Note to Sillybot

[George M. Middius]

Everybody perceives you as aiding and abetting the Krooborg. Even
identifying with Mr. ****. You probably don't care, since you're almost as
socially retarded as Arnii is.

[124]

[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.] George is angry, because
the golden-ears myth has been thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson
and _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.

Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_'s credibility:
http://www.randi.org/jr/112604yes.html#4
http://www.high-endaudio.com/RR-STEREOPHILE.html#Lies

The golden-ears myth (PDF file):
http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

The myth that golden ears can hear the difference in wires:
http://www.vxm.com/21R.64.html

More evidence against the myth (PDF file):
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Amp_Sound.pdf

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing.htm

More evidence against the myth:
http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm#4

--124

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> 124 wrote:
>> George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
>> thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
>> want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.
>
> I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
> am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
> about me were true, why would that make _George_
> angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
> is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
> claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
The thing that makes GFeorge angry is people who disagree with George. It
has nothing to do with anything else.

Your claiming otherwise, identifies you as an idiot or a liar.

[George M. Middius]

duh-Mikey dispenses some of his back-of-the-cereal-box wisdom.

> > I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
> > am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
> > about me were true, why would that make _George_
> > angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
> > is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
> > claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

> The thing that makes GFeorge[sic] angry is people who disagree

You are so profoundly clueless that the rest of the world needs to
recalibrate their cluelessness scales in order to appreciate the abyss of
cluelessness you inhabit.

Tell us again how Arnii Kroofeces never lies and never attacks first. I
think you've also claimed Mr. **** is a courteous and science-loving
individual who seeks only to enlighten through christian sharing of
knowledge, and he's not at all hypocritical. And you're not stupid, right
Mickey? But the rest of us are. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

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


> Tell us again how Arnii Kroofeces never lies and never
> attacks first.

George, given all the lies you've told and all the gratuitous attacks you've
made against so many different people, why are you bringing these issues up?

Oh, I get it, this week is George Middius Hypocrisy Week!

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Oh, I get it, this week is George Middius Hypocrisy Week!


As opposed to Arny Krueger's Decade of Hypocracy? ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[ScottW]

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> 124 wrote:
>> George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
>> thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
>> want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.
>
> I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
> am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
> about me were true, why would that make _George_
> angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
> is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
> claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

Don't forget that small knit he gets into whenever someone
doesn't think that Arny is the great satan of RAO.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scooter said:

> Don't forget that small knit

What do you mean? Did you give me a sweater for Xmas?

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
>
> duh-Mikey dispenses some of his back-of-the-cereal-box wisdom.
>
>> > I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7. I
>> > am not George, nor is he me. So even if what you say
>> > about me were true, why would that make _George_
>> > angry. The only thing that apepars to make George angry
>> > is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
>> > claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.
>
>> The thing that makes GFeorge[sic] angry is people who disagree
>
> You are so profoundly clueless that the rest of the world needs to
> recalibrate their cluelessness scales in order to appreciate the abyss of
> cluelessness you inhabit.
>
> Tell us again how Arnii Kroofeces never lies and never attacks first. I
> think you've also claimed Mr. **** is a courteous and science-loving
> individual who seeks only to enlighten through christian sharing of
> knowledge, and he's not at all hypocritical. And you're not stupid, right
> Mickey? But the rest of us are. ;-)
>
>
Tell us all how this war on expression by you has a ****ing thing to do with
audio.
Tell us how you are a paragon of intellectual honesty and respectful of
other people's opinions on an opinion group.

Better yet, tell us anything about your audio choices.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Scooter said:
>
>> Don't forget that small knit
>
> What do you mean? Did you give me a sweater for Xmas?

Either that or a giant sock... do you have arms?

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:iWvMf.134462$0G.40956@dukeread10...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Scooter said:
>>
>>> Don't forget that small knit
>>
>> What do you mean? Did you give me a sweater for Xmas?
>
> Either that or a giant sock... do you have arms?
>

Probably an AK-47 and a crossbow or two.



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

[124]

John Atkinson wrote:

> 124 wrote:
> > George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
> > thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
> > want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.
>
> I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7.

If you truly thought I was trolling, you would have ignored my post.

> I am not George, nor is he me.

I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

> So even if what you say about me were true, why would that make _George_
> angry.

If I am not mistaken, the only things I have accused you and
_Stereophile_ of are nonsense and hype and the natural consequences of
this nonsense and hype. Disinterested readers can decide for
themselves by examining the evidence to see if there is any substance
to the accusations. Yes, why would this make George angry? George
should explain himself. Why is it that George has, for years, been
unrelenting in his constant stream of abusive posts? I think it is
because he does not tolerate any opinions that differ from his; his 53
400 posts to this forum appears to support this.

> The only thing that apepars to make George angry
> is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
> claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.

Keyword: _appears_. Everyone here knows appearances may deceive.
Which regular here has the highest standard of behaviour? Which
regular here has the lowest standard of behaviour? This person with
the highest standard of behaviour, what is his hypocrisy and
dishonesty?

Regards,
Mr. 7

[George M. Middius]

4 of 12 said:

> Why is it that George has, for years, been
> unrelenting in his constant stream of abusive posts?

Humans know the answer to this. Back to Dr. Kroomacher's lair with you!

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"124" > wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:
>
> > 124 wrote:
> > > George is angry, because the golden-ears myth has been
> > > thoroughly debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_
> > > want you to believe in the golden-ears myth.
> >
> > I don't know why you keep trolling in this manner, Mr. 7.
>
> If you truly thought I was trolling, you would have ignored my post.
>
> > I am not George, nor is he me.
>
> I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.

Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.

>
> > So even if what you say about me were true, why would that make _George_
> > angry.
>
> If I am not mistaken, the only things I have accused you and
> _Stereophile_ of are nonsense and hype and the natural consequences of
> this nonsense and hype. Disinterested readers can decide for
> themselves by examining the evidence to see if there is any substance
> to the accusations. Yes, why would this make George angry? George
> should explain himself. Why is it that George has, for years, been
> unrelenting in his constant stream of abusive posts? I think it is
> because he does not tolerate any opinions that differ from his; his 53
> 400 posts to this forum appears to support this.
>
> > The only thing that apepars to make George angry
> > is hypocrisy and dishonesty on the part of those who
> > claim to adhere to a higher standard of behavior.
>
> Keyword: _appears_. Everyone here knows appearances may deceive.
> Which regular here has the highest standard of behaviour? Which
> regular here has the lowest standard of behaviour? This person with
> the highest standard of behaviour, what is his hypocrisy and
> dishonesty?
>
> Regards,
> Mr. 7

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"124" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
> >
> > Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
> > it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.
>
> I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
> gave any evidence to support his claim.
>
> --124

You didn't answer the question.

[George M. Middius]

4 of 12 said:

> JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
> gave any evidence to support his claim.

It's your cowardly anonymity, 4. Same difference.

[124]

Jenn wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "124" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> > > > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
> > >
> > > Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
> > > it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.
> >
> > I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
> > gave any evidence to support his claim.
> >
> > --124
>
> You didn't answer the question.

For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is a sockpuppet.
Anyone who thinks I made this claim should provide the evidence that
shows that I made this claim. I, moreover, in a previous post told JA
that I knew that George was not JA.

--124

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"124" > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > "124" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
> > > >
> > > > Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
> > > > it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.
> > >
> > > I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
> > > gave any evidence to support his claim.
> > >
> > > --124
> >
> > You didn't answer the question.
>
> For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is a sockpuppet.
> Anyone who thinks I made this claim should provide the evidence that
> shows that I made this claim. I, moreover, in a previous post told JA
> that I knew that George was not JA.
>
> --124

I see. Do you believe that John has sockpuppets here?

[Arny Krueger]

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

> 4 of 12 said:
>
>> JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
>> gave any evidence to support his claim.
>
> It's your cowardly anonymity,

Interesting *George* that you don't call yourself or Art a coward.

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message

> For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is
> a sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks I made this claim should
> provide the evidence that shows that I made this claim.
> I, moreover, in a previous post told JA that I knew that
> George was not JA.


What makes you think that George is most certainly not JA? BTW I agree with
your analysis, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> 124 wrote :
>
>> [George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.] George is
>> angry, because the golden-ears myth has been thoroughly
>> debunked. Mr. John Atkinson and _Stereophile_ want you
>> to believe in the golden-ears myth.
>
> I agree with you. The golden ears myth has been
> thoroughly debunked. And I recall reading this on-line in
> a stereophile article by Mr. Atkinson, as I recall
> agreeing with its premise. The article, by my
> recollection, stated that the "golden ear" tag has always
> been a myth propagated by the so-called "tin-eared"
> crowd. That you really don't need to have "special ears"
> to perceive and enjoy the wealth of differences among
> audio components and accessories, like wire, cable,
> isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with
> aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening skills.

"listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Sun, Feb 26 2006 10:25 pm
> Email: >
>
>>Tell us all how this war on expression by you has a ****ing thing to do
>>with
>>audio.
>
> Why not tell us how this war on preference that you are waging has a
> ****ing thing to do with audio, nob?
>
I'm not waging a war on preference, ****. I'm trying to help debunk the
notion that anything can sound better or more real on an inferior medium.
Not that you care about audio anyway so whynot just **** off?

>>Tell us how you are a paragon of intellectual honesty and respectful of
>>other people's opinions on an opinion group.
>
> I have not seen Mr. Middius telling you that your hearing is faulty.

It's about the only thing he hasn't said then.

I
> have, OTOH, seen you and Mr. Krueger and Mr. Sullivan say this, and
> more.

Bul****.

Why don't you tell us about your rabid defense of other people's
> opinions, nob? (Don't let the fact that you do not have a leg to stand
> on deter you, either...)
>
I'm not going to try and defend something I haven't done, namely attack
preference, since I have not done so.

>>Better yet, tell us anything about your audio choices.
>
I enjoy listening to the most accurate recordings I can find on CD because
it is the most accurate medium. I have at one time been an avid speaker
building hoobyist, but am not so much now that I have physical limitations
and tremendous pain.

> Pretty tired, nob.
Yes you are, ****.

I haven't been here all that long and I've already
> seen him do this. Apparently, it wasn't 'good enough.'
>
You have no reason to be here, since by your own admission you don't give a
**** about audio, so **** off.

> I have seen, OTOH, you and Mr. Krueger and Mr. Sullivan attack
> preference with regularity, all the while claiming that you don't
> engage in this behavior. That would make you...
>
> ...a liar.
>
Talking to the mirror?

[Clyde Slick]

"124" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jenn wrote:
>
>> > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
>>
>> Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
>> it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.
>
> I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
> gave any evidence to support his claim.
>


I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet,
however; you remain anonymous. Right now it
doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive,
as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh!




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

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: >
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 4:42 pm
> Email: >
>
>> I'm not waging a war on preference, ****. I'm trying to
>> help debunk the notion that anything can sound better or
>> more real on an inferior medium. Not that you care about
>> audio anyway so whynot just **** off?
>
> If I said that a seven-transistor radio from 1963 sounded
> better to me, that is indeed a preference. Preferences
> cannot be debunked.

As they say, there's no accounting for taste or the lack of it.

What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed my preference for
clean sound with mininal unecessarly added noise and distortion?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "124" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Jenn wrote:
> >
> >> > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
> >>
> >> Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for, and
> >> it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.
> >
> > I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
> > gave any evidence to support his claim.
> >
>
>
> I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet,

That's a relief.

> however; you remain anonymous.

Well, a website with my bio has been referenced here.

> Right now it
> doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive,
> as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
> ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
> Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:

> I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly, smelly creature.

No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey (on the left) and
another diehard Kroopologist (real name dickless maletwitski, aka
torrie****s, aka dippyborg). Check it out:

http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Mikey_and_Thing.jpg

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>> 4 of 12 said:
>>
>>> JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
>>> gave any evidence to support his claim.
>>
>> It's your cowardly anonymity,
>
> Interesting *George* that you don't call yourself or Art a coward.
>

If I am anonymous by posting under hte name of Clyde sSlick,
why do you call me Art? If I were anonymous, you would not
know my name. That's Kroologic for you!!


As far as myself, an 'alias' or 'nickname' is far different than anonymity,
You know who I am, what state I live in and you could easily track
my address and phone number, if you wanted to. Additionally,
I have met, in person, four people who have posted to this group.
Jim Sanders, Marc Phillips, Scott Wiitenvrongel and Scott Wheeler.
So, the five of us are very real. And, Arny, I do not doubt
your reality, you have no reason at all to doubt mine.



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

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Our minds have a lot to do with what our
> ears pick up.
>

And we don't disconnect our minds when we listen to music.



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

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: George M. Middius
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:42 pm
Email: George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net>

>No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey (on the left) and
>another diehard Kroopologist (real name dickless maletwitski, aka
>torrie****s, aka dippyborg). Check it out:

Their hands are out of the picture. Are they drunk, or sexually aroused?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:22 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed
>> my preference for clean sound with mininal unecessarly
>> added noise and distortion?
>
> If those 'vinyl bigots' were being treated the same way
> that you and nob have treated Jenn, then I would say that
> you got what you deserved.

Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.

> If you were happily minding your own business, and
> offered a simple opinion that wasn't geared toward
> 'debunking' or 'convincing,' someone of their error, then
> I would say they were as wrong as you are now.

Over the years a lot of progress has been made. Vinyl bigots used to believe
a lot of weirdness, that has been effectively debunked. I don't know if they
wised up or just learned that the bogus claims they made about digital got
them into trouble.

> There's nothing inherently wrong with someone liking either format.

Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you
prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion
is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Saying that digital has audible forms of distortion such as graininess, or
being incapable of reproducing certain tones or timbres is the result of
being poorly-informed.

Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with being a hypocrite or
self-contradictory, or being intentionally poorly-informed. ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:
>
>> I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly,
>> smelly creature.
>
> No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey
> (on the left) and another diehard Kroopologist (real name
> dickless maletwitski, aka torrie****s, aka dippyborg).
> Check it out:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Mikey_and_Thing.jpg

Looks like Middius screwed up and posted a picture of himself and Sackman
instead.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.


Really Arn? By what standard?

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you
>prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion
>is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to than the CD
counterparts that I also have. Some, not all.

But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest fidelity of all,
and never mentioned from what I've seen), etc. are all audio.

Some of us listen for the music. Some of the most enjoyable music that
I've listened to was through a boom box at a beach. A few beers, some
sun, a good Doors tune comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some here has to
mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't valid. To others it means the
'most satisfying' to them, regardless of whether or not it represents
the zenith of accuracy.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>> Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with
>> kid gloves.

> Really Arn? By what standard?

How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct established on RAO by George
Middius, Greg Singh, Allan Derrida, and Roy Briggs?

I believe that all of these distinguished *gentlemen* have used various
violent and sexual phrases and activities to characterize and threaten
people they disagreed with, right?

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
>> then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
>> added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
>> hypocritical and self-contradictory.
>
> Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity.

> As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
> than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not all.

There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But Jenn is not talking
about exceptional cases, now is she?

> But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
> fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
> seen), etc. are all audio.

You forgot cassette!

> Some of us listen for the music.

Which is the whole point of high fidelity.

> Some of the most
> enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
> box at a beach.

Good for you!

>A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
> comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'

Well, audio of a kind.

> Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
> here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
> valid.

Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's
global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and
distortion to an afternoon on the beach.

Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and that courtesy of high
quality portable digital players, its unecesary to leave the desire for
high fidelity at home when going to the beach.

> To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
> regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
> accuracy.

Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
distortion unecessarily added.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in message
> oups.com
> > From: Arny Krueger
> > Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
> > Email: "Arny Krueger" >
> >
> >> Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
> >> then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
> >> added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
> >> hypocritical and self-contradictory.
> >
> > Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*
>
> Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity.
>
> > As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
> > than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not all.
>
> There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But Jenn is not talking
> about exceptional cases, now is she?
>
> > But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
> > fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
> > seen), etc. are all audio.
>
> You forgot cassette!

Did they start putting something in cassettes besides TAPE?
>
> > Some of us listen for the music.
>
> Which is the whole point of high fidelity.
>
> > Some of the most
> > enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
> > box at a beach.
>
> Good for you!
>
> >A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
> > comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'
>
> Well, audio of a kind.
>
> > Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
> > here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
> > valid.
>
> Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's
> global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and
> distortion to an afternoon on the beach.
>
> Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and that courtesy of high
> quality portable digital players, its unecesary to leave the desire for
> high fidelity at home when going to the beach.
>
> > To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
> > regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
> > accuracy.
>
> Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
> distortion unecessarily added.

Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today concerning me
alone.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said to The Big ****:

> >Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.

> Really Arn? By what standard?

Scary, isn't it?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> From: Arny Krueger
>>> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
>>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>>>
>>>> Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
>>>> then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
>>>> added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
>>>> hypocritical and self-contradictory.
>>>
>>> Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
>> with high fidelity.
>>
>>> As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
>>> than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not
>>> all.
>>
>> There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But
>> Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is she?
>>
>>> But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
>>> fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
>>> seen), etc. are all audio.
>>
>> You forgot cassette!
>
> Did they start putting something in cassettes besides
> TAPE?
>>
>>> Some of us listen for the music.
>>
>> Which is the whole point of high fidelity.
>>
>>> Some of the most
>>> enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
>>> box at a beach.
>>
>> Good for you!
>>
>>> A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
>>> comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'
>>
>> Well, audio of a kind.
>>
>>> Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
>>> here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
>>> valid.
>>
>> Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the
>> subject from Jenn's global preference of music with
>> unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an
>> afternoon on the beach.
>>
>> Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and
>> that courtesy of high quality portable digital players,
>> its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at
>> home when going to the beach.
>>
>>> To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
>>> regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
>>> accuracy.
>>
>> Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with
>> audible noise and distortion unecessarily added.
>
> Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today
> concerning me alone.

Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or not?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> >> wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>> From: Arny Krueger
> >>> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
> >>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>
> >>>> Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
> >>>> then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
> >>>> added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
> >>>> hypocritical and self-contradictory.
> >>>
> >>> Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*
> >>
> >> Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
> >> with high fidelity.
> >>
> >>> As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
> >>> than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not
> >>> all.
> >>
> >> There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But
> >> Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is she?
> >>
> >>> But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
> >>> fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
> >>> seen), etc. are all audio.
> >>
> >> You forgot cassette!
> >
> > Did they start putting something in cassettes besides
> > TAPE?
> >>
> >>> Some of us listen for the music.
> >>
> >> Which is the whole point of high fidelity.
> >>
> >>> Some of the most
> >>> enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a boom
> >>> box at a beach.
> >>
> >> Good for you!
> >>
> >>> A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
> >>> comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'
> >>
> >> Well, audio of a kind.
> >>
> >>> Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to some
> >>> here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it isn't
> >>> valid.
> >>
> >> Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the
> >> subject from Jenn's global preference of music with
> >> unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an
> >> afternoon on the beach.
> >>
> >> Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and
> >> that courtesy of high quality portable digital players,
> >> its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at
> >> home when going to the beach.
> >>
> >>> To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
> >>> regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
> >>> accuracy.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with
> >> audible noise and distortion unecessarily added.
> >
> > Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today
> > concerning me alone.
>
> Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or not?

On the best LPs, yes. Now, how does that differ from, "...Jenn's global
preference for music ..."

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
> > distortion unecessarily added.

> Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today concerning me alone.

I hope you don't think that's going to break his record. Not even close. ;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "124" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Jenn wrote:
>> >
>> >> > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
>> >>
>> >> Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for,
>> >> and
>> >> it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.
>> >
>> > I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
>> > gave any evidence to support his claim.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet,
>
> That's a relief.
>
>> however; you remain anonymous.
>
> Well, a website with my bio has been referenced here.
>
>> Right now it
>> doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive,
>> as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh!
>>

Jenn, I was talking to the man who cannot count, not to you.



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>> Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>> I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly,
>>> smelly creature.
>>
>> No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey
>> (on the left) and another diehard Kroopologist (real name
>> dickless maletwitski, aka torrie****s, aka dippyborg).
>> Check it out:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Mikey_and_Thing.jpg
>
> Looks like Middius screwed up and posted a picture of himself and Sackman
> instead.
>

Looks like two of your boys in your basment, during
one of your training sessions



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.
>
>
> Really Arn? By what standard?
>

By the standard of - - - he hasn't yet accused her
of sending him kiddie porn emails.



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

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Our minds have a lot to do with what our
> > ears pick up.
> >
>
> And we don't disconnect our minds when we listen to music.


Precisely. That would be impossible.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "124" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Jenn wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who is one? I never found out who I was supposed to be a sock for,
> >> >> and
> >> >> it leaves a bit of an empty feeling.
> >> >
> >> > I know how you feel. JA said that I was a sockpuppet, but he never
> >> > gave any evidence to support his claim.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I, for one, have no evidence that you are a sockpuppet,
> >
> > That's a relief.
> >
> >> however; you remain anonymous.
> >
> > Well, a website with my bio has been referenced here.
> >
> >> Right now it
> >> doesn't matter, unless and until you become abusive,
> >> as torresists, or make some kind of special personal claim, as does Shhh!
> >>
>
> Jenn, I was talking to the man who cannot count, not to you.

I see; thanks

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:47 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity.

I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to making things
up all the time. What purpose does that serve? Do you possess a basic
understanding of communication?

Even a first-grader could read what I wrote and not come up with a
statement that butchers the meaning of what was said in quite such a
juvenile way.

I admit no such thing, as to do so would be a lie.

>> Some of us listen for the music.

>Which is the whole point of high fidelity.

That would be the point of audio. You seek your definition of
'high-fidelity.' As in the poor-sounding CD analogy, even if the CD
accurately reports the information, they can still sound like **** to
me.

>Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the subject from Jenn's
>global preference of music with unecessasily added audioble noise and
>distortion to an afternoon on the beach.

The point, which you apparently cannot understand for whatever reason,
is this: there is more to enjoying music for some people than 'absolute
accuracy' (whatever that is). CD and LP are not the same. LP is
high-fidelity. A tuner is high-fidelity. Tape is high-fidelity. CD is
high-fidelity. Tubes are high-fidelity. Setting has an effect. I would
much rather listen to a recording, for example, in my living room than
in a lab, or at work. I enjoy music through a boom-box in the proper
setting than through a killer stereo.

Many people do not care how 'accurate' one piece of equipment measures
over another.

Why do you insist on obfuscation and making things up, as you did with
me (and with misquoting Jenn's stated position) above?

Like someone who cannot (or will not) even take the basic care to
transcribe a quote properly when it's imbedded in the post that they
respond to, or to understand what is said without distorting it, has
the corner on 'accuracy?' LOL!

>> To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
>> regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith of
>> accuracy.

>Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with audible noise and
>distortion unecessarily added.

Kind of like your posts? LOL!

It's very relevant. It's even the point of it.

What's more alarming is someone who can't even accurately read what is
written.

Unless... Are you really a shill trying to trump up interest in LPs?
You and nob are doing a very good job of that...

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>I don't know if they wised up or just learned that the bogus claims they made about digital got
>them into trouble.

The problem with this statement is that the only claim that I have seen
Jenn make is this:

"The best recorded LPs have violins that sound more natural to me than
they do on CD."

This cannot be a 'bogus claim.'

It is, pure and simple, a statement of preference. It has, however,
somehow (and for some 'reason') gotten her in 'trouble' with you and
nob.

If this is not true, then you are saying that my statement, "I prefer
cherry ice cream to vanilla ice cream" could somehow be invalid. Sorry,
but most thinking people would see through that position for the
bull**** that it is.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:41 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct established on RAO by George
>Middius, Greg Singh, Allan Derrida, and Roy Briggs?

So, in your mind, it appears to me that you feel that if you compare
your conduct with these people whose 'standard of conduct' you clearly
do not approve of, and if you do "just a little bit better" than they
do, then your treatment of Jenn is justified.

Is that about it?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com

> > audio components and accessories, like wire, cable,
> > isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with
> > aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening skills.
>
> "listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief.

Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend disbelief"
when you listen, analytically or otherwise. That is a sign of an open
and objective mind. Intellectual beliefs should not have anything to do
with perception of sound, OR enjoyment of music. You so-called
"objectivists" who staunchly believe otherwise are, I find, anything
_but_ "objective".

A good example of this kind of mistake would be you. You believe that
even if you hear differences between, say, CD players, you fight that
perception using your belief system, and convince yourself the
differences aren't there, because your silly meaningless tests
misguided you to believe otherwise. This means you have no listening
skills of any merit. No wonder you can't appreciate the differences
between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000 SME record deck. (At least
it saves you some money to put toward test instruments...). It also
means you have not just been waging war with every audiophile on this
newsgroup, you are also, essentially, at war with your own mind. I can
only imagine how it must suck to be you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>> From: Arny Krueger
>>>>> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
>>>>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>>>>>
>>>>>> Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity",
>>>>>> and then saying that you prefer to listen to music
>>>>>> with added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
>>>>>> hypocritical and self-contradictory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that this is rec.*audio* not
>>>>> rec.*high-fidelity*
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
>>>> with high fidelity.
>>>>
>>>>> As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
>>>>> than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not
>>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>> There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But
>>>> Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is
>>>> she?
>>>>
>>>>> But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
>>>>> fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
>>>>> seen), etc. are all audio.
>>>>
>>>> You forgot cassette!
>>>
>>> Did they start putting something in cassettes besides
>>> TAPE?
>>>>
>>>>> Some of us listen for the music.
>>>>
>>>> Which is the whole point of high fidelity.
>>>>
>>>>> Some of the most
>>>>> enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a
>>>>> boom box at a beach.
>>>>
>>>> Good for you!
>>>>
>>>>> A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
>>>>> comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'
>>>>
>>>> Well, audio of a kind.
>>>>
>>>>> Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to
>>>>> some here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it
>>>>> isn't valid.
>>>>
>>>> Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the
>>>> subject from Jenn's global preference of music with
>>>> unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an
>>>> afternoon on the beach.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and
>>>> that courtesy of high quality portable digital players,
>>>> its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at
>>>> home when going to the beach.
>>>>
>>>>> To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
>>>>> regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith
>>>>> of accuracy.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with
>>>> audible noise and distortion unecessarily added.
>>>
>>> Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today
>>> concerning me alone.
>>
>> Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or
>> not?
>
> On the best LPs, yes. Now, how does that differ from,
> "...Jenn's global preference for music ..."

The global part is the comparison of two global formats - LP versus CD.

Settle down, Jenn!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>
>>> audio components and accessories, like wire, cable,
>>> isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with
>>> aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening
>>> skills.
>>
>> "listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief.
>
> Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend
> disbelief" when you listen, analytically or otherwise.

During listening in blind tests, we go further than merely suspending
disbelief. We imagine that the difference exists. We think speculatively
about what forms it might take. Since blind tests have almost perfect
resistance to false positives, we can take this as far as we would like
without any fear of actually being mislead in the end.

> That is a sign of an open and objective mind.

Doing blind tests related to things that "cant' exist" is a good example of
that, and its something that my friends and I have done repeatedly. Given
the not inconsiderable effort that it takes to set up a proper blind test,
that's actually saying quite a bit.

> Intellectual beliefs should not have anything to do with
> perception of sound, OR enjoyment of music. You so-called
> "objectivists" who staunchly believe otherwise are, I
> find, anything _but_ "objective".

That's easier done than said.

> A good example of this kind of mistake would be you. You
> believe that even if you hear differences between, say,
> CD players, you fight that perception using your belief
> system, and convince yourself the differences aren't
> there, because your silly meaningless tests misguided you
> to believe otherwise.

I don't know which tests you're referring to. I suspect that they are things
you imagine. Given that you have no means for separating illusion from
reliable perception, and seemingly no interest in ever doing so, you're on
your own with that.

>This means you have no listening
> skills of any merit. No wonder you can't appreciate the
> differences between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000
> SME record deck. (At least it saves you some money to put
> toward test instruments...).

Who said we can't appreciate the difference between a $35 Coby CD player and
a $30,000? That would be another unrealiable fantasy of yours Mr.
Priority-less. Many real attributes such as appearance and build quality are
vastly different.


> It also means you have not
> just been waging war with every audiophile on this
> newsgroup, you are also, essentially, at war with your
> own mind.

No, there's no unusual degree of disunity in my mind. Note that many
complain about how certain I am of certain things, such as the principles
and practical application of science. That's me, through and through.

> I can only imagine how it must suck to be you.

Again, your imaginings are very unreliable - no doubt becuase you have
rejected all of the usual external sources of guidance in your life. It's
just you, your perceptions and your illusions. I'm happy to see that the
three of you are so happy together!

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Our minds have a lot to do with what our
>>> ears pick up.
>>>
>>
>> And we don't disconnect our minds when we listen to
>> music.
>
>
> Precisely. That would be impossible.

Thanks for admitting that it is impossible to disconnect one's mind while
listening.

[124]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "124" > wrote in
> message
>
> > For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is
> > a sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks I made this claim should
> > provide the evidence that shows that I made this claim.
> > I, moreover, in a previous post told JA that I knew that
> > George was not JA.
>
> What makes you think that George is most certainly not JA? BTW I agree with
> your analysis, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.

George has, according to Google, made 54 600 posts to Usenet forums.
JA has, according to Google, made 3512 posts to Usenet forums. JA has
also posted to at least one other--a Web-based--forum. If JA made more
than 58 000 posts over these last few years, where does he find the
time to do any editing? I am not suggesting that this is impossible,
merely that it could be difficult. George and JA appear to have
different personalities. George is nasty and vicious. JA can be
civil. George almost never discusses anything related to audio. His
posts here are almost always personal attacks. JA, to his credit,
often keeps his posts here related to audio. My gut says that they are
two persons.

--124

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with
>>> kid gloves.


>> Really Arn? By what standard?


>How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct established on RAO by George
>Middius, Greg Singh, Allan Derrida, and Roy Briggs?


I'm terribly sorry, for a moment there I thought you had some standard
of your own.

After all, the "Middius made me do it" argument is beyond someone of
your elevated character and moral, hm? ;-)

>I believe that all of these distinguished *gentlemen* have used various
>violent and sexual phrases and activities to characterize and threaten
>people they disagreed with, right?


While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues sometimes goes
beyond where I would go, is that a reason for you to engage in a
hostile approach towards people like Jenn (and many others like
Bamborough, Zelniker, Johnston, Parker etc.)?

While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how you respond
to me all over myself, how do you justify yout hostility towards John
Atkinson?
He's been only generous and friendly towards you, as far as I have
seen here in RAO.

How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind his back, and
accusing him of having no backbone?

You have a lot to answer for, my friend, and you're the only one who
has to live with that.

Note that this has nothing to do with Middius, "Briggs", Derrida,
Zipser, Singh, Sackman, Richman, myself or a host of others.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[124]

Jenn wrote:

> Do you believe that John has sockpuppets here?

No.

--124

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>>>> Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with
>>>> kid gloves.
>
>
>>> Really Arn? By what standard?

>> How about the *gentlemanly* standard of conduct
>> established on RAO by George Middius, Greg Singh, Allan
>> Derrida, and Roy Briggs?

> I'm terribly sorry, for a moment there I thought you had
> some standard of your own.

I do, which keeps me from descending to their level, before after or while
they established it.

> After all, the "Middius made me do it" argument is beyond
> someone of your elevated character and moral, hm? ;-)

The deafening silence on the topic of abuse by subjectivists is no surprise.

>> I believe that all of these distinguished *gentlemen*
>> have used various violent and sexual phrases and
>> activities to characterize and threaten people they
>> disagreed with, right?

> While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues
> sometimes goes beyond where I would go, is that a reason
> for you to engage in a hostile approach towards people
> like Jenn (and many others like Bamborough, Zelniker,
> Johnston, Parker etc.)?

Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint Bamborough went beyond the
pale. Oh, you can't remember that can you, Sander?

BTW who is Parker?

> While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how
> you respond to me all over myself, how do you justify
> your hostility towards John Atkinson?

Again, its clear Sander that you can't remember any of the trips that Saint
John took beyond the pale, both in the past or in the past few weeks.

> He's been only generous and friendly towards you, as far
> as I have seen here in RAO.

Oh come on Sander.

> How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind
> his back, and accusing him of having no backbone?

Simple, he's not here to say it to his face. I suspect that his regrettable
behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his face around here.

> You have a lot to answer for, my friend, and you're the
> only one who has to live with that.

Asked and answered.

> Note that this has nothing to do with Middius, "Briggs",
> Derrida, Zipser, Singh, Sackman, Richman, myself or a
> host of others.

Right, they are so-called subjectivists and therefore their behavior is
entirely in character and justifiable according you, Sander.

As is the ongoing bad behavior of Fella, etc.

Pile on fellows, it's what you do! ;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "124" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>> For the record, I have never claimed that anyone here is
>>> a sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks I made this claim should
>>> provide the evidence that shows that I made this claim.
>>> I, moreover, in a previous post told JA that I knew that
>>> George was not JA.
>>
>> What makes you think that George is most certainly not
>> JA? BTW I agree with your analysis, but I'm curious as
>> to your reasoning.
>
> George has, according to Google, made 54 600 posts to
> Usenet forums. JA has, according to Google, made 3512
> posts to Usenet forums. JA has also posted to at least
> one other--a Web-based--forum. If JA made more than 58
> 000 posts over these last few years, where does he find
> the time to do any editing? I am not suggesting that
> this is impossible, merely that it could be difficult.
> George and JA appear to have different personalities.
> George is nasty and vicious. JA can be civil. George
> almost never discusses anything related to audio. His
> posts here are almost always personal attacks. JA, to
> his credit, often keeps his posts here related to audio.
> My gut says that they are two persons.

I agree with your analysis on all points, except to observe one thing.
George's avoidance of audio topics is I believe a ruse. I believe his
animator knows a fair amount about audio (at least in his own eyes), but
avoids commenting on audio to keep from revealing his true identity.

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
oups.com

> There is no nasty little twist. You said that you are
> not George. _You_ are the one who introduced the idea of
> identity. Mr. Atkinson, I apologize for any
> misunderstanding.

As you correcly point out, George is incredibly prolific for a person who
has a life outside of RAO.

>> As George Middius would say,
>> just another day's work in the "debating trade" for
>> members of what he terms the "Hive."

> And subjectivists have never taken part in the debating
> trade?

Good point.

> My goodness, Mr. Atkinson, you do have unusual
> standards, especially when in a previous post in this
> thread you complained about hypocrisy.

Indeed. Remember, John directs the payment of a salary to such as Mikey
Fremer.

> Disinterested
> readers should examine evidence. By the way, Mr.
> Atkinson, where is the evidence that supports your
> position? Please provide some URLs so that disinterested
> readers can examine the evidence on your side.

I think that the strongest evidence indicting Atkinson can be found in the
pages of Stereophile.

> These readers can then compare it to the evidence on the
> objectivists' side and therefore ignore the debating
> trade by only looking at evidence.

I think that Sander's recent post piling on the current preferred line of
attack on me is a good example. To have any ground to stand on to attack me,
Sander has to demand that we totally ignore the activities of six or more
of the most prolific and agressive posters on this group, all supporters of
Sander and his viewpoint.

BTW one of the names Sander mentioned is the late Steve Zipser who was well
known for saying catchy phrases like "Toobs are for Boobs" right up until he
managed to get a tube equipment manufacturer's franchise for his shop in
Miami.

reference:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/14818421d8afcbd2

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues
>> sometimes goes beyond where I would go, is that a reason
>> for you to engage in a hostile approach towards people
>> like Jenn (and many others like Bamborough, Zelniker,
>> Johnston, Parker etc.)?


>Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint Bamborough went beyond the
>pale. Oh, you can't remember that can you, Sander?


IIRC, that was only after you started it.
The funny thing is, again, that their audio viewpoints don't differ
very much from your own.


>BTW who is Parker?


Paul Packer, sorry for the typo.


>> While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how
>> you respond to me all over myself, how do you justify
>> your hostility towards John Atkinson?


>Again, its clear Sander that you can't remember any of the trips that Saint
>John took beyond the pale, both in the past or in the past few weeks.


He surely didn't descend to your level of 'debate'.


>> How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind
>> his back, and accusing him of having no backbone?


>Simple, he's not here to say it to his face.


That's a good reason, for sure.
It makes me wonder though how you speak of your other friends and
fellows in places they are not present.


>I suspect that his regrettable
>behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his face around here.


Yep, that must be it.

Sorry for not getting this earlier, Arny, I'm happy you cleared it up
for me ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>I think that Sander's recent post piling on the current preferred line of
>attack on me is a good example. To have any ground to stand on to attack me,
>Sander has to demand that we totally ignore the activities of six or more
>of the most prolific and agressive posters on this group, all supporters of
>Sander and his viewpoint.


Could you elaborate on that?
What viewpoint might that be? Audio, or *you* specifically?

To evaluate the behaviour you've shown towards Jenn, one doesn't have
to look at what any other member of this group has posted, we only
have to look at what *you* and Jenn have posted.

As far as I can tell, Jenn never crossed the line.
You did, however.


>BTW one of the names Sander mentioned is the late Steve Zipser who was well
>known for saying catchy phrases like "Toobs are for Boobs" right up until he
>managed to get a tube equipment manufacturer's franchise for his shop in
>Miami.

>reference:
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/14818421d8afcbd2


And that has relevance to what in this thread exactly?

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>> While I agree that their behaviour wrt. certain issues
>>> sometimes goes beyond where I would go, is that a reason
>>> for you to engage in a hostile approach towards people
>>> like Jenn (and many others like Bamborough, Zelniker,
>>> Johnston, Parker etc.)?
>
>
>> Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint
>> Bamborough went beyond the pale. Oh, you can't remember
>> that can you, Sander?
>
>
> IIRC, that was only after you started it.

Of course Sander, you hereby grant them permission to exercise the "Arny
made me do it" option.

In Zelniker's case it was totally out of the blue, but why should I disturb
you with the facts?

> The funny thing is, again, that their audio viewpoints
> don't differ very much from your own.

What?????

>> BTW who is Parker?

> Paul Packer, sorry for the typo.

Yet another gentle little lamb who couldn't melt butter with his mouth, he's
so sweet.

>>> While I'm absolutely willing to admit that I brought how
>>> you respond to me all over myself, how do you justify
>>> your hostility towards John Atkinson?

>> Again, its clear Sander that you can't remember any of
>> the trips that Saint John took beyond the pale, both in
>> the past or in the past few weeks.


> He surely didn't descend to your level of 'debate'.

Says you, Sander.

>
>>> How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind
>>> his back, and accusing him of having no backbone?

>> Simple, he's not here to say it to his face.

> That's a good reason, for sure.
> It makes me wonder though how you speak of your other
> friends and fellows in places they are not present.

Many of them are true gentlemen who would never lower themselves to talk to
any of the regulars around here, yourself included.

>> I suspect that his regrettable
>> behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his
>> face around here.

> Yep, that must be it.

Well that and the ongoing abuse from Middius, and others. Frankly, RAO has
been a highly unproductive place for years. Thank you Sander for your
ongoing efforts to keep it that way!

> Sorry for not getting this earlier, Arny, I'm happy you
> cleared it up for me ;-)

What's clear are your biases, Sander. If nothing else I've learned how
biases blind people to obvious faults in both technology and the behavior of
others. I've learned not to take it personally. It's even a bit funny to
watch. But sad.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:

>>> Let's remember how far Saint Zelniker and Saint
>>> Bamborough went beyond the pale. Oh, you can't remember
>>> that can you, Sander?


>> IIRC, that was only after you started it.


>Of course Sander, you hereby grant them permission to exercise the "Arny
>made me do it" option.


Well, how does that expression go?
'What's good for the goose, is good for the gander' , or should that
be 'Sander"? ;-)

IOW. if you plead innocent, why shouldn't others?


>In Zelniker's case it was totally out of the blue, but why should I disturb
>you with the facts?


I seem to recall something different, but that would require some
googling.
This issue isn't that important to me to warrant much effort.


>> The funny thing is, again, that their audio viewpoints
>> don't differ very much from your own.


>What?????


That hurt, didn't it?


>>>> How do you justify calling Jim Johnston a coward behind
>>>> his back, and accusing him of having no backbone?


>>> Simple, he's not here to say it to his face.


>> That's a good reason, for sure.
>> It makes me wonder though how you speak of your other
>> friends and fellows in places they are not present.


>Many of them are true gentlemen who would never lower themselves to talk to
>any of the regulars around here, yourself included.


Which explains your presence here, of course.
Do they have boats, perchance, or do they just know people who have
boats? ;-)


>>> I suspect that his regrettable
>>> behavior towards me is one reason why he won't show his
>>> face around here.


>> Yep, that must be it.


>Well that and the ongoing abuse from Middius, and others. Frankly, RAO has
>been a highly unproductive place for years. Thank you Sander for your
>ongoing efforts to keep it that way!


Any time, Arny.
Thanks for admitting that my scarce postings here have that much
influence!


>> Sorry for not getting this earlier, Arny, I'm happy you
>> cleared it up for me ;-)


>What's clear are your biases, Sander. If nothing else I've learned how
>biases blind people to obvious faults in both technology and the behavior of
>others. I've learned not to take it personally. It's even a bit funny to
>watch. But sad.


That's odd, I feel exactly the same way! ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

[John Atkinson]

124 wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > 124 wrote:
> > > > John Atkinson wrote:
> > > > > I am not George, nor is he me.
> > > >
> > > > I never claimed that he was one of your sockpuppets.
> > >
> > > Who is one?
> >
> > No one. I don't have any sockpuppets. Every posting I make
> > to the newsgroups, to the evident chagrin of Mr. Powell :-), is
> > clearly identified as being from me.
> >
> > And note the nasty little twist to "124"'s posting, whereby
> > were I to respond, would mean accepting the premise that
> > I _do_ have sockpuppets.
>
> There is no nasty little twist.

I was referring to your statement above that you "never claimed
[George Middius] was one of [my] sockpuppets." Implicit in
this statement is the assumption that I _do_ run sockpuppets.

> You said that you are not George. _You_ are the one who
> introduced the idea of identity. Mr. Atkinson, I apologize for
> any misunderstanding.

Thanks. And yes, you were correct, I earlier confused your
posting anonymously with your being a sockpuppet. My
apologies for that assumption.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: >
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 4:42 pm
> Email: >
>
> >I'm not waging a war on preference, ****. I'm trying to help debunk the
> >notion that anything can sound better or more real on an inferior medium.
> >Not that you care about audio anyway so whynot just **** off?
>
> If I said that a seven-transistor radio from 1963 sounded better to me,
> that is indeed a preference. Preferences cannot be debunked.
>
> I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly, smelly creature.
> One would suppose that your wife, or your children, might feel
> otherwise. I can't imagine trying to convince them that their
> preference is wrong. Come to think of it, they're probably just keeping
> quiet out of pity.
>
> All conservatives are alike: they simply make up whatever they want and
> try to pass it off as truth. Please post the proof where I said, as you
> allege, that "by [my] own admission [I] don't give a **** about audio"
> or admit that you are lying (again). There's no middle road, liar. If I
> said it, it should not be hard for you to find. Since I never did say
> it, it will be impossible to find.

This sure seemed to be you saying it IMO.
Your response to J. Major follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 11:16 am
Email: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
Groups: rec.audio.opinion
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


From: J.Major
Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 1:04 pm
Email: "J.Major" >


>What was my surprise to find out that the only audio
>stuff this guy possess was a mini-stereo that he must have paid at max
>200$ (canadian).


That's a lot of beer money, ay?


>So I have (again) a little question: What is the % of people in this
>newsgroup that really have a true hifi system?


I hate music. I am here trying to convert others here to my point of
view. There are several of us here with the same agenda.

In fact, attacking audio preference is a hobby of mine. I watched in
glee recently as some of my minions attacked yours.


Thank you for your interest...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> You and Mr. Krueger are birds of a feather: liars with no equal.

Since we're not liars, I guess that's true, we have no equals, least of
all a Kool-Aid drinking Liberal like you.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> oups.com
> >>>>> From: Arny Krueger
> >>>>> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:20 pm
> >>>>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity",
> >>>>>> and then saying that you prefer to listen to music
> >>>>>> with added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
> >>>>>> hypocritical and self-contradictory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Except that this is rec.*audio* not
> >>>>> rec.*high-fidelity*
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
> >>>> with high fidelity.
> >>>>
> >>>>> As I've said, some LPs are more pleasing to listen to
> >>>>> than the CD counterparts that I also have. Some, not
> >>>>> all.
> >>>>
> >>>> There might be a few exceptional cases like that. But
> >>>> Jenn is not talking about exceptional cases, now is
> >>>> she?
> >>>>
> >>>>> But LP, CD, tape, tubes, tuner (probably the lowest
> >>>>> fidelity of all, and never mentioned from what I've
> >>>>> seen), etc. are all audio.
> >>>>
> >>>> You forgot cassette!
> >>>
> >>> Did they start putting something in cassettes besides
> >>> TAPE?
> >>>>
> >>>>> Some of us listen for the music.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which is the whole point of high fidelity.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Some of the most
> >>>>> enjoyable music that I've listened to was through a
> >>>>> boom box at a beach.
> >>>>
> >>>> Good for you!
> >>>>
> >>>>> A few beers, some sun, a good Doors tune
> >>>>> comes on... And even that boom box was 'audio.'
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, audio of a kind.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Therein lies the problem here apparently. Audio to
> >>>>> some here has to mean the 'highest fidelity' or it
> >>>>> isn't valid.
> >>>>
> >>>> Nice job of using sentimental imagry to change the
> >>>> subject from Jenn's global preference of music with
> >>>> unecessasily added audioble noise and distortion to an
> >>>> afternoon on the beach.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh, and you forgot that this is the 21st century, and
> >>>> that courtesy of high quality portable digital players,
> >>>> its unecesary to leave the desire for high fidelity at
> >>>> home when going to the beach.
> >>>>
> >>>>> To others it means the 'most satisfying' to them,
> >>>>> regardless of whether or not it represents the zenith
> >>>>> of accuracy.
> >>>>
> >>>> Irrelevant to Jenn's global preference for music with
> >>>> audible noise and distortion unecessarily added.
> >>>
> >>> Yet ANOTHER lie by Arny. By my count, that's 5 today
> >>> concerning me alone.
> >>
> >> Well Jenn, do you prefer LP or CD for violin sound or
> >> not?
> >
> > On the best LPs, yes. Now, how does that differ from,
> > "...Jenn's global preference for music ..."
>
> The global part is the comparison of two global formats - LP versus CD.

And my preference for LP isn't global, as I've stated many, many times.
Therefore, you lied.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >In Zelniker's case it was totally out of the blue, but why should I disturb
> >you with the facts?

> I seem to recall something different, but that would require some
> googling.

No problem, I have you .....


< ====== Begin Quote ====== >

> Nice revisionist history. Glenn Z hardly posts here any more? Wonder
> why? I think he finally sobered up and realized what a twit he
> looked like after he tried the Briggs approach and called me all
> sorts of names, and slandered me with his delusions about my
> personal life, pretty thorougly. Then I simply posted a few FFT
> plots at www.pcabx.com/zelniker that substantiated my claims about
> dither and room tone. He's been pretty calm since then, which bodes
> well for him.

Nice try, you demented, delusional moron.

The reason I hardly post here any more is that there's rarely anything of
interest for me to comment on. I check Deja every now and then to see if
there's anything that requires my intervention, but I've long since lost the
desire to counter your insane, tiresome prattlings. I'm too busy bloating
my coffers with ill-gotten high-end gelt. Plus, the shadow government I
help run with the rest of the high-end establishment and other members of
your enemies list takes up a tremendous amount of my spare time.

While we're at it, though, I'll concede that my manner with you is both
abrasive and downright rude. I refuse to discuss technical matters with you
anymore because you're simply unteachable. It's fine with me if you want to
believe that you won our debate and that your cute little plots prove(d)
anything. You didn't and they don't (a hint, idiot -- noise modulation).
Find me a single technically competent person (besides Anonymous or any of
his other various incarnations) who will corroborate your "findings" and
I'll be happy to resume the debate. The only support you'll get is
agreement from a few humanitarians that feel I've been too mean spirited and
that I've lowered myself to the debating tactics of Middius, Briggs, or
Singh. Too bad.

Yes, your plots, in part, helped drive me away from the group. But not for
the reasons you think. BTW, the only slancers I uttered about your personal
life were about your profoundly decompensated mental state (or the usenet-
related appearance thereof), you nut. I stand by those slancers.

Glenn Zelniker
Z-Systems Audio Engineering

< ====== End Quote ====== >


Funny how Krooger presumes to understand dither better than the guy who is
among the leading digital engineers working in America today. Krooger, who
got a half-assed "general engineering" degree and, by his own admission,
"flogs PCs" for a living, sets himself up as superior to a PhD holder who
founded and leads the top producer of studio and mastering electronics in
the USA.

In passing, I note that Glenn goes out of his way to offer an implicit
disapproval of some of my and others' posts about the Krooborg. Also,
"slancers" was originally a nugget of Krooglish uttered by you-know-who. And
the "Anonymous" Glenn refers to was Sebastian McInturd, an erstwhile
Kroopologist who posted to RAO under various netnyms. He's long gone from
RAO -- possibly because, if you believe the rumors, he was arrested and
prosecuted for breaking Internet privacy laws. A typical Kroopologist.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >
> >>> audio components and accessories, like wire, cable,
> >>> isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with
> >>> aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening
> >>> skills.
> >>
> >> "listening skills" defined here as suspending disbelief.
> >
> > Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend
> > disbelief" when you listen, analytically or otherwise.
>
> During listening in blind tests, we go further than merely suspending
> disbelief. We imagine that the difference exists. We think speculatively
> about what forms it might take. Since blind tests have almost perfect
> resistance to false positives, we can take this as far as we would like
> without any fear of actually being mislead in the end.


No, you're being mislead by your blind tests. And I'm sorry, but you're
fooling yourself to think otherwise. So if I'm fooling myself to
"imagine differences exist", which I'm not, I'd rather it be that than
the blind test. A blind test is an attempt to control all variables and
only test the DUT. But it is impossible to control all variables. Blind
tests have their place, but not in the field of music reproduction.

Therefore, any results of a blind test will always be subject to
inaccuracy. And any conclusions drawn from the test, will have to be
inconclusive.

Your "imaginging that things exist" works both ways. You can, and you
have, imagined that things DON'T exist. This itself impedes your
ability to listen without prejudice, which would negate the results of
any blind test. If you know you're testing amplifiers for example, and
you already "know" from your previous false conclusions that amplifiers
don't sound any different (unless not performing to spec, yadda, yadda,
yadda....), then you've already autosuggested that you won't hear a
difference and should anyone be surprised that you declare that you
don't during the blind trial?


> > That is a sign of an open and objective mind.
>
> Doing blind tests related to things that "cant' exist" is a good example of
> that, and its something that my friends and I have done repeatedly. Given
> the not inconsiderable effort that it takes to set up a proper blind test,
> that's actually saying quite a bit.


_What_ "things that can't exist" are you referring to? My 5-pinhole
paper with aspirin tweak perhaps? You are supplying an example of what
I just said above, when you imagine that differences can't exist before
a test.


> > Intellectual beliefs should not have anything to do with
> > perception of sound, OR enjoyment of music. You so-called
> > "objectivists" who staunchly believe otherwise are, I
> > find, anything _but_ "objective".
>
> That's easier done than said.


I agree that's easier to say that you're objective than to be
objective. Particularly after reading the kinds of messages on this
board, from all contributors. But I personally am able to be objective
before I test a condition. That's possible partly from my listening
skill, and partly from my personal philosophies. I have my little
tricks before a test that help keep me objective, too. I know this for
a fact, because I don't always perceive positive changes from a test or
an experiment, even if I was expecting it.


> > A good example of this kind of mistake would be you. You
> > believe that even if you hear differences between, say,
> > CD players, you fight that perception using your belief
> > system, and convince yourself the differences aren't
> > there, because your silly meaningless tests misguided you
> > to believe otherwise.
>
> I don't know which tests you're referring to. I suspect that they are things
> you imagine. Given that you have no means for separating illusion from
> reliable perception, and seemingly no interest in ever doing so, you're on
> your own with that.

I'm referring to you having said that even if you did observe
differences between things like cd players, things you "know" don't
sound different due to the data from your blind tests, you would not
accept that you heard those differences. To you, it's a "placebo",
because your (faulty) blind tests told you otherwise.

So it is you that I believe does not have an interest in separating
illusion from perception. You just delude yourself by a different and
more insidious sort of illusion. Given your extremist agenda to
propagate your illusions to as many people as possible, I think you
need this illusion more than a junkie needs a heroin fix.

> >This means you have no listening
> > skills of any merit. No wonder you can't appreciate the
> > differences between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000
> > SME record deck. (At least it saves you some money to put
> > toward test instruments...).
>
> Who said we can't appreciate the difference between a $35 Coby CD player and
> a $30,000? That would be another unrealiable fantasy of yours Mr.
> Priority-less.

So now you're resorting to name-calling are you? Isn't this the last
vestige of the empty-handed objectivist, when he fails to prove his
assertions? Isn't this what we always hear from the objectivists, in
criticism of the subjectivists? Doesn't that make you a lying
hypocrite, Mr. Kreuger?

Does this quote below look familiar to you Mr. Kreuger? It should, you
wrote it to me only a few days ago. Maybe its because you write so much
******** to everyone on the audio groups, you didn't recall this little
piece. So is THIS what you call an "unreliable fantasy" Mr. Kreuger?:

"Well, for goodness sake buy some good-sounding digital playback
equipment! Let me recommend the Coby DVD player - $34.95 in many
appliance stores. Given an appropriate CDs to play - it outperforms
*any* LP setup and by a rediculous margin."

Let me point out again that you emphasized *ANY* LP setup would be
beaten by the $35 Coby CD player, your personal recommendation. This
would have to include the $30,000 SME turntable I mentioned. So once
again, you're proven to be a lying hypocrite.


> Many real attributes such as appearance and build quality are
> vastly different.

But have little to no effect on the sound quality. They're only
important qualities to you objectivists, really. I know audiophiles Mr.
Kreuger. You don't, they're simply more things for you to despise in
life. And I've never known an audiophile to buy a piece of high end
equipment because of its appearance or build quality. With audiophiles,
SOUND HAS PRIORITY.

> > It also means you have not
> > just been waging war with every audiophile on this
> > newsgroup, you are also, essentially, at war with your
> > own mind.
>
> No, there's no unusual degree of disunity in my mind. Note that many
> complain about how certain I am of certain things, such as the principles
> and practical application of science. That's me, through and through.


Which brings me to another thought about you.... I could not ever
imagine you finally "getting it", and realizing that after so many
years of trumpeting the double, triple or quadruple blind test, you
were wrong. You were wrong about EVERYTHING. $35 CD players don't sound
better than $30,000 turntables, even if your worthless blind tests say
otherwise. Amps DO sound different. Cables and wires DO have
differences. So do green markers, spikes, funny little feet, 5-pinhole
paper with aspirin and a cute little cat underneath.... so on and so
forth. You would never admit you're wrong no matter if someone
shovelled evidence via direct hook-up to your poisoned mind for 36
hours a day, for the next 3 weeks.

I don't even think audio is your hobby. I think audio politics is your
hobby. You're an unusual hobbyist, because you need a "cause" to
believe in, for whatever reason. I've seen you dismiss evidence from
others over and over, with no regard for what may be true or scientific
curiousity. Have you tried my pinhole paper with aspirin tweak, after
having joined my thread in which I proposed the idea? No, you haven't.
Your interest isn't in better sound or even science. You never even
talk about improving sound quality. No Mr. Kreuger, I believe your
interest is in having something to believe in, other than yourself. I
almost understand. Because if I were you, I guess I wouldn't believe in
you either. Do you really think anyone else does, who didn't already?


> > I can only imagine how it must suck to be you.
>
> Again, your imaginings are very unreliable - no doubt becuase you have
> rejected all of the usual external sources of guidance in your life.

You mean God and Shiva? You're absolutely correct for a (refreshing)
change. I have rejected external sources of "guidance". I do not
believe in childhood fantasies like "gods", as I believe you do, if
what I read about your faith is correct. I believe in myself. I don't
believe in audio magazines, and stopped being guided by them about 20
years ago, as I evolved as an audiophile. Because no reviewer could
guide me better than my own ears could. Nor am I guided by technical
journals or textbooks, as you are. They are merely helpful when
designing the equipment, not when evaluating it. I'm an independent
mind, and much of my knowledge of audio comes from firsthand
experience. Perhaps you are jealous of that, since you are not an
independent thinker, and much of your beliefs were fed to you a long
time ago.

> It's
> just you, your perceptions and your illusions. I'm happy to see that the
> three of you are so happy together!

On the other hand, there's you, your perceptions, your illusions, and
your neurosis. Which guides you to spend your entire life on audio
groups, attempting to bash people for their preference. Only problem
is, you appear to be a rather miserable person, and only too happy to
find company for your misery, by trying to rain on the parades of
others here.

That may be great for your giant-sized ego, but all the negativity you
dish out every day like clockwork, can't be doing good things for your
perception of sound.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>
>>>>> audio components and accessories, like wire, cable,
>>>>> isolation feet, green markers or 5-pinhole paper with
>>>>> aspirin tweaks. You simply need to have listening
>>>>> skills.
>>>>
>>>> "listening skills" defined here as suspending
>>>> disbelief.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's part of it. You should ALWAYS "suspend
>>> disbelief" when you listen, analytically or otherwise.

>> During listening in blind tests, we go further than
>> merely suspending disbelief. We imagine that the
>> difference exists. We think speculatively about what
>> forms it might take. Since blind tests have almost
>> perfect resistance to false positives, we can take this
>> as far as we would like without any fear of actually
>> being mislead in the end.

> No, you're being mislead by your blind tests. And I'm
> sorry, but you're fooling yourself to think otherwise.

Easy to say, hard to demonstrate.

>So if i'm fooling myself to "imagine differences exist",
> which I'm not, I'd rather it be that than the blind test.

I simply never said that a person is fooling themselves if they imagine that
differences exist. In fact, I recommended it. Therefore it's quite clear
that what follows is not at all responsive to what I've said. I'm dealing
with an output-only device!

And that is simply not worth the trouble to respond to.

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:47 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
> >Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do with high fidelity.
>
> I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to making things
> up all the time. What purpose does that serve? Do you possess a basic
> understanding of communication?

I believe you have no grounds to criticize Mr. Krueger this way. He's a
fairly educated chap, and clearly he does possess a basic understanding
of communication. As to the reason that he wrote what he did, well
that's simple. He's a liar. However, a fairly educated liar with a
decent understanding of communication.

His belligerence in audio politics implores him to use old "debating
tactics" on people, which is what he does with me in this thread, and
what he's seen here doing with you, when putting words in your mouth.
Or speaking on your behalf. He is attempting to make you appear to say
something he perceives is unreasonable, in order to weaken his
opponent's arguments and play for an "imaginary audiene" that I believe
does not comprise the readership of these messages, but exists only in
his head.

<sigh> Such is the life of the neurotic audio politician....

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 6:47 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>> Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
>> with high fidelity.
>
> I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to
> making things up all the time.

I don't know why you removed the statement that I responded to.

Maybe it would explain what I said.

Can't have that, can you?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com

> > Arny Krueger wrote:

> > No, you're being mislead by your blind tests. And I'm
> > sorry, but you're fooling yourself to think otherwise.
>
> Easy to say, hard to demonstrate.

Yet it's been demonstrated by audio journalists, audiophiles and
engineers countless times over. Differences not heard under silly blind
test conditions, are later revealed after weeks of normal home
listening, when not under the stress influences of the blind test.

> >So if i'm fooling myself to "imagine differences exist",
> > which I'm not, I'd rather it be that than the blind test.

> I simply never said that a person is fooling themselves if they imagine that
> differences exist.

Did you ever bother to count how many times you contradict yourself in
a day's worth of posting (which is about a month's worth for the
average poster)? I'm sure you would find the number interesting. You
simply said that:

"During listening in blind tests, we go further than merely suspending
disbelief. We imagine that the difference exists."

I'd be interested to hear your explanation on how, if you imagine
something is there that isn't, you are NOT fooling yourself. Please
elaborate, I could use the laughs.


> In fact, I recommended it.

I'm sure you do, since you imagine that no differences exist all the
time.


> that what follows is not at all responsive to what I've said. I'm dealing
> with an output-only device!

What are you referring to, your brain?


> And that is simply not worth the trouble to respond to.

Oh come on, now. The great Arny Kreuger is "scared" of me? I've read
about where you chicken out and run away from a debate, when you find
yourself faced with a stronger opponent who is bashing you to pieces,
and you can not effectively defend yourself. Then you wander off to try
to wage a smaller battle with a weaker opponent, that you can hope to
"appear to win", and try to keep your blind testing agenda alive. I
just didn't think I would see this same thing happen with you and me so
very _quickly_. For someone with such a grand reputation as an
"internet bully", you are a MUCH weaker debating opponent than I've
been led to believe. To respond to your sorry excuse to bail out of our
debate on blind testing, which after all is what your entire life seems
to have been devoted to, one can credibly argue that nothing you write
is worth responding to. Yet strangely enough, as I see, people still
do.

I don't know why you removed all the statements that I responded to. Oh
wait, now I realize. It's because you could not effectively argue
against anything I wrote, knowing that I was right. As for example....

I was right when I said that you were being mislead by your blind
tests.

I was right when I said that a blind test is an attempt to control all
variables and only test the DUT. But it is impossible to control all
variables.

I was right when I said that your "imaginging that things exist" works
both ways You can, and you have, imagined that things DON'T exist. This
itself impedes your ability to listen without prejudice, which would
negate the results of any blind test.

I was right when I said that if you know you're testing amplifiers for
example, and you already "know" from your previous false conclusions
that amplifiers don't sound any different (unless not performing to
spec, yadda, yadda, yadda....), then you've already autosuggested that
you won't hear a difference and should anyone be surprised that you
declare that you don't during the blind trial?

I was right when I said that you are supplying an example of what I
just said, when you imagine that differences can't exist before a test.


I was right when I said that I agree that's easier to say that you're
objective than to be objective.

I was right when I said that I'm referring to you having said that even
if you did observe differences between things like cd players, things
you "know" don't sound different due to the data from your blind tests,
you would not accept that you heard those differences. To you, it's a
"placebo", because your (faulty) blind tests told you otherwise.

I was right when I said that it is you that I believe does not have an
interest in separating illusion from perception. You just delude
yourself by a different and more insidious sort of illusion.

And when you called me "Mr. Priority-less", I was right when I said
that "now you're resorting to name-calling are you? Isn't this the last
vestige of the empty-handed objectivist, when he fails to prove his
assertions? Isn't this what we always hear from the objectivists, in
criticism of the subjectivists? Doesn't that make you a lying
hypocrite, Mr. Kreuger?"

I was right when I said "Does this quote below look familiar to you Mr.
Kreuger? It should, you wrote it to me only a few days ago. Maybe its
because you write so much ******** to everyone on the audio groups, you
didn't recall this little piece. So is THIS what you call an
"unreliable fantasy" Mr. Kreuger?:

"Well, for goodness sake buy some good-sounding digital playback
equipment! Let me recommend the Coby DVD player - $34.95 in many
appliance stores. Given an appropriate CDs to play - it outperforms
*any* LP setup and by a rediculous margin."

Let me point out again that you emphasized *ANY* LP setup would be
beaten by the $35 Coby CD player, your personal recommendation. This
would have to include the $30,000 SME turntable I mentioned. So once
again, you're proven to be a lying hypocrite. "

And when you said:

> No, there's no unusual degree of disunity in my mind. Note that many
> complain about how certain I am of certain things, such as the principles
> and practical application of science. That's me, through and through.

I was right when I said "Which brings me to another thought about
you.... I could not ever imagine you finally "getting it", and
realizing that after so many years of trumpeting the double, triple or
quadruple blind test, you were wrong. You were wrong about EVERYTHING.
$35 CD players don't sound better than $30,000 turntables, even if your
worthless blind tests say otherwise. Amps DO sound different. Cables
and wires DO have differences. So do green markers, spikes, funny
little feet, 5-pinhole paper with aspirin and a cute little cat
underneath.... so on and so forth. You would never admit you're wrong
no matter if someone shovelled evidence via direct hook-up to your
poisoned mind for 36 hours a day, for the next 3 weeks. "

I was right when I said that I don't even think audio is your hobby. I
think audio politics is your hobby. You're an unusual hobbyist, because
you need a "cause" to believe in, for whatever reason. I've seen you
dismiss evidence from others over and over, with no regard for what may
be true or scientific curiousity. Have you tried my pinhole paper with
aspirin tweak, after having joined my thread in which I proposed the
idea? No, you haven't. Your interest isn't in better sound or even
science. You never even talk about improving sound quality. No Mr.
Kreuger, I believe your interest is in having something to believe in,
other than yourself. I almost understand. Because if I were you, I
guess I wouldn't believe in you either. Do you really think anyone else
does, who didn't already?

I was also right when I said "On the other hand, there's you, your
perceptions, your illusions, and your neurosis. Which guides you to
spend your entire life on audio groups, attempting to bash people for
their preference. Only problem is, you appear to be a rather miserable
person, and only too happy to find company for your misery, by trying
to rain on the parades of others here.

That may be great for your giant-sized ego, but all the negativity you
dish out every day like clockwork, can't be doing good things for your
perception of sound. "


What's your next cowardly debating trick, Mr. Kreuger? Gonna lay a
couple of eggs for us?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:20:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>wrote in message
ups.com
>> From: Arny Krueger
>> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:22 pm
>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>>
>>> What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed
>>> my preference for clean sound with mininal unecessarly
>>> added noise and distortion?
>>
>> If those 'vinyl bigots' were being treated the same way
>> that you and nob have treated Jenn, then I would say that
>> you got what you deserved.
>
>Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with kid gloves.
>
>> If you were happily minding your own business, and
>> offered a simple opinion that wasn't geared toward
>> 'debunking' or 'convincing,' someone of their error, then
>> I would say they were as wrong as you are now.
>
>Over the years a lot of progress has been made. Vinyl bigots used to believe
>a lot of weirdness, that has been effectively debunked. I don't know if they
>wised up or just learned that the bogus claims they made about digital got
>them into trouble.
>
>> There's nothing inherently wrong with someone liking either format.
>
>Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you
>prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion
>is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

Correct.

>Saying that digital has audible forms of distortion such as graininess, or
>being incapable of reproducing certain tones or timbres is the result of
>being poorly-informed.

Wrong.

(How's that for sitting on the fence?)

>Of course there's nothing inherently wrong with being a hypocrite or
>self-contradictory, or being intentionally poorly-informed. ;-)

Are you making excuses for yourself, Arny?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:21:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

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

>> Shhhh! said to duh-Mikey:
>>
>>> I imagine you, for example, to be a disgustingly ugly,
>>> smelly creature.
>>
>> No need to imagine. We found a candid picture of Mikey
>> (on the left) and another diehard Kroopologist (real name
>> dickless maletwitski, aka torrie****s, aka dippyborg).
>> Check it out:
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/glanbrok/RAO_Toons/Mikey_and_Thing.jpg
>
>Looks like Middius screwed up and posted a picture of himself and Sackman
>instead.

If so they're both wearing well. Though not for long by the looks.
:-)

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:20:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
>> wrote in message
>> ups.com
>>> From: Arny Krueger
>>> Date: Mon, Feb 27 2006 5:22 pm
>>> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>>>
>>>> What about all the times that vinyl bigots have trashed
>>>> my preference for clean sound with mininal unecessarly
>>>> added noise and distortion?
>>>
>>> If those 'vinyl bigots' were being treated the same way
>>> that you and nob have treated Jenn, then I would say
>>> that
>>> you got what you deserved.
>>
>> Comparatively speaking, we've been treating Jenn with
>> kid gloves.
>>
>>> If you were happily minding your own business, and
>>> offered a simple opinion that wasn't geared toward
>>> 'debunking' or 'convincing,' someone of their error,
>>> then
>>> I would say they were as wrong as you are now.
>>
>> Over the years a lot of progress has been made. Vinyl
>> bigots used to believe a lot of weirdness, that has been
>> effectively debunked. I don't know if they wised up or
>> just learned that the bogus claims they made about
>> digital got them into trouble.
>>
>>> There's nothing inherently wrong with someone liking
>>> either format.
>>
>> Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and
>> then saying that you prefer to listen to music with
>> added unecessary audible noise and distortion is
>> hypocritical and self-contradictory.
>
> Correct.
>
>> Saying that digital has audible forms of distortion such
>> as graininess, or being incapable of reproducing certain
>> tones or timbres is the result of being poorly-informed.
>
> Wrong.
>
> (How's that for sitting on the fence?)

It's like having a fence pole do something to you that is unmentionable in
polite company.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>>>>>Saying that you are interested in "high fidelity", and then saying that you
>>>>>prefer to listen to music with added unecessary audible noise and distortion
>>>>>is hypocritical and self-contradictory.

>>>>Except that this is rec.*audio* not rec.*high-fidelity*

>>> Thanks for admitting that LPs really have nothing to do
>>> with high fidelity.

>> I have to wonder why you feel it necessary to resort to
>> making things up all the time.

>I don't know why you removed the statement that I responded to.

>Maybe it would explain what I said.

I put it back. It still does not say anything like what you stated.

>Can't have that, can you?

Sure! There it is!

Will you *ever* engage in honest debate, or are you so intent on
getting whatever points that you deem necessary across that you will
resort to lies, inaccuracies, and distortions to do so?

If you are so sure that the 'truth' is on your side, why do you resort
to engaging in these tactics?

[paul packer]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:07:13 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>>> BTW who is Parker?
>
>> Paul Packer, sorry for the typo.
>
>Yet another gentle little lamb who couldn't melt butter with his mouth, he's
>so sweet.

Why thank you, Arnie. I always thought I was sweet too, but I could
never get anyone to agree with me before.

Never thought you'd be the first though. :-)

[Anon E Mouse]

George M. Middius > schrieb in Nachricht >...

> [...]
>
> And the "Anonymous" Glenn refers to was S[é]basti[e]n McInt[yre], an erstwhile
> Kroopologist who posted to RAO under various netnyms. He's long gone from
> RAO -- possibly because, if you believe the rumors, he was arrested and
> prosecuted for breaking Internet privacy laws. A typical Kroopologist.

"Save your sympathy and know that only a body is in prison.
At my will, I walk your streets and am right out there among you."

Charles Manson
Pimp, thief and mass murderer.

(Quoted from "Manson in His Own Words")

Translation: The only safe connection is no connection.

En passant, Votre Middiotie, vos hémorroïdes ne vous font pas trop souffrir
j'espère... Gentil, gentil, le Georgie, hein?...

--
Anon E. Mouse

[Playing: "Soul Obligation" - Rascalz]