am I now a member of the "misquoted by Arny" club?
>
>Just shows that you don't even know what a quote is, Morien. Here's a hint:
>There are these little things called quotation marks...

Once again, you've shown that *you* don't know what quotes can be used
for. They aren't *always* used to indicate a direct quotation.

Sorry.

[Bob Morein]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:21:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Am I now a member of the "misquoted by Arny" club?
> >
> >Just shows that you don't even know what a quote is, Morien. Here's a
hint:
> >There are these little things called quotation marks...
>
> Once again, you've shown that *you* don't know what quotes can be used
> for. They aren't *always* used to indicate a direct quotation.
>
> Sorry.

I quite agree. Quotation marks can be used to indicate a qualification, as
in:
He was told the amplifier was used "lightly".

or to indicate an ironic metaphor, as in
Trotsky's "Jovian" speakers lack the celestial quality.

[Bob Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I do not claim that "virtually all amplifiers (and other audio
> > components) sound different from each other."
>
> Please point me to the last time you said that two components sounded the
> same to you, Morein. Google searching comes up empty.
>
For someone as skilled at the debating trade as you, the above is a sloppy
assault.


> I CAN find occasions when you damned for saying that all good electronics
> sound the same.

The two are not logically equivalent.

It appears to me that the reason you assumed I inhabit the extreme opposite
from your is that you neglect the middle.
>
> Being sonically transparent is one qualifier for good electronics in my
> book, and I've always been clear about that... Of course, all sonically
> transparent equipment sounds the same - it sounds like whatever you feed
> into it.
>
IF an amplifier were sonically transparent, then it would sound identical to
any other amplifier that was sonically transparent.
I think you believe that most equipment is sonically transparent. I do not.
As to whether there are such amplifiers, I think they are sufficiently rare
that neither of us has had one in our hands.

Also, two amplifiers can sound the same if they err in the same way. I think
this is common. Sampling of amplifiers which contain the same or similar
errors could deceive the experimenter into thinking he has discovered a
universal equivalence class. This may have happened to you.

> Bottom line Morein is you've pulled this same kind of crappy stunt on me
> many times, but you scream like a stuck cow when I even come close.
>
Fine. A little bit of screaming is good for the lungs.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bob Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I do not claim that "virtually all amplifiers (and other audio
>>> components) sound different from each other."
>>
>> Please point me to the last time you said that two components
>> sounded the same to you, Morein. Google searching comes up empty.
>>
> For someone as skilled at the debating trade as you, the above is a
> sloppy assault.

IOW Morein, you can't bear to admit that I'm right.

>> I CAN find occasions when you damned for saying that all good
>> electronics sound the same.

> The two are not logically equivalent.

I never said that they were.

> It appears to me that the reason you assumed I inhabit the extreme
> opposite from your is that you neglect the middle.

Horsefeathers. The middle is where people say - these two sound different
and these other two sound the same. The middle is where people say this
makes a difference, and this doesn't. That's where I am.

>> Being sonically transparent is one qualifier for good electronics in
>> my book, and I've always been clear about that... Of course, all
>> sonically transparent equipment sounds the same - it sounds like
>> whatever you feed into it.

> IF an amplifier were sonically transparent, then it would sound
> identical to any other amplifier that was sonically transparent.

Nice summary of my paragraph.

> I think you believe that most equipment is sonically transparent.

What I think is based on what I've found to be true. I use an evaluation
means to determine sonic transparency that is orthodox, widely-accepted by
professional technical organizations, logical, well-supported, and even
well-documented,

> I do not.

That's your privilege. However, I need to point out that you have zero track
record for using *any* evaluation means to determine sonic transparency that
is orthodox, widely-accepted by professional technical organizations,
logical, well-supported, and well-documented.

> As to whether there are such amplifiers, I think they are
> sufficiently rare that neither of us has had one in our hands.

I have at least 5 amplifiers that are sonically transparent or very nearly
so.

It's the old story Morein. If you ever did a proper level-matched
time-synchronized, bias-controlled listening test you'd have to face some
uncomfortable facts, so come up with this endless stream of bogus,
illogical, even hair-brained excuses to not do so.

> Also, two amplifiers can sound the same if they err in the same way.

Straight-wire bypass testing eliminates that problem.

> I think this is common.

That's your privilege. However, I need to point out that you have zero track
record for using *any* evaluation means to determine sonic transparency that
is orthodox, widely-accepted by professional technical organizations,
logical, well-supported, and well-documented.

> Sampling of amplifiers which contain the same
> or similar errors could deceive the experimenter into thinking he has
> discovered a universal equivalence class. This may have happened to
> you.

Nonsense. Straight-wire bypass testing eliminates that problem. AFAIK, I've
done as much or more publicly-documented straight-wire bypass tests of
different kinds of audio products than any living human.


>> Bottom line Morein is you've pulled this same kind of crappy stunt
>> on me many times, but you scream like a stuck cow when I even come
>> close.

> Fine. A little bit of screaming is good for the lungs.

I find that hiking up and down steep hills carrying food, shelter and
clothing for 8-12 days accomplishes the same outcome and provides other
pleasurable benefits as well.

[Bob Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Bob Morein" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>
> >>> I do not claim that "virtually all amplifiers (and other audio
> >>> components) sound different from each other."
> >>
> >> Please point me to the last time you said that two components
> >> sounded the same to you, Morein. Google searching comes up empty.
> >>
> > For someone as skilled at the debating trade as you, the above is a
> > sloppy assault.
>
> IOW Morein, you can't bear to admit that I'm right.
>
> >> I CAN find occasions when you damned for saying that all good
> >> electronics sound the same.
>
> > The two are not logically equivalent.
>
> I never said that they were.
>
> > It appears to me that the reason you assumed I inhabit the extreme
> > opposite from your is that you neglect the middle.
>
> Horsefeathers. The middle is where people say - these two sound different
> and these other two sound the same. The middle is where people say this
> makes a difference, and this doesn't. That's where I am.
>
> >> Being sonically transparent is one qualifier for good electronics in
> >> my book, and I've always been clear about that... Of course, all
> >> sonically transparent equipment sounds the same - it sounds like
> >> whatever you feed into it.
>
> > IF an amplifier were sonically transparent, then it would sound
> > identical to any other amplifier that was sonically transparent.
>
> Nice summary of my paragraph.
>
> > I think you believe that most equipment is sonically transparent.
>
> What I think is based on what I've found to be true. I use an evaluation
> means to determine sonic transparency that is orthodox, widely-accepted by
> professional technical organizations, logical, well-supported, and even
> well-documented,
>
> > I do not.
>
> That's your privilege. However, I need to point out that you have zero
track
> record for using *any* evaluation means to determine sonic transparency
that
> is orthodox, widely-accepted by professional technical organizations,
> logical, well-supported, and well-documented.
>
> > As to whether there are such amplifiers, I think they are
> > sufficiently rare that neither of us has had one in our hands.
>
> I have at least 5 amplifiers that are sonically transparent or very nearly
> so.
>
> It's the old story Morein. If you ever did a proper level-matched
> time-synchronized, bias-controlled listening test you'd have to face some
> uncomfortable facts, so come up with this endless stream of bogus,
> illogical, even hair-brained excuses to not do so.
>
> > Also, two amplifiers can sound the same if they err in the same way.
>
> Straight-wire bypass testing eliminates that problem.
>
> > I think this is common.
>
> That's your privilege. However, I need to point out that you have zero
track
> record for using *any* evaluation means to determine sonic transparency
that
> is orthodox, widely-accepted by professional technical organizations,
> logical, well-supported, and well-documented.
>
> > Sampling of amplifiers which contain the same
> > or similar errors could deceive the experimenter into thinking he has
> > discovered a universal equivalence class. This may have happened to
> > you.
>
> Nonsense. Straight-wire bypass testing eliminates that problem. AFAIK,
I've
> done as much or more publicly-documented straight-wire bypass tests of
> different kinds of audio products than any living human.
>
>
> >> Bottom line Morein is you've pulled this same kind of crappy stunt
> >> on me many times, but you scream like a stuck cow when I even come
> >> close.
>
> > Fine. A little bit of screaming is good for the lungs.
>
> I find that hiking up and down steep hills carrying food, shelter and
> clothing for 8-12 days accomplishes the same outcome and provides other
> pleasurable benefits as well.
>
I agree. I've hiked the Grand Canyon from the North Rim, down to Phantom
Ranch, and up the South Rim.