Inquiry re "Soundhaspriority"

[Robert Morein]

There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr. Richard
Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority." This is a
fact-finding inquiry that solicits opinions and additions from all the
people known to post to r.a.o. Contributions from identities that are not
known to this author will not be accepted for addition.

Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects:

1. "Tweaks", or minor adjustments, to audio reproduction systems, that he
claims work by methods other than those known to acoustical physics and
electronics.

2. A "cream", which applied to eyeglasses, speakers, etc. is said to improve
audio reproduction by methods unknown to acoustical physics and
electronics.

Mr. Graham has said, "I do have tweaks for glasses, including aspecial cream
that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the sound you hear from your
audio system. It's not free though, and certainly not cheap." This
statement suggests that Mr. Graham has a proprietary interest in this
product. We do not know the specifics of this interest, if there is one.

It appears that George Middius and Dave Weil consider Mr. Graham an
unmitigated fraud. This has resulted in a thread heavily into adhominem
attacks between Middius and Weil, on one side, and Mr. Graham on the other.

The author of this post, Robert Morein, has asked Mr. Graham for an
explanation of how this cream works. Mr. Graham responded by stating that my
knowledge of science is not current, and therefore, that I am incapable of
understanding the "theory", which involves quantum mechanics. I responded
that my knowledge of science is current, and that I am very familiar with
quantum mechanics. Mr. Graham then indicated that he could not tell me,
because the "theory" is proprietary. Mr. Graham lambasts Dave Weil for not
understanding the "theory", but no theory has been presented.

Therefore, we have a "cream", which is alleged by Mr. Graham to work, but
without any explanation of how.

Several questions present themselves:
1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells? If
so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a newsgroup
for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.

2. Your opinions are solicited regarding Mr. Graham's offerings:
a. His "free tweaks", such as the aspirin-and-pinhole, or the cutting
off of the corners of clothing labels
b. His offering of the "cream".

3. Is Mr. Graham to be believed? If not:
a. Does Mr. Graham believe himself that these methods and offerings
work?
b. Is Mr. Graham a fraud, in the sense of awareness that these methods
and offerings do not work, but advocating and promoting them nevertheless?

All of you are invited to respond: John Atkinson, Arny, Mike McKelvy, Sander
deWaal, George Middius, Dave Weil, Andre Jute, Ludovic Mirabel, Paul Packer,
Trevor Wilson, Francois Yves LeGal, "Shhhh! I'm Listening", Scott Wheeler,
Jenn, Bret Ludwig, Howard Ferstler, "Fella", "Walt",
"Goofball_star_dot_etal", etal :)

The results will be tallied, excluding individuals I do not know, to avoid
"rigging."
PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES. I will tally all the
answers. "Adhominum" will distract from the purpose.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells? If
> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a newsgroup
> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.

No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.

> 2. Your opinions are solicited regarding Mr. Graham's offerings:
> a. His "free tweaks", such as the aspirin-and-pinhole, or the cutting
> off of the corners of clothing labels

Nobody, including Shovels, believes there is any merit to such activities.

> b. His offering of the "cream".

Shovels clearly has a talent for BSing. The "cream" idea seems to have just
popped out of his overactive cerebellum when he saw somebody say "speaker
placement".

> 3. Is Mr. Graham to be believed? If not:
> a. Does Mr. Graham believe himself that these methods and offerings
> work?

No.

> b. Is Mr. Graham a fraud, in the sense of awareness that these methods
> and offerings do not work, but advocating and promoting them nevertheless?

Not a fraud, just a mischief maker.

> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES. I will tally all the
> answers. "Adhominum" will distract from the purpose.

That's "ad hominem", Bobo.




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

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
said:


>That's "ad hominem", Bobo.


If irony killed, LoT;S ;-) ©

--

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

[Fella]

Robert Morein wrote:
>

>
> Several questions present themselves:
> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells? If
> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a newsgroup
> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.
>

No he does not sell anything, IMO. I beleive he has been abusive and
confrontational with almost everbody here, that's not the hallmark of a
salesman, IMO.


> 2. Your opinions are solicited regarding Mr. Graham's offerings:
> a. His "free tweaks", such as the aspirin-and-pinhole, or the cutting
> off of the corners of clothing labels

Now why would you think anyone would have any kind of a differing
opinion on that stuff?

> b. His offering of the "cream".

I guess I missed this one, cream, I'll look it up, I don't really read
his mile long rants anymore.

>
> 3. Is Mr. Graham to be believed? If not:
> a. Does Mr. Graham believe himself that these methods and offerings
> work?

Yes, I beleive he sincerely beleives all that stuff. His over-defensive
and bitter attacking stance tells of a man ridiculed all his life for
beleiving in and actively and shamelessly advocating such unconventional
(read: looney tunes) stuff like that.

> b. Is Mr. Graham a fraud, in the sense of awareness that these methods
> and offerings do not work, but advocating and promoting them nevertheless?

If 3a = yes, then 3b = no, else reverse.

BTW: SHP, when I called that spanish guy a troll I was not taking a
stance on whether or not directionality exists in cables. His initial
post had all the ingredients to start up a cockfight between the so
called borgs and normals, exotic high end stuff endorsed by a high end
"ragazine" leaving him cold was supposed to be the boiling point, a borg
was supposed to come out saying look what those ragazines make people
buy, etc, and us normals were supposed to start defending the high end
exotica, etc, and the directionality of his rca's was the icing on the
cake, as it were. We were to have a bout and he was to snicker there on
the sidelines. He was confirming this scenario with his dumb "Hav'nt
seen so much bitching since I saw a couple of women knock seven bells
out of each other in my local bar" too eager, too early victory rant.

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >That's "ad hominem", Bobo.

> If irony killed, LoT;S ;-) ©

Spoken like a tweako-freako nitwit. Didn't you say you love tube gear,
Clyde? When I think of tubes, my blood pressure shoots up. Get a life.
Learn to write. Arnii is a very smart guy.




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

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells? If
>> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a newsgroup
>> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.
>
> No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
>
Please examine http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ and
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html

It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and that
Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard Graham
and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics. We would like
to point out to readers that the P.W.B. Newsletters are compiled, edited and
produced by Dr. Richard Graham - completely independently of P.W.B.
Electronics. P.W.B. Electronics do not have or exercise any editorial
control over the Newsletters."

Whether this is a complete statement of the facts of the matter is up for
question. If the contents of the newsletter are, in the vast preponderance,
favorable to the interests of PWB, then it is irrelevant whether the Belts
exercise control over it.

In his correspondence with me, Mr. Graham has given his credentials as a
Ph.D in applied mathematics from the University of Leeds. However, he states
in http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/intro.html that "My own background in
Medicine, Child Development Research and Psychological Treatments influenced
my decision to start the Newsletter."

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:


>>> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells? If
>>> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a newsgroup
>>> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.


>> No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.


>Please examine http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ and
>http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html

>It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and that
>Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard Graham
>and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics. We would like
>to point out to readers that the P.W.B. Newsletters are compiled, edited and
>produced by Dr. Richard Graham - completely independently of P.W.B.
>Electronics. P.W.B. Electronics do not have or exercise any editorial
>control over the Newsletters."


Is John Atkinson "selling" Stereophile in this newsgroup?

--

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

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
>
>>>> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells?
>>>> If
>>>> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a
>>>> newsgroup
>>>> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.
>
>
>>> No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
>
>
>>Please examine http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ and
>>http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html
>
>>It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and that
>>Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>>follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard Graham
>>and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics. We would like
>>to point out to readers that the P.W.B. Newsletters are compiled, edited
>>and
>>produced by Dr. Richard Graham - completely independently of P.W.B.
>>Electronics. P.W.B. Electronics do not have or exercise any editorial
>>control over the Newsletters."
>
>
> Is John Atkinson "selling" Stereophile in this newsgroup?
>
Sander, may I have your help in keeping this thread on topic? We could do
that one next.

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > said:
>>
>>
>>>>> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells?
>>>>> If
>>>>> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a
>>>>> newsgroup
>>>>> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.
>>
>>
>>>> No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
>>
>>
>>>Please examine http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ and
>>>http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html
>>
>>>It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and
>>>that
>>>Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>>>follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard
>>>Graham
>>>and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics. We would
>>>like
>>>to point out to readers that the P.W.B. Newsletters are compiled, edited
>>>and
>>>produced by Dr. Richard Graham - completely independently of P.W.B.
>>>Electronics. P.W.B. Electronics do not have or exercise any editorial
>>>control over the Newsletters."
>>
>>
>> Is John Atkinson "selling" Stereophile in this newsgroup?
>>
> Sander, may I have your help in keeping this thread on topic? We could do
> that one next.

Bob, Could you please flag your psychotic inquisitions as OT...
or at least RD... (really dumb)?

I'm a bit busy of late. Thanks,

ScottW

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> > No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
>
>> It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and
>> that
>> Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>> follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard
>> Graham
>> and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics.
>
> I must have missed part of your evidence trail. I thought you deduced
> Shovels is Graham *because* of that citation on the PWB site. Is there an
> independent link between the Graham person and the RAO persona?
>
> To my mind, however, whether Graham is Shovels doesn't necessarily affect
> the issue of fraudulence. Yes, there's a Web site that purports to sell
> various items. Two buts to consider: First, there's no independent
> evidence that anybody has actually bought any of that stuff. Second,
> Shovels (whether it's Graham or somebody else) has not tried to sell the
> stuff on RAO, and it wasn't Shovels who posted the link to the Belts' site
> -- it was you. So even if you have a dead-certain ID of Shovels as Graham,
> you still haven't demonstrated any attempt to defraud victims.

If he is here hoping to get some pub for his site...Morein is as usual,
unwittingly abetting his efforts.

BTW...nice to see you had a good nap.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> > No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
>
>> It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and
>> that
>> Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>> follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard
>> Graham
>> and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics.
>
> I must have missed part of your evidence trail. I thought you deduced
> Shovels is Graham *because* of that citation on the PWB site. Is there an
> independent link between the Graham person and the RAO persona?
>
There is this:

> To my mind, however, whether Graham is Shovels doesn't necessarily affect
> the issue of fraudulence. Yes, there's a Web site that purports to sell
> various items. Two buts to consider: First, there's no independent
> evidence that anybody has actually bought any of that stuff. Second,
> Shovels (whether it's Graham or somebody else) has not tried to sell the
> stuff on RAO, and it wasn't Shovels who posted the link to the Belts' site
> -- it was you. So even if you have a dead-certain ID of Shovels as Graham,
> you still haven't demonstrated any attempt to defraud victims.
>
Just to be clear, I am not trying to show anything. The evidence is the

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> > No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
>
>> It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and
>> that
>> Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>> follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard
>> Graham
>> and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics.
>
> I must have missed part of your evidence trail. I thought you deduced
> Shovels is Graham *because* of that citation on the PWB site. Is there an
> independent link between the Graham person and the RAO persona?
>
There is this (contained within dotted lines):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path:
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!po stnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
Subject: Re: Reward for ID: Soundhaspriority
Date: 12 Mar 2006 18:39:47 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 44
Message-ID: . com>
References: >
>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 218.208.12.68
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1142217599 32102 127.0.0.1 (13 Mar 2006 02:39:59
GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: >
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; fr)
Opera 8.50,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.0 BaycomCache20[C0A80E38] (Traffic-Server/5.2.4 [uScM])
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=218.208.12.68;
posting-account=nwgr4A0AAADrsDB6S1xcSNl87xDc5ZEF


Robert Morein wrote:

> It appears most likely that "Soundhaspriority" is actually one Richard
> Graham, who gives his address as 9a Marden Road. London N17 6NE, with an
> email of .

Fine, you sussed me out. So what do you want now Bob, a dog biscuit?
(BTW, do I still get the $50 bucks for handing in my personal info to
you? I mean, I did go to the trouble to give you a web site link and
all.... That's worth something, when you think about it...)

> Mr. Graham, you must cease and desist from further false endorsements in
> my
> name.

Mr. Morein, I officially declare that you cease and desist from further
falsifications of our conversations, regarding your testing and
approval of: The L-Shape, under audio applications. I realize that you
have mental problems, but I don't think his magistrate will find them
persuasive enough to be a defense, so you should realize that you are
courting a libel suit.

> Mr. Graham uses the title "Dr." Does anyone know if he has been awarded
> such
> a degree from an accredited institution?

Yes, I do. University of Leeds, Dept. of Applied Mathematics. Now how
much do I get for that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> To my mind, however, whether Graham is Shovels doesn't necessarily affect
> the issue of fraudulence. Yes, there's a Web site that purports to sell
> various items. Two buts to consider: First, there's no independent
> evidence that anybody has actually bought any of that stuff. Second,
> Shovels (whether it's Graham or somebody else) has not tried to sell the
> stuff on RAO, and it wasn't Shovels who posted the link to the Belts' site
> -- it was you. So even if you have a dead-certain ID of Shovels as Graham,
> you still haven't demonstrated any attempt to defraud victims.
>
I'm not trying to show that he has. I am intrigued by the sudden switch from
apparently innocent suggestions, to, "I do have tweaks for glasses,
including aspecial cream that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the
sound you hear from your
audio system. It's not free though, and certainly not cheap."

This sounds like a commercial solicitation.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > Is there an independent link between the Graham person and the RAO persona?

> > It appears most likely that "Soundhaspriority" is actually one Richard
> > Graham, who gives his address as 9a Marden Road. London N17 6NE, with an
> > email of .

> Fine, you sussed me out.

OK then. So that's who he is. All we need now is for Terrierborg to tell
us we're wasting our time trying to pin him down. ;-)

> > you still haven't demonstrated any attempt to defraud victims.

> I'm not trying to show that he has. I am intrigued by the sudden switch from
> apparently innocent suggestions, to, "I do have tweaks for glasses,
> including aspecial cream that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the
> sound you hear from your audio system. It's not free though, and certainly not cheap."

> This sounds like a commercial solicitation.

More like a possible prelude to a solicitation.

I wonder if there was once a real person named Jamie Benchimol.....




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

[Arny Krueger]

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


> Rather, I believe he is
> an egomaniac and a troll whose only interest is provoking
> people into frenzied exchanges of insults and
> unresolvable verbal combat.

Kind of like George Middius, eh?

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> > Is there an independent link between the Graham person and the RAO
>> > persona?
>
>> > It appears most likely that "Soundhaspriority" is actually one Richard
>> > Graham, who gives his address as 9a Marden Road. London N17 6NE, with
>> > an
>> > email of .
>
>> Fine, you sussed me out.
>
> OK then. So that's who he is. All we need now is for Terrierborg to tell
> us we're wasting our time trying to pin him down. ;-)

Why do you need me to bring some sense into your senseless
existence? Let me guess... you're allying with Morein so you
exercise your mommyf'er schtick again?
Sure..that makes sense.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

A dialect more cryptic than Krooglish, and from another self-styled
"engineer". ;-)

> > OK then. So that's who he is. All we need now is for Terrierborg to tell
> > us we're wasting our time trying to pin him down. ;-)

> Why do you need me to bring some sense into your senseless
> existence?

Is that what I said? I'll bet Krooger loves you for paraphrasing my words.

> Let me guess... you're allying with Morein so you
> exercise your mommyf'er schtick again?
> Sure..that makes sense.

If that makes sense, I'd guess you must have been conked on the head
again. Hope you recover.




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

[[email protected]]

I'm sorry to say that but the mere fact that the RAO
stalwarts are taking time
to debate this stuff is high comedy of a theatre of the absurd
variety.. There is a French
term for two people who share delusions: "folie a deux". This is folie
a dozen or more,
I don't thinh he's trying to sell anything. The idea that anyone would
buy this
passeth my understanding. But then didn't someone once sell pebbles by
mail?
Ludovic Mirabel
Robert Morein wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Robert Morein said:
> >
> >> > No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
> >
> >> It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and
> >> that
> >> Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
> >> follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard
> >> Graham
> >> and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics.
> >
> > I must have missed part of your evidence trail. I thought you deduced
> > Shovels is Graham *because* of that citation on the PWB site. Is there an
> > independent link between the Graham person and the RAO persona?
> >
> There is this (contained within dotted lines):
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Path:
> border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!po stnews.google.com!j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From:
> Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
> Subject: Re: Reward for ID: Soundhaspriority
> Date: 12 Mar 2006 18:39:47 -0800
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 44
> Message-ID: . com>
> References: >
> >
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 218.208.12.68
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1142217599 32102 127.0.0.1 (13 Mar 2006 02:39:59
> GMT)
> X-Complaints-To:
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 02:39:59 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: >
> User-Agent: G2/0.2
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; fr)
> Opera 8.50,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.0 BaycomCache20[C0A80E38] (Traffic-Server/5.2.4 [uScM])
> Complaints-To:
> Injection-Info: j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=218.208.12.68;
> posting-account=nwgr4A0AAADrsDB6S1xcSNl87xDc5ZEF
> Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.audio.opinion:802504
>
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > It appears most likely that "Soundhaspriority" is actually one Richard
> > Graham, who gives his address as 9a Marden Road. London N17 6NE, with an
> > email of .
>
> Fine, you sussed me out. So what do you want now Bob, a dog biscuit?
> (BTW, do I still get the $50 bucks for handing in my personal info to
> you? I mean, I did go to the trouble to give you a web site link and
> all.... That's worth something, when you think about it...)
>
> > Mr. Graham, you must cease and desist from further false endorsements in
> > my
> > name.
>
> Mr. Morein, I officially declare that you cease and desist from further
> falsifications of our conversations, regarding your testing and
> approval of: The L-Shape, under audio applications. I realize that you
> have mental problems, but I don't think his magistrate will find them
> persuasive enough to be a defense, so you should realize that you are
> courting a libel suit.
>
> > Mr. Graham uses the title "Dr." Does anyone know if he has been awarded
> > such
> > a degree from an accredited institution?
>
> Yes, I do. University of Leeds, Dept. of Applied Mathematics. Now how
> much do I get for that?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > To my mind, however, whether Graham is Shovels doesn't necessarily affect
> > the issue of fraudulence. Yes, there's a Web site that purports to sell
> > various items. Two buts to consider: First, there's no independent
> > evidence that anybody has actually bought any of that stuff. Second,
> > Shovels (whether it's Graham or somebody else) has not tried to sell the
> > stuff on RAO, and it wasn't Shovels who posted the link to the Belts' site
> > -- it was you. So even if you have a dead-certain ID of Shovels as Graham,
> > you still haven't demonstrated any attempt to defraud victims.
> >
> I'm not trying to show that he has. I am intrigued by the sudden switch from
> apparently innocent suggestions, to, "I do have tweaks for glasses,
> including aspecial cream that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the
> sound you hear from your
> audio system. It's not free though, and certainly not cheap."
>
> This sounds like a commercial solicitation.

[paul packer]

wrote:
> I'm sorry to say that but the mere fact that the RAO
> stalwarts are taking time
> to debate this stuff is high comedy of a theatre of the absurd
> variety.. There is a French
> term for two people who share delusions: "folie a deux". This is folie
> a dozen or more,
> I don't thinh he's trying to sell anything. The idea that anyone would
> buy this
> passeth my understanding. But then didn't someone once sell pebbles by
> mail?
> Ludovic Mirabel

The frightening part is, if he were trying to sell something it would
at least be proof of his sanity. As it is, we have only proof to the
contrary. When he first started posting, I took it for a joke and was
just about to join in. Then I realized he was serious and instantly
went into shock. I would have recovered by now, for I recover well from
psychic trauma, except that rational, intelligent people, who staunchly
resist notions like, say, that a great spiritual teacher was put to
death two thousand years ago, are prepared to seriously examine ideas
far more far-fetched because some goose cunningly pricks their egos and
challenges them to broaden their horizons. Well, I for one intend to
keep my horizons narrow, and my sanity intact, and regale Mr. Sound's
tweaks with the howls of laughter they so richly deserve.

[GeoSynch]

Robert Morein wrote:

> Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects:
...
> 2. A "cream", which applied to eyeglasses, speakers, etc. is said to improve
> audio reproduction by methods unknown to acoustical physics and electronics.
.....
> Therefore, we have a "cream", which is alleged by Mr. Graham to work, but
> without any explanation of how.

Here's the crap, uh I mean cream, in question. written about by Greg Weaver in
Soundstage way back when:
http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize071999.htm

And here a few links tying in the P.W.B. newsletter to the original article by
Weaver:
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=simple-clusty&query=soundstage+weaver+tweak+cream+foil

BTW, it appears Weaver lost his credibility and his gig at Soundstage following
this brouhaha.


GeoSynch

[Robert Morein]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects:
> ...
>> 2. A "cream", which applied to eyeglasses, speakers, etc. is said to
>> improve audio reproduction by methods unknown to acoustical physics and
>> electronics.
> ....
>> Therefore, we have a "cream", which is alleged by Mr. Graham to work, but
>> without any explanation of how.
>
> Here's the crap, uh I mean cream, in question. written about by Greg
> Weaver in
> Soundstage way back when:
> http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize071999.htm
>
> And here a few links tying in the P.W.B. newsletter to the original
> article by Weaver:
> http://clusty.com/search?input-form=simple-clusty&query=soundstage+weaver+tweak+cream+foil
>
> BTW, it appears Weaver lost his credibility and his gig at Soundstage
> following this brouhaha.
>
>
> GeoSynch
Thanks for the additional info. What do you think Mr. Graham personally
believes? Do you think he has a commercial interest in the "cream" ?

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> Thanks for the additional info. What do you think Mr.
> Graham personally believes?

Of course not.

> Do you think he has a
> commercial interest in the "cream" ?

I seriously doubt that a truely commercial interest (i.e., significant
profit) is even possible.

[footlong]

Robert Morein wrote:

There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr. Richard
Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority."

Huh? Did I miss something? It's pretty clear that SHP is the same person who
was posting as Bob Ladburry in R.A.T. last
month, but I'm unfamaliar with the Richard Graham identity. Where'd that come
from?

<much snippage>

To answer the question:

SHP is a troll. He's made pretty solid foes out of everybody on
both sides of the aisle. He has no consistent point
of view, he just likes to argue and hurl abuse.

In partitular, don't think for a minute that he's a
subjectivist and believes in the tweaks he presents -
I mean, c'mon a picture of a four legged animal
slipped under your amp? He just posts them to send up
the "magic clock" people.

Basicaly, he's like the clown in the dunk tank at the
fair. It doesn't matter what insults he hurls or who
he directs them at - the important part is to get
everybody to line up and pay for a shot at him. And
when you hit the mark and dunk him in the tank (which
happpens *alot*) he just gets back up and continues
where he left off.

Which is to say, don't take him seriously. He's a
clown. If you want to take a whack at his human
pinata impersonation, by all means go ahead. But
don't let him get your goat.


//Walt

[dave weil]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:10:24 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>It appears that George Middius and Dave Weil consider Mr. Graham an
>unmitigated fraud.

That is not the case at all. I don't really give him any credence,
since he doesn't seem to know very much about audio products based on
his ignorance of turntable grounding straps. Since he decided to
attack me virtually out of the blue, I've decided to toy with him for
a while, giving him a bit back what he's inflicted on the newsgroup.
But I also wouldn't call him a fraud, just a troller.

I did go the the Belt newsletter to see what he was prattling about,
and it's obvious that those folks only buy into tweaks when it comes
from their little club (you know, the one with the secret handshake).
They can believe that applying a stain-removing chemical to a small
spot on a table can seriously impact the sound of a system (and as
long as they believe it does, I maintain that it *does* affect the
sound, because you can't separate the mind from the sound once the
mind has decided something sounds the way it does), but he can't buy
into the idea that placing four tuned and braced wooden enclosures can
affect the sound of a system simply because someone else sussed out
that particular tweak.

So it's fun to play with the guy just to see how wild off-the-mark he
can get. He doesn't get references to Jonathan Swift and he doesn't
understand the comic use of a homophone. So he's a rather dull little
boy indeed. And now he's decended into the IKWYABWAI territory. He's
following a pretty predictable curve. I'd imagine that he's just
whiling away a typical dull British pre-spring.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:10:24 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>2. Your opinions are solicited regarding Mr. Graham's offerings:
> a. His "free tweaks", such as the aspirin-and-pinhole, or the cutting
>off of the corners of clothing labels
> b. His offering of the "cream".

My opinion is that tweaks work if you believe in them. And I've
thought that it's a subtext of his point all along, whether he
explictly is intending it or not.

I don't think he's "offering the cream", except to offer it as a way
to intrude on YOUR "tweak". He can't stand to be left out in the cold.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 14:12:18 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>Sander deWaal said:
>
>> >That's "ad hominem", Bobo.
>
>> If irony killed, LoT;S ;-) ©
>
>Spoken like a tweako-freako nitwit.

Plus, he's a homophonephobe.

[Walt]

Robert Morein wrote:

There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr. Richard
Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority."

Huh? Did I miss something? It's pretty clear that SHP is the same person who
was posting as Bob Ladburry in R.A.T. last
month, but I'm unfamaliar with the Richard Graham identity. Where'd that come
from?

<much snippage>

To answer the question:

SHP is a troll. He's made pretty solid foes out of everybody on
both sides of the aisle. He has no consistent point
of view, he just likes to argue and hurl abuse.

In partitular, don't think for a minute that he's a
subjectivist and believes in the tweaks he presents -
I mean, c'mon a picture of a four legged animal
slipped under your amp? He just posts them to send up
the "magic clock" people.

Basicaly, he's like the clown in the dunk tank at the
fair. It doesn't matter what insults he hurls or who
he directs them at - the important part is to get
everybody to line up and pay for a shot at him. And
when you hit the mark and dunk him in the tank (which
happpens *alot*) he just gets back up and continues
where he left off.

Which is to say, don't take him seriously. He's a
clown. If you want to take a whack at his human
pinata impersonation, by all means go ahead. But
don't let him get your goat.


//Walt

[Robert Morein]

"footlong" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr.
> Richard
> Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority."
>
> Huh? Did I miss something? It's pretty clear that SHP is the same person
> who
> was posting as Bob Ladburry in R.A.T. last
> month, but I'm unfamaliar with the Richard Graham identity. Where'd that
> come
> from?

His real name is Richard Graham, residing at 9a Marden Road. London N17 6NE,
with an
email of .

This was established by reading the posted PWB newsletters, authored by
Graham under his own name, and his admission as a post to r.a.o., which I
reposted further up in this thread.
>
> <much snippage>
>
> To answer the question:
>
> SHP is a troll. He's made pretty solid foes out of everybody on
> both sides of the aisle. He has no consistent point
> of view, he just likes to argue and hurl abuse.
>
> In partitular, don't think for a minute that he's a
> subjectivist and believes in the tweaks he presents -
> I mean, c'mon a picture of a four legged animal
> slipped under your amp? He just posts them to send up
> the "magic clock" people.
>
> Basicaly, he's like the clown in the dunk tank at the
> fair. It doesn't matter what insults he hurls or who
> he directs them at - the important part is to get
> everybody to line up and pay for a shot at him. And
> when you hit the mark and dunk him in the tank (which
> happpens *alot*) he just gets back up and continues
> where he left off.
>
> Which is to say, don't take him seriously. He's a
> clown. If you want to take a whack at his human
> pinata impersonation, by all means go ahead. But
> don't let him get your goat.
>
Please read further up this thread, to get an idea of his relationship with
PWB.
So you do not think he has a commercial interest in the PWB products?

[GeoSynch]

Robert Morein wrote:

>> And here a few links tying in the P.W.B. newsletter to the original article
>> by Weaver:
>> http://clusty.com/search?input-form=simple-clusty&query=soundstage+weaver+tweak+cream+foil

> Thanks for the additional info. What do you think Mr. Graham personally
> believes? Do you think he has a commercial interest in the "cream" ?

He must be seriously down on his luck if he's still trying to peddle those
potions
and lotions seven years hence. As they say, what's old is new.


GeoSynch

[Steven Sullivan]

GeoSynch > wrote:
> Robert Morein wrote:

> > Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects:
> ...
> > 2. A "cream", which applied to eyeglasses, speakers, etc. is said to improve
> > audio reproduction by methods unknown to acoustical physics and electronics.
> ....
> > Therefore, we have a "cream", which is alleged by Mr. Graham to work, but
> > without any explanation of how.

> Here's the crap, uh I mean cream, in question. written about by Greg Weaver in
> Soundstage way back when:
> http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize071999.htm

> And here a few links tying in the P.W.B. newsletter to the original article by
> Weaver:
> http://clusty.com/search?input-form=simple-clusty&query=soundstage+weaver+tweak+cream+foil

> BTW, it appears Weaver lost his credibility and his gig at Soundstage following
> this brouhaha.

So, the question, 'how much of a credulous boob do you have to be to get fired
from an audiophile publication' now has an answer?





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

[Walt]

Robert Morein wrote:

> "footlong" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Robert Morein wrote:
>>
>> There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr.
>>Richard
>> Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority."
>>
>>Huh? Did I miss something? It's pretty clear that SHP is the same person
>>who
>>was posting as Bob Ladburry in R.A.T. last
>>month, but I'm unfamaliar with the Richard Graham identity. Where'd that
>>come
>>from?
>
>
> His real name is Richard Graham, residing at 9a Marden Road. London N17 6NE,
> with an
> email of .
>
> This was established by reading the posted PWB newsletters, authored by
> Graham under his own name, and his admission as a post to r.a.o., which I
> reposted further up in this thread.
>
>><much snippage>

> Please read further up this thread, to get an idea of his relationship with
> PWB.
> So you do not think he has a commercial interest in the PWB products?

Who? Richard Graham, or SHP? I'm not convinced that they're the same
person. Your evidence is that you accused SHP of being Richard Graham,
and SHP said "Fine, you sussed me out." But I'm quite sure that if I
accused SHP of being the Queen of England he'd tell me that he was.

Didn't you ever come across one of those logic puzzles where everybody
from a certain island always lies, another always tells the truth and
another is completely random? Dealing with him is kind of like that.

OTOH, it appears likely that SHP has been reading the pwb website.
What's not clear is whether Richard Graham himself believes the crap he
writes or whether the whole thing is just an elaborate practical joke.

//Walt

[Robert Morein]

"Walt" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> "footlong" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Robert Morein wrote:
>>>
>>> There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr.
>>> Richard
>>> Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority."
>>>
>>>Huh? Did I miss something? It's pretty clear that SHP is the same
>>>person who
>>>was posting as Bob Ladburry in R.A.T. last
>>>month, but I'm unfamaliar with the Richard Graham identity. Where'd that
>>>come
>>>from?
>>
>>
>> His real name is Richard Graham, residing at 9a Marden Road. London N17
>> 6NE, with an
>> email of .
>>
>> This was established by reading the posted PWB newsletters, authored by
>> Graham under his own name, and his admission as a post to r.a.o., which I
>> reposted further up in this thread.
>>
>>><much snippage>
>
>> Please read further up this thread, to get an idea of his relationship
>> with PWB.
>> So you do not think he has a commercial interest in the PWB products?
>
> Who? Richard Graham, or SHP? I'm not convinced that they're the same
> person. Your evidence is that you accused SHP of being Richard Graham,
> and SHP said "Fine, you sussed me out." But I'm quite sure that if I
> accused SHP of being the Queen of England he'd tell me that he was.
>
Walt, read this:
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html#Responses%20from%20an%20Internet%20Au dio%20Web%20Site,
written by Richard Graham
The phrase "sound has priority" occurs three times.
In this link, http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0301/vol0301.html
the phrase occurs six times.
Mr. Richard Graham believes very strongly that affixing a foil sticker
imprinted with the phrase "sound has priority" on the face of audio
equipment, improves the sound. He writes about this extensively. The
indivdual posting as "soundhaspriority" admits that he is that person. Also,
the person posting is unusually voluble. Individuals capable of posting with
his use of language are extremely rare. I am myself a writer, and it is my
judgement that the subtext and style of the newsletters conforms very
closely to the posts. In private correspondence with Mr. Graham, he has not
denied that he is "soundhaspriority."

Somewhere else in this forum, someone reposted some text, author Richard
Graham, where Mr. Graham states that he has adopted the pseudonym
"soundhaspriority", presumably as an extension of what he believes. For if
one believes that sticking a piece of foil with the name on it has power,
then one can certainly believe in the power of the name.

Walt, I don't know if I've satisfied you, but this is the best that usenet
can provide. Only the power of the subpoena can do better, but subpoena is
available on for filed suits. Here in the U.S., you may be interested to
know, a person can be convicted of murder, solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. No body, fingerprints, blood, or DNA is required.
It happened two years ago; the man was sentenced to life in prison. The term
"circumstantial" is sometimes used as derogatory to the information, but it
is actually just a classification, one that is still taken seriously by the
law.

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:


>>>>> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells?
>>>>> If
>>>>> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a
>>>>> newsgroup
>>>>> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.


>>>> No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.


>>>Please examine http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ and
>>>http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html

>>>It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and that
>>>Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>>>follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard Graham
>>>and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics. We would like
>>>to point out to readers that the P.W.B. Newsletters are compiled, edited
>>>and
>>>produced by Dr. Richard Graham - completely independently of P.W.B.
>>>Electronics. P.W.B. Electronics do not have or exercise any editorial
>>>control over the Newsletters."


>> Is John Atkinson "selling" Stereophile in this newsgroup?


>Sander, may I have your help in keeping this thread on topic? We could do
>that one next.


My post was/is entirely on topic.
It is an answer to your questions, in the form of a question, if you
(choose to) look carefully enough.

--

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

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Walt" > wrote in message
Mr. Morein,
May I advise that you borrow any textbook of psychiatry from your
Public Library and read the chapter on delusions in schizophrenia. It
might save some time and bring RAO back just a little closer to audio.

> ...
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> "footlong" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>Robert Morein wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr.
> >>> Richard
> >>> Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority."
> >>>
> >>>Huh? Did I miss something? It's pretty clear that SHP is the same
> >>>person who
> >>>was posting as Bob Ladburry in R.A.T. last
> >>>month, but I'm unfamaliar with the Richard Graham identity. Where'd that
> >>>come
> >>>from?
> >>
> >>
> >> His real name is Richard Graham, residing at 9a Marden Road. London N17
> >> 6NE, with an
> >> email of .
> >>
> >> This was established by reading the posted PWB newsletters, authored by
> >> Graham under his own name, and his admission as a post to r.a.o., which I
> >> reposted further up in this thread.
> >>
> >>><much snippage>
> >
> >> Please read further up this thread, to get an idea of his relationship
> >> with PWB.
> >> So you do not think he has a commercial interest in the PWB products?
> >
> > Who? Richard Graham, or SHP? I'm not convinced that they're the same
> > person. Your evidence is that you accused SHP of being Richard Graham,
> > and SHP said "Fine, you sussed me out." But I'm quite sure that if I
> > accused SHP of being the Queen of England he'd tell me that he was.
> >
> Walt, read this:
> http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html#Responses%20from%20an%20Internet%20Au dio%20Web%20Site,
> written by Richard Graham
> The phrase "sound has priority" occurs three times.
> In this link, http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0301/vol0301.html
> the phrase occurs six times.
> Mr. Richard Graham believes very strongly that affixing a foil sticker
> imprinted with the phrase "sound has priority" on the face of audio
> equipment, improves the sound. He writes about this extensively. The
> indivdual posting as "soundhaspriority" admits that he is that person. Also,
> the person posting is unusually voluble. Individuals capable of posting with
> his use of language are extremely rare. I am myself a writer, and it is my
> judgement that the subtext and style of the newsletters conforms very
> closely to the posts. In private correspondence with Mr. Graham, he has not
> denied that he is "soundhaspriority."
>
> Somewhere else in this forum, someone reposted some text, author Richard
> Graham, where Mr. Graham states that he has adopted the pseudonym
> "soundhaspriority", presumably as an extension of what he believes. For if
> one believes that sticking a piece of foil with the name on it has power,
> then one can certainly believe in the power of the name.
>
> Walt, I don't know if I've satisfied you, but this is the best that usenet
> can provide. Only the power of the subpoena can do better, but subpoena is
> available on for filed suits. Here in the U.S., you may be interested to
> know, a person can be convicted of murder, solely on the basis of
> circumstantial evidence. No body, fingerprints, blood, or DNA is required.
> It happened two years ago; the man was sentenced to life in prison. The term
> "circumstantial" is sometimes used as derogatory to the information, but it
> is actually just a classification, one that is still taken seriously by the
> law.

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
>
>>>>>> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he
>>>>>> sells?
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a
>>>>>> newsgroup
>>>>>> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.
>
>
>>>>> No, he's not trying to sell anything. Yet, anyway.
>
>
>>>>Please examine http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ and
>>>>http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/newsletter/vol0202/vol0202.html
>
>>>>It appears that "PWB Electronics" is a profit making enterprise, and
>>>>that
>>>>Richard Graham writes a newsletter they publish. They do state, ""What
>>>>follows is an introduction to the P.W.B. Newsletters by Dr. Richard
>>>>Graham
>>>>and his personal view of developments at P.W.B. Electronics. We would
>>>>like
>>>>to point out to readers that the P.W.B. Newsletters are compiled, edited
>>>>and
>>>>produced by Dr. Richard Graham - completely independently of P.W.B.
>>>>Electronics. P.W.B. Electronics do not have or exercise any editorial
>>>>control over the Newsletters."
>
>
>>> Is John Atkinson "selling" Stereophile in this newsgroup?
>
>
>>Sander, may I have your help in keeping this thread on topic? We could do
>>that one next.
>
>
> My post was/is entirely on topic.
> It is an answer to your questions, in the form of a question, if you
> (choose to) look carefully enough.
>
Ah, those Zen Koans!

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "Walt" > wrote in message
> Mr. Morein,
> May I advise that you borrow any textbook of psychiatry from your
> Public Library and read the chapter on delusions in schizophrenia. It
> might save some time and bring RAO back just a little closer to audio.
>
It does seem that Mr. Graham engages in what mental health practitioners
refer to as "magical thinking." However, I wonder if that in isolation is
indicative of psychosis. Wouldn't one have to classify all lottery ticket
buyers, and more-than-occasional gamblers, as insane?

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> Mr. Morein,
> May I advise that you borrow any textbook of psychiatry from your
> Public Library and read the chapter on delusions in schizophrenia. It
> might save some time and bring RAO back just a little closer to audio.

Ludo, I have great respect for your insights and acumen on the subject of
testing, as does, I believe, Robert. However, the topic that seems to me
to be nearest to your heart, the efficacy and pertinence of DBTs to
consumer audio, is as far removed from the core subject of this newsgroup
as are our speculations about the looney "soundhaspriority". What do you
mean? I can imagine you asking. I mean that no Normal person has any faith
in a mystical process of "tests" for selecting audio gear because its
procedures and results are wholly, completely, and utterly irrelevant to
that task. You continue to "debate" the idiot 'borgs on the subject for
your own amusement. You will never persuade any of Them to stop their
empty preaching, any more than They will persuade a Normal to forego his
senses and emotional responses to music in favor of a bloodless, otiose,
dehumanizing "test". (It's worth noting again that among that tribe of
true believers we know as the Hive, only one or two of them have ever
participated in any DBTs of any sort at any time in their pathetic lives.
Maybe only one, in fact, now that Nousiane has disappeared from Usenet.)






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

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> It does seem that Mr. Graham engages in what mental health practitioners
> refer to as "magical thinking." However, I wonder if that in isolation is
> indicative of psychosis. Wouldn't one have to classify all lottery ticket
> buyers, and more-than-occasional gamblers, as insane?

The chance of winning (1 in 10,000,000, or whatever) is not imaginary.
It's only demented if one seriously expects to win against such odds.




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

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein, and his many personalities, postulated:

> There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr. Richard
> Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority." This is a
> fact-finding inquiry that solicits opinions and additions from all the
> people known to post to r.a.o. Contributions from identities that are not
> known to this author will not be accepted for addition.


Thank you for this obsessive deconstruction of me, Mr. Morein. You've
made my job a lot, lot easier. You've demonstrated proof in black and
white, of a number of observations that I've made. Which include
these:

A. You're a troll, and not a mentally stable one at that. And despite
the many hats you wear, you're nevertheless a troll with a heck of a
lot of free time, and an obsessive personality disorder.


B. Your so-called "fact finding mission" about me, looks more like the
Spanish Inquisition. Or a witch hunt. It, and the responses to it, has
given me more laughs than I've had in years. Perhaps it looks like
"the Spanish Inquisition" because your belief system is modelled after
the religious approach, as it is with the rest of RAO. What I mean by
that is that while you or may not sincerely be attempting to seek the
truth about me ("why" you have such an obession with me is another
issue entirely between you and your psychiatrist...), you are perfectly
content with accepting personal opinions from any random number of
ignorant fools, including yourself, as "the truth". "Opinions" (in the
form of conjecture, heresay, etc.) are not "proven facts". They're
the equivalent of centuries-old fables, like you find in the Bible, by
coincidence. The non-thinking "sheep" (what I affectionately call you
and the other members here) mindlessly gobble up whatever "faux facts"
(opinions) they are spoon-fed, and they believe it without question.
You and the rest of the group don't even exhibit the capability to
discern what is and isn't a proven fact. This despite your 7 phd's,
your engineering and scientific background. Instead, you believe that
anything that "smells like a fact", such as Goofball claiming that
after finding a picture on the internet of an old lady behind her car
he has properly identified me, must be a fact.

Little Georgie (Middius), the troll you called a "mosquito" to me (and
which I agreed with your assessment of George), can for example, be
seen proving how this process works in this very thread. First, he
believed what Goofball said about me being Mrs. Belt. Which means he
didn't believe I was who I said I was. Like the true imbecile George
is, he kept referring to this picture in addressing me. Continually
reinforcing what a mindless fool he is, in doing so. But when you gave
him enough "evidence" that I was Graham, "evidence" that was never
evidence because it was simply another Goofball-esque "revelation" that
you never verified, George gobbled up your sheep chow, like the good
little non-thinker that he is. And so the pattern goes. I must have
seen at least 100 false allegations made about me before this thread.
Allegations that were never proven, but yet, perceived as "the TRUTH"
by the mindless sheep you find on RAO. There must be at least 100 more
in this thread alone! Besides you of course, Elmi..., Paul Packer,
GeoSynch, Dave Weill, Arny Krueger, ScottW, Fella, Middius,
"Footlong"/Walt, and Steven "Hey guys, I'm A Scientisisist!" Sullivan
can so far be counted among this (in this single thread alone) who have
all made false presumptions about me. And the thread appears to just be
getting off the ground! There's only one person out of all the
respondents that didn't say anything false about me in this thread.
See if you're smart enough to guess who that is? LOL!

Hint: Out of all those I dealt with on this group, he's consistently
made the least false presumptions about me. Note that I consider the
"smart" people in our society, as those who make the least presumptions
(hence the reason I consider most people I've seen here either
"imbeciles", or "true imbeciles"). Not merely those who posess the most
"knowledge", because they've studied some field or other. Because
"knowledge" is not "truth" per se, it is merely "what is known". What
may be "known" may not be "true", or does not negate other "truths"
that may seem to overlap what is known. There is a quality to
information. "Knowing" something which isn't true, is more than just
"worthless knowledge". Because it now represents "truth" in the mind of
those who accept lies as truth, but as it is a lie, it takes you
further away from the truth, and filling your mind with quality
information. Much better to be ignorant of what is true while remaining
open to the truth, than to be ignorant of the truth and have a mind
poisoned with lies, that leaves little place for truth to reside, when
it happens along. So those who are the most careful about making false
presumptions about things (ie. those who don't arrogantly dismiss
ideas they know nothing about and haven't even experimented with),
are the one's most likely to be smarter and/or wiser than the rest of
the flock. They won't have minds filled with false presumptions
(lies), and therefore closed to valid information (truth). Following my
premise, there is of course nothing stupider than to believe that you
are on a "truth seeking inquiry", when your protocol is to query a chat
group of belligerent ne'er do wells, who couldn't possibly be more
biased and prejudiced on the subject you raise, for opinions on a
person they've never met and know nothing about. But nevertheless
have no shortage of "truth" to impart over.

This speaks to a greater issue, of course, because it has always been
my contention that you and the rest of RAO use this same "religious"
approach in your understanding of audio. That is to say, you believe
whatever "truth" you are given (directly or by what you read,
indirectly), rather than finding out for yourself what is and isn't
true. Or dismissing opinions if you can't. You're ALL skeptical of
EVERYTHING, except what you have already "bought" as "the truth". In
the case of the objectivist camp, "the TRUTH" they have bought is that
just about "everything in audio sounds the same". In the case of the
subjectivists, "the TRUTH" they have bought is "things sound different,
but only the things that the majority of consumers believe sounds
different. If we never heard of it, or if it sounds implausible, it's
bogus". This is precisely what you've made of the tweaks I generously
gave you, and precisely why you will never understand much of what is
and isn't true in audio. Or in life, for that matter, since this
approach you all take is one that rules your lives. And rather petty
lives at that, I must say, judging by this thread and the level of
"conversation" it has generated, and that in most others.


C. This newsgroup is FILLED TO THE BRIM with hyper-paranoid, insecure
social misfits, who apparently have nothing better going on in their
lives, that they have to spend their days coming up with endless
theories of conjecture about someone they keep saying should be
ignored, and that they have no interest in. After a day of not reading
this group, I see a new thread about me with 35 posts in it so far,
that proves me right again.

So I can't wait to see what happens at the end of this "fact finding
mission of yours", when you tally all the so-called "facts" about me,
from the people on your list that you consider "credible", and then try
to arrive at a "factual conclusion", which you've foolishly convinced
yourself is "the truth". Had you any idea what a fool you are, Robert,
you'd understand why I'm laughing so hard at you and the rest of
your friends in this thread.

Let me see how good you're doing so far, on this "fact finding
mission" of yours!.....


> Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects:
>
> 1. "Tweaks", or minor adjustments, to audio reproduction systems, that he
> claims work by methods other than those known to acoustical physics and
> electronics.


Oh well. That's wrong to begin with. Bad start on your fact-finding
journey! Not the first time you've claimed to interpret my position
and gotten it wrong either (remember when you ignorantly said all my
audio concepts are based on "Eastern" philosophies? And when other RAO
members believe you, simply because you said that?).

I DO NOT believe that "tweaks" are "minor adjustments". I only believe
that YOUR tweaks are. Mine can be much more significant in the changes
they provide, than changing a completely different audio component.
I'd hardly be able to transform the entire sound of my system, as I
have, with "minor adjustments".

>
> 2. A "cream", which applied to eyeglasses, speakers, etc. is said to improve
> audio reproduction by methods unknown to acoustical physics and
> electronics.


Wow, you finally got one teeny tiny thing right, in your brilliant
interpretations. Pure accident on your part, no doubt.


> Mr. Graham has said, "I do have tweaks for glasses, including aspecial cream
> that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the sound you hear from your
> audio system. It's not free though, and certainly not cheap." This
> statement suggests that Mr. Graham has a proprietary interest in this
> product. We do not know the specifics of this interest, if there is one.

Gosh, and you were doing so well in the first part of no. 2..... Well,
here's where you prove that you belong on this newsgroup, Bob. And I
wish you and the rest of the sheep, a happy life together.

It's been my observation that most people on this group are insecure
and paranoid, and you've just proven that about yourself, except you
have many more "psychological difficulties" than the average RAO
regular. You take a statement that I make about a product as a
"suggestion that I have a proprietary interest in it". Well, as we all
now know thanks to me, a "suggestion" is enough for the fools on RAO to
accept as "the RAO TRUTH". So once having made a "suggestion", you then
go on to say that "we" ("we" being RAO presumably, and not all the
voices in your head battling for air time), "do not know the specifics
of this interest". And would you believe that there are some who still
don't understand how a pious carpenter from Nazareth could be hailed
the world over as "the son of a God", for over 2000 years?

And with all these religious beliefs of yours Bob, you say you don't
believe in Jesus? There's a lot more evidence to "suggest" (one of
your favourite terms....) that Jesus existed, than there is in your
ridiculously stupid conjecture. How "ridiculously stupid" are you,
exactly? Here's an example:

Every single person on this newsgroup who EVER advocated ANY product in
audio, let's say Near 50m speakers, suggests they have a "proprietary
interest in the product". According to your idiotic logic, or lack
thereof, that would make you and everyone else here a shill. Welcome to
the Shill's Club, Robert.

I take it back, Francois Yves Le Imbecile was right about you. You ARE
a moron.


> It appears that George Middius and Dave Weil consider Mr. Graham an
> unmitigated fraud.

So do you (if the 5000 accusations of "liar!" that you wrote about me
are to believed), and so do most people here. Except that Weill and
Middius, or anybody else for that matter, never proved that I was a
fraud. They only spew the same BS that everyone does. I however, _have_
proven that Weill and Middius are BOTH frauds. I proved this about
Weill in a post I made today, and I proved this to you about Middius,
after having sent you the email I sent him, which he lied to the entire
group about, saying that it contained attacks against you.

That's the difference between "the absolute TRUTH" (as shown by
valid, verifiable evidence) and "the TRUTH is it is known and believed
by RAOphiles" (ie. lies, as shown by vigorous assertion, and nothing
more).

An example of "the RAO TRUTH" would be the one by Dave "Garbage Boy"
Weill, who's most intelligent response to a debate you and I were
having about this cream product that you have such a hard-on about, was
"That's a load of total bumkum" (sic). I assumed he was talking to me
since he addressed my post, but I did consider the fact that he could
have just been talking to his good pal, George the Greek, over other
activities they had "just shared together".


> This has resulted in a thread heavily into adhominem
> attacks between Middius and Weil, on one side, and Mr. Graham on the other.

And don't forget you with your "DON'T CREAM!" warning thread and
other attack threads against me, which include ad hominem attacks of
your own.

> The author of this post, Robert Morein, has asked Mr. Graham for an
> explanation of how this cream works.


I like the way you refer to yourself in the third person, Robert. It
makes the question of your sanity even less of a controversy, in case
anyone still doubts that about you. I can see now that I was wrong to
have given in to your pleas in email that I retract what you had said
to me about having tried my tweak, because of how it would compromise
your position with the IEEE, and McCarty breathing down your neck. I
lied on your behalf over what you said to me about having tried the
L-shape tweak and found that it did make a difference, because you
asked me to do so as a friend, and because I thought you had some
integrity, and I respected that. But now after all these lies you're
trying to make up about me, I see that I was wrong about you. I don't
see much difference between you being a lunatic and a troll, and your
arch-nemesis, Brian McCarty. You're a sick enough puppy that for all
I know, you ARE "Brian McCarty". aka "The other guy Robert has an
obsession with".

Go on, Morein. Send me some more emails threatening litigation for
having briefly mentioned that you tried the L-shape tweak, and found
that you did hear a change. See how much I care about that. I will
simply show the court the email you sent in which you made the
observation, along with the IP address of your ISP. You'll be laughed
out of the house, Robert, before it ever gets to trial.


> Mr. Graham responded by stating that my
> knowledge of science is not current, and therefore, that I am incapable of
> understanding the "theory", which involves quantum mechanics. I responded
> that my knowledge of science is current, and that I am very familiar with
> quantum mechanics. Mr. Graham then indicated that he could not tell me,
> because the "theory" is proprietary. Mr. Graham lambasts Dave Weil for not
> understanding the "theory", but no theory has been presented.

Wrong again. You're purposefully trying to deceive. A "debating
trade" tactic which you borrowed from your friends Krueger, Weill and
Middius. My lambasting of Weill for not understanding the theory had
nothing to do with the conversation between you and me. It referred to
another concept (the 5 pinhole paper tweak) in which Weill demanded
that I present the theory for. Then when I _did_, Weill blustered, much
like you do, and pretended to understand the theory, but the fool
didn't even understand the term used in the theory. Likewise, if he
did, he would been able to debate me on it, but instead, "Garbage Boy"
Weil tucked tail and ran like the coward he is. Or maybe he just heard
the sound of garbage trucks coming, and lost interest due to the call
of his hunger. Even though I reminded him 15 times that he never had
the education or intelligence to debate me on that.

As to the cream, I never said the "theory is proprietary", that's
again a strawman argument, which you appear quite fond of. AFAIK, the
product you have such a hard-on about works on the strengths and
weaknesses of morphic resonance energy patterns. Where things went
awry, is when you started making all these false assumptions about the
product (ie. you kept insisting the word "electret" in the name meant
it was an electret!), and you either wanted or needed proprietary
information about the product, in order to address your specific
questions. I told you I was not the inventor of the product, and its
not my job in life to supply you with detailed information about a
product that you're interested in. In fact, its not my job to supply
you with any information about any product, when you can and should
damn well do the research yourself. There was a time when I would have
been happy to supply you with any information you needed, even if it
meant me doing research on your behalf. I supplied you with many such
details and web site links regarding the theories behind the concepts I
talked with you about. That was a time when you and I once "were" able
to have reasonable conversations in email about alternative audio
concepts and products.

You can believe that after your many recent malicious attacks (not
including all the other ones in which you called me a "liar" on the
group, when you knew I was telling the truth), that time has now
passed, and I'm not interested in having serious and sincere
conversations with you on audio or anything else. Nevertheless, before
this latest attack thread of yours in which you are desperately trying
to promulgate a whole host of lies about me, I was willing to reveal
to you some of my "guesses" about the product's possible composure
and nature. Things that I never told anyone, but that I was willing to
tell you, so that you might better understand what you're talking
about, and not be so obsessive and defensive about an audio product
like the cream, simply because you haven't a clue about it.
Nevertheless, I emailed this information to you, and you're still
pretending you know nothing about the product, judging by what you've
written in this attack thread, and by the fact that you never returned
my email to continue discussing the product, outside of the hostile
environment you helped create in the thread we were discussing the
product in.

Like I already told you publically, I was not willing to reveal this
information except privately, because if my findings about the product
are correct (and I have much reason to believe they are), then it would
compromise the inventor's rights to exclusive manufacture. But now
that I see your hostile reaction, maybe that's exactly what you
wanted in the first place? More information so that you could
obliterate the manufacturer's research and market a "me-too" product
yourself, that you never designed? At this point, you've proven to be
such a lying troll, I wouldn't put it past you to do that.


> Therefore, we have a "cream", which is alleged by Mr. Graham to work, but
> without any explanation of how.
>
> Several questions present themselves:
> 1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells?

Right. Besides being a professional lunatic, it's a good thing
you're not a magistrate. But since I'm supposed to be the audio
equivalent of a "witch doctor", I guess that your little "witch hunt"
here is quite apropos. All I know is this: if I'm "guilty" of
advertising a product by the mere MENTION of it, then so are you.
You're a shill for Polk and Near loudspeakers, among other things. A
far worse shill than I, who named a product without continuing to
mention its full name or manufacturer. You gave the entire model names
and manufacturer of the loudspeakers you allegedly are trying to sell
us. (And NO, I'm not buying your crappy Polk and Near loudspeakers,
Morein. Just the kind of thing a know-nothing audiophile would buy,
because he thinks recording studios have the best and most "neutral"
equipment).


>If
> so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a newsgroup
> for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.


Pfffffffffffffffffttttttttt!!!!!!! ROTLFMAO!!!!!!


Now I KNOW you're insane, Robert! I'm one of the only people here
in a long time, who started trying to get the group back on topic about
subjects related to audio, with my tweak contributions. This is on a
group where 98% of the posts are all flame wars. ALL of my audio posts
were turned into attack threads, just as you have done with the
discussion on eyeglass treatments that we were having. The vast
majority of the posts here are a violation of newsgroup charter. Got a
newsflash for you Morein: RAO has long since unainmously decided it
does not give a rat's ass about the newsgroup's charter. This is no
longer an audio discussion group, its a flame war group, like
alt.flame. Audio is merely occasional background chatter here, and
there are never ANY productive discussions on audio EVER. Because of
belligerent fools like yourself.


> 2. Your opinions are solicited regarding Mr. Graham's offerings:

> a. His "free tweaks", such as the aspirin-and-pinhole, or the cutting
> off of the corners of clothing labels

One would have to wonder why "free tweaks" is in quotation marks, and
then reflect a little more on the lack of your sanity. Judging by all
your other paranoid theories, you probably think the government is
living in your toilet, so you "go potty" in your bed.

> b. His offering of the "cream".

That's a blatant LIE now, since Google will show I offered NOTHING,
except FREE tweak ideas. In fact, because the cream is a commercial
product, and not a cheap one at that, I did not want to go into details
about it, lest I be called a "shill" again, by unscrupulous posters
such as yourself. This product was only _one_ of numerous ideas that I
mentioned could negate diffraction effects of eyeglass, and cause them
to become beneficial to the audiophile wearer. You ignored my
mentioning other ideas besides the cream product, some of which were
free. YOU are the one who kept pushing me to provide details about the
commercial cream product, Morein. At NO POINT did I ever offer the
product for sale, or give ANY details whatsoever about its commercial
availability. I did not even mention who manufactures it.

In contrast, YOU advocated people go blind and miss seeing their
favourite performer at a concert, in order to improve some
unquantifiable degree of acoustic degradation, due to the alleged
effects of the presence of your eyeglasses on acoustic pressure waves.
You advocated this, because all you ignorantly understand of the
physical world is your quaint, hundreds-of-years old archaic laws of
physics. Which is precisely why you engineers and engineer wanna-bes
(like your friends McKelvy and Krueger) are always advocating that
differences in audio are mostly insignificant. What is "insignificant"
Robert, is your knowledge of what produces good sound in audio. In
fact, I don't just question your mental competence, I'm questioning
your professional competence, here.

Well after having made a convincing performance here as an obsessive
lunatic, thank you for proving what a proven liar that you are, Robert.


>
> 3. Is Mr. Graham to be believed? If not:

> a. Does Mr. Graham believe himself that these methods and offerings
> work?


That's interesting, since you are on record as having SAID as much
yourself, that you believe the tweaks are sincere.

In fact, you even started a new thread just to declare this....


One of Robert Morein's personalities speaks:

"I have been involved in a private discussion with Soundhaspriority. I

intend to preserve the confidentiality of this discussion. However, I
would
like to tell you that it is my impression that he is not a troll. His
posts
are not mischief; they are expressions of deeply held beliefs, with
substantial philosophy behind them. While our viewpoints are
significantly
different, I accord him my respect, due to the cogency with which he
presents his beliefs, which stem from outside the Western framework of
logical thought."


Since multiple personality disorder does seem to be one of your
psychological failings, I can't say I'm a bit surprised about your
lack of consistency.


> b. Is Mr. Graham a fraud, in the sense of awareness that these methods
> and offerings do not work, but advocating and promoting them nevertheless?
>

Now you're talking about me being a fraud, which seems to be one of
your favourit pet words (Google shows you calling people a "fraud" no
less than 506 times). A few days ago, you publically wrote this:

One of Robert Morein's personalities speaks:

"For the record, I have no indication, nor do I assert, that Mr.
Graham's business practices are in any way fraudulent."


Now about your latest insane accusation.... am I a "fraud" as much as
YOU are a fraud for advocating that people starve themselves to death
to improve their perception of sound, or electrocute themselves by
using a cheater plug, or that people adjust their speakers according to
mystical principles of "Feng Shui", or that eating ice cream will
render your hifi system a useless piece of junk, or any of the other
crazy ideas you advocated to RAO as "Free tweaks for TRUE
AUDIOPHILES!".

"True Audiophiles" Mr. Morein? "True Lunatics" is more like it.


> All of you are invited to respond: John Atkinson, Arny, Mike McKelvy, Sander
> deWaal, George Middius, Dave Weil, Andre Jute, Ludovic Mirabel, Paul Packer,
> Trevor Wilson, Francois Yves LeGal, "Shhhh! I'm Listening", Scott Wheeler,
> Jenn, Bret Ludwig, Howard Ferstler, "Fella", "Walt",
> "Goofball_star_dot_etal", etal :)
>
> The results will be tallied, excluding individuals I do not know, to avoid
> "rigging."
> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES. I will tally all the
> answers. "Adhominum" will distract from the purpose.


It's "ad hominem" idiot (the study of Latin apparently not one of
your PHDs). And it certainly didn't seem to distract from your
purppose of attacking my character when you used it against me in your
posts.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

<Robert Morein's psychotic inquiry snipped>

This email I received Sat., apparently from your mother or father, goes
a long way to explaining these posts of yours, Robbie:


From: "Sylvan Morein" > Add to
Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: ,
Subject: Robert
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:02:13 -0500

I would ask you to stop stirring up my son, Robert.

He's a sick boy. I've managed to get his medication under control
these
past few weeks and he's now pretty docile and controllable.

Don't mess it up.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/




I hope you get some help before it's too late....

[ScottW]

wrote:
Besides you of course, Elmi..., Paul Packer,
> GeoSynch, Dave Weill, Arny Krueger, ScottW, Fella, Middius,
> "Footlong"/Walt, and Steven "Hey guys, I'm A Scientisisist!" Sullivan
> can so far be counted among this (in this single thread alone) who have
> all made false presumptions about me.

Be specific... looks like you just looked at the post list and tossed
some names around.

Exactly what is the "false presumption" I am supposed to have made?

BTW, I think it's pretty funny that Morein would call George a
mosquito behind his back. You can always tell the slimy backstabbers...
they always want to know what everyone thinks because they lack a spine
to follow their own moral compass.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>
>> Rather, I believe he is
>> an egomaniac and a troll whose only interest is provoking
>> people into frenzied exchanges of insults and
>> unresolvable verbal combat.
>
> Kind of like George Middius, eh?
>
Kind of????

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:

> wrote:
> Besides you of course, Elmi..., Paul Packer,
> > GeoSynch, Dave Weill, Arny Krueger, ScottW, Fella, Middius,
> > "Footlong"/Walt, and Steven "Hey guys, I'm A Scientisisist!" Sullivan
> > can so far be counted among this (in this single thread alone) who have
> > all made false presumptions about me.
>
> Be specific... looks like you just looked at the post list and tossed
> some names around.
>

It may look that way to you, but that's just another false
presumption you're making about me, isn't it.

> Exactly what is the "false presumption" I am supposed to have made?

Well... see above. You just made one! But in your case, I will retract
your name from the list. Because you're right, I just checked again,
and you didn't even mention me in your posts. I must have been
confusing you with Sullivan, since I can hardly tell the difference
between the two of you in your posts. You did however make no end of
dumb, false presumptions about me in posts outside this thread (besides
the one you just made above).


> BTW, I think it's pretty funny that Morein would call George a
> mosquito behind his back. You can always tell the slimy backstabbers...
> they always want to know what everyone thinks because they lack a spine
> to follow their own moral compass.
>

I don't follow all the kitchen sink dramas that you people play out
on this group, so I didn't know that it wasn't already public
knowledge that Morein does not think highly of Middius. Especially
since Middius is a slimy backstabber himself and I think its well known
that the dweeb traded in his moral compass for a Star Trek klingon
death ray phaser a long time ago.

> ScottW

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> <Robert Morein's psychotic inquiry snipped>
>
> This email I received Sat., apparently from your mother or father, goes
> a long way to explaining these posts of yours, Robbie:
>
Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
Sylvan Morein does not post to usenet. The post is a forgery of Brian L.
McCarty.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
> [dot] net> wrote in message
>
>
> > Rather, I believe he is
> > an egomaniac and a troll whose only interest is provoking
> > people into frenzied exchanges of insults and
> > unresolvable verbal combat.
>
> Kind of like George Middius, eh?

Not at all like George Middius. Middius attacks everything and every
one that wanders into this group of trolls (you btw, are well known to
be one of the biggest trolls on usenet. Newsgroup charters are written
around the notion of keeping you out, apparently....). The fact is, I
simply posted some free ideas to try to help people with their systems,
and the overwhelming response to that was immediate provocation,
frenzied exchanges of insults and..... well what the hell on this
newsgroup _isn't_ "unresolvable verbal combat"?! You've spent 10
years trolling this group... have YOU ever resolved any combat?
Obviously not, since you're still battling the very same ideas you
were 10 years ago.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com

> have YOU ever resolved any
> combat?

Sure, just not with the RAO trolls.

> Obviously not, since you're still battling the
> very same ideas you were 10 years ago.

I used what I learned about resistance to these ideas elsewhere, with great
sucess.

[GeoSynch]

soundhaspriority about as much as spelling does:

> Like I already told you publically
....
> A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
.....
>> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.

> It's "ad hominem" idiot

Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.

BTW, are you a hack writer who gets paid by the word rather than the quality of
the work itself?


GeoSynch

[Walt]

wrote:

<crap snipped>

> B. Your so-called "fact finding mission" about me, looks more like the
> Spanish Inquisition.

NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

> Or a witch hunt.

He turned me into a newt!

//Walt
//
// I got better...

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein, and his many personalities, postulated:
>
>> There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr.
>> Richard
>> Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority." This is
>> a
>> fact-finding inquiry that solicits opinions and additions from all the
>> people known to post to r.a.o. Contributions from identities that are not
>> known to this author will not be accepted for addition.
>
>
> Thank you for this obsessive deconstruction of me, Mr. Morein. You've
> made my job a lot, lot easier. You've demonstrated proof in black and
> white, of a number of observations that I've made. Which include
> these:
>
[snip]
Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
This is a fact finding thread. I take no position with respect to the
opinions expressed in the thread. I have brought forth certain facts for the
consideration of others, in order to facilitate their informed discussion.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[[email protected]]

After making many "informed decisions" based on "facts", Robert Morein
wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein, and his many personalities, postulated:
> >
> >> There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr.
> >> Richard
> >> Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority." This is
> >> a
> >> fact-finding inquiry that solicits opinions and additions from all the
> >> people known to post to r.a.o. Contributions from identities that are not
> >> known to this author will not be accepted for addition.
> >
> >
> > Thank you for this obsessive deconstruction of me, Mr. Morein. You've
> > made my job a lot, lot easier. You've demonstrated proof in black and
> > white, of a number of observations that I've made. Which include
> > these:
> >
> [snip]

> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:

> This is a fact finding thread.

Pffffttttttttttttttt! Make me laugh harder, why don't you. This is a
witch hunt (or a "witch doctor" hunt...). IOW, it's as much of a joke
as you are. Since when is "blind conjecture and speculation from any
number of biased, prejudicial ignorant bigots" considered "facts" now?

> I take no position with respect to the
> opinions expressed in the thread.

You implied that I was a fraud, a shill, and took many other false
positions in your assessment of me. I think that would qualify as
"taking a position with respect to the opinions expressed in this
thread".

>I have brought forth certain facts for the
> consideration of others, in order to facilitate their informed discussion.
>

There you go making me laugh out loud again. All you brought were your
ridiculous and false presumptions about me, in order to have a flock of
mindless sheep chew on them like so much cud. That may qualify as
entertainment for trolls such as yourself, and the other trolls here,
but don't even pretend to call it an "informed discussion", since
you're not "informed" about anything. Especially don't call it "their"
informed discussion, when this obsession with me was YOURS to begin
with. This must be the fourth thread you've started, in order to
discuss me or my ideas. The email I received about you may be a
forgery, but the fact that you have a lot of psychological problems
that require medication is pretty damned credible to me.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
[snip]
>
> There you go making me laugh out loud again. All you brought were your
> ridiculous and false presumptions about me, in order to have a flock of
> mindless sheep chew on them like so much cud.

Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[Walt]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote
>
>>There you go making me laugh out loud again. All you brought were your
>>ridiculous and false presumptions about me, in order to have a flock of
>>mindless sheep chew on them like so much cud.
>
>
> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.

Well, the first fact to establish is whether SHP is actually Richard
Graham. I guess can try asking him directly.

So, soundhaspriority, are you actually Richard Graham?

//Walt
//
//...he asks, expecting the usual incomprehensible barrage of obscenity
laden verbiage....

[[email protected]]

GeoSynch, the most cleverest of the clever clever trolls, wrote this
without even having to think or read a dictionary:


> soundhaspriority about as much as spelling does:
>
> > Like I already told you publically
> ...
> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
> ....
> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.
>
> > It's "ad hominem" idiot
>
> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
> Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.
>

That's not possible on a group of fools, but you being one of the
biggest fools here, making a mockery of you is rather, child's
play.....

From: dictionary.com

link:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ad hom·i·nem P Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their
opponents' motives.

[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ever heard of a "dictionary", troll? When you launch an ad hominem
attack on someone as you just did, for allegedly not knowing how to
spell "ad hominem" no less, I think it would kind of be a boost to
your credibility to know how to spell the term and understand what it
means, you flaming moron.

Let me guess.... you're the idiot that's paid to clean up the room
after the other idiots have partied in it? And you found out how to
operate the computer, didn't you? It looks like stupidity has a new
name now: "GeoSynch". If everyone thanked you for making a public
mockery of yourself, it would probably look a lot like that old Coca
Cola commercial.....

How does that go again?....

"I'd like to thank the "GeoSynch"
For public mockery
He puts his feet inside his mouth
It keeps him company.....
He's the Real Thing
(Total moron)
What the group wants to be
(Ignorant clods)
The height of idiocy
("Foolish" defined)
He's the Real Thing....

> BTW, are you a hack writer who gets paid by the word rather than the quality of
> the work itself?

No, you're confusing me with your failed career as a hack writer. Your
singular lack of imagination and creativity is probably what did you
in, because even for a hack writer, it sucks. So do you get paid to
troll audio newsgroups? I hope so, because you don't seem qualified for
anything else.

[dave weil]

On 27 Mar 2006 12:43:51 -0800, wrote:

>
>
>
>GeoSynch, the most cleverest of the clever clever trolls, wrote this
>without even having to think or read a dictionary:
>
>
>> soundhaspriority about as much as spelling does:
>>
>> > Like I already told you publically
>> ...
>> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
>> ....
>> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.
>>
>> > It's "ad hominem" idiot
>>
>> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
>> Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.
>>
>
>That's not possible on a group of fools, but you being one of the
>biggest fools here, making a mockery of you is rather, child's
>play.....
>
>From: dictionary.com
>
>link:
>
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ad hom·i·nem P Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
>adj.
>Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
>Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their
>opponents' motives.
>
>[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Ever heard of a "dictionary", troll? When you launch an ad hominem
>attack on someone as you just did, for allegedly not knowing how to
>spell "ad hominem" no less, I think it would kind of be a boost to
>your credibility to know how to spell the term and understand what it
>means, you flaming moron.
>
>Let me guess.... you're the idiot that's paid to clean up the room
>after the other idiots have partied in it? And you found out how to
>operate the computer, didn't you? It looks like stupidity has a new
>name now: "GeoSynch". If everyone thanked you for making a public
>mockery of yourself, it would probably look a lot like that old Coca
>Cola commercial.....
>
>How does that go again?....
>
>"I'd like to thank the "GeoSynch"
>For public mockery
>He puts his feet inside his mouth
>It keeps him company.....
>He's the Real Thing
>(Total moron)
>What the group wants to be
>(Ignorant clods)
>The height of idiocy
>("Foolish" defined)
>He's the Real Thing....
>
>> BTW, are you a hack writer who gets paid by the word rather than the quality of
>> the work itself?
>
>No, you're confusing me with your failed career as a hack writer. Your
>singular lack of imagination and creativity is probably what did you
>in, because even for a hack writer, it sucks. So do you get paid to
>troll audio newsgroups? I hope so, because you don't seem qualified for
>anything else.

This would all be fine if he were commenting on the phrase ad hominem
- unfortunately for you, you have "publically" shown that you need to
work on your comprehension skills...

You lose.

Again.

[[email protected]]

Garbage Boy teaches us all a lesson in comprehension skills:


> On 27 Mar 2006 12:43:51 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >GeoSynch, the most cleverest of the clever clever trolls, wrote this
> >without even having to think or read a dictionary:
> >
> >
> >> soundhaspriority about as much as spelling does:
> >>
> >> > Like I already told you publically
> >> ...
> >> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
> >> ....
> >> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.
> >>
> >> > It's "ad hominem" idiot
> >>
> >> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
> >> Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.
> >>
> >
> >That's not possible on a group of fools, but you being one of the
> >biggest fools here, making a mockery of you is rather, child's
> >play.....
> >
> >From: dictionary.com
> >
> >link:
> >
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad%20hominem
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >ad hom·i·nem P Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
> >adj.
> >Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:
> >Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their
> >opponents' motives.
> >
> >[Latin : ad, to + hominem, accusative of hom, man.]
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >Ever heard of a "dictionary", troll? When you launch an ad hominem
> >attack on someone as you just did, for allegedly not knowing how to
> >spell "ad hominem" no less, I think it would kind of be a boost to
> >your credibility to know how to spell the term and understand what it
> >means, you flaming moron.
> >
> >Let me guess.... you're the idiot that's paid to clean up the room
> >after the other idiots have partied in it? And you found out how to
> >operate the computer, didn't you? It looks like stupidity has a new
> >name now: "GeoSynch". If everyone thanked you for making a public
> >mockery of yourself, it would probably look a lot like that old Coca
> >Cola commercial.....
> >
> >How does that go again?....
> >
> >"I'd like to thank the "GeoSynch"
> >For public mockery
> >He puts his feet inside his mouth
> >It keeps him company.....
> >He's the Real Thing
> >(Total moron)
> >What the group wants to be
> >(Ignorant clods)
> >The height of idiocy
> >("Foolish" defined)
> >He's the Real Thing....
> >
> >> BTW, are you a hack writer who gets paid by the word rather than the quality of
> >> the work itself?
> >
> >No, you're confusing me with your failed career as a hack writer. Your
> >singular lack of imagination and creativity is probably what did you
> >in, because even for a hack writer, it sucks. So do you get paid to
> >troll audio newsgroups? I hope so, because you don't seem qualified for
> >anything else.
>


> This would all be fine if he were commenting on the phrase ad hominem
> - unfortunately for you, you have "publically" shown that you need to
> work on your comprehension skills...
>
> You lose.
>
> Again.


LOL!

GeoSynch _was_ commenting on the phrase "ad hominem" wrt its spelling.
You see Garbage Bag Boy, this is the dead giveaway clue:

"soundhaspriority about as much as spelling does"

Look again. It's the phrase he prefaced his post with, you clueless
moron. Guess what, Dave? Yup here it comes.... " You lose. Again." By
gosh, don't you and your alleged "classical education" EVER get tired
of being made a fool of? Explain to me again how my posts are related
to "morphic resonance" why don't you? ROTFLMAO! Making fun of you is so
easy, it bores me now. Troll along, ankle biter.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote, in all earnestness:

> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.
>
> Regards,
> Robert Morein

If this is a "fact finding" thread Robert, than everyone on RAO,
including you, are open-minded, independent thinkers who would
recognize "truth" from "lies", who don't make any presumptions or false
allegations about me or any of my tweaks, and who are all quite wise
and intelligent, who know everything about what produces good sound in
audio, and what doesn't, and who's replies are always as profound and
insightful as any you are likely to read anywhere.

Okay, enough with the yuk-yuks. Let's see how many "presumptions" we
can avoid finding in your post:

Presumption no 1:

"Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects: "

I've expressed an interest in more than tweaks during my stay here thus
far (I know you're not great at math, but the "two" you mentioned is
actually just the one interest). I've also expressed an interest in
helping some people with their audio problems, and I've expressed an
interest in troll bashing (but only those who tried to attack me).


Presumption no 2:

"Mr. Graham has said, "I do have tweaks for glasses, including aspecial
cream
that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the sound you hear from
your
audio system. It's not free though, and certainly not cheap." This
statement suggests that Mr. Graham has a proprietary interest in this
product. We do not know the specifics of this interest, if there is
one. "

I have a propietary (aka commercial) interest in any product.


Presumption no 3:

"It appears that George Middius and Dave Weil consider Mr. Graham an
unmitigated fraud. This has resulted in a thread heavily into
adhominem
attacks between Middius and Weil, on one side, and Mr. Graham on the
other. "

Middius and Weil are the only ones who consider me a fraud. Numerous
others have implied as much, inlcluding the Goofball they call
"Goofball" and who else.... wait, I'm pretty sure I remember this.....
uh.... wasn't it that obnoxious neurotic pill-popping maniac that....
gee what the heck was his na-- oh yea, YOU. It appears you also
consider me an unmitigated fraud. But don't worry, even though its 3
against 1, I can take you, Moe, Curly and the rest of the gang on with
no more than my little pinky finger....


Presumption no. 4:

"Mr. Graham responded by stating that my
knowledge of science is not current, and therefore, that I am incapable
of
understanding the "theory", which involves quantum mechanics".

That you're "incapable of understanding the theory".


Presumption no. 5:

"I responded that my knowledge of science is current, and that I am
very familiar with
quantum mechanics."

That your knowledge of science is "current", which implies you
understand all fields of science and scientific theory. Whether you've
heard of them or not. Which brings us to.....

Presumption no. 6:

That the cream is being sold and marketed as an electret, merely
because its name is "cream electret".


Presumption no. 7:

"Mr. Graham then indicated that he could not tell me, because the
"theory" is proprietary.


This is more of a lie, really, since I never said the "theory" was
proprietary.


Presumption no. 8:

"Mr. Graham lambasts Dave Weil for not
understanding the "theory", but no theory has been presented".

That I was lambasting Garbage Boy (more like roasting him over a spit,
I prefer to think....) because he did not understand the theory behind
the cream electret, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Rather, I was ****ing all over our mutual friend Dave Weil, because the
moron thought that he could take apart the theory behind my 5-pinhole
paper tweak, and still have enough fight left over to make further
sick, twisted jokes about my dying mother. As we all saw, he proved to
be quite the impotent little troll, not unlike his partner, George the
Greek. In order to try to hide the fact that he was nothing more than
an ignorant nitwit with a claimed superior education than mine, he went
hiding behind one of Arny's slimy debating tactics: that of demanding
that I debunk one of his assertions (his ridiculous tweaks), when I had
never even queried him on it - or even knew that he had any at the
time.


Presumption no. 9:

"1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells?
If
so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a
newsgroup
for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace. "

Well, this is more of a "delusion" really. I mean it is risible for you
to proclaim you are on a "fact finding mission", while you're basing
your wild speculations upon nothing; a complete and total lack of
evidence. Being that there IS no evidence that I was advertising or
selling anything, and should post on RAM.


Presumption no. 10:

"b. His offering of the "cream". "


You're right. Less of a presumption, more of a flat out lie. Since you
can not prove that I was selling the cream, or advertising it in any
way.


Presumption no. 11:


"3. Is Mr. Graham to be believed?"



That you have a valid basis for believing I'm not to be believed. This
is akin to me asking "how many times have you beaten your wife, Mr.
Morein?".


Presumption no. 12:

" a. Does Mr. Graham believe himself that these methods and offerings

work? "

No -valid- basis for posing the question, particularly considering the
fact that you are already on the record as having thought otherwise.


Presumption no. 13:

" b. Is Mr. Graham a fraud, in the sense of awareness that these
methods
and offerings do not work, but advocating and promoting them
nevertheless? "

Again, no -valid- basis for posing the question.


Presumption no. 14:

The concepts behind the tweaks are based on Eastern philosophies.


Presumption no. 15:

> This is a fact-finding inquiry


Probably the biggest one of all.


> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES. I will tally all the
> answers. "Adhominum" will distract from the purpose.


Well, at least you finally figured out how to spell "ad hominem" (could
you please inform GeoSynch and Dave Weil of that, while you're on your
obsessive inquiry into me. So maybe this excercise in insinuating your
various mental afflictions upon the rest of the group has done some
good after all.

Robert, sometimes, you are to me just what I am to the others: a never
ending circus freak show. For this reason, even though you say some
REALLY stupid pig-headed things, it's hard to stay mad at you. So don't
go changin' to try and please me....

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote, in all earnestness:
>
>> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
>> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Robert Morein
>
> If this is a "fact finding" thread Robert, than everyone on RAO,
> including you, are open-minded, independent thinkers who would
> recognize "truth" from "lies", who don't make any presumptions or false
> allegations about me or any of my tweaks, and who are all quite wise
> and intelligent, who know everything about what produces good sound in
> audio, and what doesn't, and who's replies are always as profound and
> insightful as any you are likely to read anywhere.
>
Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
Questions have been posted with respect to your motives and beliefs.
Examination by one's peers is not always pleasant. While it is not our
intent to make this unpleasant for you, you have made a number of
extraordinary, perhaps incredible, claims regarding audio reproduction.
Naturally, we are curious about the motives of such a person. We are also
curious about "meta perceptions", ie., how other people regard you.

We do note that you appear to lack respect for your peers. This
disadvantages you in discussions with knowledgeable individuals. While some,
such as Dave Weil and George Middius have expressed antagonism toward you,
you have allowed yourself to be dominated by a need to effectively ridicule
them. I urge you to keep your responses to these individuals proportionate.

Collaborating as a group, we are better able to understand your motives
than as individuals. This is the purpose of the thread.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[GeoSynch]

Sound may have priority, but vision is obscured by clouds* ... of red mist:

(Note audio reference.)

>> > Like I already told you publically
>> ...
>> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
>> ....
>> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.

>> > It's "ad hominem" idiot

>> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
>> Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.

>That's not possible on a group of fools, but you being one of the
>biggest fools here, making a mockery of you is rather, child's
>play.....

My, my, where to begin? The Ferstlerian misplaced comma, the ham-handed
Lionelesque
IKYABWAI - which stands for I Know You Are But What Am I (you're welcome) - but
let's be charitable and call it even. For you see, if you enter "publically"
into the M-W site,
it returns the word as "publicly" although it lists "publically" as a variant.
See for instance:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=publically

Now on to where the red mist starts to set in:

>From: dictionary.com

> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem&r=66

>Ever heard of a "dictionary", troll? When you launch an ad hominem
>attack on someone as you just did, for allegedly not knowing how to
>spell "ad hominem" no less, I think it would kind of be a boost to
>your credibility to know how to spell the term and understand what it
>means, you flaming moron.

Sorry to burst your bubble, old boy, but if you would be kind enough
to click on this link
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/8ad861493bdb9cf2
then come back to us after you've finished that bowl of humble pie* and
wiped the egg off your face, you'll only lose some face, which is better
than losing credibility and having to "Sneeze some dust that you got buzzed on,
You know it's hard to believe..."*

(Note audio reference.)

>Let me guess.... you're the idiot that's paid to clean up the room
>after the other idiots have partied in it? And you found out how to
>operate the computer, didn't you? It looks like stupidity has a new
>name now: "GeoSynch". If everyone thanked you for making a public
>mockery of yourself, it would probably look a lot like that old Coca
>Cola commercial.....

Quite a rich, vivid imagination epiphanized from imbibing magic cream.

>How does that go again?....

Better keep your day job and leave the wince-evoking poetry well enough alone.

>> BTW, are you a hack writer who gets paid by the word rather than the quality
>> of
>> the work itself?

>No, you're confusing me with your failed career as a hack writer.

Just can't leave the IKYABWAI rejoinders well enough alone, either?

>Your singular lack of imagination and creativity is probably what did you
>in, because even for a hack writer, it sucks.

There's that rich, vivid imagination again. You must imbibe the magic cream by
the gallon.

>So do you get paid to troll audio newsgroups?

Polly learn new word "troll." Good word "troll." Polly want cracker?

>I hope so, because you don't seem qualified for anything else.

Your purported omniscience is woefully underwhelming.


GeoSynch

[paul packer]

wrote:

> C. This newsgroup is FILLED TO THE BRIM with hyper-paranoid, insecure
> social misfits, who apparently have nothing better going on in their
> lives, that they have to spend their days coming up with endless
> theories of conjecture about someone they keep saying should be
> ignored, and that they have no interest in. After a day of not reading
> this group, I see a new thread about me with 35 posts in it so far,
> that proves me right again.

Out of all Mr. Sound's mindless ranting, he's finally hit on something
worth discussing---or rather, not worth discussing. Why are we
endlessly speculating about this out-of-control attack droid anyway?
The fact that he's obviously well-educated and intelligent only counts
against him and makes me regret even more that they did away with the
stocks---you know, chucking rotten tomatoes at people's heads. What a
wonderful opportunity we have here, with our own village idiot to play
with. And if you think I'm being uncharacteristically uncharitable,
it's just the normal reaction to Mr. Sound's being his typical charming
self. He comes on this NG, postulates utter absurdity masquerading as
"tweaks" and then abuses anyone who dares doubt his sincerity or the
efficacy of his suggestions. We're all closed-minded imbeciles, you
see, or else we'd accept all this stuff and spend the rest of the day
sticking pin-holes in cardboard and smearing our glasses with cream
(though what this would do for the sound from my headphones I can't
imagine). Oh dear, and here I am wasting still more bandwidth on the
fellow--what am I thinking? Back, back....back to rationality.....

And to think we lambasted Arnie for ABX!

[[email protected]]

GeoSynch and his narcissus complex:


> Sound may have priority, but vision is obscured by clouds* ... of red mist:
>
> (Note audio reference.)
>
> >> > Like I already told you publically
> >> ...
> >> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
> >> ....
> >> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.
>
> >> > It's "ad hominem" idiot
>
> >> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
> >> Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.
>
> >That's not possible on a group of fools, but you being one of the
> >biggest fools here, making a mockery of you is rather, child's
> >play.....
>
> My, my, where to begin? The Ferstlerian misplaced comma, the ham-handed
> Lionelesque
> IKYABWAI - which stands for I Know You Are But What Am I (you're welcome) - but
> let's be charitable and call it even. For you see, if you enter "publically"
> into the M-W site,
> it returns the word as "publicly" although it lists "publically" as a variant.
> See for instance:
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=publically
>
> Now on to where the red mist starts to set in:
>
> >From: dictionary.com
>
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem&r=66
>
> >Ever heard of a "dictionary", troll? When you launch an ad hominem
> >attack on someone as you just did, for allegedly not knowing how to
> >spell "ad hominem" no less, I think it would kind of be a boost to
> >your credibility to know how to spell the term and understand what it
> >means, you flaming moron.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, old boy, but if you would be kind enough
> to click on this link
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/8ad861493bdb9cf2
> then come back to us after you've finished that bowl of humble pie* and
> wiped the egg off your face, you'll only lose some face, which is better
> than losing credibility and having to "Sneeze some dust that you got buzzed on,
> You know it's hard to believe..."*
>
> (Note audio reference.)
>
> >Let me guess.... you're the idiot that's paid to clean up the room
> >after the other idiots have partied in it? And you found out how to
> >operate the computer, didn't you? It looks like stupidity has a new
> >name now: "GeoSynch". If everyone thanked you for making a public
> >mockery of yourself, it would probably look a lot like that old Coca
> >Cola commercial.....
>
> Quite a rich, vivid imagination epiphanized from imbibing magic cream.
>
> >How does that go again?....
>
> Better keep your day job and leave the wince-evoking poetry well enough alone.
>
> >> BTW, are you a hack writer who gets paid by the word rather than the quality
> >> of
> >> the work itself?
>
> >No, you're confusing me with your failed career as a hack writer.
>
> Just can't leave the IKYABWAI rejoinders well enough alone, either?
>
> >Your singular lack of imagination and creativity is probably what did you
> >in, because even for a hack writer, it sucks.
>
> There's that rich, vivid imagination again. You must imbibe the magic cream by
> the gallon.
>
> >So do you get paid to troll audio newsgroups?
>
> Polly learn new word "troll." Good word "troll." Polly want cracker?
>
> >I hope so, because you don't seem qualified for anything else.
>
> Your purported omniscience is woefully underwhelming.
>
>
> GeoSynch


Oh my @$/"! God! THIS is what you call "non hack writing"?! THIS
dreadful mess we see above, is your best attack post!?? You've got to
be kidding me? I don't know where to begin criticizing you for this...
The first thing I noted, is that you look like you spent 6 hours
dressing it up, just to make "a good impression" with your risible
attempts at witty rejoinders. The time you spent might be
understandable, if the result didn't make you sound like a pretentious
third rate hack lit student working on a high school newspaper,
imagining he's Oscar Wilde. I picture you more as a cross between
Leisure Suit Larry and Pauly Shore. Just the phrase "wince evoking
poetry" makes the stomach churn. You have a remarkable ability to
produce the most boring writing I've ever seen, and yet you manage to
come across as being infatuated with your perceived talent. I hate to
say this, but you were actually better when you only had dumb one-line
quips to share. Anyone that has to try as hard as you to make an
impression, is better off not trying at all.

As bad as your writing is.... your CONTENT is actually worse. I can
only comment on the parts I read, because I didn't want to risk being
completely bored to death. This argument started because I called
Morein an idiot for his repeated misspelling of ad hominem. Then you
piped, and decided you were going to OUT-STUPID Robert, showing that
you can be an even bigger idiot, by attacking me and even "thanking me
for self-mockery", for pointing out what you in all your brilliant
command of the English language, figured was a misspelling of "ad
hominem". Then, just to show you what an idiot you really are, I gave
you a link to the biggest dictionary on line, which showed my spelling
as correct. Then, instead of eating crow, what did you do? Well.... you
showed that you can even OUT-STUPID your own badass idiot self, by
ignoring the dictionary.com reference, and referring me instead to a
link in a post where you chide someone for not spelling the phrase
correctly. And how did you spell it in that post you linked to? Exactly
the way that I told you and Robert it was spelled, namely "ad
hominem"!!

So either you're the very worst liar this group has ever produced, and
that's really saying something, or you have got to be one of the
absolute dumbest trolls I have ever seen. Which says even more. At
least you exhibit "some" kind of talent. Now after you finish eating
humble pie, crow, wiping the egg off of your face, removing your foot
from your mouth and your thumb from your posterior, would you kindly do
everyone a favour and stop boring us to death, you tailpipe-huffing
retard.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...


> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:


Dear Mr. Robert Nutbar:

You wrote:

> >> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.

In my last message, I printed out no less than FIFTEEN presumptions you
made about me in your first post alone. You ignored responding to ALL
of them. So where do you get off calling this a "fact finding thread",
and that you "presume nothing about me", after I proved you presumed 15
things in your very first post? Gonna duck and run from this fact too,
Mr. Fact Finder?!


> Questions have been posted with respect to your motives and beliefs.

Uh yah.... I think that would be because YOU posed them. Remember that
little unhealthy obsession you have with me that keeps you awake nights
and clacking fervently away at your computer in the afternoons?

I've already given you my motives and beliefs in great detail, in our
email conversations. So how do you figure that empty conjecture and
ignorant speculation from people that would not have a clue as to how
their shoelaces get tied, let alone my "motivations and beliefs", would
be any more accurate than what I already informed you?


> Examination by one's peers is not always pleasant.

For you, maybe not, but for me, it's quite a riot to see a yammering
bunch of inane goofballs, taking wild stabs in the dark with a fork,
and poking each other in the eye, and other soft squishy parts of the
body. It's as though everyone became "Robert Morein" for a day. With
all of your neuroses, all of your over-analyses, and your
self-consuming obsessions. Everything except the meds. But you all
share the same insecurities anyway.


While it is not our
> intent to make this unpleasant for you, you have made a number of
> extraordinary, perhaps incredible, claims regarding audio reproduction.
> Naturally, we are curious about the motives of such a person.
> We are also
> curious about "meta perceptions", ie., how other people regard you.
>

All of this "curiousity" about "meta perceptions", and about the
"motives" for generously sharing my tweaks with you, and the
"extraordinary, perhaps incredible claims" that I make about my
understanding of audio.... but you know what I'm curious about? Why all
of this wasted energy and wasted bandwidth and wasted time.... no one's
curious about whether the tweaks actually work or not. You see, my
short-sighted, backward friend, if you knew that..... then all your
other questions about my motivations and my "extraordinary, incredible"
claims might fall into place, and make a whole lot more sense to you.
But I have to admit, the way you and your colleagues are choosing to
handle this thing, is a lot funnier than the alternative. So keep on
finding new ways to become more ignorant. Its endlessly fascinating to
me.


> We do note that you appear to lack respect for your peers.

What "peers"? I don't have any "peers" on this group? Did anyone notice
that I titled my posts "Tweaks for ADVANCED Audiophiles Only!"? Well,
I've come to realize, there ARE no "advanced" audiophiles on this
group. Only mindless ignorant sheep who think they're advanced
audiophiles. Hence, I have no peers here.

> This
> disadvantages you in discussions with knowledgeable individuals.

Really? WHAT "knowledgable individuals"?! There is absolutely no one
that I have yet seen here that is even close to having more knowledge
about what produces good sound in audio than I do. When I leave (or IF
I leave, since I'm starting to take a shine to Dave & Georgie...), the
entire groups collective knowledge of audio will diminish by about
75-80%.

Problem is, you don't even understand how to evaluate knowledge,
Robert.

>While some,
> such as Dave Weil and George Middius have expressed antagonism toward you,

Would you stop reading the group with blinkers on? You keep doing that,
and it's annoying to read your half-assed truths all the time. Pretty
much ALL regulars on this group have shown antagonism toward me Bob,
and that started from the very first responses I ever got, all the way
up to the present.

> you have allowed yourself to be dominated by a need to effectively ridicule
> them.

Well, thanks for observing that my ridicule of my opponents is
effective! That aside, what you again fail to see, is that this entire
group has allowed itself to be dominated by a need to effectively
ridicule me. I let that go for the longest time, until I decided to
defend myself, where necessary. The only reason most of the regulars
come here, is to engage in flame wars. I'm sorry if you're too
blinkered to have noticed that..... with your 5,660 attack posts and
all.....


> I urge you to keep your responses to these individuals
proportionate.

They are always proportionate to the attacks I receive. Judging by the
amount of attack posts you write against McCarty, you probably
outnumber his posts by 10 to 1.

>
> Collaborating as a group, we are better able to understand your motives
> than as individuals. This is the purpose of the thread.

Like I said before Bob, you're a riot. Since you are a group of
closed-minded ignorant bigots, who every single day of your sorry
lives, pull conjecture out of your asses and present it as "facts" that
you religiously believe in (until other newer "facts" supercede the
ones you thought were true....), you're no better able to understand my
motives than you are at understanding my tweaks.

But hey, don't let me stop you! Obsess away about me, if that's what
you wish. It's a thousand laughs and then some.

[GeoSynch]

Sound's blindspot reading comprehension is only exceeded by his outsize ego:

>> >> > Like I already told you publically
>> >> ...
>> >> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
>> >> ....
>> >> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.

>> >> > It's "ad hominem" idiot

>> >> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.

If you weren't so reading comprehension-impaired, you might realize the "twice"
in the
above sentence doesn't refer to your or Morein's use of the word "ad hominem"
but
rather to your unusual spelling of the word "publicly."

>> >> Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.

The above quip was merely meant to reiterate the point in case you are as thick
as a
plank, which, indeed, you turn out to be.

The "hack writer" jibe seems to have really gotten under your skin, the way you
keep
re-using it along with my other words and phrases - not very original, old boy.

Unlike others - including you, perhaps - I'm not glued to my monitor all day
long
keeping up with rao. Heck, months go by I don't even look in on it.

Unanswered comments are an implicit admission of the point(s) being made, so
thanks for all the implicit admissions you make by not responding to them
herein.

Your dearth of self-delightful withering sarcastic remarks and overreliance
on my words and phrasings indicate you're teetering on the verge of
creative bankruptcy. Seems to be time for you to return to hawking
potions and lotions and toil with foil and maybe some olive oil.


GeoSynch


>> >That's not possible on a group of fools, but you being one of the
>> >biggest fools here, making a mockery of you is rather, child's
>> >play.....

>> My, my, where to begin? The Ferstlerian misplaced comma, the ham-handed
>> Lionelesque
>> IKYABWAI - which stands for I Know You Are But What Am I (you're welcome) -
>> but
>> let's be charitable and call it even. For you see, if you enter "publically"
>> into the M-W site,
>> it returns the word as "publicly" although it lists "publically" as a
>> variant.
>> See for instance:
>> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=publically

>> Now on to where the red mist starts to set in:
>>
>> >From: dictionary.com
>>
>> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ad+hominem&r=66
>>
>> >Ever heard of a "dictionary", troll? When you launch an ad hominem
>> >attack on someone as you just did, for allegedly not knowing how to
>> >spell "ad hominem" no less, I think it would kind of be a boost to
>> >your credibility to know how to spell the term and understand what it
>> >means, you flaming moron.
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, old boy, but if you would be kind enough
>> to click on this link
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/8ad861493bdb9cf2
>> then come back to us after you've finished that bowl of humble pie* and
>> wiped the egg off your face, you'll only lose some face, which is better
>> than losing credibility and having to "Sneeze some dust that you got buzzed
>> on,
>> You know it's hard to believe..."*
>>
>> (Note audio reference.)
>>
>> >Let me guess.... you're the idiot that's paid to clean up the room
>> >after the other idiots have partied in it? And you found out how to
>> >operate the computer, didn't you? It looks like stupidity has a new
>> >name now: "GeoSynch". If everyone thanked you for making a public
>> >mockery of yourself, it would probably look a lot like that old Coca
>> >Cola commercial.....
>>
>> Quite a rich, vivid imagination epiphanized from imbibing magic cream.
>>
>> >How does that go again?....
>>
>> Better keep your day job and leave the wince-evoking poetry well enough
>> alone.
>>
>> >> BTW, are you a hack writer who gets paid by the word rather than the
>> >> quality
>> >> of
>> >> the work itself?
>>
>> >No, you're confusing me with your failed career as a hack writer.
>>
>> Just can't leave the IKYABWAI rejoinders well enough alone, either?
>>
>> >Your singular lack of imagination and creativity is probably what did you
>> >in, because even for a hack writer, it sucks.
>>
>> There's that rich, vivid imagination again. You must imbibe the magic cream
>> by
>> the gallon.
>>
>> >So do you get paid to troll audio newsgroups?
>>
>> Polly learn new word "troll." Good word "troll." Polly want cracker?
>>
>> >I hope so, because you don't seem qualified for anything else.
>>
>> Your purported omniscience is woefully underwhelming.
>>
>>
>> GeoSynch
>
>
> Oh my @$/"! God! THIS is what you call "non hack writing"?! THIS
> dreadful mess we see above, is your best attack post!?? You've got to
> be kidding me? I don't know where to begin criticizing you for this...
> The first thing I noted, is that you look like you spent 6 hours
> dressing it up, just to make "a good impression" with your risible
> attempts at witty rejoinders. The time you spent might be
> understandable, if the result didn't make you sound like a pretentious
> third rate hack lit student working on a high school newspaper,
> imagining he's Oscar Wilde. I picture you more as a cross between
> Leisure Suit Larry and Pauly Shore. Just the phrase "wince evoking
> poetry" makes the stomach churn. You have a remarkable ability to
> produce the most boring writing I've ever seen, and yet you manage to
> come across as being infatuated with your perceived talent. I hate to
> say this, but you were actually better when you only had dumb one-line
> quips to share. Anyone that has to try as hard as you to make an
> impression, is better off not trying at all.
>
> As bad as your writing is.... your CONTENT is actually worse. I can
> only comment on the parts I read, because I didn't want to risk being
> completely bored to death. This argument started because I called
> Morein an idiot for his repeated misspelling of ad hominem. Then you
> piped, and decided you were going to OUT-STUPID Robert, showing that
> you can be an even bigger idiot, by attacking me and even "thanking me
> for self-mockery", for pointing out what you in all your brilliant
> command of the English language, figured was a misspelling of "ad
> hominem". Then, just to show you what an idiot you really are, I gave
> you a link to the biggest dictionary on line, which showed my spelling
> as correct. Then, instead of eating crow, what did you do? Well.... you
> showed that you can even OUT-STUPID your own badass idiot self, by
> ignoring the dictionary.com reference, and referring me instead to a
> link in a post where you chide someone for not spelling the phrase
> correctly. And how did you spell it in that post you linked to? Exactly
> the way that I told you and Robert it was spelled, namely "ad
> hominem"!!
>
> So either you're the very worst liar this group has ever produced, and
> that's really saying something, or you have got to be one of the
> absolute dumbest trolls I have ever seen. Which says even more. At
> least you exhibit "some" kind of talent. Now after you finish eating
> humble pie, crow, wiping the egg off of your face, removing your foot
> from your mouth and your thumb from your posterior, would you kindly do
> everyone a favour and stop boring us to death, you tailpipe-huffing
> retard.
>

[paul packer]

wrote:
> paul packer wrote:
>
>
> > Out of all Mr. Sound's mindless ranting, he's finally hit on something
> > worth discussing---or rather, not worth discussing. Why are we
> > endlessly speculating about this out-of-control attack droid anyway?
>
> Since you've proven to be an "out-of-control attack droid",

Actually a fully in-control attack droid right now.

>as your
> colleagues here have, I certainly hope you don't program that question
> into your computer bank. Because then some part of your mechanism is
> going to figure out that you are endlessly speculating about me, go
> into a continual loop, overheat and then.... KABLOOM!

Endlessly speculating? This is Robert's thread, and I'm questioning why
he started it and why so many are contributing to it and in the process
feeding your ego. You really love all this stuff, don't you? I'll bet
you wander the streets at night hoping to be beaten up. Anything just
so as to get attention.

> > The fact that he's obviously well-educated and intelligent only counts
> > against him and makes me regret even more that they did away with the
> > stocks---you know, chucking rotten tomatoes at people's heads.
>
> Yes. I understand how intelligence and education is considered anathema
> to stupid oafs like you; much as light can be considered the "enemy" of
> darkness. So you'd better kill anyone with a candle.

So you're bringing light into our darkness, eh, Mr. Sound? I knew you
had a walloping ego, but I didn't think you had a Messiah complex.

> paul the packer proclaims:
>
> "Hey! He doesn't belong here! He's talking some crazy **** that we
> don't know **** about, and trying to educate us about audio and ****,
> in ways that offend our sense of stupidity!
>
> Come on, let's stone him!!"

I never run with the mob, except on those rare occasions, as now, when
the mob happens to be right. But I never use coarse phrases in any
case.

> > What a
> > wonderful opportunity we have here, with our own village idiot to play
> > with.
>
> Except in a village full of idiots, the village idiot is actually the
> smartest one present. Just remember what was said here Paul.... Maybe
> in 10 or 12 years time, you'll finally get it.

Probably. I'll be 10 or 12 years older, and as I'm nearly 60 now that
won't be a good thing. Alzheimers here I come!

> >And if you think I'm being uncharacteristically uncharitable,
> > it's just the normal reaction to Mr. Sound's being his typical charming
> > self.
>
> ......from a virtual village of idiots.
>
>
> > He comes on this NG, postulates utter absurdity masquerading as
> > "tweaks"
>
> Some would say the "utter absurdity" comes from ignorant oafs like you
> who talk about "utter absurdity masquerading as tweaks", when you
> haven't ever tried any of these tweaks to see if they are absurd.

Come on, Mr. Sound. Finally admit that you've been pulling our legs all
this time. Come on, it won't hurt, and you've milked it for all it's
worth anyway. What's the point of keeping a joke going long after
everyone's stopped laughing.

Come on, you got to call us all ignorant oafs several times. Be fair
now.

>But
> those are the intelligent and educated people, who are only good for
> stoning and throwing rotten tomatoes at.
>
> >and then abuses anyone who dares doubt his sincerity or the
> > efficacy of his suggestions.
>
> A natural reaction.... As it is a natural reaction for you to
> completely avoid chiding any one of your colleagues, or yourself for
> that matter, for abusing me.

Why should I, when I know you love it so much? I was going to ask them
to stop, but then I decided not to be so mean.

(Except I don't consider half-assed
> attacks from virtual glue-sniffing retards much in the way of "abuse").

Funny, I don't smell a thing. Maybe my virtual nose is blocked.

> > We're all closed-minded imbeciles, you see
>
> You don't say? Can't say I ever noticed that. ;-)
> <------------(notice the winky thing, Pauly? it hints at sarcasm. No, I
> did not say "Sir Chasm".... but yeah sure, ok, I guess it IS a funny
> sounding word....)
>
>
> > or else we'd accept all this stuff and spend the rest of the day
> > sticking pin-holes in cardboard and smearing our glasses with cream
>
> If it takes you all the rest of the day to stick 5 pinholes in a piece
> of paper or smear some cream on your eyeglasses, then you're right.
> These tweaks are too advanced for you. But didn't I ALREADY put a
> warning on all of my tweak posts, JUST for lamebrains like yourself? I
> said they were for "ADVANCED audiophiles". The word "ADVANCED" is the
> equivalent of "Keep away, Paul Packer!".

Indeed. And you can be sure I'll take due note in the future. Your
version of "ADVANCED" looks somewhat like walking backwards to me.

> > (though what this would do for the sound from my headphones I can't
> > imagine).
>
> Theoretically speaking, it affects the sound you hear on your
> headphones as much as from your loudspeakers.

Oh Mr. Sound--stop, stop! OK, yes, it was a good joke, but please, no
more....

>But you can't imagine
> that, so its understandable that you don't try things you can't
> imagine. That might risk expanding your mind. Can't have a mindless
> sheep with an expanded mind, now can we?
>
> >Oh dear, and here I am wasting still more bandwidth on the
> > fellow--what am I thinking? Back, back....back to rationality.....
> >
>
> ...Yes that's it, my little lamb..... back.... go back to where things
> are safe and "rational" for you.... Don't wanna rock the boat now! Got
> to keep up that status quo! There's learnin' afoot if you head my way,
> so it's time to turn back to safer ground! Where you know where you
> stand, and where no one tries to threaten your ignorant views of the
> world, or challenge you to think! Let alone, LISTEN!
>
> OH WONDERFUL PEOPLE OF RAO! REVEL IN YOUR IGNORANCE!

Thus speaketh the prophet. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

[dave weil]

On 27 Mar 2006 14:38:46 -0800, wrote:

>LOL!
>
>GeoSynch _was_ commenting on the phrase "ad hominem" wrt its spelling.
>You see Garbage Bag Boy, this is the dead giveaway clue:
>
>"soundhaspriority about as much as spelling does"
>
>Look again. It's the phrase he prefaced his post with, you clueless
>moron. Guess what, Dave? Yup here it comes.... " You lose. Again." By
>gosh, don't you and your alleged "classical education" EVER get tired
>of being made a fool of? Explain to me again how my posts are related
>to "morphic resonance" why don't you? ROTFLMAO! Making fun of you is so
>easy, it bores me now. Troll along, ankle biter.

Look at what he quoted AGAIN and see which word you misspelled -
TWICE.

Then get back to me...

[dave weil]

On 27 Mar 2006 23:28:26 -0800, wrote:

>So either you're the very worst liar this group has ever produced, and
>that's really saying something, or you have got to be one of the
>absolute dumbest trolls I have ever seen. Which says even more. At
>least you exhibit "some" kind of talent. Now after you finish eating
>humble pie, crow, wiping the egg off of your face, removing your foot
>from your mouth and your thumb from your posterior, would you kindly do
>everyone a favour and stop boring us to death, you tailpipe-huffing
>retard.

Damn. That has to be the limpest-wristed assault ever.

[dave weil]

On 27 Mar 2006 15:39:18 -0800, wrote:

>
>Well, at least you finally figured out how to spell "ad hominem" (could
>you please inform GeoSynch and Dave Weil of that, while you're on your
>obsessive inquiry into me. So maybe this excercise in insinuating your
>various mental afflictions upon the rest of the group has done some
>good after all.

Try closing the parentheses, dick.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>
>
>> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
>
>
> Dear Mr. Robert Nutbar:
>
> You wrote:
>
>> >> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.
>
> In my last message, I printed out no less than FIFTEEN presumptions you
> made about me in your first post alone. You ignored responding to ALL
> of them.

Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
No presumptions were made. To respond to your post would defeat the
purpose of this thread.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[Walt]

wrote:
> Robert Morein wrote, in all earnestness:

<edited for brevity - much snippage>

>>Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
>> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.
>
> If this is a "fact finding" thread Robert, than everyone on RAO,
> including you, are open-minded, independent thinkers who would
> recognize "truth" from "lies", who don't make any presumptions or false
> allegations about me...
>
> "Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects: "
>
> I've expressed an interest in more than tweaks during my stay here thus
> far ...
>
>
> "... This
> statement suggests that Mr. Graham has a proprietary interest in this
> product... "
>
> I have a propietary (aka commercial) interest in any product.
>
> "It appears that George Middius and Dave Weil consider Mr. Graham an
> unmitigated fraud...."
>
> Middius and Weil are the only ones who consider me a fraud....


> "Mr. Graham then indicated that he could not tell me, because the
> "theory" is proprietary.
>
> This is more of a lie, really, since I never said the "theory" was
> proprietary.

> "Mr. Graham lambasts Dave Weil for not
> understanding the "theory", but no theory has been presented".
>
> That I was lambasting Garbage Boy (more like roasting him over a spit,
> I prefer to think....) because he did not understand the theory behind
> the cream electret...
>

> "... Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells?"

> ...there IS no evidence that I was advertising or
> selling anything, and should post on RAM.

> "3. Is Mr. Graham to be believed?"

> That you have a valid basis for believing I'm not to be believed...


Ok, the poster formerly known as soundhaspriority is one and the same as
Mr. Richard Graham, or at least he responds in the first person when
addressed as such. It appears that Mr. Morein was correct about that
conjecture.

So this thread was not a complete waste of time. (Ok, that's certainly
open for debate...)

//Walt

[Steven Sullivan]

paul packer > wrote:
> wrote:

> > C. This newsgroup is FILLED TO THE BRIM with hyper-paranoid, insecure
> > social misfits, who apparently have nothing better going on in their
> > lives, that they have to spend their days coming up with endless
> > theories of conjecture about someone they keep saying should be
> > ignored, and that they have no interest in. After a day of not reading
> > this group, I see a new thread about me with 35 posts in it so far,
> > that proves me right again.

> Out of all Mr. Sound's mindless ranting, he's finally hit on something
> worth discussing---or rather, not worth discussing. Why are we
> endlessly speculating about this out-of-control attack droid anyway?

and get back to all the informative, accurate, genial posting about
audio that characterizes RAO on an average day? HEAR, HEAR!


> The fact that he's obviously well-educated and intelligent only counts
> against him and makes me regret even more that they did away with the
> stocks---you know, chucking rotten tomatoes at people's heads.


He writes like an American. (If he's not, that should make
him pretty angry.)


> And to think we lambasted Arnie for ABX!


Yeah, that *was* stupid of you. How about you give that a rest?
ABX is a form of DBT, and you don't see people who actually do,
you know, *science* and stuff, 'lambasting' those too often.




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

[George M. Middius]

Stupey Sillybot engages his envy gland and starts drooling uncontrollably.

> ABX is a form of DBT, and you don't see people who actually do,
> you know, *science*

We don't see such people on RAO at all. You're certainly not a scientist.
In fact, why don't you give us a refresher on how many aBxism rituals, or
any DBT exercises, you've participated in? How many have you designed, or
witnessed, or monitored? Where were they? When did they occur? Where were
the results published?






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

[Walt]

Richard Graham aka wrote:


> Oh my @$/"! God! blah is blah blah blah "blah blah writing"?! THIS
> blah blah we see above, is blah blah blah post!?? blah blah to
> be blah me? I blah blah blah to blah blah blah blah this...
> blah blah blah I noted, is blah blah blah blah blah blah 6 hours
> blah it up, blah to blah "a blah impression" blah blah risible
> blah at blah rejoinders. blah blah blah blah blah be
> understandable, if blah blah blah blah blah blah blah a pretentious
> blah blah blah blah blah blah on a blah blah newspaper,
> blah blah blah Wilde. I blah blah blah as a blah between
> blah blah blah blah blah Shore. blah blah blah "blah evoking
> poetry" blah blah blah churn. blah blah a blah blah to
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah seen, blah yet blah blah to
> blah blah as blah blah blah blah blah talent. I blah to
> blah this, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah one-line
> blah to share. blah blah blah to blah as blah as blah to blah an
> impression, is blah blah blah blah at all.
>
> As blah as blah blah is.... blah blah is blah worse. I can
> blah blah on blah blah I read, blah I blah blah to blah being
> blah blah to death. blah blah blah blah I called
> blah an blah blah blah blah blah of ad hominem. blah you
> piped, blah blah blah blah blah to blah Robert, blah that
> blah blah be an blah blah idiot, by blah me blah blah "blah me
> blah self-mockery", blah blah blah blah blah in blah blah brilliant
> blah of blah blah language, blah blah a blah of "ad
> hominem". Then, blah to blah blah blah an blah blah blah are, I gave
> blah a blah to blah blah blah on line, blah blah my spelling
> as correct. Then, blah of blah crow, blah blah blah do? Well.... you
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah self, by
> blah blah blah reference, blah blah me blah to a
> blah in a blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah phrase
> correctly. blah blah blah blah blah it in blah blah blah blah to?
> Exactly
> blah blah blah I blah blah blah blah it blah spelled, blah "ad
> hominem"!!
>
> So blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah produced, and
> blah blah blah something, or blah blah blah to be blah of the
> blah blah blah I blah blah seen. blah blah blah more. At
> blah blah blah "some" blah of talent. blah blah blah blah eating
> blah pie, crow, blah blah blah blah of blah face, blah blah foot
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah posterior, blah blah blah do
> blah a blah blah blah blah us to death, blah tailpipe-huffing
> retard.


Get a life, pal.

//Walt

[[email protected]]

See the RAO's own scientist scientifically define ABX: "ABX
is a
form of DBT". Yes: war is a form of diplomacy, a stormtrooper is a form

of a policeman, scientology is a form of science, and *******y is a
form
of legitimacy.
Regards from Ludovic Mirabel

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> paul packer > wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > > C. This newsgroup is FILLED TO THE BRIM with hyper-paranoid, insecure
> > > social misfits, who apparently have nothing better going on in their
> > > lives, that they have to spend their days coming up with endless
> > > theories of conjecture about someone they keep saying should be
> > > ignored, and that they have no interest in. After a day of not reading
> > > this group, I see a new thread about me with 35 posts in it so far,
> > > that proves me right again.
>
> > Out of all Mr. Sound's mindless ranting, he's finally hit on something
> > worth discussing---or rather, not worth discussing. Why are we
> > endlessly speculating about this out-of-control attack droid anyway?
>
> and get back to all the informative, accurate, genial posting about
> audio that characterizes RAO on an average day? HEAR, HEAR!
>
>
> > The fact that he's obviously well-educated and intelligent only counts
> > against him and makes me regret even more that they did away with the
> > stocks---you know, chucking rotten tomatoes at people's heads.
>
>
> He writes like an American. (If he's not, that should make
> him pretty angry.)
>
>
> > And to think we lambasted Arnie for ABX!
>
>
> Yeah, that *was* stupid of you. How about you give that a rest?
> ABX is a form of DBT, and you don't see people who actually do,
> you know, *science* and stuff, 'lambasting' those too often.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> -S
> "Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
> wrote:
> > paul packer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Out of all Mr. Sound's mindless ranting, he's finally hit on something
> > > worth discussing---or rather, not worth discussing. Why are we
> > > endlessly speculating about this out-of-control attack droid anyway?
> >
> > Since you've proven to be an "out-of-control attack droid",
>
> Actually a fully in-control attack droid right now.
>
> >as your
> > colleagues here have, I certainly hope you don't program that question
> > into your computer bank. Because then some part of your mechanism is
> > going to figure out that you are endlessly speculating about me, go
> > into a continual loop, overheat and then.... KABLOOM!
>
> Endlessly speculating? This is Robert's thread, and I'm questioning why
> he started it and why so many are contributing to it and in the process
> feeding your ego. You really love all this stuff, don't you? I'll bet
> you wander the streets at night hoping to be beaten up. Anything just
> so as to get attention.
>
> > > The fact that he's obviously well-educated and intelligent only counts
> > > against him and makes me regret even more that they did away with the
> > > stocks---you know, chucking rotten tomatoes at people's heads.
> >
> > Yes. I understand how intelligence and education is considered anathema
> > to stupid oafs like you; much as light can be considered the "enemy" of
> > darkness. So you'd better kill anyone with a candle.
>
> So you're bringing light into our darkness, eh, Mr. Sound? I knew you
> had a walloping ego, but I didn't think you had a Messiah complex.
>
> > paul the packer proclaims:
> >
> > "Hey! He doesn't belong here! He's talking some crazy **** that we
> > don't know **** about, and trying to educate us about audio and ****,
> > in ways that offend our sense of stupidity!
> >
> > Come on, let's stone him!!"
>
> I never run with the mob, except on those rare occasions, as now, when
> the mob happens to be right. But I never use coarse phrases in any
> case.
>
> > > What a
> > > wonderful opportunity we have here, with our own village idiot to play
> > > with.
> >
> > Except in a village full of idiots, the village idiot is actually the
> > smartest one present. Just remember what was said here Paul.... Maybe
> > in 10 or 12 years time, you'll finally get it.
>
> Probably. I'll be 10 or 12 years older, and as I'm nearly 60 now that
> won't be a good thing. Alzheimers here I come!
>
> > >And if you think I'm being uncharacteristically uncharitable,
> > > it's just the normal reaction to Mr. Sound's being his typical charming
> > > self.
> >
> > ......from a virtual village of idiots.
> >
> >
> > > He comes on this NG, postulates utter absurdity masquerading as
> > > "tweaks"
> >
> > Some would say the "utter absurdity" comes from ignorant oafs like you
> > who talk about "utter absurdity masquerading as tweaks", when you
> > haven't ever tried any of these tweaks to see if they are absurd.
>
> Come on, Mr. Sound. Finally admit that you've been pulling our legs all
> this time. Come on, it won't hurt, and you've milked it for all it's
> worth anyway. What's the point of keeping a joke going long after
> everyone's stopped laughing.
>
> Come on, you got to call us all ignorant oafs several times. Be fair
> now.
>
> >But
> > those are the intelligent and educated people, who are only good for
> > stoning and throwing rotten tomatoes at.
> >
> > >and then abuses anyone who dares doubt his sincerity or the
> > > efficacy of his suggestions.
> >
> > A natural reaction.... As it is a natural reaction for you to
> > completely avoid chiding any one of your colleagues, or yourself for
> > that matter, for abusing me.
>
> Why should I, when I know you love it so much? I was going to ask them
> to stop, but then I decided not to be so mean.
>
> (Except I don't consider half-assed
> > attacks from virtual glue-sniffing retards much in the way of "abuse").
>
> Funny, I don't smell a thing. Maybe my virtual nose is blocked.
>
> > > We're all closed-minded imbeciles, you see
> >
> > You don't say? Can't say I ever noticed that. ;-)
> > <------------(notice the winky thing, Pauly? it hints at sarcasm. No, I
> > did not say "Sir Chasm".... but yeah sure, ok, I guess it IS a funny
> > sounding word....)
> >
> >
> > > or else we'd accept all this stuff and spend the rest of the day
> > > sticking pin-holes in cardboard and smearing our glasses with cream
> >
> > If it takes you all the rest of the day to stick 5 pinholes in a piece
> > of paper or smear some cream on your eyeglasses, then you're right.
> > These tweaks are too advanced for you. But didn't I ALREADY put a
> > warning on all of my tweak posts, JUST for lamebrains like yourself? I
> > said they were for "ADVANCED audiophiles". The word "ADVANCED" is the
> > equivalent of "Keep away, Paul Packer!".
>
> Indeed. And you can be sure I'll take due note in the future. Your
> version of "ADVANCED" looks somewhat like walking backwards to me.
>
> > > (though what this would do for the sound from my headphones I can't
> > > imagine).
> >
> > Theoretically speaking, it affects the sound you hear on your
> > headphones as much as from your loudspeakers.
>
> Oh Mr. Sound--stop, stop! OK, yes, it was a good joke, but please, no
> more....
>
> >But you can't imagine
> > that, so its understandable that you don't try things you can't
> > imagine. That might risk expanding your mind. Can't have a mindless
> > sheep with an expanded mind, now can we?
> >
> > >Oh dear, and here I am wasting still more bandwidth on the
> > > fellow--what am I thinking? Back, back....back to rationality.....
> > >
> >
> > ...Yes that's it, my little lamb..... back.... go back to where things
> > are safe and "rational" for you.... Don't wanna rock the boat now! Got
> > to keep up that status quo! There's learnin' afoot if you head my way,
> > so it's time to turn back to safer ground! Where you know where you
> > stand, and where no one tries to threaten your ignorant views of the
> > world, or challenge you to think! Let alone, LISTEN!
> >
> > OH WONDERFUL PEOPLE OF RAO! REVEL IN YOUR IGNORANCE!
>
> Thus speaketh the prophet. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Paul Packer says:
"Come on, Mr. Sound. Finally admit that you've been pulling our
legs all
this time. Come on, it won't hurt, and you've milked it for all it's
worth anyway. What's the point of keeping a joke going long after
everyone's stopped laughing"
I held the leg pull impression too. But the evidence convinced
me. He has
a new science on offer and *he actually believes it*.
Ludovic Mirabel

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:

> wrote:
> > paul packer wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Out of all Mr. Sound's mindless ranting, he's finally hit on something
> > > worth discussing---or rather, not worth discussing. Why are we
> > > endlessly speculating about this out-of-control attack droid anyway?
> >
> > Since you've proven to be an "out-of-control attack droid",
>
> Actually a fully in-control attack droid right now.


You do have "control issues", don't you Pauly? Does not controlling
people make you nervous... frightened perhaps? Really? Interesting.
<insert jotting down sfx>


> >as your
> > colleagues here have, I certainly hope you don't program that question
> > into your computer bank. Because then some part of your mechanism is
> > going to figure out that you are endlessly speculating about me, go
> > into a continual loop, overheat and then.... KABLOOM!
>
> Endlessly speculating? This is Robert's thread, and I'm questioning why
> he started it

So did I. I long concluded that it certainly wasn't because he was
trying to get at any "truths" about me. Robert already knew the answers
to the questions he was asking about my motivations, identity, and
beliefs, since I had told him in private long before now. If he was at
all after the truth, and did not want empty speculative presumptions,
he'd have responded to the 15 presumptions I showed that he made in
his very first post. He ignored all of that. So trust me, this thread
is NOT about a "fact finding mission" on those issues. I believe it was
so that he could manipulate less smarter people like you into
responding, and play with you, to satisfy his craving for "anarchy".

> and why so many are contributing to it and in the process
> feeding your ego.

> You really love all this stuff, don't you?

Are you jealous because they're not talking about you? I'm sorry
you feel that way. But nevertheless... interesting. <insert jotting
down sfx>

For me, "love" is a mite too strong a word there, buddy. I'd say
it's.... "interesting". <insert jotting down sfx>


> I'll bet
> you wander the streets at night hoping to be beaten up.

Not particularly, but then, neither am I frightened about going out
into the streets at night, as you are. You do seem to have a lot of
fears and insecurities, don't you? Interesting. <insert jotting down
sfx>


> Anything just
> so as to get attention.

Don't you mean "anything to divert your gaze from the truth"? After
all, YOU are the one refusing to acknowledge that I had no
responsibility for putting up this thread, or any of the other posts
people wish to write about me. So besides having "control issues" in
your life, you also have problems accepting responsibility for
yourself. Interesting. <insert jotting down sfx>


>
> > > The fact that he's obviously well-educated and intelligent only counts
> > > against him and makes me regret even more that they did away with the
> > > stocks---you know, chucking rotten tomatoes at people's heads.
> >
> > Yes. I understand how intelligence and education is considered anathema
> > to stupid oafs like you; much as light can be considered the "enemy" of
> > darkness. So you'd better kill anyone with a candle.
>
> So you're bringing light into our darkness, eh, Mr. Sound?

You're not the sharpest tack in the box, are you, Mr. Slacker? Let me
see if I can talk more slowly for you: W h a t I s a i d w a s . . .
.. "you'd better kill anyone with a candle". If I'm the one with the
candle, and I am, then you're the one trying to snuff me out. Do you
need this concept illustrated on a DVD to understand it? It's pretty
clear to most others here, who nevertheless have the minds of children,
that I am not able to bring light into this pit of darkness.... for
those who would snuff it out. Do you see hordes of people eager to try
my tweaks? No? Therefore, no light comes through. "Ding!" Why is that
concept not clear enough to you, I ask? Are you supposed to be in the
"special students" class?

>I knew you
> had a walloping ego, but I didn't think you had a Messiah complex.

My ego is no bigger than what you trolls feed it with, and how you
perceive of what it is. In case my silly opinion means anything to you,
I originally thought I was just a guy that wanted to share some tweaks
with people that I thought we're really cool. Sure, I knew that the
so-called "objectivists" (or "gearheads", as I prefer) don't believe
in "tweaks" (apart from speaker positioning and room treatments, which
I hardly call "tweaks"), so I didn't excpect they'd be interested.
I thought the remainder might, because the tweaks are free after all,
use household materials or available ingenuity, and take on average 30
seconds to implement. But, you and your crew of narrow-minded bigots
certainly taught me a lot about the state of 'audiophilia' today.
No kidding home theatre and cute little mini-stereos are the cutting
edge in hi fidelity these days. Given how willfully ignorant the
audiophiles here have all proven themselves to be, I do feel a little
like an audio guru, now that you mention it. Compared to what people
here know about how to improve an audio system and what I know, I can
walk on water. But if I am the Audio Jesus of RAO, then it's because
you made me that. Just like the "original Jesus", fancy that.


> > paul the packer proclaims:
> >
> > "Hey! He doesn't belong here! He's talking some crazy **** that we
> > don't know **** about, and trying to educate us about audio and ****,
> > in ways that offend our sense of stupidity!
> >
> > Come on, let's stone him!!"
>
> I never run with the mob, except on those rare occasions, as now, when
> the mob happens to be right. But I never use coarse phrases in any
> case.

False. And I've seen this one before, Jack. The "Please don't lump
me in with this group of ignorant morons, I'm special" approach. The
last time, I believe it was "Goofball" that tried it on me. I proved
he wasn't "special", or anything close to a "genius", as some regard
him to be. He was a fool, no less a fool than you. I have a vague
recollection of your little contributions to the attacks against me,
and you are definitely a mob member. Look at yourself in the mirror.
Notice the pinstripe suit, the thick pinky ring, the greasy pompadour,
the garlic breath, the permanent sneer? That means you're a wise guy.

> > Some would say the "utter absurdity" comes from ignorant oafs like you
> > who talk about "utter absurdity masquerading as tweaks", when you
> > haven't ever tried any of these tweaks to see if they are absurd.
>
> Come on, Mr. Sound. Finally admit that you've been pulling our legs all
> this time. Come on, it won't hurt, and you've milked it for all it's
> worth anyway. What's the point of keeping a joke going long after
> everyone's stopped laughing.
> Come on, you got to call us all ignorant oafs several times. Be fair
> now.

I will admit the full truth of what I've been doing soon enough.
Trust me, you won't miss it. But whether you believe it or not will
be as always, up to you. I was scheduled to do so a while ago, but you
see.... every time the moment comes, people like Morein and his witch
hunt against me just make it too tempting to stick around further.
Because you may have stopped laughing, but who says I have?

> > A natural reaction.... As it is a natural reaction for you to
> > completely avoid chiding any one of your colleagues, or yourself for
> > that matter, for abusing me.
>
> Why should I, when I know you love it so much?

You just asked ME to "be fair". That would be why your words have no
weight. It makes you look like a meaningless hypocrite to whine about
the attacks I've returned, when I'm the one who has been attacked
from the beginning.

> (Except I don't consider half-assed
> > attacks from virtual glue-sniffing retards much in the way of "abuse").
>
> Funny, I don't smell a thing. Maybe my virtual nose is blocked.


That means you're ready to graduate to tail-huffer.


> > If it takes you all the rest of the day to stick 5 pinholes in a piece
> > of paper or smear some cream on your eyeglasses, then you're right.
> > These tweaks are too advanced for you. But didn't I ALREADY put a
> > warning on all of my tweak posts, JUST for lamebrains like yourself? I
> > said they were for "ADVANCED audiophiles". The word "ADVANCED" is the
> > equivalent of "Keep away, Paul Packer!".
>
> Indeed. And you can be sure I'll take due note in the future. Your
> version of "ADVANCED" looks somewhat like walking backwards to me.

I'm perfectly serious when I say, "don't worry, that's a normal
reaction you're having". For a non-thinking imbecile, I mean. Or
let's just use the "friendlier" version and say "for someone who
isn't an ADVANCED audiophile". This is why I have to laugh when
people like you say things about me that are perfectly, diametrically
opposite to what in fact is actually true. Speaking of what is actually
true, there's an entire world of audio knowledge you're not aware
of, and never will be. You don't have to be aware of how something
works to know that it does, which is why my tweaks are not really only
for ADVANCED audiophiles. But I admit, you do have to be open-minded in
order to get your empty head past the logistics of the tweak. So I
suppose you may also consider the tweaks a "test for open-mindedness".
Needless to say, you failed with flying colours.

>
> > > (though what this would do for the sound from my headphones I can't
> > > imagine).
> >
> > Theoretically speaking, it affects the sound you hear on your
> > headphones as much as from your loudspeakers.
>
> Oh Mr. Sound--stop, stop! OK, yes, it was a good joke, but please, no
> more....

The joke is you thinking it's a joke. Remeber what I said about why I
have to laugh when people like you say things about me that are
perfectly, diametrically opposite to what in fact is actually true?

> > OH WONDERFUL PEOPLE OF RAO! REVEL IN YOUR IGNORANCE!
>
> Thus speaketh the prophet. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

ALL here have ears to hear. ALL here are technically capable of hearing
the effects of my tweaks (with the exception of Robert Morein....). But
let's try to imagine how significant Jesus would be, if instead of
taking him seriously, everyone just laughed him off and threw stones at
him? Well some did. But long after he died, they took him seriously,
didn't they? The infidels finally "saw the truth" that Jesus was
offering. Perhaps that will happen long after I'm gone.

[[email protected]]

GeoSynch, proud of the fact that he just beat the others for the crown,
wrote:


> >> >> > Like I already told you publically
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
> >> >> ....
> >> >> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.
>
> >> >> > It's "ad hominem" idiot
>
> >> >> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
>
> If you weren't so reading comprehension-impaired, you might realize the "twice"
> in the
> above sentence doesn't refer to your or Morein's use of the word "ad hominem"
> but
> rather to your unusual spelling of the word "publicly."


You're kidding me, right? You mean in trying to play "gotcha!" with
me, you and your friend Garbage Bag Boy Weill, created all this
brouhaha, all these long tirades, trying to tell me I'm a moron
because I spelled "publically" incorrectly? I'm amazed that I'd
have to go through this again with you, trying to familiarize you with
a dictionary..... READ, you freaking moron. READ:


================================================== =================

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=publically


1 entry found for publically.

publically

adv : in a manner accessible to or observable by the public; openly;
"she admitted publicly to being a communist" [syn: publicly, in public]
[ant: privately]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


================================================== =================


"GeoSynch", or whatever the heck your real name is, I have tell you....
I've seen some REALLY stupid people in my stay here, who've said
some REALLY stupid things. You my friend, you top them all. Congrats.
You're "King of the RAO Fools" for today.


> >> >> Thanks for publicly making a mockery of yourself.
>
> The above quip was merely meant to reiterate the point in case you are asthick
> as a plank, which, indeed, you turn out to be.


You're kidding me, right? You mean in trying to play "gotcha!" with
me, you and your friend Garbage Bag Boy Weill, created all this
brouhaha, all these long tirades, trying to tell me I'm a moron
because I spelled "publically" incorrectly? I'm amazed that I'd
have to go through this again with you, trying to familiarize you with
a dictionary..... READ, you freaking moron. READ:


================================================== =================

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=publically


1 entry found for publically.

publically

adv : in a manner accessible to or observable by the public; openly;
"she admitted publicly to being a communist" [syn: publicly, in public]
[ant: privately]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


================================================== =================


"GeoSynch", or whatever the heck your real name is, I have tell you....
I've seen some REALLY stupid people in my stay here, who've said
some REALLY stupid things. You my friend, you top them all. Congrats.
You're "King of the RAO Fools" for today.


> The "hack writer" jibe seems to have really gotten under your skin, the way you
> keep
> re-using it along with my other words and phrases - not very original, old boy.


Let me get this straight: You're attacking me for the "hack writer"
jibe not being "original, old boy", when YOU are the idiot who came up
with the "hack writer jibe"? You've already been crowned "King of the
Fools" for today. Are you trying for the year?


> Unanswered comments are an implicit admission of the point(s) being made,so
> thanks for all the implicit admissions you make by not responding to them
> herein.

With impeccable "Kroologic" like that, I have no reservations about
having named you "King of RAO Fools" for a day. Using your advanced
logic, you have just admitted that you are the group's largest
imbecile, have an eating disorder that requires you to stuff your face
with Moon Pies all day long, you think the square root of pi is
"cherry", and you get your jollies poking your dog with a fork.

Thanks for all the implicit admissions you just made, GeoStink. You
have just told us everything we need to know about you.


<fanciful follies snipped>


>Seems to be time for you to return to hawking
> potions and lotions and toil with foil and maybe some olive oil.

And your incontrovertible evidence of that is where exactly? I don't
see it anywhere. Did you check your rectum? That seems to be where you
keep your brains.

[[email protected]]

Garbage Bag Boy presents us more examples of his "classical education"
and "audio expertise":


> On 27 Mar 2006 14:38:46 -0800, wrote:
>
> >LOL!
> >
> >GeoSynch _was_ commenting on the phrase "ad hominem" wrt its spelling.
> >You see Garbage Bag Boy, this is the dead giveaway clue:
> >
> >"soundhaspriority about as much as spelling does"
> >
> >Look again. It's the phrase he prefaced his post with, you clueless
> >moron. Guess what, Dave? Yup here it comes.... " You lose. Again." By
> >gosh, don't you and your alleged "classical education" EVER get tired
> >of being made a fool of? Explain to me again how my posts are related
> >to "morphic resonance" why don't you? ROTFLMAO! Making fun of you is so
> >easy, it bores me now. Troll along, ankle biter.
>
> Look at what he quoted AGAIN and see which word you misspelled -
> TWICE.
>

Didn't misspell anything twice. Sorry amateur troll. You're wrong.
You lose. Again. But you're used to people playing "kick the can"
with your fat ass, aren't you, Garbage Bag Boy?


> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps


Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps. Have you
ever SEEN a turntable, you imbecile? LOL! Too bad you have such a
masochistic desire to see yourself humiliated like this all the time.


You lose.


Again.


And by the way, making you my personal punching bag is getting a little

played. I've shown countless times what a liar you are, and countless
times what a stupid goof you are, who doesn't ever know what he's
blabbing about. How many times do you want me to make a fool out of
you? Take the advice from your manager: stay down for the count
already, ya dumbass loser!

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >
> >
> >> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
> >
> >
> > Dear Mr. Robert Nutbar:
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> >> >> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.
> >
> > In my last message, I printed out no less than FIFTEEN presumptions you
> > made about me in your first post alone. You ignored responding to ALL
> > of them.
>
> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:

> No presumptions were made.


I see. So I just finished proving to you that 15 different presumptions
were made by you alone, in your first post alone, and without offering
a grain of evidence to prove otherwise, you now claim to me in response
that "no presumptions were made". Well congrats, you're definitely a
RAO regular!

Or perhaps you consider yourself a hypnotist, and the mere "suggestion"
that "no presumptions were made by you", can substitute for evidence
that proves this? Well, I'm sorry to have to inform you Robert....
I'm not the hypnotizable type. It didn't work.

My 15 examples of PROOF that all you are doing is making foolish
presumptions, stands. So your so-called "fact finding mission" is a
joke. But I say you know that already. I don't think you're taking
any of this any more seriously than I am. You talked to me about the
"anarchy of RAO", and I think this is merely an intellectual excercise
for you to prove your hypothesis by igniting the elements of anarchy,
with this witch hunt in my name. I think you're playing with the
little RAO puppets as much as I am, Rob. So for that, I give you a big
juicy know-it-all wink ---> ;->


>To respond to your post would defeat the
> purpose of this thread.

Of course. As everyone knows, when you're on a "fact finding mission"
about someone, you don't do something stupid like ask the person in
question for facts about their motives or background. No, you gather up
some of the biggest fools that Usenet has ever seen, every one of which
has attacked the person in question, and then you prod and poke them
for their personal opinions about that person, encouraging as much
blind speculation and wild conjecture as you can muster out of them.
And then you tally the whole mess and call it "A Fact Report On SHP".

I'm sorry to even suggest that we look at the TRUTH about what's
going on. "Truth" would defeat the purpose of this thread. As you were,
oh wise "truth seeker" you.

p.s. Speaking of "truth", I'd like to take this moment to point out
an observation of my own. With all the time that you and the rest of
the group of fools are wasting here, trying to figure out what I'm
about, you could have simply taken 30 seconds out to experiment with
one of my tweaks and find out what its about, and if I'm the troll
you say I am. But I certainly wouldn't want to abate your love of
audio, your desire to improve your sound for free, or even just your
scientific curiousity, by interrupting your little obsessive chat
session about me. So do carry on...

[[email protected]]

Walt wrote:

> Ok, the poster formerly known as soundhaspriority is one and the same as
> Mr. Richard Graham, or at least he responds in the first person when
> addressed as such. It appears that Mr. Morein was correct about that
> conjecture.
>
> So this thread was not a complete waste of time. (Ok, that's certainly
> open for debate...)
>
> //Walt

"Wasting time" is basically ALL that you and your RAO buds do here. You
certainly don't come here to learn anything new about audio, and in
fact become hostile when the mere whiff of education hangs in the air.
So just don't pretend that you don't have time to waste. You in
particulary, have PLENTY of time to waste. You wouldn't be in this
thread if you didn't, you wouldn't have stalked me if you didn't.
You just don't have time to waste on tweaks that frighten you. And
you're going to prove me right again "showing how you don't have
time to waste", by responding to me.

[George M. Middius]

Ludo said:

> > Come on, Mr. Sound. Finally admit that you've been pulling our legs all
> > this time. Come on, it won't hurt, and you've milked it for all it's
> > worth anyway. What's the point of keeping a joke going long after
> > everyone's stopped laughing.

> I held the leg pull impression too. But the evidence convinced
> me. He has a new science on offer and *he actually believes it*.

I think he's just a maniac and can't control himself.





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

[George M. Middius]

Shovels whined:

> Robert already knew the answers
> to the questions he was asking about my motivations, identity, and
> beliefs, since I had told him in private long before now.

Isn't it time to let up with the silly pretenses? You can't possibly
believe those so-called "tweaks" you posted actually do anything, or that
any of the other voodoo crap on the Belts' site does anything. Nobody with
even a Mikey-sized brain could possibly believe any of it.






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

[[email protected]]

Count Blah, taking time out of his busy life, wrote:

> Richard Graham aka wrote:
>
>
> > Oh my @$/"! God! blah is blah blah blah "blah blah writing"?! THIS
> > blah blah we see above, is blah blah blah post!?? blah blah to
> > be blah me? I blah blah blah to blah blah blah blah this...
> > blah blah blah I noted, is blah blah blah blah blah blah 6 hours
> > blah it up, blah to blah "a blah impression" blah blah risible
> > blah at blah rejoinders. blah blah blah blah blah be
> > understandable, if blah blah blah blah blah blah blah a pretentious
> > blah blah blah blah blah blah on a blah blah newspaper,
> > blah blah blah Wilde. I blah blah blah as a blah between
> > blah blah blah blah blah Shore. blah blah blah "blah evoking
> > poetry" blah blah blah churn. blah blah a blah blah to
> > blah blah blah blah blah blah blah seen, blah yet blah blah to
> > blah blah as blah blah blah blah blah talent. I blah to
> > blah this, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah one-line
> > blah to share. blah blah blah to blah as blah as blah to blah an
> > impression, is blah blah blah blah at all.
> >
> > As blah as blah blah is.... blah blah is blah worse. I can
> > blah blah on blah blah I read, blah I blah blah to blah being
> > blah blah to death. blah blah blah blah I called
> > blah an blah blah blah blah blah of ad hominem. blah you
> > piped, blah blah blah blah blah to blah Robert, blah that
> > blah blah be an blah blah idiot, by blah me blah blah "blah me
> > blah self-mockery", blah blah blah blah blah in blah blah brilliant
> > blah of blah blah language, blah blah a blah of "ad
> > hominem". Then, blah to blah blah blah an blah blah blah are, I gave
> > blah a blah to blah blah blah on line, blah blah my spelling
> > as correct. Then, blah of blah crow, blah blah blah do? Well.... you
> > blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah self, by
> > blah blah blah reference, blah blah me blah to a
> > blah in a blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah phrase
> > correctly. blah blah blah blah blah it in blah blah blah blah to?
> > Exactly
> > blah blah blah I blah blah blah blah it blah spelled, blah "ad
> > hominem"!!
> >
> > So blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah produced, and
> > blah blah blah something, or blah blah blah to be blah of the
> > blah blah blah I blah blah seen. blah blah blah more. At
> > blah blah blah "some" blah of talent. blah blah blah blah eating
> > blah pie, crow, blah blah blah blah of blah face, blah blah foot
> > blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah posterior, blah blah blah do
> > blah a blah blah blah blah us to death, blah tailpipe-huffing
> > retard.
>
>
> Get a life, blah.
>
> //Walt

Let me see if I got this straight: You're an audio newsgroup junkie
troll, to whom posting on Usenet IS your life, and like the troll you
are, for no good reason whatsoever, you just took all that time to
carefully insert a thousand "blahs" in the words of my post. And then
you tell tell ME to "get a life"?! How very insane of you.

[George M. Middius]

Shovels drops another pop-culture reference.

> Count Blah

If Eric Idle were doing a puppet show today, would his favorite theme be
drunkenness or licentiousness?





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

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear Mr. Robert Nutbar:
>> >
>> > You wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.
>> >
>> > In my last message, I printed out no less than FIFTEEN presumptions you
>> > made about me in your first post alone. You ignored responding to ALL
>> > of them.
>>
>> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
>
>> No presumptions were made.
>
>
> I see.

Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
The purpose of this thread is to facilitate informed discussion by other
participants of r.a.o. with respect to you and your beliefs. It does not
serve that purpose for me to engage you in discussion.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius (the "M" is for "Moron") wrote:


> Ludo said:
>
> > > Come on, Mr. Sound. Finally admit that you've been pulling our legs all
> > > this time. Come on, it won't hurt, and you've milked it for all it's
> > > worth anyway. What's the point of keeping a joke going long after
> > > everyone's stopped laughing.
>
> > I held the leg pull impression too. But the evidence convinced
> > me. He has a new science on offer and *he actually believes it*.
>
> I think he's just a maniac and can't control himself.

Just to put things in perspective folks.... .the above comment was
written by a guy who spent the last 8 years of his life trolling this
newsgroup day in and day out, looking for people to attack. He's
accused one member of sleeping with his dead son, and regularly lies
about the content of emails that he receives. Just some of the
highlights of his illustrious trolling "career" on RAO.

When asked to control himself and his backbiting behaviour, Georgie's
response is to call you childish names, like "Shovels", make like a
mosquito and bite more deeply into your ankles.


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

[dave weil]

On 28 Mar 2006 11:46:27 -0800, wrote:

>You're kidding me, right? You mean in trying to play "gotcha!" with
>me, you and your friend Garbage Bag Boy Weill, created all this
>brouhaha, all these long tirades, trying to tell me I'm a moron
>because I spelled "publically" incorrectly?

Did I say that?

Of course not.

I guess your day must be gray again...

[dave weil]

On 28 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0800, wrote:

>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>
>
>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps. Have you
>ever SEEN a turntable, you imbecile? LOL! Too bad you have such a
>masochistic desire to see yourself humiliated like this all the time.
>
>
>You lose.
>
>
>Again.
>
>
>And by the way, making you my personal punching bag is getting a little
>
>played. I've shown countless times what a liar you are, and countless
>times what a stupid goof you are, who doesn't ever know what he's
>blabbing about. How many times do you want me to make a fool out of
>you? Take the advice from your manager: stay down for the count
>already, ya dumbass loser!

Looks like you're running ut of steam.

Cut 'n copy is great for filling bandwidth though...

[dave weil]

On 28 Mar 2006 11:49:21 -0800, wrote:

>p.s. Speaking of "truth", I'd like to take this moment to point out
>an observation of my own. With all the time that you and the rest of
>the group of fools are wasting here, trying to figure out what I'm
>about, you could have simply taken 30 seconds out to experiment with
>one of my tweaks and find out what its about, and if I'm the troll
>you say I am. But I certainly wouldn't want to abate your love of
>audio, your desire to improve your sound for free, or even just your
>scientific curiousity, by interrupting your little obsessive chat
>session about me. So do carry on...

Take your own advice and get some acoustic guitars in your listening
space, dick.

[George M. Middius]

Shovels whines some more.

> When asked to control himself and his backbiting behaviour, Georgie's
> response is to call you childish names, like "Shovels"

<snicker>


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

[dizzy]

wrote:

>(snip)

Did anyone bother to read this garbage?

[dizzy]

wrote:

>(snip)

Did anyone bother to read this garbage?

[paul packer]

George M. Middius wrote:
> Shovels whined:
>
> > Robert already knew the answers
> > to the questions he was asking about my motivations, identity, and
> > beliefs, since I had told him in private long before now.
>
> Isn't it time to let up with the silly pretenses? You can't possibly
> believe those so-called "tweaks" you posted actually do anything, or that
> any of the other voodoo crap on the Belts' site does anything. Nobody with
> even a Mikey-sized brain could possibly believe any of it.


Some of your posts are obscure. George, but you come clear when you
need to. Rather than debate Mr. Sound any further (if "debate" be the
word), and further feed that black hole of an ego, I'd rather just
endorse your concise paragraph. How indeed can anyone believe such
piffle? I suggested it was a joke more in hope than anything, as I
didn't want to believe anyone so intelligent and lucid could embrace
such whackiness and then repeatedly tear into anyone who questioned it.
Now the awful truth has struck home---it's possible to be extremely
bright and profoundly stupid at the same time!! I don't know how I'm
going to live with this realization, but I'll try. I will offer one
olive branch to Mr. Sound though, in that I'm still willing to listen
to further evidence of the efficacy of his tweaks. And I look forward
to this revelation he promises, which apparently will show us all what
asses we've been. Come on, Mr. Sound, don't drag it out too long or
we'll get bored.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius (the "M" stands for "Mosquito) ranted:

> Shovels whined:
>
> > Robert already knew the answers
> > to the questions he was asking about my motivations, identity, and
> > beliefs, since I had told him in private long before now.
>
> Isn't it time to let up with the silly pretenses? You can't possibly
> believe those so-called "tweaks" you posted actually do anything, or that
> any of the other voodoo crap on the Belts' site does anything. Nobody with
> even a Mikey-sized brain could possibly believe any of it.


.....Which begs the question: why were YOU the only one here who tried
my tweaks?

LOL!

I think that says all we need to know about you, Mr. Middius.

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:

> George "Mosquito" Middius whined:

> > Isn't it time to let up with the silly pretenses? You can't possibly
> > believe those so-called "tweaks" you posted actually do anything, or that
> > any of the other voodoo crap on the Belts' site does anything. Nobody with
> > even a Mikey-sized brain could possibly believe any of it.
>
>
> Some of your posts are obscure. George, but you come clear when you
> need to. Rather than debate Mr. Sound any further (if "debate" be the
> word), and further feed that black hole of an ego, I'd rather just
> endorse your concise paragraph. How indeed can anyone believe such
> piffle?

I'll show you how. You believe the "piffle" that perception of sound
ends with Newtonian laws.

BTW, little Georgie up there, that you thought you just agreed with,
was simply using deceitful personal attack tactics in his posturing
about how I can't possibly believe my own tweaks. I say that, because
he believes in the "piffle" as you call it. Enough to have been the
first and only member here to try my tweaks. If you go back to my first
post and look real hard, you'll see that. Now don't you feel the
fool, for having responded as you did to George?

> I suggested it was a joke more in hope than anything, as I
> didn't want to believe anyone so intelligent and lucid could embrace
> such whackiness and then repeatedly tear into anyone who questioned it.
> Now the awful truth has struck home---it's possible to be extremely
> bright and profoundly stupid at the same time!!

Being that I'm way ahead of you, I've known this for a long time in
my life. Here on RAO, I've observed this many times from the people
on this group. Take the author of this thread, for example. I've gone
on record as saying he's extremely bright; more so than anyone else
I've encountered here (including you, if you were curious). I've
also called him a "moron". Paradoxical, isn't it?

Morein, out of anyone here, has the greatest capability of
understanding the concepts behind the tweaks; due to his educational
background in QM and other scientific disciplines. But he knows nothing
about the theories involved here, and even he won't have a more
complete grasp of the principles, unless he takes the time it takes to
study them. (Note I said "more complete", because I'm not sure anyone
has a complete grasp, IMO). But he's not interested in taking 30
seconds to perform the tweak experiment. Jabbering away in endless
speculation sessions about me however, that he seems to have plenty of
time for.

I don't think you're an idiot either. You come across as reasonably
intelligent, rational thinking human being. But what you said about
"How can anyone believe such piffle", and basically everything that
followed, was profoundly stupid. Paradoxical, isn't it?

> I don't know how I'm
> going to live with this realization, but I'll try.

I'll tell you what I was engaged with just before sitting down to
respond here. I was working on improving the sound of my MP3 player. I
used a special little device to do so (but it's a very simple one).
It consists basically of a crocodile clip, with a small piece of wire
attached, and a hexagonal nut at the end of it, and there are some
tweezers involved. All the pieces involved in this seemingly primitive
device are specially treated or made. I won't tell you how they're
treated, but I will tell you how it works. I simply clip the jaws on to
any and every part of my player, including the headphones, then squeeze
the tweezers against the nut. The end result produced a dramatic
improvement in the sound of the MP3 player. Point being, if I can live
with the realization that temporarily clipping pieces of plastic and
wire for a few seconds can greatly improve the sound I'm hearing from
my MP3 player, I think you can manage a teeny tiny paradox.

I will offer one
> olive branch to Mr. Sound though, in that I'm still willing to listen
> to further evidence of the efficacy of his tweaks.

Got some sad news for you Paul: I don't care how willing you are to
listen to theories, because I'm not willing to talk to you about it.
I've always said that if people want to prove that anything in audio
is valid, such as my tweaks or those of any other, you have to LISTEN
to the tweak. Unfortunately, especially at this point, it seems
unlikely to me that you or anyone else here will hear any changes
produced by any of my tweaks even if you did try them, since you have
so considerably convinced yourself that they're jokes, and I'm the
punchline. So it's not gonna take much for a bigot like you to
convince yourself you didn't hear a change, when you did. You're
too scared to try any of them anyway, so this is a moot point.

The problem with theory is, you're a sheep. Remember? All that does
is play into your bigotry and prejudice. We went through all of this
with the green pens, remember? A perfectly valid tweak, made
(popularly) invalid by sheep like you, who couldn't find a theory to
fit it, and so concluded the pen didn't work. It was measured every
which way but loose by the sheep, but rarely ever was it actually
listened to, to determine if there was something there or not. The
green pen is not a joke. It does work. (Other colours work too). The
joke is how essentially stupid people, who figured they were smart
people, went about dismissing and eventually destroying a perfectly
valid audio device. It's not a "happy joke" however, it's actually
a sad joke. Because now that you can't find the CD stoplight any
longer, audiophiles have one less means of cheaply improving the sound
of their CDs, records and tapes. (Yes, I realize I said records and
tapes).

You don't have to understand something, for it to be valid. You
don't understand how the universe works, how it all started. And yet,
you're here and so is it, aren't you? Don't be so frightened all
your life. You're letting fear and prejudice rule your understanding
of the world. This is why I can't really consider you to be an
intelligent man, because you have a self-limiting mind.

> And I look forward
> to this revelation he promises, which apparently will show us all what
> asses we've been. Come on, Mr. Sound, don't drag it out too long or
> we'll get bored.

Well, you can always mock and deride me if you get too bored. That's
what everyone else here does, to amuse themselves.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Ludo said:
>
>> Mr. Morein,
>> May I advise that you borrow any textbook of psychiatry from your
>> Public Library and read the chapter on delusions in schizophrenia. It
>> might save some time and bring RAO back just a little closer to audio.
>
> Ludo, I have great respect for your insights and acumen on the subject of
> testing, as does, I believe, Robert. However, the topic that seems to me
> to be nearest to your heart, the efficacy and pertinence of DBTs to
> consumer audio, is as far removed from the core subject of this newsgroup
> as are our speculations about the looney "soundhaspriority". What do you
> mean? I can imagine you asking. I mean that no Normal person has any faith
> in a mystical process of "tests" for selecting audio gear because its
> procedures and results are wholly, completely, and utterly irrelevant to
> that task.

When you dish out the bull**** George, you go for heaping portions.

You have no idea about what normal people do since you have never shown anly
signs of being in that category.

There is nothing mystical about the sort of tests that have been shown to be
revealing of subtle differnces, and no one is preaching that everyone should
use them. They are strictly for the purpose of resolving questions of
difference.

Thye may be irrelvant to YOU, George but you don't speak for everyone, nor
do I, I simply suggest that if one has a question about something sounding
different, especially when it makes no sense that it should, then there is
at lewast one or 2 relaible ways to dicover the truth as it pertains to any
given individual and his/her ears.


You continue to "debate" the idiot 'borgs on the subject for
> your own amusement.

As opposed to you who simply lie and pretendc that you care about anything
to do with audio, when the real story seems to be that you live to spar for
what appears to be nothing more than sport. It has never been evidenced
that you give 2 ****s for 'NORMAL' people, or you wouldn't hold them in such
low esteem.

You will never persuade any of Them to stop their
> empty preaching, any more than They will persuade a Normal to forego his
> senses and emotional responses to music in favor of a bloodless, otiose,
> dehumanizing "test".

No preaching, just the results of many years of coming up with evidence that
coincides with what is known about humans hear. Use it or not. It just so
happens that the results of this evidence is that if one wants to aquire a
first rate audio system, it can be done for much less than many would think
possible, they just need to sink as much as they can afford into good
quality speakers.

(It's worth noting again that among that tribe of
> true believers we know as the Hive, only one or two of them have ever
> participated in any DBTs of any sort at any time in their pathetic lives.
> Maybe only one, in fact, now that Nousiane has disappeared from Usenet.)
>
>
>
>
It's worth noting that one of the benefits of all this testing is that it
has been discovered that it has become less necessary for others to do so,
because of the universally fine quality of moderately price equipment.

A day without Middius is a day.

[[email protected]]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Stupey Sillybot engages his envy gland and starts drooling uncontrollably.
>
>> ABX is a form of DBT, and you don't see people who actually do,
>> you know, *science*
>
> We don't see such people on RAO at all. You're certainly not a scientist.
> In fact, why don't you give us a refresher on how many aBxism rituals, or
> any DBT exercises, you've participated in? How many have you designed, or
> witnessed, or monitored? Where were they? When did they occur? Where were
> the results published?
>
>
>
You ask that question as if it had any bearing on their efficacy, even
though you know there is no connection to any given person having
participated in such tests and whether or not they actually do work.

You weren't trying to be dishonest were you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: dizzy
Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 5:50 pm
Email: dizzy >

wrote:
>>(snip)

>Did anyone bother to read this garbage?

I offered him an equally valid tweak but he wasn't even willing to try
it.

Can you believe that he dismissed it out of hand?

[[email protected]]

Please, do tell what "morphic resonance" is.
If you're short of time due to the volume of your
correspondence give references to a publicly
accessible source. If there isn't any such do tell
how to become initiated into the mystery. A secret society?
A special handshake?
One would like to know.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
> Garbage Boy remains confused as ever, searches for mommy:
>
> > On 28 Mar 2006 11:46:27 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >You're kidding me, right? You mean in trying to play "gotcha!" with
> > >me, you and your friend Garbage Bag Boy Weill, created all this
> > >brouhaha, all these long tirades, trying to tell me I'm a moron
> > >because I spelled "publically" incorrectly?
> >
> > Did I say that?
> >
> > Of course not.
>
> Yes, you implied as much. Just as you implied you had a "classical
> education", and that my posts had something to do with "morphic
> resonance" (which you never explained because you don't KNOW what
> "morphic resonance" means), and you repeatedly said that "turntables
> have grounding straps". Which proves that
>
> a) You don't have a "classical education"
>
> b) You don't know the first damned thing about turntable grounding
>
> c) You haven't a clue as to what morphic resonance is.
>
> d) You have even less of a clue as to who James Parrington is
>
> e) Your entire life's work now revolves around stalking and trolling
> me on usenet.
>
> You will be proving me right again about you by responding to this
> post.
>
> You lose, garbag bag boy.
>
> Again.

[[email protected]]

George M. Middius (the "M" stands for "Mediocre") lies again:

> Poor Shovels. Another house of cards is about to come crashing down on
> him.
>
> > > Isn't it time to let up with the silly pretenses? You can't possibly
> > > believe those so-called "tweaks" you posted actually do anything, or that
> > > any of the other voodoo crap on the Belts' site does anything. Nobody with
> > > even a Mikey-sized brain could possibly believe any of it.
>
> > ....Which begs the question: why were YOU the only one here who tried
> > my tweaks?
>
> To tell the truth, Shovie, I didn't actually try it. I was mistakenly
> trying to help you lure the 'borgs into what I thought was an elaborate
> rhetorical quicksand hole. I now see that you are so twisted that you
> can't distinguish mockery from blind faith. (That's the only similarity
> I've seen between you and the Krooborg, if that's any consolation.)

Now tell the REAL truth, Georgie. You DID try the tweak. But being the
little weasel you are, won't admit that now, because you don't like
to be on the receiving end of the mockery and ridicule you so love to
give out. If your sorry excuse above had any merit to it, and you were
simply "playing along" in trying to help me lure the objectivists into
a ruse, then you would not simply have said you tried the tweak. You
would have said the tweak worked, so that we could have something to
bait the obs with. Let me repeat that for emphasis and further dramatic
effect, George:

YOU WOULD HAVE SAID THE TWEAK WORKED.

Fact: You didn't.
Conclusion: You're a sleazy, slimy, double-talking two-faced
backstabbing liar. That's the only similarity I've seen between you
and the Krooborg, if that's any consolation.

[[email protected]]

Paul, you're looking for light in the wrong place. Read up the
lives
of Van Gogh, Strindberg, Nietasche and others I can not think of right
now.
They were rather bright, all of them..
Ludovic Mirabel
paul packer wrote:
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Shovels whined:
> >
> > > Robert already knew the answers
> > > to the questions he was asking about my motivations, identity, and
> > > beliefs, since I had told him in private long before now.
> >
> > Isn't it time to let up with the silly pretenses? You can't possibly
> > believe those so-called "tweaks" you posted actually do anything, or that
> > any of the other voodoo crap on the Belts' site does anything. Nobody with
> > even a Mikey-sized brain could possibly believe any of it.
>
>
> Some of your posts are obscure. George, but you come clear when you
> need to. Rather than debate Mr. Sound any further (if "debate" be the
> word), and further feed that black hole of an ego, I'd rather just
> endorse your concise paragraph. How indeed can anyone believe such
> piffle? I suggested it was a joke more in hope than anything, as I
> didn't want to believe anyone so intelligent and lucid could embrace
> such whackiness and then repeatedly tear into anyone who questioned it.
> Now the awful truth has struck home---it's possible to be extremely
> bright and profoundly stupid at the same time!! I don't know how I'm
> going to live with this realization, but I'll try. I will offer one
> olive branch to Mr. Sound though, in that I'm still willing to listen
> to further evidence of the efficacy of his tweaks. And I look forward
> to this revelation he promises, which apparently will show us all what
> asses we've been. Come on, Mr. Sound, don't drag it out too long or
> we'll get bored.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Please, do tell what "morphic resonance" is.
> If you're short of time due to the volume of your
> correspondence give references to a publicly
> accessible source. If there isn't any such do tell
> how to become initiated into the mystery. A secret society?
> A special handshake?

You're obviously not sincere, and you just want something new to mock
and ridicule. That's all I've ever seen you do in your abusive
posts to or about me. If you've decided all of a sudden that you are
no longer an abusive troll and are now sincerely interested, than try
one of the tweaks. After you give me details on your efforts, I will
give you details on exactly what morphic resonance is, and how it
relates to what you did. If you're not sincere about trying the
tweaks, then any details about their theories are irrelevant to you,
and you don't need to know them.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein continues his witch hunt:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dear Mr. Robert Nutbar:
> >> >
> >> > You wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >> This is a fact finding thread. I presume nothing about you.
> >> >
> >> > In my last message, I printed out no less than FIFTEEN presumptions you
> >> > made about me in your first post alone. You ignored responding to ALL
> >> > of them.
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
> >
> >> No presumptions were made.
> >
> >
> > I see.
>
> Dear Mr. Richard Graham:
> The purpose of this thread is to facilitate informed discussion by other
> participants of r.a.o. with respect to you and your beliefs. It does not
> serve that purpose for me to engage you in discussion.


"Informed" by whom? Since nobody here can prove they know anything
about me or my beliefs, except me, how do you go about calling this
"information"? And since the intent of the discussion is to get
information about me, why would the discussion not include information
from me?

What is it that you do again, Mr. Morein? Science? Engineering? How far
do you think you'll get in both those fields, if all the information
you manage to gather comes from wild speculation and conjecture, heard
via shouts from the open window coming from the drunken bums lying
dormant in the alley next to the brewery next to your study lab?

I leave the above quotes as a reminder that you made FIFTEEEN
presumptions in your first post, and ignored the fact that they were
presumptions. In order to show that any "information" you hope to gain
about me through this discussion of others personal opinions, will
only consist of worthless conjecture. Seems there was no shortage of
that already before you initiated this thread!

[[email protected]]

I got the same e-mail, the family must really be worried. :-)


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
> <Robert Morein's psychotic inquiry snipped>
>
> This email I received Sat., apparently from your mother or father, goes
> a long way to explaining these posts of yours, Robbie:
>
>
> From: "Sylvan Morein" > Add to
> Address Book Add Mobile Alert
> To: ,
> Subject: Robert
> Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 02:02:13 -0500
>
> I would ask you to stop stirring up my son, Robert.
>
> He's a sick boy. I've managed to get his medication under control
> these
> past few weeks and he's now pretty docile and controllable.
>
> Don't mess it up.
>
> Thank you for your kind assistance.
>
> __________________________________________________ _______________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
>
>
> I hope you get some help before it's too late....
>

[[email protected]]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On 28 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0800, wrote:
>
>>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>>
>>
>>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps. Have you
>>ever SEEN a turntable, you imbecile? LOL! Too bad you have such a
>>masochistic desire to see yourself humiliated like this all the time.
>>
>>
>>You lose.
>>
>>
>>Again.
>>
>>
>>And by the way, making you my personal punching bag is getting a little
>>
>>played. I've shown countless times what a liar you are, and countless
>>times what a stupid goof you are, who doesn't ever know what he's
>>blabbing about. How many times do you want me to make a fool out of
>>you? Take the advice from your manager: stay down for the count
>>already, ya dumbass loser!
>
> Looks like you're running ut of steam.
>
> Cut 'n copy is great for filling bandwidth though...

Just look at how many times Quackenbush used that technique.

[GeoSynch]

SoundHack****ant prattled:

> >> >> > Like I already told you publically
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
> >> >> ....
> >> >> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.

> >> >> > It's "ad hominem" idiot

> >> >> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.

>> If you weren't so reading comprehension-impaired, you might realize the
>> "twice"
>> in the above sentence doesn't refer to your or Morein's use of the word
>> "ad hominem" but rather to your unusual spelling of the word "publicly."

> You're kidding me, right? You mean ... I'm a moron ....

In a word, YES!

> ..... READ, you freaking moron. READ:

Read a little yourself, if you're not too lazy to click on a link
http://www.bartleby.com/68/73/4873.html but if you are it says:
"Publicly is the usual spelling; publically does occur, but rarely in Edited
English."

> "GeoSynch", or whatever the heck your real name is, I have tell you....
> I've seen some REALLY stupid people in my stay here, who've said
> some REALLY stupid things. You my friend, you top them all. Congrats.
> You're "King of the RAO Fools" for today.

Wow, that's really telling me, old friend.

>> The "hack writer" jibe seems to have really gotten under your skin, the
>> way you keep re-using it along with my other words and phrases - not
>> very original, old boy.

> Let me get this straight: You're attacking me for the "hack writer"
> jibe not being "original, old boy", when YOU are the idiot who came up
> with the "hack writer jibe"? You've already been crowned "King of the
> Fools" for today. Are you trying for the year?

There you go again with that reading incomprehension impairment of yours.

I used it as part of a throwaway line in my original response, but you seem
compelled to recycle it along with other words and phrases I've used. But
seeing how it sends you into a tizzy of distraction, such that you can no
longer comprehend what you're reading, and then responding with some
wacky exaggerated hyperbole, that the phrase "hack writer" no doubt
strikes you so close to the bone and causes you such unmitigated angst,
you can rest assured there will be no shortage of its usage directed at you.

Your responses to me and others demonstrate a penchant, even compulsion,
to "borrow" our words and/or phrases, but such is the fate of a hack writer
who gets paid by the word to take such liberties in order to sustain the level
of bombast he relentlessly churns out.

The secret is out, so live with it, SoundHack****ant.


GeoSynch

[[email protected]]

GeoSynch ranted:

> SoundHack****ant prattled:
>
> > >> >> > Like I already told you publically
> > >> >> ...
> > >> >> > A few days ago, you publically wrote this:
> > >> >> ....
> > >> >> >> PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES.
>
> > >> >> > It's "ad hominem" idiot
>
> > >> >> Tsk-tsk - not once, but twice.
>
> >> If you weren't so reading comprehension-impaired, you might realize the
> >> "twice"
> >> in the above sentence doesn't refer to your or Morein's use of the word
> >> "ad hominem" but rather to your unusual spelling of the word "publicly."
>
> > You're kidding me, right? You mean ... I'm a moron ....
>
> In a word, YES!
>
> > ..... READ, you freaking moron. READ:
>
> Read a little yourself, if you're not too lazy to click on a link
> http://www.bartleby.com/68/73/487.html
>
> > "GeoSynch", or whatever the heck your real name is, I have tell you....
> > I've seen some REALLY stupid people in my stay here, who've said
> > some REALLY stupid things. You my friend, you top them all. Congrats.
> > You're "King of the RAO Fools" for today.
>
> Wow, that's really telling me, old friend.
>
> >> The "hack writer" jibe seems to have really gotten under your skin, the
> >> way you keep re-using it along with my other words and phrases - not
> >> very original, old boy.
>
> > Let me get this straight: You're attacking me for the "hack writer"
> > jibe not being "original, old boy", when YOU are the idiot who came up
> > with the "hack writer jibe"? You've already been crowned "King of the
> > Fools" for today. Are you trying for the year?
>
> There you go again with that reading incomprehension impairment of yours.
>
> I used it as part of a throwaway line in my original response, but you seem
> compelled to recycle it along with other words and phrases I've used. But
> seeing how it sends you into a tizzy of distraction, such that you can no
> longer comprehend what you're reading, and then responding with some
> wacky exaggerated hyperbole, that the phrase "hack writer" no doubt
> strikes you so close to the bone and causes you such unmitigated angst,
> you can rest assured there will be no shortage of its usage directed at you.
>
> Your responses to me and others demonstrate a penchant, even compulsion,
> to "borrow" our words and/or phrases, but such is the fate of a hack writer
> who gets paid by the word to take such liberties in order to sustain the level
> of bombast he relentlessly churns out.
>
> The secret is out, so live with it, SoundHack****ant.
>
>
> GeoSynch

After being given a reference link to dictionary.com, the net's
largest on-line dictionary, which proved that "publically" is spelled
correctly, I thought it would finally become obvious to you that you
were a high level moron for ranting over a half dozen posts, that I had
not spelled it correctly. Now you are still insisting on making a
complete fool out of yourself, by reiterating that it isn't spelled
correctly, as though all the dictionaries in the world are lying to
you. I'm sorry, but you are obviously a raving lunatic, and not worth
anyone's time. The rest of your post can be safely ignored.

p.s. I don't know if you know this, but you write like a fifth-rate
hack.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From:
Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 11:10 pm
Email:

>Please, do tell what "morphic resonance" is.
>If you're short of time due to the volume of your
>correspondence give references to a publicly
>accessible source. If there isn't any such do tell
>how to become initiated into the mystery. A secret society?
>A special handshake?
>One would like to know.

Discarded by science, embraced by new-agers, it has to do with
collective memory and metaphysics, like all good audio
engineering...:-)

http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphic_resonance

Perhaps SHP is actually Sheldrake. Maybe he should start a recording
company, Akashic Records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akashic_Records

[Arny Krueger]

"dizzy" > wrote in message

> wrote:
>
>> (snip)
>
> Did anyone bother to read this garbage?

No, I just checked off the posts without reading. I consider the sources.

[GeoSynch]

SoundHack****ant whimpered:

> ... The rest of your post can be safely ignored.

IOW, no cogent response, but your newfound conciseness would be
commendable were it not for its dreary predictability. Ho-hum.


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On 28 Mar 2006 19:37:25 -0800, wrote:

>> >You're kidding me, right? You mean in trying to play "gotcha!" with
>> >me, you and your friend Garbage Bag Boy Weill, created all this
>> >brouhaha, all these long tirades, trying to tell me I'm a moron
>> >because I spelled "publically" incorrectly?
>>
>> Did I say that?
>>
>> Of course not.
>
>Yes, you implied as much.

Implied isn't saying it. and no, I didn't even "imply" it. I tried to
give you hints that you misread what geosynch was saying that you
misspelled. You do that a lot. You think you know what people mean but
you're almost always off-base.

<shrug>

[dave weil]

On 28 Mar 2006 19:43:47 -0800, wrote:

>> Take your own advice and get some acoustic guitars in your listening
>> space, dick.
>
>I will on the very day that you become smart enough to debunk one of my
>tweaks.

I've already stipulated that if one believes that a tweak works, it
probably will. It's the opposite of the corollary that you just
posited that if you don't believe in a tweak, you won't hear a
difference. Nothing new in either case. So, I don't have to "debunk"
anything.

Now, I hope you find a substantial improvement in your system. Please
report back when you've evaluated the tweak.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:27:40 -0800, "
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On 28 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>>>
>>>
>>>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps. Have you
>>>ever SEEN a turntable, you imbecile? LOL! Too bad you have such a
>>>masochistic desire to see yourself humiliated like this all the time.
>>>
>>>
>>>You lose.
>>>
>>>
>>>Again.
>>>
>>>
>>>And by the way, making you my personal punching bag is getting a little
>>>
>>>played. I've shown countless times what a liar you are, and countless
>>>times what a stupid goof you are, who doesn't ever know what he's
>>>blabbing about. How many times do you want me to make a fool out of
>>>you? Take the advice from your manager: stay down for the count
>>>already, ya dumbass loser!
>>
>> Looks like you're running ut of steam.
>>
>> Cut 'n copy is great for filling bandwidth though...
>
>Just look at how many times Quackenbush used that technique.

And Arnold as well.

[dave weil]

On 28 Mar 2006 23:52:04 -0800, wrote:

>p.s. I don't know if you know this, but I write like a fifth-rate
>hack.

Wow. Amazing admission.

[Walt]

wrote:

> I will on the very day that you become smart enough to debunk one of my
> tweaks. Or in other words, keep hoping and dreaming, dickweed.

Richard,

Nobody has to debunk any of your tweaks, they come pre-debunked. All
one has to do is read them.

//Walt

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

> I offered him an equally valid tweak but he wasn't even willing to try it.

Consider Shovels' role model before you scoff:
http://301url.com/1i5

> Can you believe that he dismissed it out of hand?

I suggest you get yourself a magical cloak like the ones Shovels loves.
I found some pictures of Shovels at work:
http://301url.com/1i8




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

[[email protected]]

I tried the 4 pinholes with a cat-picture tweak. Hosanna!
At last, after years and years of trying, I got full symphony
orchesdtra into my living room. The drum
is REAL. So are the first and second violins, cellos and bass fiddles.
How could I have ever doubted!!
Please do tell how did you hit on this amazing
discovery.
Was it by trial and error- first two pinholes, then three- not enough;
then five- too many. Or was it just simple application of the
morphic resonance theory?
Can it be improved by further experimentation? Can it
sound better than the real or did you reach the limit?
Please, don't get upset by your critics and continue
to enlighten the mob about the true rec.audio values. The forum has
not been the same since you came.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Please, do tell what "morphic resonance" is.
> > If you're short of time due to the volume of your
> > correspondence give references to a publicly
> > accessible source. If there isn't any such do tell
> > how to become initiated into the mystery. A secret society?
> > A special handshake?
>
> You're obviously not sincere, and you just want something new to mock
> and ridicule. That's all I've ever seen you do in your abusive
> posts to or about me. If you've decided all of a sudden that you are
> no longer an abusive troll and are now sincerely interested, than try
> one of the tweaks. After you give me details on your efforts, I will
> give you details on exactly what morphic resonance is, and how it
> relates to what you did. If you're not sincere about trying the
> tweaks, then any details about their theories are irrelevant to you,
> and you don't need to know them.

[[email protected]]

GeoSynch brayed:

> SoundHack****ant whimpered:
>
> > ... The rest of your post can be safely ignored.
>
> IOW, no cogent response, but your newfound conciseness would be
> commendable were it not for its dreary predictability. Ho-hum.
>
>
> GeoSynch

I predicted your lack of a cogent response even before your
predictions. <yawn>

[[email protected]]

sincerely wrote:

> I tried the 4 pinholes with a cat-picture tweak. Hosanna!
> At last, after years and years of trying, I got full symphony
> orchesdtra into my living room. The drum
> is REAL. So are the first and second violins, cellos and bass fiddles.

It's FIVE pinholes, you moron. That would be why I kept calling it
the "5 pinhole paper tweak", get it? And you'd have to do a hell of a
LOT more than tape a couple of pieces of paper and an aspirin to your
speakers to achieve anything close to what you described hearing. It is
my experience that the 5-pinhole paper tweak improves things a bit, but
it certainly does not go THAT far.
So I can only assume that your morphine habit kicked in at around the
time you tried my tweak.

> How could I have ever doubted!!

That one's easy. You're a mindless sheep. Rather than question what
you've been taught when there's an opportunity to do so, you
preferred to have remained brainwashed by your incomplete "education".
Don't feel bad. You're in the majority. The vast majority, even.

> Please do tell how did you hit on this amazing
> discovery.
> Was it by trial and error- first two pinholes, then three- not enough;
> then five- too many.

I wish. I dd not hit upon this "amazing discovery". It was discovered
by one of audio's true geniuses. As to how he came up with the
idea.... your guess is as good as mine. (Well, probably not, since your
guess is only going to be more stupid ridicule). I can only tell you
how he DIDN'T come up with the idea. By sitting on his fat, lazy
newsgroup addicted ass, criticizing, mocking, ridiculing and deriding
everything and everyone in audio that doesn't confirm to his
half-assed, small minded, ignorant views in life. Like you and your
buddies on RAO, who couldn't come up with an original and valid idea
on audio if someone threatened to blow your brains out.


>Or was it just simple application of the
> morphic resonance theory?

Yes, but there's nothing simple about it. It's why we have the term
"deceptively simple". Just because you can't see, hear or feel
something, doesn't mean it isn't there. For you to believe it
isn't there because you can't see, hear or feel it, only means
you're an ignorant twit.

> Can it be improved by further experimentation? Can it
> sound better than the real or did you reach the limit?

If by the "real" you mean the live event, no my thick-as-porridge
friend, it can't make your system sound better than a live event. But
it can be improved. How? Well it doesn't have to be applied simply to
your loudspeakers, or even to wood. Place the device on other objects.
Such as the furniture in your room.


> Please, don't get upset by your critics and continue
> to enlighten the mob about the true rec.audio values.

Small minded people such as yourself prove that this isn't possible.
But I'm finding that it can become fun to try to enlighten the
unenlightenable, I'll admit that. If you really did have an interest
in being enlightened, you really would have tried the tweak, and not
joked about trying it. The problem is, you think you already are
enlightened, and that I'm a crazy fool. When the truth is, as it
often is around here, exactly opposite. If I can't convince you to
take 30 seconds out of your busy day of writing troll messages to me,
to see whether there is any merit to the tweak you mentioned, and you
being a member in full-standing of the "mob", how to you expect to be
enlightened about audio from me?

> The forum has
> not been the same since you came.

I know. And it won't be after I leave. A new standard of ignorant
ridicule has been established. Years from now, when somebody says they
heard a difference from applying a green marker, in less than an
instant, some idiot will come along and try to invalidate that
person's experiences, by claiming they're a crazy fool, and are
being influenced by autosuggestion. "And here's the logical reasons
why....blah blah blah". Then an even bigger idiot will join the thread
and heap further ignorant ridicule upon the green marker experimenter,
by saying to the first ignorant ridiculer:

"That's nothing. Remember Soundhaspriority? That crazy nutball who
wrote lengthy screeds of insane gibberish, that included claims that he
improved the sound of his system by placing a glass of sacred blessed
holy water next to his audio components? It makes the green marker
treatment look quite plausible!"

Uh-oh.... I'm getting ahead of myself a bit, aren't I?



>
> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Please, do tell what "morphic resonance" is.
> > > If you're short of time due to the volume of your
> > > correspondence give references to a publicly
> > > accessible source. If there isn't any such do tell
> > > how to become initiated into the mystery. A secret society?
> > > A special handshake?
> >
> > You're obviously not sincere, and you just want something new to mock
> > and ridicule. That's all I've ever seen you do in your abusive
> > posts to or about me. If you've decided all of a sudden that you are
> > no longer an abusive troll and are now sincerely interested, than try
> > one of the tweaks. After you give me details on your efforts, I will
> > give you details on exactly what morphic resonance is, and how it
> > relates to what you did. If you're not sincere about trying the
> > tweaks, then any details about their theories are irrelevant to you,
> > and you don't need to know them.

[[email protected]]

Walt wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > I will on the very day that you become smart enough to debunk one of my
> > tweaks. Or in other words, keep hoping and dreaming, dickweed.
>
> Richard,
>
> Nobody has to debunk any of your tweaks, they come pre-debunked. All
> one has to do is read them.
>
> //Walt

Bravo! Spoken like an open-minded audiophile and a true man of science,
and not the ignorant bigot I mistook you for!

(BTW, the above was what they call "sarcasm", ignorant bigot).

[[email protected]]

Dave The Troll lied. Again:

> On 28 Mar 2006 23:52:04 -0800, wrote:
>
> >p.s. I don't know if you know this, but I write like a fifth-rate
> >hack.
>
> Wow. Amazing admission.

Wow. Garbage Boy is now reduced to deceitfully changing the wording of
people's quotes in order to effect an attack. And I thought you hit
your low point, when you acted as the spokesperson for George, the
ankle-biting mosquito.

You lose, Dave.

Again.

[[email protected]]

Garbage Bag Boy puts on his special aluminum "thinking cap", and
sputters out some of his profound philosophamies to "enliten us" with:

> On 28 Mar 2006 19:43:47 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> Take your own advice and get some acoustic guitars in your listening
> >> space, dick.
> >
> >I will on the very day that you become smart enough to debunk one of my
> >tweaks.
>
> I've already stipulated that if one believes that a tweak works, it
> probably will. It's the opposite of the corollary that you just
> posited that if you don't believe in a tweak, you won't hear a
> difference. Nothing new in either case. So, I don't have to "debunk"
> anything.

Except unlike your stupid Garbage Boy joke tweaks, none of my tweaks
require any pre-conceived beliefs that they should work. As I already
mentioned, I already proved that they work regardless of preconceived
notions.

> Now, I hope you find a substantial improvement in your system. Please
> report back when you've evaluated the tweak.

Maybe you weren't informed of this yet: You STILL haven't proven
that you're smart enough to even know how to apply the term "morphic
resonance", let alone begin to debunk any of my tweaks. When you do,
then come and talk to me about your stupid silly little joke tweaks,
you silly little joke of a man.

Did you finally remember who James Parrington is, from that "classical
education" you told us you had, Garbage Bag Boy? ROTFL!

[Walt]

wrote:

> <crap snipped>
> Did you finally remember who James Parrington is...

Ok. Here's who James Parrington is:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?S10F110EC

Now, can you kindly tell us what he has to do with the price of eggs?

//Walt

PS - over 40 posts from you in the last day - sounds like you're
becomming obsessed, Richard.

[[email protected]]

dave weily lies again:

> On 28 Mar 2006 19:37:25 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> >You're kidding me, right? You mean in trying to play "gotcha!" with
> >> >me, you and your friend Garbage Bag Boy Weill, created all this
> >> >brouhaha, all these long tirades, trying to tell me I'm a moron
> >> >because I spelled "publically" incorrectly?
> >>
> >> Did I say that?
> >>
> >> Of course not.
> >
> >Yes, you implied as much.
>
> Implied isn't saying it. and no, I didn't even "imply" it. I tried to
> give you hints that you misread what geosynch was saying that you
> misspelled.

Stop mumbling, you mealy-mouthed troll. You've been alluding to some
silly spelling error for the last week, over a dozen of your trolling
posts. Either say what it is or shut up about it already. The record
stands that like your trolling friend GeoSynch, you're as dumb as a
plank, and don't know how to spell "publically", "ad hominem", or who
James Parrington is, or what morphic resonance is, or how turntable
grounding works, and that you lack ANY cultural education, since so
many cultural references I've made toward you went straight over your
pointy head.

> You do that a lot. You think you know what people mean but
> you're almost always off-base.

Is that right? So why is it that you were not able to guess my cultural
reference in my recent post to you? You who claimed you were able to
guess Sander's, but not mine?! LOL! I don't even have to ridicule
you, Garbage Boy. You do a wonderful job of self-ridicule.
>

I realize yo u don't even have a substandard degree of education,
let alone a "classical education", Dave. But how exactly did you get to
be as dense as you have proven to be in your posts to me?

> <shrug>

Thought so.

[[email protected]]

Walt wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > <crap snipped>
> > Did you finally remember who James Parrington is...
>
> Ok. Here's who James Parrington is:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?S10F110EC
>
> Now, can you kindly tell us what he has to do with the price of eggs?


Uh.... let me guess.... he's a chicken farmer? Nice try, but you got
the wrong James Parrington. I told you. Ask Dave. Weil should know,
he's the one with the "classical education".


> //Walt
>
> PS - over 40 posts from you in the last day - sounds like you're
> becomming obsessed, Richard.

I just checked Google, and it shows that I have 52 in my entire history
on this or any other newsgroup. I don't remember "yesterday" being
that long a day, Walter. So if you're calling me "obsessed", what
exactly do you call people who have hundreds or thousands of such
messages, and are writing threads for the purpose of "fact finding
missions" about me, people doing background checks on my ISP, people
scouring the internet for clues about me, people creating entire
websites about me (thank you, Mork from Middius), and people going to
the trouble to create accounts to forge my posts? Or how about you, who
continues to troll me, when you never have anything intelligent to say
to me?

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 11:47:14 -0800, wrote:

>Dave The Troll lied. Again:
>
>> On 28 Mar 2006 23:52:04 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >p.s. I don't know if you know this, but I write like a fifth-rate
>> >hack.
>>
>> Wow. Amazing admission.
>
>Wow. Garbage Boy is now reduced to deceitfully changing the wording of
>people's quotes in order to effect an attack.

No, I inferred that's what you actually meant.

That's the new standard that you have created.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800, wrote:

>Except unlike your stupid Garbage Boy joke tweaks, none of my tweaks
>require any pre-conceived beliefs that they should work. As I already
>mentioned, I already proved that they work regardless of preconceived
>notions.

No, you've already stipulated that if someone doesn't believe in your
tweaks, they aren't going to hear any difference. Would you like me to
dredge up your dreck to remind you?

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800, wrote:

>from that "classical education" you told us you had

Ummmm, you can't find any such quote from me.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > <crap snipped>
> > > Did you finally remember who James Parrington is...
> >
> > Ok. Here's who James Parrington is:
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?S10F110EC
> >
> > Now, can you kindly tell us what he has to do with the price of eggs?
>
>
> Uh.... let me guess.... he's a chicken farmer? Nice try, but you got
> the wrong James Parrington. I told you. Ask Dave. Weil should know,
> he's the one with the "classical education".
>
>
> > //Walt
> >
> > PS - over 40 posts from you in the last day - sounds like you're
> > becomming obsessed, Richard.
>
> I just checked Google, and it shows that I have 52 in my entire history
> on this or any other newsgroup. I don't remember "yesterday" being
> that long a day, Walter. So if you're calling me "obsessed", what
> exactly do you call people who have hundreds or thousands of such
> messages, and are writing threads for the purpose of "fact finding
> missions" about me, people doing background checks on my ISP, people
> scouring the internet for clues about me, people creating entire
> websites about me (thank you, Mork from Middius), and people going to
> the trouble to create accounts to forge my posts? Or how about you, who
> continues to troll me, when you never have anything intelligent to say
> to me?

I just checked and it's 349 total at this point in 8 groups,
or are you claiming that 290 are not actually you?
The count does not include the fake from nl.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 12:16:03 -0800, wrote:

>I just checked Google, and it shows that I have 52 in my entire history
>on this or any other newsgroup.

And you can't even use Google correctly. That's another mark against
you. You have over 320 posts since Feb. 27th. But I don't have to use
Google to find that out. All of the posts are still on my server.

Perhaps this will give you a little perspective. Maybe you didn't
realize how obsessive you are. but I doubt that it's evenenough to get
you to uit making a fool of yourself, dick.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 12:39:00 -0800, wrote:

>> I just checked Google, and it shows that I have 52 in my entire history
>> on this or any other newsgroup. I don't remember "yesterday" being
>> that long a day, Walter. So if you're calling me "obsessed", what
>> exactly do you call people who have hundreds or thousands of such
>> messages, and are writing threads for the purpose of "fact finding
>> missions" about me, people doing background checks on my ISP, people
>> scouring the internet for clues about me, people creating entire
>> websites about me (thank you, Mork from Middius), and people going to
>> the trouble to create accounts to forge my posts? Or how about you, who
>> continues to troll me, when you never have anything intelligent to say
>> to me?
>
>I just checked and it's 349 total at this point in 8 groups,
>or are you claiming that 290 are not actually you?

No, not only can't he use Google, but he also can't count.

[Walt]

wrote:
> Walt wrote:

>>PS - over 40 posts from you in the last day - sounds like you're
>>becomming obsessed, Richard.
>
> I just checked Google, and it shows that I have 52 in my entire history
> on this or any other newsgroup.

I suppose at this point that it would be futile to point out that you're
lying again:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q2BF250EC

So, are you going to apply for the "General Custer Kicked Ass" Award
yourself, or are you waiting for someone to do it for you?

//Walt

[Walt]

wrote:
> wrote:
>>Walt wrote:

>>>PS - over 40 posts from you in the last day - sounds like you're
>>>becomming obsessed, Richard.
>>
>>I just checked Google, and it shows that I have 52 in my entire history
>>on this or any other newsgroup. ...
>
> I just checked and it's 349 total at this point in 8 groups,
> or are you claiming that 290 are not actually you?
> The count does not include the fake from nl.

Nor does it include his 150 posts as "Bob Ladbury -
" last month in rec.audio.tech
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H190421EC

The man's obsessed. He should get help.

//Walt

[[email protected]]

Garbage Boy scratches his head, shows his profound logic again:

> On 29 Mar 2006 11:47:14 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Dave The Troll lied. Again:
> >
> >> On 28 Mar 2006 23:52:04 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >p.s. I don't know if you know this, but I write like a fifth-rate
> >> >hack.
> >>
> >> Wow. Amazing admission.
> >
> >Wow. Garbage Boy is now reduced to deceitfully changing the wording of
> >people's quotes in order to effect an attack.
>
> No, I inferred that's what you actually meant.

Which is another way of saying that you flat-out lied to people by
changing words in my quotes.

> That's the new standard that you have created.

So you just admitted that you also lied when you claimed you didn't
infer you had a classical education.

[[email protected]]

Garbage Boy bites the line again:

> On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800, wrote:
>
> >from that "classical education" you told us you had
>
> Ummmm, you can't find any such quote from me.

I inferred that's what you actually meant.

[[email protected]]

Dave Vile defines irony:

> Perhaps this will give you a little perspective. Maybe you didn't
> realize how obsessive you are. but I doubt that it's evenenough to get
> you to uit making a fool of yourself, dick.

You must have 320 posts to me alone, given all the netstalking and
trolling you've done towards me. In every one of them, you're
making a fool out of yourself, garbage boy. What were you saying about
how obsessive you are?

Sorry.

You lose.


Again.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 13:47:38 -0800,
wrote:

>So you just admitted that you also lied when you claimed you didn't
>infer you had a classical education.

I don't have to "infer" *anything* about my own education.

I think you're starting to get confused here. Must be the plaque.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 13:49:11 -0800,
wrote:

>
>Garbage Boy bites the line again:
>
>> On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >from that "classical education" you told us you had
>>
>> Ummmm, you can't find any such quote from me.
>
>I inferred that's what you actually meant.

Since you are a self-admitted fifth-rate hack writer, I guess we know
how much stock to take in your "inferences".

[[email protected]]

Walt, obsessive netstalker, wrote:


> So, are you going to apply for the "General Custer Kicked Ass" Award
> yourself, or are you waiting for someone to do it for you?
>
> //Walt

Sorry, I didn't realize you were adding posts from other contributors
to my name. In that case, I think I made 650,708 posts yesterday. Well,
looks like neither of us got it right!

LOL!

[[email protected]]

Dave Vile wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2006 13:47:38 -0800,
> wrote:
>
> >So you just admitted that you also lied when you claimed you didn't
> >infer you had a classical education.
>
> I don't have to "infer" *anything* about your education.

I was referring to YOUR claims about your education, idiot.

> I think you're starting to get confused here. Must be the plaque.

Looks like you're the one that's confused here. Since you admitted
yourself having a "classical education", I guess we know how much stock
to take in your "inferences".

[Walt]

wrote:
> Walt, wrote:

> Sorry, I didn't realize you were adding posts from other contributors
> to my name.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q2BF250EC

Currently showing 354 messages, up from 299 this morning. If the numbers
are wrong, take it up with Google.

Sheesh, you're jumping like a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.
This usenet thingy has certianly seems to have gotten under your skin.

//Walt

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 13:53:25 -0800,
wrote:

>
>Dave Vile defines irony:
>
>> Perhaps this will give you a little perspective. Maybe you didn't
>> realize how obsessive you are. but I doubt that it's evenenough to get
>> you to uit making a fool of yourself, dick.
>
>You must have 320 posts to me alone, given all the netstalking and
>trolling you've done towards me. In every one of them, you're
>making a fool out of yourself, garbage boy. What were you saying about
>how obsessive you are?

Not much, since it was YOU who didn't even know how much you were
posting.

I'm fully aware of how much I post (or don't post, for that matter).

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 13:57:06 -0800,
wrote:

>Where WERE you educated, anyway? In a brothel?

Sorry, your mom was never my teacher.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 14:06:41 -0800,
wrote:

>
>Dave Vile wrote:
>
>> On 29 Mar 2006 13:47:38 -0800,
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So you just admitted that you also lied when you claimed you didn't
>> >infer you had a classical education.
>>
>> I don't have to "infer" *anything* about your education.
>
>I was referring to YOUR claims about your education, idiot.

I made no claims about my education. Nor did I claim to infer
*anything*.

>> I think you're starting to get confused here. Must be the plaque.
>
>Looks like you're the one that's confused here. Since you admitted
>yourself having a "classical education", I guess we know how much stock
>to take in your "inferences".

Nope. Never admitted (or inferred anything about my own education) any
such thing, dick.

[GeoSynch]

SoundHack****ant aped:

>> IOW, no cogent response, but your newfound conciseness would be
>> commendable were it not for its dreary predictability. Ho-hum.

> I predicted your lack of a cogent response even before your
> predictions. <yawn>

Hack-monkey read, hack-monkey repeat. Good little hack-monkey.

BTW, don't let the door hit you on the way out.


GeoSynch

[Steven Sullivan]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! > wrote:
> From:
> Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 11:10 pm
> Email:

> >Please, do tell what "morphic resonance" is.
> >If you're short of time due to the volume of your
> >correspondence give references to a publicly
> >accessible source. If there isn't any such do tell
> >how to become initiated into the mystery. A secret society?
> >A special handshake?
> >One would like to know.

> Discarded by science, embraced by new-agers, it has to do with
> collective memory and metaphysics, like all good audio
> engineering...:-)

Sighted listening to definitively establish audible differences
was 'discarded by science' decades ago, yet audiophiles
embrace it still. So I'd go easy on those
'new-agers' if I had the misfortune to be you.

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

[paul packer]

wrote:
> paul packer wrote:
>
> > George "Mosquito" Middius whined:
>
> > > Isn't it time to let up with the silly pretenses? You can't possibly
> > > believe those so-called "tweaks" you posted actually do anything, or that
> > > any of the other voodoo crap on the Belts' site does anything. Nobody with
> > > even a Mikey-sized brain could possibly believe any of it.
> >
> >
> > Some of your posts are obscure. George, but you come clear when you
> > need to. Rather than debate Mr. Sound any further (if "debate" be the
> > word), and further feed that black hole of an ego, I'd rather just
> > endorse your concise paragraph. How indeed can anyone believe such
> > piffle?
>
> I'll show you how. You believe the "piffle" that perception of sound
> ends with Newtonian laws.
>
> BTW, little Georgie up there, that you thought you just agreed with,
> was simply using deceitful personal attack tactics in his posturing
> about how I can't possibly believe my own tweaks. I say that, because
> he believes in the "piffle" as you call it. Enough to have been the
> first and only member here to try my tweaks. If you go back to my first
> post and look real hard, you'll see that. Now don't you feel the
> fool, for having responded as you did to George?

George says not, but let's say he's lying. If he tried the tweak and is
still in opposition, doesn't that suggest he found no benefit?

> > I suggested it was a joke more in hope than anything, as I
> > didn't want to believe anyone so intelligent and lucid could embrace
> > such whackiness and then repeatedly tear into anyone who questioned it.
> > Now the awful truth has struck home---it's possible to be extremely
> > bright and profoundly stupid at the same time!!
>
> Being that I'm way ahead of you, I've known this for a long time in
> my life. Here on RAO, I've observed this many times from the people
> on this group. Take the author of this thread, for example. I've gone
> on record as saying he's extremely bright; more so than anyone else
> I've encountered here (including you, if you were curious). I've
> also called him a "moron". Paradoxical, isn't it?

I was of course being ironic. Anyone beyond the age of 20 has
encountered the phenomenon of very bright people doing and saying
stupid things. I venture to suggest that some of the most profoundly
idiotic and destructive ideas come from our intellectual elite. Robert
is indeed very bright, but it doesn't necessary follow that he always
exercises common sense, or sees the wood for the trees, etc.

> Morein, out of anyone here, has the greatest capability of
> understanding the concepts behind the tweaks; due to his educational
> background in QM and other scientific disciplines. But he knows nothing
> about the theories involved here, and even he won't have a more
> complete grasp of the principles, unless he takes the time it takes to
> study them. (Note I said "more complete", because I'm not sure anyone
> has a complete grasp, IMO). But he's not interested in taking 30
> seconds to perform the tweak experiment. Jabbering away in endless
> speculation sessions about me however, that he seems to have plenty of
> time for.
>
> I don't think you're an idiot either. You come across as reasonably
> intelligent, rational thinking human being. But what you said about
> "How can anyone believe such piffle", and basically everything that
> followed, was profoundly stupid. Paradoxical, isn't it?

You're actually quite wrong about me as I am open to new ideas. I have
for instance studied a form of what might be termed practical
metaphysics for many years. I don't believe "that perception of sound
ends with Newtonian laws"--far from it. But I have to say, to dump your
ideas onto this NG like a load of concrete onto a building site is not
the way to cultivate a sympathetic audience. Let's just say we both got
off on the wrong foot.

(snip mildly interesting stuff that doesn't require an answer)

> The problem with theory is, you're a sheep. Remember? All that does
> is play into your bigotry and prejudice. We went through all of this
> with the green pens, remember? A perfectly valid tweak, made
> (popularly) invalid by sheep like you, who couldn't find a theory to
> fit it, and so concluded the pen didn't work. It was measured every
> which way but loose by the sheep, but rarely ever was it actually
> listened to, to determine if there was something there or not. The
> green pen is not a joke. It does work. (Other colours work too). The
> joke is how essentially stupid people, who figured they were smart
> people, went about dismissing and eventually destroying a perfectly
> valid audio device. It's not a "happy joke" however, it's actually
> a sad joke. Because now that you can't find the CD stoplight any
> longer, audiophiles have one less means of cheaply improving the sound
> of their CDs, records and tapes. (Yes, I realize I said records and
> tapes).

Now you're on familiar ground. I tried the green pen when it was
around. Yes, I bought the genuine article and used it as instructed and
listened hard on familiar CDs and heard no improvement whatsoever.
Which however doesn't mean there was no improvement, only that my ears
or equipment weren't sharp enough to detect it. The green pen theory at
least made sense, such that even I could grasp it.

> You don't have to understand something, for it to be valid. You
> don't understand how the universe works, how it all started. And yet,
> you're here and so is it, aren't you? Don't be so frightened all
> your life. You're letting fear and prejudice rule your understanding
> of the world. This is why I can't really consider you to be an
> intelligent man, because you have a self-limiting mind.

In a sense you should be directing these comments more to Krueger and
co. They can't bring themselves to believe one amp can sound better
than another without a quantifying (qualifying?) measurement. To them
most of the differences we hear in electronics are illusions we should
free ourselves of. They I believe are the true materialists of the
world, utterly ruled by weight and measure. And again I'd say, if you
think I can't accept any concept not grounded in the currently known
laws of the universe, you're wrong.

> > And I look forward
> > to this revelation he promises, which apparently will show us all what
> > asses we've been. Come on, Mr. Sound, don't drag it out too long or
> > we'll get bored.
>
> Well, you can always mock and deride me if you get too bored. That's
> what everyone else here does, to amuse themselves.

Mr. Sound, can't you see that your own reaction to the initial mockery
brought on the rest? Don't you remember from school how the kid who
reacted the strongest got teased the most? You set yourself up as a
target, and a target you became. Now that you're seeming a little less
obsessed, a little more human, I expect other posters to respond in
kind. "Kind" being the operative word. :-)

[[email protected]]

Another fabulous rant courtesy of Garbage Boy:

> On 29 Mar 2006 13:53:25 -0800,
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dave Vile defines irony:
> >
> >> Perhaps this will give you a little perspective. Maybe you didn't
> >> realize how obsessive you are. but I doubt that it's evenenough to get
> >> you to uit making a fool of yourself, dick.
> >
> >You must have 320 posts to me alone, given all the netstalking and
> >trolling you've done towards me. In every one of them, you're
> >making a fool out of yourself, garbage boy. What were you saying about
> >how obsessive you are?
>
> Not much, since it was YOU who didn't even know how much you were
> posting.

No, YOU are the one who didn't know how much you were posting.

> I'm fully aware of how much I post (or don't post, for that matter).

Apparently not! You're not even aware of who Dr. James Parrington is!
Tell us again about that "classical education" you were supposed to
have, and how turntables are grounded with a "grounding strap"! LOL!

Sorry Garbage Bag Boy. You lose. Again.

[[email protected]]

dave weil lied again:

> On 29 Mar 2006 14:06:41 -0800,
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dave Vile wrote:
> >
> >> On 29 Mar 2006 13:47:38 -0800,
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >So you just admitted that you also lied when you claimed you didn't
> >> >infer you had a classical education.
> >>
> >> I don't have to "infer" *anything* about your education.
> >
> >I was referring to YOUR claims about your education, idiot.
>
> I made no claims about my education. Nor did I claim to infer
> *anything*.


You're lying. What else is new.

> >> I think you're starting to get confused here. Must be the plaque.
> >
> >Looks like you're the one that's confused here. Since you admitted
> >yourself having a "classical education", I guess we know how much stock
> >to take in your "inferences".
>
> Nope. Never admitted (or inferred anything about my own education) any
> such thing, dick.

You're lying. What else is new. You also lied about having a
"classical education" in the first place. You have no idea who James
Parrington is, you repeatedly misspell basic words in English, your
reading comp skills are about on par with a blind dog, your logic and
deduction skills are, I can only presume, hidden somewhere in the cream
filling of the Hostess twinkies you gob all day, you don't even have
a basic grasp of how a turntable is put together, you try to pretend
you're smart, talking about concepts like "morphic resonance", when
you haven't a clue in the world as to what they mean, and when I try
giving you cultural references, they go straight over your head.
Perhaps by "classical education", you meant that you listen to
classical music. And even THAT would be a surprise. Why if you had any
degree of intelligence at all Doggie Dave, I wouldn't be able to
troll you so easily. LOL!

You lose. Again.

[[email protected]]

Garbage Boy tries to get witty, forgot he was a witless clunk:

> On 29 Mar 2006 13:57:06 -0800,
> wrote:
>
> >Where WERE you educated, anyway? In a brothel?
>
> Sorry, your mom was never my teacher.

So you mean you were educated in a brothel, and your mother the
prostitute taught you everything you know about turntables? That's
starting to make sense, actually.

[[email protected]]

Sullivan comments on my message to Mr/ SHP:
"> Sighted listening to definitively establish audible differences
> was 'discarded by science' decades ago, yet audiophiles
> embrace it still. So I'd go easy on those
> 'new-agers' if I had the misfortune to be you.
The RAO official spokesman for scientism
is back.
He put on his sighted vs blind hat and
scored again. Not a word this time
about the ABX voodoo being a "form of DBT"-
whatever that scientific definition means in
his handy dictionary for little scientists.
(He knows when to keep mum hoping
to smuggle it back in when no one's watching)..
The RAO scientist informs me that blind is better.
As usual he is 500 years late discovering America.
and 55 years late innstructing me about
DBT- first used in medical research where I come
from long before he ever heard the word.
Ludovic Mirabel


Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! > wrote:
> > From:
> > Date: Tues, Mar 28 2006 11:10 pm
> > Email:
>
> > >Please, do tell what "morphic resonance" is.
> > >If you're short of time due to the volume of your
> > >correspondence give references to a publicly
> > >accessible source. If there isn't any such do tell
> > >how to become initiated into the mystery. A secret society?
> > >A special handshake?
> > >One would like to know.
>
> > Discarded by science, embraced by new-agers, it has to do with
> > collective memory and metaphysics, like all good audio
> > engineering...:-)
>
> Sighted listening to definitively establish audible differences
> was 'discarded by science' decades ago, yet audiophiles
> embrace it still. So I'd go easy on those
> 'new-agers' if I had the misfortune to be you.
>
> ___
> -S
> "Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> wrote:
> > sincerely wrote:



> Tsk, tsk-temper, temper Mr.SHP.

I note that your inability to guess people's moods is about as poor
as your inability to guess their motives. But I never accused you of
being particularly smart or insightful, did I.

> There is no pleasing you: people say that you're a looney

Yes, I know, but I also noticed a strange commonality among those
critics: it's only the looneys that claim I'm a looney. I've
never had a sane person ever say that to me.

> and you
> release a stream of invective - that I must confess I rather enjoy
> because you're fairly good at it..

Thank you. That's very flattering, since I know I'm really not
trying very hard.

> Paul Packer says you're a joker pulling the collective leg and you're
> as mean to him as to your opponents.

Paul's wrong. Do you expect me to embrace him for spouting off lies
about me, when he doesn't even know me?


> I say that you really believe in
> your message to the world and I try to practice it and you divine my
> morphine addiction. ( In truth it is Stilton cheese with vintage
> Bordeaux
> that gives me my highs).

No, the morphine crack was because you attacked my tweak with cheap
ridicule, pretending you had performed the experiment.

> RAO scientism marches on Mr. SHP.

Well, no kidding. "RAO scientism" is bigger than me, and not in my
control. I find that your RAO scientism, is actually a lot like
science. But in reverse. For example, instead of using logical
deduction by way of experimentation to determine the validity of a
concept or device, the "RAO scientists" use their omniscient powers of
"sweeping dismissal" when approaching a concept new to them. Where
traditional science requires valid proof or evidence before you can
make a conclusion about something, RAO scientists require no valid
proof or evidence to determine anything. Where science uses existing
scientific laws to understand a phenomenon, RAO scientists already know
everything there is to know about a given phenomenon, if the scientific
laws that govern it are outside of their limits of knowledge or
capacity to understand.


> I tried 5 pinholes and preferred 4.

You didn't try anything.

> Four are more in keeping with morphic dissonance. You're free to keep
> to your research and I to mine.

Your only "research" consists of finding the cheapest porn sites on the
net.

> I like dissonanace better than you
> like resonance.

I'm assuming you do, since you spend so much of your life on this
newsgroup.

> In fact I have a better guru than you do. Mine came straight from a
> Tibetan monastery. You should see what he's done with a Citizen
> mantelpiece radio.

I recently took apart a Juliette speaker that I found in the garbage
(The Juliette brand, is an extremely, extremely cheap sealed particle
board speaker sold in the 70's). When I listened to it at first, it
sounded like a squawking, honky, shouty sonic mess.
I then performed small miracles on it with a few household products,
until it sounded very musically involving, despite its severe physical
limitations . Then I threw it back in the garbage. That's a serious
anecdote btw, not a joke like yours. I'm saying that while I have
much respect for the Tibetans, I'll bet I'm better than your
Tibetan monk audio guru.


> The Beijing commies pressured him to give them his
> secrets. That was how he came under my protection.
> Try four pinholes next time.

> Once you've done it come back and I'll send a better cat picture than
> the one you're using.

Try actually doing the tweak next time, instead of believing you're
clever and original by just ridiculing things you're too ignorant to
understand. Of course, that'll require you get over all your fears
and insecurities, and there's little hope of that happening, isn't
there...


> And don't forget : it has to be real Bayer Aspirine. Any old ASA won't
> do.

No, I think any old ASA will do. It's the ingredients in the pill,
not the name that makes it work. Truth is, you don't need the aspirin
at all. Nor the cat pic. But they both help. However, you do need to
cross out the bar codes on the package of Aspirin. That's a no-no.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 23:02:50 -0800, wrote:

>Tell us again how turntables are grounded with a "grounding strap"! L

Sure. Many turntables are grounded using a grounding strap quite
similar to one that you agreed exist. Here's a picture of one:

http://www.circuitspecialists.com/prod.itml/icOid/36

This doesnt' comply with your rigid definition of a strap and yet you
admit that it exists.

And here's a place that you and ScottW can find will make you a ground
strap that is terminated with a spade lug, is a thin braided *or*
solid "wire", and can be insulated with different colored insulated
coating (i.e. just as you would find extending from a turntable):

http://www.amgndsys.com/

You're welcome. I hope that you can now concentrate on whatever work
you actually do.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 23:12:04 -0800, wrote:

>Why if you had any
>degree of intelligence at all Doggie Dave, I wouldn't be able to
>troll you so easily.

And yet, all I have to do to get you to produce reams of mediocre
material is write a few words.

It's YOU who's ringing the bell, dick.

[dave weil]

On 29 Mar 2006 23:17:00 -0800, wrote:

>> >Where WERE you educated, anyway? In a brothel?
>>
>> Sorry, your mom was never my teacher.
>
>So you mean you were educated in a brothel, and your mother the
>prostitute taught you everything you know about turntables? That's
>starting to make sense, actually.

No, that's not what I meant.

You lose.

Again.

[dave weil]

On 30 Mar 2006 01:55:19 -0800, wrote:

>That's why I started with one of
>the silliest tweaks, in my vast mental storehouse of tweaks.

A storehouse full of rotting fruit, of course.

[dave weil]

On 30 Mar 2006 01:55:19 -0800, wrote:

> People mock, deride and ridicule me simply for posting
>tweaks to try to help them, even after I politely ask them in my very
>first post not do so, if they are not interested in my tweaks.

And yet you attack EVERYONE that utters your name, whether or not they
comment on your tweaks. That's what you did to me for actually coming
to your defense, long before I ever said *anything* about your tweaks.
However, once you blindly attack me, well, I'm happy to point out your
lack of knowledge about audio products, your seeming lack of culture,
your lack of a real sense of humor, your hypocrisy, etc.

I gave you a perfectly valid tweak that you refuse to even consider.
YOU think it's a "joke tweak", even though you now admit that your
first tweaks have been your "silliest". It's not paradoxical for you
to do so, just intrasegent obstinance similar to that of a child that
doesn't get his or her way.

And I think you've just about peaked so I guess I can now really
dismiss you...

[Fella]

wrote:


>
> Yes it does. But that doesn't suggest the tweak is ineffective, only
> that George didn't hear a change.

What kind of change would we be talking about here? Better transients,
crystaller-clearer highs, what?

> 5-pinhole device


You actually call it a "device"?

> CD
> Stoplight's theories were scoped, measured bit for bit, the whole
> works, and finally thoroughly debunked. They're now out of business,

Wouldn't any old permanent green ink CD pen do the same thing?


> The pen works, but it appears to work on
> Beltist principles (based on morphic resonance, in the same vein as the
> 5-pinhole paper tweak); which state that colour affects perception of
> sound.

You don't see that color when the painted CD is in the player so how can
it affect?


> You seem to remain oblivious to the fact that absolutely no one on this
> group tried _any_ of my tweaks.

I'm gonna try the L shape... How was it again. You draw an L shape on
the CD and stick it back inot the Linn. Ok.

[Steven Sullivan]

dave weil > wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2006 13:49:11 -0800,
> wrote:

> >
> >Garbage Boy bites the line again:
> >
> >> On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >from that "classical education" you told us you had
> >>
> >> Ummmm, you can't find any such quote from me.
> >
> >I inferred that's what you actually meant.

> Since you are a self-admitted fifth-rate hack writer, I guess we know
> how much stock to take in your "inferences".


This is almost as much fun as watching the Republicans and neocons turn on
each other.



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

[Jenn]

In article >,
Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> dave weil > wrote:
> > On 29 Mar 2006 13:49:11 -0800,
> > wrote:
>
> > >
> > >Garbage Boy bites the line again:
> > >
> > >> On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800, wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >from that "classical education" you told us you had
> > >>
> > >> Ummmm, you can't find any such quote from me.
> > >
> > >I inferred that's what you actually meant.
>
> > Since you are a self-admitted fifth-rate hack writer, I guess we know
> > how much stock to take in your "inferences".
>
>
> This is almost as much fun as watching the Republicans and neocons turn on
> each other.

Almost.

[Steven Sullivan]

> wrote:

> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Stupey Sillybot engages his envy gland and starts drooling uncontrollably.
> >
> >> ABX is a form of DBT, and you don't see people who actually do,
> >> you know, *science*
> >
> > We don't see such people on RAO at all. You're certainly not a scientist.
> > In fact, why don't you give us a refresher on how many aBxism rituals, or
> > any DBT exercises, you've participated in? How many have you designed, or
> > witnessed, or monitored? Where were they? When did they occur? Where were
> > the results published?
> >
> >
> >
> You ask that question as if it had any bearing on their efficacy, even
> though you know there is no connection to any given person having
> participated in such tests and whether or not they actually do work.

> You weren't trying to be dishonest were you?

George Middius, dishonest? Perish the thought! ;>

Of course, scientists don't necessarily use lab methods *at home*.
But they know what's *required* to get an accurate answer, and they know how
to phrase their claims appropriately, based on what methods they did use.
If they use sighted comparison at home, they know how potentially
flawed the results are. They'll temper their claims from it
accordingly.

It's easy, really. Even George could understand it, if he tried.



___
Steven Sullivan, Ph.D.

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" > wrote in message

> dave weil > wrote:
>> On 29 Mar 2006 13:49:11 -0800,
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Garbage Boy bites the line again:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800,
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> from that "classical education" you told us you had
>>>>
>>>> Ummmm, you can't find any such quote from me.
>>>
>>> I inferred that's what you actually meant.
>
>> Since you are a self-admitted fifth-rate hack writer, I
>> guess we know how much stock to take in your
>> "inferences".
>
>
> This is almost as much fun as watching the Republicans
> and neocons turn on each other.

It's like watching "Dumb and Dumber" for the 463'd time.

[Steven Sullivan]

Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
> Steven Sullivan > wrote:

> > dave weil > wrote:
> > > On 29 Mar 2006 13:49:11 -0800,
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >Garbage Boy bites the line again:
> > > >
> > > >> On 29 Mar 2006 11:54:26 -0800, wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >from that "classical education" you told us you had
> > > >>
> > > >> Ummmm, you can't find any such quote from me.
> > > >
> > > >I inferred that's what you actually meant.
> >
> > > Since you are a self-admitted fifth-rate hack writer, I guess we know
> > > how much stock to take in your "inferences".
> >
> >
> > This is almost as much fun as watching the Republicans and neocons turn on
> > each other.

> Almost.

Yes, that's what I wrote. Good catch!


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

[dave weil]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:46:00 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>It's like watching "Dumb and Dumber" for the _463'd_ time.

If only irony killed...

[[email protected]]

Garbage Boy tries to backpeddle on another stupid statement:

> On 29 Mar 2006 23:02:50 -0800, wrote:
>
> >Tell us again how turntables are grounded with a "grounding strap"! L
>
> Sure. Many turntables are grounded using a grounding strap quite
> similar to one that you agreed exist. Here's a picture of one:
>
> http://www.circuitspecialists.com/prod.itml/icOid/36
>
> This doesnt' comply with your rigid definition of a strap and yet you
> admit that it exists.
>
> And here's a place that you and ScottW can find will make you a ground
> strap that is terminated with a spade lug, is a thin braided *or*
> solid "wire", and can be insulated with different colored insulated
> coating (i.e. just as you would find extending from a turntable):
>
> http://www.amgndsys.com/
>
> You're welcome. I hope that you can now concentrate on whatever work
> you actually do.


Oh, I'm sure that's _exactly_ what you were doing when you spent
the last few hours in a mad rush to try to find excuses for your
ignorant claims about turntables having "grounding straps". LOL! I was
wondering why I hadn't received one of your pathetic trolls in so
long, Doggie Dave. Now since you did come back to papa, here's a few
more kicks in the ass for you:

In your first attempt to backpeddle, "Circuit Specialists" are...guess
what? CIRCUIT SPECIALISTS. Not turntable specialists, CIRCUIT
specialists. Your example actually supports what I had already told you
in another message, that a "grounding strap" is NOT used on a
turntable, but to protect sensitive ICs in computer equipment and the
like (see a resource called "Google" for evidence of my claim).

In your second attempt to backpeddle, the AMGNDSYS example, well first
of all... guess what? It ISN'T designed for a turntable either!
That's why the site only has ground STRAPS and not ground WIRES,
fool. And if you tried to somehow fit that huge ******* on a turntable
tonearm, you'd have more problems than just your stupid ego to
contend with!! Second of all, this is your pathetic attempt at a
strawman again. I never said tt ground wires can't have "spade lugs"
on them, fool (my Xerxes certainly does). Never mind the fact that I
didn't even see any ground straps on that site that had spade lugs,
so I doubt you even know what a "spade lug" is. Nor did I say that you
can't buy separate grounding straps that are not even designed for
turntables, and that are braided, or solid, or coloured, or have cute
little pink daisies printed on it. What I said was... listen carefully
garbage boy.... turntables don't have grounding STRAPS, you freaking
moron! The use of a STRAP on a tt would actually make it "not possible"
to connect the wire to your amp, you drooling idiot. That proves you
don't even have a single bloody clue as to the very basics of how a
turntable is designed. Finally, you don't buy a turntable, and then
go out and BUY THE GROUNDING WIRE, chowderhead. Why don't you show us
a picture of just one turntable, just ONE, that has a "grounding strap"
built in, and was sold that way. Just the one will do, thank you.

Are you ever going to just wise up, admit all your dumb mistakes and
apologize for being such an arrogant, wrong-headed moron, Dave? You are
really an idiot, you know that? And the more you spar with me, the more
apparent that becomes. So keep it up! I'm having a lot of fun kicking
your fat can all over the place, Garbage Boy.

You lose!

Again!

[[email protected]]

Little Davey fell off his potty and ranted:

> On 30 Mar 2006 01:55:19 -0800, wrote:
>
> > People mock, deride and ridicule me simply for posting
> >tweaks to try to help them, even after I politely ask them in my very
> >first post not do so, if they are not interested in my tweaks.
>
> And yet you attack EVERYONE that utters your name, whether or not they
> comment on your tweaks. That's what you did to me for actually coming
> to your defense, long before I ever said *anything* about your tweaks.
> However, once you blindly attack me, well, I'm happy to point out your
> lack of knowledge about audio products, your seeming lack of culture,
> your lack of a real sense of humor, your hypocrisy, etc.
>
> I gave you a perfectly valid tweak that you refuse to even consider.
> YOU think it's a "joke tweak", even though you now admit that your
> first tweaks have been your "silliest". It's not paradoxical for you
> to do so, just intrasegent obstinance similar to that of a child that
> doesn't get his or her way.
>


"Waaah!" "Bwaaaaah!" "Waaaa-waaaa!"


Are you finished whining and crying, little Davey? What's the matter,
are your diapers too tight? Or are you finally having that meltdown I
knew you were in for, after I continually pointed out examples of your
lack of knowledge about audio products, your lack of culture, lack of
education, lack of spelling skills (how about "intrasegent" above, for
starters? you actually managed to misspell the word twice in one
sitting!), lack of writing skills, lack of a refined sense of humour,
lack of honesty, lack of originality, lack of creative imagination, and
lack of a productive life that doesn't include stalking and trolling
me on a newsgroup?


> And I think you've just about peaked so I guess I can now really
> dismiss you...

Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!Ha!

Good one! All you did with your life in the last few weeks was troll
me, all you did all day today was madly dash around the net to try to
find web sites in an attempt to backpeddle and excuse your
wrongheadedness for not knowing anything about how turntables work. All
that to avoid having to admit what me and ScottW were saying about your
lack of knowledge about turntable wiring.

Fact is, you're addicted to me, Donkey Boy. In fact, I just made a
bet with a colleague that you're still spewing out lying BS again,
when you claim you are not going to address me again. Let's all see
how long it takes before Garbage Bag Boy is "back off the wagon", and
attacking me before others or God forbid, writing more attack posts to
me!

[George M. Middius]

Shovels tries to reinvent the Queen's English.

> backpeddle

And again:

> backpeddle

This confusion might explain why your attempts to sell your tweaks
door-to-door failed so miserably. You're supposed to go to the front door.
When you go to the back door, the homeowners think you're delivering milk or
picking up trash.






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

[George M. Middius]

Shovels unloads on Sillybot.

> What a pretentious git! Is your new sig with the phony Ph.D supposed to
> impress us? Anyone as pig ignorant as you are, talking about science as
> if you were a real scientist, and supplying pretentious credentials at
> the end of your name, is nothing more than a joke.

I agree with Shovels 100% on this point. The chance that Sillybot earned a
PhD is about the same as the chance Arnii Krooborg will land a job as head
of engineering at a real audio company. Which is to say zero.



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

[George M. Middius]

Shovels, please run that "I hate hypocrisy" routine for us again.

> you actually managed to misspell the word

Yes he did. But who are you to talk?

> backpeddle

There you go again. ;-)




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

[[email protected]]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:27:40 -0800, "
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 28 Mar 2006 11:48:12 -0800, wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Tell us again how turntables don't have grounding straps
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Okay, Garbage Boy. Turntables don't have grounding straps. Have you
>>>>ever SEEN a turntable, you imbecile? LOL! Too bad you have such a
>>>>masochistic desire to see yourself humiliated like this all the time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You lose.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And by the way, making you my personal punching bag is getting a little
>>>>
>>>>played. I've shown countless times what a liar you are, and countless
>>>>times what a stupid goof you are, who doesn't ever know what he's
>>>>blabbing about. How many times do you want me to make a fool out of
>>>>you? Take the advice from your manager: stay down for the count
>>>>already, ya dumbass loser!
>>>
>>> Looks like you're running ut of steam.
>>>
>>> Cut 'n copy is great for filling bandwidth though...
>>
>>Just look at how many times Quackenbush used that technique.
>
> And Arnold as well.

I don't recall him ever typing out a long screed and then just submitting
that for every post he got, the way BY did.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com


> Don't even PRETEND to believe in science, "pretend
> scientist".

Hmm, that come right out of left field.

> You're the same bigoted moron who dismisses complete
> theories without having any understand or experience with
> them, simply because they strike at your many prejudices
> and biases.

Ignores the fact that one sign of a false theory is that it is so illogical
and irrational that it cannot be understood.

> That is definitely not the actions of a real scientist.

This is definately not well written.

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com


> > Don't even PRETEND to believe in science, "pretend
> > scientist".

> Hmm, that come right out of left field.

> > You're the same bigoted moron who dismisses complete
> > theories without having any understand or experience with
> > them, simply because they strike at your many prejudices
> > and biases.

> Ignores the fact that one sign of a false theory is that it is so illogical
> and irrational that it cannot be understood.

> > That is definitely not the actions of a real scientist.

> This is definately not well written.

But at least it gets George and SHP in agreement. Wrong, of
course, but in agreement. Call me peacemaker.


___
-S. Sullivan, Ph.D. (1992, Cell Biology)

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com
>
>
> > Don't even PRETEND to believe in science, "pretend
> > scientist".
>
> Hmm, that come right out of left field.


....and you come straight out of Hell.


> > You're the same bigoted moron who dismisses complete
> > theories without having any understand or experience with
> > them, simply because they strike at your many prejudices
> > and biases.
>
> Ignores the fact that one sign of a false theory is that it is so illogical
> and irrational that it cannot be understood.

You're ignoring the fact that the sign of an idiot who is WAY over
his head, is that he cannot understand theories that are understood by
thousands of other people, much smarter than him.

You're the idiot, btw. 'Case you didn't get that. So much for
your pretenses on this group about pretending to adhere to "scientific
principles" with your ABX claptrap piece of junk! You're nothing more
than a chest-beating religious zealot, hiding behind pseudo-science to
try to lend an air of authority to your religious ABX quackery.

> > That is definitely not the actions of a real scientist.
>
> This is definately (sic) not well written.

I "definately" agree with you on that! Arny, I'm sorry for you that
you haven't a clue as to how much of a moron you are.

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > ups.com
>
>
> > > Don't even PRETEND to believe in science, "pretend
> > > scientist".
>
> > Hmm, that come right out of left field.
>
> > > You're the same bigoted moron who dismisses complete
> > > theories without having any understand or experience with
> > > them, simply because they strike at your many prejudices
> > > and biases.
>
> > Ignores the fact that one sign of a false theory is that it is so illogical
> > and irrational that it cannot be understood.
>
> > > That is definitely not the actions of a real scientist.
>
> > This is definately not well written.
>
> But at least it gets George and SHP in agreement. Wrong, of
> course, but in agreement. Call me peacemaker.

Likewise, at least it gets you and Arny in agreement. You dogmatic
imbeciles both agree that proof is not necessary for any phenoma you
don't understand, and that it's safe to dismiss it out of hand if
you can't understand the theory behind it. Wrong, of course, but at
least you're in agreement.


> ___
> -S. Sullivan, Ph.D. (1992, Pretentious Git)

___
"I've been cleared of all child molestation charges" - Steven Sullivan

[George M. Middius]

Even Shovels has occasional moments of lucidity.

> You're the idiot, btw. 'Case you didn't get that. So much for
> your pretenses on this group about pretending to adhere to "scientific
> principles" with your ABX claptrap piece of junk! You're nothing more
> than a chest-beating religious zealot, hiding behind pseudo-science to
> try to lend an air of authority to your religious ABX quackery.

> I'm sorry for you that
> you haven't a clue as to how much of a moron you are.

Good for you, Shovie. The pestilence of Audio 'Borgism should be a concern
to everybody, even crazy people.




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

[George M. Middius]

Shovels cries out for help from his bizarre little world.

> > Good for you, Shovie. The pestilence of Audio 'Borgism should be a concern
> > to everybody, even crazy people.

> Should the "pestilence of Audio 'Borgism", whatever the heck that is,

Dear me, Shovie, I thought you were well acquainted with RAO's comedis
personae. In fact, when you were Jamie, you used the "borg" epithet several
times yourself. Not on yourself, of course -- I mean you correctly
identified the behavior patterns of certain robotic individuals who pollute
RAO with their religious dogma and scientism. And now here you are feigning
ignorance of a concept you easily mastered a couple years ago. What's
happened to you? Can you put it into words yet, or do you still need therapy
to deal with the trauma?

> Got any new websites that you created today in my name?

If you're referring to those piccies I borrowed, that wasn't a "website". It
was just a small collection of apt illustrations of your illustrious self.
And I mean that in a jocular way. ;-)

> you[sic] life revolves around the faux drama on this newsgroup

I admit to deriving a fair amount of amusement from watching high-strung
twits melt down in public. If you weren't completely off your rails, you
might enjoy it too. Would it help if I said I feel sorry for you?

BTW, I rather like the newest version of Dr. Who. They've stretched their
skimpy budget quite well in terms of sets and effects. Although I have to
admit I liked the crabby Doctors better. Oh well, one can't have everything.
Do you hate Russell Davies with a white-hot fury, Shovels?





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

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Shovels unloads on Sillybot.
>
>> What a pretentious git! Is your new sig with the phony Ph.D supposed to
>> impress us? Anyone as pig ignorant as you are, talking about science as
>> if you were a real scientist, and supplying pretentious credentials at
>> the end of your name, is nothing more than a joke.
>
> I agree with Shovels 100% on this point. The chance that Sillybot earned a
> PhD is about the same as the chance Arnii Krooborg will land a job as head
> of engineering at a real audio company. Which is to say zero.
>

maybe not. I hear that Oakland U has a new PhD program
in wire soldering.



--
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 said:


> Hmm, that come right out of left field.
>
>

And then Arny said:

> This is definately not well written.
>
>

Nor is it well spelled.



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

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> Arny said:
>
>
> > Hmm, that come right out of left field.
> >
> >
>
> And then Arny said:
>
> > This is definately not well written.
> >
> >
>
> Nor is it well spelled.

Isn't it amazing how that works? Almost never fails.

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Shovels unloads on Sillybot.
> >
> >> What a pretentious git! Is your new sig with the phony Ph.D supposed to
> >> impress us? Anyone as pig ignorant as you are, talking about science as
> >> if you were a real scientist, and supplying pretentious credentials at
> >> the end of your name, is nothing more than a joke.
> >
> > I agree with Shovels 100% on this point. The chance that Sillybot earned a
> > PhD is about the same as the chance Arnii Krooborg will land a job as head
> > of engineering at a real audio company. Which is to say zero.
> >
>
> maybe not. I hear that Oakland U has a new PhD program
> in wire soldering.
>
> You're all unfair. Sullivan made full disclosure. He has Ph.D. in cell biology.
Which of course validates his claim to be an authorised spokesman for
"science'
in all matters audio.
Ludovic Mirabel MD, MRCP (Ed), FRCP(C)
Any questions about anechoic chamber speaker comparison? You'll now
know where to look for the answers.

>
> --

[[email protected]]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Shovels unloads on Sillybot.
> >
> >> What a pretentious git! Is your new sig with the phony Ph.D supposed to
> >> impress us? Anyone as pig ignorant as you are, talking about science as
> >> if you were a real scientist, and supplying pretentious credentials at
> >> the end of your name, is nothing more than a joke.
> >
> > I agree with Shovels 100% on this point. The chance that Sillybot earned a
> > PhD is about the same as the chance Arnii Krooborg will land a job as head
> > of engineering at a real audio company. Which is to say zero.
> >
>
> maybe not. I hear that Oakland U has a new PhD program
> in wire soldering.
>
----------------------------------------------------------

Clyde Slick says:
" I hear that Oakland U has a new PhD program
> in wire soldering.
>
You're all unfair. Sullivan made full disclosure. He has Ph.D. in
cell biology.
Which of course validates his claim to be an authorised spokesman for
"science'
in all matters audio.
Ludovic Mirabel MD, MRCP (Ed), FRCP(C)
Which shows that if you have any questions about anechoic chamber
speaker comparison? You'll now know where to look for the answers.