DIVE AND SURVIVE BOTTOM DWELLERS

[[email protected]]

What is one to do when one is called a liar in an open forum
supposedly devoted to opinions about the best way to capture music at
home.? The first reaction is incredulity. Why would anyone think that
exchanging opinions about non-personal issues is worth lying? Why would
anyone think that "his own write" is worth someone else's lie?.
How can anyone learn anything new if the arguments are falsified? And
why on earth would anyone want to do that?. To win against web's
Scotties? kindergarten arguments? Mistaken, wrong: yes but lying about
eg.. tubes vs. solid state- how selfdefeating.
Gradually though on the web one gets used to this kind
of "discussion" and this kind of discussant
One of the prime users is ScottW
Sometime in the past- who knows when and how- I must have
ruffled Scotties hypersensitive furcoat. Not suffering fools gladly,
and showing, it has been my weakness through life. The main purpose of
Scottie's presence on the Web is to reassure himself that he can get
respect here that misses him elsewhere. So he lurks around audio.
opinion and pounces when he thinks he can shred a trouser-cuff and
get away with it. I have been the object of his obsessional vendetta
from month to month and from thread to thread.
.. Scottie got a preXmas present: a rubber bone called "diameter".

I mentioned the vintage 1983. ABX comparison of Monster
cable vs "ordinary" wires in the defunct "Stereo Review" by
Greenhill-an associate of the ABX box designer Carlstrom,-
Why 1983? Because this pop mag. report was the one and only attempt
at "scientific" cable study using ABX that I could find..
I had said that majority of Greenhill's panelists couldn't
tell !,75 volume difference between the thin and the thick cable,
when music was used as a signal. Scottie called me a liar, As per usual
No matter that he had not read the article. I gave him full exact
reference and pointed him to use his Public Library but he can use web
only- print is
Not in his job description.) This time Krueger who knew the text came
to my defense even before I reprinted Greenhill's tables showing
just that..
Did it stop him ? Not for long.
Greenhill compared two sets of cables against Monster: a thin one and a
16 g. zipcord. He wanted to show that no difference between the two
would be recognizable as long as the levels were equal. I assumed equal
levels=equal diameters.
Scottie pounced. "Equal diameters, my ass" he voiced
elegantly.
.... He "calculated? the Monster diameter at 12g.. In other
words he accused Greenhill of shamelessly loading the dice in
Monster's favour because "wider" is louder and "louder": is
mistaken for "better" by many listeners. Later though he
backtracked "Maybe 14g. but not equal diameter"
And continued:
"Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss? You saved the file didn't you
ludo? Or do you need another half hour on your modem
to figure out your mistake?"

So I looked up the old article and found that the
comparative insertion loss of the zipcord was measured at 0.16 db. Yes,
0, 16 db. No human being would have heard the volume difference
between the 16 g. zipcord and the Monster. I doubt if even a terrier
could.
In other words Greenhill had the elementary integrity to
compare two level identical cables and no level-matching was necessary.
When I pointed that out I got this answer:

" > Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears
when
> his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
> Why didn't you mention that Greenville (Sic!) didn't do level matched tests
> between Monster and 16 gauge?
> Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1
> panelist? "
Forget the malice. For sheer nitpicking non sequitur
this deserves a chapter in the RAO annals.
It is a shame that quite a few of his kind infest what
should be an audio forum. Not satisfied with imposing on the captive
web audience his political views, typical of a crashing bore shunned
in the local watering hole, he aspires to be a "scientist".
I feel guilty for this lengthy dive amongst the
bottom dweller. Also publicity is exactly what his kind craves. Perhaps
I should let him call me names again and leave it at that. But the
flesh is weak and one responds against one's better judgement.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> What is one to do when one is called a liar in an open forum
> supposedly devoted to opinions about the best way to capture music at
> home.? The first reaction is incredulity. Why would anyone think that
> exchanging opinions about non-personal issues is worth lying? Why would
> anyone think that "his own write" is worth someone else's lie?.
> How can anyone learn anything new if the arguments are falsified? And
> why on earth would anyone want to do that?. To win against web's
> Scotties? kindergarten arguments? Mistaken, wrong: yes but lying about
> eg.. tubes vs. solid state- how selfdefeating.
> Gradually though on the web one gets used to this kind
> of "discussion" and this kind of discussant
> One of the prime users is ScottW
> Sometime in the past- who knows when and how- I must have
> ruffled Scotties hypersensitive furcoat. Not suffering fools gladly,
> and showing, it has been my weakness through life. The main purpose of
> Scottie's presence on the Web is to reassure himself that he can get
> respect here that misses him elsewhere. So he lurks around audio.
> opinion and pounces when he thinks he can shred a trouser-cuff and
> get away with it. I have been the object of his obsessional vendetta
> from month to month and from thread to thread.
> . Scottie got a preXmas present: a rubber bone called "diameter".
>
> I mentioned the vintage 1983. ABX comparison of Monster
> cable vs "ordinary" wires in the defunct "Stereo Review" by
> Greenhill-an associate of the ABX box designer Carlstrom,-
> Why 1983? Because this pop mag. report was the one and only attempt
> at "scientific" cable study using ABX that I could find..
> I had said that majority of Greenhill's panelists couldn't
> tell !,75 volume difference between the thin and the thick cable,
> when music was used as a signal. Scottie called me a liar, As per usual
> No matter that he had not read the article. I gave him full exact
> reference and pointed him to use his Public Library but he can use web
> only- print is
> Not in his job description.) This time Krueger who knew the text came
> to my defense even before I reprinted Greenhill's tables showing
> just that..
> Did it stop him ? Not for long.
> Greenhill compared two sets of cables against Monster: a thin one and a
> 16 g. zipcord. He wanted to show that no difference between the two
> would be recognizable as long as the levels were equal. I assumed equal
> levels=equal diameters.
> Scottie pounced. "Equal diameters, my ass" he voiced
> elegantly.
> ... He "calculated? the Monster diameter at 12g.. In other
> words he accused Greenhill of shamelessly loading the dice in
> Monster's favour because "wider" is louder and "louder": is
> mistaken for "better" by many listeners. Later though he
> backtracked "Maybe 14g. but not equal diameter"
> And continued:
> "Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
> What was the insertion loss? You saved the file didn't you
> ludo? Or do you need another half hour on your modem
> to figure out your mistake?"
>
> So I looked up the old article and found that the
> comparative insertion loss of the zipcord was measured at 0.16 db. Yes,
> 0, 16 db. No human being would have heard the volume difference
> between the 16 g. zipcord and the Monster. I doubt if even a terrier
> could.
> In other words Greenhill had the elementary integrity to
> compare two level identical cables and no level-matching was necessary.
> When I pointed that out I got this answer:
>
> " > Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears
> when
>> his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
>> Why didn't you mention that Greenville (Sic!) didn't do level matched
>> tests
>> between Monster and 16 gauge?
>> Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1
>> panelist? "
> Forget the malice. For sheer nitpicking non sequitur
> this deserves a chapter in the RAO annals.
> It is a shame that quite a few of his kind infest what
> should be an audio forum. Not satisfied with imposing on the captive
> web audience his political views, typical of a crashing bore shunned
> in the local watering hole, he aspires to be a "scientist".
> I feel guilty for this lengthy dive amongst the
> bottom dweller. Also publicity is exactly what his kind craves. Perhaps
> I should let him call me names again and leave it at that. But the
> flesh is weak and one responds against one's better judgement.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>

I'm sorry Ludo... what was your point? That I'm a stickler
for the facts and you're not. Ok, I certainly can agree
with that.

And what was it Greenville had to say on the subject. Let me
help you out as I know you can't afford a decent ISP.
Greenville said, "What the panelists noted during this comparison
was either the 0.16 dB insertion loss difference between the two
cables or the corresponding 0.04 dB frequency response variation
when they were connected to the KEF 105.2 speakers. The
former is far more likely."

I know from reading enough of your endless pontifications that
you take great liberty with the facts. It isn't one of your finer
attributes.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > What is one to do when one is called a liar in an open forum
> > supposedly devoted to opinions about the best way to capture music at
> > home.? The first reaction is incredulity. Why would anyone think that
> > exchanging opinions about non-personal issues is worth lying? Why would
> > anyone think that "his own write" is worth someone else's lie?.
> > How can anyone learn anything new if the arguments are falsified? And
> > why on earth would anyone want to do that?. To win against web's
> > Scotties? kindergarten arguments? Mistaken, wrong: yes but lying about
> > eg.. tubes vs. solid state- how selfdefeating.
> > Gradually though on the web one gets used to this kind
> > of "discussion" and this kind of discussant
> > One of the prime users is ScottW
> > Sometime in the past- who knows when and how- I must have
> > ruffled Scotties hypersensitive furcoat. Not suffering fools gladly,
> > and showing, it has been my weakness through life. The main purpose of
> > Scottie's presence on the Web is to reassure himself that he can get
> > respect here that misses him elsewhere. So he lurks around audio.
> > opinion and pounces when he thinks he can shred a trouser-cuff and
> > get away with it. I have been the object of his obsessional vendetta
> > from month to month and from thread to thread.
> > . Scottie got a preXmas present: a rubber bone called "diameter".
> >
> > I mentioned the vintage 1983. ABX comparison of Monster
> > cable vs "ordinary" wires in the defunct "Stereo Review" by
> > Greenhill-an associate of the ABX box designer Carlstrom,-
> > Why 1983? Because this pop mag. report was the one and only attempt
> > at "scientific" cable study using ABX that I could find..
> > I had said that majority of Greenhill's panelists couldn't
> > tell !,75 volume difference between the thin and the thick cable,
> > when music was used as a signal. Scottie called me a liar, As per usual
> > No matter that he had not read the article. I gave him full exact
> > reference and pointed him to use his Public Library but he can use web
> > only- print is
> > Not in his job description.) This time Krueger who knew the text came
> > to my defense even before I reprinted Greenhill's tables showing
> > just that..
> > Did it stop him ? Not for long.
> > Greenhill compared two sets of cables against Monster: a thin one and a
> > 16 g. zipcord. He wanted to show that no difference between the two
> > would be recognizable as long as the levels were equal. I assumed equal
> > levels=equal diameters.
> > Scottie pounced. "Equal diameters, my ass" he voiced
> > elegantly.
> > ... He "calculated? the Monster diameter at 12g.. In other
> > words he accused Greenhill of shamelessly loading the dice in
> > Monster's favour because "wider" is louder and "louder": is
> > mistaken for "better" by many listeners. Later though he
> > backtracked "Maybe 14g. but not equal diameter"
> > And continued:
> > "Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
> > What was the insertion loss? You saved the file didn't you
> > ludo? Or do you need another half hour on your modem
> > to figure out your mistake?"
> >
> > So I looked up the old article and found that the
> > comparative insertion loss of the zipcord was measured at 0.16 db. Yes,
> > 0, 16 db. No human being would have heard the volume difference
> > between the 16 g. zipcord and the Monster. I doubt if even a terrier
> > could.
> > In other words Greenhill had the elementary integrity to
> > compare two level identical cables and no level-matching was necessary.
> > When I pointed that out I got this answer:
> >
> > " > Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears
> > when
> >> his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
> >> Why didn't you mention that Greenville (Sic!) didn't do level matched
> >> tests
> >> between Monster and 16 gauge?
> >> Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1
> >> panelist? "
> > Forget the malice. For sheer nitpicking non sequitur
> > this deserves a chapter in the RAO annals.
> > It is a shame that quite a few of his kind infest what
> > should be an audio forum. Not satisfied with imposing on the captive
> > web audience his political views, typical of a crashing bore shunned
> > in the local watering hole, he aspires to be a "scientist".
> > I feel guilty for this lengthy dive amongst the
> > bottom dweller. Also publicity is exactly what his kind craves. Perhaps
> > I should let him call me names again and leave it at that. But the
> > flesh is weak and one responds against one's better judgement.
> > Ludovic Mirabel
> >
>
> I'm sorry Ludo... what was your point? That I'm a stickler
> for the facts and you're not. Ok, I certainly can agree
> with that.
>
> And what was it Greenville had to say on the subject. Let me
> help you out as I know you can't afford a decent ISP.
> Greenville said, "What the panelists noted during this comparison
> was either the 0.16 dB insertion loss difference between the two
> cables or the corresponding 0.04 dB frequency response variation
> when they were connected to the KEF 105.2 speakers. The
> former is far more likely."
>
> I know from reading enough of your endless pontifications that
> you take great liberty with the facts. It isn't one of your finer
> attributes.
>
> ScottW
===================================
Scottie says:
> I'm sorry Ludo... what was your point? That I'm a stickler
> for the facts and you're not. Ok, I certainly can agree
> with that.
>
> And what was it Greenville had to say on the subject. Let me
> help you out as I know you can't afford a decent ISP.
> Greenville said, "What the panelists noted during this comparison
> was either the 0.16 dB insertion loss difference between the two
> cables or the corresponding 0.04 dB frequency response variation
> when they were connected to the KEF 105.2 speakers. The
> former is far more likely."
>
> I know from reading enough of your endless pontifications that
> you take great liberty with the facts. It isn't one of your finer
> attributes.
>
> ScottW

I rub my eyes . I must be dreaming. He wants in all seriousness
to go on about the insertion loss difference of 0.16 db resulting
in 0.04 db. frequency variation.
After writing 6 messages about him he still doesn't know his name;
Greenhill.
Does he know what a decibel is?
Scottie you're on your own with Greenville and 0.04 db. I
participated in this very, very strange argument long enough .
Best of luck- you'll need it.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
>
> I rub my eyes . I must be dreaming. He wants in all seriousness
> to go on about the insertion loss difference of 0.16 db resulting
> in 0.04 db. frequency variation.
> After writing 6 messages about him he still doesn't know his name;
> Greenhill.

Guilty

> Does he know what a decibel is?
> Scottie you're on your own with Greenville and 0.04 db. I
> participated in this very, very strange argument long enough .

You mean you've been shown to misquote and infer
what was never said enough. Time to butcher someone
elses article.

Too bad you bail so quickly, we haven't had time to discuss
why you were sending me to the library to find an article
to prove your misquotes... when in fact... we come to discover
that you hadn't even read the original yourself.

Your behavior does for subjectivists what Arny does for
objectivists.

ScottW

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> ScottW wrote:
>>
>> I rub my eyes . I must be dreaming. He wants in all seriousness
>> to go on about the insertion loss difference of 0.16 db resulting
>> in 0.04 db. frequency variation.
>> After writing 6 messages about him he still doesn't know his name;
>> Greenhill.
>
> Guilty
>
>> Does he know what a decibel is?
>> Scottie you're on your own with Greenville and 0.04 db. I
>> participated in this very, very strange argument long enough .
>
> You mean you've been shown to misquote and infer
> what was never said enough. Time to butcher someone
> elses article.
>
> Too bad you bail so quickly, we haven't had time to discuss
> why you were sending me to the library to find an article
> to prove your misquotes... when in fact... we come to discover
> that you hadn't even read the original yourself.
>
> Your behavior does for subjectivists what Arny does for
> objectivists.
>
> ScottW
>
Ludo still claims he doesn't understand why they wouldn't let him continue
his rants on RAHE, and why he was so completely dismantled over there.

He want to claim I'm a forger even though all I did was paraphrase his own
words.

I'm sure if he really wanted to, he could contact Olive by e-mail and get
the full story on why Harman uses the kinds of DBT's they use and how they
regard ABX. His constant denial of it's efficacy flies in the face of
reality, but then what's new.

He's a slightly better spoken version of Middius, which is not syaing all
that much.

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> > I rub my eyes . I must be dreaming. He wants in all seriousness
> > to go on about the insertion loss difference of 0.16 db resulting
> > in 0.04 db. frequency variation.
> > After writing 6 messages about him he still doesn't know his name;
> > Greenhill.
>
> Guilty
>
> > Does he know what a decibel is?
> > Scottie you're on your own with Greenville and 0.04 db. I
> > participated in this very, very strange argument long enough .
>
> You mean you've been shown to misquote and infer
> what was never said enough. Time to butcher someone
> elses article.
>
> Too bad you bail so quickly, we haven't had time to discuss
> why you were sending me to the library to find an article
> to prove your misquotes... when in fact... we come to discover
> that you hadn't even read the original yourself.
>
> Your behavior does for subjectivists what Arny does for
> objectivists.
>
> ScottW

Something worried me before falling asleep.
This morning I recalled: one of Scotties deeply felt confessions:
"That I'm a stickler
for the facts and you're not. Ok, I certainly can agree
with that".
Good Lord he means it:!
He means that going on forever about::
A) my reporting that S. Olive wanted people to decide which
one they "liked better", when Olive asked "which one they prefer"
B) my guessing that wires that produced levels differing by 0,04 db
(or 0,16 db. you pick) were same diameter
C) not remembering by heart every word and every table-illustration
of a 10 page article
warrants calling me repeatedly a "liar" and a lunaticand boasting
of being a "stickler for facts"
I was angry because of perceived malice. But he seems to really
mean it. Compassion not resentment is called for.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> >
> > I rub my eyes . I must be dreaming. He wants in all seriousness
> > to go on about the insertion loss difference of 0.16 db resulting
> > in 0.04 db. frequency variation.
> > After writing 6 messages about him he still doesn't know his name;
> > Greenhill.
>
> Guilty
>
> > Does he know what a decibel is?
> > Scottie you're on your own with Greenville and 0.04 db. I
> > participated in this very, very strange argument long enough .
>
> You mean you've been shown to misquote and infer
> what was never said enough. Time to butcher someone
> elses article.
>
> Too bad you bail so quickly, we haven't had time to discuss
> why you were sending me to the library to find an article
> to prove your misquotes... when in fact... we come to discover
> that you hadn't even read the original yourself.
>
> Your behavior does for subjectivists what Arny does for
> objectivists.
>
> ScottW

Something worried me before falling asleep.
This morning I recalled: one of Scotties deeply felt confessions:
"That I'm a stickler
for the facts and you're not. Ok, I certainly can agree
with that".
Good Lord he means it:!
He means that going on forever about::
A) my reporting that S. Olive wanted people to decide which
one they "like better", when Olive asked "which one they prefer"
B) my guessing that wires that produced levels differing by 0,04 db
(or 0,16 db,. you pick) were same diameter
C) my not remembering by heart every word and every
table-illustrationof a 10 page article
warrants calling me repeatedly a "liar" and a lunatic and boasting
of being a "stickler for facts"
I was angry because of perceived malice. I could not conceive that
anyone putting this rubbish on paper could believe in it.
But Scottie seems to be serious. And inddeed it is serious.
Compassion not resentment is called for.
Ludovic Mirabel
A pearl from Scottie's collection for a postcript:
> Your behavior does for subjectivists what Arny does for
> objectivists.
I disagree with Arnie about everything. He never called me a liar.
And vice versa. Also he's not stupid which can not be said for some
of his more moronic supporters. And you already attracted
one of them.

[ScottW]

wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> A pearl from Scottie's collection for a postcript:
> > Your behavior does for subjectivists what Arny does for
> > objectivists.
> I disagree with Arnie about everything. He never called me a liar.
> And vice versa. Also he's not stupid which can not be said for some
> of his more moronic supporters. And you already attracted
> one of them.

Did I hurt your feelings? So tell me... when someone
quotes from a report and then grossly misrepresents
what was said in the report.
They were then informed of and
acknowledged their mistake only to repeat the same
transfression later in another thread.
What would you call that person?

Tell me what you did was an accident Ludo,
a side effect of your medication, tell me
that you made a mistake and you'll try harder
to keep your facts straight and I'll apologize.
Othewise, quit whining and up the dosage.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> > ScottW wrote:
> > A pearl from Scottie's collection for a postcript:
> > > Your behavior does for subjectivists what Arny does for
> > > objectivists.
> > I disagree with Arnie about everything. He never called me a liar.
> > And vice versa. Also he's not stupid which can not be said for some
> > of his more moronic supporters. And you already attracted
> > one of them.
>
> Did I hurt your feelings? So tell me... when someone
> quotes from a report and then grossly misrepresents
> what was said in the report.
> They were then informed of and
> acknowledged their mistake only to repeat the same
> transfression later in another thread.
> What would you call that person?
>
> Tell me what you did was an accident Ludo,
> a side effect of your medication, tell me
> that you made a mistake and you'll try harder
> to keep your facts straight and I'll apologize.
> Othewise, quit whining and up the dosage.
>
> ScottW

I did not "misrepresent" grossly or thinly.
I did not acknowledge any "mistakes'
I did not repeat any "transfressions" about "Greenville'"
Delusions? Lies? Hard to tell.
You do need compassion. Whether you deserve it is
another question that I'm not competent to answer- not
my specialty.
Continue polluting the audio air, exchanging your
kindergarten "facts" and views about world politics
with NYOB and such and leave audio to people who
care about music.
Ludovic Mirabel
..

[124]

wrote:

> Ludo still claims he doesn't understand why they wouldn't let him continue
> his rants on RAHE, and why he was so completely dismantled over there.

He is regularly dismantled here too.

> I'm sure if he really wanted to, he could contact Olive by e-mail and get
> the full story on why Harman uses the kinds of DBT's they use and how they
> regard ABX. His constant denial of it's efficacy flies in the face of
> reality, but then what's new.

If a man believes in a myth for fifty years, it will be brutal to have
evidence destroy it.

> He's a slightly better spoken version of Middius, which is not syaing all
> that much.

There are few people here worse than George. For the lowest of the
low, George may take first prize. The truly tragic part of it is that
I do not think that George even understands what a terrible person he
is. He should reform himself, and start helping audiophiles in this
forum. I think he is capable of making a useful contribution.
Disinterested readers, do you see how blinding the ego can be? But I
have a strong suspicion that he is just going to post yet another one
of his abusive posts in response to this one.

--124

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > I did not "misrepresent" grossly or thinly.
> > I did not acknowledge any "mistakes'
> > I did not repeat any "transfressions" about "Greenville'"
> > Delusions? Lies? Hard to tell.
>
>
> Damn Ludo...now you even sound like Arny.
>
> Anyway...nice admission you don't know if you're deluded
> or lying.
>
> Maybe George can conjure up a nickname for you,
> I suggest deLudo.
>
> ScottW

Scottie says:
> Damn Ludo...now you even sound like Arny.
..
Typical. Scottie positioning himself as the wise,
above the battle, arbiter. He brings great credentials:
profound knowledge of electronics and brilliant IQ.
But he doesn't want to overwhelm the
debate so he keeps both under wraps. When
writing for RAO he pretends, successfully, he's
just another slanderous simpleton, seeking respect.

> tell me
>that you made a mistake and you'll try harder
Yes, I do apologise for my stupidity in allowing
myself to get suckered into your search for
self-promotion.
I'm a novice to the opportunities the web offers to the
devoured-by-envy midgets.
The midget's tactics is to grab onto anything
to hand: a figure (0,04 of a db against 0.00) or phrasing
( " to like better" vs. "to prefer")..Next he screams "Lies!!!".
Any answer is as futile as the answer to "When
did you stop beating your wife?" You defend yourself
and you play into his desire for inflating his importance
and of course some of the mud sticks.
So the only solution is to block one's nose,
control the nausea and open the exit door..
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

wrote:

> So the only solution is to block one's nose,
> control the nausea and open the exit door..

By my count...this is the 3rd exit you've claimed in this thread you
started.
You can't even get that right.

ScottW