View Full Version : Amazing FREE Audio Tweak No. 2! For Advanced Audiophiles Only - INSTANT SILENCER!
Here's yet another incredible audio tweak I've figured out for you;
ever wondered how to make that annoying CD go quiet when you put it in
your player?
Wonder no more, it's easy and it won't cost me a penny! You'll need
some Post-it stickers but they shouldn't cost me anything as you can
steal them from work for me.
Turn the CD in question play-side up and apply the Post-it stickers
liberally over the surface. Take care not to put too many stickers on
the CD - that might stop you putting it in your player.
Insert the CD and - hey presto! You'll find that the music/speech or
whatever else it was you wanted to avoid hearing is now completely
inaudible!
Please give it a try and let me know how you get on with it.
http://www.littleboxes.nl/the14thdisciple
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 04:51 PM
Shovels(2) said:
> Here's yet another incredible audio tweak I've figured out for you;
> ever wondered how to make that annoying CD go quiet when you put it in
> your player?
>
> Wonder no more, it's easy and it won't cost me a penny! You'll need
> some Post-it stickers but they shouldn't cost me anything as you can
> steal them from work for me.
>
> Turn the CD in question play-side up and apply the Post-it stickers
> liberally over the surface. Take care not to put too many stickers on
> the CD - that might stop you putting it in your player.
>
> Insert the CD and - hey presto! You'll find that the music/speech or
> whatever else it was you wanted to avoid hearing is now completely
> inaudible!
What color of Post-its should we use? Why not masking tape?
This half-baked rigmarole is simply intended to induce Genuine Audiophiles
to waste their time on blind alleys and useless experimentation.
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
Fella
March 29th 06, 04:56 PM
wrote:
> You'll find that the music/speech or
> whatever else it was you wanted to avoid hearing is now completely
> inaudible!
>
But I thought that sound had priority?
wrote:
> Insert the CD and - hey presto! You'll find that the music/speech or
> whatever else it was you wanted to avoid hearing is now completely
> inaudible!
This is 3 days early.
TB
Robert Morein
March 29th 06, 06:04 PM
" > wrote in
message oups.com...
> Here's yet another incredible audio tweak I've figured out for you;
> ever wondered how to make that annoying CD go quiet when you put it in
> your player?
>
> Wonder no more, it's easy and it won't cost me a penny! You'll need
> some Post-it stickers but they shouldn't cost me anything as you can
> steal them from work for me.
>
> Turn the CD in question play-side up and apply the Post-it stickers
> liberally over the surface. Take care not to put too many stickers on
> the CD - that might stop you putting it in your player.
>
> Insert the CD and - hey presto! You'll find that the music/speech or
> whatever else it was you wanted to avoid hearing is now completely
> inaudible!
>
> Please give it a try and let me know how you get on with it.
>
>
> http://www.littleboxes.nl/the14thdisciple
>
This tweak is scientifically unfounded, but I have a version that actually
works:
1. Place the CD play-side up as before
2. Hold a sterling silver fork in your fist, tongs down, so they contact the
playing surface (note, plated forks do not work, only PURE SILVER MUST BE
USED!)
3. With firm, constant pressure, push the tongs of the fork onto the playing
surface, while moving the fork in a clockwise cycloid motion (note:
counterclockwise will not work, and can result in even worse sound!)
4. Continue the process until the surface of the CD is a complete
scratchfest.
5. Now, flip the CD over, and do the same to the label side, until no
reflective coating remains.
6. You should now have a CD of unparallled transparancy, or at least,
translucency.
7. For perfectionists only: Using a permanent felt marker that contains
xylene, write all over both sides of the disk: "Sound has Priority". This
works best if you use the hand opposite your handedness.
Give it a try, and let me know how it works!
Robert Morein jumped into the pigpen and showed he can be as dumb and
irresponsible as anyone else on the group:
The person who started this thread is an obvious FORGER, Robert. I
thought it'd be pretty obvious, since his handle is not the same:
", and nor is the email address:
> . The forger is some idiot troll based
in the Netherlands. Goes under many handles, such as "Traudel",
"Waltraud", etc.; and appears to be a religious nutcase, as he posts
mostly on religious nutcase groups, at least under his current email
address.
In trying to emulate one of my thread titles, he's too stupid to
realize that I already did "Tweak no. 2". But nevertheless, he's not
too stupid to fool both YOU, GEORGE MIDDIUS, FELLA and ,
and maybe some more people that will come along after I post this msg.
Doesn't take much to fool people around here, does it? LOL! I would
think that with all the forgeries you've been on the receiving end
of, you'd have learned from experience.
I couldn't help but notice that since my arrival, there have been a
LOT of dumb tweak jokes put out by a LOT of dumb people, that think
this sort of thing is extremely clever, original and funny. They also
seem to think they're making a statement, but the only statement I
can see they're making, is a declaration of how mindless they really
are. Take you, for example. "Inspired" by some valid tweaks that I
shared, you're advocating that people scratch up their CD's, and
destroy the polycarbonate with Xylene. What kind of statement is that
supposed to make? Is it one that a responsible audio engineer and
member of the IEEE would or should advocate? I'm not a professional
audio engineer, and yet somehow, I have more sense than to advocate
tweaks, or any practices, which are harmful or dangerous. I've never
done so, and I've never posted dumb "joke tweaks".
Somehow I thought that you'd have enough maturity and sense of
responsibility to rise above the din of the imbeciles here Robert, but
on reflection, considering that you seriously advocated that people
circumvent the grounding scheme of their amplifiers and risk
electrocuting themselves, perhaps you're not the responsible audio
engineer I mistook you for. I don't blame you or others here for
being so profoundly ignorant about audio, though. It appears that it
is, unfortunately, your lot in life.
BTW, you don't have to make a "complete scratchfest" of your CDs if
you want to improve their sound. You simply need take some fine
sandpaper and sand around the edges. Sanding over the playing side can
result in worse sound.
> This tweak is scientifically unfounded, but I have a version that actually
> works:
> 1. Place the CD play-side up as before
> 2. Hold a sterling silver fork in your fist, tongs down, so they contact the
> playing surface (note, plated forks do not work, only PURE SILVER MUST BE
> USED!)
> 3. With firm, constant pressure, push the tongs of the fork onto the playing
> surface, while moving the fork in a clockwise cycloid motion (note:
> counterclockwise will not work, and can result in even worse sound!)
> 4. Continue the process until the surface of the CD is a complete
> scratchfest.
> 5. Now, flip the CD over, and do the same to the label side, until no
> reflective coating remains.
> 6. You should now have a CD of unparallled transparancy, or at least,
> translucency.
> 7. For perfectionists only: Using a permanent felt marker that contains
> xylene, write all over both sides of the disk: "Sound has Priority". This
> works best if you use the hand opposite your handedness.
>
> Give it a try, and let me know how it works!
A troll who goes by many troll names and forged my posts wrote:
Is living in the Netherlands THAT boring, that you have nothing better
to do than forge my posts? Did you just tire of trolling the religious
newsgroups, or decide to use your "other" handle, the one you don't
use on this group? You don't have to post idiotic tweaks to prove
that you have a few screws loose in that rattlebox you're calling a
brain, "Traudel". Your desperate cries for attention from forging
people's posts is enough. Perhaps you think you're being clever or
original by responding to valid tweaks with dumb joke tweaks of your
own. Trust me, you're far from clever or original, and you're an
awful forger. If you don't care for my tweaks, then why instead of
forging my posts and making a statement on my efforts by posting stupid
joke tweaks, why don't you post what YOU consider to be valid tweaks
or ideas? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know that
answer is that you're too dumb and unimaginitive to do so.
Well, don't feel bad, I'll try to turn your negative energy into
something positive. If you want to improve your sound but the only way
you know how is to mock someone else's methodds, than try this: Take
one of those Post-it stickers of yours, and instead of placing it on
the CD, place it glue side down under any one of the feet of your CD
player, if it contains four feet.
Are you happy with your 15 minutes of fame now, Waltraudel? Good troll.
Run along now, and tell your mother how excited you are.
Regards,
The Real Soundhaspriority.
> Here's yet another incredible audio tweak I've figured out for you;
> ever wondered how to make that annoying CD go quiet when you put it in
> your player?
>
> Wonder no more, it's easy and it won't cost me a penny! You'll need
> some Post-it stickers but they shouldn't cost me anything as you can
> steal them from work for me.
>
> Turn the CD in question play-side up and apply the Post-it stickers
> liberally over the surface. Take care not to put too many stickers on
> the CD - that might stop you putting it in your player.
>
> Insert the CD and - hey presto! You'll find that the music/speech or
> whatever else it was you wanted to avoid hearing is now completely
> inaudible!
>
> Please give it a try and let me know how you get on with it.
>
>
> http://www.littleboxes.nl/the14thdisciple
George M. Middius, (the "M" stands for "Myopic"), believing everything
he reads, wrote:
> Shovels said:
>
> > Here's yet another incredible audio tweak I've figured out for you;
> > ever wondered how to make that annoying CD go quiet when you put it in
> > your player?
> >
> > Wonder no more, it's easy and it won't cost me a penny! You'll need
> > some Post-it stickers but they shouldn't cost me anything as you can
> > steal them from work for me.
> >
> > Turn the CD in question play-side up and apply the Post-it stickers
> > liberally over the surface. Take care not to put too many stickers on
> > the CD - that might stop you putting it in your player.
> >
> > Insert the CD and - hey presto! You'll find that the music/speech or
> > whatever else it was you wanted to avoid hearing is now completely
> > inaudible!
>
> What color of Post-its should we use? Why not masking tape?
>
> This half-baked rigmarole is simply intended to induce Genuine Audiophiles
> to waste their time on blind alleys and useless experimentation.
.....For once I agree with you, my little ankle-biting friend. See? I
told you we're not that different in the end.
dave weil
March 29th 06, 07:38 PM
On 29 Mar 2006 10:31:20 -0800, wrote:
> Trust me, you're far from clever or original, and you're an
>awful forger. If you don't care for my tweaks, then why instead of
>forging my posts and making a statement on my efforts by posting stupid
>joke tweaks, why don't you post what YOU consider to be valid tweaks
>or ideas? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know that
>answer is that you're too dumb and unimaginitive to do so.
Learn to spell.
wrote:
> I couldn't help but notice that since my arrival, there have been a
> LOT of dumb tweak jokes put out by a LOT of dumb people, that think
> this sort of thing is extremely clever, original and funny."
Dumb jokes were here long before you came around. Perhaps you should
stay home for Apr. 1st, unless you acquire some sense of humor in the
meantime.
TB
Sander deWaal
March 29th 06, 07:43 PM
said:
>Is living in the Netherlands THAT boring.....
It can be, yes.
Have you ever seen pictures of our MP?
--
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 07:47 PM
Shovie, you're being dishonest. I'm not surprised at this turn, but the
delicate sensibilities of some RAO readers might be offended.
> George M. Middius wrote:
> > Shovels said:
No, liar. I said this:
> > Shovels(2) said:
Can you tell the difference, or do you need to throw up?
> > This half-baked rigmarole is simply intended to induce Genuine Audiophiles
> > to waste their time on blind alleys and useless experimentation.
> ....For once
No, not once. You tripped over your dick yet again. That's at least 10
times in the past week.
How does it feel to be RAO's #3 idiot? That takes some doing. Let nobody
say you haven't left your mark on Usenet, Shovels.
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 07:49 PM
dave weil said:
> >unimaginitive
> Learn to spell.
Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves magick
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 07:49 PM
dave weil said:
> >unimaginitive
> Learn to spell.
Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves magic and incantations
and lots of blasphemous perorations.
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
Robert Morein
March 29th 06, 08:04 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein jumped into the pigpen and showed he can be as dumb and
> irresponsible as anyone else on the group:
>
> The person who started this thread is an obvious FORGER, Robert. I
> thought it'd be pretty obvious, since his handle is not the same:
> ", and nor is the email address:
> > . The forger is some idiot troll based
> in the Netherlands. Goes under many handles, such as "Traudel",
> "Waltraud", etc.; and appears to be a religious nutcase, as he posts
> mostly on religious nutcase groups, at least under his current email
> address.
>
It was a joke.
Laugh your guts out.
Robert Morein
March 29th 06, 08:57 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> A troll who goes by many troll names and forged my posts wrote:
>
>
> Is living in the Netherlands THAT boring, that you have nothing better
> to do than forge my posts? Did you just tire of trolling the religious
> newsgroups, or decide to use your "other" handle, the one you don't
> use on this group? You don't have to post idiotic tweaks to prove
> that you have a few screws loose in that rattlebox you're calling a
> brain, "Traudel". Your desperate cries for attention from forging
> people's posts is enough. Perhaps you think you're being clever or
> original by responding to valid tweaks with dumb joke tweaks of your
> own. Trust me, you're far from clever or original, and you're an
> awful forger. If you don't care for my tweaks, then why instead of
> forging my posts and making a statement on my efforts by posting stupid
> joke tweaks, why don't you post what YOU consider to be valid tweaks
> or ideas? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know that
> answer is that you're too dumb and unimaginitive to do so.
>
> Well, don't feel bad, I'll try to turn your negative energy into
> something positive. If you want to improve your sound but the only way
> you know how is to mock someone else's methodds, than try this: Take
> one of those Post-it stickers of yours, and instead of placing it on
> the CD, place it glue side down under any one of the feet of your CD
> player, if it contains four feet.
>
I can confirm that this works really well for any table or chair, that
rocks. Usually one has to use an entire pack of postit notes. Corrugated
cardboard is a cheaper alternative.
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 09:33 PM
Robert Morein said:
> I can confirm that this works really well for any table or chair, that
> rocks. Usually one has to use an entire pack of postit notes. Corrugated
> cardboard is a cheaper alternative.
A more high-tech solution would be the Matchbox version of a hydraulic
jack. I think it's included in the Matchbox Garage set.
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > A troll who goes by many troll names and forged my posts wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is living in the Netherlands THAT boring, that you have nothing better
> > to do than forge my posts? Did you just tire of trolling the religious
> > newsgroups, or decide to use your "other" handle, the one you don't
> > use on this group? You don't have to post idiotic tweaks to prove
> > that you have a few screws loose in that rattlebox you're calling a
> > brain, "Traudel". Your desperate cries for attention from forging
> > people's posts is enough. Perhaps you think you're being clever or
> > original by responding to valid tweaks with dumb joke tweaks of your
> > own. Trust me, you're far from clever or original, and you're an
> > awful forger. If you don't care for my tweaks, then why instead of
> > forging my posts and making a statement on my efforts by posting stupid
> > joke tweaks, why don't you post what YOU consider to be valid tweaks
> > or ideas? That's a rhetorical question, btw. I already know that
> > answer is that you're too dumb and unimaginitive to do so.
> >
> > Well, don't feel bad, I'll try to turn your negative energy into
> > something positive. If you want to improve your sound but the only way
> > you know how is to mock someone else's methodds, than try this: Take
> > one of those Post-it stickers of yours, and instead of placing it on
> > the CD, place it glue side down under any one of the feet of your CD
> > player, if it contains four feet.
> >
> I can confirm that this works really well for any table or chair, that
> rocks. Usually one has to use an entire pack of postit notes. Corrugated
> cardboard is a cheaper alternative.
Thats only to stabilize the device. My tweak was intended to improve
the sound, not stabilize the device. Your tweak won't necessarily,
and could make things worse.
George M. Middius (the "M" stands for "Marvin") whined and cried:
George, I can tell that you're angry with me. I'm sorry, I guess I
must have said or done something to offend you. But then, you're such
a screaming little "Percival Puffpants" geekfreak, that it doesn't
take much to set you off. And when you get angry, you get all "Marvin"
on people's asses. You know, "Marvin the Martian"? That short, puffy
little feller on the Bugs Bunny cartoons who resembles your personae to
a T? I can just picture you after having finished reading one of my
posts about you, with your eyebrows raised and your fists clenched,
steam and snot slowly dribbling out of your nostrils, muttering to
yourself....
Georgie: "Oooh, I'm getting angry, VERY angry indeed!!"
You know how I can tell you're angry, Marvin? You get confused when
you're angry. I mean, "more confused than the usual Confused
Middius". Here's the dead giveaway:
You posted one attack on me in this thread that looked like this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves magick "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then worried bout your public image as you always are, you thought
"NO, that's not effective enough". Guess you figure it isn't
pedantic enough. So, mustering up your full geekpower, you revised your
attack and launched THIS:.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves magic and
incantations
and lots of blasphemous perorations. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I hopeyou don't get angry again with me, but I'm going to have
to assume that "Shovie" is the pet name you have for yourself (or
perhaps your little Willy that you're not so fond of). Because I've
given it the old college try, and I'm sorry old boy, but I can't
find the word "perorations" anywhere. Look like you've tripped over
Willy again, Marvin. Well, look on the bright side. At least that means
you've managed to find him!
> Shovie, you're being dishonest. I'm not surprised at this turn, but the
> delicate sensibilities of some RAO readers might be offended.
>
Pffffffffffffftt! "The delicate sensibilities of RAO regulars might be
offended"? ROTFLMFAO!!!!
That's like saying you don't fart in front of a pig, because you
don't want to offend their "delicate sensibilities". You sure
didn't seem to mind offending Robert Morein's "delicate
sensibilities", or mine for that matter, when you LIED about me having
insulted him in my email to you. Did you, Marvin? Did you mind
offending Arny's "delicate sensibilities" when you repeatedly accused
him of fornicating his dead son? The son he had just lost to a brain
tumour? Or what about your remarks about his wife being a whore and
giving blowjobs for 50 cents? Is that the kind of tact that were to
believe you have for RAO readers?
> > George M. Middius wrote:
>
> > > Shovels(2) said:
>
> No, liar. I said this:
>
> > > Shovels(2) said:
>
> Can you tell the difference, or do you need to throw up?
Sorry, no. I can't tell the difference. Wait..... I think you're
right. There is a difference! Is it that one quote is "blacker" than
the other?
> > > This half-baked rigmarole is simply intended to induce Genuine Audiophiles
> > > to waste their time on blind alleys and useless experimentation.
>
> > ....For once
>
> No, not once. You tripped over your dick yet again.
I've heard of women having "penis envy", but the fact that you
exhibit the same affliction does tend to say a lot about your little
bundle of insecurities, doesn't it, Mr. Martian. After reading this,
you just checked to see if it's still there, didn't you?
> That's at least 10
> times in the past week.
That you've lied? No, I'm pretty sure it's more than that. Could
you recheck those stats for me, please?
> How does it feel to be RAO's #3 idiot? That takes some doing.
Unfortunately, it's proven to be impossible to get to the coveted top
2 positions, occupied by you and Garbage Boy. Every time anyone tries,
you simply out-stupid them. I don't know how you two do it, because
you have SO much competition for those coveted spots. So tell me, does
Dave ever get jealous that you're the #1 idiot around here?
> Let nobody
> say you haven't left your mark on Usenet, Shovels.
Thank you. I know that when you finally leave RAO, I mean after they
manage to pry your cold, dead fingers off of your computer keyboard,
they'll say you've left your mark on Usenet as well. Only, yours
will look like a small brown stain.
I'll try not to offend your "delicate sensibilities" Percival, so
please don't get angry with me again. I almost died laughing this
time, and I don't know if I could stand another fit of hysterical
laughter, at your Marvin The Martian impression.
George "Marvin" Middius cried:
> Robert Morein said:
>
> > I can confirm that this works really well for any table or chair, that
> > rocks. Usually one has to use an entire pack of postit notes. Corrugated
> > cardboard is a cheaper alternative.
>
> A more high-tech solution would be the Matchbox version of a hydraulic
> jack. I think it's included in the Matchbox Garage set.
Can't you simply check your toybox under your racing car bed and find
out for us, Marvin?
By the way, I figured out in my last post, from your made-up spelling,
that "Shovels" is a pet name you give for yourself. So I'm sorry to
see that I've embarassed you again, from the title that you've
(inexplicably) changed this thread to. You can continue to call
yourself "Shovels" or "Shovie" for short, but I think I'll address
you as "Marvin". It just seems to fit better than "Middiocre" or
"George the Greek" or "Lil' Georgie Pie" or "Mork from Middius" or
even, simply, "George The Geek".
Okay, carry on, Marvin. <==== (Yup. Perfect fit!)
Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein jumped into the pigpen and showed he can be as dumb and
> > irresponsible as anyone else on the group:
> >
> > The person who started this thread is an obvious FORGER, Robert. I
> > thought it'd be pretty obvious, since his handle is not the same:
> > ", and nor is the email address:
> > > . The forger is some idiot troll based
> > in the Netherlands. Goes under many handles, such as "Traudel",
> > "Waltraud", etc.; and appears to be a religious nutcase, as he posts
> > mostly on religious nutcase groups, at least under his current email
> > address.
> >
> It was a joke.
> Laugh your guts out.
Sorry if I don't find your forgeries particularly funny. And I
don't find your bogus joke tweaks particularly clever, original or
funny. But they do say a lot about the joker.
wrote:
> wrote:
> > I couldn't help but notice that since my arrival, there have been a
> > LOT of dumb tweak jokes put out by a LOT of dumb people, that think
> > this sort of thing is extremely clever, original and funny."
>
>
> Dumb jokes were here long before you came around. Perhaps you should
> stay home for Apr. 1st, unless you acquire some sense of humor in the
> meantime.
>
> TB
DUH. Why do you think I consider them "dumb joke tweaks", brightlite?
You think the ignorants on RAO invented the idea of creating dumb joke
tweaks in response to valid serious tweaks that they wanted to ridicule
because it didn't fit with their limited understanding of the world?
My sense of humour is far more advanced than yours, or that of anyone
here, for that matter. That's precisely why I call these bogus tweaks
"dumb tweak jokes". It's the sign of someone who doesn't have an
advanced sense of humour, and thinks that anything that falls under the
category of humour is automatically funny by definition.
Robert Morein
March 29th 06, 10:44 PM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein jumped into the pigpen and showed he can be as dumb and
>> > irresponsible as anyone else on the group:
>> >
>> > The person who started this thread is an obvious FORGER, Robert. I
>> > thought it'd be pretty obvious, since his handle is not the same:
>> > ", and nor is the email address:
>> > > . The forger is some idiot troll based
>> > in the Netherlands. Goes under many handles, such as "Traudel",
>> > "Waltraud", etc.; and appears to be a religious nutcase, as he posts
>> > mostly on religious nutcase groups, at least under his current email
>> > address.
>> >
>> It was a joke.
>> Laugh your guts out.
>
> Sorry if I don't find your forgeries particularly funny. And I
> don't find your bogus joke tweaks particularly clever, original or
> funny. But they do say a lot about the joker.
>
Not my forgery. My response was my joke.
Robert Morein
March 29th 06, 10:47 PM
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> I can confirm that this works really well for any table or chair, that
>> rocks. Usually one has to use an entire pack of postit notes. Corrugated
>> cardboard is a cheaper alternative.
>
> A more high-tech solution would be the Matchbox version of a hydraulic
> jack. I think it's included in the Matchbox Garage set.
>
George, how about you and me go into business selling furniture tweaks?
Our first product: the "Tippy Chair Stabilizer".
Don't laugh. Small things start small. Of course, they stay that way.
Robert Morein
March 29th 06, 10:52 PM
"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> I can confirm that this works really well for any table or chair, that
>> rocks. Usually one has to use an entire pack of postit notes. Corrugated
>> cardboard is a cheaper alternative.
>
> A more high-tech solution would be the Matchbox version of a hydraulic
> jack. I think it's included in the Matchbox Garage set.
>
Also, we can market "chair grease". The chair seat is lubricated with a
nonstaining teflon based grease, so McLardo and other fatasses can slide on
and off. Hell, we'll call it an "electret". We can claim it bombards
fatasses with tachyons.
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 11:19 PM
Robert Morein said:
> > A more high-tech solution would be the Matchbox version of a hydraulic
> > jack. I think it's included in the Matchbox Garage set.
> George, how about you and me go into business selling furniture tweaks?
> Our first product: the "Tippy Chair Stabilizer".
> Don't laugh. Small things start small. Of course, they stay that way.
Fame and fortune await Shovels on ABC's new game show:
http://301url.com/1in
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
George M. Middius
March 29th 06, 11:21 PM
Shovels' famous sense of humor is such a landmark to us terrestrials.
> Sorry if I don't find your forgeries particularly funny. And I
> don't find your bogus joke tweaks particularly clever, original or
> funny. But they do say a lot about the joker.
Aside from showing that we all have a better sense of humor than you do
(which is not saying much, I admit), what do they say about you?
--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.
Fella
March 30th 06, 11:07 AM
wrote:
>
> In trying to emulate one of my thread titles, he's too stupid to
> realize that I already did "Tweak no. 2". But nevertheless, he's not
> too stupid to fool both YOU, GEORGE MIDDIUS, FELLA and ,
> and maybe some more people that will come along after I post this msg.
> Doesn't take much to fool people around here, does it? LOL! I would
> think that with all the forgeries you've been on the receiving end
> of, you'd have learned from experience.
>
Who said I was fooled sound old chum you? I just did a little word play
as in "wasn't it so that *sound* *had* *priority* DUH! and this tweak
of yours results in no sound from our media" kind of gobbledygook like
that. It's kind of reverse sarcasm where you pretend to be completely
taken in. It doesn't really flabbergast the hell out of anyone but it's
usenet, we're here to blow some steam, no?
But frankly I see no function or form whatsoever in someone doing a
forgery number on you since any forged tweak in your name can't possibly
be sillier then the tweaks you seriously put forth here in all sincerity.
Of course *it is* possible that you would be doing the old trick in the
book forging the forgery, ip spoofing, etc.
The thing is the more I am convinced of your sincerity the more sorry I
feel for you, the way you twist yourself into all kinds of fits and
tantrums when you get the reactions you should expect to get to your
"tweaks". The way I see it, if *any* of the tweaks you posted would have
even a remote chance of actually doing something, anyhting!! to the
perceived sound at all (placebo aside) then it must mean that you are
light years ahead of the rest of the world of audio science, cognitive
science, newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, string theorists, you
name it, you are light years ahead... It means that you must have the
key to some higher form of wisdom way beyond the reach of us ordinary
mortals.
Now wouldn't such wisdom bring with it some form of maturity, some cool,
distant, sophisticated way of interaction with your fellow humans, some
sort of god-like, or prophet-like quality? If you *at least* had a less
conflict oriented stance (if you would at least less resemble a bitter
chihuahua) I would have eventually tried a tweak or two from your
repertoire. Let's see, the L shape for instance. Why the f.ck not? Just
draw an L shape on some cd's. But your silly reactions to the legitimate
reactions of people to your silly tweaks just reinforces the sillyness
of your silly tweaks into a singularity of sillyness that it would be
insult to anyones intelligence, even nyob's, for instance, to actually
even *consider* executing one of your tweaks.
paul packer
March 30th 06, 01:58 PM
Robert Morein wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Robert Morein said:
> Don't laugh.
Impossible. :-)
paul packer
March 30th 06, 02:05 PM
Fella wrote:
> wrote:
> The thing is the more I am convinced of your sincerity the more sorry I
> feel for you, the way you twist yourself into all kinds of fits and
> tantrums when you get the reactions you should expect to get to your
> "tweaks". The way I see it, if *any* of the tweaks you posted would have
> even a remote chance of actually doing something, anyhting!! to the
> perceived sound at all (placebo aside) then it must mean that you are
> light years ahead of the rest of the world of audio science, cognitive
> science, newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, string theorists, you
> name it, you are light years ahead... It means that you must have the
> key to some higher form of wisdom way beyond the reach of us ordinary
> mortals.
>
> Now wouldn't such wisdom bring with it some form of maturity, some cool,
> distant, sophisticated way of interaction with your fellow humans, some
> sort of god-like, or prophet-like quality? If you *at least* had a less
> conflict oriented stance (if you would at least less resemble a bitter
> chihuahua) I would have eventually tried a tweak or two from your
> repertoire. Let's see, the L shape for instance. Why the f.ck not? Just
> draw an L shape on some cd's. But your silly reactions to the legitimate
> reactions of people to your silly tweaks just reinforces the sillyness
> of your silly tweaks into a singularity of sillyness that it would be
> insult to anyones intelligence, even nyob's, for instance, to actually
> even *consider* executing one of your tweaks.
As bored as I am with attacking Mr. Sound, I'm afraid I have to endorse
the above two paragraphs; I sincerely hope Mr. Sound reads them
carefully and reflects on them for more than a microsecond. Especially
the phrase: "less conflict oriented stance".
Fella wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > In trying to emulate one of my thread titles, he's too stupid to
> > realize that I already did "Tweak no. 2". But nevertheless, he's not
> > too stupid to fool both YOU, GEORGE MIDDIUS, FELLA and ,
> > and maybe some more people that will come along after I post this msg.
> > Doesn't take much to fool people around here, does it? LOL! I would
> > think that with all the forgeries you've been on the receiving end
> > of, you'd have learned from experience.
> Who said I was fooled sound old chum you? I just did a little word play
> as in "wasn't it so that *sound* *had* *priority* DUH! and this tweak
> of yours results in no sound from our media" kind of gobbledygook like
> that. It's kind of reverse sarcasm where you pretend to be completely
> taken in.
What, that? Yeah, I knew all that. Just playing RAO politics, you know,
nothing personal. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
> It doesn't really flabbergast the hell out of anyone but it's
> usenet, we're here to blow some steam, no?
No. I read the charter of this newsgroup, and it doesn't state "The
purpose of rec.audio.opinion is to blow off some steam". The reason
Usenet was invented was to promote discussion and further our knowledge
of various topics. That is realistically impossible to do on this
group, because everyone is too busy blowing off some steam. I don't
know if you or anyone still realizes this, but the newsgroup actually
has a theme; the theme is audio. The purpose of being here is to
discuss audio. It may seem obvious, because the word "audio" is in the
newsgroup title, but in fact, there are far more posts that are no more
than personal character attacks, than there are post on audio. I
didn't make it that way, that's the way it was when I got here. And
I actually didn't come here to "blow off steam", I came to discuss
audio. But everyone here has shown me in grandiose fashion, that this
is obviously not the place to do it. Anyway, I don't really have much
"steam" to blow off, I'm a pretty well balanced guy, and happy with
my life. And my audio system. If I only wanted flame wars, I'd be on
alt.flame. And frankly, those guys are a lot better. I find that
compared to some of the other groups I've taken on, all the flamers
here are rank amateurs.
> But frankly I see no function or form whatsoever in someone doing a
> forgery number on you since any forged tweak in your name can't possibly
> be sillier then the tweaks you seriously put forth here in all sincerity.
>
Good point!
> Of course *it is* possible that you would be doing the old trick in the
> book forging the forgery, ip spoofing, etc.
Now why would I need to go to all that trouble to fool people about me,
when they are doing such a good job of that themselves?
>
> The thing is the more I am convinced of your sincerity the more sorry I
> feel for you, the way you twist yourself into all kinds of fits and
> tantrums when you get the reactions you should expect to get to your
> "tweaks".
I don't agree with your "fits and tantrums" assessment, but the
hysterical minds of RAO members seem to dictate that reactions always
have to be exaggerated by at least 10,000 fold before it becomes a
fact. But you left the question open as to why I should expect to get
such hostile reactions of mockery, derision, scorn and ridicule from
everyone. Who's fault is it that the tweaks don't seem logical to
you or others, according to your conventional views? Is it my fault?
The inventor's? And if you or the self-professed so-called
"scientists" here want to dismiss everything that seems "silly" to you,
as people have been doing throughout the history of this group, how the
hell are we ever supposed to embrace new concepts and ideas, and
progress in our understanding of the world? I feel sorry for most
everyone here, who share this kind of mentality. And I have a reason to
feel sorry, every time that I sit down and listen to my audio system.
Which probably sounds better than that of most of my critics. Because I
know a lot of things about truth that they don't, about the world we
live in that they don't, and I know that they could enjoy the same or
better sound from their audio, were they not prisoners of their fear
and logic. The more adverse and hostile reactions that I get to the
unconventional ideas that I support, the more I go in the opposite
direction to convention.
The way I see it, if *any* of the tweaks you posted would have
> even a remote chance of actually doing something, anyhting!! to the
> perceived sound at all (placebo aside) then it must mean that you are
> light years ahead of the rest of the world of audio science, cognitive
> science, newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, string theorists, you
> name it, you are light years ahead...
Precisely. (Almost). That's what I intended to show. That if any of
the tweaks (except for the speaker grounding) have any discernible
effect on the sound, by -anyone-, then I've shown that there are
phenomena occuring that affect our perception of sound, which are
completely outside of Newtonian principles; including having a direct
effect on the signal path. I think its as easy as pie to demonstrate
this, since I know of so many ways within the realm of alternative
audio concepts. But at the same time, quite difficult, because there is
so much hostility from the mass majority to learning new things, and
accepting the possibility of new ideas in our understanding of science,
our biology, and the world we live in. This fear and hostility, as you
might imagine, can impair someone's judgement on hearing changes even
if they do try the tweaks.
Nevertheless, its not impossible. I read a thread in another discussion
forum (headwize.org), where someone had brought up the subject of the
silver foils, that Belt puts out. In order to hold it up to ridicule.
Everyone there was like everyone here: ALL ignorant pigs. Not a single
person, to my recollection, defended the idea that the foils are or
might be valid. Then one of the more brilliant ignorant pigs got the
bright idea one day to actually try one of the foils, and report back
to his mates. (They are strips of specially treated foil that you stick
on CDs and such, to improve your sound). He swore up and down that he
would really raise a ruckus if the thing was bogus, as he assumed it
was. Unfortunately, it wasn't. After applying it to his CDs, he
begrudgingly reported that he did believe hearing an improvement with
the foils in place, and a degradation when removed. Naturally, he was
then made the object of ridicule by the rest of the ignorant pigs,
instead of just the foils.
I don't know about "light years", but my colleagues estimate we are
15-20 years ahead of the audio community. My estimate, after my
experiences on this group, got pushed up to "at least 40-50 years
ahead". But you're trying to discredit them by going too far in your
presumption that there aren't any known principles behind the ideas.
They don't operate on Newtonian principles, we know that much. But
I'm not "light years ahead of the rest of the world of audio
science", because there are thousands of audiophiles like me that have
tried these concepts and products within this niche of alternative
audio, heard differences, appreciated what they heard, and are ardent
believers of these concepts. Furthermore, it isn't ahead of quantum
mechanics, much of it appears to adhere to principles of quantum
mechanics (and biology, as it relates). But we have to remember that QM
is a relatively new science, and not much is known in this area. It's
going to take a long time before things like morphic resonance can be
measured (laser interferometry is one possible suggestion), but if so,
why follow the sheep until that time, you could be dead by then?
> It means that you must have the
> key to some higher form of wisdom way beyond the reach of us ordinary
> mortals.
How beyond the reach of ordinary mortals is amazon.com? You can start
by ordering John Gribbin's "Schroedingers Cat" and Dr. Rupert
Sheldrake's "The Presence of the Past", if you have a pressing need
to understand the elegant wisdom behind what you call "sillyness".
> Now wouldn't such wisdom bring with it some form of maturity, some cool,
> distant, sophisticated way of interaction with your fellow humans, some
> sort of god-like, or prophet-like quality?
Yeah, I tried the Jesus angle. Doesn't work. And not just because
I'm a buddhist at heart. I can be a cool cat, if I wanted. I think I
tried that here at the very beginning. I mean I could just send
"thought waves" out into the ether, that vaguely insinuate I hold some
superior knowledge to my opponent, which they are not intellectually
mature enough to understand, and hope that maybe in a few years,
they'll come to understand it. But as we know, such forms of subtlety
don't work on backyard swine. This group is like the WWF of audio.
You basically have to bash people on the head with a metal folding
chair, before you can have a hope of getting your message across. So
when stationed in Philiswine, I have to speak "Philiswinese", to make
myself understood, don't I. Besides which, there's a lot of fun in
calling people "ignorants" and "idiots", when that's exactly what
they're behaving like. Note that I don't call people who really
can't help the fact that they're dumb, names like that. Only those
who deserve to be beaten with the "club of truth". Then there's
always the fact that I don't believe in Gods and prophets, don't
consider myself either in any way, and don't have any particular
craving to put myself above anyone. If I did, I would not have tried to
share what I know about audio, I would have kept it all to myself.
> If you *at least* had a less
> conflict oriented stance (if you would at least less resemble a bitter
> chihuahua) I would have eventually tried a tweak or two from your
> repertoire.
Again, you people seem oblivious to the fact that the conficts didn't
come from me. I was treated disrespectfully from the moment I first
posted, and in no time, attacked. I was often much less hostile in my
responses than those of my would-be attackers. I still think I am. But
that aside, whether it comes from a bitter chihuahua or not, how does
that stop anyone from trying the tweaks, if they simply want to improve
their sound? I said right from the beginning, they are not for
everyone, but for "advanced" people. Besides the audiophile
implications, that also implies they are for people who are smart
enough to go past prejudices and biases, and peek behind the curtain.
NO audio device, if it is to be judged fairly, should ever be solely
judged on the person who created it or the theory behind it. And
that's basically the point I'm trying to make in my humble little
attempts to expand people's minds.
Let's see, the L shape for instance. Why the f.ck not? Just
> draw an L shape on some cd's.
I know, sounds simple enough, right? That's just what I thought. At
the beginning.... That was before one of you threatened to sue me
simply for me having implied that he tried the L-shape. Everyone else
didn't ever bother to try it, even though it takes 30 seconds to do.
Which is a hell of a lot less time than it takes for those same people
to write attack messages to me. So there's a lot more resistance to
such simple ideas, than you're aware of.
But your silly reactions to the legitimate
> reactions of people to your silly tweaks just reinforces the sillyness
> of your silly tweaks into a singularity of sillyness that it would be
> insult to anyones intelligence, even nyob's, for instance, to actually
> even *consider* executing one of your tweaks.
But that's okay too. Any reaction that I get, is always the correct
reaction that I am looking for. As I said, I don't get a royalty
every time someone tries my free tweak, and I'm not trying to change
the lives of people I really don't care about. But what you have to
understand is that there isn't just one global perspective on life in
the world. To me, its the reactions that I am getting that are "silly".
Because they are completely dismissive reactions to phenomena that
people know nothing about and have never experimented with, and never
even made serious inquiries with me to try to learn more. And at this
point in the hostilities, I'm -much- less willing than I was at the
beginning, to seriously respond to those inquiries, because I saw how
productive that was with Mr. Morein, for one example. Keep in mind that
the very first response that I received to my very first post was a
dismissive reaction. I didn't even have a chance to react, before I
was dismissed as a troll, or a freak.
So my reactions at having my intelligence insulted in such a great
variety of ways, and my character misrepresented in as many ways, are
actually quite legitimate. Much more legitimate than people reacting to
my serious posts or tweaks with ridicule, derision, mockery and
insincere joke tweaks. Obviously, I don't feel it would be an insult
to anyone's intelligence to try any of the tweaks, because you have
to have intelligence for it to be insulted. And if you decided you
won't take 30 seconds to cut a piece of paper or the corners off your
clothing labels when it may (or may not) improve your sound, simply
because you don't trust or like the audiophile that suggested it,
I'm sorry but you can't lay claim to having much of an intellect.
Education maybe, intelligence, hardly. After all, most of my tweaks
weren't invented by me, and aren't simply being endorsed by me.
Many people do such things, and things FAR more "silly" than what
I've mentioned here.
paul packer
March 31st 06, 06:34 AM
wrote:
(snip heaps and heaps and heaps of stuff. A truckload of stuff. Really,
no joking, a hundred thousand words at least)
Phew, I'm exhausted!
And grateful. Grateful that what we think here doesn't actually mean
anything to Mr. Sound. And our barbs just bounce off his impregnable
armour.
Because otherwise we'd have a post longer than War & Peace to get
through.
It's off to bed now. A nice little late afternoon nap.....
Pega
March 31st 06, 09:22 AM
wrote:
>
> So my reactions at having my intelligence insulted in such a great
> variety of ways, and my character misrepresented in as many ways, are
> actually quite legitimate.
Not at all. You came forth with extremely unconventional things. The
reactions you got were as extremely predictable and justified.
I mean come on... Come the **** on... Pinhole asirin four legged animal
pic... That I go thorugh the household closets and cut off labels from
clothing (hundreds, perhaps thousands of items...) What the ...
Well here I go and confess that although I felt stupid, extremely stupid
doing it I took a CD last night listened to it then I took it out and I
drew that L shape on it and listened to it again and heard no
difference. I did this because as a human being I felt sorry for you.
> Obviously, I don't feel it would be an insult
> to anyone's intelligence to try any of the tweaks, because you have
> to have intelligence for it to be insulted.
You are hopeless.
> And if you decided you
> won't take 30 seconds to cut a piece of paper or the corners off your
> clothing labels when it may (or may not) improve your sound, simply
> because you don't trust or like the audiophile that suggested it,
> I'm sorry but you can't lay claim to having much of an intellect.
And crazy.
After Pega/Fella, or whoever he thinks he is at the moment, finished
sobbing and crying, he wrote this little tirade:
> wrote:
>
> >
> > So my reactions at having my intelligence insulted in such a great
> > variety of ways, and my character misrepresented in as many ways, are
> > actually quite legitimate.
>
> Not at all. You came forth with extremely unconventional things. The
> reactions you got were as extremely predictable and justified.
I agree. For dumb, ignorant, arrogant, dogmatic, closed-minded BIGOTS,
the reactions I got were extremely predictable and I can imagine, in
the views of such bigots, "justified".
For everyone else, the reactions of mockery, derision, scorn and
ridicule that I got were NOT "justified", they were stupid and abusive.
> I mean come on... Come the **** on... Pinhole asirin four legged animal
> pic... That I go thorugh the household closets and cut off labels from
> clothing (hundreds, perhaps thousands of items...) What the ...
>
You don't have to be so hostile towards things you don't
understand. That's just your FEAR talking. Once you get over your
FEARS and INSECURITIES, all that stuff about how "silly" it seems does
not matter a whit. But that's a personal thing. How and when you get
over your stupid fears and insecurities, is something only you can
dictate, not I. (You have THOUSANDS of pieces of clothing in your
wardrobe?? Really?? Who are you, Dolce & Gabana?)
If even before trying it, you dismiss some technique as "invalid", that
hundreds of other people have experienced as valid, then all that does
is show what a dumb, narrow-minded dogmatist you are. If you'd have
said to me, for example, you don't want to cut your clothing labels
because you cherish them intact, then that would have been acceptable
to me, as a reason not to do so. But to dismiss ideas that you're too
dumb to understand without a moment's thought does not convince me
that you're any different than the other mindless sheep that I've
encountered here. And let's not forget, you're the one that told me
you were supposed to be open minded. So don't kid yourself. You are
being willfully ignorant, and that's the way you want to be in life.
That's your right to do so. Don't you bring on some hostile
attitude toward me, like as if I am forcing you to do anything. I never
TOLD you to do ANYTHING, ignoramus. I simply said "this is what worked
for me".
> Well here I go and confess that although I felt stupid, extremely stupid
> doing it I took a CD last night listened to it then I took it out and I
> drew that L shape on it and listened to it again and heard no
> difference.
If you did try it, and taking a cue from your hostile attitude I
don't even believe that you did, then you obviously can't follow
simple instructions, Because I gave you a web link to download an image
of the shape to print out and put on your player, which I said was more
effective and more likely to make a difference in your case (since I
can tell you're not anything close to an experienced audiophile). So
for all I know from what you said, all you did was draw an "L" (for
"Lucky"?).
> I did this because as a human being I felt sorry for you.
Yeah, right. I don't believe that posturing BS for a minute. As you
know very well, I already said in numerous posts that I don't get a
commission from people trying free tweaks, and that I don't want
people to try my tweaks if they don't deserve them. Obviously, I now
see that includes you. So just for that, I'm going to take down my
weblink later, just so YOU don't have a chance to download the image.
I uploaded my L-shape image because I feel sorry for people like YOU,
who think you understand what it's all about, and don't realize
just how dumb and ignorant you really are about the world. Including
the world of audio. People like you are so fearful and insecure about
your intelligence, that simply drawing a shape on a CD leaves you
practically in tears and a fit of self-loathing! I feel sorry that you
will remain dumb and closed-minded your entire life, retaining your
blinkered, provincial view of the world.
Open-minded you're definitely NOT. Your attitude in your response
tells me all I need to know about that, and that even if you didn't
lie about trying the technique out, you obviously never thought it
could or should work. So apart from all the other reasons I gave, why
should anyone be surprised, with such a hostile attitude against the
idea, that you declare the idea didn't work for you?
> > Obviously, I don't feel it would be an insult
> > to anyone's intelligence to try any of the tweaks, because you have
> > to have intelligence for it to be insulted.
>
> You are hopeless.
You just came off of a fit of crying rage and self-loathing because you
simply drew a shape on your CD. No, I think YOU are the one who's
hopeless, "Fella".
> > And if you decided you
> > won't take 30 seconds to cut a piece of paper or the corners off your
> > clothing labels when it may (or may not) improve your sound, simply
> > because you don't trust or like the audiophile that suggested it,
> > I'm sorry but you can't lay claim to having much of an intellect.
>
> And crazy.
Let me see if I got this: You're telling me I'm "crazy" for what I
just said about drawing an L-shape, and yet YOU just finished telling
that this is exactly what you did?! So either YOU are the one who's
"crazy" for having done that, or you are lying to me about having done
it.
Which is it?
And how hopeless and crazy do you have to be, to call me "hopeless and
crazy", after posting the same message TWICE, under TWO different
pseudonyms? I think you're hopeless, crazy and CONFUSED!
paul packer wrote:
> wrote:
>
> (snip heaps and heaps and heaps of stuff. A truckload of stuff. Really,
> no joking, a hundred thousand words at least)
No joking, really? So you seriously think that my message contained
100,000 words?
Well, that's easily proven untrue. So what you've proven in effect,
is that you and the rest here can't tell the difference between your
false perceptions of things, and the truth itself. But that's nothing
I haven't already proved many times over.
> Phew, I'm exhausted!
I've no doubt. Reading an intelligent, cogent response obviously
sucked the few smarts you had left, leaving us with this stupid
non-response of yours in return, typically all that RAO members are
capable of. I'm sure it was obviously very scary for you to be faced
with messages longer than one or two lines. You who aren't used to
reading anything more strenuous or lengthy than the side of a cereal
box in the morning. You'd better go take your nappies now, and try to
regain some of the smarts that you lost.
>
> And grateful. Grateful that what we think here doesn't actually mean
> anything to Mr. Sound. And our barbs just bounce off his impregnable
> armour.
You're a joke, and you're kidding yourself again. You have the same
problem that Marvin The Martian (aka George Middius) has about your
perceived ability to affect people. I for one don't need
"impregnable armour" to protect myself from a bunch of dumb, screaming
little kids beating me from all sides with Nerf whiffle bats. It's
fun to watch you try though, and think that your mockery and ridicule
of me is really hurting me deeply and personally!
> It's off to bed now. A nice little late afternoon nap.....
Go to sleep my mindless little sheep... sleep well...
Powell
March 31st 06, 08:14 PM
> wrote
<snip quacking>
> No. I read the charter of this newsgroup, and it
> doesn't state "The purpose of rec.audio.opinion
> is to blow off some steam". The reason Usenet
> was invented was to promote discussion and
> further our knowledge of various topics.
>
Good point.
> That is realistically impossible to do on this
> group, because everyone is too busy blowing
> off some steam.
>
Yes, this N.G.can be a had row to hoe for Newbies.
> I don't know if you or anyone still realizes this,
> but the newsgroup actually has a theme; the theme
> is audio. The purpose of being here is to discuss
> audio.
>
Have any of your posts been intentionally canceled?
It appears that you have had plenty of opportunities
to get your message across (USEnet intent). What
more do you want?
> And I actually didn't come here to "blow off steam",
> I came to discuss audio.
>
Your brand/mindset of audio is unique. It's difficult
for people to relate to your viewpoint when there is
no apparent methodology behind it.
> But you left the question open as to why I should
> expect to get such hostile reactions of mockery,
> derision, scorn and ridicule from everyone.
>
Soooo? Does this justified a returning in kind
on your part?
> Who's fault is it that the tweaks don't seem logical
> to you or others, according to your conventional
> views? Is it my fault?
>
Well, yes!
> The inventor's?
>
Yes.
> And if you or the self-professed so-called "scientists"
> here want to dismiss everything that seems "silly" to
> you, as people have been doing throughout the history
> of this group, how the hell are we ever supposed to
> embrace new concepts and ideas, and progress in our
> understanding of the world?
>
Ok.
> I feel sorry for most everyone here, who share this
> kind of mentality. And I have a reason to feel sorry,
> every time that I sit down and listen to my audio system.
> Which probably sounds better than that of most of my
> critics.
>
Quack, quack, quack...
> Because I know a lot of things about truth that they
> don't,
>
"Truth"... please define? What is the difference
between a fact and a claim?
> about the world we live in that they don't,
>
Don't we all have our own unique perspective?
> and I know that they could enjoy the same or
> better sound from their audio, were they not
> prisoners of their fear and logic.
>
How does one "enjoy the same" sound?
Isn't that a null or no difference.
> Precisely. (Almost). That's what I intended to
> show. That if any of the tweaks (except for the
> speaker grounding) have any discernible effect
> on the sound,
>
"discernible effect"... please define? Does
the change have to be for the better (higher
fidelity)?
> by -anyone-, then I've shown that there are
> phenomena occuring that affect our perception
> of sound, which are completely outside of
> Newtonian principles; including having a direct
> effect on the signal path.
>
This is a very poor metaphor "Newtonian principles"
as it represented a viewpoint of the world that existed
in the 18th and 19th century. Interesting study for 8th
grade science class.
> I think its as easy as pie to demonstrate this, since
> I know of so many ways within the realm of
> alternative audio concepts.
>
"concepts"... I see no methodology.
> But at the same time, quite difficult, because
> there is so much hostility from the mass majority
> to learning new things, and accepting the
> possibility of new ideas in our understanding of
> science, our biology, and the world we live in.
>
As I understand your byline you have rejected
science in favor of empiricism.
> They don't operate on Newtonian principles, we
> know that much.
>
In the strictest sense nothing does. Not since
18th and 19th century.
> But we have to remember that QM is a relatively
> new science, and not much is known in this area.
>
"New science"...you have no idea what you are
talking about. Quantum Mechanics was a mature
science by the early 60's. The latest version now
being referred to as Quantum Chromodynamics.
Powell wrote:
> > wrote
>
>
> > I don't know if you or anyone still realizes this,
> > but the newsgroup actually has a theme; the theme
> > is audio. The purpose of being here is to discuss
> > audio.
> >
> Have any of your posts been intentionally canceled?
> It appears that you have had plenty of opportunities
> to get your message across (USEnet intent). What
> more do you want?
What's your major malfunction, did you poke your eyes out with a
fork, you dumbass? Is that why you fail to see that there's not a lot
of audio being seriously discussed here? On account of rude people like
you, unfortunately.
> > And I actually didn't come here to "blow off steam",
> > I came to discuss audio.
> >
> Your brand/mindset of audio is unique.
No it isn't. It's a small minority of the audio community, I'll
give you that. But that's still not "unique". You're simply
misinformed, but no one I've met here seems to have a problem talking
as an expert on things they know nothing about. ie. Dave Weill on
turntable grounding.
> It's difficult
> for people to relate to your viewpoint when there is
> no apparent methodology behind it.
Who said there was no apparent methodology behind it? You? I've
already talked about the methodology many times here. You're wrong,
it's only all too easy to relate to my viewpoint: you try one of the
tweaks. You don't need to understand the methodology for it to work;
you only need to know whether it works for you or not.
> > But you left the question open as to why I should
> > expect to get such hostile reactions of mockery,
> > derision, scorn and ridicule from everyone.
> >
> Soooo? Does this justified a returning in kind
> on your part?
Absolutely. Dumbass. Why do you and everyone else think that you can be
rude and ridiculing toward me, but that I should not behave in the same
manner that you and others behave toward me, despite my not having
provoked you or anyone to do so? Sounds like you and others just want
free reign to abuse people, and not expect them to hurl any abuse back.
> > Who's fault is it that the tweaks don't seem logical
> > to you or others, according to your conventional
> > views? Is it my fault?
> >
> Well, yes!
How?
>
>
> > The inventor's?
> >
> Yes.
How?
>
>
> > And if you or the self-professed so-called "scientists"
> > here want to dismiss everything that seems "silly" to
> > you, as people have been doing throughout the history
> > of this group, how the hell are we ever supposed to
> > embrace new concepts and ideas, and progress in our
> > understanding of the world?
> >
> Ok.
>
? I don't think you even understood the question.
>
> > I feel sorry for most everyone here, who share this
> > kind of mentality. And I have a reason to feel sorry,
> > every time that I sit down and listen to my audio system.
> > Which probably sounds better than that of most of my
> > critics.
> >
> Quack, quack, quack...
Let me guess what you're supposed to be.... a "chicken"?
>
>
> > Because I know a lot of things about truth that they
> > don't,
> >
> "Truth"... please define? What is the difference
> between a fact and a claim?
Besides strangely getting up and singing the lyrics to "Old MacDonald
Had A Farm", you have a nasty habit of chopping people's quotes. I
have no idea what context that quote was in, so unless you learn to
quote properly, you're not getting a response from me.
>
>
> > about the world we live in that they don't,
> >
> Don't we all have our own unique perspective?
Yes and no. There are unique perspectives and shared perspectives. I
was referring to the shared perspectives of RAOers.
>
>
> > and I know that they could enjoy the same or
> > better sound from their audio, were they not
> > prisoners of their fear and logic.
> >
> How does one "enjoy the same" sound?
> Isn't that a null or no difference.
>
You see, this is what happens when you chop people's quotes. Even you
get confused. I was comparing the level of quality of my system to that
which others here who have a lower degree of quality, might attain
through advanced audio techniques.
>
> > Precisely. (Almost). That's what I intended to
> > show. That if any of the tweaks (except for the
> > speaker grounding) have any discernible effect
> > on the sound,
> >
> "discernible effect"... please define? Does
> the change have to be for the better (higher
> fidelity)?
No. In fact, I just put up a new thread (L-Shape Tweak for Dummies)
which touches upon this idea. It includes a link to an image I made
that can influence sound when printed out and applied to audio gear or
furniture and other objects in the listening room. I designed it so
that it may exhibit an influence on the perception of sound
(discernible effect), only to try to demonstrate that shapes and
symbols have such an effect. But when applied to my system, although it
does improve some things (higher fidelity), I believe it degrades
others, and ultimately, I decided I don't like the particular effect
it has enough to leave it in my system. So no, the change doesn't
have to be for the better here. If it has any discernible effect, it
helps to prove the point.
>
>
> > by -anyone-, then I've shown that there are
> > phenomena occuring that affect our perception
> > of sound, which are completely outside of
> > Newtonian principles; including having a direct
> > effect on the signal path.
> >
> This is a very poor metaphor "Newtonian principles"
> as it represented a viewpoint of the world that existed
> in the 18th and 19th century. Interesting study for 8th
> grade science class.
Do you know a lot of 8th graders designing high end audio amps and
such?
> > I think its as easy as pie to demonstrate this, since
> > I know of so many ways within the realm of
> > alternative audio concepts.
> >
> "concepts"... I see no methodology.
I've referred to all that elsewhere on this group. Wouldn't matter
anyway. You would just dismiss it out of hand as your peers have done,
without studying it or offering evidence against it.
>
>
> > But at the same time, quite difficult, because
> > there is so much hostility from the mass majority
> > to learning new things, and accepting the
> > possibility of new ideas in our understanding of
> > science, our biology, and the world we live in.
> >
> As I understand your byline you have rejected
> science in favor of empiricism.
>
Well you're misunderstanding that as well. I have to say at this
point, you're not doing very good at understanding things, but then,
no one here is very good at that. I believe is much in science as I do
in empiricism. But where I differ from everyone else here, is that
empiricism, or practical experience, is more important to me than
theories. Why? It's in the name. Because it's "practical".
"Practical experience" is ALWAYS real. Theory? NOT always real. And in
what people believe about audio around here, often not.
As I've said many times, if you know whether something works,
that's more important than needing to know how it works.
>
> > They don't operate on Newtonian principles, we
> > know that much.
> >
> In the strictest sense nothing does. Not since
> 18th and 19th century.
Those principles are very much in evidence today, and I'm not
interested in arguing semantics if that is your intent.
>
>
> > But we have to remember that QM is a relatively
> > new science, and not much is known in this area.
> >
> "New science"...you have no idea what you are
> talking about. Quantum Mechanics was a mature
> science by the early 60's. The latest version now
> being referred to as Quantum Chromodynamics.
Early 60's?? Oh gosh, you really got me there! I had NO idea QM was
THAT ancient! Jackass. Do you know that I specifically added the word
"relatively" (as in compared to say... 18th or 19th century Newtonian
sciences) to my phrase "new science", especially for jackasses like you
that want to come along and spend all day quibbling over semantics,
simply out of a love of pointless arguing? I didn't figure that
someone would be such an argumentative jackass, that they would find a
way to leapfrog the qualifier and STILL try to find a way to pick apart
my words while completely overlooking my point.
No, no thank you Powell. I've seen enough of your hostility and
intent here that I know no productive debate will be had with you, so
I'm not interested in pursuing this "argument". Be a good troll and
bugger off, now.
Powell
April 1st 06, 05:54 PM
> wrote
>> > They don't operate on Newtonian principles, we
>> > know that much.
>> >
>> In the strictest sense nothing does. Not since
>> 18th and 19th century.
>
> Those principles are very much in evidence today,
> and I'm not interested in arguing semantics if that
> is your intent.
>
Hehehe... oh right!
>> > But we have to remember that QM is a relatively
>> > new science, and not much is known in this area.
>> >
>> "New science"...you have no idea what you are
>> talking about. Quantum Mechanics was a mature
>> science by the early 60's. The latest version now
>> being referred to as Quantum Chromodynamics.
>
> Early 60's?? Oh gosh, you really got me there! I had
> NO idea QM was THAT ancient!
>
Try 1800's, mr. Poorly Educated.
> No, no thank you Powell. I've seen enough of your
> hostility and intent here that I know no productive
> debate will be had with you, so I'm not interested
> in pursuing this "argument".
>
Smart move on your part.
Fella
April 2nd 06, 02:04 PM
Well I tried to help you, didn't I? Even Mr. Packer tried to show you,
highlighted to you what you should pay attention to. But no dice. You
are a crazed and angry chihuahua, or perhaps a correction you are *as
effective as* an angry chihuahua. A furious chihuahua. If it wasn't so
funny, it would be sad.
And stop calling looney tunes bull**** voodo magic act sillyness "tweaks".
wrote:
<snip the snippets barking chihuahua>
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.