Observation for Arnii Kroo****

[George M. Middius]

Dear StupidBorg:

From time to time, you retrieve one of my past posts in order to show, I
believe, that I'm mean and horrible towards you. Have you garnered any
"debating trade" points from this tactic? Hahahaha -- just kidding.

My observation, for your benefit, if you want it: The reason nobody condemns
me for what you perceive as attacks on you is because almost everybody knows
you deserve it. The reason everybody thinks poorly of you is not because of
conspiracies or payoffs or large-scale mind control by Stereophile. The
reason is because you bring it on yourself.

[Joe Duffy]

In article >,
George M. Middius <do not reply> wrote:
>
>My observation, for your benefit, if you want it: The reason nobody condemns
>me for what you perceive as attacks on you is because almost everybody knows
>you deserve it.
>

Here is the crux of the biscuit:
the midjet is the mental equivalent of a
70's solid state Sansui receiver.
Logic was not his strong suit in that Rhodes
scholar program he engaged in, was is it Mr.
Weil?



Joe

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Dear StupidBorg:
>
> From time to time, you retrieve one of my past posts in order to show, I
> believe, that I'm mean and horrible towards you. Have you garnered any
> "debating trade" points from this tactic? Hahahaha -- just kidding.
>
> My observation, for your benefit, if you want it: The reason nobody
> condemns
> me for what you perceive as attacks on you is because almost everybody
> knows
> you deserve it.

Nobody condemn you???????
You stupid, lying, sack of ****. There are complaints daily about what a
scum sucking bit of vermon you are.
You almost make me wish I were not an athiest, just so I could believe there
is a special place in hell for you.

Of course that would mean you were a real person, and not the made up
nothing that you are.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear StupidBorg:
>>
>> From time to time, you retrieve one of my past posts in order to show, I
>> believe, that I'm mean and horrible towards you. Have you garnered any
>> "debating trade" points from this tactic? Hahahaha -- just kidding.
>>
>> My observation, for your benefit, if you want it: The reason nobody
>> condemns
>> me for what you perceive as attacks on you is because almost everybody
>> knows
>> you deserve it.
>
> Nobody condemn you???????
> You stupid, lying, sack of ****. There are complaints daily about what a
> scum sucking bit of vermon you are.
> You almost make me wish I were not an athiest, just so I could believe
> there is a special place in hell for you.
>
> Of course that would mean you were a real person, and not the made up
> nothing that you are.
>
Now, now, Mikey. I could almost believe you were talking about Krueger.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
George Swinehound Middiot burped up another turd.


>
> Mikey sounds like he's off his feed today. Maybe we can get Terrierborg to
> drop off a bucket of larvae for him.
>
>
Maybe we can get you to crawl back into the dung heap you crawled out of,
but I doubt it. When you don't really exist, where are you going to go?

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear StupidBorg:
>>>
>>> From time to time, you retrieve one of my past posts in order to show, I
>>> believe, that I'm mean and horrible towards you. Have you garnered any
>>> "debating trade" points from this tactic? Hahahaha -- just kidding.
>>>
>>> My observation, for your benefit, if you want it: The reason nobody
>>> condemns
>>> me for what you perceive as attacks on you is because almost everybody
>>> knows
>>> you deserve it.
>>
>> Nobody condemn you???????
>> You stupid, lying, sack of ****. There are complaints daily about what a
>> scum sucking bit of vermon you are.
>> You almost make me wish I were not an athiest, just so I could believe
>> there is a special place in hell for you.
>>
>> Of course that would mean you were a real person, and not the made up
>> nothing that you are.
>>
> Now, now, Mikey. I could almost believe you were talking about Krueger.


Unfortuneately ARny isn't a made up nothing.
he is a real one.



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

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
> George Swinehound Middiot burped up another turd.
>
>
>>
>> Mikey sounds like he's off his feed today. Maybe we can get Terrierborg
>> to
>> drop off a bucket of larvae for him.
>>
>>
> Maybe we can get you to crawl back into the dung heap you crawled out of,
> but I doubt it. When you don't really exist, where are you going to go?
>
>

Do you always converse with people who don't exist?



--
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: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Mar 3 2006 6:04 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>> Maybe we can get you to crawl back into the dung heap you crawled out of,
>> but I doubt it. When you don't really exist, where are you going to go?

>Do you always converse with people who don't exist?

nob has never left that developmental stage Piaget discussed in child
psychology where, when something is hidden from a child's view, the
child thinks that it physically stops existing.

nob and toopid don't think that I exist either. (Actually, toopid took
this approach after nob said it. That leads me to believe that in
toopid's mind, the approach itself also didn't exist to toopid, until
nob made it 'reappear.')

If you think that the arguments that nob and toopid make are dumb, try
to look at them through the eyes of a two-year-old. They will make much
better sense to you then.;-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: Clyde Slick
> Date: Fri, Mar 3 2006 6:04 pm
> Email: "Clyde Slick" >
>
>>> Maybe we can get you to crawl back into the dung heap you crawled out
>>> of,
>>> but I doubt it. When you don't really exist, where are you going to go?
>
>>Do you always converse with people who don't exist?
>
> nob has never left that developmental stage Piaget discussed in child
> psychology where, when something is hidden from a child's view, the
> child thinks that it physically stops existing.
>
> nob and toopid don't think that I exist either. (Actually, toopid took
> this approach after nob said it. That leads me to believe that in
> toopid's mind, the approach itself also didn't exist to toopid, until
> nob made it 'reappear.')
>
> If you think that the arguments that nob and toopid make are dumb, try
> to look at them through the eyes of a two-year-old. They will make much
> better sense to you then.;-)
>

Maybe so, but Lorraine Newman is still my favorite child psychologist.



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

[dave weil]

On 4 Mar 2006 05:15:17 -0800, "124"
> wrote:

>[George M. Middius's abusive post deleted.] George is angry, because
>the golden-ears myth has been thoroughly debunked. Mr. John
>Atkinson--who is not Mr. Middius--and _Stereophile_ want you to believe
>in the golden-ears myth.

This myth is one of your own construction.

So, it's a non-issue.

BTW, it seems to be YOU who's angry most of the time. Why is that?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: 124
Date: Sat, Mar 4 2006 7:15 am
Email: "124" >

>Mr. John Atkinson--who is not Mr. Middius--and _Stereophile_ want you to believe
>in the golden-ears myth.

I have better hearing than you do.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
oups.com
> From: 124
> Date: Sat, Mar 4 2006 7:15 am
> Email: "124" >
>
>> Mr. John Atkinson--who is not Mr. Middius--and
>> _Stereophile_ want you to believe in the golden-ears
>> myth.
>
> I have better hearing than you do.

Prove it.

[124]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

> >> I have better hearing than you do.
>
> >Prove it.
>
> I already did.

I doubt it. No one has been able to show that they can hear a
difference if measurements predict that no differences will be
detected. But since you claim that you do have superior hearing,
please go to rec.audio.high-end to arrange a double-blind test with the
objectivists at that forum. To make it interesting, and since you are
so sure of your hearing, put up $10 000 US of your money and challenge
the objectivists there to match it. Your choice of amplifiers, your
choice of playback system, your choice of music, and, within reason, as
much time as you need to do the listening.

If there are no objections, the money will be held in escrow by Harry
Lavo. The results from the test must be made public. If you have any
questions, please ask them at rec.audio.high-end. I am sure the
friendly objectivists there will be glad to help you. But I have a
feeling you will make excuses to back down from the challenge. Prove
me wrong by setting up the challenge, and then start a new thread on
rec.audio.opinion indicating that you have indeed agreed to the test
and have indeed already set it up with the objectivists.

> I could hear the yawns from across the world to 124's
> boring and oft-repeated post.

Not so boring that you read it and decided to respond. Not so boring
that you have never been able to provide a rebuttal to those links.
Not so boring that no subjectivist has ever been able to provide a
rebuttal to those links. Not so boring that you have indeed passed a
double-blind test to show that it may be possible that golden ears do
exist.

> If you couldn't hear the yawns, then your hearing must not be as good
> as mine.

Another claim of your superior hearing? How quaint.

> Game, set, match.

Only after you have done what no one has been able to do--to
consistently be able to detect a difference when measurements predict
that you are unable to detect a difference.

--124

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
>>>> I have better hearing than you do.
>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> I already did.

Yes, he did it by means of that well known subjectivist debating trade
tool - the unsupported assertion. That's a close relative of their other
absolute standard of proof, namely an assertion supported only by the
agreement of a large number of know-nothing adherents.

> I doubt it. No one has been able to show that they can
> hear a difference if measurements predict that no
> differences will be detected.

Actually, just about every reviewer in every high end audio ragazine *shows*
in every review (by means of unsupported assertion) that they can hear a
difference even if measurements predict that no differences will be
detected.

> But since you claim that
> you do have superior hearing, please go to
> rec.audio.high-end to arrange a double-blind test with
> the objectivists at that forum.

Just about every subjectivist on every audio forum *shows* in every post (by
means of unsupported assertion) that DBTs are an invalid means of evaluation
because they desensitize the listener.

On RAO we've even got subjectivists that will, at the drop of a question
*show* in every post (by means of unsupported assertion) that any kind of
test whether blind or sighted is an invalid means of evaluation because they
don't exactly duplicate normal listening as they perceive it.

It's really pretty simple - make unsupported assertions your highest
standard of proof, and the world is your oyster. Just open it and slurp it
up! ;-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! > wrote:
> >> I have better hearing than you do.

> >Prove it.

> I already did. I could hear the yawns from across the world to 124's
> boring and oft-repeated post.

> If you couldn't hear the yawns, then your hearing must not be as good
> as mine.

> Game, set, match.

No doubt you slept through much of your education.


--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 5:10 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan >

>> >> I have better hearing than you do.
>> >Prove it.
>> I already did. I could hear the yawns from across the world to 124's
>> boring and oft-repeated post.
>> If you couldn't hear the yawns, then your hearing must not be as good
>> as mine.
>> Game, set, match.

>No doubt you slept through much of your education.

What makes you guys (so far, 124, Mr. Krueger, and now you. No doubt
nob will join in too) so paranoid?

Look at the responses given to a clearly tongue-in-cheek post and you
wonder why I am laughing?

"Put up $10,000 to be held in escrow or..."

LOL!

Lighten up, Francis.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> I could hear the yawns from across the world to 124's
>> boring and oft-repeated post.

>Not so boring that you read it and decided to respond.

Well, I confess: I didn't open the links.

>Not so boring that you have never been able to provide a rebuttal to those links.

'Never?' Have I ever tried to before? LOL! I didn't bother reading
them. Links to support a personal vendetta are (dare I say it?) boring.

>Not so boring that no subjectivist has ever been able to provide a
>rebuttal to those links.

Have any of them actually read them? LOL!

>Not so boring that you have indeed passed a
>double-blind test to show that it may be possible that golden ears do
>exist.

The ability to hear yawns is a far stretch to 'golden ears.' If you
cannot hear somebody yawn, then you are actually 'deaf.' LOL!