How much class can we stand?

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how
many have tried them?

Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.

Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
hear what he has to say.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
> place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering
> how many have tried them?
>
> Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
> Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
> JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.
>
> Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
> hear what he has to say.
I have read Edgar Cayce's diagnosis of your condition. He calls it liatosis,
a foul exhudation of the mouth caused by telling too many lies. The
prescription is a quart of castor oil, taken by mouth, with every meal.

[Fella]

wrote:
> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
> place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how
> many have tried them?
>

I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
mickeyMcMoron good?

Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ink.net

> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
>> place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering
>> how many have tried them?
>>
>
> I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
> if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
> this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
> Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
> box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
> in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
> some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
> afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
> mickeyMcMoron good?
>
> Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
> quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
> atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
> the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
> see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

I think he'd likely give you the same advice as he gives everybody else, try
it for yourself first and see if works. It appears your head is in need of
some class anyway.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>> classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>> free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>
> Nobody with a brain.
>
> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>
I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
"Fella."

EddieM seems to have been excommunicated, so perhaps we've found out what
the standards are.
Sad.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
> place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how
> many have tried them?

I have made the observation that all of those who are ignorant
closed-minded mindless sheep are unwilling to try new ideas, or even
consider trying new ideas (n.b. almost none of the tweaks I posed are
new ideas. I define "new" as simply something people are not familiar
with). In fact, the mockery of my tweaks that people have tried to
assault me with proves that RAO regulars are too stupid to even tell
valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
(of their mind). Trying to make the inane point that anything that
sounds silly to them, is just as valid. And that any concept that
ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
like crabgrass on this newsgroup) don't understand, isn't valid.
Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO always predetermines that
he does not need to understand something that he didn't already know.
"All's he needs to know is" that "it ain't worth a crap in th' woods",
if he can't understand why it would work. The primitive thinker of RAO
won't ever be able to turn off the intellectual switch and do an end
run around the theoretical hurdle, in order to see whether any of the
tweaks have merit, before dismissing them out of hand. And if people
are ridiculing it, then the RAO lemming says "It must be something
worth ridiculing. I'll do that too!".

So to answer your query, those RAO members who are truly intelligent
(as opposed to simply educated), independently minded, and don't fit
the description above have tried the tweaks. Or in other words, sorry
no, nobody on this group has tried them. At least, nobody that is
willing to admit it to me. George "Morc from Orc" Middius made a tiny
little bird peep about the fact that he did try the aspirin with cat
tweak, but when I tried to query him about how he'd applied it, he shut
up about it. Because after later seeing how much ridicule he was in
for, he now "conveniently" distances himself from that earlier
statement. But then, you can't really blame George for that, because
he's an intrinsic coward.

> Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
> Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
> JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.

No you mindless arrogant oaf, no one said Newtonian physics need not
apply any longer. I don't know any of the people you just named, but
I've seen enough of what kind of mindless dross you spew. And I can say
with confidence, I'm sure they're leagues more "brilliant" than you
could hope to be.

> Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
> hear what he has to say.

I'll save you the suspense. I spoke to him beforehand. He also said
that you're a moron, Mike.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 4:50 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
>was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

This is an utterly useless statement, no better than cheap political
propaganda. You want to talk about 'excluded middle' arguments?

This assumes that all 'subjectivists' agree that the tweaks proposed by
Soundhaspriority are valid and useful. Clearly not all do.

I am, I suppose, a 'subjectivist' but I hardly buy the thought that the
tweaks proposed are valid or even worthy of trying. This last one looks
potentially dangerous to me, at least as far as equipment life is
concerned.

Perhaps I've misunderstood some of the posts I've seen from
'objectivists.' Perhaps the 'objectivists' never actually disagree on
anything and they all proceed in lock-step with one another. I hadn't
thought that to be the case.

I think that trying to pigeonhole either group in such a manner is
counterproductive at best and extremely intellectually dishonest at
worst. The political equivalent is saying that all Democrats are Ted
Kennedy disciples and that all republicans are Pat Robertson disciples
(while that is probably more true for republicans, not ALL republicans
are crazed religious whacko neo-nazis. Just most...).

Those silly 'objectivists.' They all lie and then try to get everybody
to agree with their distorted sense of reality.

[George M. Middius]

Shovels is still smarting from last week's rebuff.

> George "Morc from Orc" Middius made a tiny
> little bird peep about the fact that he did try the aspirin with cat
> tweak, but when I tried to query him about how he'd applied it, he shut
> up about it.

Poor Shovels. Did I let you down too roughly? I'll tell you anything you
want to know about my little experiment with your recipe. Ask away.

[[email protected]]

Fella wrote:

> wrote:
> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
> > place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wonderinghow
> > many have tried them?
> >
>
> I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
> if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
> this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
> Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
> box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
> in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
> some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
> afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
> mickeyMcMoron good?
>
> Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
> quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
> atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
> the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
> see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

Mike McKelvy? I'd stick him in a home made orgone energy generator and
see if nuclear contamination might smarten him up.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 5:39 pm
Email: >

>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
>> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

>I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
>pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
>"Fella."

Here's another example of nob's 'contributions' to r.a.o.

Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
attacks! And it's not *his* fault...

>Sad.

I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

[paul packer]

On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:

>ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
> RAO regulars are too stupid
>valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
>(of their mind).
> any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
>like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
>Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
>The primitive thinker of RAO
> the RAO lemming

High praise indeed!

(Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:

> On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:
>
> >ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
> > RAO regulars are too stupid
> >valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
> >(of their mind).
> > any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
> >like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
> >Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
> >The primitive thinker of RAO
> > the RAO lemming
>
> High praise indeed!
>
> (Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

I'm sure I have NO idea. That's just what the insult-o-meter (c) came
up with.
It's kind of outdated (early 50's model). I suppose it does need a
software upgrade.

[Ruud Broens]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
:
: > wrote in message
: ink.net...
: > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
: > place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering
: > how many have tried them?
: >
: > Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
: > Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
: > JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.
: >
: > Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
: > hear what he has to say.
: I have read Edgar Cayce's diagnosis of your condition. He calls it liatosis,
: a foul exhudation of the mouth caused by telling too many lies. The
: prescription is a quart of castor oil, taken by mouth, with every meal.
:
he, are you being harsh ? i distinctly remember that as "..every _other_ meal"

R.

[[email protected]]

Fella wrote:
> wrote:
> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
> > place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wonderinghow
> > many have tried them?
> >
>
> I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
> if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
> this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
> Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
> box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
> in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
> some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
> afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
> mickeyMcMoron good?
>
> Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
> quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
> atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
> the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
> see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

Please, don't discourage him. Nyob trying for humour and
irony
is fun to watch.
Ludovic Mirabel

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>
> Nobody with a brain.
>
> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

[Steven Sullivan]

paul packer > wrote:
> On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:

> >ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
> > RAO regulars are too stupid
> >valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
> >(of their mind).
> > any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
> >like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
> >Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
> >The primitive thinker of RAO
> > the RAO lemming

> High praise indeed!

> (Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

very zen, if nothing else.
___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[George M. Middius]

Sillybot, don't you have sinewaves to measure?

> > (Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

> very zen, if nothing else.

Spake Sillybot: "I know all about zen cause I read it in a book, in
college, where I don't go now because I'm all grown up."


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


"Please pass the oil can before my brain rusts." -- Sillybot

[[email protected]]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:


> This assumes that all 'subjectivists' agree that the tweaks proposed by
> Soundhaspriority are valid and useful. Clearly not all do.

Did I miss something? By "not all", who here are you implying does?

> I am, I suppose, a 'subjectivist' but I hardly buy the thought that the
> tweaks proposed are valid or even worthy of trying.

Yet you have no evidence that they aren't valid or worthy of trying.
Which proves that you're really no different than Arny, who also
mistakenly believes that the only valid things in audio are those that
conform to his flawed thinking. The rest can be casually dismissed
without trial. With qualifications like that, don't pretend you are a
"subjectivist". At best, you're what Arny calls himself: "a reliable
subjectivist".

> This last one looks
> potentially dangerous to me, at least as far as equipment life is
> concerned.

Same ignorant thing that Arny said. Are you sure you're not him? As for
the speaker grounding tweak, not only have I tested it, I've already
given examples of commecial models that incorporate the grounding.
Plus, I've made several offers for people to come and observe my
speaker setup, where I show the speakers being grounded as described,
and the amp working perfectly. That's more evidence I'm supplying than
you've ever shown for any of your false assertions about everything.


> Perhaps I've misunderstood some of the posts I've seen from
> 'objectivists.' Perhaps the 'objectivists' never actually disagree on
> anything and they all proceed in lock-step with one another. I hadn't
> thought that to be the case.

I've certainly proved it to be the case with subjectivists. Unless you
can come up with one example, that I've asked you for above.


> I think that trying to pigeonhole either group in such a manner is
> counterproductive at best and extremely intellectually dishonest at
> worst.

The exception is what I've said here. What Arny said is worthless, but
that describes just about everything he says. But if it's actually
true, it can't be _reasonably_ disproven (among those who listen to
reason).

> Those silly 'objectivists.' They all lie and then try to get everybody
> to agree with their distorted sense of reality.

I've already proven that both of you ideologues do that. You ALL reside
under a distorted sense of reality. At least in relation to audio; if
not many other things.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger exemplifies irony:

> > wrote in message
> ink.net
>
> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>
> Nobody with a brain.

I say its the exact opposite reason. If you have a brain as you allege,
then why can't you show evidence that you do by proving the tweaks
don't work? As you would ask "the subs" to do when they make stupid
unfounded assertions? Out of the entire newsgroup dismissing them, not
one "brain" here has been able to do that. Are YOU smart enough to do
that, Arny? Or are you just talking out of your ass like everyone else?
In fact, you've never even tried it so who are you to talk, and how are
you supposed to know they don't work, even in practice?

> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
> was.

Do you think it'll ever get more useless than you are? And does that
mean you'll be announcing your retirement from RAO in 10 years?

> How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

I think they might have a ways to go before they get to your level of
glibly accusing a multitude of innocent people of trafficking in child
pornography.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 5:39 pm
> Email: >
>
>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
>>> it
>>> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>
>>I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
>>pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
>>"Fella."
>
> Here's another example of nob's 'contributions' to r.a.o.
>
> Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
> nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
> attacks! And it's not *his* fault...
>
>>Sad.
>
> I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
> kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?
>

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 5:39 pm
> Email: >
>
>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
>>> it
>>> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>
>>I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
>>pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
>>"Fella."
>
> Here's another example of nob's 'contributions' to r.a.o.
>
> Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
> nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
> attacks! And it's not *his* fault...
>
Nor yours either, I suppose.

That wasn't an attack, it was a comment based on observation.

>>Sad.
>
> I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
> kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?
>
It always comes down to some sort of sexual thing for you, doesn't it?

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>>
>> Nobody with a brain.
>>
>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
>> it
>> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>
> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
> "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
oil.

[Fella]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 4:50 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
>>It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
>>was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>
>
> This is an utterly useless statement, no better than cheap political
> propaganda. You want to talk about 'excluded middle' arguments?
>

Arny is a typical "demagog leader" of the borg. :(

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ink.net
> >>
> >> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> >> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> >> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
> >>
> >> Nobody with a brain.
> >>
> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
> >> it
> >> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >
> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
> > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
> That any do is a sad statement.
>
> That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or that
> some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
> construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
> anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that lifting
> cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
> with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
> oil.

Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
never tested, as "snake oil".

[dave weil]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:38:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
> wrote:

>> (Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)
>
>very zen, if nothing else.

Ewe must be kidding. Are you trying to fleece people? If so, you
better hoof it out of here, before you get rammed, or at least pelted.
Quit trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, before you're
forced to go on the lamb or get skinned alive.

I could milk this all night...but Rick caught a salad, uh...

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ink.net
>>
>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>>> classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>>> free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried
>>> them?
>>
>> Nobody with a brain.
>>
>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>> subjectivists go?
>
> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
>>In article >,
>>"Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>
> wrote in message
ink.net
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>>>>classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>>>>free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried
>>>>them?
>>>
>>>Nobody with a brain.
>>>
>>>It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>>>more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>>>subjectivists go?
>>
>>Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
>>all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
>
> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>
>

Jenn Jenn, you've been neglecting your duties in the eyes of the great
kroog Jenn. What have you done for the great kroog today Jenn?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ink.net
> >>
> >>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> >>> classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> >>> free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried
> >>> them?
> >>
> >> Nobody with a brain.
> >>
> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
> >> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
> >> subjectivists go?
> >
> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> > all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

I don't comment on everything with which I agree or disagree if others
are doing so and I have nothing new to add.

[Jenn]

In article . net>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ink.net
> >>
> >> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> >> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> >> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
> >>
> >> Nobody with a brain.
> >>
> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
> >> it
> >> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >
> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
> > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
> That any do is a sad statement.

I agree.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ink.net
>>>>
>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
>>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
>>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
>>>>> tried them?
>>>>
>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>
>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>>>> subjectivists go?
>>>
>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
>>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>>
>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>
> Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?

> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ink.net
> >>>>
> >>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
> >>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
> >>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
> >>>>> tried them?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
> >>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
> >>>> subjectivists go?
> >>>
> >>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> >>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
> >>
> >> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >
> > Avoidance of my point noted.
>
> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence: "How low can
the so-called subjectivists go?"

> > I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> > disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> > add.
>
> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
coming back with an insult?

[Fella]

Jenn wrote:

>
> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> coming back with an insult?

Not if you re a borg and lick his ..um, sorry. :( But truth be the
truth, no matter how ugly or disgusting.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
>>>>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who
>>>>>>> want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many
>>>>>>> have tried them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>>>>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>>>>>> subjectivists go?

>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet with holier-than-thou
subjectivists who can't seem to find the time to criticize anybody but
objectivists.

>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>>>>> seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google record.

>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!

>>> Avoidance of my point noted.

>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>> substance to avoid?

> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to the obvious BS we get
here from foul-mothed instigators like Fella and SHP.

>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
>>> to add.

>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups is
that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.
In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net
>> >>
>> >> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>> >> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>> >> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>> >>
>> >> Nobody with a brain.
>> >>
>> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless
>> >> than
>> >> it
>> >> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>> >
>> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
>> > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>>
>> That any do is a sad statement.
>>
>> That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
>> that
>> some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
>> construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
>> anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
>> lifting
>> cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
>> with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
>> oil.
>
> Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
> making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
> objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
> never tested, as "snake oil".
>
Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
offered.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
> >>>>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who
> >>>>>>> want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many
> >>>>>>> have tried them?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
> >>>>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
> >>>>>> subjectivists go?
>
> >>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>
> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet with holier-than-thou
> subjectivists who can't seem to find the time to criticize anybody but
> objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It doesn't make
it true. It just seems impolite and inaccurate to ascribe traits to an
entire group like that.

>
> >>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >>>>> seriously.
>
> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google record.
>
> >>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>
> >>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>
> >> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >> substance to avoid?
>
> > My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
> > "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>
> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to the obvious BS we get
> here from foul-mothed instigators like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to non-called-for
insults by you, for example. The knife cuts both ways, so why
generalize?

>
> >>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
> >>> to add.
>
> >> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>
> > Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> > without him coming back with an insult?
>
> Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
> subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that. Why weasel out
of your statement?

>
> One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups is
> that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
> reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.

Another overly general statement.
>
> In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
> objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
> reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>>
>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>>
>> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
>> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
>> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
>
> People could say the same about just about any group. It
> doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
> inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
>
>>
>>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>>>>>>> seriously.
>>
>> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
>> record.
>>
>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>
>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>
>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>>>> substance to avoid?

>>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
>>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

>> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
>> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
>> like Fella and SHP.

> Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
> non-called-for insults by you, for example.

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

> The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
profanity around here. Fact.

>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
>>>>> to add.

>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>>> without him coming back with an insult?
>
>> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
>> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
>> whining about it?

> You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
> Why weasel out of your statement?

No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward. You're worse than a coward you're
a biased coward. Like Weil you go ballistic over minor nits when they relate
to an so-called objectivist, while you're blind and dumb when subjectivists
**** all over the place not to mention logic and reason.

>> One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we
>> see on audio groups is that subjectivists are really all
>> about relativism. There are no fixed reference points in
>> their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.

> Another overly general statement.

Prove me wrong with deeds not empty words, Jenn.

>> In the real world there are almost no audio technicans
>> of note that aren't objectivists, because part of
>> technical competence involves finding fixed reference
>> points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

Good to see you didn't try to weasel out of that, Jenn.

[MINe 109]

In article
>,
Jenn > wrote:

> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> coming back with an insult?

He's been known insult himself after losing track of who said what in a
thread.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article
> >,
> Jenn > wrote:
>
>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> without him coming back with an insult?
>
> He's been known insult himself after losing track of who
> said what in a thread.

Hmm, I say "coward" and shows his face? :-(

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >>
> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >>
> >> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
> >> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
> >> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
> >
> > People could say the same about just about any group. It
> > doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
> > inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
> >
> >>
> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >>
> >> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
> >> record.
> >>
> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >>
> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >>
> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >>>> substance to avoid?
>
> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
> >>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>
> >> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
> >> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
> >> like Fella and SHP.
>
> > Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
> > non-called-for insults by you, for example.
>
> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?

>
> > The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?
>
> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
> profanity around here. Fact.

Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.

>
> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
> >>>>> to add.
>
> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>
> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >
> >> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
> >> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
> >> whining about it?
>
> > You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
> > Why weasel out of your statement?
>
> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.

LOL In what way?

> You're worse than a coward you're
> a biased coward.

Sure, I have biases. Everyone does.

> Like Weil you go ballistic over minor nits when they relate
> to an so-called objectivist, while you're blind and dumb when subjectivists
> **** all over the place not to mention logic and reason.

Where have I "gone ballistic" over minor nits?

>
> >> One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we
> >> see on audio groups is that subjectivists are really all
> >> about relativism. There are no fixed reference points in
> >> their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.
>
> > Another overly general statement.
>
> Prove me wrong with deeds not empty words, Jenn.

I'm what you would call a "subjectivist" and I have many "fixed
reference points" in my world.

>
> >> In the real world there are almost no audio technicans
> >> of note that aren't objectivists, because part of
> >> technical competence involves finding fixed reference
> >> points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.
>
> Good to see you didn't try to weasel out of that, Jenn.

I don't weasel out of things, Arny.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> I don't weasel out of things, Arny.

Sure Jenn, you turn a blind eye to real-world (such as Usenet is real)
egregioius behavior by people who also sympathize with you on some abstract
issues.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> > > all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

> > I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!

> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or disagree if others
> are doing so and I have nothing new to add.

Jenn, you can't debug Kroologic with rules of normative human behavior.
Sorry.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
> > > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

> > That any do is a sad statement.

> I agree.

The difference being that Mickey actually believes somebody does take
those alleged "tweaks" seriously. Only Krooger is krazy enough to do
that, but Mr. ****'s religion is completely hostile to this kind of
inanity.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> coming back with an insult?

You don't say. Really? That Arnii must be very unpopular.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I don't weasel out of things, Arny.
>
> Sure Jenn, you turn a blind eye to real-world (such as Usenet is real)
> egregioius behavior by people who also sympathize with you on some abstract
> issues.

I generally don't comment on "flame wars" from either side; perhaps you
haven't noticed that. I think that they are a childish waste of time.
I've commented on them (both sides) from time to time. I've also sent
private emails once in a while protesting some behavior or another.

BTW, your ignoring the rest of my post is noted.

[vlad]

Jenn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>> In article >,
> > >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> > wrote in message
> > >>>> ink.net
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
> > >>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
> > >>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
> > >>>>> tried them?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Nobody with a brain.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
> > >>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
> > >>>> subjectivists go?
> > >>>
> > >>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> > >>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
> > >>
> > >> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> > >> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> > >
> > > Avoidance of my point noted.
> >
> > It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?
>
> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence: "How low can
> the so-called subjectivists go?"
>
> > > I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> > > disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> > > add.
> >
> > That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>
> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> coming back with an insult?

In my opinion, Arny is right. What Jenn does is instead of addressing
his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.

I would also comment that subjectivists use this tactic all the time
because very often or always they have no argument except "I hear it,
therefore ..."

vlad

[Jenn]

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

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >>
> > > >>> In article >,
> > > >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> > wrote in message
> > > >>>> ink.net
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
> > > >>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
> > > >>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
> > > >>>>> tried them?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Nobody with a brain.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
> > > >>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
> > > >>>> subjectivists go?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> > > >>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
> > > >>
> > > >> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> > > >> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> > > >
> > > > Avoidance of my point noted.
> > >
> > > It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?
> >
> > My point was totally supported by your initial sentence: "How low can
> > the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >
> > > > I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> > > > disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> > > > add.
> > >
> > > That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >
> > Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> > coming back with an insult?
>
> In my opinion, Arny is right.

Of course.

> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.

Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did. Instead of
addressing the point that I don't comment on points where my views are
already expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do),
he calls me a coward (attacking the messenger.)

Now Vlad, you indicate that me "attacking" Arny is "typical". Could you
post some examples of me doing that? Or is that another empty statement
from you, rather like you claiming that I said that I have better
hearing than others do?
>
> I would also comment that subjectivists use this tactic all the time
> because very often or always they have no argument except "I hear it,
> therefore ..."
>
> vlad

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Jenn > wrote:
> >
> >> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >> without him coming back with an insult?
> >
> > He's been known insult himself after losing track of who
> > said what in a thread.
>
> Hmm, I say "coward" and shows his face? :-(

Wouldn't a "coward" hide his face?

Chalk up your troll points for this reply, but your previous post
supports Jenn's implication quite nicely.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:20 am
Email: >

>> Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
>> nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
>> attacks! And it's not *his* fault...

>Nor yours either, I suppose.

A subtle difference: you don't see me whining about it.

If you whine about something, while being one of the most egregious
offenders, you are a hypocrite.

>It always comes down to some sort of sexual thing for you, doesn't it?

I have no idea what this relates to. Where have I 'always' referred to
sex? Enlighten me.

[vlad]

Jenn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "vlad" > wrote:
>
> > Jenn wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> > wrote in message
> > > > >>>> ink.net
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
> > > > >>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
> > > > >>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
> > > > >>>>> tried them?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Nobody with a brain.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
> > > > >>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
> > > > >>>> subjectivists go?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> > > > >>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> > > > >> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> > > > >
> > > > > Avoidance of my point noted.
> > > >
> > > > It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?
> > >
> > > My point was totally supported by your initial sentence: "How low can
> > > the so-called subjectivists go?"
> > >
> > > > > I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> > > > > disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> > > > > add.
> > > >
> > > > That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> > >
> > > Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> > > coming back with an insult?
> >
> > In my opinion, Arny is right.
>
> Of course.
>
> > What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> > his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.
>
> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did. Instead of
> addressing the point that I don't comment on points where my views are
> already expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do),
> he calls me a coward (attacking the messenger.)
>
> Now Vlad, you indicate that me "attacking" Arny is "typical". Could you
> post some examples of me doing that? Or is that another empty statement
> from you, rather like you claiming that I said that I have better
> hearing than others do?


Jenn, I understand that your perception of each of my statement is that
it is "empty". Because we are talking about your perception then:

- you are entitled to your perceptions/opinions,
- no amount of logical reasoning will change your "perception",
"violin timbre in LP's" comes to mind :-)

vlad

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

>> This assumes that all 'subjectivists' agree that the tweaks proposed by
>> Soundhaspriority are valid and useful. Clearly not all do.

>Did I miss something? By "not all", who here are you implying does?

I'm not implying that anybody does.

>> I am, I suppose, a 'subjectivist' but I hardly buy the thought that the
>> tweaks proposed are valid or even worthy of trying.

>Yet you have no evidence that they aren't valid or worthy of trying.
>Which proves that you're really no different than Arny, who also
>mistakenly believes that the only valid things in audio are those that
>conform to his flawed thinking. The rest can be casually dismissed
>without trial. With qualifications like that, don't pretend you are a
>"subjectivist". At best, you're what Arny calls himself: "a reliable
>subjectivist".

No, the difference between the 'usual suspects' and me is that I do not
care if you want to use tweaks. I personally do not think it worth the
time, but if you do, go for it. I am not, and have not, tried to
convince anybody one way or another.

If you are trying to force me to do trials in order to dismiss an idea
that I personally do not agree with or find worthy (conforming to your
thoughts), then it is you who are most like Arny between the two of us.
I will not try to force you to do DBTs any more than I would try to
force Arny to try your tweaks.

You are, however, making Arny's argument for him: that all
'subjectivists' can be pigeonholed into a group.

>> This last one looks
>> potentially dangerous to me, at least as far as equipment life is
>> concerned.

>Same ignorant thing that Arny said. Are you sure you're not him? As for
>the speaker grounding tweak, not only have I tested it, I've already
>given examples of commecial models that incorporate the grounding.
>Plus, I've made several offers for people to come and observe my
>speaker setup, where I show the speakers being grounded as described,
>and the amp working perfectly. That's more evidence I'm supplying than
>you've ever shown for any of your false assertions about everything.

If it works for your setup, great. I thought you were stating that it
would work for all setups. My mistake.

>> Perhaps I've misunderstood some of the posts I've seen from
>> 'objectivists.' Perhaps the 'objectivists' never actually disagree on
>> anything and they all proceed in lock-step with one another. I hadn't
>> thought that to be the case.

>I've certainly proved it to be the case with subjectivists. Unless you
>can come up with one example, that I've asked you for above.

So you actually *are* an objectivist and this is a simple troll. Things
make much more sense now.

>> I think that trying to pigeonhole either group in such a manner is
>> counterproductive at best and extremely intellectually dishonest at
>> worst.

>The exception is what I've said here. What Arny said is worthless, but
>that describes just about everything he says. But if it's actually
>true, it can't be _reasonably_ disproven (among those who listen to
>reason).

Something can be true for you and not true for others.

>> Those silly 'objectivists.' They all lie and then try to get everybody
>> to agree with their distorted sense of reality.

>I've already proven that both of you ideologues do that. You ALL reside
>under a distorted sense of reality. At least in relation to audio; if
>not many other things.

And I've lied? Please show me where. If something is not true for me,
then it is not true for me. If something is true for you, then it is
true for you. Your tweaks work for you. You believe that they make your
system sound better. I do not wish to try them. I have no problem with
that. Why do you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 9:33 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>> Avoidance of my point noted.

>It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?

>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
>> add.

>That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Jesus. LOL!

Jenn, please become more 'brave.'

This is a matter of life or death.

[Jenn]

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

> Jenn wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > "vlad" > wrote:
> >
> > > Jenn wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> m
> > > > > >>> In article >,
> > > > > >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> > wrote in message
> > > > > >>>> ink.net
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
> > > > > >>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
> > > > > >>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
> > > > > >>>>> tried them?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Nobody with a brain.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
> > > > > >>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
> > > > > >>>> subjectivists go?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
> > > > > >>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> > > > > >> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Avoidance of my point noted.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?
> > > >
> > > > My point was totally supported by your initial sentence: "How low can
> > > > the so-called subjectivists go?"
> > > >
> > > > > > I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> > > > > > disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> > > > > > add.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> > > >
> > > > Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> > > > coming back with an insult?
> > >
> > > In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> > > What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> > > his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.
> >
> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did. Instead of
> > addressing the point that I don't comment on points where my views are
> > already expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do),
> > he calls me a coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >
> > Now Vlad, you indicate that me "attacking" Arny is "typical". Could you
> > post some examples of me doing that? Or is that another empty statement
> > from you, rather like you claiming that I said that I have better
> > hearing than others do?
>
>
> Jenn, I understand that your perception of each of my statement is that
> it is "empty". Because we are talking about your perception then:
>
> - you are entitled to your perceptions/opinions,

Why thanks!

> - no amount of logical reasoning will change your "perception",

No, no "reasoning" will change what I hear. Why should it? How can it?

> "violin timbre in LP's" comes to mind :-)
>
> vlad

Obviously, you can't find the supposed posts where I "attack" Arny. So
it's yet another false accusation. Is that all that you have? Is all
of this brought on by what I hear? It must be, because every other
accusation you make against me turns out to be false. Are you having
fun?

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 9:33 am
> Email: "Arny Krueger" >
>
> >> Avoidance of my point noted.
>
> >It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?
>
> >> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> >> add.
>
> >That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>
> Jesus. LOL!
>
> Jenn, please become more 'brave.'
>
> This is a matter of life or death.

LOL

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 9:55 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>>>>>> seriously.

>Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google record.

And why should I care if I 'prove' anything to you? LOL!

You really do think that you're a god.

>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

>Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to the obvious BS we get
>here from foul-mothed instigators like Fella and SHP.

I'd rather have you explain to me why I should care. I think you and
nob make interesting mental-health studies, which I personally am
finding more fun exploring than tweaks.

>Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
>subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

Um, because what you are falsely and illogically asserting has nothing
to do with 'cowardice'?

>One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups is
>that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
>reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.
>In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
>objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
>reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

Leaving labels aside, one of the problems with *you* is that you seem
to think that nobody can figure anything out for themselves.

I personally do not care one whit whether or not somebody wants to
spend $1500 on a power cable if that makes them feel good. If they want
to place an aspirin tablet on their speakers because to them it
'reveals hidden inner detail' so what? Why should I post anything about
it?

You obviously think this is a 'war,' apparently replete with casualties
and medals and 'heroism.' Not posting against everything that you don't
agree with is somehow 'cowardice.'

Do you have any idea how screwed up of a view that is?

I'd be more concerned with the technicians. If they try to place an
aspirin tablet on an instrument amplifier in a professional recording
studio, maybe then there's a problem. As for hobbyists, who really
cares? Why should I be interested in trying to 'convert' people to
*any* point of view? And if I choose not to, exactly how does that make
me a 'coward'? If aspirin on their amplifier makes them enjoy their
system more it does not effect me one bit. And it has the benefit, *to
that individual* of making them enjoy their system more. Why should I
care, even if I don't believe it has any basis?

This is not rec.audio.tech. Most people here are not claiming to be
'technicians.' This is not a war. What is most interesting to me is the
view that you and nob (in particular) display. It isn't brave: it's
messed up in a pathological kind of way.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 11:10 am
Email: Jenn >

>> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
>> profanity around here. Fact.

>Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.

I disagree. Perhaps Arny does not read nob's posts. One would call nob
an 'objectivist.' Same for Stewart. He insults all the time.

But then again, Arny's 'biased.';-)

[Jenn]

In article om>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 11:10 am
> Email: Jenn >
>
> >> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
> >> profanity around here. Fact.
>
> >Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.
>
> I disagree. Perhaps Arny does not read nob's posts. One would call nob
> an 'objectivist.' Same for Stewart. He insults all the time.

Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
that the subjs do too.
>
> But then again, Arny's 'biased.';-)

Of course, everyone is. If that weren't true there would be no need for
blind tests, right? ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: vlad
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 11:51 am
Email: "vlad" >

>In my opinion, Arny is right. What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.

So in your opinion, calling someone a 'coward' because they do not
address every claim, whether true or false to the individual, is OK and
is also valid.

Interesting view.

>I would also comment that subjectivists use this tactic all the time
>because very often or always they have no argument except "I hear it,
>therefore ..."

No, it's more like "If you hear it and if it makes you happy, why
should I care?"

The only issue I would have with somebody (for example) buying a $1500
power cable is if they stole the money or neglected their children to
get it.

Other than that, WTF should you (or anybody else) care? Please explain.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 10:46 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>> The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

>Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
>profanity around here. Fact.

That's the coward's way out. If there is a post that you do not agree
with, you *must* post against it. That is your logic.

Please provide your Google proof that you have ever spoken up against
an 'objectivist' that was using insults, name-calling, or profanity.
Otherwise, STF up, coward.

(This line of reasoning is much like nob justifying his personal
attacks: "They're worse than I am, so it's OK!")

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> In article
>> >>> >, "Arny
>> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In article
>> >>>>> >, "Arny
>> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In article >,
>> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>> ink.net
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>> >>
>> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>> >>
>> >> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
>> >> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
>> >> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
>> >
>> > People could say the same about just about any group. It
>> > doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
>> > inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>> >>>>>>> seriously.
>> >>
>> >> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
>> >> record.
>> >>
>> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>> >>
>> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>> >>
>> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>> >>>> substance to avoid?
>>
>> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
>> >>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>>
>> >> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
>> >> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
>> >> like Fella and SHP.
>>
>> > Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
>> > non-called-for insults by you, for example.
>>
>> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.
>
> Calling someone a coward is not an insult?
>
>>
>> > The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?
>>
>> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
>> profanity around here. Fact.
>
> Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.
>
>>
>> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
>> >>>>> to add.
>>
>> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>
>> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
>> >
>> >> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
>> >> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
>> >> whining about it?
>>
>> > You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
>> > Why weasel out of your statement?
>>
>> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.
>
> LOL In what way?
>
Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > I don't weasel out of things, Arny.
>>
>> Sure Jenn, you turn a blind eye to real-world (such as Usenet is real)
>> egregioius behavior by people who also sympathize with you on some
>> abstract
>> issues.
>
> I generally don't comment on "flame wars" from either side; perhaps you
> haven't noticed that.


That is the cowards way, take no side, treat everyone as if they are morally
equivalent.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Jenn said:
>
>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
>> coming back with an insult?
>
> You don't say. Really? That Arnii must be very unpopular.
>
>
Especially with swine.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Jenn said:
>
>> > > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
>> > > all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
>> > I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>
>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or disagree if others
>> are doing so and I have nothing new to add.
>
> Jenn, you can't debug Kroologic with rules of normative human behavior.
> Sorry.
>
>
>
What does a swine know of normative human behavior?

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >>> In article
> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> In article
> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >> >>
> >> >> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
> >> >> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
> >> >> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
> >> >
> >> > People could say the same about just about any group. It
> >> > doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
> >> > inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
> >> >> record.
> >> >>
> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >> >>
> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >> >>
> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
> >>
> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
> >> >>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >>
> >> >> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
> >> >> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
> >> >> like Fella and SHP.
> >>
> >> > Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
> >> > non-called-for insults by you, for example.
> >>
> >> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.
> >
> > Calling someone a coward is not an insult?
> >
> >>
> >> > The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?
> >>
> >> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
> >> profanity around here. Fact.
> >
> > Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.
> >
> >>
> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
> >> >>>>> to add.
> >>
> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >>
> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >> >
> >> >> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
> >> >> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
> >> >> whining about it?
> >>
> >> > You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
> >> > Why weasel out of your statement?
> >>
> >> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.
> >
> > LOL In what way?
> >
> Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?

If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:52 pm
Email: >

nob, I was wrong about you. You actually *do* contribute to discussions
here in a non-insulting way.

Further, you prove Arny's assertion that 'objectivists' do not cast
insults around.

>Especially with swine.

Than again, maybe not.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From:
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 1:19 am
Email:

>I say its the exact opposite reason. If you have a brain as you allege,
>then why can't you show evidence that you do by proving the tweaks
>don't work?

You are an 'objectivist' troll.

'nuff said.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
Email: Jenn >

>Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
>that the subjs do too.

That's clearly true.

But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.

[Jenn]

In article . com>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> From: Jenn
> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> Email: Jenn >
>
> >Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
> >that the subjs do too.
>
> That's clearly true.
>
> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
> are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.

Of course.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> >> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
> >> add.

> >That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

> Jesus. LOL!
> Jenn, please become more 'brave.'
> This is a matter of life or death.

The Krooborg has this persistent delusion that he is a "master of the
debating trade". He believes, truly and deeply, that because he never
admits he lost a debate, that means he never did lose one. His cancerous
egomania then extrapolates from that premise to project onto all of his
snot-victims a certainty of fear and dread. You may have noticed that
duh-Mikey has bought into Mr. ****'s delusions to some degree. The
dumber they are, the more awed they are by Kroologic and the more
impressed by Krooglish.




--
http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:54 pm
Email: >

>What does a swine know of normative human behavior?

I don't know, nob. What?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >>>>> seriously.
>
> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google record.

I can prove that little "Morc from Orc" Middius took the tweaks
seriously.

> > My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
> > "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>
> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to the obvious BS we get
> here from foul-mothed instigators like Fella and SHP.

That's a pretty stupid statement Kreuger, even for you. You're wrong
about this as well, and it's trivial to prove.

> Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
> subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

Yes, I did notice that you can make general points about the cowardice
of subjecftivists, without Jenn whining about it. Most of the "whining"
seems to come from you.

I also noticed that a general point can be made about the cowardice of
subjectivists and objectivists here. Both camps are too afraid to
venture into unknown territory, and prefer to remain "comfortably
ignorant".

> One of the problems with so-called subjectism....

<bigoted rant snipped>

At this point, you can pretty much turn your tv off folks.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Jenn
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:59 pm
Email: Jenn >

>> > I generally don't comment on "flame wars" from either side; perhaps you
>> > haven't noticed that.

>> That is the cowards way, take no side, treat everyone as if they are morally
>> equivalent.

>Except that I'm not doing that. I'm not here to argue morality.

But you are arguing morality by default. If you don't argue *against*
the sin of tweaks, or *against* the sin differing views or preferences
(whether or not they are based in technology), that means that you are
(by default) *for* the sins of murder, or blaspheming, or theft, or any
other number of things denoting loose morals.

Therefore, audio = morals. Inability to see that noted.

So now that I have proven this point beyond doubt to any rational
person, do you still like high-quality LPs, you proven thieving,
blasphemous murderer?

And stop coveting those two asses Arny and nob, OK? Their neighbors
have dibs.

[[email protected]]

George "Morc" Middius, after a date with Pepe, wrote:

> Jenn said:
>
> > > > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
> > > > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
> > > That any do is a sad statement.
>
> > I agree.
>
> The difference being that Mickey actually believes somebody does take
> those alleged "tweaks" seriously. Only Krooger is krazy enough to do
> that, but Mr. ****'s religion is completely hostile to this kind of
> inanity.

There is somebody that did take my "alleged tweaks" seriously, Morc.
That would be YOU. Did you get the name of the mule that kicked you in
the head, and made you forget what you wrote a few weeks ago?:

As to the 5-pinhole paper tweak, Morc From Orc says: "Just to clue you
in, I tried it this afternoon"

Now don't you feel like a silly ass, for saying what you just did?
Seems that your religion, Morc, is completely hostile to the truth.

[George M. Middius]

Shovels, have you forgiven me? Are we friends again?

> > The difference being that Mickey actually believes somebody does take
> > those alleged "tweaks" seriously. Only Krooger is krazy enough to do
> > that, but Mr. ****'s religion is completely hostile to this kind of
> > inanity.

> There is somebody that did take my "alleged tweaks" seriously, Morc.

I don't know what to make of your butchering of Mork's name. I didn't
watch that show much, a couple times maybe. But you apparently did,
enough anyway so that it's a cultural touchstone for you. And you can't
even remember how the character's name is spelled. For shame. You need
to redeploy that shovel from snow duty to head-bashing duty, starting
with your own.

> That would be YOU. Did you get the name of the mule that kicked you in
> the head, and made you forget what you wrote a few weeks ago?:

Is this what you're babbling about, Shovels?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/fe42479e2d76d3d8?hl=en&

I'm sure that proves something to a loony tune like yourself....

> As to the 5-pinhole paper tweak, Morc From Orc says: "Just to clue you
> in, I tried it this afternoon"

Yep. I said that. Proceed with your "proof".

> Now don't you feel like a silly ass, for saying what you just did?
> Seems that your religion, Morc, is completely hostile to the truth.

I dunno, Shovels. You're the one who has the problem with reality.

BTW, you went back on your promise to ignore me forevermore. That was
less than 1 day ago, and here you again, begging for more punishment.
When you were Jamie, you sprayed us with your babble-spittle for a
couple of weeks before you melted down. What's happened since then? You
seem even balmier than before.




--
http://NewsGuy.com/overview.htm 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger hypocritically wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!


In another part of your silly rant, you write:

"Prove me wrong with deeds not empty words, Jenn."

I'm still waiting for YOU to prove me wrong that the tweaks are "crazy"
and need to be "denounced" by any and all here (otherwise, according to
you, they are "cowards" if they don't denounce them, and believe they
are not valid).

If you can't prove that Arny, all you've proven is that you're a mad
bigot making unsupported claims, and not to be taken seriously.


Arny whines:

> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim.

Everything you said about my tweaks or anything else you disagree with
in audio are "unsupported claims", hypocrite.


Arny whines:

> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.


More hypocristy, hypocrite?

> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward. You're worse than a coward you're
> a biased coward. Like Weil you go ballistic over minor nits when they relate
> to an so-called objectivist, while you're blind and dumb when subjectivists
> **** all over the place not to mention logic and reason.

Nice rant there, you lunatic hypocrite. What was that you were saying
above about me and other "subjectivists" being foul-mouthed? What was
that you were saying you hypocrite, about "logic and reason", when all
you have offered to discount the tweaks is sweeping dismissals with no
evidence forthcoming? What's that you're saying, weasel Arnold, about
being a "biased coward", when all you've shown is biases towards the
tweaks, and then you run like a coward and ignore all the times I've
asked you to support your assertions?

> Good to see you didn't try to weasel out of that, Jenn.

And yet all you've ever done is weasel out of demands for evidence that
the tweaks are not valid.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> ink.net
> >> >>
> >> >> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> >> >> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> >> >> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless
> >> >> than
> >> >> it
> >> >> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >
> >> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
> >> > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
> >>
> >> That any do is a sad statement.
> >>
> >> That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
> >> that
> >> some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
> >> construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
> >> anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
> >> lifting
> >> cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
> >> with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
> >> oil.
> >
> > Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
> > making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
> > objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
> > never tested, as "snake oil".
> >
> Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
> offered.

Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
offered that they are. So let's take the example of the component rack.
Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
"contstruction parameters").

Hollow metal tubes, such as used by the Target rack, have different
resonant frequencies than say, solid wood for a component rack. This
can be measured (unless you would now like to rewrite science and claim
this is impossible.....). A turntable pickup works by induction of
micro vibrations, and it is well known to be sensitive to plinth
materials, and basically most everything the platter and tonearm are
resting on. This extends beyond the actual record deck itself. So the
support the record deck is sitting on can have an effect on how
resonances are transmitted to and picked up by the deck's pickup
cartridge. Without using special test instruments, you can even hear
the changes in resonant frequencies by tapping the plinth with the
stylus resting on a record on the platter, and the table resting on
either wood or hollow metal stands; they'll make different sounds,
regardless that it is the same turntable used. This is basic physics,
we're talking. Yet you claimed component racks are "snake oil"?!

Let's see you prove that now, with supported evidence. If you can't,
EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT AUDIO FROM NOW ON CAN BE THOROUGHLY DISMISSED.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ink.net
>>>
>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>>>> classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>>>> free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried
>>>> them?
>>>
>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>
>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>>> subjectivists go?
>>
>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>

maybe she is merely ignoring the troll.



--
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
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
>>>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
>>>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
>>>>>> tried them?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>>>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>>>>> subjectivists go?
>>>>
>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
>>>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>>>
>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>
>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>
> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?
>
>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
>> add.
>
> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>

100,000 posts later, where have your comments gotten you, braveboy?



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>> In article >,
>> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> > wrote in message
>> >>>> ink.net
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
>> >>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
>> >>>>> them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
>> >>>>> tried them?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nobody with a brain.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>> >>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>> >>>> subjectivists go?
>> >>>
>> >>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
>> >>> all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>> >>
>> >> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>> >
>> > Avoidance of my point noted.
>>
>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?
>
> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence: "How low can
> the so-called subjectivists go?"
>
>> > I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> > disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
>> > add.
>>
>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>
> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
> coming back with an insult?


Gee, I never noticed that.



--
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
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article >,
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> >, "Arny
>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
>>>>>>>> has classed up the place by giving everybody who
>>>>>>>> want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many
>>>>>>>> have tried them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
>>>>>>> more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
>>>>>>> subjectivists go?
>
>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>
> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet with
> holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to find the time to
> criticize anybody but objectivists.
>
>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>>>>>> seriously.
>
> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google record.
>
>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>
>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>
>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>>> substance to avoid?
>
>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>
> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to the obvious BS we
> get here from foul-mothed instigators like Fella and SHP.
>
>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
>>>> to add.
>
>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>
>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> without him coming back with an insult?
>
> Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
> subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?
>
> One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups
> is that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
> reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.
> In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
> objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
> reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.
>

Then explain your behavior, your having falsely accused a number of
people of sending you kiddie porn email, explain it in absolute
moral terms, no moral relativism, please.



--
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...
>
>>
> Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
> offered.
>

Saved for future reference!!!
Note!



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

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> ink.net
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>> >> >> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>> >> >> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nobody with a brain.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless
>> >> >> than
>> >> >> it
>> >> >> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>> >> >
>> >> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
>> >> > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>> >>
>> >> That any do is a sad statement.
>> >>
>> >> That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
>> >> that
>> >> some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
>> >> construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound
>> >> of
>> >> anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
>> >> lifting
>> >> cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power
>> >> cord
>> >> with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for
>> >> snake
>> >> oil.
>> >
>> > Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
>> > making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
>> > objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
>> > never tested, as "snake oil".
>> >
>> Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
>> offered.
>
> Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
> no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
> offered that they are.

You have some to offer?

So let's take the example of the component rack.
> Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
> sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
> the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
> anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
> component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
> "contstruction parameters").
>
I never said that a component rack isn't goof for turntable damping, it is.
It's other devices that they are sometimes claimed to help, which is utter
nonsense, except for the occaisonal tube amp that happens to be microphonic.

snip

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Clyde Slick
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 6:04 pm
Email: "Clyde Slick" >

>100,000 posts later, where have your comments gotten you, braveboy?

I can see that he's made lots of friends over the years. It's in
Google. Look it up.

There's nob, and um, er, well, ah, there's nob...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:20 am
> Email: >
>
>>> Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
>>> nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
>>> attacks! And it's not *his* fault...
>
>>Nor yours either, I suppose.
>
> A subtle difference: you don't see me whining about it.
>
> If you whine about something, while being one of the most egregious
> offenders, you are a hypocrite.
>
I don't whine. I comment. When it comes to George I gave up trying to
appeal to decency, and I let much of what he spews pass without comment.

>>It always comes down to some sort of sexual thing for you, doesn't it?
>
> I have no idea what this relates to. Where have I 'always' referred to
> sex? Enlighten me.
>
This bit you didn't include, seemed to be a sexual reference to me, or
should I say pur obsessed woth peckers?

>> I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
> >kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:33 am
Email: >

You shouldn't post after drinking, nob.

>>>It always comes down to some sort of sexual thing for you, doesn't it?

>> I have no idea what this relates to. Where have I 'always' referred to
>> sex? Enlighten me.

>This bit you didn't include, seemed to be a sexual reference to me, or
>should I say pur obsessed woth peckers?

>>> I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
>>>kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

I know what I said. I still don't see how that 'always comes down to
some sort of sexual thing' for me. And you still didn't answer my
question: where is this 'always' you referred to?

Or is this another baseless and twisted claim, as you are so wont to
do?

Go takes your meds, nob. Perhaps the interaction with the booze will
have some positive effect.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ink.net
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
> >> >> >> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
> >> >> >> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless
> >> >> >> than
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
> >> >> > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
> >> >>
> >> >> That any do is a sad statement.
> >> >>
> >> >> That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
> >> >> that
> >> >> some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
> >> >> construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound
> >> >> of
> >> >> anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
> >> >> lifting
> >> >> cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power
> >> >> cord
> >> >> with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for
> >> >> snake
> >> >> oil.
> >> >
> >> > Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
> >> > making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
> >> > objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
> >> > never tested, as "snake oil".
> >> >
> >> Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
> >> offered.
> >
> > Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
> > no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
> > offered that they are.
>
> You have some to offer?
>
> So let's take the example of the component rack.
> > Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
> > sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
> > the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
> > anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
> > component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
> > "contstruction parameters").
> >
> I never said that a component rack isn't goof for turntable damping, it is.
> It's other devices that they are sometimes claimed to help, which is utter
> nonsense, except for the occaisonal tube amp that happens to be microphonic.
>
> snip

You wrote: "believe that the construction of their component rack has
anything to do with the sound of anything other than the turntable"

I understood that to mean that you were claiming component racks can
not improve the sound quality of a turntable. Is that not what you were
claiming, and if not, then are you claiming that tweako freako
component racks DO improve the sound of a turntable? Also, WHAT
"devices" are you referring to that qualifies your claim, or do you
want to play mystery games?

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >> ink.net
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
>> >> >> >> > classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
>> >> >> >> > free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nobody with a brain.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more
>> >> >> >> useless
>> >> >> >> than
>> >> >> >> it
>> >> >> >> was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
>> >> >> > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That any do is a sad statement.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs
>> >> >> or
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> construction of their component rack has anything to do with the
>> >> >> sound
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
>> >> >> lifting
>> >> >> cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power
>> >> >> cord
>> >> >> with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for
>> >> >> snake
>> >> >> oil.
>> >> >
>> >> > Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
>> >> > making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
>> >> > objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
>> >> > never tested, as "snake oil".
>> >> >
>> >> Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
>> >> offered.
>> >
>> > Who said there was no proof? You basically rejected many valid products
>> > no the principle that they are all "snake oil", with no evidence
>> > offered that they are.
>>
>> You have some to offer?
>>
>> So let's take the example of the component rack.
>> > Mine is made by a company called Target, an open metal frame, which
>> > sits on spikes (actually, the one I use for my turntable is mounted on
>> > the wall. But to simplify things for you, because you don't know
>> > anything about footfall vibrations, we'll use the example of my
>> > component rack, so to avoid you claiming "design parameters" and not
>> > "contstruction parameters").
>> >
>> I never said that a component rack isn't goof for turntable damping, it
>> is.
>> It's other devices that they are sometimes claimed to help, which is
>> utter
>> nonsense, except for the occaisonal tube amp that happens to be
>> microphonic.
>>
>> snip
>
> You wrote: "believe that the construction of their component rack has
> anything to do with the sound of anything other than the turntable"
>
> I understood that to mean that you were claiming component racks can
> not improve the sound quality of a turntable. Is that not what you were
> claiming, and if not, then are you claiming that tweako freako
> component racks DO improve the sound of a turntable? Also, WHAT
> "devices" are you referring to that qualifies your claim, or do you
> want to play mystery games?
>
So you have a reading problem as well as a temper problem and a problem with
logic.
Clearly I said the only thing a component rack can help is a turntable.
There is nothing tweako freako about having a stable platform that won't
allow footfalls and other noises be introduced into the reproduction chain
of a turntable. Of course the fact that turntables allow this is yet
another indictment of their obsolescence.

I've seen people wondering what racks they should buy because they are
convinced that the right rack improves everything, not jut the turntable,
they're the same kind of folks that buy a $400.00 knob because they believe
it would make things sound better.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Jenn said:
>
>> > > Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
>> > > "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.
>
>> > That any do is a sad statement.
>
>> I agree.
>
> The difference being that Mickey actually believes somebody does take
> those alleged "tweaks" seriously. Only Krooger is krazy enough to do
> that, but Mr. ****'s religion is completely hostile to this kind of
> inanity.
>
>
>
As opposed to you just being completely hostile.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger hypocritically wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>
>
> In another part of your silly rant, you write:
>
> "Prove me wrong with deeds not empty words, Jenn."
>
> I'm still waiting for YOU to prove me wrong that the tweaks are "crazy"
> and need to be "denounced" by any and all here (otherwise, according to
> you, they are "cowards" if they don't denounce them, and believe they
> are not valid).
>
> If you can't prove that Arny, all you've proven is that you're a mad
> bigot making unsupported claims, and not to be taken seriously.
>
>
> Arny whines:
>
>> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim.
>
> Everything you said about my tweaks or anything else you disagree with
> in audio are "unsupported claims", hypocrite.
>
>
> Arny whines:
>
>> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.
>
>
> More hypocristy, hypocrite?
>
More reading problems Mr. S. That was my statement not his.


>> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward. You're worse than a coward
>> you're
>> a biased coward. Like Weil you go ballistic over minor nits when they
>> relate
>> to an so-called objectivist, while you're blind and dumb when
>> subjectivists
>> **** all over the place not to mention logic and reason.
>
> Nice rant there, you lunatic hypocrite. What was that you were saying
> above about me and other "subjectivists" being foul-mouthed? What was
> that you were saying you hypocrite, about "logic and reason", when all
> you have offered to discount the tweaks is sweeping dismissals with no
> evidence forthcoming? What's that you're saying, weasel Arnold, about
> being a "biased coward", when all you've shown is biases towards the
> tweaks, and then you run like a coward and ignore all the times I've
> asked you to support your assertions?
>
The burden of proof is yours Mr. S, prove any of this stuff works, but
mostly prove the L shaped tweak, because that is clearly (to me) the most
ludicrous one of al.


>> Good to see you didn't try to weasel out of that, Jenn.
>
> And yet all you've ever done is weasel out of demands for evidence that
> the tweaks are not valid.
>
Burden of proof is stil yours. You make the claim that they work, it is
your burden to demonstrate they do.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
>> From: Jenn
>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>> Email: Jenn >
>>
>> >Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
>> >that the subjs do too.
>>
>> That's clearly true.
>>
>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
>> are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.
>
> Of course.

Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
respond to them when they are flung.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> In article
>> >> >>> >, "Arny
>> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> In article
>> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
>> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
>> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
>> >> >> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
>> >> >> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
>> >> >
>> >> > People could say the same about just about any group. It
>> >> > doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
>> >> > inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
>> >> >> record.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
>> >>
>> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
>> >> >>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>> >>
>> >> >> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
>> >> >> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
>> >> >> like Fella and SHP.
>> >>
>> >> > Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
>> >> > non-called-for insults by you, for example.
>> >>
>> >> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.
>> >
>> > Calling someone a coward is not an insult?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?
>> >>
>> >> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
>> >> profanity around here. Fact.
>> >
>> > Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
>> >> >>>>> to add.
>> >>
>> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>> >>
>> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
>> >> >
>> >> >> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
>> >> >> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
>> >> >> whining about it?
>> >>
>> >> > You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
>> >> > Why weasel out of your statement?
>> >>
>> >> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.
>> >
>> > LOL In what way?
>> >
>> Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?
>
> If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
threads or which people?

[Clyde Slick]

> wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article . com>,
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>>
>>> From: Jenn
>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>
>>> >Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
>>> >that the subjs do too.
>>>
>>> That's clearly true.
>>>
>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
>>> are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.
>>
>> Of course.
>
> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
> respond to them when they are flung.
>

The irony of it all!
This is in regards to Jenn's comments.
jenn was harrassed by 'obj' ARny's insults, no reason at all
for Arny to start them.



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

[paul packer]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:59:28 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:


>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.
>
>Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.

Don't argue with Vlad, Jenn. You'll get impaled. :-)

[paul packer]

On 16 Mar 2006 17:34:20 -0800, wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
>> > RAO regulars are too stupid
>> >valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
>> >(of their mind).
>> > any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
>> >like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
>> >Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
>> >The primitive thinker of RAO
>> > the RAO lemming
>>
>> High praise indeed!
>>
>> (Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)
>
>I'm sure I have NO idea. That's just what the insult-o-meter (c) came
>up with.
>It's kind of outdated (early 50's model). I suppose it does need a
>software upgrade.

And perhaps not only it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
Email: >

>Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
>respond to them when they are flung.

Translation: "They make me do it!"

I stated this yesterday and you disagreed. Now you agree.

Make up your 'mind' nob.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 3:00 pm
Email: >

nob tries to set Jenn up:

>> If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.

>Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
>threads or which people?

As Arny would say, "Look it up in Google. You want me to do your work
for you?"

And Jenn, if you do decide to post an answer to this, be aware that
you'll most likely be heading into "But you didn't criticize them hard
enough" or "But you didn't say anything to <insert name here>"
territory.

[Jenn]

In article t>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> In article
> >> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> m
> >> >> >>>>> In article
> >> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>>> .
> >> >> >>>>>> com
> >> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
> >> >> >> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
> >> >> >> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > People could say the same about just about any group. It
> >> >> > doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
> >> >> > inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
> >> >> >> record.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
> >> >> >>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
> >> >> >> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
> >> >> >> like Fella and SHP.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
> >> >> > non-called-for insults by you, for example.
> >> >>
> >> >> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.
> >> >
> >> > Calling someone a coward is not an insult?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?
> >> >>
> >> >> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
> >> >> profanity around here. Fact.
> >> >
> >> > Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
> >> >> >>>>> to add.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
> >> >> >> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
> >> >> >> whining about it?
> >> >>
> >> >> > You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
> >> >> > Why weasel out of your statement?
> >> >>
> >> >> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.
> >> >
> >> > LOL In what way?
> >> >
> >> Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?
> >
> > If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.
>
> Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
> threads or which people?

They are in the Google record.

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article . com>,
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jenn
> >> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> >> Email: Jenn >
> >>
> >> >Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just saying
> >> >that the subjs do too.
> >>
> >> That's clearly true.
> >>
> >> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
> >> are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.
> >
> > Of course.
>
> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
> respond to them when they are flung.

I've seen it happen both directions. It's all stupid, IMHO.

[George M. Middius]

Shovels, have you forgiven me? Are we friends again?

> > The difference being that Mickey actually believes somebody does take
> > those alleged "tweaks" seriously. Only Krooger is krazy enough to do
> > that, but Mr. ****'s religion is completely hostile to this kind of
> > inanity.

> There is somebody that did take my "alleged tweaks" seriously, Morc.

I don't know what to make of your butchering of Mork's name. I didn't watch
that show much, a couple times maybe. But you apparently did, enough anyway
so that it's a cultural touchstone for you. And you can't even remember how
the character's name is spelled. For shame. You need to redeploy that
shovel from snow duty to head-bashing duty, starting with your own.

> That would be YOU. Did you get the name of the mule that kicked you in
> the head, and made you forget what you wrote a few weeks ago?:

Is this what you're babbling about, Shovels?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/fe42479e2d76d3d8?hl=en&

I'm sure that proves something to a loony tune like yourself....

> As to the 5-pinhole paper tweak, Morc From Orc says: "Just to clue you
> in, I tried it this afternoon"

Yep. I said that. Proceed with your "proof".

> Now don't you feel like a silly ass, for saying what you just did?
> Seems that your religion, Morc, is completely hostile to the truth.

I dunno, Shovels. You're the one who has the problem with reality.

BTW, you went back on your promise to ignore me forevermore. That was less
than 1 day ago, and here you again, begging for more punishment. When you
were Jamie, you sprayed us with your babble-spittle for a couple of weeks
before you melted down. What's happened since then? You seem even balmier
than before.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:24 am
Email: >

>That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or that
>some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
>construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
>anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that lifting
>cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
>with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
>oil.

All of this may or may not be true.

Either way, how does any of this effect you again? (IOW, who cares?)

Oh. I forgot. You're the self-appointed Savior.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> . com>,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote:
>
>> From: Jenn
>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>> Email: Jenn >
>>
>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
>>> I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>>
>> That's clearly true.
>>
>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
>> their insults are better, or warranted, or more
>> justified, for some reason.
>
> Of course.

One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the insulting posts from
the usual suspects that I slough.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> From: Jenn
> >> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> >> Email: Jenn >
> >>
> >>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
> >>> I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
> >>
> >> That's clearly true.
> >>
> >> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
> >> their insults are better, or warranted, or more
> >> justified, for some reason.
> >
> > Of course.
>
> One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the insulting posts from
> the usual suspects that I slough.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:24 am
> Email: >
>
>>That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
>>that
>>some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
>>construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
>>anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
>>lifting
>>cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
>>with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
>>oil.
>
> All of this may or may not be true.
>
> Either way, how does any of this effect you again? (IOW, who cares?)
>
> Oh. I forgot. You're the self-appointed Savior.
>
Well we have that in common then.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> In article
>> >> >> >>> >, "Arny
>> >> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> m
>> >> >> >>>>> In article
>> >> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
>> >> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>>> .
>> >> >> >>>>>> com
>> >> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
>> >> >> >> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
>> >> >> >> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > People could say the same about just about any group. It
>> >> >> > doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
>> >> >> > inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>> >> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
>> >> >> >> record.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>> >> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
>> >> >> >>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
>> >> >> >> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
>> >> >> >> like Fella and SHP.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
>> >> >> > non-called-for insults by you, for example.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.
>> >> >
>> >> > Calling someone a coward is not an insult?
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> profanity around here. Fact.
>> >> >
>> >> > Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> >> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
>> >> >> >>>>> to add.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> >> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
>> >> >> >> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
>> >> >> >> whining about it?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
>> >> >> > Why weasel out of your statement?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL In what way?
>> >> >
>> >> Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?
>> >
>> > If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.
>>
>> Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
>> threads or which people?
>
> They are in the Google record.

Could you be more vague?

A little help, thread title perhaps some sort of clue.
Please.

[Jenn]

In article . net>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> om
> >> >> >> >>> In article
> >> >> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> .co
> >> >> >> >>>> m
> >> >> >> >>>>> In article
> >> >> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> gy.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> com
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
> >> >> >> >> with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
> >> >> >> >> find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > People could say the same about just about any group. It
> >> >> >> > doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
> >> >> >> > inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
> >> >> >> >> record.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >> >> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >> >> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
> >> >> >> >>> "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
> >> >> >> >> the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
> >> >> >> >> like Fella and SHP.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
> >> >> >> > non-called-for insults by you, for example.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Calling someone a coward is not an insult?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> profanity around here. Fact.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> >> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
> >> >> >> >>>>> to add.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >> >> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
> >> >> >> >> about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
> >> >> >> >> whining about it?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
> >> >> >> > Why weasel out of your statement?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL In what way?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Which of the over the top subjectivists ahve found time to criticize?
> >> >
> >> > If I'm reading you correctly, I've criticized several, some today.
> >>
> >> Having not read every post, I'm sorry that I missed any of them. Which
> >> threads or which people?
> >
> > They are in the Google record.
>
> Could you be more vague?

It's a response that one receives here quite often from others.

>
> A little help, thread title perhaps some sort of clue.
> Please.

I don't recall. There were some recently.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> . com>,
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Jenn
>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
>>>>> I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>>>>
>>>> That's clearly true.
>>>>
>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
>>>> their insults are better, or warranted, or more
>>>> justified, for some reason.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>> One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the
>> insulting posts from the usual suspects that I slough.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't make sense.

IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from the usual list of
suspects that go unanswered. Note all the threads with my name in
conjunction with insults, in their title lines that go from start to finish
without even one response by me.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> . com>,
> >>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Jenn
> >>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> >>>> Email: Jenn >
> >>>>
> >>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults.
> >>>>> I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's clearly true.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that
> >>>> their insults are better, or warranted, or more
> >>>> justified, for some reason.
> >>>
> >>> Of course.
> >>
> >> One reason being, there are less of them. Note all the
> >> insulting posts from the usual suspects that I slough.
> >
> > Sorry, that doesn't make sense.
>
> IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from the usual list of
> suspects that go unanswered. Note all the threads with my name in
> conjunction with insults, in their title lines that go from start to finish
> without even one response by me.

Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's equally true that the
"obs" seem to think..." but anyway...
Of course I note those things. And why don't you respond to them? I
suspect that it's because they don't deserve response, and that
responding to them only validates them. That's the reason that **I**
don't respond to them. So you are supporting my point, really. You
were critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars against you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> . com>,
>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Jenn
>>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>>>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
>>>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.

>>>>>> That's clearly true.

>>>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
>>>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
>>>>>> justified, for some reason.

>>>>> Of course.

>>>> One reason being, there are less of them.

>> IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from
>> the usual list of suspects that go unanswered. Note all
>> the threads with my name in conjunction with insults, in
>> their title lines that go from start to finish without
>> even one response by me.

> Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's
> equally true that the "obs" seem to think..." but
> anyway...

Of course it does, Jen. It's not a matter of the subs throwing around
insults, too. It's a matter of them being the predominate source of insults
on RAO.

In my case its a matter of them throwing several times more insults at me
than I may throw back. Take George, Art and David for example. It appears
that they have very little to do but insult me and belittle my posts. David
hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in years, but he's still at it,
sometimes several times a day.


> Of course I note those things. And why don't you respond
> to them? I suspect that it's because they don't deserve
> response, and that responding to them only validates
> them.

Let's get back to the point of your comment Jen. The subs around here in
general make posts that deserve no response.

>That's the reason that **I** don't respond to them.

Irrelevant to your claim about the so-called obs, Jen.

> So you are supporting my point, really. You were
> critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars
> against you.

No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the* major source of
insults around here are the so-called subjectivists. I'd go so far as to say
that were Middius, Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away, RAO
might even have some crediblity as an audio group.

It's no secret that along the way several of the so-called subs have said
that they intend to try as hard as they can to trash RAO until the last
so-called ob went away.

[Steven Sullivan]

are we classed up yet?


From:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Will That Be Paper or Plastic?
Date: 3 Mar 2006 20:46:02 -0800

....

So anway, I'd like to see if I can "class things up a bit"
by opening up an actual attempt at an audio-related discussion. Perhaps
it can be considered a slight diversion from the usual flame wars

....

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message


Correction:

> No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the*
> major source of insults around here are the so-called
> objectivists. I'd go so far as to say that were Middius,
> Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away, RAO
> might even have some crediblity as an audio group.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> . com>,
> >>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Jenn
> >>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> >>>>>> Email: Jenn >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
> >>>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>
> >>>>>> That's clearly true.
>
> >>>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
> >>>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
> >>>>>> justified, for some reason.
>
> >>>>> Of course.
>
> >>>> One reason being, there are less of them.
>
> >> IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from
> >> the usual list of suspects that go unanswered. Note all
> >> the threads with my name in conjunction with insults, in
> >> their title lines that go from start to finish without
> >> even one response by me.
>
> > Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's
> > equally true that the "obs" seem to think..." but
> > anyway...
>
> Of course it does, Jen. It's not a matter of the subs throwing around
> insults, too. It's a matter of them being the predominate source of insults
> on RAO.

What I'm saying is that your statement that "there are less of them"
really has nothing to do with Shhh's statement that the obs believe
that their insults are "better" or "more justified". Anyway, I see
your point.

> In my case its a matter of them throwing several times more insults at me
> than I may throw back. Take George, Art and David for example. It appears
> that they have very little to do but insult me and belittle my posts. David
> hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in years, but he's still at it,
> sometimes several times a day.

I understand, and on the surface, I even agree. People here who would
be labeled as "subjecivists" throw a greater quantity of insults than
do the "objectivists". Who started it? I have no idea, and it isn't
important enough to me to go way back in the record. What I DO think
is that it's ALL silly, from both "sides". But that's just me. If I
don't like it, I can just move on, as can anyone else. If we would all
just treat others as we wish to be treated, all would be good, but I'm
sure that there is too much water under the bridge for that to happen.
Pity.


> > Of course I note those things. And why don't you respond
> > to them? I suspect that it's because they don't deserve
> > response, and that responding to them only validates
> > them.
>
> Let's get back to the point of your comment Jen. The subs around here in
> general make posts that deserve no response.

Then simply don't respond. If you think that my posts, for example,
are not worth responding to, just don't respond.


> >That's the reason that **I** don't respond to them.
>
> Irrelevant to your claim about the so-called obs, Jen.

I admit to mixing threads here. What I'm referring to above is your
statement that I don't speak up when the "subjs" act up to you.

> > So you are supporting my point, really. You were
> > critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars
> > against you.
>
> No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the* major source of
> insults around here are the so-called subjectivists. I'd go so far as to say
> that were Middius, Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away, RAO
> might even have some crediblity as an audio group.

See above.

> It's no secret that along the way several of the so-called subs have said
> that they intend to try as hard as they can to trash RAO until the last
> so-called ob went away.

That's stupid, IMO.

Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about this: The knife
cuts both ways for sure. People who are your "enemies" here obviously
are persistant to a fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it
or not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat people
well, respect their opinions, and you might be surprised at the
long-term result.

[MINe 109]

In article om>,
"Jenn" > wrote:

> Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about this: The knife
> cuts both ways for sure. People who are your "enemies" here obviously
> are persistant to a fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it
> or not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat people
> well, respect their opinions, and you might be surprised at the
> long-term result.

I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.

Good times.

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:05:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>David hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in years, but he's still at it,
>sometimes several times a day.

Just because I'm one of the only people that you are afraid to
address, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that I'm going to stop
commenting when you act like an ass, which is pretty much daily.

It just makes it easier for me not to have to do the inevitable
responding back and forth to your bull**** that Jenn is having to go
through right now.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> It just makes it easier for me not to have to do the inevitable
> responding back and forth to your bull**** that Jenn is having to go
> through right now.

One day, Jenn may well look back in fondness at her indoctrination into
the morass of "the debating trade".

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> . com>,
>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Jenn
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>>>>>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
>>>>>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>>
>>>>>>>> That's clearly true.
>>
>>>>>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
>>>>>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or
>>>>>>>> more justified, for some reason.
>>
>>>>>>> Of course.
>>
>>>>>> One reason being, there are less of them.
>>
>>>> IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from
>>>> the usual list of suspects that go unanswered. Note all
>>>> the threads with my name in conjunction with insults,
>>>> in their title lines that go from start to finish
>>>> without even one response by me.
>>
>>> Well, that doesn't really make sense IRT "But it's
>>> equally true that the "obs" seem to think..." but
>>> anyway...
>>
>> Of course it does, Jen. It's not a matter of the subs
>> throwing around insults, too. It's a matter of them
>> being the predominate source of insults on RAO.
>
> What I'm saying is that your statement that "there are
> less of them" really has nothing to do with Shhh's
> statement that the obs believe that their insults are
> "better" or "more justified". Anyway, I see your point.
>
>> In my case its a matter of them throwing several times
>> more insults at me than I may throw back. Take George,
>> Art and David for example. It appears that they have
>> very little to do but insult me and belittle my posts.
>> David hasn't gotten a direct response out of me in
>> years, but he's still at it, sometimes several times a
>> day.
>
> I understand, and on the surface, I even agree. People
> here who would be labeled as "subjecivists" throw a
> greater quantity of insults than do the "objectivists".
> Who started it? I have no idea, and it isn't important
> enough to me to go way back in the record. What I DO
> think is that it's ALL silly, from both "sides". But
> that's just me. If I don't like it, I can just move on,
> as can anyone else. If we would all just treat others as
> we wish to be treated, all would be good, but I'm sure
> that there is too much water under the bridge for that to
> happen. Pity.
>
>
>>> Of course I note those things. And why don't you
>>> respond to them? I suspect that it's because they
>>> don't deserve response, and that responding to them
>>> only validates them.
>>
>> Let's get back to the point of your comment Jen. The
>> subs around here in general make posts that deserve no
>> response.
>
> Then simply don't respond. If you think that my posts,
> for example, are not worth responding to, just don't
> respond.
>
>
>>> That's the reason that **I** don't respond to them.
>>
>> Irrelevant to your claim about the so-called obs, Jen.
>
> I admit to mixing threads here. What I'm referring to
> above is your statement that I don't speak up when the
> "subjs" act up to you.
>
>>> So you are supporting my point, really. You were
>>> critical of me for not being critical of the flame wars
>>> against you.
>>
>> No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the*
>> major source of insults around here are the so-called
>> subjectivists. I'd go so far as to say that were
>> Middius, Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go
>> away, RAO might even have some crediblity as an audio
>> group.
>
> See above.
>
>> It's no secret that along the way several of the
>> so-called subs have said that they intend to try as hard
>> as they can to trash RAO until the last so-called ob
>> went away.

> That's stupid, IMO.

Of course it;s stupid. But, we're talking about people who are stupid and
selfish.

> Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
> this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who are
> your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a fault.
> You, on the other hand, whether you see it or not, tend
> to give them a great deal of ammo.

Anybody who advocates reason is their enemy.

> Just treat people well, respect their opinions, and you might be
> surprised
> at the long-term result.

Obfuscation of the true problem noted.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article
> om>,
> "Jenn" > wrote:
>
>> Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
>> this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
>> are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
>> fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
>> not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat
>> people well, respect their opinions, and you might be
>> surprised at the long-term result.
>
> I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.

I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen because I know you're
hopeless.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > om>,
> > "Jenn" > wrote:
> >
> >> Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
> >> this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
> >> are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
> >> fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
> >> not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat
> >> people well, respect their opinions, and you might be
> >> surprised at the long-term result.
> >
> > I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.
>
> I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen because I know you're
> hopeless.

As you can see, he didn't follow my advice then or now.

Five years. Just flies by, doesn't it?

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> om>,
>>> "Jenn" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
>>>> this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
>>>> are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
>>>> fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
>>>> not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just
>>>> treat people well, respect their opinions, and you
>>>> might be surprised at the long-term result.
>>>
>>> I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.
>>
>> I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen
>> because I know you're hopeless.
>
> As you can see, he didn't follow my advice then or now.

I considered the source - sue me!

> Five years. Just flies by, doesn't it?

Whatever that means.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> om>,
> >>> "Jenn" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about
> >>>> this: The knife cuts both ways for sure. People who
> >>>> are your "enemies" here obviously are persistant to a
> >>>> fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it or
> >>>> not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just
> >>>> treat people well, respect their opinions, and you
> >>>> might be surprised at the long-term result.
> >>>
> >>> I outlined Arny's "RAO rehabilitation" some years ago.
> >>
> >> I've never bothered to do the same for you Stephen
> >> because I know you're hopeless.
> >
> > As you can see, he didn't follow my advice then or now.
>
> I considered the source - sue me!

It was good advice then and it's good advice now, no matter the source.
However, it's clear that you *can't* follow it.

> > Five years. Just flies by, doesn't it?
>
> Whatever that means.

Time flies like an arrow.

You know the rest.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> IOW note all the insulting responses to my posts from the usual list of
> suspects that go unanswered. Note all the threads with my name in
> conjunction with insults, in their title lines that go from start to
> finish without even one response by me.
>

Ha! You're lack of rsponse indicates your agreement.
I thought I'd throw a little Kroologic at ya.



--
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
. ..
>
> No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the* major source of
> insults around here are the so-called subjectivists. I'd go so far as to
> say that were Middius, Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away,
> RAO might even have some crediblity as an audio group.
>

Its your lucky day. I'm going to mysteriously disappear
tomorrow, for about nine days.
Have a haggis, on me. Enjoy!



--
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
. ..
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
>
> Correction:
>
>> No Jen, I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the*
>> major source of insults around here are the so-called
>> objectivists. I'd go so far as to say that were Middius,
>> Art, and David just sort of mysteriously go away, RAO
>> might even have some crediblity as an audio group.
>
>

you still didn't get it quite right



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

[Clyde Slick]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> Arny, let me make a final statement from my POV about this: The knife
> cuts both ways for sure. People who are your "enemies" here obviously
> are persistant to a fault. You, on the other hand, whether you see it
> or not, tend to give them a great deal of ammo. Just treat people
> well, respect their opinions, and you might be surprised at the
> long-term result.
>

Good deal, cause ammo is gettin expensive.



--
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: Arny Krueger
Date: Mon, Mar 20 2006 10:05 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>Of course it does, Jen. It's not a matter of the subs throwing around
>insults, too. It's a matter of them being the predominate source of insults
>on RAO.

nob, did you realize that Mr. Krueger never reads your posts?;-)

"They're worse than we are, so our attacks are more valid."

Does that about sum it up?

[George M. Middius]

Turdborg whines and whines.

> No Jen[sic], I'm critical for trying to pretend that *the* major source of
> insults around here are the so-called subjectivists.

Nothing changes the proven fact that your head is filled with feces.

[Jenn]

In article >,
(paul packer) wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:59:28 GMT, Jenn >
> wrote:
>
>
> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical of her.
> >
> >Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
>
> Don't argue with Vlad, Jenn. You'll get impaled. :-)

lol

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> . com>,
> "vlad" > wrote:
>
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>>>>>>> seriously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>>>>
>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>>>
>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>>>> substance to avoid?
>>>
>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>>>
>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
>>>>> new to add.
>>>>
>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>>
>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>>> without him coming back with an insult?
>>
>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>
> Of course.
>
>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
>> of her.
>
> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.

> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
> points where my views are already expressed by others
> (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)

This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.

>, he calls me a
> coward (attacking the messenger.)

Sue me for telling the truth.

It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO, particularly
2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of personal
attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with the
message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
message at the time or not.

Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself, but the record
shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked. Furthmore, I
don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.

There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks against me.
That fact completely falsifies their claimsthat I bring the attacks on
myself.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > . com>,
> > "vlad" > wrote:
> >
> >> Jenn wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >>>> substance to avoid?
> >>>
> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >>>
> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
> >>>>> new to add.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >>>
> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >>
> >> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >
> > Of course.
> >
> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
> >> of her.
> >
> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
>
> > Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
> > points where my views are already expressed by others
> > (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>
> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.

LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".

> >, he calls me a
> > coward (attacking the messenger.)
>
> Sue me for telling the truth.

You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even though the claim
is totally unsupported.


> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO, particularly
> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of personal
> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with the
> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
> message at the time or not.
>
> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself,

False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear fact is that you
often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that anyone
would disagree with that statement. As per my post yesterday, my advice
is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you don't like
how someone is treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely to go
away.

> but the record
> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked. Furthmore, I
> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
>
> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks against me.
> That fact completely falsifies their claimsthat I bring the attacks on
> myself.

Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> . com>,
>>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>>>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>>>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>>>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>>>>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>>>>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
>>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of
>>>>>>>>> tweaks seriously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
>>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>>>>>> substance to avoid?
>>>>>
>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
>>>>> go?"
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>>>>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
>>>>>>> new to add.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
>>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>>
>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
>>>> typical of her.
>>>
>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
>>> did.
>>
>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
>>> points where my views are already expressed by others
>>> (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>>
>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
>
> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".

Not worth the trouble.

>>> , he calls me a
>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
>>
>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>
> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
> though the claim is totally unsupported.

Of course. jenn, providing support to you of your misbehavioir is a waste
of my time.

>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
>> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
>> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks around
>> here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with
>> the message, they just attack the messenger, whether
>> he's actually delivering a message at the time or not.

>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
>> myself,

> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything.

Horsefeathers.

>The clear
> fact is that you often display an abrasive personality.

When in Rome.

To call most of the subjectivists around here "abrasive" would be a fine
example of the opposite of hyperbole.

> I seriously doubt that anyone would disagree with that
> statement. As per my post yesterday, my advice is to
> simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you
> don't like how someone is treating you, ignore them; the
> problem is likely to go away.

Jenn I've provided proof to you of that being wrong. See my former comments
about the cosmic waste of time involved in proving *anything* to you Jenn.

>> but the record
>> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be
>> attacked. Furthmore, I don't have to be doing what I'm
>> being attacked for doing.

Jenn has no response because any reasonable response would be against her
agenda.

>> There is often no connection between my actions and the
>> attacks against me. That fact completely falsifies their
>> claimsthat I bring the attacks on myself.

> Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?

Were I ever to do such a thing...

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: >
> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
> Email: >
>
>>Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
>>respond to them when they are flung.
>
> Translation: "They make me do it!"

Do you not respond to people who insult you?
Many "objectivists, do not or respond rarely to the constant barrage of
insults that are spewed by people like Middius, et al. The fact is stll
that there are far more subjectivists insulting objecitivists,than the other
way round.
>
> I stated this yesterday and you disagreed. Now you agree.
>
No, I don't agree.

> Make up your 'mind' nob.

I have. The subjectivists are not very nice as a rule.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com
> From: >
> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
> Email: >
>
>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are flung.

> Translation: "They make me do it!"

Bogus red herring argument.

In fact it doesn't matter how the so-called Obs respond to the overwhelming
barrageof provocations from the Subs on RAO. It's bad enough that the Subs
are out there flinging the crap, just about every chance they get.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article . com>,
>> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: Jenn
>> >> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>> >> Email: Jenn >
>> >>
>> >> >Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just
>> >> >saying
>> >> >that the subjs do too.
>> >>
>> >> That's clearly true.
>> >>
>> >> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
>> >> are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.
>> >
>> > Of course.
>>
>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
>> respond to them when they are flung.
>
> I've seen it happen both directions. It's all stupid, IMHO.

Agreed. The subjectivists tend not to be able to discuss anything without
resulting to personal attacks. You'd be hard pressed to find one thread on
any subject where some subjectivist didn't initiate personal attacks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article
>>> . com>,
>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Jenn
>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>>>>
>>>> That's clearly true.
>>>>
>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
>>>> justified, for some reason.
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are flung.
>
> I've seen it happen both directions.

Yet another red herring argument. The fact that, through persistence the
Subs are sometimes able to provoke a response does not change the fact that
they are the major source of provocations around here.

What the Subs around here do is akin to walking up to some folks who are
trying to hold an intelligent conversation and screaming at the top of their
lungs. It's childish behavior, pure and simple. The Obs response around here
is similar to what you'd see happen in real life - they do respond to the
screaming children.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> Sue me for telling the truth.

No, you get sued for lying.

> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO, particularly
> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of personal
> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with the
> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
> message at the time or not.

Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new tweaker?

> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself, but the record
> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked. Furthmore, I
> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
>
> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks against me.

What about your trolling by dropping names and putting words in mouths?
and after how many years and tens of thousands of posts you might
consider that there won't be an instant change in how you're treated.

Why does Beethoven need so many "final" chords?

> That fact completely falsifies their claimsthat I bring the attacks on
> myself.

No, it doesn't. Your own language gives you away: "often" doesn't prove
"completely".

Stephen

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>> > In article
>> > . com>,
>> > "vlad" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >>> In article
>> >>> >, "Arny
>> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In article
>> >>>>> >, "Arny
>> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In article >,
>> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>> ink.net
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>> >>>>>>> seriously.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>> >>>> substance to avoid?
>> >>>
>> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>> >>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>> >>>
>> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
>> >>>>> new to add.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>> >>>
>> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
>> >>
>> >> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>> >
>> > Of course.
>> >
>> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
>> >> of her.
>> >
>> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
>>
>> > Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
>> > points where my views are already expressed by others
>> > (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>>
>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
>
> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>
>> >, he calls me a
>> > coward (attacking the messenger.)
>>
>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>
> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even though the claim
> is totally unsupported.
>
>
>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO,
>> particularly
>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
>> personal
>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with the
>> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually delivering
>> a
>> message at the time or not.
>>
>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself,
>
> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear fact is that you
> often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that anyone
> would disagree with that statement.

The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that are the instigators
of the attacks.
After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything close to actual
objective audio information, one tends to have little patience with
assholes.

What possible benefit is there in being civil to people who never are to
you?

I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the pattern far to often
to pretend that it is anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX and
other things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has been a target
ever since. It has little to do with his personality and everything to do
with his audio views.

It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win an argument on any
audio subject against Arny and they know it, so they attack everything and
anything else.

As per my post yesterday, my advice
> is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you don't like
> how someone is treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely to go
> away.
>

You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to let up until anybody
who makes any accurate and consistent statements about audio is driven away.
It is they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let people make up
their minds about what is real and what is not, but they will not let that
happen. They trash every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have already seen, form the
likes of Middius, EddieM and Fella.

Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact that they will never
let up and they will not let up.

>> but the record
>> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked.
>> Furthmore, I
>> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
>>
>> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks against
>> me.
>> That fact completely falsifies their claimsthat I bring the attacks on
>> myself.
>
> Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> . com>,
> >>> "vlad" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >>>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >>>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >>>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >>>>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >>>>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
> >>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of
> >>>>>>>>> tweaks seriously.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
> >>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >>>>>> substance to avoid?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
> >>>>> go?"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >>>>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
> >>>>>>> new to add.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
> >>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
> >>>>
> >>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >>>
> >>> Of course.
> >>>
> >>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
> >>>> typical of her.
> >>>
> >>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
> >>> did.
> >>
> >>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
> >>> points where my views are already expressed by others
> >>> (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
> >>
> >> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
> >
> > LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>
> Not worth the trouble.

So you feel comfortable with making claims that you can't/won't support.

> >>> , he calls me a
> >>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >>
> >> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >
> > You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
> > though the claim is totally unsupported.
>
> Of course. jenn, providing support to you of your misbehavioir is a waste
> of my time.

What "misbehavior" would that be, Arny? Please be specific.

>
> >> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
> >> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
> >> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks around
> >> here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with
> >> the message, they just attack the messenger, whether
> >> he's actually delivering a message at the time or not.
>
> >> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
> >> myself,
>
> > False. I don't "like to pretend" anything.
>
> Horsefeathers.

Whatever. I don't "like to pretend" anything.

>
> >The clear
> > fact is that you often display an abrasive personality.
>
> When in Rome.

No one is forcing you to be abrasive. I say again: one tends to get as
one gives.

>
> To call most of the subjectivists around here "abrasive" would be a fine
> example of the opposite of hyperbole.
>
> > I seriously doubt that anyone would disagree with that
> > statement. As per my post yesterday, my advice is to
> > simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you
> > don't like how someone is treating you, ignore them; the
> > problem is likely to go away.
>
> Jenn I've provided proof to you of that being wrong.

No, you haven't. You've never given this a serious try; at least that I
have seen. Why don't you do as I suggest in the above paragraph for,
say, a week or two? Ignore the flames, and treat people as you wish to
be treated. See if it makes a difference. If you won't do this, why
not?

> See my former comments
> about the cosmic waste of time involved in proving *anything* to you Jenn.

Again, you just have to be abrasive. I'm trying to help you here, Arny.
Or do you call this "piling on"?

>
> >> but the record
> >> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be
> >> attacked. Furthmore, I don't have to be doing what I'm
> >> being attacked for doing.
>
> Jenn has no response because any reasonable response would be against her
> agenda.

I've addressed it before. Agenda? My "agenda" is to have a productive
group.

>
> >> There is often no connection between my actions and the
> >> attacks against me. That fact completely falsifies their
> >> claimsthat I bring the attacks on myself.
>
> > Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?
>
> Were I ever to do such a thing...

Which you did. I've displayed no cowardly behavior at all.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> In article
> >>> . com>,
> >>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> From: Jenn
> >>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> >>>> Email: Jenn >
> >>>>
> >>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
> >>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's clearly true.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
> >>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
> >>>> justified, for some reason.
> >>>
> >>> Of course.
> >>
> >> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
> >> insults, they simply respond to them when they are flung.
> >
> > I've seen it happen both directions.
>
> Yet another red herring argument.

No, it's not.

> The fact that, through persistence the
> Subs are sometimes able to provoke a response does not change the fact that
> they are the major source of provocations around here.
>
> What the Subs around here do is akin to walking up to some folks who are
> trying to hold an intelligent conversation and screaming at the top of their
> lungs. It's childish behavior, pure and simple. The Obs response around here
> is similar to what you'd see happen in real life - they do respond to the
> screaming children.

Already addressed.

[George M. Middius]

The Bug Eater shows why he's the perennial winner of the Usenet Dunce Trophy.

> The fact is stll that there are far more subjectivists insulting
> objecitivists[sic],[sic]than the other way round.

Let's just put this "fact" alongside duh-Mikey's other brilliant
declarations. Here are a few that I can recall without research:

1. Arnii Kroofeces is unpopular because of his "audio opinions".

2. Normals mock and deride the 'borgs because of "disagreements".

3. Arnii Krooborg is a "leader" and a "powerful debater", and Normals resort
to insulting him because we cannot muster enough "facts".

4. Everybody in a free society should be responsible for building their own
portion of the public road system, and the government should only take care
of armed forces and police.

5. The best way to choose audio components is by examining spec sheets and/or
gouging out your eyeballs. (Hyperbole courtesy of the Resistance.)


It's pointless to try to disabuse Mickey of his quaint notions. Hundreds of
people have tried, and the poor little cripple is just as stubborn as ever.

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >> > In article
> >> > . com>,
> >> > "vlad" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >>> In article
> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> In article
> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >> >>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
> >> >>>>> new to add.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >> >>
> >> >> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >> >
> >> > Of course.
> >> >
> >> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
> >> >> of her.
> >> >
> >> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
> >>
> >> > Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
> >> > points where my views are already expressed by others
> >> > (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
> >>
> >> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
> >
> > LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
> >
> >> >, he calls me a
> >> > coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >>
> >> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >
> > You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even though the claim
> > is totally unsupported.
> >
> >
> >> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO,
> >> particularly
> >> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
> >> personal
> >> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with the
> >> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually delivering
> >> a
> >> message at the time or not.
> >>
> >> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself,
> >
> > False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear fact is that you
> > often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that anyone
> > would disagree with that statement.
>
> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that are the instigators
> of the attacks.

Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for example. Would YOU
disagree with the statement that Arny displays an abrasive personality?

> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything close to actual
> objective audio information, one tends to have little patience with
> assholes.
>
> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people who never are to
> you?
>
> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the pattern far to often
> to pretend that it is anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX and
> other things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has been a target
> ever since. It has little to do with his personality and everything to do
> with his audio views.
>
> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win an argument on any
> audio subject against Arny and they know it, so they attack everything and
> anything else.

So CHANGE THE PATTERN.

>
> As per my post yesterday, my advice
> > is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you don't like
> > how someone is treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely to go
> > away.
> >
>
> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to let up until anybody
> who makes any accurate and consistent statements about audio is driven away.
> It is they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let people make up
> their minds about what is real and what is not, but they will not let that
> happen. They trash every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have already seen, form the
> likes of Middius, EddieM and Fella.

Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements made to me based on
what I hear? "You're either stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply
and politely expressing my opinion.

>
> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact that they will never
> let up and they will not let up.

Has it been tried?

>
> >> but the record
> >> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked.
> >> Furthmore, I
> >> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
> >>
> >> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks against
> >> me.
> >> That fact completely falsifies their claimsthat I bring the attacks on
> >> myself.
> >
> > Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?

[George M. Middius]

The Idiots' Church is open, and Rev. Duh-Mikey is preaching.

[Arnii Krooborg]
> It has little to do with his personality and everything to do
> with his audio views.

An uninformed observer might suspect a post like this of being a mere troll.
Sadly, we Usenet veterans know this is a sincere statement of opinion, and
incredibly, that the Bug Eater is actually that stupid or deluded. (We don't
know which is dominant, but whichever it is, it's a profound affliction.)

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article . com>,
> >> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> From: Jenn
> >> >> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> >> >> Email: Jenn >
> >> >>
> >> >> >Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just
> >> >> >saying
> >> >> >that the subjs do too.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's clearly true.
> >> >>
> >> >> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their insults
> >> >> are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.
> >> >
> >> > Of course.
> >>
> >> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
> >> respond to them when they are flung.
> >
> > I've seen it happen both directions. It's all stupid, IMHO.
>
> Agreed. The subjectivists tend not to be able to discuss anything without
> resulting to personal attacks. You'd be hard pressed to find one thread on
> any subject where some subjectivist didn't initiate personal attacks.

No, I wouldn't. My personal experience shows otherwise.

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > From: >
> > Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
> > Email: >
> >
> >>Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they simply
> >>respond to them when they are flung.
> >
> > Translation: "They make me do it!"
>
> Do you not respond to people who insult you?

If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one responds at all so
much as it is the style with which one responds, IMO.

> Many "objectivists, do not or respond rarely to the constant barrage of
> insults that are spewed by people like Middius, et al. The fact is stll
> that there are far more subjectivists insulting objecitivists,than the other
> way round.
> >
> > I stated this yesterday and you disagreed. Now you agree.
> >
> No, I don't agree.
>
> > Make up your 'mind' nob.
>
> I have. The subjectivists are not very nice as a rule.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> From: >
>>> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
>>> Email: >
>>>
>>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are
>>>> flung.
>>>
>>> Translation: "They make me do it!"
>>
>> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
>
> If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one
> responds at all so much as it is the style with which one
> responds, IMO.

Irrelevant given that I've already proven that subjectivists around here
habitually make gratutious personal attacks. In case that goes over your
head Jenn, that means that their attacks aren't responses to anything.

Do try to follow the simple logic Jenn - if the Subs around here don't need
anything at all to respond to in order to make their frequent attacks - all
stylistic issues are moot.

To simplify things even further for you Jenn, it is proven and admitted
fact that some Subs around here attack me simply because I ever existed.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> et>,
> > wrote:

>> Agreed. The subjectivists tend not to be able to
>> discuss anything without resulting to personal attacks.
>> You'd be hard pressed to find one thread on any subject
>> where some subjectivist didn't initiate personal
>> attacks.

> No, I wouldn't. My personal experience shows otherwise.

Your personal experience with RAO as a reasonble forum is zero, Jenn. You're
only familiar with the RAO that our Subs have been working hard to create
for something like 6-8 years.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> et>,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> . com>,
>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Jenn
>>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>>>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
>>>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's clearly true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
>>>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
>>>>>> justified, for some reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>
>>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are
>>>> flung.
>>>
>>> I've seen it happen both directions.
>>
>> Yet another red herring argument.
>
> No, it's not.
>
>> The fact that, through persistence the
>> Subs are sometimes able to provoke a response does not
>> change the fact that they are the major source of
>> provocations around here.
>>
>> What the Subs around here do is akin to walking up to
>> some folks who are trying to hold an intelligent
>> conversation and screaming at the top of their lungs.
>> It's childish behavior, pure and simple. The Obs
>> response around here is similar to what you'd see happen
>> in real life - they do respond to the screaming
>> children.
>
> Already addressed.

Yes, addressed in a cowardly way by attempting to sweep the relevant facts
under the proverbial carpet.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> . com>,
>>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
>>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How low
>>>>>>>>>>>> can the so-called subjectivists go?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
>>>>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of
>>>>>>>>>>> tweaks seriously.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
>>>>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>>>>>>>> substance to avoid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
>>>>>>> go?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree
>>>>>>>>> or disagree if others are doing so and I have
>>>>>>>>> nothing new to add.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
>>>>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
>>>>>> typical of her.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
>>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment
>>>>> on points where my views are already expressed by
>>>>> others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>>>>
>>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
>>>
>>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>>
>> Not worth the trouble.
>
> So you feel comfortable with making claims that you
> can't/won't support.
>
>>>>> , he calls me a
>>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
>>>>
>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>
>>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
>>> though the claim is totally unsupported.
>>
>> Of course. jenn, providing support to you of your
>> misbehavioir is a waste of my time.
>
> What "misbehavior" would that be, Arny? Please be
> specific.

What's unclear about "Providing support to you of your
misbehavioir is a waste of my time" ?


>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
>>>> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
>>>> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks
>>>> around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't
>>>> deal with the message, they just attack the messenger,
>>>> whether he's actually delivering a message at the time
>>>> or not.
>>
>>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
>>>> myself,
>>
>>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything.
>>
>> Horsefeathers.

> Whatever. I don't "like to pretend" anything.

Yawn.

>>> The clear
>>> fact is that you often display an abrasive personality.
>>
>> When in Rome.

> No one is forcing you to be abrasive.

There's no reward for being anything but abrasive to people who refuse to
take responsibility for their actions. If you want to find me playing nice,
find me in a nice forum.

> I say again: one tends to get as one gives.

As you say Jenn, "tends". That can be true in a reasonable context but it is
well known that this is not a reasonable context. One reason why this is not
a reasonble context related to the cowardice of those who expect better from
their opponents than they expect from their allies.

>> To call most of the subjectivists around here "abrasive"
>> would be a fine example of the opposite of hyperbole.

>>> I seriously doubt that anyone would disagree with that
>>> statement. As per my post yesterday, my advice is to
>>> simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you
>>> don't like how someone is treating you, ignore them; the
>>> problem is likely to go away.
>>
>> Jenn I've provided proof to you of that being wrong.

> No, you haven't.

End of discussion on the grounds of stonewalling by a coward who can't face
reality.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article
> et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> . com>,
>>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
>>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How low
>>>>>>>>>>>> can the so-called subjectivists go?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
>>>>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind
>>>>>>>>>>> of tweaks seriously.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
>>>>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>>>>>>>> substance to avoid?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
>>>>>>> go?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree
>>>>>>>>> or disagree if others are doing so and I have
>>>>>>>>> nothing new to add.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
>>>>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
>>>>>> typical of her.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
>>>>> did.
>>>>
>>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment
>>>>> on points where my views are already expressed by
>>>>> others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>>>>
>>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
>>>
>>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>>>
>>>>> , he calls me a
>>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
>>>>
>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>
>>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
>>> though the claim is totally unsupported.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly
>>>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming
>>>> majority of personal
>>>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they
>>>> don't deal with the message, they just attack the
>>>> messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
>>>> message at the time or not.
>>>>
>>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
>>>> myself,
>>>
>>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear
>>> fact is that you often display an abrasive personality.
>>> I seriously doubt that anyone would disagree with that
>>> statement.
>>
>> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that
>> are the instigators of the attacks.
>
> Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for
> example. Would YOU disagree with the statement that Arny
> displays an abrasive personality?
>
>> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything
>> close to actual objective audio information, one tends
>> to have little patience with assholes.
>>
>> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people
>> who never are to you?
>>
>> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the
>> pattern far to often to pretend that it is anything
>> other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX and other
>> things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has
>> been a target ever since. It has little to do with his
>> personality and everything to do with his audio views.
>>
>> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win
>> an argument on any audio subject against Arny and they
>> know it, so they attack everything and anything else.
>
> So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
>
>>
>> As per my post yesterday, my advice
>>> is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.
>>> If you don't like how someone is treating you, ignore
>>> them; the problem is likely to go away.
>>>
>>
>> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to
>> let up until anybody who makes any accurate and
>> consistent statements about audio is driven away. It is
>> they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let
>> people make up their minds about what is real and what
>> is not, but they will not let that happen. They trash
>> every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
>> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have
>> already seen, form the likes of Middius, EddieM and
>> Fella.
>
> Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements made
> to me based on what I hear? "You're either stupid, deaf,
> or crazy." All for simply and politely expressing my
> opinion.
>
>>
>> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact
>> that they will never let up and they will not let up.
>
> Has it been tried?

Asked and answered.

BTW the answer is: "Of course".

Yet another example of Jenn's inability to admit she is wrong when she has
been clearly proven to be wrong.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>
> No, you get sued for lying.
>
>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
>> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
>> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks around
>> here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with
>> the message, they just attack the messenger, whether
>> he's actually delivering a message at the time or not.

> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new tweaker?

Red herring argument. Their response to the new tweaker is itself abusive.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >
> > No, you get sued for lying.
> >
> >> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
> >> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
> >> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks around
> >> here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with
> >> the message, they just attack the messenger, whether
> >> he's actually delivering a message at the time or not.
>
> > Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new tweaker?
>
> Red herring argument. Their response to the new tweaker is itself abusive.

It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.

Stephen

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>
>>> No, you get sued for lying.
>>>
>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
>>>> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
>>>> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks
>>>> around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't
>>>> deal with the message, they just attack the messenger,
>>>> whether he's actually delivering a message at the time
>>>> or not.
>>
>>> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new tweaker?
>>
>> Red herring argument. Their response to the new tweaker
>> is itself abusive.
>
> It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.

Yet another straw man argument. At this point the objections of the Subs
around here are largely personal. I could switch polarities as it were (note
that I claim that I'm a Sub, which a Sub has, true to form recently lied
about) and I would expect not a lot to change. There's something about being
a plain old Sub that tends to make people abusive.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >>>
> >>> No, you get sued for lying.
> >>>
> >>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
> >>>> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
> >>>> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks
> >>>> around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't
> >>>> deal with the message, they just attack the messenger,
> >>>> whether he's actually delivering a message at the time
> >>>> or not.
> >>
> >>> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new tweaker?
> >>
> >> Red herring argument. Their response to the new tweaker
> >> is itself abusive.
> >
> > It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.
>
> Yet another straw man argument.

You've used this inaccurately so often as to make it meaningless. If
so-called "Subs" attack you or tweaks alike, this shows there's
something other than audio philosophy involved.

Are you saying that you are attacked for a reason other than your audio
views?

> At this point the objections of the Subs
> around here are largely personal. I could switch polarities as it were (note
> that I claim that I'm a Sub, which a Sub has, true to form recently lied
> about) and I would expect not a lot to change. There's something about being
> a plain old Sub that tends to make people abusive.

What is it about being a "Sub" that makes you abusive? Or do you mean
you're abused because you're a "Sub"?

Stephen

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> message
>> ups.com...
>> > From: >
>> > Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
>> > Email: >
>> >
>> >>Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they
>> >>simply
>> >>respond to them when they are flung.
>> >
>> > Translation: "They make me do it!"
>>
>> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
>
> If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one responds at all so
> much as it is the style with which one responds, IMO.
>
So substance is not important?
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.
One can learn from a curmudgeon, but not from someone without any knowledge.
Guess which I prefer?

>> Many "objectivists, do not or respond rarely to the constant barrage of
>> insults that are spewed by people like Middius, et al. The fact is stll
>> that there are far more subjectivists insulting objecitivists,than the
>> other
>> way round.
>> >
>> > I stated this yesterday and you disagreed. Now you agree.
>> >
>> No, I don't agree.
>>
>> > Make up your 'mind' nob.
>>
>> I have. The subjectivists are not very nice as a rule.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article . com>,
>> >> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> From: Jenn
>> >> >> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>> >> >> Email: Jenn >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around insults. I'm just
>> >> >> >saying
>> >> >> >that the subjs do too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's clearly true.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think that their
>> >> >> insults
>> >> >> are better, or warranted, or more justified, for some reason.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course.
>> >>
>> >> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they
>> >> simply
>> >> respond to them when they are flung.
>> >
>> > I've seen it happen both directions. It's all stupid, IMHO.
>>
>> Agreed. The subjectivists tend not to be able to discuss anything
>> without
>> resulting to personal attacks. You'd be hard pressed to find one thread
>> on
>> any subject where some subjectivist didn't initiate personal attacks.
>
> No, I wouldn't. My personal experience shows otherwise.

Compare the number to those initiated by objectivists. The Subs attack
about 98% more of the time. This is historically the case. To deny it is
to deny history and the plain facts.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
>> In article
>> et>,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In article
>>>> . com>,
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> From: Jenn
>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
>>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's clearly true.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
>>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or more
>>>>> justified, for some reason.
>>>>
>>>> Of course.
>>>
>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are flung.
>>
>> I've seen it happen both directions.
>
> Yet another red herring argument. The fact that, through persistence the
> Subs are sometimes able to provoke a response does not change the fact
> that they are the major source of provocations around here.
>
> What the Subs around here do is akin to walking up to some folks who are
> trying to hold an intelligent conversation and screaming at the top of
> their lungs. It's childish behavior, pure and simple. The Obs response
> around here is similar to what you'd see happen in real life - they do
> respond to the screaming children.
Exactly.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> > In article
>> >> > . com>,
>> >> > "vlad" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >>> In article
>> >> >>> >, "Arny
>> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> In article
>> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
>> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
>> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>> >> >>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
>> >> >>>>> new to add.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>> >> >
>> >> > Of course.
>> >> >
>> >> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>> >> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
>> >> >> of her.
>> >> >
>> >> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
>> >>
>> >> > Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
>> >> > points where my views are already expressed by others
>> >> > (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>> >>
>> >> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
>> >
>> > LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>> >
>> >> >, he calls me a
>> >> > coward (attacking the messenger.)
>> >>
>> >> Sue me for telling the truth.
>> >
>> > You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even though the claim
>> > is totally unsupported.
>> >
>> >
>> >> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO,
>> >> particularly
>> >> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
>> >> personal
>> >> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with
>> >> the
>> >> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually
>> >> delivering
>> >> a
>> >> message at the time or not.
>> >>
>> >> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself,
>> >
>> > False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear fact is that you
>> > often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that anyone
>> > would disagree with that statement.
>>
>> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that are the
>> instigators
>> of the attacks.
>
> Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for example.

You hae your head elsewhere when it comes to the source of the problem.

Would YOU
> disagree with the statement that Arny displays an abrasive personality?
>
If you get harrassed for being alive for the last 8 years, you tend to get
testy.
I've been here for a very long time and not seen any testiness unless
provoked.


>> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything close to actual
>> objective audio information, one tends to have little patience with
>> assholes.
>>
>> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people who never are to
>> you?
>>
>> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the pattern far to
>> often
>> to pretend that it is anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX
>> and
>> other things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has been a
>> target
>> ever since. It has little to do with his personality and everything to
>> do
>> with his audio views.
>>
>> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win an argument on any
>> audio subject against Arny and they know it, so they attack everything
>> and
>> anything else.
>
> So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
>
So don't talk about reality in audio?????????????????/
>>
>> As per my post yesterday, my advice
>> > is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you don't like
>> > how someone is treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely to go
>> > away.
>> >
>>
>> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to let up until
>> anybody
>> who makes any accurate and consistent statements about audio is driven
>> away.
>> It is they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let people make
>> up
>> their minds about what is real and what is not, but they will not let
>> that
>> happen. They trash every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
>> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have already seen, form
>> the
>> likes of Middius, EddieM and Fella.
>
> Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements made to me based on
> what I hear? "You're either stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply
> and politely expressing my opinion.
>
Because it is quite clearly an opinion that makes no sense based on the
reality of CD playback and the facts of the immense amounts of ditortion
present in LP's, combined with your profession.

If having your opinions challenged in that way is to much for you, then it's
time for you to either grow a thicker skin or get out. AFAIK I was the
ahrdest on you about your statments on timbre but I don't believe I called
you stupid. I don't think anybody else did either.

>>
>> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact that they will
>> never
>> let up and they will not let up.
>
> Has it been tried?
>
>>
Of course it's been tried, but as Arny has already told you, he doesn't have
to be here for people to attack him. There was never any reason for Middius
to use foul language in reards to Arny's wife and family, yet it has been
done regularly. You still don't get it, it doesn't matter anymore what he
says, he provoked the Gods of subjectivism and told the truth, and has had a
target on his back ever since. It has nothing to with him per se, as evey
single objectiv ist has been treated the same way.

Look up posts from JJ, ( the guy who wrothe the book on much of digital
playback) Stewart Pinkerton, Nousaine or from Dr. B.J. Feng. None of them
got any respect and all were or are trashed every time they post by the
usual suspects, mostly Middius.

Even a bona fide expert and near legend in audio, Dick Pierce gets ****
hurled at him because he actually knows what he is talking about.

I ask again, what is the benefit of being nice oreven civil to Middius,
Fella, or anyone who resents the fact that you know anything and have the
audacity to both speak the truth and draw breath?

>> >> but the record
>> >> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked.
>> >> Furthmore, I
>> >> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
>> >>
>> >> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks
>> >> against
>> >> me.
>> >> That fact completely falsifies their claims that I bring the attacks
>> >> on
>> >> myself.
>> >
>> > Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?

If you deny that the truth is the truth because you don't think it's nice to
provoke people who don't care about anything other than insults and attacks,
then you ARE a coward. Some people actually are just plain NASTY. For all
the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have attacked him because
it is better for people to have the right information, that's the kind of
person he is, not the made up monster that the swine here would like you to
believe, and the evidence is clear by visiting other groups where the idiots
who post here don't usually go.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:00:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>End of discussion on the grounds of stonewalling by a coward who can't face
>reality.

Degragatory personal abuse from Mr. Krueger noted.

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
> >
> > Jenn has no response because any reasonable response would be against her
> > agenda.
>
> I've addressed it before. Agenda? My "agenda" is to have a productive
> group.
>

Well, I must say you have been quite easily led astray.... of
course we all have to one degree or another. Time to drop this
futile pursuit and get back on agenda.

ScottW

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >>> From: >
> >>> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
> >>> Email: >
> >>>
> >>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
> >>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are
> >>>> flung.
> >>>
> >>> Translation: "They make me do it!"
> >>
> >> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
> >
> > If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one
> > responds at all so much as it is the style with which one
> > responds, IMO.
>
> Irrelevant given that I've already proven that subjectivists around here
> habitually make gratutious personal attacks. In case that goes over your
> head Jenn, that means that their attacks aren't responses to anything.
>
> Do try to follow the simple logic Jenn - if the Subs around here don't need
> anything at all to respond to in order to make their frequent attacks - all
> stylistic issues are moot.
>
> To simplify things even further for you Jenn, it is proven and admitted
> fact that some Subs around here attack me simply because I ever existed.

Arny, the style of your message above is part of the problem.
Throughout this discussion, I've been nothing but nice to you. And yet
you throw out these little gratuitous jabs. Can't you see that this is
part of the problem? You INVITE a stupid trade of insults. Now, I'm
not going to bite at your lure, so I guess that you'll have to hope
that someone else does.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > et>,
> > > wrote:
>
> >> Agreed. The subjectivists tend not to be able to
> >> discuss anything without resulting to personal attacks.
> >> You'd be hard pressed to find one thread on any subject
> >> where some subjectivist didn't initiate personal
> >> attacks.
>
> > No, I wouldn't. My personal experience shows otherwise.
>
> Your personal experience with RAO as a reasonble forum is zero, Jenn.

True, but that's not the point. Mike said that I'd be hard pressed to
find a thread where "some subjectivist" didn't initiate personal
attacks. The fact is that I wouldn't be hard pressed. The present
discussions between you and me are good examples of "some subjectivist"
NOT starting personal attacks.

> You're
> only familiar with the RAO that our Subs have been working hard to create
> for something like 6-8 years.

So stop responding.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> . com>,
> >>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How low
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of
> >>>>>>>>>>> tweaks seriously.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
> >>>>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >>>>>>>> substance to avoid?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
> >>>>>>> go?"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree
> >>>>>>>>> or disagree if others are doing so and I have
> >>>>>>>>> nothing new to add.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
> >>>>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
> >>>>>> typical of her.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
> >>>>> did.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment
> >>>>> on points where my views are already expressed by
> >>>>> others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
> >>>
> >>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
> >>
> >> Not worth the trouble.
> >
> > So you feel comfortable with making claims that you
> > can't/won't support.
> >
> >>>>> , he calls me a
> >>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >>>
> >>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
> >>> though the claim is totally unsupported.
> >>
> >> Of course. jenn, providing support to you of your
> >> misbehavioir is a waste of my time.
> >
> > What "misbehavior" would that be, Arny? Please be
> > specific.
>
> What's unclear about "Providing support to you of your
> misbehavioir is a waste of my time" ?

So you're comfortable with saying that I misbehave, and yet not
supporting your allegation.

>
>
> >>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists
> >>>> on RAO, particularly 2 or three of them are the source
> >>>> sof the overwhelming majority of personal attacks
> >>>> around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't
> >>>> deal with the message, they just attack the messenger,
> >>>> whether he's actually delivering a message at the time
> >>>> or not.
> >>
> >>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
> >>>> myself,
> >>
> >>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything.
> >>
> >> Horsefeathers.
>
> > Whatever. I don't "like to pretend" anything.
>
> Yawn.
>
> >>> The clear
> >>> fact is that you often display an abrasive personality.
> >>
> >> When in Rome.
>
> > No one is forcing you to be abrasive.
>
> There's no reward for being anything but abrasive to people who refuse to
> take responsibility for their actions.

And your reward for being abrasive has been....?


> If you want to find me playing nice,
> find me in a nice forum.
>
> > I say again: one tends to get as one gives.
>
> As you say Jenn, "tends". That can be true in a reasonable context but it is
> well known that this is not a reasonable context. One reason why this is not
> a reasonble context related to the cowardice of those who expect better from
> their opponents than they expect from their allies.

Hunam nature is fairly consistant. If you don't provide them with
"ammo" sooner or later they will grow tired of the game. The ball is
in your court.


> >> To call most of the subjectivists around here "abrasive"
> >> would be a fine example of the opposite of hyperbole.
>
> >>> I seriously doubt that anyone would disagree with that
> >>> statement. As per my post yesterday, my advice is to
> >>> simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you
> >>> don't like how someone is treating you, ignore them; the
> >>> problem is likely to go away.
> >>
> >> Jenn I've provided proof to you of that being wrong.
>
> > No, you haven't.
>
> End of discussion on the grounds of stonewalling by a coward who can't face
> reality.

Can't you see that I'm trying to help, Arny? I'm being as nice as any
person can be, and yet you throw another insult.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article
> > et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> . com>,
> >>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How low
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
> >>>>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind
> >>>>>>>>>>> of tweaks seriously.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
> >>>>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >>>>>>>> substance to avoid?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
> >>>>>>> go?"
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree
> >>>>>>>>> or disagree if others are doing so and I have
> >>>>>>>>> nothing new to add.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
> >>>>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
> >>>>>> typical of her.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
> >>>>> did.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment
> >>>>> on points where my views are already expressed by
> >>>>> others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
> >>>
> >>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
> >>>
> >>>>> , he calls me a
> >>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >>>
> >>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
> >>> though the claim is totally unsupported.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
> >>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly
> >>>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming
> >>>> majority of personal
> >>>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they
> >>>> don't deal with the message, they just attack the
> >>>> messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
> >>>> message at the time or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
> >>>> myself,
> >>>
> >>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear
> >>> fact is that you often display an abrasive personality.
> >>> I seriously doubt that anyone would disagree with that
> >>> statement.
> >>
> >> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that
> >> are the instigators of the attacks.
> >
> > Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for
> > example. Would YOU disagree with the statement that Arny
> > displays an abrasive personality?
> >
> >> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything
> >> close to actual objective audio information, one tends
> >> to have little patience with assholes.
> >>
> >> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people
> >> who never are to you?
> >>
> >> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the
> >> pattern far to often to pretend that it is anything
> >> other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX and other
> >> things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has
> >> been a target ever since. It has little to do with his
> >> personality and everything to do with his audio views.
> >>
> >> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win
> >> an argument on any audio subject against Arny and they
> >> know it, so they attack everything and anything else.
> >
> > So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
> >
> >>
> >> As per my post yesterday, my advice
> >>> is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.
> >>> If you don't like how someone is treating you, ignore
> >>> them; the problem is likely to go away.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to
> >> let up until anybody who makes any accurate and
> >> consistent statements about audio is driven away. It is
> >> they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let
> >> people make up their minds about what is real and what
> >> is not, but they will not let that happen. They trash
> >> every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
> >> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have
> >> already seen, form the likes of Middius, EddieM and
> >> Fella.
> >
> > Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements made
> > to me based on what I hear? "You're either stupid, deaf,
> > or crazy." All for simply and politely expressing my
> > opinion.
> >
> >>
> >> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact
> >> that they will never let up and they will not let up.
> >
> > Has it been tried?
>
> Asked and answered.
>
> BTW the answer is: "Of course".

Honestly... have you given it, say, a week or two? I've seen no
evidence of that.

> Yet another example of Jenn's inability to admit she is wrong when she has
> been clearly proven to be wrong.

Yet another uncalled for insult. Are you seeing a pattern, Arny?

[Jenn]

wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > From: >
> >> > Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
> >> > Email: >
> >> >
> >> >>Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they
> >> >>simply
> >> >>respond to them when they are flung.
> >> >
> >> > Translation: "They make me do it!"
> >>
> >> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
> >
> > If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one responds at all so
> > much as it is the style with which one responds, IMO.
> >
> So substance is not important?

That's not the point. The obvious point is that over time people tend
to respond in the same style that they are presented with.

> Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.
> One can learn from a curmudgeon, but not from someone without any knowledge.
> Guess which I prefer?

Not the issue. The issue is, "How do each of us want to be approached
in this NG?" Do you want just constant insults? Fine, that's what you
have. If you want to change it, start changing it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> et>,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> From: >
>>>>> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
>>>>> Email: >
>>>>>
>>>>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>>>>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are
>>>>>> flung.
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: "They make me do it!"
>>>>
>>>> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
>>>
>>> If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one
>>> responds at all so much as it is the style with which
>>> one responds, IMO.
>>
>> Irrelevant given that I've already proven that
>> subjectivists around here habitually make gratutious
>> personal attacks. In case that goes over your head Jenn,
>> that means that their attacks aren't responses to
>> anything.
>>
>> Do try to follow the simple logic Jenn - if the Subs
>> around here don't need anything at all to respond to in
>> order to make their frequent attacks - all stylistic
>> issues are moot.
>>
>> To simplify things even further for you Jenn, it is
>> proven and admitted fact that some Subs around here
>> attack me simply because I ever existed.

> Arny, the style of your message above is part of the
> problem.

First off this response is yet another red herring. It's a cowardly response
to relevant facts outlined above.

But descending to your pathetic level, Jenn...

Jenn, haven't you already admitted that you speak from situation of
ignorance of the past 10 years or so of RAO?

Here's what regrettably seems to be a much-needed clue - my posting style on
RAO today is based on those 10 years of experience which you obviously lack.
As soon as you quit being confrontational and condescending with me, I'll
consider extending similar courtesy to you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com

> Not the issue.

Who elected you God, Jenn?

You don't get to unilaterally pick the issues.

> The issue is, "How do each of us want to be approached in this NG?"

Impossible as long as the usual list of suspects dominate the place.

> Do you want just constant insults?

Easy, workable solution - post someplace else - you know, a place where
people are interested in audio.

> Fine, that's what you have. If you want to change it, start changing it.

Jenn, there are certain non-negotiable changes that are outside of my
control. Too bad about that room you seem to be posting from - you know the
one in Fantasy Land?

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> et>,
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> Agreed. The subjectivists tend not to be able to
>>>> discuss anything without resulting to personal attacks.
>>>> You'd be hard pressed to find one thread on any subject
>>>> where some subjectivist didn't initiate personal
>>>> attacks.
>>
>>> No, I wouldn't. My personal experience shows otherwise.
>>
>> Your personal experience with RAO as a reasonble forum
>> is zero, Jenn.
>
> True, but that's not the point.

Says who?

Jenn AKA God Almighty?

>Mike said that I'd be
> hard pressed to find a thread where "some subjectivist"
> didn't initiate personal attacks.

I see you cowardly running from that challenge.

> The fact is that I wouldn't be hard pressed.

Huh?

> The present discussions
> between you and me are good examples of "some
> subjectivist" NOT starting personal attacks.

An contrived exception does not disprove the readily-observable global
trend.

>> You're
>> only familiar with the RAO that our Subs have been
>> working hard to create for something like 6-8 years.

> So stop responding.

Been there, done that and for years at a time.

Do try to remember what I've told you in the past few weeks, Jenn. I get
tired of repeating myself.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> et>,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> . com>,
>>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> From: Jenn
>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
>>>>>>>> Email: Jenn >
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
>>>>>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's clearly true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
>>>>>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or
>>>>>>>> more justified, for some reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>>>>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are
>>>>>> flung.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen it happen both directions.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another red herring argument.
>>>
>>> No, it's not.
>>>
>>>> The fact that, through persistence the
>>>> Subs are sometimes able to provoke a response does not
>>>> change the fact that they are the major source of
>>>> provocations around here.
>>>>
>>>> What the Subs around here do is akin to walking up to
>>>> some folks who are trying to hold an intelligent
>>>> conversation and screaming at the top of their lungs.
>>>> It's childish behavior, pure and simple. The Obs
>>>> response around here is similar to what you'd see
>>>> happen in real life - they do respond to the screaming
>>>> children.
>>>
>>> Already addressed.
>>
>> Yes, addressed in a cowardly way by attempting to sweep
>> the relevant facts under the proverbial carpet.
>
> Again with the gratuitous namecalling. Why, Arny?

It's not gratuitous when the shoe so clearly fits.

> I've been very nice to you here.

I don't call trying to drown me in straw man arguments "Being nice".

>And, I've attempted to "sweep" nothing.

???????????//

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said to duh-Mikey:

> The issue is, "How do each of us want to be approached
> in this NG?" Do you want just constant insults? Fine, that's what you
> have. If you want to change it, start changing it.

Mickey's problem is that he's not smart enough to understand what you're
saying. He pretends to dislike being confronted continuously about the
weakness of his mind, but in reality he needs the treatment he receives on
Usenet. Like the Krooborg, his overpowering sense of victimhood requires
constant reinforcement. That's why those two dimbulbs keep coming back for
more punishment, time after time, year in, year out. It will never end.






--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> et>,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> . com>,
>>>>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for short, has classed up the place by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving everybody who want them free tweaks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of tweaks seriously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
>>>>>>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>>>>>>>>>> substance to avoid?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>>>>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
>>>>>>>>> go?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree
>>>>>>>>>>> or disagree if others are doing so and I have
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing new to add.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
>>>>>>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>>>>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
>>>>>>>> typical of her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment
>>>>>>> on points where my views are already expressed by
>>>>>>> others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit
>>>>>> moves.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>>>>>
>>>>>>> , he calls me a
>>>>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
>>>>> though the claim is totally unsupported.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly
>>>>>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the
>>>>>> overwhelming majority of personal
>>>>>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they
>>>>>> don't deal with the message, they just attack the
>>>>>> messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
>>>>>> message at the time or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
>>>>>> myself,
>>>>>
>>>>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear
>>>>> fact is that you often display an abrasive
>>>>> personality. I seriously doubt that anyone would
>>>>> disagree with that statement.
>>>>
>>>> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that
>>>> are the instigators of the attacks.
>>>
>>> Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for
>>> example. Would YOU disagree with the statement that
>>> Arny displays an abrasive personality?
>>>
>>>> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything
>>>> close to actual objective audio information, one tends
>>>> to have little patience with assholes.
>>>>
>>>> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people
>>>> who never are to you?
>>>>
>>>> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the
>>>> pattern far to often to pretend that it is anything
>>>> other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX and other
>>>> things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he
>>>> has been a target ever since. It has little to do
>>>> with his personality and everything to do with his
>>>> audio views.
>>>>
>>>> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win
>>>> an argument on any audio subject against Arny and they
>>>> know it, so they attack everything and anything else.
>>>
>>> So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As per my post yesterday, my advice
>>>>> is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.
>>>>> If you don't like how someone is treating you, ignore
>>>>> them; the problem is likely to go away.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to
>>>> let up until anybody who makes any accurate and
>>>> consistent statements about audio is driven away. It is
>>>> they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let
>>>> people make up their minds about what is real and what
>>>> is not, but they will not let that happen. They trash
>>>> every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
>>>> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have
>>>> already seen, form the likes of Middius, EddieM and
>>>> Fella.
>>>
>>> Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements made
>>> to me based on what I hear? "You're either stupid,
>>> deaf, or crazy." All for simply and politely
>>> expressing my opinion.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact
>>>> that they will never let up and they will not let up.
>>>
>>> Has it been tried?
>>
>> Asked and answered.
>>
>> BTW the answer is: "Of course".
>
> Honestly... have you given it, say, a week or two? I've
> seen no evidence of that.

Jenn, we covered this here a few weeks ago.

>> Yet another example of Jenn's inability to admit she is
>> wrong when she has been clearly proven to be wrong.

Here's a hint Jenn. Don't you remember a few weeks back when it was
mentioned that a group of Obs formed an accountability group and simply
stopped replying to a select group of subjectivists for like several years?
Two of the members were Stewart Pinkerton and I. The net result is that we
suffered in silence for all that time to no avail.

> Yet another uncalled for insult. Are you seeing a
> pattern, Arny?

Yeah, Jenn's convenient memory.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you get sued for lying.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly 2 or three of
>>>>>> them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
>>>>>> personal attacks around here. They don't discuss
>>>>>> issues, they don't deal with the message, they just
>>>>>> attack the messenger, whether he's actually
>>>>>> delivering a message at the time or not.
>>>>
>>>>> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new
>>>>> tweaker?
>>>>
>>>> Red herring argument. Their response to the new tweaker
>>>> is itself abusive.
>>>
>>> It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.
>>
>> Yet another straw man argument.
>
> You've used this inaccurately so often as to make it
> meaningless. If so-called "Subs" attack you or tweaks
> alike, this shows there's something other than audio
> philosophy involved.

Doooh!

> Are you saying that you are attacked for a reason other
> than your audio views?

Doooh!

>> At this point the objections of the Subs
>> around here are largely personal. I could switch
>> polarities as it were (note that I claim that I'm a Sub,
>> which a Sub has, true to form recently lied about) and I
>> would expect not a lot to change. There's something
>> about being a plain old Sub that tends to make people
>> abusive.

> What is it about being a "Sub" that makes you abusive?

Abusive?

How can you use that word to describe me, given all the other crap that
happens around here?

That's abuse all by itself!

> Or do you mean you're abused because you're a "Sub"?

I've already said it once today, where were you, Stephen.

My name is abused here simply because I lived in times past.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:26:07 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Do try to remember what I've told you in the past few weeks, Jenn. I get
>tired of repeating myself.

Talk about condescending...

Never has so much been proferred from so little...

[dave weil]

On 21 Mar 2006 12:59:59 -0800, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

>Can't you see that I'm trying to help, Arny? I'm being as nice as any
>person can be, and yet you throw another insult.

It doesn't matter. Once you've scored a few points on Arnold on one of
his bad days, he never looks back. He's totally inflexible. Just ask
Paul Packer, ScottW, jj and others who used to defend him but who
apparently said something one day when he woke up on the wrong side of
the bed and offended his sense of being a godlike entity.

I wish I could advise you on how I was able to keep The Beast from
responding. It's a trade secret that I zealously guard.

However, if you're ever casting a movie and need a 70s pimp, I'd
suggest that you look at the photos from the recent Stereophile
"debate". Just be prepared to loop his chipmunkesque voice.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> et>,
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> . com>,
> >>>>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> m
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for short, has classed up the place by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving everybody who want them free tweaks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just wondering how many have tried them?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> low can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take those kind
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of tweaks seriously.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >>>>>>>>>> substance to avoid?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >>>>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists
> >>>>>>>>> go?"
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree
> >>>>>>>>>>> or disagree if others are doing so and I have
> >>>>>>>>>>> nothing new to add.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to
> >>>>>>>>> Arny without him coming back with an insult?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >>>>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
> >>>>>>>> typical of her.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I
> >>>>>>> did.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment
> >>>>>>> on points where my views are already expressed by
> >>>>>>> others (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit
> >>>>>> moves.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> , he calls me a
> >>>>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even
> >>>>> though the claim is totally unsupported.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
> >>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly
> >>>>>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the
> >>>>>> overwhelming majority of personal
> >>>>>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they
> >>>>>> don't deal with the message, they just attack the
> >>>>>> messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
> >>>>>> message at the time or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on
> >>>>>> myself,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear
> >>>>> fact is that you often display an abrasive
> >>>>> personality. I seriously doubt that anyone would
> >>>>> disagree with that statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that
> >>>> are the instigators of the attacks.
> >>>
> >>> Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for
> >>> example. Would YOU disagree with the statement that
> >>> Arny displays an abrasive personality?
> >>>
> >>>> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything
> >>>> close to actual objective audio information, one tends
> >>>> to have little patience with assholes.
> >>>>
> >>>> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people
> >>>> who never are to you?
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the
> >>>> pattern far to often to pretend that it is anything
> >>>> other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX and other
> >>>> things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he
> >>>> has been a target ever since. It has little to do
> >>>> with his personality and everything to do with his
> >>>> audio views.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win
> >>>> an argument on any audio subject against Arny and they
> >>>> know it, so they attack everything and anything else.
> >>>
> >>> So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> As per my post yesterday, my advice
> >>>>> is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.
> >>>>> If you don't like how someone is treating you, ignore
> >>>>> them; the problem is likely to go away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to
> >>>> let up until anybody who makes any accurate and
> >>>> consistent statements about audio is driven away. It is
> >>>> they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let
> >>>> people make up their minds about what is real and what
> >>>> is not, but they will not let that happen. They trash
> >>>> every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
> >>>> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have
> >>>> already seen, form the likes of Middius, EddieM and
> >>>> Fella.
> >>>
> >>> Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements made
> >>> to me based on what I hear? "You're either stupid,
> >>> deaf, or crazy." All for simply and politely
> >>> expressing my opinion.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact
> >>>> that they will never let up and they will not let up.
> >>>
> >>> Has it been tried?
> >>
> >> Asked and answered.
> >>
> >> BTW the answer is: "Of course".
> >
> > Honestly... have you given it, say, a week or two? I've
> > seen no evidence of that.
>
> Jenn, we covered this here a few weeks ago.
>
> >> Yet another example of Jenn's inability to admit she is
> >> wrong when she has been clearly proven to be wrong.
>
> Here's a hint Jenn. Don't you remember a few weeks back when it was
> mentioned that a group of Obs formed an accountability group and simply
> stopped replying to a select group of subjectivists for like several years?
> Two of the members were Stewart Pinkerton and I. The net result is that we
> suffered in silence for all that time to no avail.

No, I must have missed that. Are you saying that you and others ignored
the offenders for several YEARS?
>
> > Yet another uncalled for insult. Are you seeing a
> > pattern, Arny?
>
> Yeah, Jenn's convenient memory.

Yet another insult.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> et>,
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> . com>,
> >>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> From: Jenn
> >>>>>>>> Date: Fri, Mar 17 2006 2:41 pm
> >>>>>>>> Email: Jenn >
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Oh, I quite agree that the "obs" throw around
> >>>>>>>>> insults. I'm just saying that the subjs do too.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's clearly true.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But it's equally true that the 'obs' seem to think
> >>>>>>>> that their insults are better, or warranted, or
> >>>>>>>> more justified, for some reason.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
> >>>>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are
> >>>>>> flung.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've seen it happen both directions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet another red herring argument.
> >>>
> >>> No, it's not.
> >>>
> >>>> The fact that, through persistence the
> >>>> Subs are sometimes able to provoke a response does not
> >>>> change the fact that they are the major source of
> >>>> provocations around here.
> >>>>
> >>>> What the Subs around here do is akin to walking up to
> >>>> some folks who are trying to hold an intelligent
> >>>> conversation and screaming at the top of their lungs.
> >>>> It's childish behavior, pure and simple. The Obs
> >>>> response around here is similar to what you'd see
> >>>> happen in real life - they do respond to the screaming
> >>>> children.
> >>>
> >>> Already addressed.
> >>
> >> Yes, addressed in a cowardly way by attempting to sweep
> >> the relevant facts under the proverbial carpet.
> >
> > Again with the gratuitous namecalling. Why, Arny?
>
> It's not gratuitous when the shoe so clearly fits.

I'm not "cowardly" Arny. You've shown nothing of the sort.
>
> > I've been very nice to you here.
>
> I don't call trying to drown me in straw man arguments "Being nice".

Please list some of my "straw man arguments".

>
> >And, I've attempted to "sweep" nothing.
>
> ???????????//

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> et>,
> >>> > wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Agreed. The subjectivists tend not to be able to
> >>>> discuss anything without resulting to personal attacks.
> >>>> You'd be hard pressed to find one thread on any subject
> >>>> where some subjectivist didn't initiate personal
> >>>> attacks.
> >>
> >>> No, I wouldn't. My personal experience shows otherwise.
> >>
> >> Your personal experience with RAO as a reasonble forum
> >> is zero, Jenn.
> >
> > True, but that's not the point.
>
> Says who?
>
> Jenn AKA God Almighty?

Um, no, says the line of conversation. My point was clearly not the
entire history of the group, but "my personal experience."

>
> >Mike said that I'd be
> > hard pressed to find a thread where "some subjectivist"
> > didn't initiate personal attacks.
>
> I see you cowardly running from that challenge.

Answered elsewhere. IOW, nothing "cowardly" about it, but the
additional needless insult is noted.

>
> > The fact is that I wouldn't be hard pressed.
>
> Huh?

See above.

>
> > The present discussions
> > between you and me are good examples of "some
> > subjectivist" NOT starting personal attacks.
>
> An contrived exception does not disprove the readily-observable global
> trend.

What's "contrived" about it? I'm a "subjectivist" and I'm not starting
any personal attacks. Indeed, I'm on the receiving end, again.

>
> >> You're
> >> only familiar with the RAO that our Subs have been
> >> working hard to create for something like 6-8 years.
>
> > So stop responding.
>
> Been there, done that and for years at a time.
>
> Do try to remember what I've told you in the past few weeks, Jenn. I get
> tired of repeating myself.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > Not the issue.
>
> Who elected you God, Jenn?
>
> You don't get to unilaterally pick the issues.

I'm simply following the conversation.

>
> > The issue is, "How do each of us want to be approached in this NG?"
>
> Impossible as long as the usual list of suspects dominate the place.

So don't let them dominate by answering them, and then validating what
they say about how you treat people.

>
> > Do you want just constant insults?
>
> Easy, workable solution - post someplace else - you know, a place where
> people are interested in audio.
>
> > Fine, that's what you have. If you want to change it, start changing it.
>
> Jenn, there are certain non-negotiable changes that are outside of my
> control.

No, you have TOTAL control over whom you post to and the nature of your
posts.

> Too bad about that room you seem to be posting from - you know the
> one in Fantasy Land?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, you get sued for lying.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
> >>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly 2 or three of
> >>>>>> them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
> >>>>>> personal attacks around here. They don't discuss
> >>>>>> issues, they don't deal with the message, they just
> >>>>>> attack the messenger, whether he's actually
> >>>>>> delivering a message at the time or not.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new
> >>>>> tweaker?
> >>>>
> >>>> Red herring argument. Their response to the new tweaker
> >>>> is itself abusive.
> >>>
> >>> It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.
> >>
> >> Yet another straw man argument.
> >
> > You've used this inaccurately so often as to make it
> > meaningless. If so-called "Subs" attack you or tweaks
> > alike, this shows there's something other than audio
> > philosophy involved.
>
> Doooh!
>
> > Are you saying that you are attacked for a reason other
> > than your audio views?
>
> Doooh!

Are you trying to do a Homer? If so, it's spelled, d'oh.

> >> At this point the objections of the Subs
> >> around here are largely personal. I could switch
> >> polarities as it were (note that I claim that I'm a Sub,
> >> which a Sub has, true to form recently lied about) and I
> >> would expect not a lot to change. There's something
> >> about being a plain old Sub that tends to make people
> >> abusive.
>
> > What is it about being a "Sub" that makes you abusive?
>
> Abusive?
>
> How can you use that word to describe me, given all the other crap that
> happens around here?

Because you're nasty and insulting, qualities sometimes associated with
being abusive. Of course, it's your word, so I should really ask what
you mean by it.

> That's abuse all by itself!

Don't be modest: you give pretty good yourself.

> > Or do you mean you're abused because you're a "Sub"?
>
> I've already said it once today, where were you, Stephen.
>
> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times past.

Pure as the driven snow, eh? You've established quite a track record.
It's a wonder anyone respects you at all despite your demonstrable
knowledge and ability to explain stuff you show on other forums.

Stephen

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> et>,
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> >>>> > wrote in message
> >>>> ups.com...
> >>>>> From: >
> >>>>> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
> >>>>> Email: >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
> >>>>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are
> >>>>>> flung.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Translation: "They make me do it!"
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
> >>>
> >>> If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one
> >>> responds at all so much as it is the style with which
> >>> one responds, IMO.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant given that I've already proven that
> >> subjectivists around here habitually make gratutious
> >> personal attacks. In case that goes over your head Jenn,
> >> that means that their attacks aren't responses to
> >> anything.
> >>
> >> Do try to follow the simple logic Jenn - if the Subs
> >> around here don't need anything at all to respond to in
> >> order to make their frequent attacks - all stylistic
> >> issues are moot.
> >>
> >> To simplify things even further for you Jenn, it is
> >> proven and admitted fact that some Subs around here
> >> attack me simply because I ever existed.
>
> > Arny, the style of your message above is part of the
> > problem.
>
> First off this response is yet another red herring.

It's not a red herring at all. Are we not discussing, in part, why you
get flamed and how to stop it?

> It's a cowardly response
> to relevant facts outlined above.

Nothing "cowardly" about it, Arny.

>
> But descending to your pathetic level, Jenn...

Another needless insult...

>
> Jenn, haven't you already admitted that you speak from situation of
> ignorance of the past 10 years or so of RAO?

Other than just a bit of reading of past posts, yes.

>
> Here's what regrettably seems to be a much-needed clue - my posting style on
> RAO today is based on those 10 years of experience which you obviously lack.

You can change the nature of the group if you wish to. Lead by example.

> As soon as you quit being confrontational and condescending with me,

LOL Please show some posts, particularly in this discussion, where I
have been "confrontational and condescending" with you. Indeed, most
people would agree that it has been YOU who has been acting that way.

> I'll
> consider extending similar courtesy to you.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> et>,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>> From: >
>>>>>>> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
>>>>>>> Email: >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start
>>>>>>>> the insults, they simply respond to them when they
>>>>>>>> are flung.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: "They make me do it!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one
>>>>> responds at all so much as it is the style with which
>>>>> one responds, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> Irrelevant given that I've already proven that
>>>> subjectivists around here habitually make gratutious
>>>> personal attacks. In case that goes over your head
>>>> Jenn, that means that their attacks aren't responses to
>>>> anything.
>>>>
>>>> Do try to follow the simple logic Jenn - if the Subs
>>>> around here don't need anything at all to respond to in
>>>> order to make their frequent attacks - all stylistic
>>>> issues are moot.
>>>>
>>>> To simplify things even further for you Jenn, it is
>>>> proven and admitted fact that some Subs around here
>>>> attack me simply because I ever existed.
>>
>>> Arny, the style of your message above is part of the
>>> problem.
>>
>> First off this response is yet another red herring.
>
> It's not a red herring at all. Are we not discussing, in
> part, why you get flamed and how to stop it?
>
>> It's a cowardly response
>> to relevant facts outlined above.
>
> Nothing "cowardly" about it, Arny.
>
>>
>> But descending to your pathetic level, Jenn...
>
> Another needless insult...
>
>>
>> Jenn, haven't you already admitted that you speak from
>> situation of ignorance of the past 10 years or so of RAO?
>
> Other than just a bit of reading of past posts, yes.
>
>>
>> Here's what regrettably seems to be a much-needed clue -
>> my posting style on RAO today is based on those 10 years
>> of experience which you obviously lack.
>
> You can change the nature of the group if you wish to.
> Lead by example.

Been there done that, it didn't work.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> Not the issue.
>>
>> Who elected you God, Jenn?
>>
>> You don't get to unilaterally pick the issues.
>
> I'm simply following the conversation.
>
>>
>>> The issue is, "How do each of us want to be approached
>>> in this NG?"
>>
>> Impossible as long as the usual list of suspects
>> dominate the place.

> So don't let them dominate by answering them, and then
> validating what they say about how you treat people.

How many times do I have to explain to you how that was tried, and how it
had zero effect?

>>> Do you want just constant insults?

>> Easy, workable solution - post someplace else - you
>> know, a place where people are interested in audio.
>>
>>> Fine, that's what you have. If you want to change it,
>>> start changing it.
>>
>> Jenn, there are certain non-negotiable changes that are
>> outside of my control.
>
> No, you have TOTAL control over whom you post to and the
> nature of your posts.

Problem is, that is the extent of the control I have.

RAO is going to be a hellhole until the usual suspects umm, expire.

[Jenn]

In article et>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > . com>,
> >> >> > "vlad" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >>> In article
> >> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> m
> >> >> >>>>> In article
> >> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>>> .
> >> >> >>>>>> com
> >> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >> >> >>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
> >> >> >>>>> new to add.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Of course.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >> >> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
> >> >> >> of her.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
> >> >> > points where my views are already expressed by others
> >> >> > (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
> >> >>
> >> >> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
> >> >
> >> > LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
> >> >
> >> >> >, he calls me a
> >> >> > coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >> >>
> >> >> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >> >
> >> > You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even though the claim
> >> > is totally unsupported.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO,
> >> >> particularly
> >> >> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
> >> >> personal
> >> >> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with
> >> >> the
> >> >> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually
> >> >> delivering
> >> >> a
> >> >> message at the time or not.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself,
> >> >
> >> > False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear fact is that you
> >> > often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that anyone
> >> > would disagree with that statement.
> >>
> >> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that are the
> >> instigators
> >> of the attacks.
> >
> > Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for example.
>
> You hae your head elsewhere when it comes to the source of the problem.

I'm providing an example of those who would agree with my statement, who
also don't instigate attacks.

>
> Would YOU
> > disagree with the statement that Arny displays an abrasive personality?
> >
> If you get harrassed for being alive for the last 8 years, you tend to get
> testy.

I would never be harassed by anyone for 8 years.

> I've been here for a very long time and not seen any testiness unless
> provoked.

Please be willing to back up that statement. Most would say that Arny
has been "testy" toward me in the present discussion. How, exactly,
have I provoked it?

>
>
> >> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything close to actual
> >> objective audio information, one tends to have little patience with
> >> assholes.
> >>
> >> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people who never are to
> >> you?
> >>
> >> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the pattern far to
> >> often
> >> to pretend that it is anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX
> >> and
> >> other things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has been a
> >> target
> >> ever since. It has little to do with his personality and everything to
> >> do
> >> with his audio views.
> >>
> >> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win an argument on any
> >> audio subject against Arny and they know it, so they attack everything
> >> and
> >> anything else.
> >
> > So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
> >
> So don't talk about reality in audio?????????????????/
> >>
> >> As per my post yesterday, my advice
> >> > is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated. If you don't like
> >> > how someone is treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely to go
> >> > away.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to let up until
> >> anybody
> >> who makes any accurate and consistent statements about audio is driven
> >> away.
> >> It is they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley let people make
> >> up
> >> their minds about what is real and what is not, but they will not let
> >> that
> >> happen. They trash every single audio topic and do it with the most vile
> >> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have already seen, form
> >> the
> >> likes of Middius, EddieM and Fella.
> >
> > Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements made to me based on
> > what I hear? "You're either stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply
> > and politely expressing my opinion.
> >
> Because it is quite clearly an opinion that makes no sense based on the
> reality of CD playback and the facts of the immense amounts of ditortion
> present in LP's, combined with your profession.

And since you can't understand the opinion, you feel free to toss
insults as a response? Most folks wouldn't see that as a very adult
response.

>
> If having your opinions challenged in that way is to much for you, then it's
> time for you to either grow a thicker skin or get out.

You're probably right. The later option is probably the right one.

> AFAIK I was the
> ahrdest on you about your statments on timbre but I don't believe I called
> you stupid. I don't think anybody else did either.

Yes, you held that up as a possibility.

>
> >>
> >> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact that they will
> >> never
> >> let up and they will not let up.
> >
> > Has it been tried?
> >
> >>
> Of course it's been tried, but as Arny has already told you, he doesn't have
> to be here for people to attack him. There was never any reason for Middius
> to use foul language in reards to Arny's wife and family, yet it has been
> done regularly. You still don't get it, it doesn't matter anymore what he
> says, he provoked the Gods of subjectivism and told the truth, and has had a
> target on his back ever since. It has nothing to with him per se, as evey
> single objectiv ist has been treated the same way.
>
> Look up posts from JJ, ( the guy who wrothe the book on much of digital
> playback) Stewart Pinkerton, Nousaine or from Dr. B.J. Feng. None of them
> got any respect and all were or are trashed every time they post by the
> usual suspects, mostly Middius.
>
> Even a bona fide expert and near legend in audio, Dick Pierce gets ****
> hurled at him because he actually knows what he is talking about.
>
> I ask again, what is the benefit of being nice oreven civil to Middius,
> Fella, or anyone who resents the fact that you know anything and have the
> audacity to both speak the truth and draw breath?
>
> >> >> but the record
> >> >> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked.
> >> >> Furthmore, I
> >> >> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks
> >> >> against
> >> >> me.
> >> >> That fact completely falsifies their claims that I bring the attacks
> >> >> on
> >> >> myself.
> >> >
> >> > Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?
>
> If you deny that the truth is the truth because you don't think it's nice to
> provoke people who don't care about anything other than insults and attacks,
> then you ARE a coward.

Red herring, bit time.

> Some people actually are just plain NASTY.

Obviously.

> For all
> the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have attacked him because
> it is better for people to have the right information, that's the kind of
> person he is, not the made up monster that the swine here would like you to
> believe, and the evidence is clear by visiting other groups where the idiots
> who post here don't usually go.

So why does he go after me when I am trying to help? I've agreed with
him at times, I've thanked him for information, I've even laughed at a
couple of his jokes. And yet he keeps up with this aggressive posture.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> et>,
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> . com>,
>>>>>>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for short, has classed up the place by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving everybody who want them free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low can the so-called subjectivists go?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those kind of tweaks seriously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there
>>>>>>>>>>>> of substance to avoid?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>>>>>>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called
>>>>>>>>>>> subjectivists go?"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree or disagree if others are doing so and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have nothing new to add.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point
>>>>>>>>>>> to Arny without him coming back with an insult?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>>>>>>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
>>>>>>>>>> typical of her.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you
>>>>>>>>> claim I did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't
>>>>>>>>> comment on points where my views are already
>>>>>>>>> expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane
>>>>>>>>> thing to do)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit
>>>>>>>> moves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> , he calls me a
>>>>>>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to,
>>>>>>> even though the claim is totally unsupported.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
>>>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly
>>>>>>>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the
>>>>>>>> overwhelming majority of personal
>>>>>>>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues,
>>>>>>>> they don't deal with the message, they just attack
>>>>>>>> the messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
>>>>>>>> message at the time or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this
>>>>>>>> on myself,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The
>>>>>>> clear fact is that you often display an abrasive
>>>>>>> personality. I seriously doubt that anyone would
>>>>>>> disagree with that statement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones
>>>>>> that are the instigators of the attacks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for
>>>>> example. Would YOU disagree with the statement that
>>>>> Arny displays an abrasive personality?
>>>>>
>>>>>> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to
>>>>>> anything close to actual objective audio
>>>>>> information, one tends to have little patience with
>>>>>> assholes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What possible benefit is there in being civil to
>>>>>> people who never are to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen
>>>>>> the pattern far to often to pretend that it is
>>>>>> anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX
>>>>>> and other things that go against the subjectivist
>>>>>> dogma and he has been a target ever since. It has
>>>>>> little to do with his personality and everything to
>>>>>> do with his audio views.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could
>>>>>> win an argument on any audio subject against Arny
>>>>>> and they know it, so they attack everything and
>>>>>> anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As per my post yesterday, my advice
>>>>>>> is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.
>>>>>>> If you don't like how someone is treating you,
>>>>>>> ignore them; the problem is likely to go away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going
>>>>>> to let up until anybody who makes any accurate and
>>>>>> consistent statements about audio is driven away. It
>>>>>> is they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley
>>>>>> let people make up their minds about what is real
>>>>>> and what is not, but they will not let that happen.
>>>>>> They trash every single audio topic and do it with
>>>>>> the most vile and personal attacks imaginable, as
>>>>>> I'm sure you have already seen, form the likes of
>>>>>> Middius, EddieM and Fella.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements
>>>>> made to me based on what I hear? "You're either
>>>>> stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply and politely
>>>>> expressing my opinion.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the
>>>>>> fact that they will never let up and they will not
>>>>>> let up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has it been tried?
>>>>
>>>> Asked and answered.
>>>>
>>>> BTW the answer is: "Of course".
>>>
>>> Honestly... have you given it, say, a week or two? I've
>>> seen no evidence of that.
>>
>> Jenn, we covered this here a few weeks ago.
>>
>>>> Yet another example of Jenn's inability to admit she is
>>>> wrong when she has been clearly proven to be wrong.
>>
>> Here's a hint Jenn. Don't you remember a few weeks back
>> when it was mentioned that a group of Obs formed an
>> accountability group and simply stopped replying to a
>> select group of subjectivists for like several years?
>> Two of the members were Stewart Pinkerton and I. The net
>> result is that we suffered in silence for all that time
>> to no avail.
>
> No, I must have missed that. Are you saying that you and
> others ignored the offenders for several YEARS?

This was covered here just a few weeks ago. Here's an update: It was called
"The Accord" and ran in 2001 and 2002, if memory serves.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

>
> So why does he go after me when I am trying to help?

Jenn, help from you generally comes along with quite a bit of
self-congratulation on your part.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > So why does he go after me when I am trying to help?
>
> Jenn, help from you generally comes along with quite a bit of
> self-congratulation on your part.

Another groundless claim.

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said to KrazyBorg:

> > My name is abused here simply because I lived in times past.

> Pure as the driven snow, eh? You've established quite a track record.
> It's a wonder anyone respects you at all despite your demonstrable
> knowledge and ability to explain stuff you show on other forums.

Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum. Nor does he fit in on RATech,
an ongoing ****ing contest about technical aspects. He's been laughed off
various computer-oriented groups and banned from RAH-E. What's a 'borg to do?






--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > For all
> > the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have attacked him because
> > it is better for people to have the right information

> So why does he go after me when I am trying to help? I've agreed with
> him at times, I've thanked him for information, I've even laughed at a
> couple of his jokes. And yet he keeps up with this aggressive posture.

Is that a rhetorical question? ;-)

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/ecf9be1d6b34f5f4?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/14169ece255c84ef?hl=en&




--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> et>,
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> . com>,
> >>>>>>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>> co
> >>>>>>>>>>>> m
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> y.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> com
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >, "Arny
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for short, has classed up the place by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving everybody who want them free
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried them?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was. How
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low can the so-called subjectivists go?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those kind of tweaks seriously.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of substance to avoid?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >>>>>>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called
> >>>>>>>>>>> subjectivists go?"
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> agree or disagree if others are doing so and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have nothing new to add.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point
> >>>>>>>>>>> to Arny without him coming back with an insult?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Of course.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >>>>>>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very
> >>>>>>>>>> typical of her.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you
> >>>>>>>>> claim I did.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't
> >>>>>>>>> comment on points where my views are already
> >>>>>>>>> expressed by others (which seems a perfectly sane
> >>>>>>>>> thing to do)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit
> >>>>>>>> moves.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> , he calls me a
> >>>>>>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to,
> >>>>>>> even though the claim is totally unsupported.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
> >>>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly
> >>>>>>>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the
> >>>>>>>> overwhelming majority of personal
> >>>>>>>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues,
> >>>>>>>> they don't deal with the message, they just attack
> >>>>>>>> the messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
> >>>>>>>> message at the time or not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this
> >>>>>>>> on myself,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The
> >>>>>>> clear fact is that you often display an abrasive
> >>>>>>> personality. I seriously doubt that anyone would
> >>>>>>> disagree with that statement.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones
> >>>>>> that are the instigators of the attacks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for
> >>>>> example. Would YOU disagree with the statement that
> >>>>> Arny displays an abrasive personality?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to
> >>>>>> anything close to actual objective audio
> >>>>>> information, one tends to have little patience with
> >>>>>> assholes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What possible benefit is there in being civil to
> >>>>>> people who never are to you?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen
> >>>>>> the pattern far to often to pretend that it is
> >>>>>> anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX
> >>>>>> and other things that go against the subjectivist
> >>>>>> dogma and he has been a target ever since. It has
> >>>>>> little to do with his personality and everything to
> >>>>>> do with his audio views.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could
> >>>>>> win an argument on any audio subject against Arny
> >>>>>> and they know it, so they attack everything and
> >>>>>> anything else.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> As per my post yesterday, my advice
> >>>>>>> is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.
> >>>>>>> If you don't like how someone is treating you,
> >>>>>>> ignore them; the problem is likely to go away.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going
> >>>>>> to let up until anybody who makes any accurate and
> >>>>>> consistent statements about audio is driven away. It
> >>>>>> is they who should be doing the ignoring and simpley
> >>>>>> let people make up their minds about what is real
> >>>>>> and what is not, but they will not let that happen.
> >>>>>> They trash every single audio topic and do it with
> >>>>>> the most vile and personal attacks imaginable, as
> >>>>>> I'm sure you have already seen, form the likes of
> >>>>>> Middius, EddieM and Fella.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements
> >>>>> made to me based on what I hear? "You're either
> >>>>> stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply and politely
> >>>>> expressing my opinion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the
> >>>>>> fact that they will never let up and they will not
> >>>>>> let up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Has it been tried?
> >>>>
> >>>> Asked and answered.
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW the answer is: "Of course".
> >>>
> >>> Honestly... have you given it, say, a week or two? I've
> >>> seen no evidence of that.
> >>
> >> Jenn, we covered this here a few weeks ago.
> >>
> >>>> Yet another example of Jenn's inability to admit she is
> >>>> wrong when she has been clearly proven to be wrong.
> >>
> >> Here's a hint Jenn. Don't you remember a few weeks back
> >> when it was mentioned that a group of Obs formed an
> >> accountability group and simply stopped replying to a
> >> select group of subjectivists for like several years?
> >> Two of the members were Stewart Pinkerton and I. The net
> >> result is that we suffered in silence for all that time
> >> to no avail.
> >
> > No, I must have missed that. Are you saying that you and
> > others ignored the offenders for several YEARS?
>
> This was covered here just a few weeks ago. Here's an update: It was called
> "The Accord" and ran in 2001 and 2002, if memory serves.

I can't find anything recent (nothing with "Accord" that relates to this
this year), but I find the 2001 discussion and will read it as I can.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>> oups.com
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> et>,
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> . com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "vlad" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> y.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ink.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> S for short, has classed up the place by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving everybody who want them free
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tried them?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> getting even more useless than it was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How low can the so-called subjectivists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, Arny. Not all "subjectivists" take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those kind of tweaks seriously.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of substance to avoid?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sentence: "How low can the so-called
>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjectivists go?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree or disagree if others are doing so and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have nothing new to add.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point to Arny without him coming back with an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> insult?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>>>>>>>>>>>> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Very typical of her.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you
>>>>>>>>>>> claim I did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of addressing the point that I don't
>>>>>>>>>>> comment on points where my views are already
>>>>>>>>>>> expressed by others (which seems a perfectly
>>>>>>>>>>> sane thing to do)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit
>>>>>>>>>> moves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling
>>>>>>>>> on".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> , he calls me a
>>>>>>>>>>> coward (attacking the messenger.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are free to call me a coward if you wish to,
>>>>>>>>> even though the claim is totally unsupported.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
>>>>>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly
>>>>>>>>>> 2 or three of them are the source sof the
>>>>>>>>>> overwhelming majority of personal
>>>>>>>>>> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues,
>>>>>>>>>> they don't deal with the message, they just
>>>>>>>>>> attack the messenger, whether he's actually
>>>>>>>>>> delivering a message at the time or not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring
>>>>>>>>>> this on myself,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The
>>>>>>>>> clear fact is that you often display an abrasive
>>>>>>>>> personality. I seriously doubt that anyone would
>>>>>>>>> disagree with that statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones
>>>>>>>> that are the instigators of the attacks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for
>>>>>>> example. Would YOU disagree with the statement that
>>>>>>> Arny displays an abrasive personality?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to
>>>>>>>> anything close to actual objective audio
>>>>>>>> information, one tends to have little patience with
>>>>>>>> assholes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What possible benefit is there in being civil to
>>>>>>>> people who never are to you?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen
>>>>>>>> the pattern far to often to pretend that it is
>>>>>>>> anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of ABX
>>>>>>>> and other things that go against the subjectivist
>>>>>>>> dogma and he has been a target ever since. It has
>>>>>>>> little to do with his personality and everything to
>>>>>>>> do with his audio views.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could
>>>>>>>> win an argument on any audio subject against Arny
>>>>>>>> and they know it, so they attack everything and
>>>>>>>> anything else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As per my post yesterday, my advice
>>>>>>>>> is to simply treat people as you wish to be
>>>>>>>>> treated. If you don't like how someone is
>>>>>>>>> treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely
>>>>>>>>> to go away.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going
>>>>>>>> to let up until anybody who makes any accurate and
>>>>>>>> consistent statements about audio is driven away.
>>>>>>>> It is they who should be doing the ignoring and
>>>>>>>> simpley let people make up their minds about what
>>>>>>>> is real and what is not, but they will not let
>>>>>>>> that happen. They trash every single audio topic
>>>>>>>> and do it with the most vile and personal attacks
>>>>>>>> imaginable, as I'm sure you have already seen,
>>>>>>>> form the likes of Middius, EddieM and Fella.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, it cuts both ways. Remember the statements
>>>>>>> made to me based on what I hear? "You're either
>>>>>>> stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply and
>>>>>>> politely expressing my opinion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the
>>>>>>>> fact that they will never let up and they will not
>>>>>>>> let up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has it been tried?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Asked and answered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW the answer is: "Of course".
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly... have you given it, say, a week or two?
>>>>> I've seen no evidence of that.
>>>>
>>>> Jenn, we covered this here a few weeks ago.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another example of Jenn's inability to admit she
>>>>>> is wrong when she has been clearly proven to be
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a hint Jenn. Don't you remember a few weeks back
>>>> when it was mentioned that a group of Obs formed an
>>>> accountability group and simply stopped replying to a
>>>> select group of subjectivists for like several years?
>>>> Two of the members were Stewart Pinkerton and I. The
>>>> net result is that we suffered in silence for all that
>>>> time to no avail.
>>>
>>> No, I must have missed that. Are you saying that you
>>> and others ignored the offenders for several YEARS?
>>
>> This was covered here just a few weeks ago. Here's an
>> update: It was called "The Accord" and ran in 2001 and
>> 2002, if memory serves.
>
> I can't find anything recent (nothing with "Accord" that
> relates to this this year),

Right, I just wracked my brain to come up with the word we used.

> but I find the 2001 discussion and will read it as I can.

Enjoy!

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, you get sued for lying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
>>>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly 2 or three of
>>>>>>>> them are the source sof the overwhelming majority
>>>>>>>> of personal attacks around here. They don't discuss
>>>>>>>> issues, they don't deal with the message, they just
>>>>>>>> attack the messenger, whether he's actually
>>>>>>>> delivering a message at the time or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new
>>>>>>> tweaker?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Red herring argument. Their response to the new
>>>>>> tweaker is itself abusive.
>>>>>
>>>>> It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.
>>>>
>>>> Yet another straw man argument.
>>>
>>> You've used this inaccurately so often as to make it
>>> meaningless. If so-called "Subs" attack you or tweaks
>>> alike, this shows there's something other than audio
>>> philosophy involved.
>>
>> Doooh!
>>
>>> Are you saying that you are attacked for a reason other
>>> than your audio views?
>>
>> Doooh!
>
> Are you trying to do a Homer? If so, it's spelled, d'oh.
>
>>>> At this point the objections of the Subs
>>>> around here are largely personal. I could switch
>>>> polarities as it were (note that I claim that I'm a
>>>> Sub, which a Sub has, true to form recently lied
>>>> about) and I would expect not a lot to change. There's
>>>> something about being a plain old Sub that tends to
>>>> make people abusive.
>>
>>> What is it about being a "Sub" that makes you abusive?
>>
>> Abusive?
>>
>> How can you use that word to describe me, given all the
>> other crap that happens around here?
>
> Because you're nasty and insulting, qualities sometimes
> associated with being abusive. Of course, it's your word,
> so I should really ask what you mean by it.
>
>> That's abuse all by itself!
>
> Don't be modest: you give pretty good yourself.
>
>>> Or do you mean you're abused because you're a "Sub"?
>>
>> I've already said it once today, where were you, Stephen.
>>
>> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times
>> past.
>
> Pure as the driven snow, eh?

Not after 10 years of receiving as much abuse as I have.

>You've established quite a track record.

Mostly based on accusations by the usual list of suspects who were abusing
me many times more and far more harshly than what I returned.

>It's a wonder anyone respects you at all
> despite your demonstrable knowledge and ability to
> explain stuff you show on other forums.

Only for people who are easily impressed by lies and deceptions from people
who give far more and far worse than what they get.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> MINe 109 said to KrazyBorg:
>
>>> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times
>>> past.
>
>> Pure as the driven snow, eh? You've established quite a
>> track record. It's a wonder anyone respects you at all
>> despite your demonstrable knowledge and ability to
>> explain stuff you show on other forums.
>
> Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum.

A "sociable forum* that is widely known as the most loathsome of all Usenet
audio groups.

>Nor does he fit in on RATech, an ongoing ****ing contest about
> technical aspects.

A lie.

> He's been laughed off various
> computer-oriented groups

A lie.

and banned from RAH-E.

Finally the grain of truth.

>What's a 'borg to do?

Kick your butt Middius, early and often but far less often and with no lies
or hyperbole.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
> > MINe 109 said to KrazyBorg:
> >
> >>> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times
> >>> past.
> >
> >> Pure as the driven snow, eh? You've established quite a
> >> track record. It's a wonder anyone respects you at all
> >> despite your demonstrable knowledge and ability to
> >> explain stuff you show on other forums.
> >
> > Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum.
>
> A "sociable forum* that is widely known as the most loathsome of all Usenet
> audio groups.

Not to be contrary, but that seems a bit of a reach; there is a lot of
really nasty stuff out there.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Jenn said:
>
>>> For all
>>> the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have
>>> attacked him because it is better for people to have
>>> the right information
>
>> So why does he go after me when I am trying to help?
>> I've agreed with him at times, I've thanked him for
>> information, I've even laughed at a couple of his jokes.
>> And yet he keeps up with this aggressive posture.
>
> Is that a rhetorical question? ;-)
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/ecf9be1d6b34f5f4?hl=en&
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/14169ece255c84ef?hl=en&

Interesting how Richman never seemed to notice years afer year of weirdness
from Middius.

Actually not interesting at all - just another example of how one dirty RAO
hand washes another.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
>> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
>>
>>> MINe 109 said to KrazyBorg:
>>>
>>>>> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times
>>>>> past.
>>>
>>>> Pure as the driven snow, eh? You've established quite a
>>>> track record. It's a wonder anyone respects you at all
>>>> despite your demonstrable knowledge and ability to
>>>> explain stuff you show on other forums.
>>>
>>> Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum.
>>
>> A "sociable forum* that is widely known as the most
>> loathsome of all Usenet audio groups.
>
> Not to be contrary, but that seems a bit of a reach;
> there is a lot of really nasty stuff out there.

Name a Usenet audio group as loathsome as RAO.

Not any Usenet group, not a music group - an audio group.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
> >> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
> >>
> >>> MINe 109 said to KrazyBorg:
> >>>
> >>>>> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times
> >>>>> past.
> >>>
> >>>> Pure as the driven snow, eh? You've established quite a
> >>>> track record. It's a wonder anyone respects you at all
> >>>> despite your demonstrable knowledge and ability to
> >>>> explain stuff you show on other forums.
> >>>
> >>> Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum.
> >>
> >> A "sociable forum* that is widely known as the most
> >> loathsome of all Usenet audio groups.
> >
> > Not to be contrary, but that seems a bit of a reach;
> > there is a lot of really nasty stuff out there.
>
> Name a Usenet audio group as loathsome as RAO.
>
> Not any Usenet group, not a music group - an audio group.

I see... well, I can believe that.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > >>> Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum.

> > >> A "sociable forum* that is widely known as the most
> > >> loathsome of all Usenet audio groups.

It's usually a lot better during Dances-with-Bears season....

> > > Not to be contrary, but that seems a bit of a reach;
> > > there is a lot of really nasty stuff out there.

> > Name a Usenet audio group as loathsome as RAO.
> > Not any Usenet group, not a music group - an audio group.

> I see... well, I can believe that.

Notably, RAH-E improved markedly after they ejected Mr. ****.




--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>> In article
> >>> >, "Arny
> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article >,
> >>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> >,
> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, you get sued for lying.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
> >>>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly 2 or three of
> >>>>>>>> them are the source sof the overwhelming majority
> >>>>>>>> of personal attacks around here. They don't discuss
> >>>>>>>> issues, they don't deal with the message, they just
> >>>>>>>> attack the messenger, whether he's actually
> >>>>>>>> delivering a message at the time or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new
> >>>>>>> tweaker?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Red herring argument. Their response to the new
> >>>>>> tweaker is itself abusive.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yet another straw man argument.
> >>>
> >>> You've used this inaccurately so often as to make it
> >>> meaningless. If so-called "Subs" attack you or tweaks
> >>> alike, this shows there's something other than audio
> >>> philosophy involved.
> >>
> >> Doooh!
> >>
> >>> Are you saying that you are attacked for a reason other
> >>> than your audio views?
> >>
> >> Doooh!
> >
> > Are you trying to do a Homer? If so, it's spelled, d'oh.
> >
> >>>> At this point the objections of the Subs
> >>>> around here are largely personal. I could switch
> >>>> polarities as it were (note that I claim that I'm a
> >>>> Sub, which a Sub has, true to form recently lied
> >>>> about) and I would expect not a lot to change. There's
> >>>> something about being a plain old Sub that tends to
> >>>> make people abusive.
> >>
> >>> What is it about being a "Sub" that makes you abusive?
> >>
> >> Abusive?
> >>
> >> How can you use that word to describe me, given all the
> >> other crap that happens around here?
> >
> > Because you're nasty and insulting, qualities sometimes
> > associated with being abusive. Of course, it's your word,
> > so I should really ask what you mean by it.
> >
> >> That's abuse all by itself!
> >
> > Don't be modest: you give pretty good yourself.
> >
> >>> Or do you mean you're abused because you're a "Sub"?
> >>
> >> I've already said it once today, where were you, Stephen.
> >>
> >> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times
> >> past.
> >
> > Pure as the driven snow, eh?
>
> Not after 10 years of receiving as much abuse as I have.

Sorry. You are pretty much as I first found you on this group: looking
for an argument. If anything, you're less manic now. Remember how you
used type so carelessly after a few rounds of 'debating'?

> >You've established quite a track record.
>
> Mostly based on accusations by the usual list of suspects who were abusing
> me many times more and far more harshly than what I returned.

That's odd, as you've had a similar reception in other places. How do
you explain the commonality?

> >It's a wonder anyone respects you at all
> > despite your demonstrable knowledge and ability to
> > explain stuff you show on other forums.
>
> Only for people who are easily impressed by lies and deceptions from people
> who give far more and far worse than what they get.

I think you have a word for that kind of empty statement: is it
'posturing'?

Stephen

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
wrote:

> MINe 109 said to KrazyBorg:
>
> > > My name is abused here simply because I lived in times past.
>
> > Pure as the driven snow, eh? You've established quite a track record.
> > It's a wonder anyone respects you at all despite your demonstrable
> > knowledge and ability to explain stuff you show on other forums.
>
> Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum. Nor does he fit in on RATech,
> an ongoing ****ing contest about technical aspects. He's been laughed off
> various computer-oriented groups and banned from RAH-E. What's a 'borg to do?

Hang out with the pro sound engineers?

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

MINe 109 said:

> > Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum. Nor does he fit in on RATech,
> > an ongoing ****ing contest about technical aspects. He's been laughed off
> > various computer-oriented groups and banned from RAH-E. What's a 'borg to do?

> Hang out with the pro sound engineers?

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.





--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[paul packer]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:16:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> (note that I claim that I'm a Sub

Is that sub-human,. Arnie? Honestly I don't think you're anywhere near
that bad. :-)

[paul packer]

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:15:21 GMT, Jenn >
wrote:

> The clear fact is that you
>often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that anyone
>would disagree with that statement.

Er......ummm.....let me see......errr......No!

[paul packer]

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:18:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

> Note all the insulting posts from
>the usual suspects that I slough.

Slough? Is that the Slough of Despond you're referring to, Arnie?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:06:02 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> It just makes it easier for me not to have to do the inevitable
>> responding back and forth to your bull**** that Jenn is having to go
>> through right now.
>
>One day, Jenn may well look back in fondness at her indoctrination into
>the morass of "the debating trade".

Won't that be one night, when she wakes out of a dead sleep shaking
and sweating?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger shows us what a lying hypocrite he is:

> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO, particularly
> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of personal
> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal with the
> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually delivering a
> message at the time or not.

It's readily demonstrable fact that the objectivists on RAO,
particularly YOU, when responding to my posts regarding the tweaks I
put up for people's benefit, did not "discuss the issues", you and your
objectivist cohorts didn't "deal with the message", whether I was
actually delivering a message at the time or not. You simply attacked
me; ridicule, scorn, derision, mockery, you name it, I received it.

In other words, you're a lying hypocrite, Krueger. But who here didn't
know that about you already?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: paul packer
Date: Tues, Mar 21 2006 10:15 pm
Email: (paul packer)

>Slough? Is that the Slough of Despond you're referring to, Arnie?

It's the murky swamplike area also known as his 'mind.'

[Arny Krueger]

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

> dave weil said:
>
>> It just makes it easier for me not to have to do the
>> inevitable responding back and forth to your bull****
>> that Jenn is having to go through right now.
>
> One day, Jenn may well look back in fondness at her
> indoctrination into the morass of "the debating trade".

She seems to have figured out "The Attack Thread" complete with my name
misspelled.

You've taught her well, George.

[Arny Krueger]

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

> Jenn said:
>
>>>>>> Arnii doesn't fit in on RAO, a sociable forum.
>
>>>>> A "sociable forum* that is widely known as the most
>>>>> loathsome of all Usenet audio groups.
>
> It's usually a lot better during Dances-with-Bears
> season....
>
>>>> Not to be contrary, but that seems a bit of a reach;
>>>> there is a lot of really nasty stuff out there.
>
>>> Name a Usenet audio group as loathsome as RAO.
>>> Not any Usenet group, not a music group - an audio
>>> group.
>
>> I see... well, I can believe that.
>
> Notably, RAH-E improved markedly after they ejected Mr.
> ****.

No, Harry still posts there.

[Arny Krueger]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message

> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>
>>> In article
>>> >, "Arny
>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >, "Arny
>>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "MINe 109" > wrote in
>>>>>>>> message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> >,
>>>>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sue me for telling the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, you get sued for lying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the
>>>>>>>>>> subjectivists on RAO, particularly 2 or three of
>>>>>>>>>> them are the source sof the overwhelming majority
>>>>>>>>>> of personal attacks around here. They don't
>>>>>>>>>> discuss issues, they don't deal with the
>>>>>>>>>> message, they just attack the messenger, whether
>>>>>>>>>> he's actually delivering a message at the time
>>>>>>>>>> or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aren't those "subjectivists" turning on the new
>>>>>>>>> tweaker?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Red herring argument. Their response to the new
>>>>>>>> tweaker is itself abusive.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It eliminates the audio message as the motivation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet another straw man argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've used this inaccurately so often as to make it
>>>>> meaningless. If so-called "Subs" attack you or tweaks
>>>>> alike, this shows there's something other than audio
>>>>> philosophy involved.
>>>>
>>>> Doooh!
>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that you are attacked for a reason
>>>>> other than your audio views?
>>>>
>>>> Doooh!
>>>
>>> Are you trying to do a Homer? If so, it's spelled, d'oh.
>>>
>>>>>> At this point the objections of the Subs
>>>>>> around here are largely personal. I could switch
>>>>>> polarities as it were (note that I claim that I'm a
>>>>>> Sub, which a Sub has, true to form recently lied
>>>>>> about) and I would expect not a lot to change.
>>>>>> There's something about being a plain old Sub that
>>>>>> tends to make people abusive.
>>>>
>>>>> What is it about being a "Sub" that makes you abusive?
>>>>
>>>> Abusive?
>>>>
>>>> How can you use that word to describe me, given all the
>>>> other crap that happens around here?
>>>
>>> Because you're nasty and insulting, qualities sometimes
>>> associated with being abusive. Of course, it's your
>>> word, so I should really ask what you mean by it.
>>>
>>>> That's abuse all by itself!
>>>
>>> Don't be modest: you give pretty good yourself.
>>>
>>>>> Or do you mean you're abused because you're a "Sub"?
>>>>
>>>> I've already said it once today, where were you,
>>>> Stephen.
>>>>
>>>> My name is abused here simply because I lived in times
>>>> past.
>>>
>>> Pure as the driven snow, eh?
>>
>> Not after 10 years of receiving as much abuse as I have.
>
> Sorry. You are pretty much as I first found you on this
> group: looking for an argument. If anything, you're less
> manic now. Remember how you used type so carelessly after
> a few rounds of 'debating'?
>
>>> You've established quite a track record.
>>
>> Mostly based on accusations by the usual list of
>> suspects who were abusing me many times more and far
>> more harshly than what I returned.
>
> That's odd, as you've had a similar reception in other
> places. How do you explain the commonality?
>
>>> It's a wonder anyone respects you at all
>>> despite your demonstrable knowledge and ability to
>>> explain stuff you show on other forums.
>>
>> Only for people who are easily impressed by lies and
>> deceptions from people who give far more and far worse
>> than what they get.
>
> I think you have a word for that kind of empty statement:
> is it 'posturing'?


No, its called 'insight".

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:16:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> (note that I claim that I'm a Sub
>
> Is that sub-human,. Arnie? Honestly I don't think you're
> anywhere near that bad. :-)

In a moment of mental lapsedness, I couldn't figure out whether Sackman,
Weil, or Packer would be stupid enough to bite on this set up.

[paul packer]

On 22 Mar 2006 00:45:57 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>From: paul packer
>Date: Tues, Mar 21 2006 10:15 pm
>Email: (paul packer)
>
>>Slough? Is that the Slough of Despond you're referring to, Arnie?
>
>It's the murky swamplike area also known as his 'mind.'

That's what I said--the Slough of Despond.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:51:37 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:16:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> (note that I claim that I'm a Sub
>>
>> Is that sub-human,. Arnie? Honestly I don't think you're
>> anywhere near that bad. :-)
>
>In a moment of mental lapsedness, I couldn't figure out whether Sackman,
>Weil, or Packer would be stupid enough to bite on this set up.

And now you know. Good on you, Arnie.

[Jenn]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
> > dave weil said:
> >
> >> It just makes it easier for me not to have to do the
> >> inevitable responding back and forth to your bull****
> >> that Jenn is having to go through right now.
> >
> > One day, Jenn may well look back in fondness at her
> > indoctrination into the morass of "the debating trade".
>
> She seems to have figured out "The Attack Thread" complete with my name
> misspelled.

Gee, sorry that I mispelled your name; finger stuck on the n,
obviously. You have misspelled my name a few times. What that an
attack?

[George M. Middius]

The Bug Eater shows why he's the perennial winner of the Usenet Dunce Trophy.

> The fact is stll that there are far more subjectivists insulting
> objecitivists[sic],[sic]than the other way round.

Let's just put this "fact" alongside duh-Mikey's other brilliant
declarations. Here are a few that I can recall without research:

1. Arnii Kroofeces is unpopular because of his "audio opinions".

2. Normals mock and deride the 'borgs because of "disagreements".

3. Arnii Krooborg is a "leader" and a "powerful debater", and Normals resort
to insulting him because we cannot muster enough "facts".

4. Everybody in a free society should be responsible for building their own
portion of the public road system, and the government should only take care
of armed forces and police.

5. The best way to choose audio components is by examining spec sheets and/or
gouging out your eyeballs. (Hyperbole courtesy of the Resistance.)


It's pointless to try to disabuse Mickey of his quaint notions. Hundreds of
people have tried, and the poor little cripple is just as stubborn as ever.




--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> > From: >
>> >> > Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
>> >> > Email: >
>> >> >
>> >> >>Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they
>> >> >>simply
>> >> >>respond to them when they are flung.
>> >> >
>> >> > Translation: "They make me do it!"
>> >>
>> >> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
>> >
>> > If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one responds at all so
>> > much as it is the style with which one responds, IMO.
>> >
>> So substance is not important?
>
> That's not the point. The obvious point is that over time people tend
> to respond in the same style that they are presented with.
>
>> Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.
>> One can learn from a curmudgeon, but not from someone without any
>> knowledge.
>> Guess which I prefer?
>
> Not the issue. The issue is, "How do each of us want to be approached
> in this NG?"

Hopefully with the best most accurate information there is. Arny has been
doing that for years and look what he gets for it.

Do you want just constant insults?

Of course not, but there's nothing you or I can do about swine like Middius
et al, when all they ever do is insult.

Fine, that's what you
> have. If you want to change it, start changing it.

If you bother to observe, you will find that most of the time, when I
respond to anybody, it is not with insults, but then it always turns when
the other side starts in with insults. Very seldom do I draw first blood as
it were. Even with people who have a history of insults, I will usually try
and stay cordial, but there are people for whom this makes zero difference.

The noise level is where it is because of the subjectivists who will not
stay civil or on topic.

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article et>,
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > . com>,
>> >> >> > "vlad" > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Jenn wrote:
>> >> >> >>> In article
>> >> >> >>> >, "Arny
>> >> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> m
>> >> >> >>>>> In article
>> >> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
>> >> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>>> .
>> >> >> >>>>>> com
>> >> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
>> >> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
>> >> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
>> >> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
>> >> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
>> >> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
>> >> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
>> >> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
>> >> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
>> >> >> >>>>>
>> >> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
>> >> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial
>> >> >> >>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
>> >> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
>> >> >> >>>>> new to add.
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
>> >> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In my opinion, Arny is right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Of course.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
>> >> >> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
>> >> >> >> of her.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
>> >> >> > points where my views are already expressed by others
>> >> >> > (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
>> >> >
>> >> > LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
>> >> >
>> >> >> >, he calls me a
>> >> >> > coward (attacking the messenger.)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sue me for telling the truth.
>> >> >
>> >> > You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even though the
>> >> > claim
>> >> > is totally unsupported.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO,
>> >> >> particularly
>> >> >> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
>> >> >> personal
>> >> >> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually
>> >> >> delivering
>> >> >> a
>> >> >> message at the time or not.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself,
>> >> >
>> >> > False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear fact is that
>> >> > you
>> >> > often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that
>> >> > anyone
>> >> > would disagree with that statement.
>> >>
>> >> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that are the
>> >> instigators
>> >> of the attacks.
>> >
>> > Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for example.
>>
>> You have your head elsewhere when it comes to the source of the problem.
>
> I'm providing an example of those who would agree with my statement, who
> also don't instigate attacks.
>
What people are those? The people who don't engage in personal attacks, do
not get attacked by the Objectivists.

>>
>> Would YOU
>> > disagree with the statement that Arny displays an abrasive personality?
>> >
>> If you get harrassed for being alive for the last 8 years, you tend to
>> get
>> testy.
>
> I would never be harassed by anyone for 8 years.
>

OK , let's suppose that you choose to post to a muscians group for the
purpose of sharing and instructing others based on your knowledge of the
subject. In the course of this, you make a statement or statements of
verifiable fact that causes 3 or 4 people attack every word you say from
then on. Do you stop posting to that group?

>> I've been here for a very long time and not seen any testiness unless
>> provoked.
>
> Please be willing to back up that statement. Most would say that Arny
> has been "testy" toward me in the present discussion.

Because you seem to be oblivious to the where the source of the problems
are.
Because you seem oblivious to certain facts about audio, which is why I
suspect you post less often to RAHE. A moderated forum that has several
very knowledgeable contributors who regularly confronted your notions.

How, exactly,
> have I provoked it?
>
By blaming the wrong people. Let's go back to the example of you posting to
a musicans group.
If someone came along after you had been posting there for some time and
told you that it is you who cause the vitriol because you exist and because
you refuse to let people who lie about you get away with their lies, do you
stay calm in the face of inumerable posts saying that you are to blame for
the trouble?
>>
>> >> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything close to
>> >> actual
>> >> objective audio information, one tends to have little patience with
>> >> assholes.
>> >>
>> >> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people who never are
>> >> to
>> >> you?
>> >>
>> >> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the pattern far to
>> >> often
>> >> to pretend that it is anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of
>> >> ABX
>> >> and
>> >> other things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has been a
>> >> target
>> >> ever since. It has little to do with his personality and everything
>> >> to
>> >> do
>> >> with his audio views.
>> >>
>> >> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win an argument on
>> >> any
>> >> audio subject against Arny and they know it, so they attack everything
>> >> and
>> >> anything else.
>> >
>> > So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
>> >
>> So don't talk about reality in audio?????????????????/
>> >>
>> >> As per my post yesterday, my advice
>> >> > is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.

And when that fails and there is a never ending stream of attack threads
with your name in the header, accusing you of unspeakable acts and accusing
your spouse of prostitution, and you of necrophilia with one of your
children? GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, it doesn't matter how nice Arny is or
not, there is a cadre of people here who will not stop until Arny stops
posting ANYTHING.

If you don't like
>> >> > how someone is treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely to
>> >> > go
>> >> > away.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to let up until
>> >> anybody
>> >> who makes any accurate and consistent statements about audio is driven
>> >> away.
>> >> It is they who should be doing the ignoring and simply let people make
>> >> up
>> >> their minds about what is real and what is not, but they will not let
>> >> that
>> >> happen. They trash every single audio topic and do it with the most
>> >> vile
>> >> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have already seen,
>> >> form
>> >> the
>> >> likes of Middius, EddieM and Fella.
>> >
>> > Again, it cuts both ways.

No it doesn't. If people insult you every time you post on any topic and
regardless of who yo are talking to.

Remember the statements made to me based on
>> > what I hear? "You're either stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply
>> > and politely expressing my opinion.
>> >
>> Because it is quite clearly an opinion that makes no sense, based on the
>> reality of CD playback and the facts of the immense amounts of ditortion
>> present in LP's, combined with your profession.
>
> And since you can't understand the opinion, you feel free to toss
> insults as a response? Most folks wouldn't see that as a very adult
> response.
>
Most folks respond negatively to people who ignore thngs that are a matter
of indisputable fact.
How would act towards someone who kept telling you that 2+2=5, every day and
every time you posted?
>>
>> If having your opinions challenged in that way is to much for you, then
>> it's
>> time for you to either grow a thicker skin or get out.
>
> You're probably right. The later option is probably the right one.
>
That depends on your commitment to the topic.

>> AFAIK I was the
>> ahrdest on you about your statments on timbre but I don't believe I
>> called
>> you stupid. I don't think anybody else did either.
>
> Yes, you held that up as a possibility.
>
And I have explained why. I'm not saying that's the case but again 2+2=4.
CD playback is many times more accurate than LP's ever can be.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact that they will
>> >> never
>> >> let up and they will not let up.
>> >
>> > Has it been tried?
>> >
>> >>
>> Of course it's been tried, but as Arny has already told you, he doesn't
>> have
>> to be here for people to attack him. There was never any reason for
>> Middius
>> to use foul language in reards to Arny's wife and family, yet it has been
>> done regularly. You still don't get it, it doesn't matter anymore what
>> he
>> says, he provoked the Gods of subjectivism and told the truth, and has
>> had a
>> target on his back ever since. It has nothing to with him per se, as
>> evey
>> single objectiv ist has been treated the same way.
>>
>> Look up posts from JJ, ( the guy who wrothe the book on much of digital
>> playback) Stewart Pinkerton, Nousaine or from Dr. B.J. Feng. None of
>> them
>> got any respect and all were or are trashed every time they post by the
>> usual suspects, mostly Middius.
>>
>> Even a bona fide expert and near legend in audio, Dick Pierce gets ****
>> hurled at him because he actually knows what he is talking about.
>>
>> I ask again, what is the benefit of being nice oreven civil to Middius,
>> Fella, or anyone who resents the fact that you know anything and have the
>> audacity to both speak the truth and draw breath?
>>
>> >> >> but the record
>> >> >> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked.
>> >> >> Furthmore, I
>> >> >> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks
>> >> >> against
>> >> >> me.
>> >> >> That fact completely falsifies their claims that I bring the
>> >> >> attacks
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> myself.
>> >> >
>> >> > Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?
>>
>> If you deny that the truth is the truth because you don't think it's nice
>> to
>> provoke people who don't care about anything other than insults and
>> attacks,
>> then you ARE a coward.
>
> Red herring, bit time.
>
>> Some people actually are just plain NASTY.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> For all
>> the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have attacked him
>> because
>> it is better for people to have the right information, that's the kind of
>> person he is, not the made up monster that the swine here would like you
>> to
>> believe, and the evidence is clear by visiting other groups where the
>> idiots
>> who post here don't usually go.
>
> So why does he go after me when I am trying to help?

Because of the blinders you are apparently wearing.

I've agreed with
> him at times, I've thanked him for information, I've even laughed at a
> couple of his jokes. And yet he keeps up with this aggressive posture.

Granted he's no day at the beach, but confrontational is not always the same
as attacking.
Stop denying reality and face up to the fact that 2+2=4.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>> Jenn said:
>>
>>>> For all
>>>> the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have
>>>> attacked him because it is better for people to have
>>>> the right information
>>
>>> So why does he go after me when I am trying to help?
>>> I've agreed with him at times, I've thanked him for
>>> information, I've even laughed at a couple of his jokes.
>>> And yet he keeps up with this aggressive posture.
>>
>> Is that a rhetorical question? ;-)
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/ecf9be1d6b34f5f4?hl=en&
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/14169ece255c84ef?hl=en&
>
> Interesting how Richman never seemed to notice years afer year of
> weirdness from Middius.
>
Or his own wierd behavior.

> Actually not interesting at all - just another example of how one dirty
> RAO hand washes another.
>

[Ruud Broens]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
oups.com...

: Gee, sorry that I mispelled your name; finger stuck on the n,
: obviously. You have misspelled my name a few times. What that an
: attack?

thanks for admitting, Jenn,
you like attacking Arny,
such as by cruelly confronting hym with logic
lots'Z
;-)

[Jenn]

In article .net>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article et>,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article
> >> >> >> > . com>,
> >> >> >> > "vlad" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Jenn wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> In article
> >> >> >> >>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >> >>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> .co
> >> >> >> >>>> m
> >> >> >> >>>>> In article
> >> >> >> >>>>> >, "Arny
> >> >> >> >>>>> Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> gy.
> >> >> >> >>>>>> com
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> In article >,
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> ink.net
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> short, has classed up the place by giving
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>> wondering how many have tried them?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> Nobody with a brain.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> even more useless than it was. How low can the
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>> so-called subjectivists go?
> >> >> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
> >> >> >> >>>>>>> seriously.
> >> >> >> >>>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>>> I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
> >> >> >> >>>>>> tweeks Jenn. Not!
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Avoidance of my point noted.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
> >> >> >> >>>> substance to avoid?
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> My point was totally supported by your initial
> >> >> >> >>> sentence: "How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
> >> >> >> >>>>> disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing
> >> >> >> >>>>> new to add.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> That's the coward's road - it suits you well.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
> >> >> >> >>> without him coming back with an insult?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In my opinion, Arny is right.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Of course.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> What Jenn does is instead of addressing
> >> >> >> >> his point she attacks the messenger (Arni). Very typical
> >> >> >> >> of her.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Read further up. Arny does EXACTLY what you claim I did.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Instead of addressing the point that I don't comment on
> >> >> >> > points where my views are already expressed by others
> >> >> >> > (which seems a perfectly sane thing to do)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is untrue. Jen piles on whenever the spirit moves.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL Please provide some examples of me "piling on".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >, he calls me a
> >> >> >> > coward (attacking the messenger.)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Sue me for telling the truth.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are free to call me a coward if you wish to, even though the
> >> >> > claim
> >> >> > is totally unsupported.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> It's a readily demonstrable fact that the subjectivists on RAO,
> >> >> >> particularly
> >> >> >> 2 or three of them are the source sof the overwhelming majority of
> >> >> >> personal
> >> >> >> attacks around here. They don't discuss issues, they don't deal
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> message, they just attack the messenger, whether he's actually
> >> >> >> delivering
> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> message at the time or not.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Jenn and Stephen like to pretend that I bring this on myself,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > False. I don't "like to pretend" anything. The clear fact is that
> >> >> > you
> >> >> > often display an abrasive personality. I seriously doubt that
> >> >> > anyone
> >> >> > would disagree with that statement.
> >> >>
> >> >> The people who won't disagree with it are the ones that are the
> >> >> instigators
> >> >> of the attacks.
> >> >
> >> > Overgeneralization. I've instigated no attacks, for example.
> >>
> >> You have your head elsewhere when it comes to the source of the problem.
> >
> > I'm providing an example of those who would agree with my statement, who
> > also don't instigate attacks.
> >
> What people are those? The people who don't engage in personal attacks, do
> not get attacked by the Objectivists.

Arny's treatment of me disproves your statement.

> >>
> >> Would YOU
> >> > disagree with the statement that Arny displays an abrasive personality?
> >> >
> >> If you get harrassed for being alive for the last 8 years, you tend to
> >> get
> >> testy.
> >
> > I would never be harassed by anyone for 8 years.
> >
>
> OK , let's suppose that you choose to post to a muscians group for the
> purpose of sharing and instructing others based on your knowledge of the
> subject. In the course of this, you make a statement or statements of
> verifiable fact that causes 3 or 4 people attack every word you say from
> then on. Do you stop posting to that group?

If I didn't display a generally nasty attitude and ignored the perps,
they would lose interest in flaming me. Basic group dynamics.

>
> >> I've been here for a very long time and not seen any testiness unless
> >> provoked.
> >
> > Please be willing to back up that statement. Most would say that Arny
> > has been "testy" toward me in the present discussion.
>
> Because you seem to be oblivious to the where the source of the problems
> are.

That is an excuse for his behavior toward me? I think not.

> Because you seem oblivious to certain facts about audio, which is why I
> suspect you post less often to RAHE.

Again, false. I've never claimed to have much knowledge or interest in
the technical matters of audio (did you miss that part?). But "facts"
don't change what I hear.

> A moderated forum that has several
> very knowledgeable contributors who regularly confronted your notions.

That only reason that I have posted much of late to RAHE is because I've
been busy here. I'll return there shortly, as I'll no doubt be leaving
here.

>
> How, exactly,
> > have I provoked it?
> >
> By blaming the wrong people.

Except that I haven't. I've blamed BOTH sides, clearly. Arny's
treatment of me is proof that his claim that the obs (him specifically)
are free from blame is false.

> Let's go back to the example of you posting to
> a musicans group.
> If someone came along after you had been posting there for some time and
> told you that it is you who cause the vitriol because you exist and because
> you refuse to let people who lie about you get away with their lies, do you
> stay calm in the face of inumerable posts saying that you are to blame for
> the trouble?

For the answer to that question, just see the posts between Arny and me.
By the way, your example is a bit off. If I was posting to
"rec.music.opinion" and a person or persons came on and said that my
opinion sucks, I'd say, "Thanks for your opinion. Mine differs." If
they got personal, I'd ignore them. What I WOULDN'T do if a person
politely expressed their OPINION about something, is start insulting
them.

> >>
> >> >> After 8 years or more of constant hostility to anything close to
> >> >> actual
> >> >> objective audio information, one tends to have little patience with
> >> >> assholes.
> >> >>
> >> >> What possible benefit is there in being civil to people who never are
> >> >> to
> >> >> you?
> >> >>
> >> >> I've been here almost as long as Arny and have seen the pattern far to
> >> >> often
> >> >> to pretend that it is anything other than persecution. Arny spoke of
> >> >> ABX
> >> >> and
> >> >> other things that go against the subjectivist dogma and he has been a
> >> >> target
> >> >> ever since. It has little to do with his personality and everything
> >> >> to
> >> >> do
> >> >> with his audio views.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's very simple, none of the usual suspects could win an argument on
> >> >> any
> >> >> audio subject against Arny and they know it, so they attack everything
> >> >> and
> >> >> anything else.
> >> >
> >> > So CHANGE THE PATTERN.
> >> >
> >> So don't talk about reality in audio?????????????????/
> >> >>
> >> >> As per my post yesterday, my advice
> >> >> > is to simply treat people as you wish to be treated.
>
> And when that fails and there is a never ending stream of attack threads
> with your name in the header, accusing you of unspeakable acts and accusing
> your spouse of prostitution, and you of necrophilia with one of your
> children? GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD, it doesn't matter how nice Arny is or
> not, there is a cadre of people here who will not stop until Arny stops
> posting ANYTHING.

I've not seen any evidence of Arny acting "nice" in any kind of general
way. Isolated posts? Sure.

>
> If you don't like
> >> >> > how someone is treating you, ignore them; the problem is likely to
> >> >> > go
> >> >> > away.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> You are dreaming. The usual suspects are not going to let up until
> >> >> anybody
> >> >> who makes any accurate and consistent statements about audio is driven
> >> >> away.
> >> >> It is they who should be doing the ignoring and simply let people make
> >> >> up
> >> >> their minds about what is real and what is not, but they will not let
> >> >> that
> >> >> happen. They trash every single audio topic and do it with the most
> >> >> vile
> >> >> and personal attacks imaginable, as I'm sure you have already seen,
> >> >> form
> >> >> the
> >> >> likes of Middius, EddieM and Fella.
> >> >
> >> > Again, it cuts both ways.
>
> No it doesn't. If people insult you every time you post on any topic and
> regardless of who yo are talking to.
>
> Remember the statements made to me based on
> >> > what I hear? "You're either stupid, deaf, or crazy." All for simply
> >> > and politely expressing my opinion.
> >> >
> >> Because it is quite clearly an opinion that makes no sense, based on the
> >> reality of CD playback and the facts of the immense amounts of ditortion
> >> present in LP's, combined with your profession.
> >
> > And since you can't understand the opinion, you feel free to toss
> > insults as a response? Most folks wouldn't see that as a very adult
> > response.
> >
> Most folks respond negatively to people who ignore thngs that are a matter
> of indisputable fact.
> How would act towards someone who kept telling you that 2+2=5, every day and
> every time you posted?

How does that relate to my opinion of what I hear?

> >>
> >> If having your opinions challenged in that way is to much for you, then
> >> it's
> >> time for you to either grow a thicker skin or get out.
> >
> > You're probably right. The later option is probably the right one.
> >
> That depends on your commitment to the topic.

No, it has nothing to do with commitment, other than who should be
subject to it.

>
> >> AFAIK I was the
> >> ahrdest on you about your statments on timbre but I don't believe I
> >> called
> >> you stupid. I don't think anybody else did either.
> >
> > Yes, you held that up as a possibility.
> >
> And I have explained why. I'm not saying that's the case but again 2+2=4.
> CD playback is many times more accurate than LP's ever can be.

Your opinion of my intelligence (LOL) is in no way relevant to what I
HEAR.

> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Pull your head from the clouds and get used to the fact that they will
> >> >> never
> >> >> let up and they will not let up.
> >> >
> >> > Has it been tried?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> Of course it's been tried, but as Arny has already told you, he doesn't
> >> have
> >> to be here for people to attack him. There was never any reason for
> >> Middius
> >> to use foul language in reards to Arny's wife and family, yet it has been
> >> done regularly. You still don't get it, it doesn't matter anymore what
> >> he
> >> says, he provoked the Gods of subjectivism and told the truth, and has
> >> had a
> >> target on his back ever since. It has nothing to with him per se, as
> >> evey
> >> single objectiv ist has been treated the same way.
> >>
> >> Look up posts from JJ, ( the guy who wrothe the book on much of digital
> >> playback) Stewart Pinkerton, Nousaine or from Dr. B.J. Feng. None of
> >> them
> >> got any respect and all were or are trashed every time they post by the
> >> usual suspects, mostly Middius.
> >>
> >> Even a bona fide expert and near legend in audio, Dick Pierce gets ****
> >> hurled at him because he actually knows what he is talking about.
> >>
> >> I ask again, what is the benefit of being nice oreven civil to Middius,
> >> Fella, or anyone who resents the fact that you know anything and have the
> >> audacity to both speak the truth and draw breath?
> >>
> >> >> >> but the record
> >> >> >> shows that I don't have to even be posting here to be attacked.
> >> >> >> Furthmore, I
> >> >> >> don't have to be doing what I'm being attacked for doing.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There is often no connection between my actions and the attacks
> >> >> >> against
> >> >> >> me.
> >> >> >> That fact completely falsifies their claims that I bring the
> >> >> >> attacks
> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> myself.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kind of like being called a coward for no reason?
> >>
> >> If you deny that the truth is the truth because you don't think it's nice
> >> to
> >> provoke people who don't care about anything other than insults and
> >> attacks,
> >> then you ARE a coward.
> >
> > Red herring, big time.
> >
> >> Some people actually are just plain NASTY.
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> >> For all
> >> the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have attacked him
> >> because
> >> it is better for people to have the right information, that's the kind of
> >> person he is, not the made up monster that the swine here would like you
> >> to
> >> believe, and the evidence is clear by visiting other groups where the
> >> idiots
> >> who post here don't usually go.
> >
> > So why does he go after me when I am trying to help?
>
> Because of the blinders you are apparently wearing.

That's an odd approach to life, IMO; someone tries to help, so you
insult her.

>
> I've agreed with
> > him at times, I've thanked him for information, I've even laughed at a
> > couple of his jokes. And yet he keeps up with this aggressive posture.
>
> Granted he's no day at the beach, but confrontational is not always the same
> as attacking.
> Stop denying reality and face up to the fact that 2+2=4.

Stop denying the reality that Arny is far more than simply
"confrontational".

[Jenn]

In article .net>,
> wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article et>,
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> >> message
> >> >> ups.com...
> >> >> > From: >
> >> >> > Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
> >> >> > Email: >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the insults, they
> >> >> >>simply
> >> >> >>respond to them when they are flung.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Translation: "They make me do it!"
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you not respond to people who insult you?
> >> >
> >> > If I may butt in for a sec... It's not whether one responds at all so
> >> > much as it is the style with which one responds, IMO.
> >> >
> >> So substance is not important?
> >
> > That's not the point. The obvious point is that over time people tend
> > to respond in the same style that they are presented with.
> >
> >> Interesting. Wrong, but interesting.
> >> One can learn from a curmudgeon, but not from someone without any
> >> knowledge.
> >> Guess which I prefer?
> >
> > Not the issue. The issue is, "How do each of us want to be approached
> > in this NG?"
>
> Hopefully with the best most accurate information there is. Arny has been
> doing that for years and look what he gets for it.

And I would give him nothing but respect for his knowledge of the
technical aspects of the hobby if he weren't always so nasty.

>
> Do you want just constant insults?
>
> Of course not, but there's nothing you or I can do about swine like Middius
> et al, when all they ever do is insult.
>
> Fine, that's what you
> > have. If you want to change it, start changing it.
>
> If you bother to observe, you will find that most of the time, when I
> respond to anybody, it is not with insults, but then it always turns when
> the other side starts in with insults. Very seldom do I draw first blood as
> it were. Even with people who have a history of insults, I will usually try
> and stay cordial, but there are people for whom this makes zero difference.

I've experienced the same.

>
> The noise level is where it is because of the subjectivists who will not
> stay civil or on topic.

Ignore them and discuss audio with those who are cordial.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: >
Date: Thurs, Mar 23 2006 12:19 pm
Email: >

>Hopefully with the best most accurate information there is. Arny has been
>doing that for years and look what he gets for it.

Oh. The 'high road' argument again.

>The noise level is where it is because of the subjectivists who will not
>stay civil or on topic.

Arny can't show any insults from Jenn.

Can you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
ups.com


>> From: >
>> Date: Sat, Mar 18 2006 2:59 pm
>> Email: >

>>> Because as a gnereal rule, the 'Obs' don't start the
>>> insults, they simply respond to them when they are flung.
>> Translation: "They make me do it!"

>Bogus red herring argument.

Not at all. You and nob frequently whine about insults. When it is
pointed out that you and he are among the highest-output posters of
insults, it becomes, "But the Subs started it!" or "The Subs do it more
than we do!"

>In fact it doesn't matter how the so-called Obs respond to the overwhelming
>barrageof provocations from the Subs on RAO. It's bad enough that the Subs
>are out there flinging the crap, just about every chance they get.

In your case, you're probably right: you've been such a big ass to so
many for so long that you'll get flamed no matter what you do. You've
brought that upon yourself.

In nob's case, he gets flamed primarily because he's such a moron.

I don't see too many other obs getting treated all that roughly.

Why do you suppose you and nob get treated the way you do? Envy? LOL!

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said, apparently to himself but presumably intended for the
Krooborg:

> Why do you suppose you and nob get treated the way you do? Envy? LOL!

Krooger has a quaint set of delusions about why he receives what he calls
"abuse". Here are a couple of examples:

<====== begin quote ======>
Scottie:
So, why you guys keep expecting Arny to do what he is obviously
incapable of doing is beyond me.

Mr. ****:
Because they are jealous of my mind share. There are some very
fundamental problems with their approach, but I'm not going to tell
them how to do things right given that its to my advantage to keep
screwing up like they have.
<====== end quote ======>

<====== begin quote ======>
Dr. Z:
[The Krooborg] equates mindshare with achievement.

Mr. ****:
Whoaaaa, Zelniker admits that I've got mindshare. Yes, that's the
problem. I have mindshare and that makes these guys uncomfortable.
<====== end quote ======>

<====== begin quote ======>
Pseudonymous sockpuppet:
Again, all [the Krooborg's] words are...only words...

Mr. ****:
It's been said that I have too much "mindshare" in pretty much
exactly those words.
<====== end quote ======>



--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
hlink.net
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at]
>> comcast [dot] net> wrote in message
>>
>>> Jenn said:
>>>
>>>>> For all
>>>>> the **** Arny gets he has helped even people who have
>>>>> attacked him because it is better for people to have
>>>>> the right information
>>>
>>>> So why does he go after me when I am trying to help?
>>>> I've agreed with him at times, I've thanked him for
>>>> information, I've even laughed at a couple of his
>>>> jokes. And yet he keeps up with this aggressive
>>>> posture.
>>>
>>> Is that a rhetorical question? ;-)
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/ecf9be1d6b34f5f4?hl=en&
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/14169ece255c84ef?hl=en&
>>
>> Interesting how Richman never seemed to notice years
>> afer year of weirdness from Middius.
>>
> Or his own wierd behavior.

That too.

>> Actually not interesting at all - just another example
>> of how one dirty RAO hand washes another.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message


> Stop denying the reality that Arny is far more than simply
> "confrontational".

So Jenn, you're one attack thread with my name in the title line ahead of
me. How much further do you intend to go?

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

<context restored>
>Jenn: > I've agreed with
> > him at times, I've thanked him for information, I've even laughed at a
> > couple of his jokes. And yet he keeps up with this aggressive posture.
>
>Mike: > Granted he's no day at the beach, but confrontational is not
always the same
> as attacking.
> Stop denying reality and face up to the fact that 2+2=4.

>Jenn: Stop denying the reality that Arny is far more than simply
>"confrontational".

>Arny: So Jenn, you're one attack thread with my name in the title line
ahead of
>me. How much further do you intend to go?

I've made no "attack thread" with your name in the title. In fact, I've
made no attack thread at all.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Sat, Mar 25 2006 11:05 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" >

>So Jenn, you're one attack thread with my name in the title line ahead of
>me. How much further do you intend to go?

You accuse Jenn of insulting you, you are unwilling to provide proof of
your assertion, and then when Jenn asks if anybody has seen any
insults, that is an 'attack.'

So what's the weather like in your world today?

Are all three suns shining brightly?