Your entering the Twilight Zone

[WVK]

"In the final analysis, I want The Clever Little Clock. Machina Dynamica
promises that with the Clock there will be less distortion, and that was
genuinely the case. My curse is that usually my favorite music is so
poorly recorded that it does sound distorted on our system. The Clock
can not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to
such a degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good."

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm

[[email protected]]

WVK wrote:
> "In the final analysis, I want The Clever Little Clock. Machina Dynamica
> promises that with the Clock there will be less distortion, and that was
> genuinely the case. My curse is that usually my favorite music is so
> poorly recorded that it does sound distorted on our system. The Clock
> can not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to
> such a degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good."
>
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm

I heard some really good things about this super-tweaked clock from
owners, but I never heard the clock. Did you purchase one? If so, could
you elaborate on its relative merits on sound quality? How does it
compare, for example, to other upgrades of similar cost?

[Arny Krueger]

"WVK" > wrote in message
. net...
> "In the final analysis, I want The Clever Little Clock. Machina Dynamica
> promises that with the Clock there will be less distortion, and that was
> genuinely the case. My curse is that usually my favorite music is so
> poorly recorded that it does sound distorted on our system. The Clock can
> not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to such a
> degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good."
>
> http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm

The basic clock mechanism has to sell for less than $20.

The Machina Dynamica is $199.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "WVK" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "In the final analysis, I want The Clever Little Clock. Machina Dynamica
> > promises that with the Clock there will be less distortion, and that was
> > genuinely the case. My curse is that usually my favorite music is so
> > poorly recorded that it does sound distorted on our system. The Clock can
> > not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to such a
> > degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good."
> >
> > http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm
>
> The basic clock mechanism has to sell for less than $20.
>
> The Machina Dynamica is $199.

Wow! <clap! clap!> Little Arny can calculate! We're so PROUD of you,
little Arny!

First of all you pompous withered old fool, "Machina Dynamica" is not
the name of the product, it's the name of the company. Second of all
you pompous withered old fool, the CLC is not simply a rebadged Timex
clock, you moron. Thirdly, Kait has forgotten more about audio than you
ever knew, you engineering wanna-be pc sound card peddler. No one is
stupid enough to sell or buy a clock for $200 that they could buy for
$9.99; no, not even YOU. What's obvious to everyone else buy you, is
that the clock has been treated. The treated clock sounds like you've
upgraded your system by significantly more than $200, so it is in fact,
a BARGAIN. Had you actually read the review I posted, you'd have known
that, and maybe had a clue as to what you're blabbing about. But you
never do, do you? That's why you'll always be an ignorant old fart
Arny; stuck back in a time when "high fidelity" meant putting a quarter
on the tonearm of your monophonic record player.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> > "WVK" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > "In the final analysis, I want The Clever Little Clock. Machina Dynamica
> > > promises that with the Clock there will be less distortion, and that was
> > > genuinely the case. My curse is that usually my favorite music is so
> > > poorly recorded that it does sound distorted on our system. The Clock can
> > > not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to such a
> > > degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good."
> > >
> > > http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm
> >
> > The basic clock mechanism has to sell for less than $20.
> >
> > The Machina Dynamica is $199.
>
> Wow! <clap! clap!> Little Arny can calculate! We're so PROUD of you,
> little Arny!
>
> First of all you pompous withered old fool, "Machina Dynamica" is not
> the name of the product, it's the name of the company. Second of all
> you pompous withered old fool, the CLC is not simply a rebadged Timex
> clock, you moron. Thirdly, Kait has forgotten more about audio than you
> ever knew, you engineering wanna-be pc sound card peddler. No one is
> stupid enough to sell or buy a clock for $200 that they could buy for
> $9.99; no, not even YOU. What's obvious to everyone else buy you, is
> that the clock has been treated. The treated clock sounds like you've
> upgraded your system by significantly more than $200, so it is in fact,
> a BARGAIN. Had you actually read the review I posted, you'd have known
> that, and maybe had a clue as to what you're blabbing about. But you
> never do, do you? That's why you'll always be an ignorant old fart
> Arny; stuck back in a time when "high fidelity" meant putting a quarter
> on the tonearm of your monophonic record player.

Do you know how the clock is "treated"?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:

>> No one is
>> stupid enough to sell or buy a clock for $200 that they could buy for
>> $9.99; no, not even YOU. What's obvious to everyone else buy you, is
>> that the clock has been treated. The treated clock sounds like you've
>> upgraded your system by significantly more than $200, so it is in fact,
>> a BARGAIN.

No doubt this sonic advantage is noticable only in sighted evaluations.
Long-time proponents of sighted evaluations such as Sackman and Middius
should find this product very much to their liking.

> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?

Soaked in Snake Oil, no doubt.

[Walt]

Jenn wrote:
> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?

It's treated with derision, of course. Were you suspecting something else?

//Walt

[Jenn]

In article >,
Walt > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
>
> It's treated with derision, of course. Were you suspecting something else?
>
> //Walt

LOL

[Arny Krueger]

"Walt" > wrote in message
...

> Jenn wrote:
>> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
>
> It's treated with derision, of course.

LOL!

> Were you suspecting something else?

No, he was just trolling for people to flame.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Walt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
> >
> > It's treated with derision, of course.
>
> LOL!
>
> > Were you suspecting something else?
>
> No, he was just trolling for people to flame.

Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.

[Jenn]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Walt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
> > >
> > > It's treated with derision, of course.
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > > Were you suspecting something else?
> >
> > No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
>
> Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.

Oh yeah... I'm not "trolling" for anything.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > Were you suspecting[sic] something else?

> > No, he was just trolling for people to flame.

> Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.

Sorry, Jenn, but you have never offered proof that you are actually a
female, or that your name is Jenn, or that you know an ohm from a volt.
The #2 Bedrock Principle Of The Debating Trade tells us that "Everybody
always lies about everything."




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> > "WVK" > wrote in message
>> > . net...
>> > > "In the final analysis, I want The Clever Little Clock. Machina
>> > > Dynamica
>> > > promises that with the Clock there will be less distortion, and that
>> > > was
>> > > genuinely the case. My curse is that usually my favorite music is so
>> > > poorly recorded that it does sound distorted on our system. The Clock
>> > > can
>> > > not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to
>> > > such a
>> > > degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good."
>> > >
>> > > http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm
>> >
>> > The basic clock mechanism has to sell for less than $20.
>> >
>> > The Machina Dynamica is $199.
>>
>> Wow! <clap! clap!> Little Arny can calculate! We're so PROUD of you,
>> little Arny!
>>
>> First of all you pompous withered old fool, "Machina Dynamica" is not
>> the name of the product, it's the name of the company. Second of all
>> you pompous withered old fool, the CLC is not simply a rebadged Timex
>> clock, you moron. Thirdly, Kait has forgotten more about audio than you
>> ever knew, you engineering wanna-be pc sound card peddler. No one is
>> stupid enough to sell or buy a clock for $200 that they could buy for
>> $9.99; no, not even YOU. What's obvious to everyone else buy you, is
>> that the clock has been treated. The treated clock sounds like you've
>> upgraded your system by significantly more than $200, so it is in fact,
>> a BARGAIN. Had you actually read the review I posted, you'd have known
>> that, and maybe had a clue as to what you're blabbing about. But you
>> never do, do you? That's why you'll always be an ignorant old fart
>> Arny; stuck back in a time when "high fidelity" meant putting a quarter
>> on the tonearm of your monophonic record player.
>
> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> > "WVK" > wrote in message
>> > . net...
>> > > "In the final analysis, I want The Clever Little Clock. Machina
>> > > Dynamica
>> > > promises that with the Clock there will be less distortion, and that
>> > > was
>> > > genuinely the case. My curse is that usually my favorite music is so
>> > > poorly recorded that it does sound distorted on our system. The Clock
>> > > can
>> > > not make up for a bad recording, but the distortion was lessened to
>> > > such a
>> > > degree that the bad recordings actually sounded good."
>> > >
>> > > http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/clock_nespa.htm
>> >
>> > The basic clock mechanism has to sell for less than $20.
>> >
>> > The Machina Dynamica is $199.
>>
>> Wow! <clap! clap!> Little Arny can calculate! We're so PROUD of you,
>> little Arny!
>>
>> First of all you pompous withered old fool, "Machina Dynamica" is not
>> the name of the product, it's the name of the company. Second of all
>> you pompous withered old fool, the CLC is not simply a rebadged Timex
>> clock, you moron. Thirdly, Kait has forgotten more about audio than you
>> ever knew, you engineering wanna-be pc sound card peddler. No one is
>> stupid enough to sell or buy a clock for $200 that they could buy for
>> $9.99; no, not even YOU. What's obvious to everyone else buy you, is
>> that the clock has been treated. The treated clock sounds like you've
>> upgraded your system by significantly more than $200, so it is in fact,
>> a BARGAIN. Had you actually read the review I posted, you'd have known
>> that, and maybe had a clue as to what you're blabbing about. But you
>> never do, do you? That's why you'll always be an ignorant old fart
>> Arny; stuck back in a time when "high fidelity" meant putting a quarter
>> on the tonearm of your monophonic record player.
>
> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?

It seems to be treated with disrespect.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Walt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Jenn wrote:
>> >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
>> >
>> > It's treated with derision, of course.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> > Were you suspecting something else?
>>
>> No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
>
> Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.

Sorry Jenn, but I wasn't commenting about you, I was commenting about SHP.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Walt" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Jenn wrote:
> >> >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
> >> >
> >> > It's treated with derision, of course.
> >>
> >> LOL!
> >>
> >> > Were you suspecting something else?
> >>
> >> No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
> >
> > Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.
>
> Sorry Jenn, but I wasn't commenting about you, I was commenting about SHP.

The "you" in "Were you suspecting something else?" is me.

[Walt]

Jenn wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>"Walt" > wrote
>>>Jenn wrote:
>>>
>>>>Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
>>>
>>>It's treated with derision, of course.
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>>Were you suspecting something else?
>>
>>No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
>
> Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.

The clock has a gender too? Amazing.

//Walt

[George M. Middius]

Walt said:

> The clock has a gender too? Amazing.

It's not for you to speculate about grammatical issues. At least not
until you learn the difference between "suspect" and "expect".





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[Jenn]

In article >,
Walt > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>"Walt" > wrote
> >>>Jenn wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
> >>>
> >>>It's treated with derision, of course.
> >>
> >>LOL!
> >>
> >>>Were you suspecting something else?
> >>
> >>No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
> >
> > Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.
>
> The clock has a gender too? Amazing.
>
> //Walt

The clock was trolling?

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> The clock was trolling?

In Borgworld, computers lie, so why shouldn't clocks troll?




--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

[Walt]

Jenn wrote:
> Walt > wrote:
>>Jenn wrote:
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>"Walt" > wrote
>>>>>Jenn wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's treated with derision, of course.
>>>>
>>>>>Were you suspecting something else?
>>>>
>>>>No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
>>>
>>>Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.
>>
>>The clock has a gender too? Amazing.
>
> The clock was trolling?

She can do that too? Wow. She is truly one amazing clock.

//Walt

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Walt" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
>> >> >
>> >> > It's treated with derision, of course.
>> >>
>> >> LOL!
>> >>
>> >> > Were you suspecting something else?
>> >>
>> >> No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
>> >
>> > Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.
>>
>> Sorry Jenn, but I wasn't commenting about you, I was commenting about
>> SHP.
>
> The "you" in "Were you suspecting something else?" is me.

Krooglish has different rules.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Walt" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's treated with derision, of course.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL!
> >> >>
> >> >> > Were you suspecting something else?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
> >> >
> >> > Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.
> >>
> >> Sorry Jenn, but I wasn't commenting about you, I was commenting about
> >> SHP.
> >
> > The "you" in "Were you suspecting something else?" is me.
>
> Krooglish has different rules.

I guess so.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Walt" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> > Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
>> >> >
>> >> > It's treated with derision, of course.
>> >>
>> >> LOL!
>> >>
>> >> > Were you suspecting something else?
>> >>
>> >> No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
>> >
>> > Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.
>>
>> Sorry Jenn, but I wasn't commenting about you, I was commenting about
>> SHP.
>
> The "you" in "Were you suspecting something else?" is me.

My bad.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Walt" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> > Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> Do you know how the clock is "treated"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's treated with derision, of course.
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL!
> >> >>
> >> >> > Were you suspecting something else?
> >> >>
> >> >> No, he was just trolling for people to flame.
> >> >
> >> > Crap, Arny... that would be SHE.
> >>
> >> Sorry Jenn, but I wasn't commenting about you, I was commenting about
> >> SHP.
> >
> > The "you" in "Were you suspecting something else?" is me.
>
> My bad.

Thanks; no problem.