The Richard Graham Paradox

[Robert Morein]

Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in a way possibly never seen
before. The only disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a victim of
his own beliefs, or is an extremely articulate con. It appears that r.a.o.
members feel that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents them with
the smoothness of 400 wet/dry. It does appear that the majority feel that a
con would not have gone out of his way to personally offend so many people,
even if, at best, they would be dismissive, as opposed to ****ed off.
Indeed, Abe Lincoln's famous epigram would have be rewritten especially for
Mr. Graham, to read, "You can't fool anybody anytime, nowheres, noways,
nohow." Mr. Graham's sense of humor is literally imitative. He doesn't
recognize a joke until it is explicitly explained to him, whereupon he
mechanistically rummages through his mental attic for something labeled
"appropriate response." His lack of a "theory of mind" is characteristic of
autism, sufferers of which frequently exhibit ritualistic behavior.

This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses, but,
characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
for creative self-expression. But beneath all that unfinished veneer, there
lurks a question, a very important question raised about our collective
selves, which is either a singular truth, or the greatest insult hurled by
Richard Graham in his strident diatribe against us.

Mr. Graham asserts that we are sheep, fools, a common herd; that we are not
serious audiophiles. The first reason for this appears to be that we refuse
to try them, followed by others that presumably are created by our barbarous
behavior toward him.

Now this group is an international discussion forum, open to thousands of
individuals around the globe. Yet not one person has taken Mr. Graham's
side. Could this possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?

Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered myself a serious
audiophile, and I am concerned about disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham turns
out to be right.

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered myself a serious
> audiophile, and I am concerned about disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham
> turns out to be right.

Another Morein insecurity rears its ugly head. Bob, you shouldn't be
worried about what you consider yourself but what others consider you.
Now freak out.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

Robert, I take back what I said about you having an obsession with me.
I think this is way too disturbed to simply be called "an obsession".

> Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in a way possibly never seen
> before.

.....And what's the thanks that I get for that? Ridicule. Heaps and
Heaps of endless ridicule. Ungrateful *******s, ALL OF YOU.

> The only disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a victim of
> his own beliefs,


I have one of the most satisfying degrees of sound quality that I've
experienced in 25 years of upgrading audio components, simply because
of my beliefs, and the applications of my beliefs in the forms of
so-called "tweaks" and unique audio accessories. If that makes me a
"victim" as you put it, then let me drink a toast to "victimization!".

> It appears that r.a.o. members feel that his beliefs are ridiculous

Did you take a survey on that? Because I think you're wrong. I mean,
that's not the "vibe" that I was getting. Sure there was a lot of
resistance at first, but you know, all children resist taking cough
medicine because they don't realize what's good for them. But I
think I've made a lot of headway in this dept., and that people are
really easing up on their initial tensions, and starting to see that
the world really isn't as flat as they thought it was. The evidence
is all around you, if you simply look for it. People are trying the
tweaks all the time now.... Let me see.... today's experimenters
were... Fella and Pega and there was George, to name a few.... You as
well (but of course, you're a little nervous about admitting that
now....). And dare I say it... I also picked up a few new friends along
the way (shouts to Jenn! Hiya, babe!). Don't worry, despite you going
off on me with these insane rants of yours, I think of you as my friend
too, Robert. Oh sure, you tried to sue me for mentioning the fact that
you heard the effects of the L-shape, but I don't hold that against
you. Lots of my friends try to sue me, so what?

> personally offend so many people,

"Personally offend so many people??" Woah, woah! Stop the presses!
Where the hell does this come from, all of a sudden? Are we talking
about the same soundhaspriority, or are you confusing me with my
imposter? I never offended ANYONE, you lying jackass. Are you just
pulling things out of your arse again, or did you take a freaking
survey? There isn't ONE person on this group that ever told me I
offended them, so I'm sorry, but I think your WAY off on that.

Wait.... unless you're talking about the people who were rude,
insulting, ridiculing, mocking, derisive, scornful, deceitful, or
otherwise abusive and hostile toward me? Well if you mean those people
than yah, I might have been less careful with them, and possibly
offended them in return, I suppose. But I never attacked anyone without
them attacking me first. However, your obsessive deconstruction of me
doesn't seem to mention that from the very beginning to the very
present, all RAO regulars jumped on me like as if I was a white
teenager in Compton with an iPod. Did it get lost somehow after your
first draft?


> Abe Lincoln's famous epigram would have be rewritten especially for
> Mr. Graham, to read, "You can't fool anybody anytime, nowheres, noways,
> nohow."


"...because they're already fools. Can't be more of a fool, than a
fool".


Sorry, you forgot the rest. I was just correcting you.


> Mr. Graham's sense of humor is literally imitative.


No, YOUR sense of humor is lterally imitative.


> He doesn't
> recognize a joke until it is explicitly explained to him, whereupon he
> mechanistically rummages through his mental attic for something labeled
> "appropriate response."


I think this says all we need to know about you, Mr. Morein.


> His lack of a "theory of mind" is characteristic of
> autism, sufferers of which frequently exhibit ritualistic behavior.

Could you hold that thought, for me? It's 4:30 and I gotta go. Judge
Wapner's on.


>
> This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
> Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses,

Hey, did I win?!


>but,
> characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
> for creative self-expression.

"Creative self-expression"? Is that what we're calling it when people
hurl abuse, scorn, ridicule, derision and mockery (just to name a few)
on someone who is attempting to share his audio techniques and opinions
on the group, simply because those techniques and beliefs aren't
already shared by the majority? And yet when I can not resist the
opportunity for "creative self-expression", hypocrites here complain
that I'm "a wild, uncontrollable, vitriolic ranter hurling strident
diatribes", and that I'm "personally offending" people. Hypocrisy
anyone?


> But beneath all that unfinished veneer, there
> lurks a question, a very important question raised about our collective
> selves, which is either a singular truth, or the greatest insult hurled by
> Richard Graham in his strident diatribe against us.

I'll go with "singular truth". I got a feeling for this....

> Mr. Graham asserts that we are sheep, fools, a common herd; that we are not
> serious audiophiles. The first reason for this appears to be that we refuse
> to try them, followed by others that presumably are created by our barbarous
> behavior toward him.

Actually, they're kinda intertwined together; you can't really
separate them like that. Let me see if I can enlighten you a bit....
(and here's where he lost the rest of the audience....)

The "sheep", the "mindless fools", the "common herd", follows the idea
that there is a "herd mentality" that exists in our societies. It goes
back to primitive societies, and dictates our very thoughts and
behaviours. It shows up in the similar patterns of behaviour that
people take and share with their peers. The obvious example is that
-nobody- here tried any of my tweaks. Coincidence? With so many
different people? Hardly! What we're talking about here are "learned
patterns of behaviour". It's not a coincidence that I can go on may
different newsgroups or web forums, and find people around the world
using similar idiomatic expressions and behaviours with each other
(such as the idea that if even the slightest bit of emotion is
perceived in a poster's message, regardless of the fact that one can
not know what the poster's mood is by their post, it is commonly
determined to be a "rant", or a "tirade", or a "diatribe", and other
extreme judgements).

Besides bonding people with a common mindset in this respect, learned
patterns of behaviour also include adherence to what people were taught
about how things work. ie. the limitations of colour, shapes, hearing
perception, chemicals, water, etc.... how all these elements are
"supposed to behave". Since people weren't taught that any of these
things should have anything to do with audio, and since the very idea
forces us to question MANY ideas that people hold sacred as inviable
knowledge, ... they tend not to believe that it can. The "herd
mentality" is inclined to believe that if a new idea is proposed by
someone, it should automatically be met with bitter distrust, rather
than friendly curiousity. If that person attempts to find scientific
principles for the new observation, something that is never easy with
any new science or new scientific discovery, then there is a strong
inclination for those part of the "herd mentality" to discredit the
finder and their new ideas by tossing it all in the bin called "new
age". Which has become a catch-all replacement term for the word "bunk"
(another victim of ignorant sheep). Those who believe the new ideas are
equally discredited along with the founder of the ideas, as "loonies".
If someone supplies any refutation to such new sciences or ideas, then
the herd mentalists will more than likely believe the refuter, than the
researcher of the new ideas. (See: "Skeptic's Dictionary", the James
Randi Organization).

Why? The refuter doesn't challenge the sheep. Sheep don't like to
be challenged. Most people take offense if you simply try to correct
them, particularly in public. Good example of this would be... let's
see... "Dave Weil". After "Garbage Bag Boy" claimed that "turntables
come with grounding straps (sic)", I and ScottW tried to correct him by
pointing out that no, they come with grounding "wires". And a "wire" is
not quite the same as a "strap". Well that sent Dave into a tailspin
tizzy, and he went on a mad face-saving tirade against me and Scott,
pumping out dozens of angry posts denying the wrongfulness of his
mistake, and spending hours going to great lengths to find websites
that he hoped would attempt to support the idea that he didn't make a
mistake about turntable grounding. Or at least cause enough people to
get confused or bored enough that they'd forget what the initial fuss
was about....

That's what a closed-minded "sheep" looks like. Very much afraid of
what others think, and afraid that others will think badly of them.
(Obviously, if I was afraid of what others think of me, I'd have hit
the dirt a long time ago!). The reason I said above that the
hostilities are intertwined with the herd mentality, is because when
you challenge sheep, well they can get very hostile. I challenged
people with my very first post here and guess what? My very first
reactions were quite hostile. "Barbarous behaviour" so great, that even
I was surprised by both the amount of it, and the source. So did most
every one that followed. Let's not forget, this was in reaction to me
simply wanting to share some ideas that I thought might help people
improve the sound of their audio systems. Most of the tweaks are
designed to overcome the negative effects of energy in our environment,
and so, create objects with "positive" or "benign" energy patterns. But
there is also a kind of collective energy on this group I observed.
It's entirely negative energy, in the form of the resistance to new
ideas, and has always been a part of this group. This all may be a moot
point, because I don't know that the tweaks are strong enough to
combat the negative energy found here!

Anyway, as you know, sheep tend to follow the flock. So if, for
example, people taping pieces of pinholed paper and aspirin to their
speakers was a common practice like, say, Arny or George lying to
people, then those who never tried the 5-pinhole paper device would,
I'm quite certain, have far less resistance to doing so, if they knew
that many others around them were doing this. I don't think I have to
give examples of this social phenomenon, do I? Bottom line is, the only
way that audio ever progresses in any significant ways, is through the
pioneers.

Belt, the founding father of alternative audio and author of or
inspiration to (ie. my L-shape tweak) many of the ideas I talked about,
is one of those pioneers. Pioneers blaze new trails, that's why
they're pioneers. Then on the other hand, we have the sheep...
"Sheep", my friend Bob, don't blaze new trails. Instead, they sit on
their fat, bloated asses on newsgroups all over the world, doing
nothing to improve the art and science of audio or even its community,
but nevertheless laughing and mocking the pioneers thy don't like,
who actually are trying to do something to improve the state of the art
in audio, or simply our undertstanding of it. If the follower sheep
eventually hear from the leaders of the community that this or that
pioneer in audio (or science) really is a pioneer, who really has
advanced our knowledge, then and only then might they eventually come
to accept this as true. It's a pattern that has established and
re-established itself many times throughout the history of our hobby.
Maybe this is why true pioneers in audio, are actually quite rare.
Needless to say, most audio engineers are sheep, refining what has
already been invented.


> Now this group is an international discussion forum, open to thousands of
> individuals around the globe. Yet not one person has taken Mr. Graham's
> side. Could this possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?
>
That's certainly what I have always argued here. Consider how you
look to me and my colleagues:

We're looking at a group of "alleged audiophiles", who gather
together every day on a large audio newsgroup, who's chartered
purpose is to discuss audio opinions, and hopefully, advance collective
knowledge about the topic under discussion (the original purpose of all
newsgroups on Usenet, really). Google plays a part by having a goal of
archiving collective knowledge, for posterity.

Now that's the "purpose". However, in "practice", what almost all of
you do, is vehemently and ceaselessly attack each other, and pretty
much everyone who comes along, and stays for any length of time. Am I
crazy? Am I WRONG? Okay then, name me the one person who stayed for any
length of time who was NEVER attacked. I won't hold my breath. I've
seen newbies attacked by people like Middius on their very first post.

Having established that there are more attacks going on here than
genial, productive, on topic discussions.... it's clear that people
do not come here on a regular basis simply for the intelligent
discussions on audio and the free grub. That in itself doesn't mean
that you're not "serious audiophiles", just that you're not
"serious audiophiles" on this group. You might still qualify if in your
private life, you are what I call an "active audiophile". An "active
audiophile" is someone who takes an active interest in their system
(and I don't mean just listening to it) or in audio _as well_ (by
this, I mean the former and the latter, but not simply the latter
alone). By "active interest", I mean making attempts to improve it
(such as upgrading components), but especially, making modifications
now and then to improve sound, whenever felt necessary (could be
tweaks, could include speaker positioning or room treatment).

Going by the powerful amount of resistance to tweaks on this group, and
the near complete lack of people talking about their hifi systems, much
less discussing ways to improve their systems, that tells me there
aren't many "active audiophiles" on this group.
"Serious audiophiles" are not at all resistant to tweaks, within
reason. "Within reason" meaning that if, for example, one nutball says
that placing 4 guitars in his room is a really, really cool tweak that
improves the sound, well you would be reasonable to write him off as a
nutball. If he's the only nutball you can find that will support the
idea, and has tested it and confirmed its validity. Especially
considering that even if this ridiculously stupid joke tweak idea had
any merit to it at all, it would cost you far less to buy a new audio
component, than to buy four acoustic guitars and their stands.

But if someone else comes along and insists that they are far more
advanced an audiophile than you, and that colour affects sound
perception or that shapes do, and can show that he didn't just invent
the idea 5 minutes ago, that it does have some basis in scientific
principle, and more importantly, that many others have experimented and
found the principles to be valid, then you can't call yourself a
"serious audiophile", if you dismiss that serious audiophile without
any consideration whatsoever as to the validity of the ideas.
Particularly when they're not requiring that you go out and buy 4
acoustic guitars (WITH stands), but that you may be able to -easily-
and -cheaply- demonstrate this to yourself in many ways, such as by
simply downloading a file that you can print out and apply in 30
seconds.

So are you a serious audiophile, or not? I think you're more of a
serious audiophile than most here, because you didn't outright
dismiss all the ideas right off the bat. You did at least attempt to
discuss the possibility, remote as it may be, that I may perhaps not be
a complete lunatic, and that at least there may be a possibility,
remote as it may be, that perhaps maybe there's some odd chance that
I might actually believe in my own ideas, that I spout off. Of course,
I believe you're the only one here who did consider that during a
brief moment of lucidity on your part. But your incredible resistance
to trying any new ideas that you didn't already come up with gives me
pause to think that I can't very well call you a "serious
audiophile". Can we meet halfway and agree on "semi-serious audiophile"
perhaps?

> Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered myself a serious
> audiophile, and I am concerned about disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham turns
> out to be right.

I am right. It may take 40-50 years to convince the common masses
though ;-). (Anybody know anything about laser interferometry?!) But
disenfranchisement? From? The IEEE? The group? I don't think so, if I
understand your concern correctly. I'm not sure what proper term
would apply, but I think what your concern should be, is more like
"isolation". Isolation from a more complete knowledge and understanding
of the hobby and science of audio, and in turn, of life. Blind
dismissal of advanced audio principles, if there is something to them,
also means a withdrawal and isolation from the world of enhancements
(both aural and personal) that they can bring the audiophile. There
isn't anyone here that can't live without it, and in fact, that is
exactly what everyone here has chosen to do, and will do. But when you
have become a part of this world as I have, then you don't want to
live without it. No matter how much scorn and ridicule it might bring
you to try to share your experiences with others, who are not part of
the SSAA (the "Secret Society of Advanced Audiophiles"), aka "the
knowing crowd". Speaking of knowing.... do you know who Joseph Lister
is, Robert?

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered myself a serious
> > audiophile, and I am concerned about disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham
> > turns out to be right.
>
> Another Morein insecurity rears its ugly head. Bob, you shouldn't be
> worried about what you consider yourself but what others consider you.
> Now freak out.
>
> ScottW

Ah yes... "Worried about what others consider you"... Nice sheep-like
response!

Thanks for helping to support my arguments, Scott.

[paul packer]

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:36:39 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
>Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses, but,
>characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
>for creative self-expression.

Yes, and don't you love us for it? :-)

> But beneath all that unfinished veneer, there
>lurks a question, a very important question raised about our collective
>selves, which is either a singular truth, or the greatest insult hurled by
>Richard Graham in his strident diatribe against us.

There was only one?

>Mr. Graham asserts that we are sheep, fools, a common herd; that we are not
>serious audiophiles. The first reason for this appears to be that we refuse
>to try them, followed by others that presumably are created by our barbarous
>behavior toward him.

Well, my behaviour was perfectly civilised. I even held out the olive
branch at one point. It was virtually slapped out of my hand.

>Now this group is an international discussion forum, open to thousands of
>individuals around the globe. Yet not one person has taken Mr. Graham's
>side. Could this possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?

It could mean that we're too busy listening to music to bother.

>Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered myself a serious
>audiophile, and I am concerned about disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham turns
>out to be right.

No you're not, Robert. But I love your trolls--they lead to such
interesting threads. And you're able to keep a straight face for such
a long time.

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote... a pack of lies:

> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:36:39 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
> >This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
> >Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses, but,
> >characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
> >for creative self-expression.
>
> Yes, and don't you love us for it? :-)

I see that you're proud of your abusive tirades.

>
> > But beneath all that unfinished veneer, there
> >lurks a question, a very important question raised about our collective
> >selves, which is either a singular truth, or the greatest insult hurled by
> >Richard Graham in his strident diatribe against us.
>
> There was only one?

There was nothing more than what was received by me, and far less in
fact. Since you were one of those who attacked me, you can stop your
hypocritical whining now.

>
> >Mr. Graham asserts that we are sheep, fools, a common herd; that we are not
> >serious audiophiles. The first reason for this appears to be that we refuse
> >to try them, followed by others that presumably are created by our barbarous
> >behavior toward him.
>
> Well, my behaviour was perfectly civilised.

Right! Now I see your problem. You were rude and disrespectful toward
me before I ever even started responding to your nonsense. Then you
were rude and disrespectful as soon as you started addressing me. I
responded to you anyway, in a perfectly civilized manner.

>I even held out the olive
> branch at one point. It was virtually slapped out of my hand.

False. I was the one who held out the olive branch, you turned around
the next day and became hostile for no reason, until it was clear no
further discussions were possible with you. All you did was troll, like
you're doing now. The only thing "virtual" with you is the truth.

>
> >Now this group is an international discussion forum, open to thousands of
> >individuals around the globe. Yet not one person has taken Mr. Graham's
> >side. Could this possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?
>
> It could mean that we're too busy listening to music to bother.

Right! Another brilliant declaration of virtual truth. Hundreds of
personal attacks written about me, including this one I'm responding
to, where people weren't listening to music. But whenever it was time
to write a message that purports to "take my side" (whatever that
means....) oh! We're listening to music now, we're too busy!
You're an unintentional joke, Paul. Thanks for the laughs. I posted
tweaks that take 30 seconds to apply. Judging by the amount of abusive
posts I received for putting those up, nobody here is too busy to have
tested them. George Middius wasn't "too busy listening to music" to
spend the time to create an entire website with which to mock me, Dave
Weill wasn't too busy listening to music to spend hours scouring the
web for sites that might sell a "ground strap", which he thought would
prove his claim that "all turntables come with ground straps", Walt
wasn't "too busy listening to music" to obsessively search the Google
archives to try and (falsely) "prove" how many posts I'd written,
Goofball wasn't "too busy listening to music" to try to do background
searches on me on the web, etc. etc.

With all the "music" you people listen to, how the heck do you have the
time to post character attacks on me all day and all night long, every
single day of your lives?

> >Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered myself a serious
> >audiophile, and I am concerned about disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham turns
> >out to be right.
>
> No you're not, Robert. But I love your trolls--they lead to such
> interesting threads. And you're able to keep a straight face for such
> a long time.

Which proves your motivations all along. You're a troll, you love
people who troll me, you trolled me in all of your messages, that much
was clear. You were never sincere with me for a second. However,
you've been making false statements throughout your message, and I
think you're wrong again here. I think Robert is sincere in his
obsessive threads about me.

[paul packer]

On 1 Apr 2006 05:51:42 -0800, wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote... a pack of lies:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:36:39 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
>> >Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses, but,
>> >characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
>> >for creative self-expression.
>>
>> Yes, and don't you love us for it? :-)
>
>I see that you're proud of your abusive tirades.

I see that you don't interpret things very well. My comment says
nothing about my attitude to my posts. Rather it suggests that Robert
knew all along that the thread would go the way it did. Indeed, as a
long-time RAO poster how could he not? In any case use of the term
"abusive tirades" is totally misleading. I challenge anyone to read my
posts to you and agree with that term.

>> > But beneath all that unfinished veneer, there
>> >lurks a question, a very important question raised about our collective
>> >selves, which is either a singular truth, or the greatest insult hurled by
>> >Richard Graham in his strident diatribe against us.
>>
>> There was only one?
>
>There was nothing more than what was received by me, and far less in
>fact. Since you were one of those who attacked me, you can stop your
>hypocritical whining now.

It was a throwaway line--something you don't seem to understand, as
you read everything with a totally straight face. But since we're on
the subject, very few posts critical of you got through unanswered; I
wonder that you had (have) so much time on your hands. Even my post
here, to which I didn't except any reaction, is receiving the full
treatment from you. If Robert is trying to psycho-analyse you, I
suggest he look under "Obsessions".

>> >Mr. Graham asserts that we are sheep, fools, a common herd; that we are not
>> >serious audiophiles. The first reason for this appears to be that we refuse
>> >to try them, followed by others that presumably are created by our barbarous
>> >behavior toward him.
>>
>> Well, my behaviour was perfectly civilised.
>
>Right! Now I see your problem. You were rude and disrespectful toward
>me before I ever even started responding to your nonsense.

If I was disrespectful, it was toward your nonsense, which I
interpreted as disrespectful to our intelligence.

> Then you
>were rude and disrespectful as soon as you started addressing me. I
>responded to you anyway, in a perfectly civilized manner.

Your memory obviously doesn't accord with mine.

>>I even held out the olive
>> branch at one point. It was virtually slapped out of my hand.
>
>False. I was the one who held out the olive branch, you turned around
>the next day and became hostile for no reason, until it was clear no
>further discussions were possible with you.

Those who know me know that I'm never "hostile for no reason". Better
re-think that one.

>All you did was troll, like
>you're doing now. The only thing "virtual" with you is the truth.

I've never made any secret of the fact that I visit this group to
enjoy myself. I read some of the posts and laugh out loud (something
you should try). I have a bit of fun. Occasionally I troll a little,
or like Art Sackman insert little remarks mostly for my own amusement.
So sue me.

>> >Now this group is an international discussion forum, open to thousands of
>> >individuals around the globe. Yet not one person has taken Mr. Graham's
>> >side. Could this possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?
>>
>> It could mean that we're too busy listening to music to bother.
>
>Right! Another brilliant declaration of virtual truth. Hundreds of
>personal attacks written about me, including this one I'm responding
>to, where people weren't listening to music. But whenever it was time
>to write a message that purports to "take my side" (whatever that
>means....) oh! We're listening to music now, we're too busy!
>You're an unintentional joke, Paul. Thanks for the laughs. I posted
>tweaks that take 30 seconds to apply. Judging by the amount of abusive
>posts I received for putting those up, nobody here is too busy to have
>tested them. George Middius wasn't "too busy listening to music" to
>spend the time to create an entire website with which to mock me, Dave
>Weill wasn't too busy listening to music to spend hours scouring the
>web for sites that might sell a "ground strap", which he thought would
>prove his claim that "all turntables come with ground straps", Walt
>wasn't "too busy listening to music" to obsessively search the Google
>archives to try and (falsely) "prove" how many posts I'd written,
>Goofball wasn't "too busy listening to music" to try to do background
>searches on me on the web, etc. etc.

Here again I was making a throwaway remark which you've taken
seriously and deconstructed at length. Lighten up, Mr. Sound. Getting
back to my analogy of the kids in the playground, you must know that
the too-serious kid gets ribbed and bullied the most. Your school life
must have been downright miserable, as miserable as your Usenet life
is now.

>With all the "music" you people listen to, how the heck do you have the
>time to post character attacks on me all day and all night long, every
>single day of your lives?
>
>> >Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered myself a serious
>> >audiophile, and I am concerned about disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham turns
>> >out to be right.
>>
>> No you're not, Robert. But I love your trolls--they lead to such
>> interesting threads. And you're able to keep a straight face for such
>> a long time.
>
>Which proves your motivations all along. You're a troll, you love
>people who troll me, you trolled me in all of your messages, that much
>was clear. You were never sincere with me for a second.

I was certainly sincere that I thought your tweaks were a bad joke,
and despite all your protestations to the contrary, I still can't
bring myself to believe you're not in some subtle way, in the back of
your mind, pulling our legs. I mean, come on, you're an intelligent
man. But even if you're sincere about your tweaks, you had to have
predicted the reaction you got, and therefore all your screeching
about our lack of intelligence and imagination has to be a troll.
Either that, or you're not an intelligent man. Which is it?

>However,
>you've been making false statements throughout your message, and I
>think you're wrong again here. I think Robert is sincere in his
>obsessive threads about me.

Sincere in what way? Robert is a person of great curiousity, and I
think initially he wanted to sound you out. But given the hysterical
nature of your reactions to perfectly reasonable criticism, I'd say
he's come to the conclusion you're a bit of a humourless joke--at
least if I read his latest posts aright.

But here's the rub. If at any time you'd adopted a conciliatory tone,
I'd have paused to consider more seriously what you had to say. I
would probably still have rejected it, but I would have paused. So I
believe would most posters here. But you were on the attack from the
moment you detected a hostile tone and never made the slightest effort
to mollify the hostility. By the time I joined in, I was certain you
were enjoying the parry and thrust. I still think you are, or you
wouldn't have replied to my innocent post in this thread. In short,
you're a naughty boy, Mr. Sound, and whoever's looking after you is
not doing a very good job. I hope he returns soon and has you tied to
your bed, as you deserve for playing with his computer while he was
away.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message


> Well, my behaviour was perfectly civilised. I even held
> out the olive branch at one point. It was virtually
> slapped out of my hand.

Note that I had nothing to do with any of the above. I ever held out a few
olive branches of my own. Mine were ignored.

>> Now this group is an international discussion forum,
>> open to thousands of individuals around the globe. Yet
>> not one person has taken Mr. Graham's side. Could this
>> possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?

> It could mean that we're too busy listening to music to
> bother.

I might even mean that a few of us have enough brain cells to rub together
to make a coherent thought. At least once.

>> Naturally, I'm very concerned. I have always considered
>> myself a serious audiophile, and I am concerned about
>> disenfranchisement, if Mr. Graham turns out to be right.

Obviously, someone is clueless about the meaning of the meaning and
application of the phrase "field independent".

> No you're not, Robert. But I love your trolls--they lead
> to such interesting threads.

Interesting only to those who are mentally small children and given over to
childish and futile thinking.

> And you're able to keep a straight face for such a long time.

You couldn't see the devlish smirk, as it was?

See previous response, three lines up.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger keeps the lies steaming ahead:

> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>
>
> > Well, my behaviour was perfectly civilised. I even held
> > out the olive branch at one point. It was virtually
> > slapped out of my hand.
>
> Note that I had nothing to do with any of the above. I ever held out a few
> olive branches of my own. Mine were ignored.

That's because they didn't exist, liar. You were hostile toward me
from the very beginning, you never let up. You even criticized Jenn for
not being hostile _enough_, toward me. Why? Simply because you
disagreed with my opinions, which you knew nothing about.

> >> Now this group is an international discussion forum,
> >> open to thousands of individuals around the globe. Yet
> >> not one person has taken Mr. Graham's side. Could this
> >> possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?
>
> > It could mean that we're too busy listening to music to
> > bother.
>
> I might even mean that a few of us have enough brain cells to rub together
> to make a coherent thought. At least once.

Not you, surely. Haven't seen any intelligent signs of life from you;
ever. Were you able to rub brain cells together to form a coherent
thought, you'd have shared your thoughts on precisely why you believe
the basis for my tweaks is not valid. You never did that, because you
don't even understand the basis to begin with. You never tried any of
the tweaks, so you don't even know whether they might work or not.
And yet... that doesn't stop you from stupidly dismissing everything
without even showing have the ability to put two brain cells together.
You're nothing but a dogmatic polemicist, Kreuger. You never show any
evidence for any criticism you ever make toward someone, but yet you
constantly demand evidence for theirs.

> > No you're not, Robert. But I love your trolls--they lead
> > to such interesting threads.
>
> Interesting only to those who are mentally small children and given over to
> childish and futile thinking.

That would explain why YOU are responding to it. I've never seen a
better example to describe you than that of "mentally small children
given over to childish and futile thinking".

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Arny Krueger keeps the lies steaming ahead:
>
>> "paul packer" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> Well, my behaviour was perfectly civilised. I even held
>>> out the olive branch at one point. It was virtually
>>> slapped out of my hand.
>>
>> Note that I had nothing to do with any of the above. I
>> ever held out a few olive branches of my own. Mine were
>> ignored.

> That's because they didn't exist, liar.

Oh, stop sounding like me!

> You were hostile
> toward me from the very beginning, you never let up.

Actually, I've been wayyyy too busy in the real world of audio to waste much
time on you.

> You
> even criticized Jenn for not being hostile _enough_,
> toward me.

Huh?

> Why? Simply because you disagreed with my
> opinions, which you knew nothing about.

Wrong and wrong. I never took you seriously. I characterized you as being a
fanciful story teller.

>>>> Now this group is an international discussion forum,
>>>> open to thousands of individuals around the globe. Yet
>>>> not one person has taken Mr. Graham's side. Could this
>>>> possibly mean that we are not serious audiophiles?

>>> It could mean that we're too busy listening to music to
>>> bother.

>> I might even mean that a few of us have enough brain
>> cells to rub together to make a coherent thought. At
>> least once.

> Not you, surely.

Whine, whine, whine. ;-)

> Haven't seen any intelligent signs of
> life from you; ever.

Perhaps my comments shot over your little numb skull?

> Were you able to rub brain cells
> together to form a coherent thought, you'd have shared
> your thoughts on precisely why you believe the basis for
> my tweaks is not valid.

You just contradicted yourself. You previouisly said:

"You were hostile toward me from the very beginning, you never let up."

The fact of the matter is that I told people that you were a funny guy, and
not get so upset.

Compare the count of my replies to you, to say those from Middius. Well, if
you can count accurately. Unlike Middius, I never even bothered to make up a
cutsey insulting nickname for you.

> You never did that, because you
> don't even understand the basis to begin with.

Delusions of mind reading noted.

>You never
> tried any of the tweaks, so you don't even know whether
> they might work or not.

One need not try your tweaks to understand them. If they ever work, the
basis for their operation is quite easy to determine.

> And yet... that doesn't stop you from stupidly dismissing
> everything without even showing have the ability to put
> two brain cells together.

I didn't dismiss it, I just evuated its merits and acted accordingly.

>You're nothing but a dogmatic
> polemicist, Kreuger. You never show any evidence for any
> criticism you ever make toward someone, but yet you
> constantly demand evidence for theirs.

Wrong again. I've provided more evidence on RAO than any living person.

>>> No you're not, Robert. But I love your trolls--they lead
>>> to such interesting threads.

>> Interesting only to those who are mentally small
>> children and given over to childish and futile thinking.

> That would explain why YOU are responding to it.

I wasn't responding to your trolls, I was responding to a post by a certain
Paul Packer. Are you him?

> I've never seen a better example to describe you than that of
> "mentally small children given over to childish and
> futile thinking".

Since when did I get to be plural?

Please post again when you learn the difference between singulars and
plurals. ;-)

[Powell]

"Robert Morein" wrote

> Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
> a way possibly never seen before. The only
> disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
> victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
> articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
> that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
> them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
>
Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
or practical experience behind his posts? We are to
just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
can't be verbalized. The abusive nature and language
of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
desperately seeking validation.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Robert Morein" wrote
>
>> Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
>> a way possibly never seen before. The only
>> disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
>> victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
>> articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
>> that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
>> them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
>>
> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
> or practical experience behind his posts? We are to
> just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
> high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
> can't be verbalized. The abusive nature and language
> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
> desperately seeking validation.

Kinda - but not desperate, just having a little mean fun at the expense of
those he trolls.

[George M. Middius]

Powell said of Shovels:

> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
> or practical experience behind his posts? We are to
> just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
> high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
> can't be verbalized. The abusive nature and language
> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
> desperately seeking validation.

Does that mean you're going to organize a prayer meeting just for him?





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

[Robert Morein]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" wrote
>
>> Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
>> a way possibly never seen before. The only
>> disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
>> victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
>> articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
>> that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
>> them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
>>
> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
> or practical experience behind his posts?

I see that there is some kind of a belief system, but no scientific
methodology. He frequently refers to "science", as in the recent statement
"It's based on newly developed sciences, but it takes much more time to
explain the foundation of the technique than it does to simply try it...",
but when challenged to produce the explanation, he replies that the
questioner doesn't have the requisite background, and when the questioner
asserts that he has, he still refuses to produce the explanation. This is
strikingly reminiscent of the "perpetual motion" and "free energy" scams
that haunt those newsgroups focusing on power, energy, and physics, or the
"Tice Clock" scam.

The belief system is there; he has no doubt that he is right, a behavioral
patten studied by Eric Hoffer in his classic tome, "The True Believer".
Fascism, Communism, Capitalism, various malignant religions, and now, Audio
Tweakism, seem to be outlets for personalities that need to latch onto a
belief at the expense of rationalism. The reason we are so hostile to
Richard Graham is that at heart, being reared on Western Thought, we
consider ourselves Rationalists. Consciously or unconsciously, we use
Occam's Razor to prune away unnecessary complexity. Occam's Razor says that
the simplest explanation for a phenomena is most likely to be true. In this
case, we have a choice between two lines of thought: Richard Graham's belief
that there is a whole new science, not responsible for a single useful
gadget, that somehow justifies smearing up one's eyeglasses, or that he is a
fraud, a mountebank, a charlatan, or a self-deluded individual.

Before the "cream" came along, I was prepared to cut Mr. Graham some slack.
This is because I am not quite sure there is an objective reality that is
identical for all observers. The notion that there may not be is not
addressed by modern physics in any meaningful way. So far, no benefit to
mankind, in terms of improved technology, has come about by questioning the
concept of an objective reality. If there were, it would be unlikely that
the first occurence of such would be a smeary cream for eyeglasses. His
claim that he has no financial interest in the cream is dubious to me,
considering that he is the sole author of a lengthy newsletter on behalf of
PWB Enterprises, which he might like us to believe he does gratis. Where
there is smoke, there is fire, and there's a helluva lot of smoke coming
from that direction. This leads me to suspect that the "free tweaks" are the
carnival barker's trick, intended to attract the gullible to the for-profit
attraction. But Mr. Graham may be completely unaware of his own intentions.
The best frauds fool even themselves.

It appears Mr. Graham actually studied us at length before he began his
foray. He watched silently, dividing us into subjectivist and objectivist
camps. In private correspondence, he expressed surprise that even the
subjectivists had rejected his offerings. Due to Graham's weakness in the so
called "theory of mind" department, which is what enables us to empathize
and understand how other human beings will react, he missed the defining
characteristic of the r.a.o. regulars: we are free thinkers, extreme
skeptics, and extremely argumentative. In other words, we lack the
personality characteristics that would make us vulnerable to Mr. Graham's
religious proselytizing.

As far as Mr. Graham's not-for-profit tweaks, such as the funny shapes, the
cutting the corners off clothing labels, these are neurotic indulgences. But
who is to say that neurotic indulgences can't work? Enjoyment of music is a
state of consciouness. The nature of consciousness is metaphysical.
Consciousness is modified by expectation. Therefore, if one expects that
these neurotic activities will work, it is possible that they will, in a
very real way not contradicted by their neurotic underpinnings.

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.

That might be part of it.






--
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:
>
>> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
>> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
>
> That might be part of it.
>
Interested in reading the rest of your thoughts.

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
>> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
>
> That might be part of it.

So what's the rest of your delusion?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Robert Morein said:
>>
>>> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
>>> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
>>
>> That might be part of it.
>>
> Interested in reading the rest of your thoughts.

Yes.. please get this rationality train moving.
Psycho-analytical nirvanna is just around the bend, Bob.
You can get there.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> >> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
> >> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.

> > That might be part of it.

> Interested in reading the rest of your thoughts.

You posited "The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham..." I think
you actually meant hostile to Shovels' so-called "tweaks". The hostility
toward the persona surely originates primarily elsewhere.





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

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barked:

> >> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
> >> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.

> > That might be part of it.

> So what's the rest of your delusion?

Wow. Shhhh has you so addled that your nonsequiturs are even more obscure
than usual. You really need to go for that flea dip, even if it means
skipping your nap and the BJ from Stynchblob.






--
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:
>
>> >> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
>> >> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
>
>> > That might be part of it.
>
>> Interested in reading the rest of your thoughts.
>
> You posited "The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham..." I think
> you actually meant hostile to Shovels' so-called "tweaks". The hostility
> toward the persona surely originates primarily elsewhere.
>
You're right, though some individuals may not separate the two.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:hKAXf.4597$C85.2936@dukeread10...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert Morein said:
>>>
>>>> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
>>>> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
>>>
>>> That might be part of it.
>>>
>> Interested in reading the rest of your thoughts.
>
> Yes.. please get this rationality train moving.
> Psycho-analytical nirvanna is just around the bend, Bob.
> You can get there.
>
Scotty, you're lucky we don't do Yorkshires.

[Walt]

Powell wrote:
> "Robert Morein" wrote
>
>>Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
>>a way possibly never seen before. The only
>>disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
>>victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
>>articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
>>that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
>>them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
>>
>
> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
> or practical experience behind his posts?

Certainly no scientific methodology or practical experience. But
definitely a belief system: Peter W Belt.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=xx-bork&q=%22peter++Belt%22

Not that he believes the stuff himself; he's a troll and an uncreative
one at that. A better troll would make up his own crap instead of
just stealing it.


> The abusive nature and language
> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
> desperately seeking validation.

Ya think?


--
// Walt
//
// There is no Volkl Conspiracy

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:hKAXf.4597$C85.2936@dukeread10...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Robert Morein said:
>>>>
>>>>> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
>>>>> being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
>>>>
>>>> That might be part of it.
>>>>
>>> Interested in reading the rest of your thoughts.
>>
>> Yes.. please get this rationality train moving.
>> Psycho-analytical nirvanna is just around the bend, Bob.
>> You can get there.
>>
> Scotty, you're lucky we don't do Yorkshires.

I'm lucky "we" is a figment of your insecure survival instinct.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> Robert Morein wrote:

> > Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in a way possibly never seen
> > before.

Just call me the "Boutros Boutros Ghali" of RAO.

> The question as to why a con would offend so many has one possible
> answer. Incarceration. What better way for an individual with limited
> freedom to spend their spare time than antagonizing those on the
> other side of the wall.

How DID you figure it out, you brilliant sheep you?! You've always
impressed me with your skills of deductive logic, Westface. So I
shouldn't be suprised. You of course, must realize they have
computers in my prison cell. And a stereo system, of course. And a
video system, and a fridge, and a stove, and a bathtub, and I can go
out to the restaurant on a weeknight, but I'm not free to choose any
establishment I please. I am, after all, an incarcerated con.

Thank you for upping the level of stupidity in this thread, and on this
group. You've held up a new standard for the other mindless swine to
reach.

> The way he attacks anyone that does not believe the singular truth
> that he is the most intuitive mind to come into the realm of audio
> since the observation of gravity.

If only it were true. I never claimed to be "the intuitive mind to come
into the realm of audio since the observation of gravity" or anything
like that - if that were true, you'd be able to prove it, and
you've never been able to prove anything you've ever said about me.
Furthermore, I've never attacked anyone here, only occasionally
defended myself against the many attacks I've received. But why are
you whining about this, since you're personally responsible for many
of those attacks against me? You even made vague threats to me at one
point in our debate!

> Don't concern yourself with whether you have franchise or not.
> I'll win the British Internet Lottery before the likelyhood that "Mr.
> Graham"
> and his lengthy posts are right.

So now that you've won the British Internet Lottery, are you going to
share with your virtual friends here?

> I'm a black sheep, and proud of it.
>
> Member of YACA Local 1010011010

Let me guess... Young Assholes Club Of America?

Why am I not surprised?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Robert Morein wrote:
>
> > > Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in a way possibly never seen
> > > before.
>
> Just call me the "Boutros Boutros Ghali" of RAO.
>
> > The question as to why a con would offend so many has one possible
> > answer. Incarceration. What better way for an individual with limited
> > freedom to spend their spare time than antagonizing those on the
> > other side of the wall.
>
> How DID you figure it out, you brilliant sheep you?! You've always
> impressed me with your skills of deductive logic, Westface. So I
> shouldn't be suprised. You of course, must realize they have
> computers in my prison cell. And a stereo system, of course. And a
> video system, and a fridge, and a stove, and a bathtub, and I can go
> out to the restaurant on a weeknight, but I'm not free to choose any
> establishment I please. I am, after all, an incarcerated con.
>
> Thank you for upping the level of stupidity in this thread, and on this
> group. You've held up a new standard for the other mindless swine to
> reach.
>
> > The way he attacks anyone that does not believe the singular truth
> > that he is the most intuitive mind to come into the realm of audio
> > since the observation of gravity.
>
> If only it were true. I never claimed to be "the intuitive mind to come
> into the realm of audio since the observation of gravity" or anything
> like that - if that were true, you'd be able to prove it, and
> you've never been able to prove anything you've ever said about me.
> Furthermore, I've never attacked anyone here, only occasionally
> defended myself against the many attacks I've received. But why are
> you whining about this, since you're personally responsible for many
> of those attacks against me? You even made vague threats to me at one
> point in our debate!
>
> > Don't concern yourself with whether you have franchise or not.
> > I'll win the British Internet Lottery before the likelyhood that "Mr.
> > Graham"
> > and his lengthy posts are right.
>
> So now that you've won the British Internet Lottery, are you going to
> share with your virtual friends here?
>
> > I'm a black sheep, and proud of it.
> >
> > Member of YACA Local 1010011010
>
> Let me guess... Young Assholes Club Of America?
>
> Why am I not surprised?

You claim to be so well read, yet you obviously missed a couple
of posts that defined what it means to be a YACA.
Your impulse to turn it into an insult would appear to confirm
that tourets-like reflexive behavior.
The proof of what I've said can easily be determined by reading your
own posts.

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2006 05:51:42 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >paul packer wrote... a pack of lies:
> >
> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:36:39 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
> >> >Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses, but,
> >> >characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
> >> >for creative self-expression.
> >>
> >> Yes, and don't you love us for it? :-)
> >
> >I see that you're proud of your abusive tirades.
>
> I see that you don't interpret things very well. My comment says
> nothing about my attitude to my posts. Rather it suggests that Robert
> knew all along that the thread would go the way it did.

I see that _you_ don't interpret things very well. Obviously, too
subtle for you. Robert's reference to "creative self expression" was
a euphemism for "personal attacks". By confirming what he said, you
were confirming your personal attacks on me. Besides which, Google can
confirm your personal attacks on me, so what exactly are you trying to
cluck about here?

> It was a throwaway line--something you don't seem to understand

No, I do. Since I recognize your entire posts as "throwaway posts". But
if you don't mean to be taken seriously in what you say, don't say
it.

> you read everything with a totally straight face. But since we're on
> the subject, very few posts critical of you got through unanswered

Total fabrication. I've ignored literally hundreds of posts critical
of me. You're not a very perceptive person, so it only seems
otherwise to you, because there are that many posts critical of me.

> treatment from you. If Robert is trying to psycho-analyse you, I
> suggest he look under "Obsessions".

Is that where we will find the reasoning for which you joined
Robert's thread, to obsessively discuss me, as if you have absolutely
nothing better to do with your life? Which you obviously don't.

> If I was disrespectful, it was toward your nonsense, which I
> interpreted as disrespectful to our intelligence.

What intelligence? I've not seen any signs of intelligence here? You
mean the "intelligence" of knowing whether a phenomena is valid without
having ever experimented with it? You mean THAT intelligence? Don't
make me laugh, Packer. Your disrespect toward my "nonsense" as you call
it, WAS disrespectful toward my intelligence. That makes you a
hypocrite, and an unintelligent one at that.

> > Then you
> >were rude and disrespectful as soon as you started addressing me. I
> >responded to you anyway, in a perfectly civilized manner.
>
> Your memory obviously doesn't accord with mine.

That's only because I don't try to run away in the opposite
direction from the truth, as far as possible, and spend all the live
long days spouting off incessant LIES about people, audio, and
everything else under the sun. Maybe this recent quote still obsessing
about me and attacking my character to Dave Weil, someone who was also
not shy about unprovoked attacks against me, might jog your lying
memory, liar. This is your entire post to him, on top of that:

"No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am grateful to live

in this internet age where an uneducated dolt like me, the dullest tack

in the box, has the opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as
Sound) into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or rather,
calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages intellectual elite like
him would never have deigned glance at the likes of me, so would never
discover how the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game."


> >False. I was the one who held out the olive branch, you turned around
> >the next day and became hostile for no reason, until it was clear no
> >further discussions were possible with you.
>
> Those who know me know that I'm never "hostile for no reason". Better
> re-think that one.

I did. This is what I came up with:

"No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am grateful to live

in this internet age where an uneducated dolt like me, the dullest tack

in the box, has the opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as
Sound) into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or rather,
calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages intellectual elite like
him would never have deigned glance at the likes of me, so would never
discover how the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game."


> >All you did was troll, like
> >you're doing now. The only thing "virtual" with you is the truth.
>
> I've never made any secret of the fact that I visit this group to
> enjoy myself. I read some of the posts and laugh out loud (something
> you should try). I have a bit of fun. Occasionally I troll a little,
> or like Art Sackman insert little remarks mostly for my own amusement.
> So sue me.

Do I look like Robert Morein to you? Anyway, you just admitted you can
be an abusive troll, I just proved how you can be, I think I've proven
my point about you, thank you.

> you must know that
> the too-serious kid gets ribbed and bullied the most. Your school life
> must have been downright miserable, as miserable as your Usenet life
> is now.

My Usenet life? I didn't know there WAS such a thing. If one could
measure just how far away from reality and truth you are, you'd be
surprised. AFAIC, you just look like an idiot, making groundless claims
about my childhood, when you can't possibly have any idea whether
there's truth to your claims or not. Thank you for proving that you
have no grounds for any of your claims about me.

>Which proves your motivations all along. You're a troll, you love
> >people who troll me, you trolled me in all of your messages, that much
> >was clear. You were never sincere with me for a second.
>
> I was certainly sincere that I thought your tweaks were a bad joke,
> and despite all your protestations to the contrary, I still can't
> bring myself to believe you're not in some subtle way, in the back of
> your mind, pulling our legs.

"In the back of my mind"?? You think that in some subtle way in the
back of my mind, I think that my tweaks are a "bad joke"? I know it
isn't obvious to you, because you're an imbecile. But wouldn't it be
obvious to me, whether my tweaks were sincere or a "bad joke"?

Maybe what you're trying to say, really applies to YOU. Maybe, in some
"subtle way, in the back of your mind", you know that my tweaks are all
valid, and sound. Otherwise, why would you have wasted all your
precious time, debating me on them?


> I mean, come on, you're an intelligent
> man. But even if you're sincere about your tweaks, you had to have
> predicted the reaction you got, and therefore all your screeching
> about our lack of intelligence and imagination has to be a troll.

If by "troll" you mean "insincere", then no, it doesn't have to be a
"troll". For even if I predicted the reaction I got, and I'm not
claiming I did, I may still be quite sincere in "all my screeching
about your collective lack of intelligence and imagination". That still
makes me an intelligent man and you not. Because I'm more in control of
the situation than you are. And you've still never tried the tweaks
that you so casually dismissed, let me remind you. You've still never
proven a single thing about me with any kind of evidence. Yet I've
managed to easily disprove your claim that you were "open minded".
Obviously, that too was a "troll" of yours.

> >However,
> >you've been making false statements throughout your message, and I
> >think you're wrong again here. I think Robert is sincere in his
> >obsessive threads about me.
>
> Sincere in what way? Robert is a person of great curiousity, and I
> think initially he wanted to sound you out. But given the hysterical
> nature of your reactions to perfectly reasonable criticism, I'd say
> he's come to the conclusion you're a bit of a humourless joke--at
> least if I read his latest posts aright.

First of all, there's nothing "reasonable" about sweeping dismissals.
It's what UNreasonable people do. Second of all, about any "hysterical
nature of my reactions", I see that you don't interpret things very
well. Thirdly, about your interpretations.... arrogant, small-minded
bigot that you are, you constantly think your silly "interpretations"
of people are the God's truth, carved in holy rock. Same problem all
your colleagues here have. You presented yourself as different from
them, yet you've proven you are absolutely NO different; you are, in
effect, what we call "mindless sheep". You are in no greater posession
of what is true, than you are an objective person, open minded person.
Tell me some more about the details of how my childhood evolved, why
don't you. You make a very convincing case for being an all-knowing
God, don't you.

Robert, this I know to be true, is FAR more intelligent and open minded
than you. That's why the curiousity. Stupider people have bashed him
for it, but I commend him for opening these threads about me if only
for the fact that he's at least attempting to have a semi-intelligent,
serious debate on this group (although it has little to do with
audio...). Which is bloody well rare. Even though the grossly
speculative responses, such as from people like you, and even him, are
*extremely* dumb to me (who is, after all, the only one here who can
judge whether your responses are valid or risible).

>
> But here's the rub. If at any time you'd adopted a conciliatory tone,
> I'd have paused to consider more seriously what you had to say. I
> would probably still have rejected it, but I would have paused.

You DID pause, idiot. That's how we started a debate a few days ago,
remember? Then, after I responded to you in all seriousness, you never
replied back. I don't know what makes you think I care whether you take
me seriously or not, other than what I just said about you being an
idiot. My well being isn't tied to what ignorant bigots think of me,
believe it or not. And I know very well you would have rejected any
evidence I brought to the table, to support my arguments. I've seen
much smarter people than you here do just that. But then, that's why I
call you people "bigots". Get it?

>. But you were on the attack from the
> moment you detected a hostile tone and never made the slightest effort
> to mollify the hostility.

No, I believe I did make the "slightest effort" with you. You're
exagerrating again. Given your clod-like attitude, I was very patient
in explaining some of the ideas to you. I was no more hostile towards
you than you were towards me. You even just finished admitting your
approach was merely to troll me, so why whine about it now? Are you
trying to impress your mother or something?


By the time I joined in, I was certain you
> were enjoying the parry and thrust. I still think you are, or you
> wouldn't have replied to my innocent post in this thread.

Your post was hardly "innocent", Packer. It was full of lies about me.
If I wrote to someone about you being a theif and drag queen, I'm sure
you would not have the attitude that it is an "innocent" post, and not
worthy of a response. I'm sure your posts in this thread are like your
posts outside of it: just attempts to troll me. You certainly have
enough time on your hands to do so, judging by the pages and pages of a
response here. But when you think about it... who's trolling whom?

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com
> > Arny Krueger keeps the lies steaming ahead:

> >> Note that I had nothing to do with any of the above. I
> >> ever held out a few olive branches of my own. Mine were
> >> ignored.
>
> > That's because they didn't exist, liar.
>
> Oh, stop sounding like me!


Prove it.

>
> > You were hostile
> > toward me from the very beginning, you never let up.
>
> Actually, I've been wayyyy too busy in the real world of audio to waste much
> time on you.

Got a big order on some PC sound cards, did ya?

> > You
> > even criticized Jenn for not being hostile _enough_,
> > toward me.
>
> Huh?

Denial, noted.


> > Why? Simply because you disagreed with my
> > opinions, which you knew nothing about.
>
> Wrong and wrong. I never took you seriously. I characterized you as being a
> fanciful story teller.

And the incontrovertible proof of that claim is....?

You've in fact, just proven what I said above.

> > Haven't seen any intelligent signs of
> > life from you; ever.
>
> Perhaps my comments shot over your little numb skull?

Perhaps. Could you please then show me exactly where you proved your
claim that my tweaks are invalid? Maybe you are the only person on the
group that was smart enough to do so... but I missed the post that day.


>
> > Were you able to rub brain cells
> > together to form a coherent thought, you'd have shared
> > your thoughts on precisely why you believe the basis for
> > my tweaks is not valid.
>
> You just contradicted yourself. You previouisly said:
>
> "You were hostile toward me from the very beginning, you never let up."
>
> The fact of the matter is that I told people that you were a funny guy, and
> not get so upset.

No, that's NOT a contradiction. That's part of you being hostile toward
me. You are lying about me, mischaracterizing me to others. That's a
form of hostilities. I am NOT a "funny guy", I'm a very serious and
sincere guy, and in fact, I can show you many posts in this thread
alone, which prove that.

> Compare the count of my replies to you, to say those from Middius. Well, if
> you can count accurately. Unlike Middius, I never even bothered to make up a
> cutsey insulting nickname for you.

Yeah, so? All that proves is that you're not as emotionally retarded as
Middius. At what point did I say you did? You constantly dismissed my
tweaks without trying them or refuting them, and you even asked others
to do so. That's hostility right there, not counting all the other
hostile things you said about me to others. And no, I'm not saying you
trolled me as much as Middius. Even YOU have more of a life than he
does, apparently.

>
> > You never did that, because you
> > don't even understand the basis to begin with.
>
> Delusions of mind reading noted.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I read your mind? Please, don't let me put words in
your mouth as you constantly do with me and others. If you understand
the QM principles the tweaks are based on, then please ATTEMPT TO
REFUTE IT ALREADY!

Didn't think so, Arny the Sheep.


> >You never
> > tried any of the tweaks, so you don't even know whether
> > they might work or not.
>
> One need not try your tweaks to understand them. If they ever work, the
> basis for their operation is quite easy to determine.

Maybe you didn't hear me so good the first, second, third and twelfth
time: If you understand the QM principles the tweaks are based on, then
please ATTEMPT TO REFUTE IT ALREADY!

Otherwise, admit you're wrong about my tweaks.

>
> > And yet... that doesn't stop you from stupidly dismissing
> > everything without even showing have the ability to put
> > two brain cells together.
>
> I didn't dismiss it, I just evuated its merits and acted accordingly.


Maybe you didn't hear me so good the first, second, third and 13th
time: If you understand the QM principles the tweaks are based on, then
please ATTEMPT TO REFUTE IT ALREADY!




>
> >You're nothing but a dogmatic
> > polemicist, Kreuger. You never show any evidence for any
> > criticism you ever make toward someone, but yet you
> > constantly demand evidence for theirs.
>
> Wrong again. I've provided more evidence on RAO than any living person.


Maybe you didn't hear me so good the first, second, third and 14th
time: If you understand the QM principles the tweaks are based on, then
please ATTEMPT TO REFUTE IT ALREADY!




>
> >>> No you're not, Robert. But I love your trolls--they lead
> >>> to such interesting threads.
>
> >> Interesting only to those who are mentally small
> >> children and given over to childish and futile thinking.
>
> > That would explain why YOU are responding to it.
>
> I wasn't responding to your trolls, I was responding to a post by a certain
> Paul Packer. Are you him?

No idiot. I know your reputation for reading comprehension is pretty
wicked, so let me dumb it down for you: I was referring to YOUR comment
to PAUL about how Robert's thread is only "interesting only to those
who are mentally small
children and given over to childish and futile thinking.". You were
responding to the thread. Get it?

> > I've never seen a better example to describe you than that of
> > "mentally small children given over to childish and
> > futile thinking".
>
> Since when did I get to be plural?

Apparently, if the rumours are true, you're fat enough to be so.


> Please post again when you learn the difference between singulars and
> plurals. ;-)

That's okay, I don't mind you giving people this "wriggle room"
statement, so you can cowardly avoid messing with the likes of me
again. You're not of any significant interest to me either. So post
when you learn what a dogmatic polemicist is.

[[email protected]]

Powell hypocritically wrote:

> "Robert Morein" wrote
>
> > Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
> > a way possibly never seen before. The only
> > disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
> > victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
> > articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
> > that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
> > them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
> >
> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
> or practical experience behind his posts?

I do. I've touched upon all those things in my posts here. Do you
realize what you just said makes you even more ignorant than the
average RAO member? Do you realize how ignorant that is?

> We are to
> just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
> high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
> can't be verbalized.

I'd say that there are several hundreds of posts "verbalizing" them.
Do you realize what you just said makes you even more ignorant than
what you just said before? Do you realize how ignorant that is?


> The abusive nature and language
> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
> desperately seeking validation.

Do you realize that what you just said means that the abusive nature
and language of the posts written to and about me from almost the
entire newsgroup makes just about everyone here an "unhappy person"?
Including you? Do you realize that you obsessively discussing me in
this obessive thread, means you are desperately seeking validation for
my legitimate fact-based criticisms of you and your mates?

[[email protected]]

, proud of his mindless sheep status, wrote:

> wrote:
> > wrote:
> >

> > > I'm a black sheep, and proud of it.

You're not a "black sheep", Westplace. That would imply rebel status. I
could be considered a "black sheep". No, you're status quo, status.
VERY much so. So you're just a "sheep", I'm afraid. Mindless sheep,
actually. Wait a sec... how many tweaks did you try again? And why
didn't you try them? Okay, just checking. Yeah, that's correct.
"Mindless sheep".


> > >
> > > Member of YACA Local 1010011010
> >
> > Let me guess... Young Assholes Club Of America?
> >
> > Why am I not surprised?
>
> You claim to be so well read,

First, prove that I claimed to be "well read". LIAR. Secondly, "well
read" does NOT refer to "how many usenet posts you read", you
glue-eating pasty-faced retard. That's only a standard of "well read"
according to your level of culture and education. Being that you are
well known to be an internet stalker and troll, I'm not surprised it is
your standard. BTW, you're not even a very good troll at that. I'm a
thousand times better than you, and I'm not even trying. That's why I
got bored with you and your silly virtual threats so quickly, and left
you shooting your mouth off at me to an empty auditorium. BTW, I'm
quite proud of the fact that I am not familiar with "every single post
on this newsgroup" thank you very much.

> yet you obviously missed a couple
> of posts that defined what it means to be a YACA.

Sorry. Is it "Young Asinine Cretins of America"?

> The proof of what I've said can easily be determined by reading your
> own posts.

The proof what I said about you actually trying to menace me with your
guns when things went sour for you during one of your failed debates
can easily be determined by reading your own posts.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> , proud of his mindless sheep status, wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > >
>
> > > > I'm a black sheep, and proud of it.
>
> You're not a "black sheep", Westplace. That would imply rebel status. I
> could be considered a "black sheep". No, you're status quo, status.
> VERY much so. So you're just a "sheep", I'm afraid. Mindless sheep,
> actually. Wait a sec... how many tweaks did you try again? And why
> didn't you try them? Okay, just checking. Yeah, that's correct.
> "Mindless sheep".
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Member of YACA Local 1010011010
> > >
> > > Let me guess... Young Assholes Club Of America?
> > >
> > > Why am I not surprised?
> >
> > You claim to be so well read,
>
> First, prove that I claimed to be "well read". LIAR. Secondly, "well
> read" does NOT refer to "how many usenet posts you read", you
> glue-eating pasty-faced retard. That's only a standard of "well read"
> according to your level of culture and education. Being that you are
> well known to be an internet stalker and troll, I'm not surprised it is
> your standard. BTW, you're not even a very good troll at that. I'm a
> thousand times better than you, and I'm not even trying. That's why I
> got bored with you and your silly virtual threats so quickly, and left
> you shooting your mouth off at me to an empty auditorium. BTW, I'm
> quite proud of the fact that I am not familiar with "every single post
> on this newsgroup" thank you very much.
>
> > yet you obviously missed a couple
> > of posts that defined what it means to be a YACA.
>
> Sorry. Is it "Young Asinine Cretins of America"?
>
> > The proof of what I've said can easily be determined by reading your
> > own posts.
>
> The proof what I said about you actually trying to menace me with your
> guns when things went sour for you during one of your failed debates
> can easily be determined by reading your own posts.

Just more of that tourets-like reflexive behavior of yours.

Local 1010011010
Wow, a degreed mathematician that can't read binary.
Proof of your reading abilities
and inability to get a pun without explanation.

I have noticed that your the only one that has
the opinion that I've been wrong so far.


Free second pun clue:
Black sheep was an ethnic pun :-)

[paul packer]

On 1 Apr 2006 14:47:39 -0800, wrote:
>paul packer wrote:
>
>> On 1 Apr 2006 05:51:42 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >paul packer wrote... a pack of lies:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:36:39 -0500, "Robert Morein"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
>> >> >Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses, but,
>> >> >characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
>> >> >for creative self-expression.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and don't you love us for it? :-)
>> >
>> >I see that you're proud of your abusive tirades.
>>
>> I see that you don't interpret things very well. My comment says
>> nothing about my attitude to my posts. Rather it suggests that Robert
>> knew all along that the thread would go the way it did.
>
>I see that _you_ don't interpret things very well. Obviously, too
>subtle for you. Robert's reference to "creative self expression" was
>a euphemism for "personal attacks". By confirming what he said, you
>were confirming your personal attacks on me. Besides which, Google can
>confirm your personal attacks on me, so what exactly are you trying to
>cluck about here?

Well, let's see. "Abusive tirades"? Nope. You are the only person I
know who would see my posts as "abusive tirades." Indeed, that says
quite a lot about you. They weren't even "personal attacks", unlike
your posts to me. My posts have been critical of your tweaks and
questioning of your motives, nothing more. And that despite
considerable provocation.

>> It was a throwaway line--something you don't seem to understand
>
>No, I do. Since I recognize your entire posts as "throwaway posts". But
>if you don't mean to be taken seriously in what you say, don't say
>it.

Ah, here's a very revealing statement, a statement that immediately
excludes the possibility of humour. And indeed, if I were to make a
"personal attack" on you, it would be in just this area. Just so
there's no mistake about what I mean, I'll speak very loudly:

MR. GRAHAM, YOU LACK HUMOUR!

Was that loud enough? Please develop a sense of levity as soon as
possible.

>> you read everything with a totally straight face. But since we're on
>> the subject, very few posts critical of you got through unanswered
>
>Total fabrication. I've ignored literally hundreds of posts critical
>of me. You're not a very perceptive person, so it only seems
>otherwise to you, because there are that many posts critical of me.

You got to as many as you could. There are only so many hours in the
day. In any case, I have a problem with my server in that RAO posts
are sometimes not downloaded for days at a time and then come in
hundreds, so I'm not able to check them all.

>> treatment from you. If Robert is trying to psycho-analyse you, I
>> suggest he look under "Obsessions".
>
>Is that where we will find the reasoning for which you joined
>Robert's thread, to obsessively discuss me, as if you have absolutely
>nothing better to do with your life? Which you obviously don't.

Speaking of which, how do you find so much time for all this posting?
I think a count of my posts v. yours will make clear what I mean.

>> If I was disrespectful, it was toward your nonsense, which I
>> interpreted as disrespectful to our intelligence.
>
>What intelligence? I've not seen any signs of intelligence here?

Now how did I know you were going to say that? Could it be that you're
becoming predictable? A little sheep-like, perhaps?

> You
>mean the "intelligence" of knowing whether a phenomena is valid without
>having ever experimented with it? You mean THAT intelligence? Don't
>make me laugh, Packer. Your disrespect toward my "nonsense" as you call
>it, WAS disrespectful toward my intelligence. That makes you a
>hypocrite, and an unintelligent one at that.

It makes me someone who would question the motives of someone else
posting apparent nonsense on an NG and attacking anyone who questioned
it. I had little doubt about your native intelligence, judging from
your posts. But as we've already established, even high IQ types fall
prey to absurdities. God, do they ever!

>> > Then you
>> >were rude and disrespectful as soon as you started addressing me. I
>> >responded to you anyway, in a perfectly civilized manner.
>>
>> Your memory obviously doesn't accord with mine.
>
>That's only because I don't try to run away in the opposite
>direction from the truth, as far as possible, and spend all the live
>long days spouting off incessant LIES about people, audio, and
>everything else under the sun.

Hmmm...this sounds like a rant. Not something with which Mr. Graham is
unfamiliar.

>Maybe this recent quote still obsessing
>about me and attacking my character to Dave Weil, someone who was also
>not shy about unprovoked attacks against me, might jog your lying
>memory, liar. This is your entire post to him, on top of that:
>
>"No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am grateful to live
>in this internet age where an uneducated dolt like me, the dullest tack
>in the box, has the opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as
>Sound) into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or rather,
>calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages intellectual elite like
>him would never have deigned glance at the likes of me, so would never
>discover how the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game."
>
>
>> >False. I was the one who held out the olive branch, you turned around
>> >the next day and became hostile for no reason, until it was clear no
>> >further discussions were possible with you.
>>
>> Those who know me know that I'm never "hostile for no reason". Better
>> re-think that one.
>
>I did. This is what I came up with:
>
>"No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am grateful to live
>in this internet age where an uneducated dolt like me, the dullest tack
>in the box, has the opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as
>Sound) into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or rather,
>calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages intellectual elite like
>him would never have deigned glance at the likes of me, so would never
>discover how the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game."

Dear God, if you can't see that post as totally tongue-in-cheek then
we will never have a meeting of minds and this conversation is
pointless. Robert says elsewhere that you must have studied the group
before posting, but if so you didn't read many of my posts. I come
here for a bit of a giggle. I don't get involved in technical
arguments, political arguments or flame wars. Most of my posts are
what might be termed "humorous asides", or un-humorous according to
ones sensibilities. Here's another comment about you, spoken loudly to
make sure you hear:

MR GRAHAM, YOUR CHARACTER ASSESSMENT IS POOR.

Was that loud enough? Good.

>> >All you did was troll, like
>> >you're doing now. The only thing "virtual" with you is the truth.
>>
>> I've never made any secret of the fact that I visit this group to
>> enjoy myself. I read some of the posts and laugh out loud (something
>> you should try). I have a bit of fun. Occasionally I troll a little,
>> or like Art Sackman insert little remarks mostly for my own amusement.
>> So sue me.
>
>Do I look like Robert Morein to you?

Gratuitous insult to Robert. You don't miss many opportunities, do
you?

>Anyway, you just admitted you can
>be an abusive troll, I just proved how you can be, I think I've proven
>my point about you, thank you.

You think many things, but that doesn't make them true.

>> you must know that
>> the too-serious kid gets ribbed and bullied the most. Your school life
>> must have been downright miserable, as miserable as your Usenet life
>> is now.
>
>My Usenet life? I didn't know there WAS such a thing.

Of course there is. Ask Arny Krueger. He not only has a Usenet life,
he has a Usenet career. :-)

(You do know what a smiley means, don't you?)

>If one could
>measure just how far away from reality and truth you are, you'd be
>surprised. AFAIC, you just look like an idiot, making groundless claims
>about my childhood, when you can't possibly have any idea whether
>there's truth to your claims or not. Thank you for proving that you
>have no grounds for any of your claims about me.
>
>>Which proves your motivations all along. You're a troll, you love
>> >people who troll me, you trolled me in all of your messages, that much
>> >was clear. You were never sincere with me for a second.
>>
>> I was certainly sincere that I thought your tweaks were a bad joke,
>> and despite all your protestations to the contrary, I still can't
>> bring myself to believe you're not in some subtle way, in the back of
>> your mind, pulling our legs.
>
>"In the back of my mind"?? You think that in some subtle way in the
>back of my mind, I think that my tweaks are a "bad joke"? I know it
>isn't obvious to you, because you're an imbecile. But wouldn't it be
>obvious to me, whether my tweaks were sincere or a "bad joke"?

So you're not familiar with the concept of the conscious and
sub-conscious minds. That does make my point a little difficult to
make.

Incidentally, are you keeping count of how many times you've called me
an imbecile, idiot, dolt or oaf? And how many times I've called you
any of those things? Never mind, Google will help us out.

>Maybe what you're trying to say, really applies to YOU. Maybe, in some
>"subtle way, in the back of your mind", you know that my tweaks are all
>valid, and sound. Otherwise, why would you have wasted all your
>precious time, debating me on them?
>
>
> > I mean, come on, you're an intelligent
>> man. But even if you're sincere about your tweaks, you had to have
>> predicted the reaction you got, and therefore all your screeching
>> about our lack of intelligence and imagination has to be a troll.
>
>If by "troll" you mean "insincere", then no, it doesn't have to be a
>"troll". For even if I predicted the reaction I got, and I'm not
>claiming I did, I may still be quite sincere in "all my screeching
>about your collective lack of intelligence and imagination". That still
>makes me an intelligent man and you not.

Hmmm...this seems to be a recurring theme.

>Because I'm more in control of
>the situation than you are.

This too,

> And you've still never tried the tweaks
>that you so casually dismissed, let me remind you.

And this too.

>You've still never
>proven a single thing about me with any kind of evidence. Yet I've
>managed to easily disprove your claim that you were "open minded".
>Obviously, that too was a "troll" of yours.

Dare I say it? :-)

>> >However,
>> >you've been making false statements throughout your message, and I
>> >think you're wrong again here. I think Robert is sincere in his
>> >obsessive threads about me.
>>
>> Sincere in what way? Robert is a person of great curiousity, and I
>> think initially he wanted to sound you out. But given the hysterical
>> nature of your reactions to perfectly reasonable criticism, I'd say
>> he's come to the conclusion you're a bit of a humourless joke--at
>> least if I read his latest posts aright.
>
>First of all, there's nothing "reasonable" about sweeping dismissals.
>It's what UNreasonable people do. Second of all, about any "hysterical
>nature of my reactions", I see that you don't interpret things very
>well. Thirdly, about your interpretations.... arrogant, small-minded
>bigot that you are, you constantly think your silly "interpretations"
>of people are the God's truth, carved in holy rock. Same problem all
>your colleagues here have.

And this "me against the world" theme is recurring rather often, too.
A little worryingly so.

>You presented yourself as different from
>them, yet you've proven you are absolutely NO different; you are, in
>effect, what we call "mindless sheep".

This seems vaguely familiar...

> You are in no greater posession
>of what is true, than you are an objective person, open minded person.
>Tell me some more about the details of how my childhood evolved, why
>don't you. You make a very convincing case for being an all-knowing
>God, don't you.

Deductive reasoning, Mr. Graham. Fairly elementary really.

>Robert, this I know to be true, is FAR more intelligent and open minded
>than you. That's why the curiousity. Stupider people have bashed him
>for it, but I commend him for opening these threads about me if only
>for the fact that he's at least attempting to have a semi-intelligent,
>serious debate on this group (although it has little to do with
>audio...). Which is bloody well rare. Even though the grossly
>speculative responses, such as from people like you, and even him, are
>*extremely* dumb to me (who is, after all, the only one here who can
>judge whether your responses are valid or risible).

You say Robert is "intelligent" and "dumb" in the same paragraph.
Well, we know that's possible. As for him being more intelligent than
me, I don't recall disputing that. More open-minded?
Hmmm....debatable.

>> But here's the rub. If at any time you'd adopted a conciliatory tone,
>> I'd have paused to consider more seriously what you had to say. I
>> would probably still have rejected it, but I would have paused.
>
>You DID pause, idiot. That's how we started a debate a few days ago,
>remember? Then, after I responded to you in all seriousness, you never
>replied back.

See above about my faulty ISP. I don't recall the "debate" you're
referring to anyway.

> I don't know what makes you think I care whether you take
>me seriously or not, other than what I just said about you being an
>idiot.

Let's see, how many times have you called me an idiot in this one
post? Never mind, Google will help us out.

> My well being isn't tied to what ignorant bigots think of me,
>believe it or not. And I know very well you would have rejected any
>evidence I brought to the table, to support my arguments. I've seen
>much smarter people than you here do just that. But then, that's why I
>call you people "bigots". Get it?

You're ranting again.

>>. But you were on the attack from the
>> moment you detected a hostile tone and never made the slightest effort
>> to mollify the hostility.
>
>No, I believe I did make the "slightest effort" with you. You're
>exagerrating again. Given your clod-like attitude, I was very patient
>in explaining some of the ideas to you. I was no more hostile towards
>you than you were towards me. You even just finished admitting your
>approach was merely to troll me, so why whine about it now? Are you
>trying to impress your mother or something?

It's entirely possible I missed the post where you explained some of
your ideas. I certainly don't remember it. I do remember a post where
I definitely gave you the opportunity to adopt a friendlier attitude
and you passed it by. After that I took it that you enjoyed these
exchanges.

>By the time I joined in, I was certain you
>> were enjoying the parry and thrust. I still think you are, or you
>> wouldn't have replied to my innocent post in this thread.
>
>Your post was hardly "innocent", Packer. It was full of lies about me.
>If I wrote to someone about you being a theif and drag queen, I'm sure
>you would not have the attitude that it is an "innocent" post, and not
>worthy of a response.

If you wrote that I was a thief and a drag queen, it would be
defamatory. If you can't see the difference between that and my
comments here about the nature of your tweaks there's something wrong.


>I'm sure your posts in this thread are like your
>posts outside of it: just attempts to troll me. You certainly have
>enough time on your hands to do so, judging by the pages and pages of a
>response here. But when you think about it... who's trolling whom?

Pages and pages of response? I just don't type that fast, and I'm not
that interested. I suspect you may be self-obsessed, Mr. Graham. Best
look into that before it gets worse.

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote hundreds of thousands of pages of an obsessive rant:

> On 1 Apr 2006 14:47:39 -0800, wrote:
> >paul packer wrote:
> >
> >> On 1 Apr 2006 05:51:42 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >paul packer wrote... a pack of lies:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:36:39 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >This is the sense I got out of the thread, "Investigation Re:
> >> >> >Soundhaspriority." I had intended to simply tally the responses, but,
> >> >> >characteristically, the regulars of r.a.o. could not resist the opportunity
> >> >> >for creative self-expression.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, and don't you love us for it? :-)
> >> >
> >> >I see that you're proud of your abusive tirades.
> >>
> >> I see that you don't interpret things very well. My comment says
> >> nothing about my attitude to my posts. Rather it suggests that Robert
> >> knew all along that the thread would go the way it did.
> >
> >I see that _you_ don't interpret things very well. Obviously, too
> >subtle for you. Robert's reference to "creative self expression" was
> >a euphemism for "personal attacks". By confirming what he said, you
> >were confirming your personal attacks on me. Besides which, Google can
> >confirm your personal attacks on me, so what exactly are you trying to
> >cluck about here?
>
> Well, let's see. "Abusive tirades"? Nope. You are the only person I
> know who would see my posts as "abusive tirades." Indeed, that says
> quite a lot about you. They weren't even "personal attacks", unlike
> your posts to me. My posts have been critical of your tweaks and
> questioning of your motives, nothing more. And that despite
> considerable provocation.
>
> >> It was a throwaway line--something you don't seem to understand
> >
> >No, I do. Since I recognize your entire posts as "throwaway posts". But
> >if you don't mean to be taken seriously in what you say, don't say
> >it.
>
> Ah, here's a very revealing statement, a statement that immediately
> excludes the possibility of humour. And indeed, if I were to make a
> "personal attack" on you, it would be in just this area. Just so
> there's no mistake about what I mean, I'll speak very loudly:
>
> MR. GRAHAM, YOU LACK HUMOUR!
>
> Was that loud enough? Please develop a sense of levity as soon as
> possible.
>
> >> you read everything with a totally straight face. But since we're on
> >> the subject, very few posts critical of you got through unanswered
> >
> >Total fabrication. I've ignored literally hundreds of posts critical
> >of me. You're not a very perceptive person, so it only seems
> >otherwise to you, because there are that many posts critical of me.
>
> You got to as many as you could. There are only so many hours in the
> day. In any case, I have a problem with my server in that RAO posts
> are sometimes not downloaded for days at a time and then come in
> hundreds, so I'm not able to check them all.
>
> >> treatment from you. If Robert is trying to psycho-analyse you, I
> >> suggest he look under "Obsessions".
> >
> >Is that where we will find the reasoning for which you joined
> >Robert's thread, to obsessively discuss me, as if you have absolutely
> >nothing better to do with your life? Which you obviously don't.
>
> Speaking of which, how do you find so much time for all this posting?
> I think a count of my posts v. yours will make clear what I mean.
>
> >> If I was disrespectful, it was toward your nonsense, which I
> >> interpreted as disrespectful to our intelligence.
> >
> >What intelligence? I've not seen any signs of intelligence here?
>
> Now how did I know you were going to say that? Could it be that you're
> becoming predictable? A little sheep-like, perhaps?
>
> > You
> >mean the "intelligence" of knowing whether a phenomena is valid without
> >having ever experimented with it? You mean THAT intelligence? Don't
> >make me laugh, Packer. Your disrespect toward my "nonsense" as you call
> >it, WAS disrespectful toward my intelligence. That makes you a
> >hypocrite, and an unintelligent one at that.
>
> It makes me someone who would question the motives of someone else
> posting apparent nonsense on an NG and attacking anyone who questioned
> it. I had little doubt about your native intelligence, judging from
> your posts. But as we've already established, even high IQ types fall
> prey to absurdities. God, do they ever!
>
> >> > Then you
> >> >were rude and disrespectful as soon as you started addressing me. I
> >> >responded to you anyway, in a perfectly civilized manner.
> >>
> >> Your memory obviously doesn't accord with mine.
> >
> >That's only because I don't try to run away in the opposite
> >direction from the truth, as far as possible, and spend all the live
> >long days spouting off incessant LIES about people, audio, and
> >everything else under the sun.
>
> Hmmm...this sounds like a rant. Not something with which Mr. Graham is
> unfamiliar.
>
> >Maybe this recent quote still obsessing
> >about me and attacking my character to Dave Weil, someone who was also
> >not shy about unprovoked attacks against me, might jog your lying
> >memory, liar. This is your entire post to him, on top of that:
> >
> >"No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am grateful to live
> >in this internet age where an uneducated dolt like me, the dullest tack
> >in the box, has the opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as
> >Sound) into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or rather,
> >calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages intellectual elite like
> >him would never have deigned glance at the likes of me, so would never
> >discover how the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game."
> >
> >
> >> >False. I was the one who held out the olive branch, you turned around
> >> >the next day and became hostile for no reason, until it was clear no
> >> >further discussions were possible with you.
> >>
> >> Those who know me know that I'm never "hostile for no reason". Better
> >> re-think that one.
> >
> >I did. This is what I came up with:
> >
> >"No, Dave, he's evil, self-confessed. And I for one am grateful to live
> >in this internet age where an uneducated dolt like me, the dullest tack
> >in the box, has the opportunity to whip Mr. Satan (formally known as
> >Sound) into a froth merely by calling a spade a spade---or rather,
> >calling a "tweak" a load of crap. In past ages intellectual elite like
> >him would never have deigned glance at the likes of me, so would never
> >discover how the other half thinks. Now it's whole new ball game."
>
> Dear God, if you can't see that post as totally tongue-in-cheek then
> we will never have a meeting of minds and this conversation is
> pointless. Robert says elsewhere that you must have studied the group
> before posting, but if so you didn't read many of my posts. I come
> here for a bit of a giggle. I don't get involved in technical
> arguments, political arguments or flame wars. Most of my posts are
> what might be termed "humorous asides", or un-humorous according to
> ones sensibilities. Here's another comment about you, spoken loudly to
> make sure you hear:
>
> MR GRAHAM, YOUR CHARACTER ASSESSMENT IS POOR.
>
> Was that loud enough? Good.
>
> >> >All you did was troll, like
> >> >you're doing now. The only thing "virtual" with you is the truth.
> >>
> >> I've never made any secret of the fact that I visit this group to
> >> enjoy myself. I read some of the posts and laugh out loud (something
> >> you should try). I have a bit of fun. Occasionally I troll a little,
> >> or like Art Sackman insert little remarks mostly for my own amusement.
> >> So sue me.
> >
> >Do I look like Robert Morein to you?
>
> Gratuitous insult to Robert. You don't miss many opportunities, do
> you?
>
> >Anyway, you just admitted you can
> >be an abusive troll, I just proved how you can be, I think I've proven
> >my point about you, thank you.
>
> You think many things, but that doesn't make them true.
>
> >> you must know that
> >> the too-serious kid gets ribbed and bullied the most. Your school life
> >> must have been downright miserable, as miserable as your Usenet life
> >> is now.
> >
> >My Usenet life? I didn't know there WAS such a thing.
>
> Of course there is. Ask Arny Krueger. He not only has a Usenet life,
> he has a Usenet career. :-)
>
> (You do know what a smiley means, don't you?)
>
> >If one could
> >measure just how far away from reality and truth you are, you'd be
> >surprised. AFAIC, you just look like an idiot, making groundless claims
> >about my childhood, when you can't possibly have any idea whether
> >there's truth to your claims or not. Thank you for proving that you
> >have no grounds for any of your claims about me.
> >
> >>Which proves your motivations all along. You're a troll, you love
> >> >people who troll me, you trolled me in all of your messages, that much
> >> >was clear. You were never sincere with me for a second.
> >>
> >> I was certainly sincere that I thought your tweaks were a bad joke,
> >> and despite all your protestations to the contrary, I still can't
> >> bring myself to believe you're not in some subtle way, in the back of
> >> your mind, pulling our legs.
> >
> >"In the back of my mind"?? You think that in some subtle way in the
> >back of my mind, I think that my tweaks are a "bad joke"? I know it
> >isn't obvious to you, because you're an imbecile. But wouldn't it be
> >obvious to me, whether my tweaks were sincere or a "bad joke"?
>
> So you're not familiar with the concept of the conscious and
> sub-conscious minds. That does make my point a little difficult to
> make.
>
> Incidentally, are you keeping count of how many times you've called me
> an imbecile, idiot, dolt or oaf? And how many times I've called you
> any of those things? Never mind, Google will help us out.
>
> >Maybe what you're trying to say, really applies to YOU. Maybe, in some
> >"subtle way, in the back of your mind", you know that my tweaks are all
> >valid, and sound. Otherwise, why would you have wasted all your
> >precious time, debating me on them?
> >
> >
> > > I mean, come on, you're an intelligent
> >> man. But even if you're sincere about your tweaks, you had to have
> >> predicted the reaction you got, and therefore all your screeching
> >> about our lack of intelligence and imagination has to be a troll.
> >
> >If by "troll" you mean "insincere", then no, it doesn't have to be a
> >"troll". For even if I predicted the reaction I got, and I'm not
> >claiming I did, I may still be quite sincere in "all my screeching
> >about your collective lack of intelligence and imagination". That still
> >makes me an intelligent man and you not.
>
> Hmmm...this seems to be a recurring theme.
>
> >Because I'm more in control of
> >the situation than you are.
>
> This too,
>
> > And you've still never tried the tweaks
> >that you so casually dismissed, let me remind you.
>
> And this too.
>
> >You've still never
> >proven a single thing about me with any kind of evidence. Yet I've
> >managed to easily disprove your claim that you were "open minded".
> >Obviously, that too was a "troll" of yours.
>
> Dare I say it? :-)
>
> >> >However,
> >> >you've been making false statements throughout your message, and I
> >> >think you're wrong again here. I think Robert is sincere in his
> >> >obsessive threads about me.
> >>
> >> Sincere in what way? Robert is a person of great curiousity, and I
> >> think initially he wanted to sound you out. But given the hysterical
> >> nature of your reactions to perfectly reasonable criticism, I'd say
> >> he's come to the conclusion you're a bit of a humourless joke--at
> >> least if I read his latest posts aright.
> >
> >First of all, there's nothing "reasonable" about sweeping dismissals.
> >It's what UNreasonable people do. Second of all, about any "hysterical
> >nature of my reactions", I see that you don't interpret things very
> >well. Thirdly, about your interpretations.... arrogant, small-minded
> >bigot that you are, you constantly think your silly "interpretations"
> >of people are the God's truth, carved in holy rock. Same problem all
> >your colleagues here have.
>
> And this "me against the world" theme is recurring rather often, too.
> A little worryingly so.
>
> >You presented yourself as different from
> >them, yet you've proven you are absolutely NO different; you are, in
> >effect, what we call "mindless sheep".
>
> This seems vaguely familiar...
>
> > You are in no greater posession
> >of what is true, than you are an objective person, open minded person.
> >Tell me some more about the details of how my childhood evolved, why
> >don't you. You make a very convincing case for being an all-knowing
> >God, don't you.
>
> Deductive reasoning, Mr. Graham. Fairly elementary really.
>
> >Robert, this I know to be true, is FAR more intelligent and open minded
> >than you. That's why the curiousity. Stupider people have bashed him
> >for it, but I commend him for opening these threads about me if only
> >for the fact that he's at least attempting to have a semi-intelligent,
> >serious debate on this group (although it has little to do with
> >audio...). Which is bloody well rare. Even though the grossly
> >speculative responses, such as from people like you, and even him, are
> >*extremely* dumb to me (who is, after all, the only one here who can
> >judge whether your responses are valid or risible).
>
> You say Robert is "intelligent" and "dumb" in the same paragraph.
> Well, we know that's possible. As for him being more intelligent than
> me, I don't recall disputing that. More open-minded?
> Hmmm....debatable.
>
> >> But here's the rub. If at any time you'd adopted a conciliatory tone,
> >> I'd have paused to consider more seriously what you had to say. I
> >> would probably still have rejected it, but I would have paused.
> >
> >You DID pause, idiot. That's how we started a debate a few days ago,
> >remember? Then, after I responded to you in all seriousness, you never
> >replied back.
>
> See above about my faulty ISP. I don't recall the "debate" you're
> referring to anyway.
>
> > I don't know what makes you think I care whether you take
> >me seriously or not, other than what I just said about you being an
> >idiot.
>
> Let's see, how many times have you called me an idiot in this one
> post? Never mind, Google will help us out.
>
> > My well being isn't tied to what ignorant bigots think of me,
> >believe it or not. And I know very well you would have rejected any
> >evidence I brought to the table, to support my arguments. I've seen
> >much smarter people than you here do just that. But then, that's why I
> >call you people "bigots". Get it?
>
> You're ranting again.
>
> >>. But you were on the attack from the
> >> moment you detected a hostile tone and never made the slightest effort
> >> to mollify the hostility.
> >
> >No, I believe I did make the "slightest effort" with you. You're
> >exagerrating again. Given your clod-like attitude, I was very patient
> >in explaining some of the ideas to you. I was no more hostile towards
> >you than you were towards me. You even just finished admitting your
> >approach was merely to troll me, so why whine about it now? Are you
> >trying to impress your mother or something?
>
> It's entirely possible I missed the post where you explained some of
> your ideas. I certainly don't remember it. I do remember a post where
> I definitely gave you the opportunity to adopt a friendlier attitude
> and you passed it by. After that I took it that you enjoyed these
> exchanges.
>
> >By the time I joined in, I was certain you
> >> were enjoying the parry and thrust. I still think you are, or you
> >> wouldn't have replied to my innocent post in this thread.
> >
> >Your post was hardly "innocent", Packer. It was full of lies about me.
> >If I wrote to someone about you being a theif and drag queen, I'm sure
> >you would not have the attitude that it is an "innocent" post, and not
> >worthy of a response.
>
> If you wrote that I was a thief and a drag queen, it would be
> defamatory. If you can't see the difference between that and my
> comments here about the nature of your tweaks there's something wrong.
>
>
> >I'm sure your posts in this thread are like your
> >posts outside of it: just attempts to troll me. You certainly have
> >enough time on your hands to do so, judging by the pages and pages of a
> >response here. But when you think about it... who's trolling whom?
>
> Pages and pages of response? I just don't type that fast, and I'm not
> that interested. I suspect you may be self-obsessed, Mr. Graham. Best
> look into that before it gets worse.


My God! What an obsession! You expect me to read all this heaps and
heaps and heaps of stuff?! Pages and pages of stuff. A truckload of
stuff. Really, no joking, a hundred thousand words at least!

Phew, I'm exhausted!

And grateful. Grateful that you're not "self-obsessed" with me, Mr.
Packer, as you claim others are with you. Because if you were
"self-obsessed" with me, why surely you wouldn't obsessively pounce on
my posts as you've been doing all day here, and I can only imagine how
quickly my news server would come crashing down under the weight of
your resonses. If you were "self-obsessed" with me.

It's off to bed now. A nice little late afternoon nap.....

[paul packer]

wrote:
> paul packer wrote hundreds of thousands of pages of an obsessive rant:
> My God! What an obsession! You expect me to read all this heaps and
> heaps and heaps of stuff?! Pages and pages of stuff. A truckload of
> stuff. Really, no joking, a hundred thousand words at least!
>
> Phew, I'm exhausted!
>
> > It's off to bed now. A nice little late afternoon nap.....

Ever heard of plagiarism, Mr. Sound? I think I mght sue you for, oh,
heaps and heaps of money...a truckload at least. Really, no joking.

(So you found something resembling a sense of humour after all. Good
for you.)

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> paul packer wrote hundreds of thousands of pages of an obsessive rant:
>
>>
[snip
>
>
> My God! What an obsession! You expect me to read all this heaps and
> heaps and heaps of stuff?! Pages and pages of stuff. A truckload of
> stuff. Really, no joking, a hundred thousand words at least!
>
Mr. Graham, this is not correct. The total word count, between both of you,
is 3,380.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
[snip]
Even though the grossly
>> >speculative responses, such as from people like you, and even him, are
>> >*extremely* dumb to me (who is, after all, the only one here who can
>> >judge whether your responses are valid or risible).

Dear Mr. Graham:
Although your participation in this thread is, of course, welcome, it is
not a valid technique of argumentation to claim that you are "the only one
here who can judge whether your responses are valid or risible."

No one can claim for themselves the mantle of authority in such matters.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein humouressly and without humour, wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > paul packer wrote hundreds of thousands of pages of an obsessive rant:
> >
> >>
> [snip
> >
> >
> > My God! What an obsession! You expect me to read all this heaps and
> > heaps and heaps of stuff?! Pages and pages of stuff. A truckload of
> > stuff. Really, no joking, a hundred thousand words at least!
> >
> Mr. Graham, this is not correct. The total word count, between both of you,
> is 3,380.


MR. MOREIN, YOU LACK HUMOUR!

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein humouressly and without humour, wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > paul packer wrote hundreds of thousands of pages of an obsessive rant:
> >
> >>
> [snip
> >
> >
> > My God! What an obsession! You expect me to read all this heaps and
> > heaps and heaps of stuff?! Pages and pages of stuff. A truckload of
> > stuff. Really, no joking, a hundred thousand words at least!
> >
> Mr. Graham, this is not correct. The total word count, between both of you,
> is 3,380.


MR. MOREIN, YOU LACK HUMOUR!

(Also, you've taken your obsession with me to new stratospheric
heights. Congratulations. You're eligible for a free pharmaceutical
experiment program).

[[email protected]]

Shovels whined:

> Robert Morein said:
>
> > > My God! What an obsession! You expect me to read all this heaps and
> > > heaps and heaps of stuff?! Pages and pages of stuff. A truckload of
> > > stuff. Really, no joking, a hundred thousand words at least!
>
> > Mr. Graham, this is not correct. The total word count, between both of you,
> > is 3,380.
>
> What kind of count is that?

Correction: You and Robert both lack a sense of humour, Shovels.
Perhaps you should get Paul to explain the subtleties of humour, since
he originally wrote the above "humourous" quote. Robert has an excuse
for lacking a sense of humour; he's an engineer. You appear to have
other reasons. You have a bitter, unhappy life that leads you to
staying in front of your computer all day, every day, scouring for
signs of any new posts from me to obsessively attack (or create new
threads when you can't find any more posts from me). We'll see how
long it takes for you to respond to this troll, for a good example of
that. The other reason is obvious: you're angry. Very angry, because
you bared your chest and shouted on top of the mountain about how angry
I'm supposed to be (Question for Shovels)... and the response was
even funnier than you making a fool of yourself in the first place.
Dead silence. No one answered. The next day, you yelled out the same
question in the same thread, in effect, talking to yourself again as
you so like to do. So what happened? No one answered!

Poor Shovels. No sense of humour, no response, no life, no wife, no
career, no freedom or mobility, no hopeful prospects, almost everyone
on the group is annoyed with you... all you have basically in your sad,
pathetic life.... is me. Which is very pathetic indeed. Because you
keep talking about how badly you want me to leave, and flailing your
arms with all these angry, bitter attacks to get me to do so, but the
sad fact is, when I'm gone... you'll miss me in the biggest way.
Then someone will come along, whom you'll mistake for me (as you've
mistaken about a dozen others in your past for me), and you'll post a
new thread entitled "I miss soundhaspriority.". (Similar to the thread
you started called "I Miss Lionel). Oh well. There's always your Dr.
Who episodes to talk to, wimpy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't be too hard on yourself, Shovie. You can always take some
classes in
remedical English to improve your spelling ability. ;-)" - George
"Shovels" Middius

"Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves lots of perorations.
" - George "Shovels" Middius

[George M. Middius]

Shovels reveals his true agenda.

> You're eligible for a free pharmaceutical experiment program).

What, exactly, is in that magic cream you've been twittering about?






--
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...
>> >
>> [snip]
>> Even though the grossly
>> >> >speculative responses, such as from people like you, and even him,
>> >> >are
>> >> >*extremely* dumb to me (who is, after all, the only one here who can
>> >> >judge whether your responses are valid or risible).
>>
>> Dear Mr. Graham:
>> Although your participation in this thread is, of course, welcome, it
>> is
>> not a valid technique of argumentation to claim that you are "the only
>> one
>> here who can judge whether your responses are valid or risible."
>>
>> No one can claim for themselves the mantle of authority in such
>> matters.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Robert Morein
>
> Robert, I'm beginning to think you have a sense of humor after all.
> Compliments. Do you know how I figured it out? Because I realized that
> you'd have to be a total, complete, utter MORON to make such
> statements with a straight face. And I know you're not a moron. Or
> ARE you....? Me and Paul were discussing such paradoxes, so perhaps we
> should leave the question open. But there is no question as to how
> wrong your statements are, regardless. Since we're talking about the
> idiotic conjecture that you and others in your deconstructionist
> threads about me make about me, no one _but_ me has the authority to
> judge whether your mindless conjecture about me is accurate or not.
> (valid or risible). Unless your trying to argue that I don't even
> know my own self, as well as you cretinous imbeciles think you know me?
> Judging by the amount of sheer arrogance I've seen from all the
> people on RAO, you know, I wouldn't put it past someone to say that.
>
> But for the record, I take your response in the humourous vein I'm
> sure it was intended. Glad to see you found something resembling a
> sense of humour after all. Good for you!
>
Dear Mr. Graham:
Unfortunately, your presumption of the sole right to judge yourself
is not a valid technique of argumentation. It is inherently circular.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[[email protected]]

Shovels continues his homoerotic obsession of me, from his fantasy
bubble:

> Shovels reveals his true agenda.
>
> > You're eligible for a free pharmaceutical experiment program).
>
> What, exactly, is in that magic cream you've been twittering about?

Speaking of twittering, Shovels, I always know how angry you are and
how effective my words against you are, by how much you snip out of my
post. This time, 99.9% of it was chopped off. I put back the part that
really got to you the hardest, because it contained the saddest facts
of all about you: You're a wind-up donkey toy, with nothing better to
do all day than stalk me and jump on my posts minutes later:

"You have a bitter, unhappy life that leads you to staying in front of
your computer all day, every day, scouring for signs of any new posts
from me to obsessively attack (or create new threads when you can't
find any more posts from me). We'll see how
long it takes for you to respond to this troll, for a good example of
that. "

Congrats, Shovie. You just took obsessive stalking to a new record.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't be too hard on yourself, Shovie. You can always take some
classes in
remedical English to improve your spelling ability. ;-)" - George
"Shovels" Middius

"Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves lots of perorations.
" - George "Shovels" Middius

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein insincerely trolled again:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> [snip]
> >> Even though the grossly
> >> >> >speculative responses, such as from people like you, and even him,
> >> >> >are
> >> >> >*extremely* dumb to me (who is, after all, the only one here who can
> >> >> >judge whether your responses are valid or risible).
> >>
> >> Dear Mr. Graham:
> >> Although your participation in this thread is, of course, welcome, it
> >> is
> >> not a valid technique of argumentation to claim that you are "the only
> >> one
> >> here who can judge whether your responses are valid or risible."
> >>
> >> No one can claim for themselves the mantle of authority in such
> >> matters.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Robert Morein
> >
> > Robert, I'm beginning to think you have a sense of humor after all.
> > Compliments. Do you know how I figured it out? Because I realized that
> > you'd have to be a total, complete, utter MORON to make such
> > statements with a straight face. And I know you're not a moron. Or
> > ARE you....? Me and Paul were discussing such paradoxes, so perhaps we
> > should leave the question open. But there is no question as to how
> > wrong your statements are, regardless. Since we're talking about the
> > idiotic conjecture that you and others in your deconstructionist
> > threads about me make about me, no one _but_ me has the authority to
> > judge whether your mindless conjecture about me is accurate or not.
> > (valid or risible). Unless your trying to argue that I don't even
> > know my own self, as well as you cretinous imbeciles think you know me?
> > Judging by the amount of sheer arrogance I've seen from all the
> > people on RAO, you know, I wouldn't put it past someone to say that.
> >
> > But for the record, I take your response in the humourous vein I'm
> > sure it was intended. Glad to see you found something resembling a
> > sense of humour after all. Good for you!
> >
> Dear Mr. Graham:
> Unfortunately, your presumption of the sole right to judge yourself
> is not a valid technique of argumentation. It is inherently circular.

Do you really need this explained to you? I didn't claim to have the
sole right to judge myself. I claimed to have the sole right to judge
myself -accurately-, since I'm the only one that knows whether you
idiots are right or not, in your obsessive blind conjecture chats about
me. But if you want to arrogantly believe that whatever rubbish you
invent about me has to be true, simply because you can't find any
reason why it isn't, then that pretty much proves what I've been
saying all along about how you and the others here haven't a clue
about what is and isn't valid in audio either. You're just
dogmatists who, once settled on whatever half-witted "theory of mind"
makes sense to you, you come to believe as "the TRVTH".

And you wonder why I, who does not arrogantly believe "the TRVTH" is
whatever I make it out to be or whatever someone tells me, claim to
know so much more about audio than you and the rest of you?

AFAIC, you're just trolling me with that rubbish above, and don't
even believe it. Nice going, Robert!

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein insincerely trolled again:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >> Even though the grossly
>> >> >> >speculative responses, such as from people like you, and even him,
>> >> >> >are
>> >> >> >*extremely* dumb to me (who is, after all, the only one here who
>> >> >> >can
>> >> >> >judge whether your responses are valid or risible).
>> >>
>> >> Dear Mr. Graham:
>> >> Although your participation in this thread is, of course, welcome,
>> >> it
>> >> is
>> >> not a valid technique of argumentation to claim that you are "the only
>> >> one
>> >> here who can judge whether your responses are valid or risible."
>> >>
>> >> No one can claim for themselves the mantle of authority in such
>> >> matters.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Robert Morein
>> >
>> > Robert, I'm beginning to think you have a sense of humor after all.
>> > Compliments. Do you know how I figured it out? Because I realized that
>> > you'd have to be a total, complete, utter MORON to make such
>> > statements with a straight face. And I know you're not a moron. Or
>> > ARE you....? Me and Paul were discussing such paradoxes, so perhaps we
>> > should leave the question open. But there is no question as to how
>> > wrong your statements are, regardless. Since we're talking about the
>> > idiotic conjecture that you and others in your deconstructionist
>> > threads about me make about me, no one _but_ me has the authority to
>> > judge whether your mindless conjecture about me is accurate or not.
>> > (valid or risible). Unless your trying to argue that I don't even
>> > know my own self, as well as you cretinous imbeciles think you know me?
>> > Judging by the amount of sheer arrogance I've seen from all the
>> > people on RAO, you know, I wouldn't put it past someone to say that.
>> >
>> > But for the record, I take your response in the humourous vein I'm
>> > sure it was intended. Glad to see you found something resembling a
>> > sense of humour after all. Good for you!
>> >
>> Dear Mr. Graham:
>> Unfortunately, your presumption of the sole right to judge
>> yourself
>> is not a valid technique of argumentation. It is inherently circular.
>
> Do you really need this explained to you? I didn't claim to have the
> sole right to judge myself. I claimed to have the sole right to judge
> myself -accurately-, since I'm the only one that knows whether you
> idiots are right or not, in your obsessive blind conjecture chats about
> me.

Dear Mr. Graham:
The right you ascribe to yourself exists only for a limited purpose
internal to your own psyche. The dialectical system you use for your own
privately held beliefs is, of course, up to you. The legitimate purpose of
debate in a public forum is to convince others of the truthfulness of one's
statements. For this purpose, claim of authority is self-referential, and
therefore, not cogent to the audience.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[Robert Morein]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> Robert Morein said:
>>
>>
>>>>>The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart,
>>>>>being reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
>>
>>
>>>>That might be part of it.
>>
>>
>>>Interested in reading the rest of your thoughts.
>>
>>
>> You posited "The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham..." I think
>> you actually meant hostile to Shovels' so-called "tweaks".
>
> I think there is more of ridicule and less of hostility towards his
> "tweaks". And that's what, I think, gets him so furious and funny and
> silly and tiny and all that.

I think you're right. Even Arny, who might have been expected to lash out,
as with "cheater plugs", seems to think it's a laugher.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Shovels continues his homoerotic obsession of me, from his fantasy
> bubble:
>
>> Shovels reveals his true agenda.
>>
>> > You're eligible for a free pharmaceutical experiment program).
>>
>> What, exactly, is in that magic cream you've been twittering about?
>
> Speaking of twittering, Shovels, I always know how angry you are and
> how effective my words against you are, by how much you snip out of my
> post.

Dear Mr. Graham:
"Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Shovels continues his homoerotic obsession of me, from his fantasy
> > bubble:
> >
> >> Shovels reveals his true agenda.
> >>
> >> > You're eligible for a free pharmaceutical experiment program).
> >>
> >> What, exactly, is in that magic cream you've been twittering about?
> >
> > Speaking of twittering, Shovels, I always know how angry you are and
> > how effective my words against you are, by how much you snip out of my
> > post.
>
> Dear Mr. Graham:
> "Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.

No, you're confused about that. It's the term that Shovels uses to
refer to his Johnson. For all intents and purposes, Shovels is actually
talking to himself, whenever he refers to "Shovels". Perhaps my sig
will make things a little clearer for you:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't be too hard on yourself, Shovie. You can always take some
classes in
remedical English to improve your spelling ability. ;-)" - George
"Shovels" Middius

"Shovie has his own kind of spelling. It involves lots of perorations.
" - George "Shovels" Middius

[[email protected]]

Fella, still feeling like a humiliated chihauhau, barked:

> I think there is more of ridicule and less of hostility towards his
> "tweaks".

There's plenty of hostility (and ridicule) toward me, so I don't
know how you separate the two, exactly. However, I do note that while
there's a lot of ridicule toward my tweaks, a lot of hostility toward
the tweaks came from YOU.

That's because you tried it, and although you showed you were too
stupid to follow the simplest instructions, you grew so humiliated with
yourself for trying it, that you went on a barking rampage all over the
group. _Quite_ the embarassing spectacle, I'd say. Frankly, I feel
sorry for you, Fella (Or Pega... do you even know who you are? LOL!)

And that's what, I think, gets him so furious and funny and
> silly and tiny and all that.

Do I look surprised that you would have a problem admitting that you
are an arrogant, dogmatic, narrow-minded, foolish bigot? Thing is,
everything you say about me is simply your ignorant opinion, and so,
worthless. Everything I just said about you, Ive proven.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Shovels continues his homoerotic obsession of me, from his fantasy
>> > bubble:
>> >
>> >> Shovels reveals his true agenda.
>> >>
>> >> > You're eligible for a free pharmaceutical experiment program).
>> >>
>> >> What, exactly, is in that magic cream you've been twittering about?
>> >
>> > Speaking of twittering, Shovels, I always know how angry you are and
>> > how effective my words against you are, by how much you snip out of my
>> > post.
>>
>> Dear Mr. Graham:
>> "Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.
>
> No, you're confused about that. It's the term that Shovels uses to
> refer to his Johnson.

Dear Mr. Graham:
"Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> Dear Mr. Graham:
> "Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.

This malapropism might be another sign of Shovels' burgeoning self-hatred.





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

[paul packer]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:18:27 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>Robert Morein said:
>
>> Dear Mr. Graham:
>> "Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.
>
>This malapropism might be another sign of Shovels' burgeoning self-hatred.

I don't know, but I hope you people called "Shovels" all realize how
confusing it is to others.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >This malapropism might be another sign of Shovels' burgeoning self-hatred.
>
> I don't know, but I hope you people called "Shovels" all realize how
> confusing it is to others.

Thanks Mr. Pecker for admitting Mr. Pocket that you're getting soft in the
head Mr. Picket.




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

[Powell]

"Robert Morein" wrote

>> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology or practical
>> experience behind his posts?
>
> I see that there is some kind of a belief system, but no scientific
> methodology. He frequently refers to "science", as in the recent statement
> "It's based on newly developed sciences, but it takes much more time to
> explain the foundation of the technique than it does to simply try it...",
"takes much more time to explain"... yea, Sooo?
He has time to write multiple paragraph on a
single post. What more time is required?


> but when challenged to produce the explanation, he replies that the
> questioner doesn't have the requisite background, and when the questioner
> asserts that he has, he still refuses to produce the explanation. This is
> strikingly reminiscent of the "perpetual motion" and "free energy" scams
> that haunt those newsgroups focusing on power, energy, and physics, or the
> "Tice Clock" scam.
>
He doesn't have the language skills to quantify
his meandering thought possesses.


> The belief system is there; he has no doubt that he is right, a behavioral
> patten studied by Eric Hoffer in his classic tome, "The True Believer"...
> The reason we are so hostile to Richard Graham is that at heart, being
> reared on Western Thought, we consider ourselves Rationalists.
That can be a good and/or a bad thing
(paradox/duality). It is what-it- is. However, he
is intentionally withholding pertinent information
contrary to USEnet intent (open exchange of ideas).
He gets what he gives, so to speak. :)


> It appears Mr. Graham actually studied us at length before he began his
> foray. He watched silently, dividing us into subjectivist and objectivist
> camps. In private correspondence....
>
What assurances do you have that Richard Graham
is a real person and not sock-puppet? Did he note
his background qualifications and/or education.


> As far as Mr. Graham's not-for-profit tweaks, such as the funny shapes,
> the cutting the corners off clothing labels, these are neurotic
> indulgences. But who is to say that neurotic indulgences can't work?
>
Oh please. A better use of his time would be
collecting information for a job resume so that
he can afford properly operating equipment.
Trying to make a silk purse from a pig's ear
(Dollar Store) is just plain sad if that's the
best thing he has going for him.


> Enjoyment of music is a state of consciouness. The nature of consciousness
> is metaphysical.
Sidebar: There are two areas of growing scientific
research paradoxical to one another concerning
reality/consciousness. One suggests that when you
reach for the cookie the biochemical reaction of
neurons start (reaching) before the thought of the
cookie comes to the consciousness mind. The other
suggest that when computer architecture/biological
organism reaches 100 trillion (human brain)
electrical or neural pathways there is consciousness.

The first would indicate that our perception of
reality take place in a way we don't understand.
The other indicates that consciousness is not
unique to man.

Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein had a running
debate that lasted for more than ten years concerning
advancement of knowledge. Einstein often refereed
to "lifting the veil" to see into nature ways. Bohr
thought that was improbable.

[Powell]

"George M. Middius" wrote

>> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
>> or practical experience behind his posts? We are to
>> just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
>> high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
>> can't be verbalized. The abusive nature and language
>> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
>> desperately seeking validation.
>
> Does that mean you're going to organize a prayer
> meeting just for him?
>
His egg is still incubating... just like yours. :)

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

>>> Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
>>> a way possibly never seen before. The only
>>> disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
>>> victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
>>> articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
>>> that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
>>> them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
>>>
>> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
>> or practical experience behind his posts? We are to
>> just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
>> high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
>> can't be verbalized. The abusive nature and language
>> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
>> desperately seeking validation.
>
> Kinda - but not desperate, just having a little mean fun at the expense of
> those he trolls.
"Mean fun"... more like a creep (an eccentric or
obnoxious person) then. :)

[Powell]

> wrote

>> > Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
>> > a way possibly never seen before. The only
>> > disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
>> > victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
>> > articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
>> > that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
>> > them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
>> >
>> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
>> or practical experience behind his posts?
>
> 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 choice. :)

>> We are to
>> just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
>> high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
>> can't be verbalized.
>
<snip quacking>

>> The abusive nature and language
>> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
>> desperately seeking validation.
>
> Do you realize that what you just said means
> that the abusive nature and language of the
> posts written to and about me from almost the
> entire newsgroup makes just about everyone
> here an "unhappy person"?
>
"what you just said means"... poor cognitive
thinking skills, repetitive dogma, poor social
skills (inability to get along/Golden Rule)
and obsessing about money you don't have.


> Including you? Do you realize that you
> obsessively discussing me
>
This isn't school and you're not the teacher.

Based on what I read about you from different
camps is that you're OUT-THERE,
metaphorically speaking. :)


> in this obessive thread, means you
> are desperately seeking validation for my
> legitimate fact-based criticisms of you and your mates?
>
Suggestion: Perhaps you might allow yourself
more time to collect your thoughts and feelings
before responding with endless paragraphs
waxing-on about your hurt feelings. Don't be
unwilling to layout your methodology and the
specifics of the equipment used to arrive at a
claim. The information you have supplied to
date can only be considered anecdotal (def.
based on incidental observations or reports
rather than systematic evaluation).

[George M. Middius]

Powell said:

> > Does that mean you're going to organize a prayer
> > meeting just for him?

> His egg is still incubating... just like yours. :)

No need to ask where you stand on abortion rights, Powie.....







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

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:18:27 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Robert Morein said:
> >
> >> Dear Mr. Graham:
> >> "Shovels" is the term by which George Middius refers to you.
> >
> >This malapropism might be another sign of Shovels' burgeoning self-hatred.
>
> I don't know, but I hope you people called "Shovels" all realize how
> confusing it is to others.

I do realize it. Which is why I hope that "Shovels" will considering
changing his name.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>> Richard Graham has unified rec.audio.opinion in
>>>> a way possibly never seen before. The only
>>>> disagreement seems to be whether he is himself a
>>>> victim of his own beliefs, or is an extremely
>>>> articulate con. It appears that r.a.o. members feel
>>>> that his beliefs are ridiculous, and that he presents
>>>> them with the smoothness of 400 wet/dry.
>>>>
>>> Do you see any belief system, scientific methodology
>>> or practical experience behind his posts? We are to
>>> just accept that this poorly educated individual has a
>>> high level of hearing acuity and audio insights that
>>> can't be verbalized. The abusive nature and language
>>> of his posts would indicate an unhappy person
>>> desperately seeking validation.

>> Kinda - but not desperate, just having a little mean fun
>> at the expense of those he trolls.

> "Mean fun"... more like a creep (an eccentric or
> obnoxious person) then. :)

Welcome to RAO! ;-)