All this whining about who's meaner is pointless

[George M. Middius]

Arnii Krooger is a giant tub of ****. duh-Mikey is the Krooborg's mindless
stoolie and apologist, and therefore also a tub of ****, although perhaps
a lesser one. Stupey Sillybot is a snotty, worthless troll.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear, though: None of the above
individuals is an "objectivist". They all use subjective means to choose
their gear. Krooger in particular rejects the sobriquet, calling himself
instead "a reliable subjectivist" (albeit without bothering to explain
what on earth that phrase means).

However, and this is a big but, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the
Normals call the 'borgs more names than vice-versa. Also that we call them
nastier names, that we mock them more relentlessly, that in general we
treat them without the least little bit of respect. At least I do. A few
other RAO regulars might also join me in that position. And we don't
apologize for it because They deserve it.

You see, for anybody who hasn't figured it out yet, the Normals don't care
how other people choose their stuff. We don't care how much or how little
they spend, or how often they change their stuff, or what kind of music
they listen to. Can the 'borgs say the same thing? No, They cannot. They
care more than anything about those issues. That's what makes them 'borgs.
Not "objectivists", who, if they did exist, would simply be human beings
who purport to making choices for "objective" reasons (whatever that
means). In fact, we've seen several individuals who lean in that direction
on RAO over the years, individuals who simply state their opinions without
attempting to devalue Normals' preferences. An "objectivist" might feel
that CDs' superior technical endowments allow it to capture a recording
more fully and with greater fidelity. A 'borg claims that subjective
impressions to the contrary are the product of dishonesty or delusions.
The difference is pretty stark.

And don't get me started on Shovels.

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Arnii Krooger is a giant tub of ****. duh-Mikey is the Krooborg's mindless
> stoolie and apologist, and therefore also a tub of ****, although perhaps
> a lesser one. Stupey Sillybot is a snotty, worthless troll.
>
> Let's make one thing perfectly clear, though: None of the above
> individuals is an "objectivist". They all use subjective means to choose
> their gear. Krooger in particular rejects the sobriquet, calling himself
> instead "a reliable subjectivist" (albeit without bothering to explain
> what on earth that phrase means).
>
Well you could use Google to find out he's explained several times.

> However, and this is a big but, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the
> Normals call the 'borgs more names than vice-versa. Also that we call them
> nastier names, that we mock them more relentlessly, that in general we
> treat them without the least little bit of respect. At least I do. A few
> other RAO regulars might also join me in that position. And we don't
> apologize for it because They deserve it.
>
> You see, for anybody who hasn't figured it out yet, the Normals don't care
> how other people choose their stuff.

And you thinnk we care about how YOU do? Completely untrue.

We don't care how much or how little
> they spend, or how often they change their stuff, or what kind of music
> they listen to. Can the 'borgs say the same thinng?
No, They cannot.

Easily, since it's true. I don't care about how you do it or what you listen
to.


They
> care more than anything about those issues.

Untrue.

That's what makes them 'borgs.
> Not "objectivists", who, if they did exist, would simply be human beings
> who purport to making choices for "objective" reasons (whatever that
> means).

The objective part means recognizing that there is science involved in the
design of audio equipment and in how people hear and what they are capable
of hearing, and that denying these things is pointless.

In fact, we've seen several individuals who lean in that direction
> on RAO over the years, individuals who simply state their opinions without
> attempting to devalue Normals' preferences. An "objectivist" might feel
> that CDs' superior technical endowments allow it to capture a recording
> more fully and with greater fidelity.

It's not a feeling, it's a fact.

A 'borg claims that subjective
> impressions to the contrary are the product of dishonesty or delusions.
> The difference is pretty stark.
>
You're ignoring the science. The discussion about the accuracy of Cd over
LP has been done to death, and it's not worth going into again.

Some people prefer the sound of LP and nobody I know oif cares if the do or
not.
It's never been about preference, no matter how many times you want to claim
otherwise.

Nobody I know of cares how you choose your gear, no matter how many tmes you
claim otherwise.

The only thing I or anyone else that you call Borg has ever said is that you
can do so with more accurate methods than sighetd non-level matched. This
is because there is lots of evidence that the aforementioned method is an
almost surefire guarantee of inaccurate results.

All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it and lie about it.

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:


> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it and lie about it.


Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the obvious fact that this peculiar little
man is driven to teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of us hated
*objectivists* posting on what he seems to believe is *his* newsgroup?

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
[snip]>
> You see, for anybody who hasn't figured it out yet, the Normals don't care
> how other people choose their stuff. We don't care how much or how little
> they spend, or how often they change their stuff, or what kind of music
> they listen to. Can the 'borgs say the same thing? No, They cannot. They
> care more than anything about those issues. That's what makes them 'borgs.
> Not "objectivists", who, if they did exist, would simply be human beings
> who purport to making choices for "objective" reasons (whatever that
> means). In fact, we've seen several individuals who lean in that direction
> on RAO over the years, individuals who simply state their opinions without
> attempting to devalue Normals' preferences. An "objectivist" might feel
> that CDs' superior technical endowments allow it to capture a recording
> more fully and with greater fidelity. A 'borg claims that subjective
> impressions to the contrary are the product of dishonesty or delusions.
> The difference is pretty stark.
>
I happen to agree with the above. Well put.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > A 'borg claims that subjective
> > impressions to the contrary are the product of dishonesty or delusions.
> > The difference is pretty stark.

> I happen to agree with the above. Well put.

Thanks. Did you see Sillybot the Zeroborg howling in pain at being pegged? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Shovels is a foot fetishist. Who knew?

> ankles
> ankles
> beaver teeth
> ankles
> weasel feet
> ankle biter
> weasel

And an unhealthy rodent fixation as well. Two unhealthy obsessions, plus of
course your legendary logorrhea... Does National Health cover the kind of
mental counseling you'd need, probably for the rest of your life? Hey wait
a second -- Shovels, why do you wait so long between visits to Usenet?
There's some kind of pattern here. The cycle seems too dilated for a
bipolar affliction. Maybe Robert will get his network of spies busy and
find out what flicks your switches on and off.

[124]

George M. Middius wrote:

> Let's make one thing perfectly clear, though:

George, you are now beginning to sound like Nixon.

> None of the above individuals is an "objectivist." They all use subjective means to
> choose their gear.

Everyone uses subjective means to choose their gear.

> Krooger in particular rejects the sobriquet, calling himself instead "a reliable
> subjectivist" (albeit without bothering to explain what on earth that phrase means).

Perhaps he means that he is aware of aural illusions.

> However, and this is a big but, I'm perfectly willing to concede that the
> Normals call the 'borgs more names than vice-versa. Also that we call them
> nastier names, that we mock them more relentlessly, that in general we
> treat them without the least little bit of respect.

True.

> At least I do.

An understatement.

> A few other RAO regulars might also join me in that position.

True. About a handful.

> And we don't apologize for it because They deserve it.

What colour is the sky in your world?

> You see, for anybody who hasn't figured it out yet, the Normals don't care
> how other people choose their stuff.

Bull. If you did not care, you would not have written your post. And,
George, you are most definitely _not_ normal.

> We don't care how much or how little they spend, or how often they change their
> stuff, or what kind of music they listen to.

Bull.

> Can the 'borgs say the same thing? No, They cannot. They
> care more than anything about those issues.

George, I do not give a damn how much you spent on your system, how
often you change your system, or what you listen to. If you think I
care, keep living in your fantasy world.

> That's what makes them 'borgs.

What makes us 'borgs is your inability to debate the issues without
posts that are abusive in content or tone.

> In fact, we've seen several individuals who lean in that direction on RAO over the
> years, individuals who simply state their opinions without attempting to devalue
> Normals' preferences.

George, have you ever devalued anyone's preferences?

> An "objectivist" might feel that CDs' superior technical endowments allow it to
> capture a recording more fully and with greater fidelity.

CDs are technically superior to records.

> A 'borg claims that subjective
> impressions to the contrary are the product of dishonesty or delusions.

I have said that it is a matter of preference. Never have I said that
it is dishonesty or delusion.

--124

[dave weil]

On 19 Mar 2006 08:47:24 -0800, wrote:

>....and George by all accounts is an insecure sci-fi geek in his 40's
>or 50's with serious control issues in his life, still calling people
>childish names ever since he was 3 years old .

>But being an impotent nerd, George
>such a scurrying little weasel
> by gnawing your ankles with his little plastic beaver teeth.
>little Georgie happier than a pig in ****.
>I already hear the quick scuffling of little weasel feet coming
>Since you're too great an idiot
>being nothing more than an ignorant ankle biter
>lowlife lying weasel
>troll

> All you know how to do however, is "relentlessly mock and deride" people,

>you attack them with mockery and childish taunts
>little Georgie
>George went on a drama-queen hissy fit
> a fool Georgie.
>deriding them with childish names
>"impotent geek",
> a troll

Well, it's obvious that you're no Graham Chapman, much less Jonathan
Swift. Just so you know, Swift was a famous satirist in the 1700s.
<chuckle>

[George M. Middius]

4 of 12 has a lucid moment, but it passes quickly.

> > Can the 'borgs say the same thing? No, They cannot. They
> > care more than anything about those issues.

> George, I do not give a damn how much you spent on your system, how
> often you change your system, or what you listen to. If you think I
> care, keep living in your fantasy world.

Well isn't that special? A 'borg who aspires to Normalness. One in twelve,
you are. ;-)

> > That's what makes them 'borgs.

> What makes us 'borgs is your inability to debate the issues without
> posts that are abusive in content or tone.

Oops! Back into 'borg fantasy world goes 4 of 12. It was nice to have you
in our dimension, but your visit was too short. Sorry you found reality so
repellent.

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>
>> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it and lie about it.
>
>
> Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the obvious fact that
> this peculiar little
> man is driven to teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of
> us hated
> *objectivists* posting on what he seems to believe is *his* newsgroup?
>
I guess I just hate to see his bull**** go unchallenged.

Let's try killfiling him and see what happens?

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:

> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it and lie about it.
> >
> >
> > Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the obvious fact that
> > this peculiar little
> > man is driven to teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of
> > us hated
> > *objectivists* posting on what he seems to believe is *his* newsgroup?
> >
> I guess I just hate to see his bull**** go unchallenged.

> Let's try killfiling him and see what happens?

Done long ago.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[George M. Middius]

Stupey, you know you peek at my posts.

> > Let's try killfiling him and see what happens?[sic]

> Done long ago.

Stupey's afraid to match wits with Big Bad George. Nyaah-nyaah-nyaah.

[Arny Krueger]

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


> Let's make one thing perfectly clear, though: None of the
> above individuals is an "objectivist". They all use
> subjective means to choose their gear. Krooger in
> particular rejects the sobriquet, calling himself instead
> "a reliable subjectivist" (albeit without bothering to
> explain what on earth that phrase means).


As usual Middius is speaking out the back of his neck. I explained what I
mean by the phrase "reliable subjectivist" in this post:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/573b89371b65eb8b

"...I am a "Reliable Subjectivist". In other, it is my opinion that in the
end our
view of the universe is rather obviously subjective, but what separates the
technical types from the tweaks is attention to issues of reliability and
inherency."

Here is one George Middius replying to the above post by quoting part of it:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/fb8178de02ec4f87

Therefore, we can conclude once again that by any reasonable definition of
the word, George Middius is a proven liar.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> wrote:
>
>
>> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it and
>> lie about it.
>
>
> Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the
> obvious fact that this peculiar little man is driven to
> teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of
> us hated *objectivists* posting on what he seems to
> believe is *his* newsgroup?

For one thing, had I killfiled Middius I would have missed out on yet
another opportunity to prove that Middius is a habitual liar.

[Arny Krueger]

"124" > wrote in
message
oups.com
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>> Let's make one thing perfectly clear, though:
>
> George, you are now beginning to sound like Nixon.
>
>> None of the above individuals is an "objectivist." They
>> all use subjective means to choose their gear.
>
> Everyone uses subjective means to choose their gear.
>
>> Krooger in particular rejects the sobriquet, calling
>> himself instead "a reliable subjectivist" (albeit
>> without bothering to explain what on earth that phrase
>> means).
>
> Perhaps he means that he is aware of aural illusions.

No, its just a matter of George being a habitual liar.

I just showed in another thread that George is completely aware of my
explanation of what I think the phrase "reliable subjectivist" means, given
that he quoted part of a post where I explained that.

Sad.

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it and
>>> lie about it.
>>
>>
>> Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the
>> obvious fact that this peculiar little man is driven to
>> teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of
>> us hated *objectivists* posting on what he seems to
>> believe is *his* newsgroup?
>
> For one thing, had I killfiled Middius I would have missed out on yet
> another opportunity to prove that Middius is a habitual liar.
>
How many people are left that don't know that?

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it and
> >> lie about it.
> >
> >
> > Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the
> > obvious fact that this peculiar little man is driven to
> > teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of
> > us hated *objectivists* posting on what he seems to
> > believe is *his* newsgroup?

> For one thing, had I killfiled Middius I would have missed out on yet
> another opportunity to prove that Middius is a habitual liar.

I would think that's long past the point of requiring more proof.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[George M. Middius]

Stupey, you're going to make Mickey jealous.

> I would think that's long past the point of requiring more proof.

I advise you not to swallow. Krooger's jizz is unusually toxic, even for a
'borg.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it
>>>> and lie about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the
>>> obvious fact that this peculiar little man is driven to
>>> teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of
>>> us hated *objectivists* posting on what he seems to
>>> believe is *his* newsgroup?
>
>> For one thing, had I killfiled Middius I would have
>> missed out on yet another opportunity to prove that
>> Middius is a habitual liar.
>
> I would think that's long past the point of requiring
> more proof.

There seem to be a number of people around here who are learning-disabled on
this point. They seem to need lots of reminding. One of them is Middius
himself.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All the other nonsense is mostly because you deny it
>>>>> and lie about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why bother replying to George? Why not just enjoy the
>>>> obvious fact that this peculiar little man is driven to
>>>> teeth-gnashing, hypertensive distraction whenever one of
>>>> us hated *objectivists* posting on what he seems to
>>>> believe is *his* newsgroup?
>>
>>> For one thing, had I killfiled Middius I would have
>>> missed out on yet another opportunity to prove that
>>> Middius is a habitual liar.
>>
>> I would think that's long past the point of requiring
>> more proof.
>
> There seem to be a number of people around here who are learning-disabled
> on this point. They seem to need lots of reminding. One of them is Middius
> himself.
>

you can always try another round of false accusations.



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