A message to the ignorant pigs of RAO. [Archive]

April 3rd 06, 03:39 AM

Ha! Made ya look! Sorry, I'm just kidding. But seriously, you really
*are* a bunch of closed-minded ignorant pigs. You're really "ignorant
bigots", but "pigs" has such a nice ring to it, don't you think? BTW,
I'm not saying that to be as rude, disrespectful and insulting as you
were toward me from the very beginning. I'm not trying to attack
anyone, as you have all attacked me from the very beginning. I'm saying
that simply because its true. Its not insulting if it's actually the
truth. This message is intended to prove that... (well I don't mean to
those that I'm calling closed-minded ignorant pigs in the first place,
since you would never admit that you were).

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may
deride it, but in the end, there it is."

- Winston Churchill

ABOUT "PROJECT TWEAK THE GOONS":

First, I'd like to thank you all for taking part in my excercise. ("Ha!
I knew we were being played!", Dizzy cried). Sit down Dizzy, you
didn't't get the prize. You're still a clueless twit. In a
certain way, it might be said that you *were* being played, but don't
feel bad about that. You fools were being played by "the best there is,
and the best there ever *was*, on RAO" (tm). However, you were not
being played in the ways you thought you were being played. But then,
all your misguided speculations is one of those many reasons why I
consider most of you regulars to be the fools that you are. All these
paranoid fears you expressed weren't entirely misappropriated however,
because I *was* playing a joke on you all. It just isn't the same joke
you simple minds thought it was...

Some of my colleagues have been watching this tweak drama unfold with
"appalled fascination" ;-). The kickstart to Project "Tweak The Goons
on RAO", despite knowing that I would be "putting pearls before swine"
as it were, was to win a wager I had made with a colleague. We bet a
case of lager that I could find the biggest audio discussion newsgroup
on the net, publish as many free alternative tweaks as I wanted... and
not a single person would ever try any of them. Okay, guess who won?
(glug glug glug....). I'm sure he realized the same outcome as I did,
but we both thought it was a fun social experiment to perform on you
audio lab rats. During this experiment, I've been watching you pigs
honking away, scurrying here and there in your efforts to evade the
truth (thinking you've already found it). Sometimes I see you geting
a little closer to the truth, sometimes you get it spot on (almost
always by accident). Most of the time, you are at the exact opposite
location of where the truth resides. You make these risible attempts to
grasp it, but fail to realize, theres nothing in your grasp. It's the
"risible" that kept me enthralled, and remaining longer than I
expected to.

I'm sorry if I seemed "snotty" to some of you. I know that I can come
off sounding a bit "superior" and all sometimes. But that's because I
am. Not in "every possible way" mind you, and certainly not in
conventional principles of audio (I never claimed conventional audio as
my profession, and few here can make that claim). But superior
nevertheless. Philosophically (which is why I will never make RAO my
lifelong hangout, as many here have). Because staying on this group on
a regular basis, doling out derision after scorn after derision is
really bad for your mental and spiritual health; and all that dumb
negativity does not do good things for the sound of your stereo. Sad
fact is, anybody that has THAT much steam to let off that they need to
do this every day of their lives, has deeper problems than what RAO can
offer in terms of therapy (are you listening, George?). So if you think
I think I'm better than you trailer trash pigs, I do. But that's
only because I am.

I'm also superior in my knowledge of non-conventional audio
principles, products and ideas. A relatively new area of audio of which
absolutely no one here knows anything about, except me. So while I
never claimed to have superior technical expertise over everyone (I
don't), I do have superior knowledge to all of those present on this
group, as to what produces good sound in an audio system. That's not
arrogance speaking, it's a reflection of what is true. I've read
and taken in enough opinions from people about audio to know this for
fact. My system, which according to the viewpoint shared by most
audiophiles here, should sound like crap and have exploded 7 years ago,
is a living testament to my abilities to produce good sound. Another
thing that many people here have a hard time wrapping their heads
around, is the idea that these two are not mutually inclusive. Knowing
how to design an amplifier doesn't mean you know how to make it sound
good, or even what "good sound" sounds like (most audiophiles who
haven't reached advanced stages, don't even get that right). A
living testatment to that is the sheer amount of bad sounding
amplifiers on the market.

"SO WHAT'S THE JOKE?":

Oh yes, that. The joke is this: the tweaks actually work. All of them.
You see, I may have had my fun with you, but I didn't really troll
anyone over the tweaks. You trolled yourself, by believing it was a
troll. Through most of this, not a single chap ever bothered to ask me
what the tweaks were based on, if anything. Instead, you decided you
already knew (closed mind goes no further, presumption limits
knowledge). Instead of asking me what the tweaks were about, you took
an offensive position and told me what the tweaks were about. So
followed message after message from one RAO regular after another,
calling the tweaks or me "silly", "insane", and calling me a "troll"
for putting them out there.

Consider this: If my tweaks were valid, meaning that they could be
perceived by those with hearing sensitive enough to do so, and a
willingness to consider that they may be perceptible, then everything
that I ever said about you all being ignorant bigots (and all the other
insults that come with it), would be justified, wouldn't it? Now
consider this: NO ONE HERE ever tried my tweaks, or even proved that
they don't work. So at the very least, logic would dictate, that the
question as to whether I am right about you all being ignorant pigs,
and ALL wrong about me and about yourselves, is as of this writing,
still OPEN.

Now instead of asking me what I'm about (wrt the tweaks), you spent
your time with me telling me what I'm about (the arrogance of
stupidity, the stupidity of arrogance; see: speculation, conjecture).
Rather than question how the ideas are applied, all you could think to
do was question my motivation for sharing them (distrust, fear of the
unknown). Even though I had already mentioned my (primary) motivation
for sharing the tweaks from the beginning. Which was to try to help
people improve their sound - if they wanted help. But that was too
simple, and wasn't good enough for the insecure goonies of RAO, no! You
were all too "clever" to believe that one. Because as it appears, no
regular contributor here would think to help others reading the group.
And I don't blame anyone for not trying to post helpful articles, and
only posting stupid joke tweaks that help people get killed and
electrocuted. It tends to get in the way of the fighting and the
backstabbing, that you all congregate here for on a daily basis.

"Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it.
Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." - Chief Seattle

"IF THE TWEAKS ARE NOT A TROLL'S JOKE, THEN DOESN'T THAT MEAN
*WE'RE* THE IGNORANT FOOLS AND NOT YOU?":

Uh... YAH. I reiterate, the tweaks are not the joke. You are. I've
personally tested every tweak and dozens more similar concepts and
products. Not only do I hear differences, but I've tested them blind
and double blind on non-audiophiles, who hear the same differences.
That doesn't mean because I or some others can hear differences, that
everyone else always will, and that it will hit them like a sock in the
head. Sorry to have to tell you people this, but nobody and nothing in
audio works that way. Not even with speakers. Some hear differences in
things and some don't, all depends on their threshold of audibility.
But I can say that among those who have tried and heard audible
benefits from either "my" tweaks, or ideas and audio products based on
their advanced concepts include; medical doctors, psychiatrists,
lawyers, audio engineers, audio accessory and equipment manufacturers,
and professional audio journalists, including but not limited to: Jimmy
Hughes, Carol Clark, Bill Kenny, Alvin Gold, Greg Weaver, Robert J.
Harley, Roger S. Gordon
(http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue8/belt.htm). As well of course,
non-professionals, like most of the people here.

Most are not developed by me, and so "not my tweaks".
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2005/Sep05/Snark.htm
Most have already been tried by actual "open minded" audiophiles (the
avant garde of the audio community) the world over, and have been
proven effective by most who've heard them. Most are based on
theories rooted in established sciences of which none of you
ignoramuses would know anything about, since you never bothered to
research them. Hundreds and thousands have people have either tried my
tweaks, or other ideas or products based on their principles. Which
are? Some are based on principles of quantum mechanics, some are based
on Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphic resonances. Some are based on
work by Dr. Ibrahim Karim and others on Dr. Masaru Emoto. All are
alternative concepts, except for the one "bonus" Newtonian tweak
(speaker grounding). Which I threw in there just to get a different
reaction. And it certainly did...

Upwards of a hundred messages all pouncing on me for posting that
tweak, viciously attacking me for deliberately trying to blow up
people's amplifiers by advocating a grounding scheme that was sure to
do that. And all the while that I was reading this complete tripe, I
had my stereo on in the background. The one that had my speakers
grounded to it, that was supposed to have blown up. To drive the point
home, I challenged many of my detractors to come and see my system and
the speaker grounding technique in action, to prove that it is not
harmful, and does in fact greatly elevate the sound quality. On the
promise that I would pay for their travel expenses if I could not prove
what I claimed. That's when everyone shut up real fast. Not a SINGLE
person took me up on my offer.

Getting a "different reactions" was the whole point of the excercise,
really. Frankly, I find your group to be quite boring. Your rare
discussions on audio are dumb, and rarely if ever at all interesting.
Just one dumb audiophile blasting out his prejudicial opinions to
another dumb audiophile, both audiophiles never having gotten past the
very beginning stages of audiophilia, and no one here ever convinces
anyone to change their mind about anything. This group is really just
a proving ground for your overinflated egos, than an educational forum.
A perfect example of how dumb that people here really are, can be seen
in the amount of attacks I got for the length of my messages. When
stupid sheep are challenged to read something longer than two-line
quips, they get angry and hostile. And so out come the wailing, whining
criticisms about the length of my posts (as though I am somhow forcing
dumb people to read them?!), and they even include dumb comments about
how "rambling" my posts are... when that couldn't be further from the
truth.

Dumb people with short attention spans will always believe that
anything longer than 2 lines is "rambling", because their little minds
can't follow it. They're not used to reading "books", you see. They
already get all their knowledge from ESPN, without having to waste
energy flipping pages. To display their idiocy even further, the same
critics about the length of my posts arrogantly believe they were
written for my subject, when that couldn't be further from the truth.
They are always written for my own amusement, the subject if there is
one, is merley the catalyst to that. Scanning the entire history of
this newsgroup, mine are just about the only posts archived that have
anything worthwhile or meaningful to say. A full 98-99% of the posts
that I've read here are disposable pieces of tripe; pointless,
meaningless, rambling dross. And then there are the "attack" posts,
which are even worse.

Although I made a great impact during my time here (and picked up an
entire crew of SHP groupies; which included stalkers, ankle biters and
imposters in just a few short weeks!), I was also hoping to change the
level of discussion of audio for at least a short time. But of course,
it never got to the "discussion" stage, because all everybody was
interested in was trolling and attacking me. The only thing you knew
for sure is that the tweaks were free, and had the potential to improve
your sound, or do nothing. True and passionate audiophiles that you
are, you chose to go with "do nothing"! (LOL!)

Apart from the sincerity of the tweaks themselves, I was basically
having fun with you predictable and ignorant lot of sheep elsewhere. As
I've said many times, most of you regulars are nothing but insincere
trolls (or even stalkers, as many behaved toward me), fishing for a
reaction from your opponents. But even so, I had no problem trolling
you, whenever or wherever I wanted. Trolling RAO goons is not even a
challenge to me. Look how easy it is: I knew, for example, that titling
my first post "Tip for OPEN MINDED audiophiles" would be like a honey
pot, attracting the exact opposite: closed minded audiophiles. Ready to
"rip me a new one", for having the cheek to post (seemingly) senseless
tweaks that make no sense to non-thinking sheep. (Who think that
they're clever little foxes). We (the open minded audiophiles) call you
people "Flatlanders". Do you know why? I think George does, as I've
seen him use the term. Except George doesn't realize that he's one
too.

"The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when
he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself." -
Archibald MacLeish

THE HERD MENTALITY:

What we were trying to observe with you "people", was a process that
sociologists call the "herd mentality". Basically, it means that you're
a bunch of non-thinking sheep. This can be seen and even predicted in
the fact that if you non-thinking sheep see that others are trying such
"tweaks", then you are far more likely to try them. If you see that
they don't, then you will "follow the herd". Some examples of "herd
thinking" are; cables, spikes, interconnects, etc. Concepts that were
not popularly embraced in the beginning, but are now commonly purchased
and used, even on a mid-fi level. In fact, the only reason people here
might believe that amps and sources (ie. cd players) sound different,
is because there aren't enough Arny Kruegers saying that "everything
sounds the same". At the onset of the introduction of the CD, most
players reproduced a sound so shrill and harsh, it pierced you in the
head like a drill and required a bottle of sedatives before you were
through with your brief listening session. The ultimate resolution and
image size (not to mention timbral quality, PRATT, and many other
factors) didn't even begin to approach what Linnies and other owners
of good record decks were already able to achieve in the analogue
domain, with their finely tuned setups.

CD v. LP: The Beginning Of the Endless Debate

Yet many consumers believed the hype that digital sound was superior to
anything vinyl replay had to offer, and indeed, "perfect sound
forever". Consumer sheep believed this without, in most cases, ever
doing an actual comparison with the better record decks available at
the time. This would be uncharacteristic of course because the idea of
mindless sheep is that they don't think for themselves. If they had,
most who'd been convinced of CD's superiority would have been
convinced otherwise. Ivor Tiefenbrun, the developer of the Linn LP12,
demonstrated as much to an audience of typical consumers on British
television, that what they were told to believe about the total
superiority of CD was in fact, completely false. So much for "perfect
sound". With CD rot turning up in the thousands producing unplayable
CDs, evidence came in that not only were they not superior sound as
claimed, they didn't even last as long as records. You start to
learn a lot more about audio, or any other subject, when you have
enough courage or scientific curiousity to step out of the illusory
world of "theories", and step into the reality of trial and first-hand
experimentation. It is here where you learn what is and isn't true,
and what does and does not apply to your understanding of audio; at
least for yourself.

EXCUSES FROM THE WILLFULLY IGNORANT:

I've tried to ask people why they're not trying the tweaks, in order
to prove my point (I could eliminate those who had valid reasons for
not trying them, such as they're deaf, they're not skilled enough on
how to apply them, or as one person said to me, "they can not perceive
changes because their hearing ability itself changes all the time due
to personal biological conditions"). Those who had arguably "valid"
reasons for not trying them, were put in one category. The rest, which
is most of the regulars here, I put in another category, which I call
"Flatlanders". Where people have even bothered to state why they're
against trying them, I fully understand the arguments that they have
given me, and I note that they all have something in common: they're
all ignorant and stupid.

I posted tweak after tweak until I satisfied my colleagues that no one
would try them. Hell, I was told this immediately in my first response
after posting my first message! It was a very hopeful sign for me... Of
course, if I conducted the same experiment on rec.audio.tech, or even
rec.audio.high-end, it would be so predictable, as to truly not be
worth undertaking. Those places are populated with "objectivist scum".
You can't write 3 words without somebody demanding a DBT from you. But
rec.audio.opinion? Well, of all the major audio groups, this is the one
that is supposed to represent a cross-stream of audiophiles from all
walks. Yet I showed with my experiment, as I even pointed out in my
posts, that there really is no difference between an objectivist and a
subjectivist, here. You're both narrow-minded herd-mentality sheep. Two
flocks of the same breed, as it were.

BATTLE OF THE IDEOLOGICAL NERDS:

Usually, new ideas such as the ones I've presented recently are met
with resistance from the narrow and closed minded. Traditionally, the
narrow and closed minded are represented in an exemplary fashion by the
ideological group that calls themselves "objectivists" (However, they
are the least objective group I've ever encountered. Even less
objective than so-called "subjectivists" - who are among the most
biased and prejudiced of social groups).

Of course, this idea of objectivists and subjectivists is an artificial
construct of Usenet audio hobbyists. I don't know of any audiophiles
that call themselves objecivists or subjectivists. You have basically
allowed people like Arnold to define who you are, according to your
testing methodology preferences, because he always wants testing
methodology to be the centerpiece of discussions on this group. With
Arny having succeeded at that, you're now all killing yourselves to try
to find an ideological box to pigeonhole me in, so you can figure out
whether I am to be perceived as a threat or an ally. Because of the
inherent fears of you mindless sheep, I went from an anal retentive
objectivist without a sense of humour, to an insane subjectivist who's
a comedian, to an objectivist troll, and other variations in between.
Truth is, according to the definition of your labels, I'm both an
objectivist and subjectivist. When I do blind tests I'm being
objective, when I don't, I'm being subjective. But even when I'm
performing subjective listening tests, I'm always trying to be
objective. Of course, that's not crude and simple enough for the
loutish swine on this group. Things have to be understood by RAO
members in terms of extremes; either black or white. If the truth lies
in between, eventually it will be pushed to one side or another, by a
RAO regular. And that will become "the new truth".

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." - George Bernard Shaw

THE RELIGIONS OF AUDIO:

The situation we find on RAO finds parallels in the greater social
dogma of religion. Every group of audio hobbyists here is merely
adhering to their own form of religion. The so-called "objectivists"
(who are anything but objective), can be considered ardent Xtians, the
"subjectivists", Protestants (slightly more progressive version of the
conservative Xtians). Us, the open-minded avant garde of the audio
community, are Wiccans or Pagans. (Although I have been equated with
Satan on this group, and also pigeonholed with the usual "alien" and
"insane" groups).

I know that people wont agree with my assessment, particularly
"objectivists". But that's because you're ignorant pigs, remember? I'll
elaborate a little on this, just for the ignorant objectivist pigs.
Don't think that hiding behind so-called "principles of science"
excuses you from calling your belief system a "religion". It doesn't.
Nor does stealing principles from medical sciences (DBT), and awkwardly
struggling to apply them to principles of audio, particularly
scientific or effective.

Self-described "objectivists" on Usenet think themselves superior to
the average consumer, who is blissfully unaware of the use and purpose
of blind testing methodology, and does not have a technical background
in audio. The objectivists goal is to "teach" the uninformed average
audiophile the same false myths that the average mid-fi consumer
already believes: that sound quality should generally not be a factor
in deciding among audio equipment, but that specifications (ie. watts)
and features are more important. The objectivist hijacks and misapplies
principles of medical science to an inherently subjective and illusory
practice like listening to music, to make themselves appear
authoritative.

The objectivist refrain: "If it isn't observed in dbt or abx tests,
it doesn't exist!". Blissfully ignoring the fact that very FEW of these
tests ever reveal differences in ANYTHING, or that consumer audio
equipment was not designed to be evaluated under such conditions. The
self-deluding objectivist then concludes the tests are inherently
correct, and the BILLIONS of people that hear things the tests don't
reveal, are deluded fools. Anything that might suggest the tests are
not valid, such as the studies done in the 70's on the stresses created
by abx tests, and other studies that point to the fact that our brain
processes information differently when undergoing such tests, gets
dismissed out of hand by Kreuger and company. The notion that you can
not control everything in a test but the DUT, also gets ignored. The
only "science" acceptable to objectivists, is always the one that
supports their lifelong belief system. So objectivists are no more
"scientists" or Science-minded, than say, the Amish. They believe in
their quasi scientific religion, just as the Scientiologists believe in
theirs (and also claim their religion is based on principles of
science).

"Knowledge is structured in consciousness. The process of education
takes place in the field of consciousness; the prerequisite to complete
education is therefore the full development of consciousness --
enlightenment. Knowledge is not the basis of enlightenment,
enlightenment is the basis of knowledge." - Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

THE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN (or "I Feel So Lost And Confused Because They
Cant Find a Box To Stuff Me in"):

Interesting that people did not know what to make of me, and their
fearful paranoid nature immediately came out when I came on the scene.
Circling around me trying to sniff my rear, you all couldn't even
figure out whether I was to be put in the "objectivist" category, or
classified as a subjectivist. This was before, you even knew whether I
was man, woman or beast. So for a period of time, I was classified by
one member as an "anal retentive objectivist" troll, others as a
radical subjectivist troll, and still others accused me of being a
troll trying to goad the two divisions to go against each other. Which
is the absolute stupidest thing anyone has ever told me, because it's
not AS THOUGH YOU NEEDED MY HELP TO FIND A REASON TO ATTACK EACH OTHER.
What total morons! I've been called a lot of dumb things in my time, by
a lot of dumb people. "Objectivist" was never one of them. But thank
you for making me laugh.

But I'm not exempting myself from this "religion" thing. The
subjectivists have their own religion, and so do the avant garde. But
instead of learning from each other, y'all would rather rip each others
throats out, and sling mud at one another. But that's a greater social
problem that has nothing to do with audio. A lot of it has to do with
fear, a primal instinct. I've mentioned this in a lot in my posts,
because I've seen how most people I've encountered here are filled with
fear. This includes all the fearful people who accuse others of not
being "courageous", because they are using their REAL names, and the
others are not. Which also makes me laugh a LOT. Believing that using
your REAL name means you're courageous, only means you're stupid, not
"courageous". You are after all, behind a computer monitor. EVERYONE is
courageous behind a computer rmonitor. Constantly concocting dumb
paranoid conspiracy theories about people makes you fearful (or is
derivative of your fear). So does rejecting tweak after tweak not
because its "silly", but really, because you're too fearful of looking
ridiculous. Even to yourself in the privacy of your own home. If the
tweaks appear conventional to you fearful lot, some of you might try
them.

If for example, I said that you can improve your sound by installing a
divider on the tweeeters, I'm sure some fish would bite. It doesn't
provoke a strong fear reaction from you herd mentalists, because it
appears to follow the conventional Newtonian laws you already know (ie.
diffraction). It doesn't play with your feelings of security by
changing what you think you know about audio, and it doesn't cover any
"mumbo jumbo theories of quantum mechanics" that you know nothing
about, and which scares the hell out of you so badly, you don't even
WANT to know about it. But I did warn you that I was an advanced
audiophile (and if you felt insulted by that, good. It also proves
you're fearful, by way of insecurity). Which simply means I know that
sound perception in audio doesn't stop at Newtonian laws. My system
knows it too you could say, because I took a $300 dollar system and
added $5,000 dollars to its sound, with about $8 of materials available
from a dollar store, in the space of a few weeks. Its the nattiest
placebo effect on earth. If placebos were THIS effective, there
wouldn't be a need to produce medication!

THE TRUE NATURE OF PROOF AND PLACEBO:

Not that I'm saying that to "prove" anything to anybody, since
"proving things" was never my goal, and neither was "being believed".
Objectivists", always think you have to "prove" your claims about
audio. Uh, I don't think so. That's a pointless excercise in futility,
and it has nothing to do with reality about audio. A reality that very
few self-professed experts know anything about. Why? Because they don't
try "unproven" techniques, for one thing. Only YOU can prove ANYTHING
to yourself. Do CD players sound alike, or do good turntables sound
better than CD players? Forget asking anyone, only YOU can know, by
listening. What about amps, cables, wire, spikes, isolation feet, green
markers, cd demagnitizers, shakti stones, gsic chips, clever little
clocks, pinhole paper with aspirin, holy water... I give you people the
same answer to *all* of it. Only YOU can prove whether these things are
audible, whether they matter. And only a herd-mentality fool would look
to someone else to answer the question about whether a tweak or audio
component is audible. (individual models of components is a different
matter... you cant always get your hands on the component).

The objectivists, ie. Arny Krueger, tell us that even if they do hear
differences, they still don't hear differences. Why? Because ABX tests
say there's no differences. Oh okay then. Lets chuck our BRAINS OUT
THE FREAKING WINDOW and pray to the ABX comparator. Then there's the
other fear-based arguments I've heard ad nauseum from the perpetually
insecure: It's a placebo!

Right. A greater bunch of thinkers there never were.... Got a
newsflash, my little sheep friends:"EVERYTHING is a placebo".
EVERYTHING is autosuggestion. EVERYTHING is an expectation effect. In
audio, PLACEBOS DON'T EXIST. Or they ALWAYS EXIST. Same difference.
What that means for the perpetually slow in the head, is that it
doesn't matter if a perception comes from a placebo or is actually
there. What matters is that YOU perceive it. If you perceive it to be
there, IT'S THERE. In the case of my seriously tweaked up stereo,
almost entirely done using quantum principles (such as the pinhole
paper etc) that according to EVERYONE here should have no effect,
others perceived the changes as well. So I'm fully aware that it
doesn't matter what I say, people will always believe these tweaks are
placebos. Again, even if everyone that listens to my stereo is also
suffering from a mass delusion, as are the millions who hear
differences among cd layers, its still a moot point. In audio, there's
no difference between a placebo and a non placebo perception. Here's
another newflash: Stereo itself is an illusion! Home theatre systems
even more so. You WANT placebos in this case. If you heave a heart
condition and your life depends on pills, then you DON'T want a
placebo! Get it now? (The sheep go: Baaaaa! Baaaaa! and all run around
mad. Does not compute! Does not compute! You're lying to us! You're a
bad evil horrible horrible man!)

HYSTERICAL PARANOIA GETS A NEW NAME: "REC.AUDIO.OPINION"

>From the beginning to the end, people tried to vilify me in an
increasing (and amusing) variety of ways. For most of the time, until
he got tired of it and his impotent voice drowned out by the derision
of others, Westface was killing himself to try to make a liar out of
me. Making up false inconsistencies over the most trivial matters, and
then fabricating them into alleged "LIES!!". Everything from insisting
I was lying about who's tweaks they were, to who's system it was that I
had tweaked. Then he said I lied about having posted the details of
said system, after the idiot forgot what he had previously read about
the components that make up my system. Several others called me a
"crook", including the goofball who calls himself, appropriately:
"Goofball". He called me a "shill", and fabricated the idea that I had
a business selling the tweaks, and then insisted that I should
"confess" about my secret shill agenda, with the fervence of a Nazi
interrogator. Robert, and numerous others also implied that I had
business ties to some tweak organization, and that this was the purpose
of my presence.

I was also called a "horrible, evil man", and threatened at virtual
gunpoint, as well as with litigation. I've had malicious web sites
created in my name, I've had my IP address analyzed and
over-analyzed, I've had Goofballs scouring the web for background
info on me, and so on. Naturally, after being attacked so many times, I
started attacking back on occasion, and it was a pleasure to do so.
You've proven that insults and mockery is the only language you boys
understand. But trust me... whoever I attacked well deserved it
(except in one case with Robert, whom I apologized to, because we'd
both been the victim of a forger). And whoever I attacked got off easy.
Be grateful for that. I didn't feel a need to be as harsh with you as
most of you were with me, because you're not any kind of a threat to
me, as I am to most of you.

Many people attacked me for attacking my attackers. Typical of the
hypocrites and the hypocrisy that proliferates on RAO like lies and
false bravado do, not a single person singled out anyone for their
abuse toward me. George would say I'm whining about this, but I'm
simply stating a fact. A fact about how everyone here is a hypocrite.
Except me. Because unlike everyone else, ie. Krueger, I never pretended
that I wasn't attacking my attackers. Paul Packer said my tweaks were
like dropping a ton of bricks on the group, and that was his excuse as
to why I was attacked the way I was. "What did you expect?", he
complained. Well what was I supposed to do? Introduce it gradually and
subtlety into the conversation thusly?:

SHP: "Yeah well, I was constructing some DIY Cat 5 cables according to
the Venhaus recipe, and after placing a glass of holy water next to my
CD player to improve the sound, I rolled out exactly 4.7m and found
that this was the ideal length for speaker cabling and IC wiring. "

Maybe that would have prevented any ridicule or mockery of my findings,
do ya think? Right. Props to Jenn, the only RAO regular who did not
attack me. Says something about the maturity of women. Although she is
counted on the "sheep" list as having called my tweaks silly, without
trying any of them. After all, how can sheep breed if there are no
females in the flock? I noted that Arnold Kruger actually attacked Jenn
for not denouncing my tweaks in a manner as bold as he would have
liked. This was a new height in risible ignorance: One blind ignorant
bigot condemning another for not demonstrating their ignorance as much
as was felt they should. ("What, you think yer better'n us, Miss
Prissy? Too high falutin' ta ridicule the tweak freak? Ridicule the
man already, and show that you're one of us, goldarnit!").

Then, what appears to be the contender to the King of The Imbeciles Of
RAO, "Goofball", a bitter, failed ex-tweak merchant, thought he was
going to "get me" by doing background research on my IP address and the
name in my email address. After finding the phrase on a web site, the
person some considered to be the "genius of RAO", had to find a picture
to match the phrase, so he could come back and tell his friends on RAO
that he conquered the "Soundhaspriority" dragon, and exposed him. And
what does the big bad dragon look like? Well, apparently... I look like
a quaint little old English lady, trying to get the car started on a
blustery winter day. Goofball, the goof, quite seriously insisted I
was her. When people weren't taking him seriously enough, he stomped
his feet and clenched his fists and yelled at the top of his voice,
that I was the old lady outside her car - and that people should stop
doubting what he says (because he's a "genius"....). The only fool
that really did take him seriously, and who still thinks I'm the old
lady shovelling snow behind her car (even though the photo doesn't
actually show her doing that....), was Middius. Who based on that
picture, called me "Shovels". How quaint!

And what kind of a person IS "Shovels"? Welll.... according to some,
I'm poorly educated. According to others, highly educated. Some say I'm
an idiot, others, I'm highly intelligent. Some say I don't know the
first thing about audio, others called me an audio guru. Some insisted
I was a troll, others? Well I'm sincere, of course. Some of the same
people who said I was a troll, also said I was sincere. Some people
called me a "newbie", others said I've been here for years. Frankly, if
I based my identity on what RAO people said about me, I'd be one very
confused tweako freako.

The rampant paranoia that people here suffer from makes the group look
like a wacked out meeting club for conspirational theorists. If I
listed all the examples, it'd be twice as long as this post. You can
start with Walt's sig which states: "There is no Belt conspiracy"
(he's implying there is, of course, and that I'm it). Go to
Robert's allegations that I'm a shill, among those of others. Then
there are the endless conspiracy theories about all the different
people that RAO participants claimed I was. Which included, from what I
recall: "Lionel", "Jamie", "Mrs. Belt", "André", "Benchimol", "Bob",
and both Wallace and Gromit. All this insane and idiotic conjecture
from the inhabitants of RAO reminds me of a line in a song from Dire
Straits, which goes:

"Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong....".

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is
opinion." - Democritus of Abdera

"PROOF? THIS IS RAO, BUDDY! WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' "PROOF"!":

That's not entirely true, of course. The objectivists are constantly
making calls for "proof", and so are the subjectivists, particularly
when it's a personal issue. But one thing that both groups of fools
could unanimously decide on, was that I'm insane and so are my silly
tweak ideas. Proof not necessary. In fact, all the other things that
were said about me that weren't true, such as who I was or what my
motivations were, were considered "fact". Proof not necessary, because
it's already been established as a "fact". And how, pray tell, does a
"fact" get established on RAO? Well, far as I can tell, there are two
rules involved in the process:

Rule no. 1: If one person on RAO with a "credible" reputation says it,
"it's a fact!". George Middius knows this rule well, and used it when
he lied to the group about what was communicated in private email from
me to him, hoping to establish his lies as "fact", merely by
credibility of reputation.

Rule no. 2: If you can find a second person with a "credible
reputation" to confirm what the first presumptuous idiot said, then
it's a "inalienable fact set in stone".

For example, I have a Rotel 820A. Except I don't *know* what a "Rotel
820A" is. I know what an 855 is (a cd player I had in the 80's). But
because one RAO member, Goofball again, stated I had a Rotel 820A,
voila! I have a Rotel 820A now. Paul Packer was seen commenting with
George about my Rotel 820A. Did anyone come and ask ME if I had a Rotel
820A? Don't be silly! Not even necessary. It was already established
as an inalienable fact on RAO according to Rule no. 2. And you wonder
why I call you people "mindless sheep"? You believe what you're told,
because your minds are on autopilot. So if you're told something that
isn't true, such as "audio begins and ends with Newtonian laws", you
don't think to question it, even if someone comes along and says
"maybe it isn't true, why not take 30 seconds to question it?". Not
questioning things leaves you on safe, familiar ground. Questioning
things pulls you into riskier, scarier territory. And it requires
effort on your part.

This is why "real facts" on RAO, are about as rare as hen's teeth.
Here are two "real" facts, that I've been able to conclude:

FACT #1. ALL TWEAKS HAVE BEEN SWEEPINGLY DISMISSED BY ALL MEMBERS OF
THIS NEWSGROUP.

FACT #2. NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE HAS EVER BEEN PRODUCED TO
JUSTIFY DENOUNCING THE "TWEAK" TECHNIQUES.

I put those facts in caps not because I'm shouting, but to stress the
most important conclusion of my study on this group. It allows me to
use terms like "bigots', "ignorant pigs", "mindless sheep",
"presumptuous fools", "insecure dweebs", and so on, rightfully and
without prejudice. I get to do that, because: see FACT #2.

When I asked on what basis they were dismissing the tweaks without
trying them, the attitude most people have had is one of "you are
insane to even ask that". For example, when I asked Steve Sullivan, who
claims to be a trained scientist, what was the reason that he didn't
try the tweaks, he said it was because I was insane (along with 99% of
the group, none of whom have ever provided evidence of this claim).
Then when I asked what I thought was a fair question, which is what
proof did he have that I was insane, he did not reply except to say he
would use that in his "sig". (Which since has been: "Excuse me? What
proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority)

A *trained scientist* mind you. Someone who might actually have a
chance at understanding the concepts behind the tweaks, or at the very
least, *should* as both an audiophile and trained scientist, have
enough scientific curiousity to see if there is anything behind the
tweaks, since they only take seconds to apply. When he discovered that
the tweaks may have a scientific grounding, and that this may fall
within the laws of quantum mechanics, did RAO's self-professed
"trained scientist" apply a scientist's thirst for knowledge to try
to discover more about the theories? Was his scientific curiousity
aroused to the degree where he at least asked what area of quantum
mechanics the tweaks might be based on, in order to see if there was
any validity to the theories? Well no, actually not. As to educating
himself about all the theories behind the tweaks, he didn't do jack
squat. Instead, here was his response:

--------------------------------------------------
Steve Sullivan writes:

"When someone selling something starts babbling about quantum
mechanics, consumers should hide their wallets and reach for their
guns. Steve Sullivan."
--------------------------------------------------

In other words, a mighty sweeping dismissal of products, ideas and
theories he has NO clue about, offering NO evidence whatsoever to
support his sweeping dismissal. If this guy's a scientist, and I
don't believe it for a minute, he's the first "redneck scientist"
I've come up against. This is what they call "truth by assertion".
It's this "sliding scale reality" that I underline, is a consistent
element that connects almost all of you. It exemplifies your prejudice,
bias, and complete isolation from the truth and reality.

"Consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to be conscious of
the nothingness of its being." - Jean-Paul Sartre

"OH, SO YOU DON'T WANT TO TRY SHOVING YOUR WET HANDS INTO A BARE
MAINS SOCKET TO IMPROVE THE SOUND? THEN YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE, AND
WE'VE JUST PROVED YOU'RE NO LESS IGNORANT THAN WE ARE!"

....I got crap like that a lot. I mean, a LOT. It is a way that
ignorant, small-minded children have of trying to reassure themselves
that they really aren't the ignorant bigots they're being made out
to be. Rather, that they are reasonable, intelligent thinking beings,
that are simply being "careful" about what they will and won't try.
For example....

Q. The sheep nay: "Well if we try *your* "crazy" ideas, even though we
have not provided any proof to justify calling them "crazy", then why
not try every "crazy" idea that anyone can think of?! Like licking a
live mains wire to get the electrons flowing better! Or putting
cucumber slices under our speakers! Huh? Why, not, huh? You're CRAZY,
if you think we're that stupid!"

A. The guru responds: You *are* that stupid, but unfortunately and
contrary to popular opinion in the hog farm that is RAO, I'm not in
the least bit crazy. I have never advocated dangerous tweaks, as
advocated by Robert (who even tried to get me to advocate a dangerous
tweak, in order to try to discredit my valid tweaks), Sander, and
numerous others who thought they were being clever and funny by mocking
my sincere tweaks with their insincere tweaks. At least I did manage to
get people talking about "tweaks" (although I don't care much for
that term...). Before me, I think there was about 3 or 4 messages about
tweaks in the history of this group. You guys are gonna have a hard
time forgetting me and the concept of "tweaks", that much I know.

One primary difference between my tweaks and all of those who have
posted an endless amount of tweak ideas ever since I came on the group,
is that I actually tried all of the ideas I advocated. They did
absolutely no harm in any way, and only benefited my system, according
to my abilities in perceiving sound quality. I wouldn't even advocate
a tweak that I did not feel was truly a benefit to the sound quality,
unless I state otherwise. Many so-called audiophiles can't even tell
what is a benefit to the sound and what isn't, so can't even get
that much about audio, right. For example... everyone that uses metal
spikes under their speakers or equipment is actually ruining the sound
quality. And because they're *not* "advanced audiophiles", because
they are instead "mindless sheep" who prefer to be told what to think,
they're not even aware of how they are hindering their sound quality
with spikes and graphite blocks and squash balls and concrete blocks
and other things that take you in the opposite direction to good sound.

In my very first tweak post, the reason I wrote the faux "ad" that way,
(advertising FREE tweaks to lure unsuspecting RAO members into my cult,
where I shake them down for every bit of spare change that they
have...), was to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. I
reasoned that the superficial among you will see it as an "attack" of
some sort that you have to defend against (ie. scam). The more profound
thinkers will see through the superficial, and get at the meaningful
bits, which are the tweaks. And try the tweaks, to see if its
meaningful for them. So yes, I was having my fun with you little
sheepies.

Guess what? You ALL failed the test, by a country mile. You're ALL
superficial thinkers. The closest anyone of you came to overcoming your
intellectual insecurities, was Mr. Morein. Ironically, since he's
probably otherwise the most neurotic person on the group. And someone
who I was sure was a troll due to all the messages I'd read against
him, but I welcomed him anyway, when he emailed me for information.
That's what you call being "open minded". Insisting that I perform
stupid fake tweaks by idiots who are trying to mock me isn't.

I mention the last bit, because as I said, many of you insecure lot
questioned the very idea of trying tweaks that don't make sense to dumb
ignorant people. You figure its the -tweaks- that are stupid, silly,
and ignorant. And not you. But I was surprised to find that some of
you, nevertheless, actually consider yourselves "open-minded" and not
part of the herd-mentality! LOL! If only that were true, it wouldn't
be so funny! Anyway, this creates a conflict, which you resolve by
trying to argue that if someone tries one of the tweaks I posted, then
where does one draw the limit?

And so you think you're intelligent and clever by showing me examples,
in trying to turn the tables on ol' "soundhaspriority". When in fact
you're just being dumb and predictable again, just as you are when you
mock and ridicule my tweaks without trying them. The example that
people like Goofball, Sander deWaal, Dave Weill, George Middius, Deano
(my imposter!), and so very many others have tried to show me falls
flat on its face, for several reasons. Here are some of them:

a) "Accusing" me of not being open-minded for not trying the fake
tweaks, is hypocritical, since all of you who gave me your tweak ideas,
had not tried any of mine. Which makes you closed-minded, and yet, not
one of you was ever willing to admit that you are closed-minded. Which
makes you even more profoundly closed-minded. Ignorant as well, since
you remain willfully ignorant of your closed-mindedness.

b) Every single one of you who shared your fake tweaks with me were
being insincere. And stupidly insincere at that. (All of your mocking
tweaks were unoriginal and mostly variations of the ideas I posted,
which showed how little imagination that people here have). I note that
the things in my first tweak that scared people the most, were the
aspirin and the cat picture. These are the things you couldn't stop
ridiculing, even though the basis of the tweak is really the pinholed
paper.

c) None of you in discussing my tweaks with me, ever offered sincere,
reasonable, practical, intelligent tweaks that you were willing to try
yourselves. So you don't know that I would have been open with them.

d) Some of the posturing arguments you fools have given me is that I
can't be sure if your tweaks are fake or not, since they "sound" as
crazy as mine. Except I am sure, and you would be deceitful to argue
your point with me, knowing what we both know, about the mocking tweaks
from my detractors being fake.

e) Another would-be argument is that your closed-mindedness can be
excused, because the tweaks "sound silly and insane". After all, NO
ONE, as Goofball informed me, tries tweaks "that sound silly and
insane". Which he was proven foolish and wrong on, since I'm a living
example of someone who tries tweaks that sound silly and insane (to
sheep and ignorant pigs, that is).

I read a Stereophile article on the net not too long ago, which if I
recall talked about tweaks like the green marker, and such. And the
author had decided which tweaks should and shouldn't be tested,
according to his standards. Which to my recollection, stated something
like: "If it doesn't cost anything and takes little of your time, why
not try it?".

Indeed, I agree with that one. Why not? , is the question I posed to
RAO. And the group responded, in unison: "Because were closed-minded
ignorant Flatlander fools". And I noted that response in my little
black book, for future reference. And so my experiment is done. Which
means yes, I wont be posting any more insane tweaks! Too bad! You all
seem to have adopted the very mistaken attitude that you're doing me a
favour by trying my tweaks. You're not. You'd be doing yourself a
favour, but I'm a lunatic, so what do I know? <shrug> Whether you do or
don't want to, does not affect my life one bit. It does however, affect
my study of you. But that's merely a statistical detail you needn't
worry about.

"Sound has priority" is, as I tried to explain to the King Of Fools
(Goofball), a self-contained tweak. What is known as a "morphic
message". Thousands of people use the phrase to improve their sound
perception, which is what makes it powerful. Similar in concept to the
life energy force known as "Chi" and other names. But of course, that
too can be safely dismissed as "new age nonsense" by the brilliant,
educated, enlightened minds on RAO (such as it was by Dave Weil).

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which
differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are
even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein

ABOUT SOMA (The "Society of Open Minded Audiophiles", previously "The
Secret Society of Advanced Audiophiles" (SSAA)):

When I said in my first message the tweaks were for "advanced
audiophiles", that was true, and I meant it (even though I knew it
would probably be responded to by everyone but). My colleagues in the
non-conventional audio community estimate that were 15-20 years ahead
of the rest of the audio community and the audio industry. That
basically means we have to sit patiently and wait 15-20 years for the
rest of you mindless lemmings to catch up with laws of non-Newtonian
science, as they apply to sensory perception. Theoretically, this means
that George Middius should be expecting his first retirement benefits
from RAO, by the time he realizes the tweaks work. But I don't buy
that. I believe that estimate is far too conservative. I estimate that
we are at least 40-50 years ahead of the industry. It's been at least
25 years that the research on these advanced audio concepts exists.
Some people are so far behind present knowledge, they're still
arguing about whether CABLES and wire, CABLES mind you, have an audible
effect. Good lord, the same arguments about whether amps or cd players
sound any different, or whether LP is better than CD, that you can read
about ten or fifteen years ago, are still being argued today on
newsgroups like RAO. Trying to explain patiently to the backward audio
nuts that are so far behind, they still don't get it that amps,
cables, cd players, turntables, spikes, etc. all have audible effects,
is a pointless waste of time. Small wonder, these are people that
believe the more speakers, sound processors, metal and watts you can
have, the better life is.

Obviously for some, audio progress advances VERY slowly, if at all. For
others, ie. me, not quickly enough. One thing I believe for certain,
is that in 15-20 years, you ignorant bigots will still be mocking and
ridiculing advanced audio concepts without having ever experimented
with them in depth as I have. Continuing to wallow in your ignorance
for the length of your small lives, mocking everything you don't
understand, before ever trying to understand it.

One member here, who when I said my time was limited, asked me to stay
longer. Adding that I'd make a good dinner guest. And during my stay, I
would have been glad to pull up a chair, and explain some of the
findings, the research and the principles of non-conventional audio
with all of you. So that we may learn from each other, and share
diverse interests within the hobby that we all have an interest in, to
one extent or other. For even if people disagree, they can disagree
with respect, in a way that does not invalidate the other's
intelligence and experience. I even tried to dot hat by trying to get
people into a conversation about what problem they had with the ideas.
But unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your prejudices), no
one made a place for me to sit. On this group of audio bigots, I'm
basically the "black guy" at a dinner table populated by klu klux klan
members. On top of that, I'm trying to explain to you klan members a
bit about my black culture, and how important tolerance of other races
(ideas) is. Whilst you're loading up your shotguns, clubs, and assorted
"red neck party gear" you all carry with you "to work" (which by the
sheer volume of posting from many of you, your employer appears to be
RAO. I hope it provides health care benefits, because sitting in front
of a computer screen every day for years on end and dishing out
derision is bound to have a toll on one's mental health) . So I
agree, I do make a good dinner guest but... I don't think I want to
have dinner with "you people" (as I've been referred to by some RAO
members).

Besides, I'm no longer on holiday, which means I'll be returning to
work soon and will have less time to play with you children anyway. I
know some of you are really despondent about that (and I can hear
George trying to muffle sobs and whimpers, because he was deathly bored
before I came along, and I gave him purpose in life during my entire
presence). Nevertheless. I'm sure that you people are eager beaver to
add your usual insulting, mocking and condescending replies, so I'll
get out of the way and let you get it out of your primitive minded
systems. Please don't be shy letting me know how you feel about me,
as you were in the past. I can take it. I'm made of stronger stuff
than you are.

Go on and let your scream out!

-soundhaspriority

p.s. For bottom-liners: No matter your politics, you are all part of a
sheep status quo. Me? I laugh in the face of orthodoxy! And so I laugh
in your faces: Ha. Ha. (pause.....). Ha.

Ha.

Thank you for an enlightening experience, and a wonderful time.

"It is a courageous man (or woman) who attempts to introduce a new
concept." - May Belt

George M. Middius

April 3rd 06, 04:41 AM

Shovels apparently gave up boozing for a day in favor of reality-bending
narcotics.

> The joke is this: the tweaks actually work. All of them.

You're a generation late, Shovie. You belong in the time of Timothy Leary,
Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, et al.

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