REPORT ON TEST: MR ARNIE KRUEGER: SCIENTIFIC AND DEBATING SKILLS

[Andre Jute]

FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a successful pilot experiment in individual human psychology
conducted using only the internet's own resources. The only cost was
the time of the researchers. There were no material costs.

VENUE
The Usenet consists of public correspondence groups accessible to
anyone on the Internet. It is a part of the Internet beside the World
Wide Web, accessible to anyone with a computer and an internet
connection.

BACKGROUND
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
engineer or a sound recording engineer. His professional qualifications
are not known. The only known sound recording he has done is of his
local church choir, of which he sends people copies. He claims to have
special expertise in placebo tests but, again, his professional
qualification or experience is unascertainable. He has a self-made
netsite on which he describes his methods; they would not earn an
undergraduate a pass mark. He is widely known, to the point of
notoriety, as a Usenet flamer, that is, an unscrupulous debater who
insists on winning every argument and will resort to extreme means to
counter or suppress the views of those who disagree with him.

Mr Krueger was warned in advance that he would be the subject of a
psychological study. Several of his likely associates were also warned
and all viewed the warning to him; we know this because they
contributed to the relevant threads. This study limited itself to
replicating subject Krueger's observed routine behaviour under
controlled circumstances for the purposes of benchmark description and
definition. No motivational manipulation was attempted.

THE HYPOTHESIS
That the subject Krueger has contempt for scientific method. That the
subject Krueger will use illegitimate means to win an argument. That
the subject Krueger will refuse to accept that he can be in error.

METHODOLOGY
An article was posted to the Usenet on a subject, listener preferences
between transistor and tube audio amplifiers, on which Krueger is known
to hold strong views. The article included a paragraph from a report on
a series of real placebo tests with the specific description of the
particular test subjects removed and substituted by a non-specific,
wordy description of the very large and varied generic class to which
they belong. Without the specific information on the particular test
subjects the article makes no sense, nor can it be criticised in
anything approaching a scientific or professional manner.

The absence of the necessary information was intended to be obvious to
anyone qualified to discuss or conduct placebo tests. Its obviousness
was tested: Twelve honours students were given this short article as
part of a coursework test and asked for a response within fifteen
minutes (just long enough to read it); all identified the anomaly and
asked for details of the test subject group.

The article was then provocatively (to Krueger) named "Why tubes are
the paradigm" and posted, when the opportunity arose, as an apparent
reply to pre-existing correspondence. The article and the resulting
thread is at:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/009f37729ce5c847/c8aa51186ea4b171#c8aa51186ea4b171

RESULT OF THE INITIAL TEST
Subject Krueger responded immediately in an aggressively hostile
manner.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/9f37729ce5c847/9a30f9e1eb948304?q=%22that+professional+musicians+ have+extraordinary+abilities%22&rnum=4#9a30f9e1eb948304
He apparently did not notice, or if he noticed did not care, that the
test subjects were not specified. He did not ask for the test subjects
to be specified. Instead he stated that the tests could not be valid
because the generic group to which they belong, musical performers,
"are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds".
This is in fact true of small minority of the universe from which the
actual test subjects were drawn but not of the particular test
subjects. He then proceeded to claim that other named subgroups from
the universe were also either hearing-impaired or capable of impairing
their hearing (singers).

He did not at this time or at any later point succeed in identifying
the test subjects.

Subject Krueger offered further unscientific, spurious or personally
insulting reasons for doubting the results:
"(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music.
That they would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense."
This is of course impossible in tests where the subjects cannot see the
machines under test.
"(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
sure that
they are biased against modern technology."
A common smear tactic from subject Krueger's armory.
"(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that [are] endemic among
performers who must endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform."
Note "endemic" and "extraordinary SPLs" (sound pressure
levels), neither of which is justified by any evidence he proffered
either at this point or later.

These points were then argued with subject Krueger by team leader Jute
but Krueger snipped Jute's arguments and claimed:
" Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada)
critical points. Therefore they stand."
"<snip empty rhetoric>"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/9f37729ce5c847/db0142000dfc0120?q=%22Jute+has+properly+addressed+ (none)+(zero)+(nada)+critical%22&rnum=3#db0142000dfc0120

CONCLUSIONS OF THE FIRST TEST
All three strands of the hypothesis were proved correct as stated
1. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
He did not ask for the specifics of the test subject.
2. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments.
3. Subject Krueger will not admit error.

SECOND TEST
At this point it was decided to discover how far subject Krueger would
carry his denial of error. He was publicly bluntly confronted with
posing as an expert when he didn't know what the subject was. A new
thread was started for this purpose in which proof was demanded of his
statements in relation to the test subjects, which were still not
identified him:
"Classical performers hearing-damaged" - Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/91954a3304a62e38/789730fa608eb787#789730fa608eb787

The result was a great deal more personal abuse directed at subject
Krueger's interlocutors. Having been advised that he had not been
informed of the specifics of the test group, he still did not request
information about the particular test group. Instead he went at random
through a wide variety of performers from the huge possible universe,
attempting to prove with data he found on Google that the outcome of
the tests described in the original article "Tubes are the
paradigm" could not be true. He continued to insist that he was the
ultimate expert on the subject. Here is his final admission, after more
than 200 messages in various threads, of his error, complete with
further personal abuse:

"The definition of a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood. However,
Jute accuses me of lying because I talked about musicians:
'...without knowing who they are or what they play or where.'
Therefore, Jute has stipulated that I spoke in ignorance, not malice.
Therefore Jute is either ignorant of the meaning of simple English
words or is he himself lying."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/91954a3304a62e38/507453f45437e3c5?q=%22without+knowing+who+they+are +or+what+they+play+or+where%22&rnum=1#507453f45437e3c5

Six hours after subject Krueger finally admitted "I spoke in
ignorance" he was once more in denial, telling one of his followers:
"It definitely separated the posers from the players," implying
that he won the argument. He furthermore deliberately restricted
dissemmination of his message admitting ignorance to only one of the
newsgroups in the debate; it was the only one of his messages he so
restricted.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE SECOND TEST
All the conclusions of the first test were confirmed:

4. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
Having been clearly and repeatedly told that he did know all the
necessary facts, he still did not ask for the specifics of the test
subjects, he still pontificated as if he were an authority, regardless
of the fact that he could not say an authority on what.
5. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments, and personal abuse to intimidate those who
defeat him in straight argument.
6. Subject Krueger does not admit fallibility. When forced under severe
pressure to admit a gross error, he tries to limit dissemmination of
his admission, he tries to shift blame for it onto those who have
proved the error and within hours claims a victory, denying that he
committed the error.

COMPLETE REPORT
The full analysis with tables containing message counts and time
intervals will be available at the end of February. The appendix of
psycho-textual analysis will be available in May.
E&OE
JT, MH, RN, JK, supervised by AJ

[Bret Ludwig]

You're a regular Ralph Greenson, Jute. Now give yourself a Nembutal
enema, **** off, and DIE!

[Robert Morein]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> FLAME WARRIOR
> Preliminary report of
> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>
Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

[dizzy]

Robert Morein wrote:

>"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> FLAME WARRIOR
>> Preliminary report of
>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>>
>Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
>literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
>Jute's efforts dwarf mine.
>
>This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
>ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
>of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.
>
>What does this guy actually do in real life?

He molests collies.

[George M. Middius]

dippyborg lied:

> He molests collies.

That's better than servicing donkeys, as you do.

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> FLAME WARRIOR
> Preliminary report of
> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>
This and the foloowing are the biggest batch of unmitigated bull**** I have
ever seen.
You made this up after having your ass handed to you and losing in a
discussion on why Tubed SET amps are ****, a fact which everyone but a few
idiots seems to realize.
Allegedly conducting a DBT of some sort of musicans, you were then made
aware of the fact that they tend not to hear very well.

>
> BACKGROUND
> Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
> engineer

An EE. This is true even if you don't beleive it.

or a sound recording engineer.
A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

His professional qualifications
> are not known.

That is a lie.

The only known sound recording he has done is of his
> local church choir, of which he sends people copies. He claims to have
> special expertise in placebo tests but, again, his professional
> qualification or experience is unascertainable.

Not true.

He has a self-made
> netsite on which he describes his methods; they would not earn an
> undergraduate a pass mark. He is widely known, to the point of
> notoriety, as a Usenet flamer, that is, an unscrupulous debater who
> insists on winning every argument and will resort to extreme means to
> counter or suppress the views of those who disagree with him.
>
He insists on winning when the truth is on his side. In audio discussion,
that is nearly all the time.




> Mr Krueger was warned in advance that he would be the subject of a
> psychological study.

The person needing to be studied is the obviously deranged habitual liar,
Andre Jute.

> THE HYPOTHESIS
> That the subject Krueger has contempt for scientific method. That the
> subject Krueger will use illegitimate means to win an argument. That
> the subject Krueger will refuse to accept that he can be in error.
>
Which you failed to demonstrate, since it was not a scientific study that
was attempted.


> METHODOLOGY
> An article was posted to the Usenet on a subject, listener preferences
> between transistor and tube audio amplifiers, on which Krueger is known
> to hold strong views.

It has nothing to do with strong views, it has to do with the fact that tube
amplifers are technically inferior to transistor amplifers in all but very
rare instances. When they aren't inferior, they sound identical to
tranistor amplifers, that is they have so signnature sound of their own.

The article included a paragraph from a report on
> a series of real placebo tests with the specific description of the
> particular test subjects removed and substituted by a non-specific,
> wordy description of the very large and varied generic class to which
> they belong. Without the specific information on the particular test
> subjects the article makes no sense, nor can it be criticised in
> anything approaching a scientific or professional manner.
>

Nor was, other than to point out that musicans tend to suffer from hearing
loss.

> The absence of the necessary information was intended to be obvious to
> anyone qualified to discuss or conduct placebo tests.

More likely you did no such tests and just make this up as you go along.

Its obviousness
> was tested: Twelve honours students were given this short article as
> part of a coursework test and asked for a response within fifteen
> minutes (just long enough to read it); all identified the anomaly and
> asked for details of the test subject group.
>
> The article was then provocatively (to Krueger) named "Why tubes are
> the paradigm" and posted, when the opportunity arose, as an apparent
> reply to pre-existing correspondence. The article and the resulting
> thread is at:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/009f37729ce5c847/c8aa51186ea4b171#c8aa51186ea4b171
>
> RESULT OF THE INITIAL TEST
> Subject Krueger responded immediately in an aggressively hostile
> manner.
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/9f37729ce5c847/9a30f9e1eb948304?q=%22that+professional+musicians+ have+extraordinary+abilities%22&rnum=4#9a30f9e1eb948304

That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.

Hardly hostile, a simple statement of fact.



> He apparently did not notice, or if he noticed did not care, that the
> test subjects were not specified. He did not ask for the test subjects
> to be specified. Instead he stated that the tests could not be valid
> because the generic group to which they belong, musical performers,
> "are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds".

Please point out where in the post referenced by you where he said any such
thing.
Here is the rest of the post to help you.

37. Arny Krueger
Dec 9, 8:56 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
From: "Arny Krueger" > - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:56:19 -0500
Local: Fri, Dec 9 2005 8:56 am
Subject: Re: Why tubes are the paradigm
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show original | Report Abuse



"Andre Jute" > wrote in message


oups.com...


> It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced
and
> refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
> people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the
music
> I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more
like
> an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
> want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors
or
> some self-mimicking biological growth.


That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers,
are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even
soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.


> In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.


Probably due to a number of factors.

(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That
they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.


(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
sure that
they are biased against modern technology.


(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who
must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.


(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often
very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion,
find a
trained technical listener.





> This is in fact true of small minority of the universe from which the
> actual test subjects were drawn but not of the particular test
> subjects. He then proceeded to claim that other named subgroups from
> the universe were also either hearing-impaired or capable of impairing
> their hearing (singers).

He didn't claim it, he posted data as did others to confirm it.

>
> He did not at this time or at any later point succeed in identifying
> the test subjects.
>
Since he didn't know he posted info on a variety of musicans, at no time did
he say that they were in fact the people you claim to have studied.

> Subject Krueger offered further unscientific, spurious or personally
> insulting reasons for doubting the results:
> "(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music.
> That they would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense."
> This is of course impossible in tests where the subjects cannot see the
> machines under test.
> "(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
> sure that
> they are biased against modern technology."
> A common smear tactic from subject Krueger's armory.
> "(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that [are] endemic among
> performers who must endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform."
> Note "endemic" and "extraordinary SPLs" (sound pressure
> levels), neither of which is justified by any evidence he proffered
> either at this point or later.
>
> These points were then argued with subject Krueger by team leader Jute
> but Krueger snipped Jute's arguments and claimed:
> " Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada)
> critical points. Therefore they stand."
> "<snip empty rhetoric>"
>
IOW, he told the truth and made you look foolish again.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/9f37729ce5c847/db0142000dfc0120?q=%22Jute+has+properly+addressed+ (none)+(zero)+(nada)+critical%22&rnum=3#db0142000dfc0120
>
> CONCLUSIONS OF THE FIRST TEST
> All three strands of the hypothesis were proved correct as stated
> 1. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
> He did not ask for the specifics of the test subject.
> 2. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
> means to win arguments.
> 3. Subject Krueger will not admit error.
>

Complete and utter bull**** from the mind of Andre Jute.


> SECOND TEST
> At this point it was decided to discover how far subject Krueger would
> carry his denial of error. He was publicly bluntly confronted with
> posing as an expert when he didn't know what the subject was.

Another lie, he simply posted reasons why any such test was likely to be
flawed.

A new
> thread was started for this purpose in which proof was demanded of his
> statements in relation to the test subjects, which were still not
> identified him:
> "Classical performers hearing-damaged" - Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/91954a3304a62e38/789730fa608eb787#789730fa608eb787
>
> The result was a great deal more personal abuse directed at subject
> Krueger's interlocutors. Having been advised that he had not been
> informed of the specifics of the test group, he still did not request
> information about the particular test group. Instead he went at random
> through a wide variety of performers from the huge possible universe,
> attempting to prove with data he found on Google that the outcome of
> the tests described in the original article "Tubes are the
> paradigm" could not be true. He continued to insist that he was the
> ultimate expert on the subject. Here is his final admission, after more
> than 200 messages in various threads, of his error, complete with
> further personal abuse:
>
> "The definition of a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood. However,
> Jute accuses me of lying because I talked about musicians:
> '...without knowing who they are or what they play or where.'
> Therefore, Jute has stipulated that I spoke in ignorance, not malice.
> Therefore Jute is either ignorant of the meaning of simple English
> words or is he himself lying."
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_frm/thread/91954a3304a62e38/507453f45437e3c5?q=%22without+knowing+who+they+are +or+what+they+play+or+where%22&rnum=1#507453f45437e3c5
>
> Six hours after subject Krueger finally admitted "I spoke in
> ignorance" he was once more in denial, telling one of his followers:
> "It definitely separated the posers from the players," implying
> that he won the argument. He furthermore deliberately restricted
> dissemmination of his message admitting ignorance to only one of the
> newsgroups in the debate; it was the only one of his messages he so
> restricted.
>
> CONCLUSIONS OF THE SECOND TEST
> All the conclusions of the first test were confirmed:
>

You confirmed that you are not technically competent to conduct such tests
and that you don't understnd the meaing of the word lie.


> 4. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
> Having been clearly and repeatedly told that he did know all the
> necessary facts, he still did not ask for the specifics of the test
> subjects, he still pontificated as if he were an authority, regardless
> of the fact that he could not say an authority on what.
> 5. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
> means to win arguments, and personal abuse to intimidate those who
> defeat him in straight argument.

More of that famous Jute "projection," whereupon you ascribe your traints
to others.


> 6. Subject Krueger does not admit fallibility.

Sure he does but only when he's wrong.

When forced under severe
> pressure to admit a gross error, he tries to limit dissemmination of
> his admission, he tries to shift blame for it onto those who have
> proved the error and within hours claims a victory, denying that he
> committed the error.
>
Since no error was committed, no reason to claim that he made one. He was
not giving a specific reason why such a test as you claim to have conducted
was invalid, but why the general category of "musicians" was not a good one.


> COMPLETE REPORT
> The full analysis with tables containing message counts and time
> intervals will be available at the end of February. The appendix of
> psycho-textual analysis will be available in May.
> E&OE
> JT, MH, RN, JK, supervised by AJ

Thank you for that self serving heap of crapola where you show yourself once
again to be an unmitigated liar.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> FLAME WARRIOR
>> Preliminary report of
>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL
>> RESEARCH
> Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks
> at the very top of literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I
> put a lot of work into a post, but Jute's efforts dwarf
> mine.

Morein, just about everybody's efforts at anything worthwhile dwarf your's.

[Adam Stouffer]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> What does this guy actually do in real life?
>
>

Write posts like yours and then fap fap fap over them.


Adam

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Thank you for that self serving heap of crapola where you show yourself
> once again to be an unmitigated liar.


"At least" Arny is a mitigated liar, being that he is insane.

[Clyde Slick]

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> FLAME WARRIOR
> Preliminary report of
> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>
>
> BACKGROUND
> Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
> engineer or a sound recording engineer. His professional qualifications
> are not known.

That is not true. We know that he has contributed to
the design of the Omni ashtray.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> FLAME WARRIOR
>>> Preliminary report of
>>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL
>>> RESEARCH
>> Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks
>> at the very top of literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I
>> put a lot of work into a post, but Jute's efforts dwarf
>> mine.
>
> Morein, just about everybody's efforts at anything worthwhile dwarf
> your's.
Arny, I present to you the gift of a small edit. In the above sentence,
"your's" should be "yours". In fact, the contractive form you used does not
exist for the word "your." Your writing is, in fact, very typical of an
engineer. You have things to say, but at best, your prose is utilitarian.
More often, it is simply defective.

[John Atkinson]

wrote:
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
> > a sound recording engineer.
>
> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Once again, Mr. McKelvy, your unquestioned faith leads you astray.
All you needed to do was enter "Krueger" + "professional" +
"engineer" in the Google search engine and you would have found the
relevant threads.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> FLAME WARRIOR
>>>> Preliminary report of
>>>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL
>>>> RESEARCH
>>> Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks
>>> at the very top of literary skills on usenet. Sometimes
>>> I put a lot of work into a post, but Jute's efforts
>>> dwarf mine.
>>
>> Morein, just about everybody's efforts at anything
>> worthwhile dwarf your's.

> Arny, I present to you the gift of a small edit.

Lame attempt at obfuscation.

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
>> > a sound recording engineer.
>>
>> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
>
> Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
> claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
> engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
> church free of charge.
>
> Once again, Mr. McKelvy, your unquestioned faith leads you astray.
> All you needed to do was enter "Krueger" + "professional" +
> "engineer" in the Google search engine and you would have found the
> relevant threads.
>
Well excuse the **** out of me for missing that tid bit.
I still don't see how that makes my statement incorrect. It is not his
occupation it is something he does for his church. He may in fact be as
qualified as a professional, neither yo nor I have any decent evidence of
his abilities in that area. The one snippet he posted is hardly enough
evidence on which to base a conclusion.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > wrote:
> >> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
> >> > a sound recording engineer.
> >>
> >> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
> >
> > Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
> > claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
> > engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
> > church free of charge.
>
> Well excuse the **** out of me for missing that tid bit.
> I still don't see how that makes my statement incorrect.

Arny Krueger himself has contradicted you, is all I am pointing out.

> It is not his occupation it is something he does for his church.

Personally I agree, However, Arny Krueger has violently objected
when that point has been made to him.

> He may in fact be as qualified as a professional, neither yo nor I have
> any decent evidence of his abilities in that area.

Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
recordings. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
>> >> > a sound recording engineer.
>> >>
>> >> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
>> >
>> > Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
>> > claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
>> > engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
>> > church free of charge.
>>
>> Well excuse the **** out of me for missing that tid bit.
>> I still don't see how that makes my statement incorrect.
>
> Arny Krueger himself has contradicted you, is all I am pointing out.
>
>> It is not his occupation it is something he does for his church.
>
> Personally I agree, However, Arny Krueger has violently objected
> when that point has been made to him.
>
>> He may in fact be as qualified as a professional, neither yo nor I have
>> any decent evidence of his abilities in that area.
>
> Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
> engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
> recordings. :-)
>
And that's one less bad mastering job I have to be stuck with ;)

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
>> > a sound recording engineer.
>>
>> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
>
> Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
> claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
> engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
> church free of charge.

I actually fell for this ruse and tried to find a relevant post.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=professional+engineer+group%3Arec.audio.p ro+author%3Aarny+author%3Akrueger&start=0&scoring=d&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&num=10&

I guess Atkinson will have to provide a URL to make a believer out of me.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> FLAME WARRIOR
>> Preliminary report of
>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>>
>>
>> BACKGROUND
>> Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
>> engineer or a sound recording engineer. His professional qualifications
>> are not known.
>
> That is not true. We know that he has contributed to
> the design of the Omni ashtray.
Also, "coasters" made of CDs that burned unsatisfactorily.
All of Krueger's designs have a single orginal element: a hole in the
middle.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> FLAME WARRIOR
>> Preliminary report of
>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>>
>Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
>literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
>Jute's efforts dwarf mine.
>
>This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
>ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
>of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.
>
>What does this guy actually do in real life?

No doubt you've already done a Google. There's an Andre Jute who's a
thriller writer who also writes books on how to be a thriller writer,
plus appears to be have been everywhere and done everything. That
fits.

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>

> Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
> engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
> recordings. :-)
>

Does that mean that he is not really a "perfeshunal komputer konsultent"?

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> All of Krueger's designs have a single orginal element: a hole in the
> middle.
>

He nakes a unique tuird.

[Margaret von B.]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
> engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
> recordings. :-)
>

Hi John,

I have it on good authority that the reverse is usually the case. People get
paid to "arniisit" by his family or caseworkers.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> FLAME WARRIOR
>> Preliminary report of
>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>>
>Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
>literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
>Jute's efforts dwarf mine.
>
>This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
>ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
>of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.
>
>What does this guy actually do in real life?

He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
creative writing to college kids.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[paul packer]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:37:27 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> wrote:


>He nakes a unique tuird.

What was that, Art? My monitor must be playing up again.

[Iain Churches]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
>> > a sound recording engineer.
>>
>> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
>
> Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
> claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
> engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
> church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.The above, by definition does not make him a professional
recording engineer, although we should applaud the work he does for
charity. The dictionary definition of a professional is
a person who earns a living by his craft (in this case recording)
I am told that Mr Kreuger assembles computers in his daytime job

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.


Iain

[Lionel]

In >, Stewart Pinkerton wrote :

> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> FLAME WARRIOR
>>> Preliminary report of
>>> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>>>
>>Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
>>literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
>>Jute's efforts dwarf mine.
>>
>>This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
>>ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a
>>level of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent
>>publication.
>>
>>What does this guy actually do in real life?
>
> He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
> creative writing to college kids.

It's not really surprising that such narcissic guy loves to replay "Dead
Poets Society" all the days of his life.
Too bad he's also confusing hedonism and epicurism. ;-)


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[George M. Middius]

Iain Churches said:

> Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???

I've heard two. Krooger denies that the first one exists. The "debating
trade" is such a labyrinth. ;-)

> Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

"Bull****! Bull****! Bull****!"

[John Atkinson]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed claim that
> > this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording engineer, due
> > to the cash value of the work he donated to his church free of charge.
>
> I actually fell for this ruse and tried to find a relevant post.
> ...
> I guess Atkinson will have to provide a URL to make a believer out of me.

Sure. The Google message ID is >
posted by you in rec.audio.pro on Thu, 19 May 2005 23:10:22. This is
what you wrote:

"Given that people occasionally pay me for some of my audio
efforts, can't I squeek by as a professional? When they have
to hire someone to do my job at church, its a $150 gig for
him. Small pototoes in the larger view, but isn't creating
value at the rate of about $8K a year worth some kind of
standing? ;-)"

Perhaps you can explain to Mr. McKelvy that you disagree with
him regarding your "professional" status.

BTW, I am pleased to note in another message uncovered by my
search, this time in r.a.o., that my standing as an "audio
professional"
was vouchsafed by no less than Arny Krueger, on 1997/02/04 in message
>.
A belated thank you, Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:37:27 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>He nakes a unique tuird.
>
> What was that, Art? My monitor must be playing up again.

My lawwe advizes me too mayke typox sow I dont gett sueed.

[Clyde Slick]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
> I am told that Mr Kreuger assembles computers in his daytime job
>
> Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
> Professional is not a word that comes to mind.
>
>
>

Have you ever used one of his komputerz?

[Arny Krueger]

"Iain Churches" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
>>> > a sound recording engineer.
>>>
>>> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
>>
>> Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
>> claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
>> engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
>> church free of charge.
>
> Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
> nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.

> Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
> Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

It's my understanding that in contrast, John Atkinson has actually made some
recordings of note. He has personally lined up artists, venues, and
equipment. Atkinson, at least some of the time personally selected, obtained
and set up the equipment, loaded and unloaded recording media of his
personal choice, was the sole technician who personally placed, adjusted,
and started and stopped the equipment.

AFAIK Atkinson has edited at least some (I think all) of his recordings
himself using editing facilities that he personally selected and/or owned,
personally mastered some or all of the recordings, and on occasion delivered
the masters for reproduction by subcontractors that he personally selected
and made the arrangements for.

There's a good chance that Atkinson even owns the copyrights to some of his
recordings, which are thus truely his.

Note that while I've explained these differences to Iain before on several
occasions, he continues to act like they don't exist. In short, he's either
BSing, or he's seriously delusional.

Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
finish.

In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
for the finished product.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed claim that
>> > this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording engineer, due
>> > to the cash value of the work he donated to his church free of charge.
>>
>> I actually fell for this ruse and tried to find a relevant post.
>> ...
>> I guess Atkinson will have to provide a URL to make a believer out of me.
>
> Sure. The Google message ID is >
> posted by you in rec.audio.pro on Thu, 19 May 2005 23:10:22. This is
> what you wrote:
>
> "Given that people occasionally pay me for some of my audio
> efforts, can't I squeek by as a professional? When they have
> to hire someone to do my job at church, its a $150 gig for
> him. Small pototoes in the larger view, but isn't creating
> value at the rate of about $8K a year worth some kind of
> standing? ;-)"

Anybody with a brain can see that this is a humorous rhetorical question.
;-)

> Perhaps you can explain to Mr. McKelvy that you disagree with
> him regarding your "professional" status.

Any fool can see that the paragraph above is not a claim, but a
light-hearted rhetorical question intended to poke fun at people who put on
*professional* airs.

Thanks Atkinson for showing that despite your self-acclaimed literary
talents and experience, you are unable to discern such simple things. One
might think that the question marks and the smiley emoticon would be sure
indicators.

For the record, I don't care whether *anybody* thinks I'm a professional
whatever or not. The whole point of the paragraph was that I really don't
care, I just do what I do.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
> none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
> work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
> small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
> artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
> others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in seconds, and
none of your hair-splitting about legal rights or collaborative work or
who hired the equipment changes that.

Stephen

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com...
>>>> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
>>>> > a sound recording engineer.
>>>>
>>>> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
>>>
>>> Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
>>> claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
>>> engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
>>> church free of charge.
>>
>> Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
>> nonsense.
>
> AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.
>

THIS PURE BULL****, ARNY. I REMEMBER WELL WHEN YOU MADE THAT POST ON RAP.
BECAUSE IT STRUCK ME AS LUDICROUS AT THE TIME (AND STILL DOES TODAY).


>snip remainder as too silly to comment on, and subsequently refuted).

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
>miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
>finish.


Or someone who records the choir at his church and tells his buddies
he's a "professional recording engineer". ;-)

As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?


>In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
>note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
>the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
>new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
>for the finished product.


Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even deWaal.
They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables from various
"nuts and bolts" that are lying around in their junk boxes.
Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and output
transformers.
Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku or ARC, but
they can honestly take credit for the finished product.

--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
>> because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
>> has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
>> by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
>> Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
>> performed using equipment, artists, and venues that were
>> obtained by others and at the expense of others.
>
> Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in
> seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
> rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
> changes that.

Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed to being correct you
pulled your usual debating trade schtick.

You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and eliminated a thorough
discussion of exactly what I meant.

In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a deceptive troll.

If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised Stephen, then do so.
Otherwise you can make an even bigger fool of yourself on your own.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message


> As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
> Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?
>
>
>> In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have
>> little garages of no note or notice, who still build
>> cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill the metal
>> parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
>> compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum,
>> but they can honestly take credit for the finished
>> product.
>
>
> Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even
> deWaal.
> They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables
> from various "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in
> their junk boxes.
> Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and
> output transformers.
> Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku
> or ARC, but they can honestly take credit for the
> finished product.

Agreed, depsite the snarky stuff I had to delete.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message


>> As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
>> Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?


>>> In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have
>>> little garages of no note or notice, who still build
>>> cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill the metal
>>> parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
>>> compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum,
>>> but they can honestly take credit for the finished
>>> product.


>> Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even
>> deWaal.
>> They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables
>> from various "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in
>> their junk boxes.
>> Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and
>> output transformers.
>> Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku
>> or ARC, but they can honestly take credit for the
>> finished product.


>Agreed, depsite the snarky stuff I had to delete.


All good and well, but what's your answer to the question I posted on
top? This one, to be exact:

>> As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
>> Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?

--

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message


> All good and well, but what's your answer to the question
> I posted on top? This one, to be exact:

>>> As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.

Congratuations!

>>> Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?

Only if an immediate brain transplant is part of the employment agreement.
;-)

IOW, I don't expect your audio knowlege to increase or decrease dramatically
on that day.

[Andre Jute]

Stewart Pinkerton, Postman of Spam, wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >> FLAME WARRIOR
> >> Preliminary report of
> >> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
> >>
> >Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
> >literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
> >Jute's efforts dwarf mine.
> >
> >This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
> >ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
> >of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.
> >
> >What does this guy actually do in real life?
>
> He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
> creative writing to college kids.
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nope, I don't teach creative writing, though it is true that my
textbooks in writing are prescribed texts in various such courses.
Others of my books are prescribed in other courses. A novel of mine was
once prescribed as a text in a course at an English university for
high-level civil servants, soldiers and policemen in the anti-terrorist
branches; it was taught by Brigadier Richard Clutterbuck.

I'm interested in where we can find your college-level textbooks,
Pinkerton.

Some of my books, including novels and technical texts, with reviews,
can be found at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
The Times clearly didn't consult Pinkothicko before they wrote:
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he
describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and
ecological concerns are important.." -- Times Literary Supplement

Andre Jute
Interdisciplinary. Bend over, Pinko.

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: Or someone who records the choir at his church and tells his buddies
: he's a "professional recording engineer". ;-)
:
: As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
: Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?

o exalted one, may i humbly put before you
all my designs and spices ?
for ratification, you will note

: -)
: >In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
: >note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
: >the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
: >new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
: >for the finished product.
:
:
: Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even deWaal.
: They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables from various
: "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in their junk boxes.
: Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and output
: transformers.
: Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku or ARC, but
: they can honestly take credit for the finished product.


but surely, mr. Dwaal, you know that slef making gear creates a bias
that increases perceived fidelity - that's not fair play, eh ?

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

[Sander deWaal]

"Ruud Broens" > said:

>: As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
>: Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?

>o exalted one, may i humbly put before you
>all my designs and spices ?
>for ratification, you will note


Hmmm.....you use those obsolete devices otherwise known as "vacuum
tubes" , right, sonny?
Sorry, can't do. This is 2005, you know?

You'll have to ask Prof. Turner about that, I do sensible audio only
;-)


>: Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even deWaal.
>: They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables from various
>: "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in their junk boxes.
>: Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and output
>: transformers.
>: Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku or ARC, but
>: they can honestly take credit for the finished product.


>but surely, mr. Dwaal, you know that slef making gear creates a bias
>that increases perceived fidelity - that's not fair play, eh ?



Fair play? Where in the RAO charter does it say that?


>Rudyoz amigo


Cheerz mate, let 2006 be a better year than this was.

Witte kerst en een waanzinnig nieuwjaar vanuit hier, mede namens de
wederhelft!


Oh, en zorg dat je er dit jaar nu wel bent he!
http://home.versatel.nl/ddiy_2005/ zie aankondiging 2006.

--

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

[Ruud Broens]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" > said:
:
: >: As of feb. 2006, I'll be working for an audio company.
: >: Does that change my "authority" on RAO or RATubes?
:
: >o exalted one, may i humbly put before you
: >all my designs and spices ?
: >for ratification, you will note
:
:
: Hmmm.....you use those obsolete devices otherwise known as "vacuum
: tubes" , right, sonny?
: Sorry, can't do. This is 2005, you know?
:
: You'll have to ask Prof. Turner about that, I do sensible audio only
: ;-)

big bucks already spoilt the adventurer, eh ?
to baldly go where no curl has gone b4, hein ;-)
:
: >: Likewise for people like Jute, Turner and, yes, even deWaal.
: >: They make (tube) amps, speakers, DACs, and turntables from various
: >: "nuts and bolts" that are lying around in their junk boxes.
: >: Some even go so far as to make their own chassis' and output
: >: transformers.
: >: Their products may lack the refinements of a new Ongaku or ARC, but
: >: they can honestly take credit for the finished product.
:
:
: *but surely, mr. Dwaal, you know that slef making gear creates a bias
: >that increases perceived fidelity - that's not fair play, eh ?
:
:
:
: Fair play? Where in the RAO charter does it say that?
true. witholding evidence, then ;-)
:
: >Rudyoz amigo
:
:
: Cheerz mate, let 2006 be a better year than this was.
:
: Witte kerst en een waanzinnig nieuwjaar vanuit hier, mede namens de
: wederhelft!
:
gambler. 5% change of _that_ the supercomps say ..
insgelijks en zo :-)

: Oh, en zorg dat je er dit jaar nu wel bent he!
: http://home.versatel.nl/ddiy_2005/ zie aankondiging 2006.
:
yes, my masteh ;-)
: --
:
: "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."

* no kiddin'
: - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[[email protected]]

Keerist...

Most anyone with a decent education is able to parse a sentence. Few
take the trouble. The problem is that even if the shovel is
gold-plated, the information being cast about may not be as good as the
shovel.

Frequent publication:

Not necessarily so. Those who respect the English (any, comes to it)
language will try to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Shakespeare put it most aptly when he wrote: Brevity is the soul of
wit. Dickens was paid by the word, so in his case, he had a special
interest in fulsome writing over the elegant and economical conveyance
of information. The presumption (at least on my part) is that this
venue should value information over style, and judge the information
and its clarity rather than the surrounding fluff and flummery.

All kidding aside, elegant prose with the sole and only purpose being
character assasination, even if perceived by the writer as true and
just, is so sad. I know absolutely nothing about Andre Jute except what
he has exposed to us here, and then only recently, and a litte from his
website. But, those things that are obvious are that he has a very
large and very fragile ego, and that he is the living embodyment of the
Peter Pan syndrome. I suspect that if one tip-toes around his ego, and
if one makes due provision for his self-image (not hardly the same
thing), he could be a very nice fellow....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
> >> because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
> >> has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
> >> by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
> >> Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
> >> performed using equipment, artists, and venues that were
> >> obtained by others and at the expense of others.
> >
> > Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in
> > seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
> > rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
> > changes that.
>
> Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed to being correct you
> pulled your usual debating trade schtick.
>
> You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and eliminated a thorough
> discussion of exactly what I meant.

No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google. My reference to
your hair-splitting was for your secondary "points".

As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland recordings?

> In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a deceptive troll.

Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

> If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised Stephen, then do so.
> Otherwise you can make an even bigger fool of yourself on your own.

Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who engineered the
L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've heard his work.

Your secondary points:

Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If you don't
understand recordings are often collaborative efforts, then you probably
don't have much experience with professional recordings.

No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked for big
important recording companies as part of a production team. It's also
common for freelancers to work for the artist and record in an
independent studio using available gear.

If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish, so be it.

Stephen

[Andre Jute]

Vannabe Vicked Wieckie sent a long miaow. She stormed into RAT a
fortnight ago and with prissy lips tried to tell me how I should
behave. She still hasn't discovered that no one with a fragile ego
survives long on the net. She is another little Kroogeroid control
freak who thinks that by denigrating her betters she will seem larger
than she is. Her fake humility, were it real, would be fully justified
by vast tundra empty of achievement and an arid soul full of
schadenfreude (which I already demonstrated, of course; google it). Who
wants to bet on how long before Vicked Wieckie flounces out in a huff?
Pick a week, let me know by e-mail how much you want to bet and I'll
give you odds.

Andre Jute

PS Wieckie-baby, prove that I ever in more than ten years on RAT struck
anyone who didn't strike me first, and I'll forego calling you a
slack-arse envious hypcrite who didn't do his homework and discover
that *everyone* I **** on struck me first. Including you.

pfjw aka Vannabe Vicked Wieckie, @aol.com miaows:
> Keerist...
>
> Most anyone with a decent education is able to parse a sentence. Few
> take the trouble. The problem is that even if the shovel is
> gold-plated, the information being cast about may not be as good as the
> shovel.
>
> Frequent publication:
>
> Not necessarily so. Those who respect the English (any, comes to it)
> language will try to say what they mean and mean what they say.
> Shakespeare put it most aptly when he wrote: Brevity is the soul of
> wit. Dickens was paid by the word, so in his case, he had a special
> interest in fulsome writing over the elegant and economical conveyance
> of information. The presumption (at least on my part) is that this
> venue should value information over style, and judge the information
> and its clarity rather than the surrounding fluff and flummery.
>
> All kidding aside, elegant prose with the sole and only purpose being
> character assasination, even if perceived by the writer as true and
> just, is so sad. I know absolutely nothing about Andre Jute except what
> he has exposed to us here, and then only recently, and a litte from his
> website. But, those things that are obvious are that he has a very
> large and very fragile ego, and that he is the living embodyment of the
> Peter Pan syndrome. I suspect that if one tip-toes around his ego, and
> if one makes due provision for his self-image (not hardly the same
> thing), he could be a very nice fellow....
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
>>>> because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
>>>> has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
>>>> by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
>>>> Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
>>>> performed using equipment, artists, and venues that
>>>> were obtained by others and at the expense of others.
>>>
>>> Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
>>> in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
>>> rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
>>> changes that.
>>
>> Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
>> to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
>> schtick.
>>
>> You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
>> eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I meant.

> No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.

OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light on my specific
claims.

> My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
> secondary "points".

More hair-splitting.

> As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
> recordings?

Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a minor step in
production.

>> In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
>> deceptive troll.

> Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.

No, I'm simply being accurate.

>> If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
>> Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
>> bigger fool of yourself on your own.

> Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
> engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
> heard his work.

The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of the larger picture
called producing a recording.

> Your secondary points:

> Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
> you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
> efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
> with professional recordings.

If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its clear you have some
severe perceptual challenges. I covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get
it Stephen, it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
couldn't see it's relevance.

> No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually challenged than I
thought if you have to raise that question. BTW, since you seem to need it
spelled our, the answer is yes.

> Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
> for big important recording companies as part of a
> production team.

Which means that the works he takes credit for are in fact the work of a
team.

> It's also common for freelancers to work
> for the artist and record in an independent studio using
> available gear.

So what?

> If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish,
> so be it.

You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

Sad.

[Andre Jute]

A sound recording engineer is a man who for his daily bread or an
habitual part of his daily bread makes sound recordings. He is a
professional. It doesn't matter whether he works on a team or alone.
Ownership of copyright is irrelevant. Ownership of machinery is
irrelevant.

Someone who records his church choir for free and then claims the money
they didn't pay a professional, for a job they probably didn't want
done in the first instance (1), makes him a professional is a
professional fool; this person is no more than a hobbyist. Arny Krueger
fits this category.

The person who puts together the artists and venue and pays the
salaries is the producer. He usually doesn't own anything either, being
a salaried employee or freelance for hire to the distributor, the
record company. He too is a professional, not to be confused with a
hobbyist going along to his pre-existing church choir and recording
them.

These are pretty standard definitions in great many industries.

Iain Churches, who has a veriable track record as a professional sound
recordist, fits the first category. He is a professional in sound
recording.

Arny Krueger fits this the second category of a hobbyist. It is
significant that Krueger tries to inflate his standing by denigrating a
professional. A real professional would never in a million do anything
that silly.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) ... for a job they probably didn't want done in the first instance!
We all know amateur idiots who insist on photographing or recording
events whether the victims want it or not. To this class of
insensitive, bullying hobbyist a church choir, full of Christians too
charitable to put him back in his box must seem a godsent.

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Iain Churches" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Andre Jute" > wrote in message
> >>> oups.com...
> >>> > Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
> >>> > a sound recording engineer.
> >>>
> >>> A job he does for his church, not an occupation.
> >>
> >> Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
> >> claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
> >> engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
> >> church free of charge.
> >
> > Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
> > nonsense.
>
> AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.
>
> > Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
> > Professional is not a word that comes to mind.
>
> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
> none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
> work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
> small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
> artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
> others.
>
> It's my understanding that in contrast, John Atkinson has actually made some
> recordings of note. He has personally lined up artists, venues, and
> equipment. Atkinson, at least some of the time personally selected, obtained
> and set up the equipment, loaded and unloaded recording media of his
> personal choice, was the sole technician who personally placed, adjusted,
> and started and stopped the equipment.
>
> AFAIK Atkinson has edited at least some (I think all) of his recordings
> himself using editing facilities that he personally selected and/or owned,
> personally mastered some or all of the recordings, and on occasion delivered
> the masters for reproduction by subcontractors that he personally selected
> and made the arrangements for.
>
> There's a good chance that Atkinson even owns the copyrights to some of his
> recordings, which are thus truely his.
>
> Note that while I've explained these differences to Iain before on several
> occasions, he continues to act like they don't exist. In short, he's either
> BSing, or he's seriously delusional.
>
> Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
> miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
> finish.
>
> In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
> note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
> the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
> new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
> for the finished product.

"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Stewart Pinkerton, Postman of Spam, wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Andre Jute" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >> FLAME WARRIOR
>> >> Preliminary report of
>> >> AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH
>> >>
>> >Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top
>> >of
>> >literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post,
>> >but
>> >Jute's efforts dwarf mine.
>> >
>> >This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives
>> >or
>> >ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a
>> >level
>> >of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent
>> >publication.
>> >
>> >What does this guy actually do in real life?
>>
>> He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
>> creative writing to college kids.
>> --
>>
>> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
>
> Nope, I don't teach creative writing, though it is true that my
> textbooks in writing are prescribed texts in various such courses.
> Others of my books are prescribed in other courses. A novel of mine was
> once prescribed as a text in a course at an English university for
> high-level civil servants, soldiers and policemen in the anti-terrorist
> branches; it was taught by Brigadier Richard Clutterbuck.
>
> I'm interested in where we can find your college-level textbooks,
> Pinkerton.
>
> Some of my books, including novels and technical texts, with reviews,
> can be found at
> http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
> The Times clearly didn't consult Pinkothicko before they wrote:
> "Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he
> describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and
> ecological concerns are important.." -- Times Literary Supplement
>
> Andre Jute
> Interdisciplinary. Bend over, Pinko.
>
Of course if they saw what you write here, they'd be leading the charge to
have you sent to Bedlam.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings
> >>>> because there are none. All of the recordings that Iain
> >>>> has taken credit for had most of the work done on them
> >>>> by others. He has no legal rights to them at all.
> >>>> Whatever small contribution he did make to them was
> >>>> performed using equipment, artists, and venues that
> >>>> were obtained by others and at the expense of others.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
> >>> in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about legal
> >>> rights or collaborative work or who hired the equipment
> >>> changes that.
> >>
> >> Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
> >> to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
> >> schtick.
> >>
> >> You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
> >> eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I meant.
>
> > No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.
>
> OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light on my specific
> claims.

Your point was that Iain has made no recordings. Well, Google says he
has engineered at least one major series of recordings.

> > My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
> > secondary "points".
>
> More hair-splitting.

No, it's answering you exactly.

> > As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
> > recordings?
>
> Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a minor step in
> production.

An engineer can properly be said to have "made a recording."

> >> In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
> >> deceptive troll.
>
> > Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad hominem.
>
> No, I'm simply being accurate.

Nope. I'm addressing your argument directly.

> >> If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
> >> Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
> >> bigger fool of yourself on your own.
>
> > Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
> > engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
> > heard his work.
>
> The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of the larger picture
> called producing a recording.

Indispensable and not necessarily small. Why are you belittling
recording engineers all of a sudden?

> > Your secondary points:
>
> > Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
> > you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
> > efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
> > with professional recordings.
>
> If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its clear you have some
> severe perceptual challenges. I covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get
> it Stephen, it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
> couldn't see it's relevance.

You say he doesn't "have" any recordings when he has in fact made
recordings.

And, no, your side issues are not relevant to the question of whether
Mr. Churches "has" any recordings.

> > No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?
>
> Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually challenged than I
> thought if you have to raise that question. BTW, since you seem to need it
> spelled our, the answer is yes.

So an engineer working on a recording generally wouldn't be expected to
own the rights to the product.

> > Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
> > for big important recording companies as part of a
> > production team.
>
> Which means that the works he takes credit for are in fact the work of a
> team.

He is entitled to credit as part of a team. He is also entitled to
credit for work he has done on his own.

> > It's also common for freelancers to work
> > for the artist and record in an independent studio using
> > available gear.
>
> So what?

So hiring gear isn't an important issue. However, an engineer would be
expected to own, hire or use whatever it takes to make the recording.

> > If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem foolish,
> > so be it.
>
> You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?
>
> Sad.

I see you attacking someone in retaliation for saying something you
don't like. As you don't have a substantive point, you make up stuff, in
this case belittling recording engineers.

Recording engineers are not a small part of a recording team. For you to
suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's
>>>>>> recordings because there are none. All of the
>>>>>> recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most
>>>>>> of the work done on them by others. He has no legal
>>>>>> rights to them at all. Whatever small contribution
>>>>>> he did make to them was performed using equipment,
>>>>>> artists, and venues that were obtained by others and
>>>>>> at the expense of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
>>>>> in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about
>>>>> legal rights or collaborative work or who hired the
>>>>> equipment changes that.
>>>>
>>>> Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
>>>> to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
>>>> schtick.
>>>>
>>>> You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
>>>> eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I
>>>> meant.
>>
>>> No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.
>>
>> OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light
>> on my specific claims.
>
> Your point was that Iain has made no recordings. Well,
> Google says he has engineered at least one major series
> of recordings.
>
>>> My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
>>> secondary "points".
>>
>> More hair-splitting.
>
> No, it's answering you exactly.
>
>>> As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
>>> recordings?
>>
>> Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a
>> minor step in production.
>
> An engineer can properly be said to have "made a
> recording."
>
>>>> In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
>>>> deceptive troll.
>>
>>> Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad
>>> hominem.
>>
>> No, I'm simply being accurate.
>
> Nope. I'm addressing your argument directly.
>
>>>> If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
>>>> Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
>>>> bigger fool of yourself on your own.
>>
>>> Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
>>> engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
>>> heard his work.
>>
>> The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of
>> the larger picture called producing a recording.

> Indispensable

Only in the sense that *someone* had to do it.

>and not necessarily small.

not necessarily large.


> Why are you
> belittling recording engineers all of a sudden?

I'm not. Belittling means making their role smaller than it is. I'm simply
trying to point out that in a large organization, a recording engineer is
simply another replacable unit.

>>> Your secondary points:

>>> Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
>>> you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
>>> efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
>>> with professional recordings.
>>
>> If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its
>> clear you have some severe perceptual challenges. I
>> covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get it Stephen,
>> it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
>> couldn't see it's relevance.

> You say he doesn't "have" any recordings when he has in
> fact made recordings.

Churches compares his role in the recordings he has engineers credits with
my role in my recordings. He says that they are comparable. He should knows
better. Therefore he lies.

> And, no, your side issues are not relevant to the
> question of whether Mr. Churches "has" any recordings.

If there are enough significant side issues, then they join together and
become the main issue.

>>> No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?

>> Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually
>> challenged than I thought if you have to raise that
>> question. BTW, since you seem to need it spelled our,
>> the answer is yes.

> So an engineer working on a recording generally wouldn't
> be expected to own the rights to the product.

Thanks Stephen for finally supporting one of the major points in my argument
that Church cannot reasonably compare his role in the recordings that he has
engineer's credits for to my role in the recordings that I've produced.

>>> Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
>>> for big important recording companies as part of a
>>> production team.
>
>> Which means that the works he takes credit for are in
>> fact the work of a team.

> He is entitled to credit as part of a team.

However, he compares his work to a person who works solo.

> He is also entitled to credit for work he has done on his own.

Does such work exist?

>>> It's also common for freelancers to work
>>> for the artist and record in an independent studio using
>>> available gear.
>>
>> So what?

> So hiring gear isn't an important issue.

An engineer that works for a recording company can get engineers credit's
without doing even just that. Often all he has to do is look in a closet or
cupboard. An person who produces a recording on his own has far more than
that to do, in the gear selection and acquisition portion of the project.

> However, an
> engineer would be expected to own, hire or use whatever
> it takes to make the recording.

There's a big difference between owning your own equipment and pulling
someone else's equipment out of a cupboard.

>>> If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem
>>> foolish, so be it.
>>
>> You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?

>> Sad.

> I see you attacking someone in retaliation for saying
> something you don't like.

Actually Stephen, I can't you see acting this poorly-informed without
trying.

>As you don't have a substantive
> point, you make up stuff, in this case belittling
> recording engineers.

Not at all. This controversy with Churches is about him gratuitously
belittling me over a period of months. Now Stephen, you've taken his side in
his little vendetta against me. Not your first, probably not your last.

> Recording engineers are not a small part of a recording team.

In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording engineer to get
credit for a project that he never personally touched in the physical sense.

>For you to suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.

For Stephen to gratutitously jump into yet another a vendetta against me is
hardly surprising. Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

[[email protected]]

Andre,

Proving the negative is a logical fallacy, kiddo. The world is seldom
kind and owes no one anything, least of all appreciation or
recognition. And if I were to force myself to '**** back' at every
perceived slight real or imagined, there would not be enough time for
much of anything else, and I surely would be inviting attacks were they
not real in the first place. The brute fact of the matter is that
pretty much the entire world simply does not care.

There are only seven fallacies. So far, in two posts you have managed
three. I am sure with a wee bit of research, I could find all seven in
your ramblings. However, you are yourself a most excellent and enduring
demonstration of the Pathetic Fallacy... and lest you protest from
faint knowledge yet again, that has NOTHING to do with pathos.

One wonders if you would actually pass the Turing Test.

Your most prolific fallacy is the use of the "Bellman's Proof",
something that again will likely escape you without further research.
It is sorta-kinda a combination of two of the classical references,
being circular reasoning and false premises. Betcha Don would get this
one right away as well? Don? (Actually, I hope you are not spinning
your wheels reading this tripe.)

Now, keep in mind that fragile egos _always_ have something to prove.
Those that manage to channel the insecurity to productive ends quite
typically shine in the real world. Those who do not often subsume very
real achievements in meaningless unnecessary defenses and irrational
accusations. Were you so damned sure of your facts, you would have no
need for pointless rants and painfully silly dissertations on exactly
how many angels might dance on the head of a theoretical pin of unknown
dimensions... to an entirely uncaring audience. The saddest part of
all.

What's worse is that you and Phil spend a good deal of time answering
your own posts. Steve Dinius, a waste-of-air from another NG has that
habit, and he admits to being on very strong meds. What's your excuse?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Any fool can see that the paragraph above is not a claim, but a
> light-hearted rhetorical question intended to poke fun at people who put
> on *professional* airs.
>

now, just WHO could that be?

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of
> no note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal,
> mill the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
> compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can
> honestly take credit for the finished product.
>

I hope they aren't stealing your intellectual
property, i.e., your astray designs.

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..

>Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most reasonable guys
around here. He just hates to have a loaf of **** on his dinner table. In
that regard, I'd say he's pretty human.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of
>> no note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet
>> metal, mill the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
>> compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can
>> honestly take credit for the finished product.
>>
>
> I hope they aren't stealing your intellectual
> property, i.e., your astray designs.

LOL! I'm sure his "engineering" degree from Oafland U. came in handy.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in
message
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>> Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

> The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
> reasonable guys around here.

I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is my Sockpuppet".

[Andre Jute]

Arny, this is incredible. It will come as no surprise to you that I
think you're a deceitful posturer. But really, I am prepared to believe
someone, say in your church, must value you, that in real life you may
be someone with with friends and community respect even. But you are
doing yourself a lot of harm by attacking a real professional who works
with leading artists, and then claiming your "achievements" recording
your local church choir are equal to his -- or greater! For a start,
his recordings are widely on sale through commercial channels. That
alone makes him a professional. You used to have a good bit of
credibility on the net but now you're killing your reputation not by
small slices but with a steam shovel; you give the appearance of
someone off his rocker, or under great personal stress, or even just
plain drunk. Believe me, in precisely the same way as Pinkerton I could
never be the friend of a crude little man like you, but even I hurt for
what you're doing to yourself here. We know you don't have the grace to
apologize. But you can just let it drop. Leave the thread! -- Andre
Jute

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's
> >>>>>> recordings because there are none. All of the
> >>>>>> recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most
> >>>>>> of the work done on them by others. He has no legal
> >>>>>> rights to them at all. Whatever small contribution
> >>>>>> he did make to them was performed using equipment,
> >>>>>> artists, and venues that were obtained by others and
> >>>>>> at the expense of others.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong
> >>>>> in seconds, and none of your hair-splitting about
> >>>>> legal rights or collaborative work or who hired the
> >>>>> equipment changes that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Look Stephen, in you usual rush to be right as opposed
> >>>> to being correct you pulled your usual debating trade
> >>>> schtick.
> >>>>
> >>>> You dismissed my main point as "hair splitting", and
> >>>> eliminated a thorough discussion of exactly what I
> >>>> meant.
> >>
> >>> No, I dismissed your main point based on a quick Google.
> >>
> >> OK, so you used an invalid procedure that shed no light
> >> on my specific claims.
> >
> > Your point was that Iain has made no recordings. Well,
> > Google says he has engineered at least one major series
> > of recordings.
> >
> >>> My reference to your hair-splitting was for your
> >>> secondary "points".
> >>
> >> More hair-splitting.
> >
> > No, it's answering you exactly.
> >
> >>> As for the main point, who engineered my Dowland
> >>> recordings?
> >>
> >> Who cares? This is not about who got the credit for a
> >> minor step in production.
> >
> > An engineer can properly be said to have "made a
> > recording."
> >
> >>>> In my book Stephen that shows you once again to be a
> >>>> deceptive troll.
> >>
> >>> Without a leg to stand on, you go right to the ad
> >>> hominem.
> >>
> >> No, I'm simply being accurate.
> >
> > Nope. I'm addressing your argument directly.
> >
> >>>> If you want to be responsive to the issues I raised
> >>>> Stephen, then do so. Otherwise you can make an even
> >>>> bigger fool of yourself on your own.
> >>
> >>> Main point: if Mr. Churches is the same person who
> >>> engineered the L'Oiseau Lyre Dowland recordings, I've
> >>> heard his work.
> >>
> >> The point is that Churches' work is a small portion of
> >> the larger picture called producing a recording.
>
> > Indispensable
>
> Only in the sense that *someone* had to do it.
>
> >and not necessarily small.
>
> not necessarily large.
>
>
> > Why are you
> > belittling recording engineers all of a sudden?
>
> I'm not. Belittling means making their role smaller than it is. I'm simply
> trying to point out that in a large organization, a recording engineer is
> simply another replacable unit.
>
> >>> Your secondary points:
>
> >>> Credit taken from others who did "most of the work"? If
> >>> you don't understand recordings are often collaborative
> >>> efforts, then you probably don't have much experience
> >>> with professional recordings.
> >>
> >> If you have to belabor this point Stephen, then its
> >> clear you have some severe perceptual challenges. I
> >> covered all that, and in detail. Oh, I get it Stephen,
> >> it was all over your head and you deleted it because you
> >> couldn't see it's relevance.
>
> > You say he doesn't "have" any recordings when he has in
> > fact made recordings.
>
> Churches compares his role in the recordings he has engineers credits with
> my role in my recordings. He says that they are comparable. He should knows
> better. Therefore he lies.
>
> > And, no, your side issues are not relevant to the
> > question of whether Mr. Churches "has" any recordings.
>
> If there are enough significant side issues, then they join together and
> become the main issue.
>
> >>> No legal rights? Ever hear of "work for hire"?
>
> >> Well Stephen, you're obviously even more perceptually
> >> challenged than I thought if you have to raise that
> >> question. BTW, since you seem to need it spelled our,
> >> the answer is yes.
>
> > So an engineer working on a recording generally wouldn't
> > be expected to own the rights to the product.
>
> Thanks Stephen for finally supporting one of the major points in my argument
> that Church cannot reasonably compare his role in the recordings that he has
> engineer's credits for to my role in the recordings that I've produced.
>
> >>> Equipment, artists and venues? This means he has worked
> >>> for big important recording companies as part of a
> >>> production team.
> >
> >> Which means that the works he takes credit for are in
> >> fact the work of a team.
>
> > He is entitled to credit as part of a team.
>
> However, he compares his work to a person who works solo.
>
> > He is also entitled to credit for work he has done on his own.
>
> Does such work exist?
>
> >>> It's also common for freelancers to work
> >>> for the artist and record in an independent studio using
> >>> available gear.
> >>
> >> So what?
>
> > So hiring gear isn't an important issue.
>
> An engineer that works for a recording company can get engineers credit's
> without doing even just that. Often all he has to do is look in a closet or
> cupboard. An person who produces a recording on his own has far more than
> that to do, in the gear selection and acquisition portion of the project.
>
> > However, an
> > engineer would be expected to own, hire or use whatever
> > it takes to make the recording.
>
> There's a big difference between owning your own equipment and pulling
> someone else's equipment out of a cupboard.
>
> >>> If repeating this common knowledge makes me seem
> >>> foolish, so be it.
> >>
> >> You still don't get the difference, do you Stephen?
>
> >> Sad.
>
> > I see you attacking someone in retaliation for saying
> > something you don't like.
>
> Actually Stephen, I can't you see acting this poorly-informed without
> trying.
>
> >As you don't have a substantive
> > point, you make up stuff, in this case belittling
> > recording engineers.
>
> Not at all. This controversy with Churches is about him gratuitously
> belittling me over a period of months. Now Stephen, you've taken his side in
> his little vendetta against me. Not your first, probably not your last.
>
> > Recording engineers are not a small part of a recording team.
>
> In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording engineer to get
> credit for a project that he never personally touched in the physical sense.
>
> >For you to suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.
>
> For Stephen to gratutitously jump into yet another a vendetta against me is
> hardly surprising. Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > Indispensable
>
> Only in the sense that *someone* had to do it.

That's all it takes...

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording engineer to get
> credit for a project that he never personally touched in the physical sense.

Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording engineer does
more work: selecting gear; placing mics; maintaining equipment;
pre-session set-up; post-session breakdown; documenting recording
activity; labeling recording medium or media; plus operating the
recording equipment during the session.

> >For you to suggest otherwise smacks of sour grapes.
>
> For Stephen to gratutitously jump into yet another a vendetta against me is
> hardly surprising. Stephen is a person who loves to hate.

Well, I resisted the urge to respond to each of your risibilities.

Is it possible that although the activities are similar his
accomplishments are greater than yours?

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Margaret von B." > wrote in
> message
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >> Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
>
> > The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
> > reasonable guys around here.
>
> I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is my Sockpuppet".

No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their self.

Stephen

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Andre,
>
> Proving the negative is a logical fallacy, kiddo. The world is seldom
> kind and owes no one anything, least of all appreciation or
> recognition. And if I were to force myself to '**** back' at every
> perceived slight real or imagined, there would not be enough time for
> much of anything else, and I surely would be inviting attacks were they
> not real in the first place. The brute fact of the matter is that
> pretty much the entire world simply does not care.
>
> There are only seven fallacies. So far, in two posts you have managed
> three. I am sure with a wee bit of research, I could find all seven in
> your ramblings. However, you are yourself a most excellent and enduring
> demonstration of the Pathetic Fallacy... and lest you protest from
> faint knowledge yet again, that has NOTHING to do with pathos.
>
> One wonders if you would actually pass the Turing Test.
>
> Your most prolific fallacy is the use of the "Bellman's Proof",
> something that again will likely escape you without further research.
> It is sorta-kinda a combination of two of the classical references,
> being circular reasoning and false premises. Betcha Don would get this
> one right away as well? Don? (Actually, I hope you are not spinning
> your wheels reading this tripe.)
>
> Now, keep in mind that fragile egos _always_ have something to prove.

I feel reasonably confident that the real Andre Jute has a perfectly fine
ego, but the person who posts here is likely not that person.

> Those that manage to channel the insecurity to productive ends quite
> typically shine in the real world. Those who do not often subsume very
> real achievements in meaningless unnecessary defenses and irrational
> accusations. Were you so damned sure of your facts, you would have no
> need for pointless rants and painfully silly dissertations on exactly
> how many angels might dance on the head of a theoretical pin of unknown
> dimensions... to an entirely uncaring audience. The saddest part of
> all.
>
> What's worse is that you and Phil spend a good deal of time answering
> your own posts. Steve Dinius, a waste-of-air from another NG has that
> habit, and he admits to being on very strong meds. What's your excuse?
>
It is my opinion, that whoever is behind the Andre Jute persona, they are
only here for the puprose of making themeslves a pain in the ass. If this
is the real Andre Jute then, what a ****head.

[paul packer]

On 20 Dec 2005 16:01:27 -0800, "Andre Jute" > wrote:


>Iain Churches, who has a veriable track record as a professional sound
>recordist

"Veriable"? Hmmm...this kind of throws the question open again,
Andre. :-)

[paul packer]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:12:38 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>Churches compares his role in the recordings he has engineers credits with
>my role in my recordings. He says that they are comparable.

Shouldn't compare church with Churches, eh, Arnie?

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in
>> message
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>
>>>> Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
>>
>>> The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
>>> reasonable guys around here.
>>
>> I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
>> my Sockpuppet".
>
> No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their self.

Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
>> engineer to get credit for a project that he never
>> personally touched in the physical sense.
>
> Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
> engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
> maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
> breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
> recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
> equipment during the session.

In a large organization many of these functions are either pre-defined, or
done by others.

For example, gear selection in a company recording studio is almost always a
slam dunk. If you walk into a recording studio, its not like there are 1500
different mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different mixing consoles
to pick from. In a given studio there will be only one or two consoles,
one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less different mics to chose
from.

In fact large companies tend to equip their studios similarly. There is
often only one inventory of microphones for all of the studios at one
location to draw from.

Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches deceptively compares
himself to. A solo recordist makes all of his equipment choices from the
world marketplace. He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more different mixing
consoles.

I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of alternatives in a similar
fashion, Stephen.

BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist Stephen, why do you
even bother to try to argue with me?

Lonely and trolling again, eh Stephen? Still hoping that you'll somehow
finally catch up with me? LOL!

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Lonely and trolling again, eh Stephen? Still hoping that you'll somehow
> finally catch up with me? LOL!

I'll separate this from the relatively substantive part of the post.

Trolling? No, I'm responding to your posts.

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
> >> engineer to get credit for a project that he never
> >> personally touched in the physical sense.
> >
> > Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
> > engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
> > maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
> > breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
> > recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
> > equipment during the session.
>
> In a large organization many of these functions are either pre-defined, or
> done by others.

Pre-defined as done by the recording engineer. That's his job.

> For example, gear selection in a company recording studio is almost always a
> slam dunk. If you walk into a recording studio, its not like there are 1500
> different mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different mixing consoles
> to pick from. In a given studio there will be only one or two consoles,
> one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less different mics to chose
> from.
>
> In fact large companies tend to equip their studios similarly. There is
> often only one inventory of microphones for all of the studios at one
> location to draw from.

Plus the inventory available for hire from equipment companies.

> Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches deceptively compares
> himself to. A solo recordist makes all of his equipment choices from the
> world marketplace. He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
> mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more different mixing
> consoles.

That's the same way the company inventory was chosen, and the staff
engineer can still hire or buy from the world marketplace, less you're
suggesting a scenario in which the staff engineers become de facto
designers by spec during the bid process.

> I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of alternatives in a similar
> fashion, Stephen.

Unconvincingly, yes.

> BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist Stephen, why do you
> even bother to try to argue with me?

If you claim chops as a recordist. why are you belittling recordists?

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Margaret von B." > wrote in
> >> message
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> >>> . ..
> >>>
> >>>> Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
> >>
> >>> The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and most
> >>> reasonable guys around here.
> >>
> >> I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
> >> my Sockpuppet".
> >
> > No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their self.
>
> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.

Of what?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Margaret von B." > wrote in
>>>> message
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
>>>>
>>>>> The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and
>>>>> most reasonable guys around here.
>>>>
>>>> I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
>>>> my Sockpuppet".
>>>
>>> No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their
>>> self.
>>
>> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
>
> Of what?

Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)

She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
>>>> engineer to get credit for a project that he never
>>>> personally touched in the physical sense.
>>>
>>> Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
>>> engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
>>> maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
>>> breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
>>> recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
>>> equipment during the session.
>>
>> In a large organization many of these functions are
>> either pre-defined, or done by others.
>
> Pre-defined as done by the recording engineer. That's his
> job.

Wrong. Many things are predefined by the last job like this, which well may
have been done by someone else. Especially true for classical recordings.
The ensembles are and venues are typically pretty much standardized.

>> For example, gear selection in a company recording
>> studio is almost always a slam dunk. If you walk into a
>> recording studio, its not like there are 1500 different
>> mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different
>> mixing consoles to pick from. In a given studio there
>> will be only one or two consoles,
>> one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less
>> different mics to chose from.

>> In fact large companies tend to equip their studios
>> similarly. There is often only one inventory of
>> microphones for all of the studios at one location to
>> draw from.

> Plus the inventory available for hire from equipment
> companies.

Hiring gets old fast for orgaqnizations who are doing the same thing month
after month, year after year.

>> Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches
>> deceptively compares himself to. A solo recordist makes
>> all of his equipment choices from the world marketplace.
>> He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
>> mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more
>> different mixing consoles.

> That's the same way the company inventory was chosen,

By whom? By the senior engineers, by the engineers who did the jobs before.

> and the staff engineer can still hire or buy from the world
> marketplace, less you're suggesting a scenario in which
> the staff engineers become de facto designers by spec
> during the bid process.

Stephenm, as usual you're speculating about something you obviously know
nothing about. Sure, new equipment gets bought from time to time. Often its
chosen by senior staff, headquarters staff or a committee.

If your company has gotten great reviews for SQ for recordings of a certain
orchestra in a certain venue playing a certain kind of music, how much are
you going to change the next time you pull that job?

Since you seem to need to hear it said Stephen: as little as possible.
Nothing succeeds like success.

>> I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of
>> alternatives in a similar fashion, Stephen.

> Unconvincingly, yes.

Look Stephen your play-role around here is oppose and play that you're
unconvinced about as much of what I say as you can. That's a given. It's not
like we share many experiences or philosophies, right?

>> BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist
>> Stephen, why do you even bother to try to argue with me?

<Stephen does not answer the question>

> If you claim chops as a recordist. why are you belittling
> recordists?

I'm not belittling *all* recordists, just an agressive big-company prick who
likes to lord it over other people based on working in a structured
environment with lots of advantages.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In terms of hands-on work, its possible for a recording
> >>>> engineer to get credit for a project that he never
> >>>> personally touched in the physical sense.
> >>>
> >>> Nice work if you can get it. In reality, the recording
> >>> engineer does more work: selecting gear; placing mics;
> >>> maintaining equipment; pre-session set-up; post-session
> >>> breakdown; documenting recording activity; labeling
> >>> recording medium or media; plus operating the recording
> >>> equipment during the session.
> >>
> >> In a large organization many of these functions are
> >> either pre-defined, or done by others.
> >
> > Pre-defined as done by the recording engineer. That's his
> > job.
>
> Wrong.

It's his job. Go Google some job descriptions or something.

> Many things are predefined by the last job like this, which well may
> have been done by someone else. Especially true for classical recordings.
> The ensembles are and venues are typically pretty much standardized.

Ah. That's called experience and it doesn't preclude the engineer doing
his job.

> >> For example, gear selection in a company recording
> >> studio is almost always a slam dunk. If you walk into a
> >> recording studio, its not like there are 1500 different
> >> mics and 150 different recorders and 150 different
> >> mixing consoles to pick from. In a given studio there
> >> will be only one or two consoles,
> >> one - three recorders and maybe a dozen or less
> >> different mics to chose from.
>
> >> In fact large companies tend to equip their studios
> >> similarly. There is often only one inventory of
> >> microphones for all of the studios at one location to
> >> draw from.
>
> > Plus the inventory available for hire from equipment
> > companies.
>
> Hiring gets old fast for orgaqnizations who are doing the same thing month
> after month, year after year.

So? It still happens and engineers are expected to know what's available.

> >> Compare that to the solo-recordist that Churches
> >> deceptively compares himself to. A solo recordist makes
> >> all of his equipment choices from the world marketplace.
> >> He really must choose from among 1500 or more different
> >> mics and 150 or more different recorders and 150 or more
> >> different mixing consoles.
>
> > That's the same way the company inventory was chosen,
>
> By whom? By the senior engineers, by the engineers who did the jobs before.

Weren't those people recording engineers too?

> > and the staff engineer can still hire or buy from the world
> > marketplace, less you're suggesting a scenario in which
> > the staff engineers become de facto designers by spec
> > during the bid process.
>
> Stephenm, as usual you're speculating about something you obviously know
> nothing about. Sure, new equipment gets bought from time to time. Often its
> chosen by senior staff, headquarters staff or a committee.

> If your company has gotten great reviews for SQ for recordings of a certain
> orchestra in a certain venue playing a certain kind of music, how much are
> you going to change the next time you pull that job?
>
> Since you seem to need to hear it said Stephen: as little as possible.
> Nothing succeeds like success.

That would include using the engineer who got it right in the first
place.

> >> I can deconstruct your whole shopping list of
> >> alternatives in a similar fashion, Stephen.
>
> > Unconvincingly, yes.
>
> Look Stephen your play-role around here is oppose and play that you're
> unconvinced about as much of what I say as you can. That's a given. It's not
> like we share many experiences or philosophies, right?

I'm not pretending that you're full of it on this subject.

> >> BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist
> >> Stephen, why do you even bother to try to argue with me?
>
> <Stephen does not answer the question>

So what? You started out by not answering my first question.

> > If you claim chops as a recordist. why are you belittling
> > recordists?
>
> I'm not belittling *all* recordists, just an agressive big-company prick who
> likes to lord it over other people based on working in a structured
> environment with lots of advantages.

Advantage envy? Console yourself that he's probably done lots of
freelance work too.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I'm not belittling *all* recordists, just an agressive big-company prick who
> likes to lord it over other people based on working in a structured
> environment with lots of advantages.

Heh.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
: "MINe 109" > wrote in message
: >>>>>
: >>>>>> Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
: >>>>
: >>>>> The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and
: >>>>> most reasonable guys around here.
: >>>>
: >>>> I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
: >>>> my Sockpuppet".
: >>>
: >>> No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their
: >>> self.
: >>
: >> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
: >
: > Of what?
:
: Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
:
: She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
:
Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
that it take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery

dutch santa

[Margaret von B.]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> : "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> : >>>>>
> : >>>>>> Stephen is a person who loves to hate.
> : >>>>
> : >>>>> The truth is that Stephen is one of the nicest and
> : >>>>> most reasonable guys around here.
> : >>>>
> : >>>> I guess he's trying to wave a flag that says "Maggie is
> : >>>> my Sockpuppet".
> : >>>
> : >>> No one can operate a sock-puppet smarter than their
> : >>> self.
> : >>
> : >> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
> : >
> : > Of what?
> :
> : Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
> :
> : She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
> :
> Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
> It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
> who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
> that it take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery
>
> dutch santa
>

..40 Glock might just succeed.

Mrs. Claus, TX

[Clyde Slick]

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

>
> Well, Maggie is really a twit.



TYPO ALERT!!!

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>
>
>>
>> Well, Maggie is really a twit.
>
>
>
> TYPO ALERT!!!
>

Not really. Arnii has yet to learn that *other* word from you RAO guys.
Just like he claimed to have learned what child porn was from RAO...

Cheers,

Margaret

[Arny Krueger]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in
message
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Well, Maggie is really a twit.

>> TYPO ALERT!!!

> Not really. Arnii has yet to learn that *other* word from
> you RAO guys.

Yeah sure. In reality it does not apply to Maggie nearly as well at twit.

Please see my comments about the my sale of the Ambassador Bridge, from
earlier today.

> Just like he claimed to have learned what
> child porn was from RAO...

As usual, Maggie is lying. What I recently claimed is that I learned about
NAMBLA from RAO. More specifically a sockpuppet named Kevin made some
allusions to it.

[Ruud Broens]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...

: > : >> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
: > : >
: > : > Of what?
: > :
: > : Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
: > :
: > : She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
: > :
: > Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
: > It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
: > who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
: > that it'd take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery
: >
: > dutch santa
: >
:
: .40 Glock might just succeed.
:
: Mrs. Claus, TX
:
you mean miraculous tiny-glockenspiel ? well, it _is_ that time
of the year
:-)
R.

[Margaret von B.]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
>
> : > : >> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
> : > : >
> : > : > Of what?
> : > :
> : > : Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
> : > :
> : > : She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
> : > :
> : > Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
> : > It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
> : > who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
> : > that it'd take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery
> : >
> : > dutch santa
> : >
> :
> : .40 Glock might just succeed.
> :
> : Mrs. Claus, TX
> :
> you mean miraculous tiny-glockenspiel ?

Yes, the 10.16 mm one.

> well, it _is_ that time
> of the year
> :-)
> R.
>

Yes it is. :-)

Have you ever heard the song "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" by Elmo
and Patsy?

Cheers,

Margaret

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> I'm not belittling *all* recordists, just an agressive big-company prick who
> likes to lord it over other people based on working in a structured
> environment with lots of advantages.

I've been giving this some thought. Maybe you're right that people who
just happen to have special knowledge and enviable experience shouldn't
use those things to lord it over others as you say.

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> BTW given that you claim few if chops as a recordist Stephen, why do
> you even bother to try to argue with me?

Never mind.

Stephen

[Ruud Broens]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
: > ...
: > :
: > : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: > : ...
: >
: > : > : >> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Of what?
: > : > :
: > : > : Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
: > : > :
: > : > : She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
: > : > :
: > : > Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of tune.
: > : > It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
: > : > who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
: > : > that it'd take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery
: > : >
: > : > dutch santa
: > : >
: > :
: > : .40 Glock might just succeed.
: > :
: > : Mrs. Claus, TX
: > :
: > you mean miraculous tiny-glockenspiel ?
:
: Yes, the 10.16 mm one.
:
: > well, it _is_ that time
: > of the year
: > :-)
: > R.
: >
:
: Yes it is. :-)
:
: Have you ever heard the song "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" by Elmo
: and Patsy?
:
: Cheers,
:
: Margaret

can't say that i have - is that from a WB animation ?
...did you ever hear "Monster Mash" from the bonzo dog doodah band :-) ?
R.
it caught on in a flash

[Clyde Slick]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Well, Maggie is really a twit.
>>
>>
>>
>> TYPO ALERT!!!
>>
>
> Not really. Arnii has yet to learn that *other* word from you RAO guys.
> Just like he claimed to have learned what child porn was from RAO...
>

Actually, he got his tutorial from the Grosse Pointe Woods Police
Department.

[Margaret von B.]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : ...
> : >
> : > "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : > :
> : > : "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
> : > : ...
> : >
> : > : > : >> Thanks for the additional supporting evidence.
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > Of what?
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Well, Maggie is really a twit. You haven't noticed? Figures. ;-)
> : > : > :
> : > : > : She drops names well, but it goes downhill fast after that.
> : > : > :
> : > : > Krueger, this is one thread where smilies are somewhat out of
> tune.
> : > : > It once more shows that you're a 'lost' sad person,
> : > : > who has created such a dense fabric of beliefs around him
> : > : > that it'd take a *miracle* to _ever_ get him out of that misery
> : > : >
> : > : > dutch santa
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > : .40 Glock might just succeed.
> : > :
> : > : Mrs. Claus, TX
> : > :
> : > you mean miraculous tiny-glockenspiel ?
> :
> : Yes, the 10.16 mm one.
> :
> : > well, it _is_ that time
> : > of the year
> : > :-)
> : > R.
> : >
> :
> : Yes it is. :-)
> :
> : Have you ever heard the song "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" by
> Elmo
> : and Patsy?
> :
> : Cheers,
> :
> : Margaret
>
> can't say that i have - is that from a WB animation ?
> ..did you ever hear "Monster Mash" from the bonzo dog doodah band :-) ?
> R.
> it caught on in a flash
>
>

I've heard Monster Mash, didn't know the band name but I doubt anyone did a
cover of it... :-)

Do you have a mailbox with a few megs? If you want "Grandma..." , e-mail me
sans "remove this" and I'll send it to you. It is funny too.

Cheers,

Margaret

[Margaret von B.]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Margaret von B." > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Maggie is really a twit.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> TYPO ALERT!!!
>>>
>>
>> Not really. Arnii has yet to learn that *other* word from you RAO guys.
>> Just like he claimed to have learned what child porn was from RAO...
>>
>
> Actually, he got his tutorial from the Grosse Pointe Woods Police
> Department.
>

I wonder if he recorded the session?

Cheers,

Margaret

[Ruud Broens]

"Margaret von B." > wrote in message
...
:
: "Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
: ...
: > : > : > dutch santa
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : .40 Glock might just succeed.
: > : > :
: > : > : Mrs. Claus, TX
: > : > :
: > : > you mean miraculous tiny-glockenspiel ?
: > :
: > : Yes, the 10.16 mm one.
: > :
: > : > well, it _is_ that time
: > : > of the year
: > : > :-)
: > : > R.
: > : >
: > :
: > : Yes it is. :-)
: > :
: > : Have you ever heard the song "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer" by
: > Elmo
: > : and Patsy?
: > :
: > : Cheers,
: > :
: > : Margaret
: >
: > can't say that i have - is that from a WB animation ?
: > ..did you ever hear "Monster Mash" from the bonzo dog doodah band :-) ?
: > R.
: > it caught on in a flash
: >
: >
:
: I've heard Monster Mash, didn't know the band name but I doubt anyone did a
: cover of it... :-)
:
: Do you have a mailbox with a few megs? If you want "Grandma..." , e-mail me
: sans "remove this" and I'll send it to you. It is funny too.
:
: Cheers,
:
: Margaret
:
the one i use here can take 8 MB chunks - fire away :-)
R.

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said the Krooborg:

> If you claim chops as a recordist. why are you belittling recordists?

"Argumens gratia argumentis", of course. <G>