Quick Fact: Re: Scientific foundation of my tweaks.

[[email protected]]

In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
>From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.

So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
explain them (by Robert, and others). Or they were completely ignored.
All that you all have shown me, is that the only reason you would ever
want to debate theories is to have something else to have vicious
arguments about. That's about all audio means to most RAO regulars
here: arguing.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
> detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
> tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
> have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
> inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
> implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
> hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
>>From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
> received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
> that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
> of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
> that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.
>
> So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
> how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
> done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
> experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
> an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
> them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
> you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
> details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
> dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
> and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
> personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
> explain them (by Robert, and others).

Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:

1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
whether the tweaks you advocate work. I suspect that you make money off the
"electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
advertising exposure you gain here.
2. I do not know whether you believe in the tweaks yourself.
3. With respect to the "cream", and your relationship with PWB Electronics,
there is the "appearance of impropriety." This does not mean that it has
been factually established that there is an impropriety. However, anyone who
is engaged in journalistic, or alleged independent reporting is aware that
the appearance of impropriety renders a person subject to public censure
4. I consider that it is possible that you and PWB Enterprises share a
common economic interest in the promotion of their products.

> Or they were completely ignored.
> All that you all have shown me, is that the only reason you would ever
> want to debate theories is to have something else to have vicious
> arguments about. That's about all audio means to most RAO regulars
> here: arguing.
>
And it will never change. R.A.O is THE place for arguments, insults, and
lost reputations. Have you ever wondered why salesmen don't hang around
here, Mr. Graham? It's because the dialog that ensues damages their
business. Here in r.a.o., "why" is the most important question. We have no
faith, in you or anybody else, and desire none. We refuse to acknowledge
your claim that you are intellectually superior to us, and it offends us,
and those of us who might have listened have closed our minds to your
insults.

I have told you that I do not have an opinion as to whether your "free"
tweaks work. Perhaps they work, for some individuals, metaphysically, since
enjoyment of music is related to consciousness, which has not been
integrated into the framework of the physical sciences. However, there is an
important reason I feel the tweaks should not be explored. What follows is a
lot of supposition, but I've examined "biogeometry", and found that the
assertions of that so-called science are themselves no more than
suppositions. The playing field is level.

Let's suppose, as one way of bridging your sensibilities and mine, that each
of us inhabits a copy of the universe that is subtly different. Suppose
further, that each of us, by concentration of our perception, actively
influences the properties of our personal universe. In my case, I choose for
my universe one strongly compliant with the bundle of properties known as
"the physical universe." Another person may manage to influence the
properties of his personal universe to include characteristics outside the
above, which I refer to as "magic", which I define to include all
nonrepeatable, objectively nonverifiable experiences that are not observable
or testable by the techniques that characterize "the physical universe."

It may take 30 seconds to "apply a tweak", but the techniques of
experimental psychology, required to validate any improvement, are time
consuming indeed. I'm too busy. But suppose I did have the time. Another
question arises.

If I try your tweaks, I may change my personal universe, to one which
validates behavior that I would characterize as neurotic or magical. I don't
want this. I prefer my physical universe, because the behaviors of objects
within my universe are highly predictable and repeatable, according to
physical laws of long standing. In this universe, I can make money, run my
life, have interesting relationships with other people, and enjoy music. I
enjoy music alot. I hear it just fine. I don't need it any better. I do not
need to complicate my life by cutting clothing labels, freezing pictures,
and putting labels with incantations such as "sound has priority" on my
equipment. Even if it did work, it is too costly in terms of cluttering up
my head space. Life is for more important things.

If I want to enjoy the music I'm listening to more, I perform a mental
adjustment. I focus in; or I change the recording, or I move my seat, or I
just change my mood. And the music changes my mood, and I have fun. I need
nothing more.

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
> detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
> tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
> have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
> inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
> implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
> hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
>>From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
> received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
> that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
> of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. [...]

Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?

How did you determine this?


> You show
> that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.
>
> So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
> how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
> done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
> experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
> an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
> them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
> you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
> details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
> dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
> and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
> personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
> explain them (by Robert, and others). Or they were completely ignored.
> All that you all have shown me, is that the only reason you would ever
> want to debate theories is to have something else to have vicious
> arguments about. That's about all audio means to most RAO regulars
> here: arguing.


I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion is
that they're false but not directly verifiable.




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> That's about all
> audio means to most RAO regulars here: arguing.

Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.

There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio and the
love of music well-reproduced. Middius and his disciples made that pretty
much go away.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
>
>>That's about all
>>audio means to most RAO regulars here: arguing.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> That's the Middius legacy.
>
> There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio

Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
religion ruined everything.

[Arny Krueger]

"Fella" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>
>>> That's about all
>>> audio means to most RAO regulars here: arguing.
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> That's the Middius legacy.
>>
>> There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons
>> about audio
>
> Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds
> the same" religion ruined everything.

That's right. The "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same" religion" is
something that Middius fabricated. It's a figment of his warped,
minimally-functional brain. Middius' mental acuity has degraded so much over
the years that he's been posting here that I'm surprised he still has the
ability to swallow for himself. Maybe one reason nobody ever sees him in
public is that he's being fed by a tube. If that's true, its really tragic.

[[email protected]]

angrily wrote:

> Finally, the truth about them,
> no science and they are for stupid, lazy people.

Thank you for this example, Westface. Ok guys, THIS is the example that
proves exactly what I said above. Your only purpose here is to wage war
on ideas you are ignorant of and that differ from your religiously-held
beliefs. Such as where Westface interprets me having said that they
have a scientific basis as: "Finally the truth about them, no science".
Then he goes on to insult me personally by saying they're for "stupid
lazy people". Ignorant bigotry at its finest, and typical of all the
responses I have received on this newsgroup to my tweaks. I'm sorry
but when you're this hostile to new ideas and you don't start to
question your intelligence, it's because you're not.

My response to Westface: Obviously they're not for stupid, lazy
people, otherwise you'd have tried them.

[[email protected]]

Signal wrote:


>
> I tried the L shape tweak, but it had a negative effect.

I pretty much said as much in my post "L-shape tweak for dummies". I
designed it simply to demonstrate that it has an effect.

So what you have just observed is that shapes and symbols do have an
effect on our perception of sound. That means you're already ahead of
the game, where the rest of the audio community stands.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

> Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
> seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?
>
> How did you determine this?

How do you think? I listened.

> I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion is
> that they're false but not directly verifiable.

That's a very strange thing to say, and I don't know if it came
before the acid trip you took or afterward. First of all, you can not
verify and conclude the validity of any tweak or audio phenomenon by
simply "reading" about it. To do so would be making a judgement call
that leads you into ignorant bigotry. It shows your belief system is a
religious, faith-based one; so don't kid yourself about adhering to
scientific principles. Secondly, if they're not directly verifiable,
then nothing in audio is. Which is about as absurd as your first
statement about making "conclusions" on phenomena you've never tested
and know nothing about.

[George M. Middius]

Fella said:

> Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
> religion ruined everything.

My teachings are not in the public domain. That'll be $1.65, please.





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

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger postured:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > That's about all
> > audio means to most RAO regulars here: arguing.
>
> Agreed.
>
> That's the Middius legacy.


Arny, get out of my thread and go jump on someone who's dissing ABX
somewhere. Stop poisoning people's threads with your political
posturing. No one bought your arguments in 10 years, no one's buying
them now. So why do you do it? Crater-sized ego, perhaps? Mental
deficiencies?


> There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio and the
> love of music well-reproduced.

Yes. Just before you came on the scene and decided to promote your ABX
agenda and try to brainwash as many people as possible into believing
that everything in audio sounds the same, and the holy ABX box tells us
so. You and your polemicist friends are even more religious than the
so-called "subjectivists".


> Middius and his disciples made that pretty
> much go away.

Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that. Remember that Shovels
can not have "disciples". He's a follower, not a leader.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> angrily wrote:
>
> > Finally, the truth about them,
> > no science and they are for stupid, lazy people.
>
> Thank you for this example, Westface. Ok guys, THIS is the example that
> proves exactly what I said above. Your only purpose here is to wage war
> on ideas you are ignorant of and that differ from your religiously-held
> beliefs. Such as where Westface interprets me having said that they
> have a scientific basis as: "Finally the truth about them, no science".
> Then he goes on to insult me personally by saying they're for "stupid
> lazy people". Ignorant bigotry at its finest, and typical of all the
> responses I have received on this newsgroup to my tweaks. I'm sorry
> but when you're this hostile to new ideas and you don't start to
> question your intelligence, it's because you're not.
>
> My response to Westface: Obviously they're not for stupid, lazy
> people, otherwise you'd have tried them.

I'm back.
[ clue ]
(get a mirror)

0101100101

0101100101

0101100101

0101100101

I'm betting your still clueless, O superior one.

[Fella]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Maybe one reason nobody ever sees him in
> public is that he's being fed by a tube.


Well he recently revealed the make of the power amp he uses and I
believe that brand does not make tube gear in general. He did go on to
say that he doesn't employ tubes anywhere else in his system so one of
you is lying here Arny old chum.

Moreover, I have a friend that has tube gear (he actually builds them
himself) and I've seen him in public on occasion.

[Fella]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Fella said:
>
>
>>Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
>>religion ruined everything.
>
>
> My teachings are not in the public domain. That'll be $1.65, please.
>

Thank you Mr. Midiius for being so origionial for once admitting to your
commercial agenda on this groupd Mr. Midiot, noted.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
[snip]
>
> Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that. Remember that Shovels
> can not have "disciples". He's a follower, not a leader.
>
Dear Mr. Graham:
"Shovels" is the name by which George Middius refers to you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Arny Krueger postured:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>> That's about all
>>> audio means to most RAO regulars here: arguing.

>> Agreed.

>> That's the Middius legacy.

> Arny, get out of my thread and go jump on someone who's
> dissing ABX somewhere.

Red herring argument noted.

BTW, does such a person exist outside of RAO and RAHE?

> Stop poisoning people's threads
> with your political posturing.

See what I get for agreeing with you, Mr. Sound?

> No one bought your arguments in 10 years,

Wrong. ABX and audio DBTs are widely-accepted.

> no one's buying them now.

See above.

> So why do you do it?

This is about Middius, not DBTs.

>Crater-sized ego, perhaps?

Yours?

> Mental deficiencies?

You're not mentally deficient given how well you've trolled this place, so I
can't turn that one around! ;-)

>> There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons
>> about audio and the love of music well-reproduced.

> Yes. Just before you came on the scene and decided to
> promote your ABX agenda and try to brainwash as many
> people as possible into believing that everything in
> audio sounds the same,

Oh, so you were brain-washed by Middius as well, eh Mr. Sound?

> and the holy ABX box tells us so.

Yup, definate signs of yet another weak mind re-programmed by Middius.


> You and your polemicist friends are even more religious
> than the so-called "subjectivists".

I am a real subjectivist. but I don't know where all these zombie so-called
subjectivists come from. Do you?

>> Middius and his disciples made that pretty
>> much go away.

> Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that.

It's true that he inhereted his role from Alan/Ellen/Allen Derrida.

> Remember that Shovels can not have "disciples".

Sure he can, your flawed logic notwithstanding. After all, what is Sackman?

> He's a follower, not a leader.

Never heard of multi-layer hierarchies, I take it?

[Shovels McTweakNut]

My imposter made this post and I now offer a corrected version. I am
running short of time so everybody please read this emendation quickly.

> The recent spate of messages I have posted has doubtless caused many of
> you to wonder why I get obsessed about the inane but fanciful nature of
> my tweaks. I am ready to debate anything with anybody because my
> intellectual stamina is equal to anybody's. And by intellectual I mean, of
> course, verboseness. I will point out one relatively unassailable fact:
> The tweaks I have freely given you are the product of many months of
> dreamily staring at the ceiling in my quiet room. Nobody else could have
> discovered these amazing and scientifically robust tweaks because I am
> uniquely gifted. My superiority is legendary, especially compared to you
> dead-in-the-head so-called audiophiles who are nothing but poseurs.
> How long would it take you to simply try my tweaks, you simple-minded
> imbeciles? You are all so lazy it makes me want to scream. Your absurd
> and malicious inquisitions about the science behind the tweaks is completely
> beside the point. If you weren't a herd of dunderheads, you would be able
> to recognize true wisdom when it is offered to you gratis.
>
> My preconceived opinions about you lowlife mental masturbators (except for
> George and Arny and Stephen and Robert, who are certainly REAL masturbators
> too) were completely borne out by your displays of ignorance and misplaced
> jeering. The towering monument you've erected of scorn, derision, mockery and
> ridicule proved to me that you are the proverbial swine on whom my pearls are
> entirely wasted. You have wasted my little tweak gems just as you waste so many
> hours of your so-called lives. I, on the other hand, am proving over and over how
> superior I am to you ankle biters. My superiority is evident through the concise
> prose I deliver to this forum in the hope of enlightening a few of you groundhogs.
>

There. I hope you feel better now.


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

[[email protected]]

"Fella" > wrote in message
...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com
>>
>>
>>>That's about all
>>>audio means to most RAO regulars here: arguing.
>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> That's the Middius legacy.
>>
>> There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio
>
> Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
> religion ruined everything.

That's about right, since he and his ilk are the only ones who say that
everything sounds the same. The rest of us know better.

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
>> seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?
>>
>> How did you determine this?
>
> How do you think? I listened.

Ok so, after you've listen, your tweak work after you cut an unbleach
3" x 2" rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) underneath the
said paper having an aspirin on the center pinhole. And then, placed
atop the speaker box.

Based on this, you were able to determine this tweak of yours worked
after you've "listened."

Is it safe for me to assume this?


>> I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion is
>> that they're false but not directly verifiable.
>
>
> That's a very strange thing to say, and I don't know if it came
> before the acid trip you took or afterward. First of all, you can not
> verify and conclude the validity of any tweak or audio phenomenon by
> simply "reading" about it.

Well HOW did you verify that the above tweak of yours work after you've
placed the unbleach paper atop the speaker box and "listen" to it sir ?


>To do so would be making a judgement call
> that leads you into ignorant bigotry. It shows your belief system is a
> religious, faith-based one; so don't kid yourself about adhering to
> scientific principles.

(Can we save this for later?)

> Secondly, if they're not directly verifiable,
> then nothing in audio is. [...]

That is incorrect.

> Which is about as absurd as your first statement about making
> "conclusions" on phenomena you've never tested and know
> nothing about.


Well then, how did you directly verify that the above tweak of yours work
after you've placed the unbleach paper with an aspirin atop the speaker
box and "listen" to it sir ?




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein dishonestly wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
> > detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
> > tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
> > have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
> > inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
> > implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
> > hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
> >>From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
> > received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
> > that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
> > of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
> > that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.
> >
> > So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
> > how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
> > done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
> > experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
> > an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
> > them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
> > you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
> > details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
> > dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
> > and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
> > personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
> > explain them (by Robert, and others).
>
> Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:

I noticed that you isolated the word "deceit", but not the other two. I
take that as an admission that you were being hostile and malicious
toward me in your so-called "debate" attempts. I was not ascribing all
three terms to all those who debated me, Robert. I was lumping it all
in. And in your case, I don't think I can apply the word "deceit",
but the other two fit well enough (ie. DON'T CREAM YOUR EYEGLASSES).

>
> 1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
> whether the tweaks you advocate work.

And your opinions about the cream are merely ignorant ones, since you
presume to know how it all works.

> I suspect that you make money off the
> "electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
> advertising exposure you gain here.

Just about one of the stupidest things I've heard you say. What
you've got going for you is that fortunately, you have a lot smarter
things to say than stupid things. I can't say that for most of the
remainder. Try thinking for half a second. No, I mean "really"
thinking, not the blind conjecure you make: I've insulted just about
every person on this group, save for the one female. I've been doing
so since my first post. Now after buttering everyone up, I'm supposed
to sell them vials of "cream" according to you?

Do you have ANY idea of just how stupid what you just said really is?


> 2. I do not know whether you believe in the tweaks yourself.

I don't know whether you believe in anything you write on RAO, and
I've often suspected that your posts to me are merely insincere
trolls. But from your responses to me in email, you specifically told
me that you did at least believe I was sincere about the tweaks, and I
recall you even declared as much on the group. So its obvious that you
saying you don't know whether I believe in the tweaks is an insincere
lie, that you're putting out to troll me.


> 3. With respect to the "cream", and your relationship with PWB Electronics,
> there is the "appearance of impropriety."

With respect to a LOT of the activities that you engage on in this
group, there is the "appearance of impropriety". Do I look to you like
a man who cares about "appearances"? THINK about what you say, Robert.
Just for a half second, even.


> This does not mean that it has
> been factually established that there is an impropriety. However, anyone who
> is engaged in journalistic, or alleged independent reporting is aware that
> the appearance of impropriety renders a person subject to public censure

> 4. I consider that it is possible that you and PWB Enterprises share a
> common economic interest in the promotion of their products.

Just as it is possible that you share a common economic interest in
Near field monitors, which you have promoted on this group. In fact,
you promoted speaker companies far more than I promoted tweak products.
Let's put it this way, if PWB hired me as a spokesperson for their
products here, I must be the world's worst spokesperson ever. I never
mentioned the company, rarely brought up the name of the inventor, I
don't discuss the products, from the very beginning I personally went
out of my way to trash every one that might have been a potential
customer, and even after the tar and feathers came out, and I'm still
doing so. So do you think I should start taking orders now for
products, oh clueless one? (I'll put you down for some eyeglass
cream, how about that?).

What have we learned here? Robert is not as clever as he thinks he is.


> And it will never change. R.A.O is THE place for arguments, insults, and
> lost reputations.

Tell me something I don't know.

> Have you ever wondered why salesmen don't hang around
> here, Mr. Graham? It's because the dialog that ensues damages their
> business.

Tell me something I don't know.

> Here in r.a.o., "why" is the most important question. We have no
> faith, in you or anybody else, and desire none.

Not at all true. The problem is you all have too much faith, and it is
your religious beliefs that prevent you from understanding what is and
isn't true in the world (including the world of audio). You for
example, you have faith in "science". But only what you know about
science. Science can be like a religion too, most people here treat it
that way, and that is the way that you apply it in your life.
Saddest of all, is that while you place your faith in all these
external entitites, you all have little to no faith in yourselves.

> We refuse to acknowledge
> your claim that you are intellectually superior to us, and it offends us,
> and those of us who might have listened have closed our minds to your
> insults.

Strawman argument. I did not claim to be "intellectually superior" to
anyone here, and would not make that claim. But perhaps I have a basis
for making it after all, since no one was able to properly interpret
what I said about being "superior", in my thesis. Not westface, not
Powell, not Walt, not Sullivan, not even you with your 7 phd's! Does
not bode well for the intellectual strength of this group's
participants, does it?

> I have told you that I do not have an opinion as to whether your "free"
> tweaks work. Perhaps they work, for some individuals, metaphysically, since
> enjoyment of music is related to consciousness, which has not been
> integrated into the framework of the physical sciences.

Do you now consider quantum mechanics and biology "metaphysical"?

>However, there is an
> important reason I feel the tweaks should not be explored.

Is that so? Is it because you and others here are that hostile to
education, and learning entirely new applications in audio and science?
Or is it because 30 seconds is far too long to invest in trying them,
even though it just took you 100 times longer to write and to dream up
this response?

>What follows is a
> lot of supposition, but I've examined "biogeometry", and found that the
> assertions of that so-called science are themselves no more than
> suppositions. The playing field is level.

No doubt, that's exactly what you wanted to find, and what a
surprise! That's what you claim you found. Well I think there's far
too much documented evidence, and field tests that prove it isn't
simply suppositions.

> Let's suppose, as one way of bridging your sensibilities and mine, that each
> of us inhabits a copy of the universe that is subtly different. Suppose
> further, that each of us, by concentration of our perception, actively
> influences the properties of our personal universe. In my case, I choose for
> my universe one strongly compliant with the bundle of properties known as
> "the physical universe." Another person may manage to influence the
> properties of his personal universe to include characteristics outside the
> above, which I refer to as "magic", which I define to include all
> nonrepeatable, objectively nonverifiable experiences that are not observable
> or testable by the techniques that characterize "the physical universe."

Note that everyone has different "views of the world" and in a way,
this defines their "universe". But that's where "absolute truth"
comes in. There is only one universe, it abides by certain laws, some
of which we know, some of which we DON'T know. Some of which we can
only suppose or assume (which doesn't mean we don't know it be
true, only that we don't know "for certain").

People here love putting me in a box in order to isolate and discredit
me (note that fascists have been doing this since the beginning of
time). But the truth is, we both live under the same universe and
believe in many of the same laws that we feel governs this universe.

> It may take 30 seconds to "apply a tweak", but the techniques of
> experimental psychology, required to validate any improvement, are time
> consuming indeed.

Wasn't that the point of my post that started all this?

> I'm too busy.

But you're certainly not too busy to try any of the tweaks. If you
had time to research the science of biogeometry, you had time to try
the tweaks.

> But suppose I did have the time. Another
> question arises.
>
> If I try your tweaks, I may change my personal universe, to one which
> validates behavior that I would characterize as neurotic or magical. I don't
> want this.

I know. I already spoke about this mental limitation in my thesis,
"Message to the Ignorant Pigs of RAO", when I wrote about the
"insecurities" that people have, which lead them to being "mindless
sheep" in life. But there's really nothing "neurotic or magical"
about any of this. I can understand how it seems that way to those
ignorant of what it's all about, but it's pure science.

> I prefer my physical universe, because the behaviors of objects
> within my universe are highly predictable and repeatable, according to
> physical laws of long standing.

Then your universe is very limited indeed. In the actual (real)
universe, randomness is an inherent part of it; you'll find
randomness in quarks, quantum mechanics, string theory... My theory is
that it scares insecure people, plays with their insecurities, to not
be able to predict the behaviour of every part and particle in the
universe. In your limited Newtonian view of the audio universe, things
may be more highly predictable and repeatable. Unfortunately for you,
perception of sound is not limited to the Newtonian view of the audio
universe; this was discovered 25 years ago.

In this universe, I can make money, run my
> life, have interesting relationships with other people, and enjoy music. I
> enjoy music alot. I hear it just fine. I don't need it any better. I do not
> need to complicate my life by cutting clothing labels, freezing pictures,
> and putting labels with incantations such as "sound has priority" on my
> equipment. Even if it did work, it is too costly in terms of cluttering up
> my head space. Life is for more important things.

You mean like writing thousands of messages on RAO and making sure
Brian McCarty is regularly harassed?

Again, you are able to come up with some of the finest excuses anyone
has ever given me for not trying 30 second free tweaks; ie. "cluttering
up my head space". I feel I should be giving you an award of some kind
for that. But I admit, the products and techniques are not for
everyone, never said they were. They're for "serious audiophiles".
They require an active relationship with your hifi kit, and so, not for
"lazy" audiophiles. It's not just telling the hifi installer "well
put that over there", and that's the end of your commitment to your
sound. If your standards in audio are such that whether you now have as
an audio system is perfectly fine with you, then that's perfectly
fine with me. My standard is simply higher than yours, I believe.

Also keep in mind the fact that we don't miss what we don't know. I
think that despite what you say here, it's probably more of a
pyschological problem for you. I think what would really "complicate
your life" is to have to admit that what I've been claiming about
perception of sound being influenced by elements of quantum mechanices
and biology, or other reasons that have nothing to do with the signal
itself or sound pressure waves, makes you feel like you'd have to
rewrite everything you know about audio, if that turns out to be true.
You've obviously put in too much time and energy to have to "start
all over again" in effect, and rethink everything you know about audio.

But even if I wasn't prepared to commit myself to being an active
audiophile, I'd be curious simply to know whether perception of sound
can be affected by quantum/biological factors, particulary considering
that thousands of people have already heard such effects. But that's
just me. I like to be informed by taking in as many diverse opinions as
I can find on a subject that interests me.

> If I want to enjoy the music I'm listening to more, I perform a mental
> adjustment. I focus in; or I change the recording, or I move my seat, or I
> just change my mood. And the music changes my mood, and I have fun. I need
> nothing more.

That's fine, I have no problem with that. All those things can change
the sound of the music for me as well, I'm sure. But I find the
techniques that I use have the capability to change it to a far more
significant degree than an adjustment in seating position and such.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com
> > Arny Krueger postured:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com
> >>
> >>> That's about all
> >>> audio means to most RAO regulars here: arguing.
>
> >> Agreed.
>
> >> That's the Middius legacy.
>
> > Arny, get out of my thread and go jump on someone who's
> > dissing ABX somewhere.
>
> Red herring argument noted.

Noting of red herring argument noted.

>
> BTW, does such a person exist outside of RAO and RAHE?

I don't think so. I don't think anyone bothers talking about ABX
comparators outside these 2 groups.

>
> > Stop poisoning people's threads
> > with your political posturing.
>
> See what I get for agreeing with you, Mr. Sound?


Yes. The truth. That's what everyone gets from me. Whether they want
it or not.


> > No one bought your arguments in 10 years,
>
> Wrong. ABX and audio DBTs are widely-accepted.

I don't know anyone that walks into a high end hifi shop with their
ABX comparator in hand, and asks the dealer to let him plug in the
comparator before he will consider a purchase. Does anyone here? Let
them speak now or forever hold their peace. <silence> I think I've
proven my point, Mr. Krueger/Kruger.

>
> > no one's buying them now.
>
> See above.

I did. It said "Mr. Sound is right".

>
> > So why do you do it?
>
> This is about Middius, not DBTs.

You mean you've spent 10 years here fighting off the subjectivist
scourge, because of Shovels 8 years trying weakly to fend you off?

>
> >Crater-sized ego, perhaps?
>
> Yours?
>
> > Mental deficiencies?
>
> You're not mentally deficient given how well you've trolled this place, so I
> can't turn that one around! ;-)

Thank you. You're not in my league, but you're a pretty good troll
yourself, Arny. I guess 10 years of practice... hard not to be, eh?
Problem with you is.... you're like the Wizard Of Oz, viewed from
behind. You're a small man with a very big mouth, but we can see you
manipulating the machine from behind your facade. Only you carry on, as
if no one knows what you're about, what a liar, a troll and a
deceitful debater you are. Etcetera, etcetera.

>
> >> There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons
> >> about audio and the love of music well-reproduced.
>
> > Yes. Just before you came on the scene and decided to
> > promote your ABX agenda and try to brainwash as many
> > people as possible into believing that everything in
> > audio sounds the same,
>
> Oh, so you were brain-washed by Middius as well, eh Mr. Sound?

If only you were smart enough to ever get a clue in life, you'd
realize how funny what you just said is. I'll just laugh at you
quietly, for your ignorance.

>
> > and the holy ABX box tells us so.
>
> Yup, definate signs of yet another weak mind re-programmed by Middius.


Don't insult me, Mr. Krueger. I'm the one who taught Middius what
an ABX box is.


> > You and your polemicist friends are even more religious
> > than the so-called "subjectivists".

> I am a real subjectivist.

If you're a "real subjectivist", then none of my tweaks work and
I'm simply insane to believe that applying tweaks to my plumbing
fixtures is going to improve the sound of my audio system. And besides,
being a "subjectivist" doesn't mean you're not a polemicist.

> but I don't know where all these zombie so-called
> subjectivists come from. Do you?

Same place you did, I imagine. The last circle of hell?

> >> Middius and his disciples made that pretty
> >> much go away.
>
> > Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that.
>
> It's true that he inhereted his role from Alan/Ellen/Allen Derrida.


Who's boots he isn't fit to lick, from all I've seen of Shovels.
BTW, you appear to have a problem understanding people's first names,
Arny/Arnold/Alice. Why do you suppose that is?


> > Remember that Shovels can not have "disciples".
>
> Sure he can, your flawed logic notwithstanding. After all, what is Sackman?

You're right. Shovels can have disciples, but these are "followers of
followers"; truly low-grade waste matter. I don't know that Sackman
fits that bill, but definitely this "Fella" fella. He even talks like
Shovels.

>
> > He's a follower, not a leader.
>
> Never heard of multi-layer hierarchies, I take it?

You mean like pretending to be a devout follower of scientific beliefs,
whilst adhering to the religious beliefs of Christianity?

[[email protected]]

angrily wrote:

> I'm betting your still O superior one.

I'm betting you're right.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein dishonestly wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
>> > detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
>> > tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
>> > have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
>> > inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
>> > implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
>> > hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
>> >>From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
>> > received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
>> > that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
>> > of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
>> > that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.
>> >
>> > So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
>> > how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
>> > done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
>> > experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
>> > an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
>> > them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
>> > you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
>> > details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
>> > dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
>> > and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
>> > personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
>> > explain them (by Robert, and others).
>>
>> Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:
>
> I noticed that you isolated the word "deceit", but not the other two. I
> take that as an admission that you were being hostile and malicious
> toward me in your so-called "debate" attempts. I was not ascribing all
> three terms to all those who debated me, Robert. I was lumping it all
> in. And in your case, I don't think I can apply the word "deceit",
> but the other two fit well enough (ie. DON'T CREAM YOUR EYEGLASSES).
>
>>
>> 1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
>> whether the tweaks you advocate work.
>
> And your opinions about the cream are merely ignorant ones, since you
> presume to know how it all works.
>
> > I suspect that you make money off the
>> "electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
>> advertising exposure you gain here.
>
> Just about one of the stupidest things I've heard you say. What
> you've got going for you is that fortunately, you have a lot smarter
> things to say than stupid things. I can't say that for most of the
> remainder. Try thinking for half a second. No, I mean "really"
> thinking, not the blind conjecure you make: I've insulted just about
> every person on this group, save for the one female. I've been doing
> so since my first post. Now after buttering everyone up, I'm supposed
> to sell them vials of "cream" according to you?
>
Dr. Graham, I've learned a bit more about you. From talking with
individuals around London, I now understand that you are a practicing
psychiatrist at Priory and for NHS, with an specialty in adolesence. With
that in mind I believe I can discuss with you what you do on this group, in
terms you are uniquely equipped to understand.
You have elected to have a helpful, semiprofessional association with
PWB Electronics, where by exercise of your admirable literary skills, you
can presumably advance both their interests, and a subject that you consider
epistomologically valid, which you and others refer to as biogeometry.
Regardless of whether you receive remuneration from PWB, or choose to write
for them out of the perception of mutual benefit, there is an associated
social obligation. PWB chose to have a relationship with an individual who
could be relied upon to comport himself in a professional manner. Your
credentials suggest that you would do that. Your responsibility over other
human beings is huge.
Unfortunately, your behavior on this newsgroup is hurting PWB
Electronics. You are one individual, Dr. Richard Graham. The entities
"soundhaspriority" and "Richard Graham" do not enjoy absolution for each
other's actions. Let is now progress to the question of subjugation of the
ego. The subjugated ego is subject to societal controls. Anonymization,
which has reached the extreme on the Internet, has tempted some individuals
to release their egos from subjugation, in varying degree. While your
intellectual gifts cannot be denied, the better part of your posts here
demonstrate some degree of "acting out", which seems to be motivated by an
extreme need for personal respect and acceptance of your intellectual
offerings.
It seems that you have chosen to segment your life, allowing your
identity "soundhaspriority" behaviors not permitted to Dr. Richard Graham. I
personally know a number of mental health professionals, and I know that the
profession can be extremely frustrating, engendering great anger in the
therapist as a consequence of the nonresponsiveness of clients. However, the
notion that a "pen name" provides anonymity is fraught with peril. It does
not, as you might think, shield you from personal consequences. It is a
shield built on deceptive logic.
You are inevitably acquainted with the term "theory of mind".
According to those of us who are not believers in mental telepathy, it is
"theory of mind" that allows us to empathize and explore the minds of
others. The power of it cannot be overestimated. When I read your words,
whether they be a PWB Electronics newsletter, or one of these posts, or
private correspondence, I feel your mind with an intimacy that is alarming
and terrible. I sense the reverse of the river of thought and influence,
flowing now from patient to therapist. I cannot think of anything more
frustrating than the mental care of adolescents, but you must not allow this
river to continue the reverse of its course, or it will destroy you.
You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your relationship
with PWB.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said to Shovels:

> You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your relationship
> with PWB.

Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use this
newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not of
their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
Shovels amuse himself?







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

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> > soundhaspriority wrote
>> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
>> >> seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?
>> >>
>> >> How did you determine this?
>> >
>> > How do you think? I listened.
>>
>> Ok so, after you've listen, your tweak work after you cut an unbleach
>> 3" x 2" rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
>> photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) underneath the
>> said paper having an aspirin on the center pinhole. And then, placed
>> atop the speaker box.
>>
>> Based on this, you were able to determine this tweak of yours worked
>> after you've "listened."
>>
>> Is it safe for me to assume this?
>>
>>
>> >> I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion
>> >> is
>> >> that they're false but not directly verifiable.
>> >
>> >
>> > That's a very strange thing to say, and I don't know if it came
>> > before the acid trip you took or afterward. First of all, you can not
>> > verify and conclude the validity of any tweak or audio phenomenon by
>> > simply "reading" about it.
>>
>> Well HOW did you verify that the above tweak of yours work after you've
>> placed the unbleach paper atop the speaker box and "listen" to it sir ?
>>
>>
>> >To do so would be making a judgement call
>> > that leads you into ignorant bigotry. It shows your belief system is a
>> > religious, faith-based one; so don't kid yourself about adhering to
>> > scientific principles.
>>
>> (Can we save this for later?)
>>
>> > Secondly, if they're not directly verifiable,
>> > then nothing in audio is. [...]
>>
>> That is incorrect.
>>
>> > Which is about as absurd as your first statement about making
>> > "conclusions" on phenomena you've never tested and know
>> > nothing about.
>>
>>
>> Well then, how did you directly verify that the above tweak of yours work
>> after you've placed the unbleach paper with an aspirin atop the speaker
>> box and "listen" to it sir ?
>>
>
>
>
> Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on your bong?



Oh c'mon! I'm barely warming up. Your above comment is known around
here as a non-answer. With all due respect, that is a sign of a cowardice -
if I may. You have refer to all the regulars here with the most ungracious
insults. They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.


Go ahead now, and put forth a lucid reply to my post above.




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said to Shovels:
>
>> You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your
>> relationship
>> with PWB.
>
> Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
> his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use this
> newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
> individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not of
> their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
> Shovels amuse himself?
>
What happened to Richman? We could have the "Battle of the Shrinks", held in
the Shrinkodrome.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> angrily wrote:
>
> > I'm betting your still O superior one.
>
> I'm betting you're right.

That mathematics degree from Leeds must come
in handy when you need to wipe your ass.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein dishonestly wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
> >> > detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
> >> > tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
> >> > have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
> >> > inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
> >> > implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
> >> > hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
> >> >>From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
> >> > received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
> >> > that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
> >> > of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
> >> > that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.
> >> >
> >> > So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
> >> > how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
> >> > done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
> >> > experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
> >> > an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
> >> > them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
> >> > you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
> >> > details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
> >> > dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
> >> > and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
> >> > personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
> >> > explain them (by Robert, and others).
> >>
> >> Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:
> >
> > I noticed that you isolated the word "deceit", but not the other two. I
> > take that as an admission that you were being hostile and malicious
> > toward me in your so-called "debate" attempts. I was not ascribing all
> > three terms to all those who debated me, Robert. I was lumping it all
> > in. And in your case, I don't think I can apply the word "deceit",
> > but the other two fit well enough (ie. DON'T CREAM YOUR EYEGLASSES).
> >
> >>
> >> 1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
> >> whether the tweaks you advocate work.
> >
> > And your opinions about the cream are merely ignorant ones, since you
> > presume to know how it all works.
> >
> > > I suspect that you make money off the
> >> "electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
> >> advertising exposure you gain here.
> >
> > Just about one of the stupidest things I've heard you say. What
> > you've got going for you is that fortunately, you have a lot smarter
> > things to say than stupid things. I can't say that for most of the
> > remainder. Try thinking for half a second. No, I mean "really"
> > thinking, not the blind conjecure you make: I've insulted just about
> > every person on this group, save for the one female. I've been doing
> > so since my first post. Now after buttering everyone up, I'm supposed
> > to sell them vials of "cream" according to you?
> >
> Dr. Graham, I've learned a bit more about you. From talking with
> individuals around London, I now understand that you are a practicing
> psychiatrist at Priory and for NHS, with an specialty in adolesence. With
> that in mind I believe I can discuss with you what you do on this group, in
> terms you are uniquely equipped to understand.
> You have elected to have a helpful, semiprofessional association with
> PWB Electronics, where by exercise of your admirable literary skills, you
> can presumably advance both their interests, and a subject that you consider
> epistomologically valid, which you and others refer to as biogeometry.
> Regardless of whether you receive remuneration from PWB, or choose to write
> for them out of the perception of mutual benefit, there is an associated
> social obligation. PWB chose to have a relationship with an individual who
> could be relied upon to comport himself in a professional manner. Your
> credentials suggest that you would do that. Your responsibility over other
> human beings is huge.
> Unfortunately, your behavior on this newsgroup is hurting PWB
> Electronics. You are one individual, Dr. Richard Graham. The entities
> "soundhaspriority" and "Richard Graham" do not enjoy absolution for each
> other's actions. Let is now progress to the question of subjugation of the
> ego. The subjugated ego is subject to societal controls. Anonymization,
> which has reached the extreme on the Internet, has tempted some individuals
> to release their egos from subjugation, in varying degree. While your
> intellectual gifts cannot be denied, the better part of your posts here
> demonstrate some degree of "acting out", which seems to be motivated by an
> extreme need for personal respect and acceptance of your intellectual
> offerings.
> It seems that you have chosen to segment your life, allowing your
> identity "soundhaspriority" behaviors not permitted to Dr. Richard Graham. I
> personally know a number of mental health professionals, and I know that the
> profession can be extremely frustrating, engendering great anger in the
> therapist as a consequence of the nonresponsiveness of clients. However, the
> notion that a "pen name" provides anonymity is fraught with peril. It does
> not, as you might think, shield you from personal consequences. It is a
> shield built on deceptive logic.
> You are inevitably acquainted with the term "theory of mind".
> According to those of us who are not believers in mental telepathy, it is
> "theory of mind" that allows us to empathize and explore the minds of
> others. The power of it cannot be overestimated. When I read your words,
> whether they be a PWB Electronics newsletter, or one of these posts, or
> private correspondence, I feel your mind with an intimacy that is alarming
> and terrible. I sense the reverse of the river of thought and influence,
> flowing now from patient to therapist. I cannot think of anything more
> frustrating than the mental care of adolescents, but you must not allow this
> river to continue the reverse of its course, or it will destroy you.
> You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your relationship
> with PWB.
>
> Regards,
> Robert Morein

Wow, if they have peer monitoring, I wonder if he tells his
shrink about these alter egos that he banters around the internet as?
That would considered somewhat deviant behavior, wouldn't it?

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on your bong?




Before, when someone discuss your free tweaks, you do not
hesitate to share your thoughts and opinion. You give forth lengthy
responses filled with many information explaining about your tweaks
and how interesting they are. Your replies were loooonnggg and
eloquently express everything you have in mind. The information
you gave rekindle my curiosity and the enthusiasm which we share
about our hobby.


But this is no more.


Now you simply accuse others of ingesting illicit drugs and
hastily go away. This cannot be. Seasoned Rao'ers expect
more than just a faltering and befuddling non-answer.





[ Ok, have to step out now and put in the 8 hrs...]




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. trolled:

> >
> >
> > Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on your bong?
>
>
>
> Oh c'mon! I'm barely warming up.

You're dead in the water, far as I'm concerned.

>Your above comment is known around
> here as a non-answer. With all due respect, that is a sign of a cowardice -
> if I may.

Oooh... .you said the "C" word! Now I GOTTA do as you ask, because now
it's serious! After all, my virtual honour is at stake! Geez JB,
you're not even an idiot like the rest. You're an "amateur idiot".

> You have refer to all the regulars here with the most ungracious
> insults.

Really? I kinda thought they were gracious insults.

>They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
> back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.

Not a word of truth in that, jackass. I've only insulted those who
insulted me, and even then, only when they really, really wouldn't
stop. And only on permission from my priest, first.

> Go ahead now, and put forth a lucid reply to my post above.

Write a lucid reply, and we'll see. Better yet, write an intelligent,
no BS post, you might have a better chance of getting my attention.
Troll me again like you did twice now, and you'll get what you dish
out, or... you'll be talking to the hand, not the face.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 01:48:04 GMT, "JBorg, Jr." >
wrote:
>They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
>back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.


I very much like this sentence. Is it from the Psalms? :-)

It's so very true too.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > soundhaspriority wrote:

> Before, when someone discuss your free tweaks, you do not
> hesitate to share your thoughts and opinion. You give forth lengthy
> responses filled with many information explaining about your tweaks
> and how interesting they are. Your replies were loooonnggg and
> eloquently express everything you have in mind. The information
> you gave rekindle my curiosity and the enthusiasm which we share
> about our hobby.
>
>
> But this is no more.

Sad, isn't it? You missing out on all the fun and all, to mock and
ridicule me. I'm sure you'll get your chance to mock and ridicule
someone else who speaks of audio ideas you are thoroughly ignorant of.
Strange that you wrote this 2 minutes before I sent you my reply to
your last complaint, which makes it the second time you reply to the
same post?!

It's very simple. If you want to play games with me, such as asking
me stupid questions, I don't have the time for that. If you want to
discuss the tweaks in a sincere manner, I might grant you the time. In
which case you'd better be clear, concise, and entirely serious.

> Now you simply accuse others of ingesting illicit drugs and
> hastily go away. This cannot be. Seasoned Rao'ers expect
> more than just a faltering and befuddling non-answer.

Than why, 9 times out of 10, do they give one to me?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com
> Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:
>
>> Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term
>> project to build his own private reality. Once that goal
>> has been reached, he will use this newly crafted reality
>> to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
>> individuals he can find, and then program to commit
>> nefarious deeds not of their own volition. It's evil,
>> yes, but how else can a loony tune like Shovels amuse
>> himself?
>
> Shovels, do you realize you've just described your agenda
> on RAO for the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but how else
> can a loony tune like you amuse yourself?

Beating up on his mother? ;-)

[Walt]

wrote:


> It's very simple. If you want to play games with me, such as asking
> me stupid questions, I don't have the time for that.

Yes you do. Don't kid yourself.

//Walt

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:
>
>> Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
>> his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use
>> this
>> newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
>> individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not
>> of
>> their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
>> Shovels amuse himself?
>
> Shovels, do you realize you've just described your agenda on RAO for
> the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but how else can a loony tune like
> you amuse yourself?
>
Dear Dr. Graham:
"Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers to you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:
> >
> >> Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
> >> his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use
> >> this
> >> newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
> >> individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not
> >> of
> >> their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
> >> Shovels amuse himself?
> >
> > Shovels, do you realize you've just described your agenda on RAO for
> > the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but how else can a loony tune like
> > you amuse yourself?
> >

> "Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers to you.

Who's "George Middius"?

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
ups.com
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>> Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term
>>>> project to build his own private reality. Once that
>>>> goal has been reached, he will use this
>>>> newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the
>>>> most vulnerable individuals he can find, and then
>>>> program to commit nefarious deeds not of
>>>> their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a
>>>> loony tune like Shovels amuse himself?
>>>
>>> Shovels, do you realize you've just described your
>>> agenda on RAO for the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but
>>> how else can a loony tune like you amuse yourself?
>>>
>
>> "Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers
>> to you.
>
> Who's "George Middius"?

Yet another RAO sockpuppet/alias like you. ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Shovels joins forces with Mikey and the Krooborg.

> > "Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers to you.

> Who's "George Middius"?

Both of your role models, i.e. duh-Mikey and Arnii Kroofeces, also resort
to the "who said what?" copout when they're cornered. Congratulations,
Shovie -- you finally picked an RAO "team".





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

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. trolled:
>> > soundhaspriority wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on
>> > your bong?
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh c'mon! I'm barely warming up.
>
> You're dead in the water, far as I'm concerned.
>
>>Your above comment is known around here as a non-answer.
>>With all due respect, that is a sign of a cowardice - if I may.
>
> Oooh... .you said the "C" word! Now I GOTTA do as you ask,
> because now it's serious! After all, my virtual honour is at stake!
> Geez JB, you're not even an idiot like the rest. You're an
> "amateur idiot".
>
>> You have refer to all the regulars here with the most ungracious
>> insults.
>
> Really? I kinda thought they were gracious insults.
>
>>They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
>> back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.
>
> Not a word of truth in that, jackass. I've only insulted those who
> insulted me, and even then, only when they really, really wouldn't
> stop. And only on permission from my priest, first.
>
>> Go ahead now, and put forth a lucid reply to my post above.
>
> Write a lucid reply, and we'll see. Better yet, write an intelligent,
> no BS post, you might have a better chance of getting my attention.
> Troll me again like you did twice now, and you'll get what you dish
> out, or... you'll be talking to the hand, not the face.



Which part of my post was BS, and why?

You said that your free tweak can be directly verified. So in essence,
all that I ask was: How did you directly verify that the 3" x 2" unbleach
rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) having an aspirin
on the center pinhole work when placed atop the speaker box?

Fair enough ?

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> > soundhaspriority wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> Before, when someone discuss your free tweaks, you do not
>> hesitate to share your thoughts and opinion. You give forth lengthy
>> responses filled with many information explaining about your tweaks
>> and how interesting they are. Your replies were loooonnggg and
>> eloquently express everything you have in mind. The information
>> you gave rekindle my curiosity and the enthusiasm which we share
>> about our hobby.
>>
>>
>> But this is no more.
>
> Sad, isn't it? You missing out on all the fun and all, to mock and
> ridicule me. I'm sure you'll get your chance to mock and ridicule
> someone else who speaks of audio ideas you are thoroughly ignorant of.
> Strange that you wrote this 2 minutes before I sent you my reply to
> your last complaint, which makes it the second time you reply to the
> same post?!
>
> It's very simple. If you want to play games with me, such as asking
> me stupid questions, I don't have the time for that. If you want to
> discuss the tweaks in a sincere manner, I might grant you the time. In
> which case you'd better be clear, concise, and entirely serious.


Where and when did I mock and ridicule you ?

Why was the question I ask stupid ?


>> Now you simply accuse others of ingesting illicit drugs and
>> hastily go away. This cannot be. Seasoned Rao'ers expect
>> more than just a faltering and befuddling non-answer.
>
> Than why, 9 times out of 10, do they give one to me?


I don't know. Who?

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein kicks up the obsession another notch or two:

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

> Dr. Graham, I've learned a bit more about you. From talking with
> individuals around London,

Which individuals? Name names. Otherwise, you're making things up
again.

> I now understand that you are a practicing
> psychiatrist at Priory and for NHS, with an specialty in adolesence. With
> that in mind I believe I can discuss with you what you do on this group, in
> terms you are uniquely equipped to understand.
> You have elected to have a helpful, semiprofessional association with
> PWB Electronics, where by exercise of your admirable literary skills, you
> can presumably advance both their interests, and a subject that you consider
> epistomologically valid, which you and others refer to as biogeometry.

Sorry to mess up your shill angle again, but I only speak for myself
here, Bob. Myself, and all the open-minded and ideologically-tolerant
people in the world.

> Regardless of whether you receive remuneration from PWB, or choose to write
> for them out of the perception of mutual benefit, there is an associated
> social obligation. PWB chose to have a relationship with an individual who
> could be relied upon to comport himself in a professional manner.

Tsk, tsk.... blind speculation, again, Mr. Morein. I answered an ad
that said "Looking for interminable clown to edit our newsletters. Must
have strong anti-social traits, and a superiority complex". They said I
was perfect. In response, I told them to go to hell. "I don't want to
be "perfect"", I said. "I don't believe in that". Then they said not
to worry, that I could still be considered "imperfect" and get to edit
the newsletters. And the rest is history, as you know.

> Your
> credentials suggest that you would do that. Your responsibility over other
> human beings is huge.

It's only life and death. No big whoop.


> Unfortunately, your behavior on this newsgroup is hurting PWB
> Electronics.

Thanks to my posting tweaks on this group, from RAO members and lurkers
alone, I've already got 3 orders for electret cream, 5 for morphic
foil, 2 for a purple magnadisc (worry not, your order will be sent out
in the post tomorrow, Shovels), and 1 for a quantum clip. That's more
business than PWB has seen in the last 20 years, Mr. Morein. I'd say
the company could use more "hurting" like this, wouldn't you?

>You are one individual, Dr. Richard Graham. The entities
> "soundhaspriority" and "Richard Graham" do not enjoy absolution for each
> other's actions.

Yes, they do. Except I don't like it when soundhaspriority steals my
toothbrush.

> Let is now progress to the question of subjugation of the
> ego.

Oooh, it's giving me shivers just to think about! Do you have any
tatoos, Robert?

> The subjugated ego is subject to societal controls. Anonymization,
> which has reached the extreme on the Internet, has tempted some individuals
> to release their egos from subjugation, in varying degree. While your
> intellectual gifts cannot be denied, the better part of your posts here
> demonstrate some degree of "acting out", which seems to be motivated by an
> extreme need for personal respect and acceptance of your intellectual
> offerings.

You're wrong again. It's motivated by a need for acting out.

> It seems that you have chosen to segment your life, allowing your
> identity "soundhaspriority" behaviors not permitted to Dr. Richard Graham.

Well, Shippy can't chew solid food, if that's what you mean. But
you should have seen the last time he tried. We've been barred from
half the restuaruants in London town.

> I
> personally know a number of mental health professionals, and I know that the
> profession can be extremely frustrating, engendering great anger in the
> therapist as a consequence of the nonresponsiveness of clients.

Stop prying into my soul! You can read me like a book on quantum
mechanics, Mr. Morein. I guess from years of unloading your Jewish
guilt on a psychiatrist, you must have picked up a few tricks from the
unfortunate chap. You are as usual, absolutely right about me. The only
thing I can't stand more than snot-nosed adolescents, it's
snot-nosed adolescent pyromaniacal retards that want to set their
parents on fire.

> However, the
> notion that a "pen name" provides anonymity is fraught with peril.

You're right. That's why I don't call myself "Montblanc" any
longer. People figured out who I was in no time.

> It does
> not, as you might think, shield you from personal consequences. It is a
> shield built on deceptive logic.

Deceptive logic?? They told me it was built with Kevlar? You mean I
paid for Kevlar and I got deceptive logic?! I'm gonna have to see myt
vendor about this.

> You are inevitably acquainted with the term "theory of mind".
> According to those of us who are not believers in mental telepathy, it is
> "theory of mind" that allows us to empathize and explore the minds of
> others. The power of it cannot be overestimated. When I read your words,
> whether they be a PWB Electronics newsletter, or one of these posts, or
> private correspondence, I feel your mind with an intimacy that is alarming
> and terrible.

Hmm.... that begins to explain your obsession with me.... so exactly
how many years of counselling have you been going through, Mr. Morein?

> I sense the reverse of the river of thought and influence,
> flowing now from patient to therapist. I cannot think of anything more
> frustrating than the mental care of adolescents, but you must not allow this
> river to continue the reverse of its course, or it will destroy you.

God, now you're sounding just like my mother. She too warned me about
how the "rivers of thought and influence will destroy me". I thought
she was a lunatic. Come to think of it, I just remembered that I think
you're a lunatic as well.

> You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your relationship
> with PWB.

Hmm... decisions, decisions.... Gosh how I hate making decisions.
You've brought out my one true weakness Morein. Damn you! Okay,
I've arrived at one: I choose to honour myself. Got a problem with
that? If so, please call me to discuss it at: 1-800-EATCRAP

Regards,


R. Graham

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

> You said that your free tweak can be directly verified. So in essence,
> all that I ask was: How did you directly verify that the 3" x 2" unbleach
> rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
> photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) having an aspirin
> on the center pinhole work when placed atop the speaker box?
>
> Fair enough ?

Stupid enough, yes. I believe I already gave you your answer. I told
you I listened to it. That's generally how you verify audio products.
I suggest that if you're really not this clueless and you're simply
playing games, you get to the point of your silly game. Or let me get
to the point: If you're interested in the above tweak, or any that
you've ever seen in your life, then don't just talk about them, try
them. Otherwise, why are you talking about them to me?

> Where and when did I mock and ridicule you ?

How's this for starters:

JBorg Jr. wrote:

"Could be a meltdown on the part of SoundPriority."

[JBorg, Jr.]

> wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> You said that your free tweak can be directly verified. So in essence,
>> all that I ask was: How did you directly verify that the 3" x 2" unbleach
>> rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
>> photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) having an aspirin
>> on the center pinhole work when placed atop the speaker box?
>>
>> Fair enough ?
>
> Stupid enough, yes. I believe I already gave you your answer. I told
> you I listened to it. [...]


So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without it,
and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.

What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed
to them -- by listening?




>That's generally how you verify audio products.

You sure? With these ideas you have in mind?


> I suggest that if you're really not this clueless and you're simply
> playing games, you get to the point of your silly game. Or let me get
> to the point: If you're interested in the above tweak, or any that
> you've ever seen in your life, then don't just talk about them, try
> them. Otherwise, why are you talking about them to me?


I'm not really on this thread to play games with you. I mean, at least
that I can guarantee.


>> Where and when did I mock and ridicule you ?
>
>
> How's this for starters:
>
> JBorg Jr. wrote:
>
> "Could be a meltdown on the part of SoundPriority."



Well, where you having a meltdown ?.


[Later...]

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein kicks up the obsession another notch or two:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>
>> Dr. Graham, I've learned a bit more about you. From talking with
>> individuals around London,
>
> Which individuals? Name names. Otherwise, you're making things up
> again.
>
>> I now understand that you are a practicing
>> psychiatrist at Priory and for NHS, with an specialty in adolesence. With
>> that in mind I believe I can discuss with you what you do on this group,
>> in
>> terms you are uniquely equipped to understand.
>> You have elected to have a helpful, semiprofessional association with
>> PWB Electronics, where by exercise of your admirable literary skills, you
>> can presumably advance both their interests, and a subject that you
>> consider
>> epistomologically valid, which you and others refer to as biogeometry.
>
> Sorry to mess up your shill angle again, but I only speak for myself
> here, Bob. Myself, and all the open-minded and ideologically-tolerant
> people in the world.
>
>> Regardless of whether you receive remuneration from PWB, or choose to
>> write
>> for them out of the perception of mutual benefit, there is an associated
>> social obligation. PWB chose to have a relationship with an individual
>> who
>> could be relied upon to comport himself in a professional manner.
>
> Tsk, tsk.... blind speculation, again, Mr. Morein. I answered an ad
> that said "Looking for interminable clown to edit our newsletters. Must
> have strong anti-social traits, and a superiority complex". They said I
> was perfect. In response, I told them to go to hell. "I don't want to
> be "perfect"", I said. "I don't believe in that". Then they said not
> to worry, that I could still be considered "imperfect" and get to edit
> the newsletters. And the rest is history, as you know.
>
>> Your
>> credentials suggest that you would do that. Your responsibility over
>> other
>> human beings is huge.
>
> It's only life and death. No big whoop.
>
>
>> Unfortunately, your behavior on this newsgroup is hurting PWB
>> Electronics.
>
> Thanks to my posting tweaks on this group, from RAO members and lurkers
> alone, I've already got 3 orders for electret cream, 5 for morphic
> foil, 2 for a purple magnadisc (worry not, your order will be sent out
> in the post tomorrow, Shovels), and 1 for a quantum clip. That's more
> business than PWB has seen in the last 20 years, Mr. Morein. I'd say
> the company could use more "hurting" like this, wouldn't you?
>
>>You are one individual, Dr. Richard Graham. The entities
>> "soundhaspriority" and "Richard Graham" do not enjoy absolution for each
>> other's actions.
>
> Yes, they do. Except I don't like it when soundhaspriority steals my
> toothbrush.
>
>> Let is now progress to the question of subjugation of the
>> ego.
>
> Oooh, it's giving me shivers just to think about! Do you have any
> tatoos, Robert?
>
>> The subjugated ego is subject to societal controls. Anonymization,
>> which has reached the extreme on the Internet, has tempted some
>> individuals
>> to release their egos from subjugation, in varying degree. While your
>> intellectual gifts cannot be denied, the better part of your posts here
>> demonstrate some degree of "acting out", which seems to be motivated by
>> an
>> extreme need for personal respect and acceptance of your intellectual
>> offerings.
>
> You're wrong again. It's motivated by a need for acting out.
>
>> It seems that you have chosen to segment your life, allowing your
>> identity "soundhaspriority" behaviors not permitted to Dr. Richard
>> Graham.
>
> Well, Shippy can't chew solid food, if that's what you mean. But
> you should have seen the last time he tried. We've been barred from
> half the restuaruants in London town.
>
>> I
>> personally know a number of mental health professionals, and I know that
>> the
>> profession can be extremely frustrating, engendering great anger in the
>> therapist as a consequence of the nonresponsiveness of clients.
>
> Stop prying into my soul! You can read me like a book on quantum
> mechanics, Mr. Morein. I guess from years of unloading your Jewish
> guilt on a psychiatrist, you must have picked up a few tricks from the
> unfortunate chap. You are as usual, absolutely right about me. The only
> thing I can't stand more than snot-nosed adolescents, it's
> snot-nosed adolescent pyromaniacal retards that want to set their
> parents on fire.
>
>> However, the
>> notion that a "pen name" provides anonymity is fraught with peril.
>
> You're right. That's why I don't call myself "Montblanc" any
> longer. People figured out who I was in no time.
>
>> It does
>> not, as you might think, shield you from personal consequences. It is a
>> shield built on deceptive logic.
>
> Deceptive logic?? They told me it was built with Kevlar? You mean I
> paid for Kevlar and I got deceptive logic?! I'm gonna have to see myt
> vendor about this.
>
>> You are inevitably acquainted with the term "theory of mind".
>> According to those of us who are not believers in mental telepathy, it is
>> "theory of mind" that allows us to empathize and explore the minds of
>> others. The power of it cannot be overestimated. When I read your words,
>> whether they be a PWB Electronics newsletter, or one of these posts, or
>> private correspondence, I feel your mind with an intimacy that is
>> alarming
>> and terrible.
>
> Hmm.... that begins to explain your obsession with me.... so exactly
> how many years of counselling have you been going through, Mr. Morein?
>
>> I sense the reverse of the river of thought and influence,
>> flowing now from patient to therapist. I cannot think of anything more
>> frustrating than the mental care of adolescents, but you must not allow
>> this
>> river to continue the reverse of its course, or it will destroy you.
>
> God, now you're sounding just like my mother. She too warned me about
> how the "rivers of thought and influence will destroy me". I thought
> she was a lunatic. Come to think of it, I just remembered that I think
> you're a lunatic as well.
>
>> You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your
>> relationship
>> with PWB.
>
> Hmm... decisions, decisions.... Gosh how I hate making decisions.
> You've brought out my one true weakness Morein. Damn you! Okay,
> I've arrived at one: I choose to honour myself. Got a problem with
> that? If so, please call me to discuss it at: 1-800-EATCRAP
>
> Regards,
>
>
> R. Graham
>
Dear Richard:
I'm calling you by your first name, even though you probably won't like
it, because I see that you are deeply unhappy, and, it might surprise you,
this saddens me. My experience with upper-middle-class British society is
that it is extremely repressed, struggling to conform to stifling standards
of appearance and expression, while the pickins', as we call them, are
meager. We Yanks let off a little steam each day, which you can see in the
constant picking and grumbling of r.a.o., but you seem to have suddenly gone
"postal" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal).
Here in the States, that means picking up a gun, but in Britain,
firearms are fortunately less available than verbal skills. Something --
financial, disrespect at work, unsalvageable patients, loss of love --
something has put you into a state of rage that shows no signs of abating.
And your way of expressing it is to throw one big moon at that "thing",
which happens to be the control you've exercised all these year, that
"control" which you now personify as your enemy. But control was never your
enemy; it has been your property all along. You mistake it for "demands";
demands of society that are just so stifling in your particular strata.
I don't have a specific answer for your dilemma. We're a bit looser
here, more like the Aussies. We're louder, messier, and less considerate.
See MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING for details. Perhaps you should transplant
yourself. But in the meantime, you really should stop what you are doing
now, here. Your enemy is not here. You've even picked the wrong country to
moon. What you should do, if you really want to flaunt your contempt, is to
do a streak, or at least moon, at a convenient lockdown ward. But that's a
little risky ;)
When somebody's in a rage, he wants to personify an "enemy.". You can't
do that with half a lifetime of repression. There is no target. You have the
wrong country and the wrong people. Words behave oddly as projectiles.
They impact the person who says them. Nobody is going to suck in their
breath or "have a faint" regardless of how impactfully you vent your rage
and frustration. Inevitably, those word-missiles pound you, and you alone.
You live with them forever; they are merely cautionary to everyone else.
You're doing the self-immolation thing now. So I'm telling you, you
ought to stop now. The sooner you stop, the less there is for U.K readers to
remember. Up to a point, people forget, life goes on. You had a freakout, no
big deal. Nobody wants to see someone hurt himself, but usenet strangers
don't really give a **** about you either. It is true that intelligent
people, and very intelligent people, tend to be better adjusted than people
with less resources. But it's also true that intelligent people can do
extremely stupid things. This usually happens when they lose touch with
themselves. Anybody can be dominated by a single impulse. Pull back, man.
Work it out with a friend. Rec.audio.opinion is not a place to heal. It
presents the dangerous illusion of a false goal; that conquest will resolve
things. It's an electronic chimera. The people here don't care about you,
although they enjoy your insults, and trying to inflict pain on you. It's
electronic S&M; not a good thing, except in small doses for the moderately
bored.

Be cool,
Bob Morein

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > wrote
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> You said that your free tweak can be directly verified. So in essence,
> >> all that I ask was: How did you directly verify that the 3" x 2" unbleach
> >> rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
> >> photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) having an aspirin
> >> on the center pinhole work when placed atop the speaker box?
> >>
> >> Fair enough ?
> >
> > Stupid enough, yes. I believe I already gave you your answer. I told
> > you I listened to it. [...]
>
>
> So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
> speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
> with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without it,
> and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
>
> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS

You forgot the aspirin and it doesn't have to be "unbleached" paper;
that's simply what I tested my 5-pinhole paper device with.

> which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
> difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed
> to them -- by listening?

Like I said JB, if you're that interested in the above tweak, then why
haven't you tried it already? It takes less time to try the
experiment yourself than it does to ramble on incoherently about it in
message after message, for days and days on end.

[[email protected]]

My Dearest Robert:

I see that you are off your medication again, and deep into delusional
rambling, as your are wont to do. I, along with many others in your
family, am starting to become concerned with the state of your mental
health. Your affliction appears to be particuarly acute this morning...
what happened? Did your ex-wife stumble back into your for a brief
interlude, or did simply seeing an advert with a picture of someone
resembling her likeness set you off into this tailspin of delusional
warbling?

> I'm calling you by your first name, even though you probably won't like
> it, because I see that you are deeply unhappy,

So after reading a long post from me yesterday, where I laughed about
every single solemn thing you wrote, you took that to mean I'm
"deeply unhappy" and "in a state of unabated rage", even? ROTFL!! You
are one major fruitcake looking for some icing, Robert. I suggest you
leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals, and simply ensure that
you do not skip any appointments for your own psychological
counselling. Because judging by your increasingly delusional condition,
you obviously need it now more than ever. You have now officially
passed Bubble Boy (aka "Shovels") for firmly immersing yourself in an
alternate reality. Does believing that people who are laughing at you
are really angry at you, make it easier to accept gentle mockery? If
so, then I will let you believe your delusions, because you are
obviously in urgent need of grounding. You're a tether about to fly
off the mast.

> and, it might surprise you, this saddens me.

I see that you are deeply saddened, Robert. Since I'm such a well
adjusted person, and since were such good buddies, this troubles me.
What can I do to help?

> My experience with upper-middle-class British society is
> that it is extremely repressed, struggling to conform to stifling standards
> of appearance and expression, while the pickins', as we call them, are
> meager.

So from my response (below), you perceived it as written by an
"extremely repressed Brit, struggling to conform to stifling standards
of appearance and expression"? You're a very strange pup, Robert.
That has to be the single worst interpretation anyone has ever made of
any post on Usenet. Let me suggest that your imagined powers of
perception and insight into the human pscyhe are not what your dementia
makes it out to be. You're basically a clown here, running around in
tight rubber underpants declaring himself "Superman!".


> We Yanks let off a little steam each day, which you can see in the
> constant picking and grumbling of r.a.o.,

That's because you Yanks have a LOT of steam to let off, since
you're so uptight and stressed out all the time. You ought to learn
to be well adjusted without the medication. Like me.

> but you seem to have suddenly gone
> "postal"

I told you Robert, my email server was down. I avoid the Royal Post as
much as you do, but I had no choice!


> I don't have a specific answer for your dilemma.

Don't worry, I do for yours. More medication. I can't emphasize
that enough, Robert. You need to be sedated. Seriously. Else you're
going to implode any minute now.

> We're a bit looser
> here, more like the Aussies. We're louder, messier, and less
considerate.

Don't forget less educated, more obnoxious, dumber on the whole,
shallow, ignorant, intolerant of other ideas, cultures and races, and
extremely arrogant.

> See MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING for details.

I thought you were talking about Americans? Now you want to show me
home movies of Shovels marriage? God, you're weird.

<pages of delusional misinterpretations mercifully excised>

Robert, you are either the worst psychoanalyst in the history of the
science, or, far more likely, you have personal troubles of which I can
not even begin to imagine, since the amount of things that trouble you
are as infinite as the universe itself. Perhaps Brian McCarty sent you
another lovey dovey email. That could be enough to have set you off
into interpreting an _entirely_ humourous post as "one filled with
intense blind rage". And/or perhaps there is a bit of a cultural gap at
play here.

Yanks, being somewhat akin to our dumber, culturally backward cousins,
generally do not have a refined sense of humour. In other words, you
have to be hit on the head with an oversized mallet to understand that
something is humourous or satirical. I thought me asking you if you had
any tatoos, along with everything else I wrote to you in my last
message, would have been enough to clue you in that it was a work of
humour. I noticed this about you and the other Yanks here, when much of
my humour went straight over your pointy heads. AFAIC, you don't have
a sense of humour. You appreciate humour when it is crude and obvious
enough to register on your "radar", but as for having a sense of
humour, I've not seen that coming from you. You do make me laugh
however, with delusional missives like this one. Only, it is never
intentional on your part, I'm afraid. Nevertheless, it amounts to the
same thing: You're a funny guy, intentional or not. You're
absolutely TERRIBLE at reading people, and you always were at reading
me. But that's what makes me laugh so much when I read your risible
attempts at interpreting my moods and motivations. Especially when you
try to convince others to become part of your psychological
afflictions.

Maybe if you stopped taking the medication, you would go back to not
even being unintentionally funny. So I retract what I said about
returning to your meds on a regular basis. I realize I'm being
selfish, but I think I prefer my Robert Morein to be funny.


> things. It's an electronic chimera. The people here don't care about you,
> although they enjoy your insults, and trying to inflict pain on you. It's ...

..... a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Robert Morein! And he's off
his meds, folks! Look at him fly!

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> My Dearest Robert:
>
> I see that you are off your medication again, and deep into delusional
> rambling, as your are wont to do. I, along with many others in your
> family, am starting to become concerned with the state of your mental
> health. Your affliction appears to be particuarly acute this morning...
> what happened? Did your ex-wife stumble back into your for a brief
> interlude, or did simply seeing an advert with a picture of someone
> resembling her likeness set you off into this tailspin of delusional
> warbling?
>
>> I'm calling you by your first name, even though you probably won't
>> like
>> it, because I see that you are deeply unhappy,
>
> So after reading a long post from me yesterday, where I laughed about
> every single solemn thing you wrote, you took that to mean I'm
> "deeply unhappy" and "in a state of unabated rage", even? ROTFL!! You
> are one major fruitcake looking for some icing, Robert. I suggest you
> leave the psychoanalysis to the professionals, and simply ensure that
> you do not skip any appointments for your own psychological
> counselling. Because judging by your increasingly delusional condition,
> you obviously need it now more than ever. You have now officially
> passed Bubble Boy (aka "Shovels") for firmly immersing yourself in an
> alternate reality. Does believing that people who are laughing at you
> are really angry at you, make it easier to accept gentle mockery? If
> so, then I will let you believe your delusions, because you are
> obviously in urgent need of grounding. You're a tether about to fly
> off the mast.
>
>> and, it might surprise you, this saddens me.
>
> I see that you are deeply saddened, Robert. Since I'm such a well
> adjusted person, and since were such good buddies, this troubles me.
> What can I do to help?
>
>> My experience with upper-middle-class British society is
>> that it is extremely repressed, struggling to conform to stifling
>> standards
>> of appearance and expression, while the pickins', as we call them, are
>> meager.
>
> So from my response (below), you perceived it as written by an
> "extremely repressed Brit, struggling to conform to stifling standards
> of appearance and expression"? You're a very strange pup, Robert.
> That has to be the single worst interpretation anyone has ever made of
> any post on Usenet. Let me suggest that your imagined powers of
> perception and insight into the human pscyhe are not what your dementia
> makes it out to be. You're basically a clown here, running around in
> tight rubber underpants declaring himself "Superman!".
>
>
>> We Yanks let off a little steam each day, which you can see in the
>> constant picking and grumbling of r.a.o.,
>
> That's because you Yanks have a LOT of steam to let off, since
> you're so uptight and stressed out all the time. You ought to learn
> to be well adjusted without the medication. Like me.
>
>> but you seem to have suddenly gone
>> "postal"
>
> I told you Robert, my email server was down. I avoid the Royal Post as
> much as you do, but I had no choice!
>
>
> > I don't have a specific answer for your dilemma.
>
> Don't worry, I do for yours. More medication. I can't emphasize
> that enough, Robert. You need to be sedated. Seriously. Else you're
> going to implode any minute now.
>
> > We're a bit looser
> > here, more like the Aussies. We're louder, messier, and less
> considerate.
>
> Don't forget less educated, more obnoxious, dumber on the whole,
> shallow, ignorant, intolerant of other ideas, cultures and races, and
> extremely arrogant.
>
> > See MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING for details.
>
> I thought you were talking about Americans? Now you want to show me
> home movies of Shovels marriage? God, you're weird.
>
> <pages of delusional misinterpretations mercifully excised>
>
> Robert, you are either the worst psychoanalyst in the history of the
> science, or, far more likely, you have personal troubles of which I can
> not even begin to imagine, since the amount of things that trouble you
> are as infinite as the universe itself. Perhaps Brian McCarty sent you
> another lovey dovey email. That could be enough to have set you off
> into interpreting an _entirely_ humourous post as "one filled with
> intense blind rage". And/or perhaps there is a bit of a cultural gap at
> play here.
>
> Yanks, being somewhat akin to our dumber, culturally backward cousins,
> generally do not have a refined sense of humour. In other words, you
> have to be hit on the head with an oversized mallet to understand that
> something is humourous or satirical. I thought me asking you if you had
> any tatoos, along with everything else I wrote to you in my last
> message, would have been enough to clue you in that it was a work of
> humour. I noticed this about you and the other Yanks here, when much of
> my humour went straight over your pointy heads. AFAIC, you don't have
> a sense of humour. You appreciate humour when it is crude and obvious
> enough to register on your "radar", but as for having a sense of
> humour, I've not seen that coming from you. You do make me laugh
> however, with delusional missives like this one. Only, it is never
> intentional on your part, I'm afraid. Nevertheless, it amounts to the
> same thing: You're a funny guy, intentional or not. You're
> absolutely TERRIBLE at reading people, and you always were at reading
> me. But that's what makes me laugh so much when I read your risible
> attempts at interpreting my moods and motivations. Especially when you
> try to convince others to become part of your psychological
> afflictions.
>
> Maybe if you stopped taking the medication, you would go back to not
> even being unintentionally funny. So I retract what I said about
> returning to your meds on a regular basis. I realize I'm being
> selfish, but I think I prefer my Robert Morein to be funny.
>
>
>> things. It's an electronic chimera. The people here don't care about you,
>> although they enjoy your insults, and trying to inflict pain on you. It's
>> ...
>
> .... a bird! It's a plane! No, it's Robert Morein! And he's off
> his meds, folks! Look at him fly!
>
Richard, you seem stuck in a confrontational mode. I don't have to be a
pyschoanalyst to see you are a very angry man. Anger isn't good for the
person who holds it. It corrodes from the inside. Distance, and the
difference in opinions we hold regarding your audio "tweaks", make unlikely
that I would be able to help you. Nevertheless, I felt obligated to try.

Your value as a human being is not significantly diminished by what some of
us see as unseemly activity here on rec.audio.opinion. This is just a place
to shout; but you, the shouter, are an entire human being whose pain I feel
very deeply.

While I can't agree with what you've tried to do here, I sincerely hope that
you will find your balance.

Be cool,
Bob Morein

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein, taking the practice of delusion to new heights, wrote
ironically:

> Richard, you seem stuck in a confrontational mode.

Robert, you seem stuck in a delusional mode that makes you believe
I'm in a confrontational mode. Perhaps hanging too much with Shovels,
who sees us entirely from the fantasy world in his head, has done that
to you?

>I don't have to be a
> pyschoanalyst to see you are a very angry man. Anger isn't good for the
> person who holds it. It corrodes from the inside.

I agree. So why are you so angry and projecting your anger on to me?
For that matter, why are you so obsessed with me, and projecting your
delusions on to me?

>Distance, and the
> difference in opinions we hold regarding your audio "tweaks", make unlikely
> that I would be able to help you.

Thankfully, because the last time you "helped" someone, he had to be
detoxified and placed into a straight jacket. In that order. But I
don't think the distance between our difference of opinions is all
that great, Robert. You did say you follow the principles of Chi during
your meditation sessions, and as you know, those principles mirror some
of what we've seen in biogeometry and Beltist ideas. Plus, like
Sander, you tried one of my tweaks and heard changes to the sound you
perceived (although you've since lied and are no longer willing to
admit that you tried the L-shape because of fear of reprisals from the
IEEE as you explained. And I respect your fear of the IEEE and the loss
of employment that might ensue if they ever get wind of what you've
been doing on RAO).

> Nevertheless, I felt obligated to try.

Thank you. It's reassuring just to know that you are obsessed with
me. At least that keeps you from annoying people in theatre queues.

> Your value as a human being is not significantly diminished by what some of
> us see as unseemly activity here on rec.audio.opinion.

Thank God! I was so worried about that, because you know how my value
as a human being is now tied to every thing that everyone here thinks.
We are talking about "the tweaks" and not your obsession with me,
right? Because if it is my posting free tweaks that is the "unseemly
activity", would you care to explain what you consider, say, Shovels
posting insults about my dying mother as, if not "unseemly activity"?
How about Shovels writing about Krueger's wife being a cheap whore?
Would that also fall into your esteemed analysis as "unseemly
activity"?

>This is just a place
> to shout; but you, the shouter, are an entire human being whose pain I feel
> very deeply.

You're the one shouting, Robert. Some of the things you're
shouting, speaks a lot about the burden of guilt your family has placed
on your shoulders. You know, there is a lot of pressure to achieve in
family's with backgrounds such as yours, where education has a high
value placed upon it. And the fact that, as you told me, your twin
brother is a successful lawyer but you never achieved such success in
your endeavours, must be really playing with your balance of sanity. I
know that you have brought much shame and humiliation to bear on your
family because of your usenet addiction. Your father in particular, who
had so many hopes for you. No one can understand why, instead of going
out and making a name for yourself in the real world, you've chosen
to hole up and make a name for yourself in Shovel's fantasy world
(the world of Usenet audio newsgroups). But I think I can (because
I'm your friend, and have gotten to know you very well). You're
insane.

I'm probably not dropping any bombshells here, because your
reputation as a pill-popping neurotic Jewish basket case on this
newsgroup has long been established with its regulars. What I'm
suggesting is that your addiction to anti-depressants is not the core
of your problems. Certain key phrases and actions here and there
suggest you suffer from mild schizophrenia which, if not treated soon,
may result in untreatable symptoms later on. You start off small with
conspiracies against you (ie. the thousands of posts against Brian
McCarty), but once you start seeing people talking about you wherever
you go well.... let's just hope you get help with that ASAP. I really
do care about you, and sincerely want to see you well. Be sane.

Your virtual friend,


Dr. Richard Graham

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> > soundhaspriority wrote
>> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> You said that your free tweak can be directly verified. So in essence,
>> >> all that I ask was: How did you directly verify that the 3" x 2"
>> >> unbleach
>> >> rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
>> >> photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) having an aspirin
>> >> on the center pinhole work when placed atop the speaker box?
>> >>
>> >> Fair enough ?
>> >
>> > Stupid enough, yes. I believe I already gave you your answer. I told
>> > you I listened to it. [...]
>>
>>
>> So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
>> speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
>> with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without
>> it,
>> and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
>>
>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
>
> You forgot the aspirin and it doesn't have to be "unbleached" paper;
> that's simply what I tested my 5-pinhole paper device with.



Oh! Oh! Oh! It doesn't have to be unbleach. Oh! No! No!



>> which lead you to believe and conclude that the presence of sound
>> difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed
>> to them -- by listening?
>
> Like I said JB, if you're that interested in the above tweak, then why
> haven't you tried it already? It takes less time to try the
> experiment yourself than it does to ramble on incoherently about it in
> message after message, for days and days on end.



WHAT is the MATTER WITH YOU ?

WHAT is WRONNNNG wiiitth YOU ?



WHY are you refusing to give forth direct response to questions I
present to YOU ?

HOW could I perform, and be proud about your tweak if you persistently
refrain giving answer to questions I send your way. THESE require
fixing as it is not the honorable conduct for a sane man to do.



AND this will cost you FULL point.

Full point for such a cowardice act displayed in its purest and simplist form.





--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Shovels explodes in impotent rage.
>
>> as your [noun omitted] are wont to do
>> Did your ex-wife stumble back into your [noun omitted] for a brief
>
> Look at yourself, Shovie. You're dropping words left and right.
>
> And your tour de force of projection puts the Krooborg to shame:
>
>> tailspin of delusional warbling
>> You are one major fruitcake looking for some icing, Robert.
>> your increasingly delusional condition
>> your dementia
>> you're so uptight and stressed out all the time.
>> You need to be sedated.
> [snip half a meg of enraged ranting]
>
>
> Robert has obviously touched a nerve. RAO has probably never seen an
> over-the-top tirade of repressed self-examination of such length. You have
> surpassed the combined self-denial of Terrierborg, duh-Mikey, and the
> Krooborg. A tour de force of obliviousness, Shovels. What a performance.
>
I have a theory about this:
1. Dr. Richard Graham is a psychoanalyst who has held a position of grave
responsibility for quite a few years.
2. In the past week, he has been in the grip of an enormous rant. The power
and energy he puts into this is unnatural.
3. The symptomology is of a sudden, extreme personality shift, with a focus
on anger, high volubility, delusions of superiority and omnipotence, and
weakened inhibition. We seem to actually be reading Graham's stream of
consciousness, albeit with a little bit of editing
4. In his current state, Dr. Graham could not provide psychotherapy to a
disturbed teenager.. He can't even deal with us. If he cannot do his job, he
is faced with loss of employment, which may have already occurred.
5. As part of his professional duties, Dr. Graham has access to psychotropic
medications. In any event, cocaine is fashionable in London.
6. It seems possible that Dr. Graham has a problem with substance abuse. He
may have felt that his professional knowledge protected him from addiction.
See http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075194/

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

> HOW could I perform, and be proud about your tweak if you persistently
> refrain giving answer to questions I send your way.

What problems do you have understanding the tweak? You seem to have
mastered the white paper, you understand the concept of the animal with
a tail, all you need to get now is an aspirin. It isn't rocket
science. If you can't figure out how to put all this together from
the instructions I gave you, then I suggest maybe the tweak is above
your skill level. You should probably start with my "L-Shape For
Dummies" tweak.

[Fella]

wrote:

> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>>HOW could I perform, and be proud about your tweak if you persistently
>>refrain giving answer to questions I send your way.
>
>
> What problems do you have understanding the tweak? You seem to have
> mastered the white paper, you understand the concept of the animal with
> a tail, all you need to get now is an aspirin. It isn't rocket
> science.

No, it's quantum mechanics! :)

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> I have a theory about this:

<Robert Morein's delusional ramblings resulting from his obsession
with me snipped>

Uh-oh. The last time you had a "theory" about something Robert, three
people were hospitalized, and one went into cardiac arrest. Could you
please keep your delusional obsessions on the downlow for the more sane
among us, who would like to remain that way? Thank you so much for your
cooperation.

[[email protected]]

Shovews expwodes in impotent wage.

> as youw [noun omitted] awe wont to do
> Did youw ex-wife stumbwe back into youw [noun omitted] fow a bwief

Wook at youwsewf, Shovie. You'we dwopping wowds weft and wight. And
youw touw de fowce of pwojection puts the Kwoobowg to shame:

> taiwspin of dewusionaw wawbwing
> You awe one majow fwuitcake wooking fow some icing, Wobewt.
> youw incweasingwy dewusionaw condition
> youw dementia
> you'we so uptight and stwessed out aww the time.
> You need to be sedated.
[snip hawf a meg of enwaged wanting]

>Wobewt has obviouswy touched a newve. WAO has pwobabwy nevew seen an
>ovew-the-top tiwade of wepwessed sewf-examination of such wength. You have >suwpassed the combined sewf-deniaw of Tewwiewbowg, duh-Mikey, and the >Kwoobowg. A touw de fowce of obwiviousness, Shovews. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! >What a pewfowmance.

> -- A day without Kwoogew is wike a day without awsenic.


Damn it Shovels, would you stop mumbling? I can't understand a word
you're saying.

[[email protected]]

Fella, self-humiliated and angry with (who else, himself?) wrote out of
deep bitterness::

> wrote:
>
> > JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> >>HOW could I perform, and be proud about your tweak if you persistently
> >>refrain giving answer to questions I send your way.
> >
> >
> > What problems do you have understanding the tweak? You seem to have
> > mastered the white paper, you understand the concept of the animal with
> > a tail, all you need to get now is an aspirin. It isn't rocket
> > science.
>
> No, it's quantum mechanics! :)

Yes, but to a complete fool like you? EVERYTHING is "quantum
mechanics". LOL!

(Now do your little rabid doggy dance, Fella. I like seeing that!).

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> HOW could I perform, and be proud about your tweak if you
>> persistently refrain giving answer to questions I send your way.
>
> What problems do you have understanding the tweak? You seem
> to have mastered the white paper, you understand the concept of
> the animal with a tail, all you need to get now is an aspirin. It isn't
> rocket science.



You are out of order.

You are a coward. A repugnant, reprehensible coward.
The only animal here with a tail is YOU. A lamentable
coward with a tail neatly tuck between your legs.

This I know: It would take the force of an Oklahoman
hurricane to extract the tail you swaddle between your
legs. You are an embarrassment to this newsgroup
and should be ashamed of yourself.



> If you can't figure out how to put all this together from
> the instructions I gave you, then I suggest maybe the tweak is above
> your skill level. You should probably start with my "L-Shape For
> Dummies" tweak.


Another freebie from you? In your previous tweak, you couldn't
even tell the difference if one is to fastened the unbleached,
3"x2" white paper with 4-legged animal on your forehead and
ram that aspirin through your skull.








--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[[email protected]]

Another RAO kook, JBorg, Jr., goes on another angry,
frothing-at-the-mouth kook rant <grabs beer and popcorn>:


> > soundhaspriority wrote
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> >> HOW could I perform, and be proud about your tweak if you
> >> persistently refrain giving answer to questions I send your way.
> >
> > What problems do you have understanding the tweak? You seem
> > to have mastered the white paper, you understand the concept of
> > the animal with a tail, all you need to get now is an aspirin. It isn't
> > rocket science.
>
> You are out of order.
>
> You are a coward. A repugnant, reprehensible coward.
> The only animal here with a tail is YOU. A lamentable
> coward with a tail neatly tuck between your legs.


That's funny. I usually get this kind of hostile reaction _after_
someone tries one of my tweaks. Or at least before. But not during. Are
you sure you couldn't figure it out?

Well, I think its obvious, you had a few screws loose from the onset.

> This I know: It would take the force of an Oklahoman
> hurricane to extract the tail you swaddle between your
> legs.

I don't think you realize that your kook rant doesn't make a lick
of sense. You're the coward that's afraid to try the tweak, not me.
Then again, Fella's kook rant over my tweaks made about as much sense
as yours. So maybe for you RAOers, this is about as rational as you
get?


> You are an embarrassment to this newsgroup
> and should be ashamed of yourself.

If I'm an embarassment to this newsgroup, then no, I'm quite proud
of that. Because the group largely consists of people who I have proven
to bear one or more of the following traits (see: "Message to the
ignorant Pigs of RAO"): extremely hostile by nature, extremely
antisocial, extremely addicted to usenet, extremely ignorant about
audio, extremely closed or narrow-minded, extremely paranoid, extremely
insecure and fearful, or extremely stupid. You, you're a combination
of those factors. And like Fella, you have a strange tendency to burst
into mad anger, and become as rabid as a diseased lemur. Or "chihuahua"
if you will. Wait, I think I figured it out. You ARE Fella. Or one of
its sockpuppets, anyway. You write barely comprehensible sentences like
him, even when you're not dripping with insane anger (again, like
Fella/Pega). Dropping your suffixes, for example.

> > If you can't figure out how to put all this together from
> > the instructions I gave you, then I suggest maybe the tweak is above
> > your skill level. You should probably start with my "L-Shape For
> > Dummies" tweak.
>
>
> Another freebie from you?

I know. I'm generous to a fault. I can't help it, I just like
helping people, I guess.

> In your previous tweak, you couldn't
> even tell the difference if one is to fastened the unbleached,
> 3"x2" white paper with 4-legged animal on your forehead and
> ram that aspirin through your skull.

You see, this is what I mean about you being incoherent. You start off
ranting about one thing, and then you morph into rambling about another
thing altogether; as though you just lost 2 minutes of consciousness.
Not only are you a very angry, angry bunny, you're a very bizarre
bunny too.

Maybe what the problem here is, you tried to execute another tweak of
mine, but not having done so good with my L-shape the last time, you
tried ramming the aspirin through your skull. Did it hurt a lot? I'll
bet not. You look like you have a lot of rocks in your head, that would
dull the pain. You know what, JB? Maybe "tweaks" just aren't for you.
In fact, if I were you, I'd stay away from anything sharp, anything
that you can put in your mouth, anything you can choke on, or anything
hard enough to split that stupid coconut of yours. Although you
probably don't have to worry too much about the latter. Last of all,
don't forget to...

.....enjoy the music!


> --
> I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

You mean you fix it so other people become as simple minded as you?

[dizzy]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

>You are out of order.
>
>You are a coward. A repugnant, reprehensible coward.
>The only animal here with a tail is YOU. A lamentable
>coward with a tail neatly tuck between your legs.

Jesus H Christ, can't you newbies tell when you're being trolled?
Sheesh! Kill-file the ****ing troll and be done with it!

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> We Yanks ......

Anybody else find it a bit unnerving when Bob decides to speak for the
entire country?

Yo Bob, just once I'd like you to show enough balls to speak for
yourself instead of cowering behind some ficticious group
membership in your mind.

ScottW

[[email protected]]

Many years ago when I was a final year student I took a
summer
holiday internship at a prestigious mental health Scottish institution
called Crichton Royal Hospital in Dumfries Scotland.
One of the physicians-psychiatrists there would disappear
every
few months to get treatment for recurrent depressive psychosis.
Another one never said a word to anyone during some six
weeks I
spent there. During meals he would sidle in to his chair with a gentle
smile
eat and sidle out equally unconspicuously. I was very puzzled about
what
he said to his patients in the psychotherapy sessions.
The clinical meetings consisted of recurrent argument
between
two prominent German refugee psychiatrists about the correct diagnosis
for a
new patient: did he have Alzheimer or Jacob-Kreutzfeld psychosis. This
never
varied. They were both articulate and intelligent

So I was well prepared for reading various fantasies by
Freud , Jung,
and their warring disciples ever since.
This is supposed to be an audio forum. Lately it
reminded me vividly
of my stay at the Crichton Royal; delving in its library and meeting
its doctors.
Could we have a rest and a change?.
Ludovic Mirabel.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote:
> Robert Morein, taking the practice of delusion to new heights, wrote
> ironically:
>
> > Richard, you seem stuck in a confrontational mode.
>
> Robert, you seem stuck in a delusional mode that makes you believe
> I'm in a confrontational mode. Perhaps hanging too much with Shovels,
> who sees us entirely from the fantasy world in his head, has done that
> to you?
>
> >I don't have to be a
> > pyschoanalyst to see you are a very angry man. Anger isn't good for the
> > person who holds it. It corrodes from the inside.
>
> I agree. So why are you so angry and projecting your anger on to me?
> For that matter, why are you so obsessed with me, and projecting your
> delusions on to me?
>
> >Distance, and the
> > difference in opinions we hold regarding your audio "tweaks", make unlikely
> > that I would be able to help you.
>
> Thankfully, because the last time you "helped" someone, he had to be
> detoxified and placed into a straight jacket. In that order. But I
> don't think the distance between our difference of opinions is all
> that great, Robert. You did say you follow the principles of Chi during
> your meditation sessions, and as you know, those principles mirror some
> of what we've seen in biogeometry and Beltist ideas. Plus, like
> Sander, you tried one of my tweaks and heard changes to the sound you
> perceived (although you've since lied and are no longer willing to
> admit that you tried the L-shape because of fear of reprisals from the
> IEEE as you explained. And I respect your fear of the IEEE and the loss
> of employment that might ensue if they ever get wind of what you've
> been doing on RAO).
>
> > Nevertheless, I felt obligated to try.
>
> Thank you. It's reassuring just to know that you are obsessed with
> me. At least that keeps you from annoying people in theatre queues.
>
> > Your value as a human being is not significantly diminished by what some of
> > us see as unseemly activity here on rec.audio.opinion.
>
> Thank God! I was so worried about that, because you know how my value
> as a human being is now tied to every thing that everyone here thinks.
> We are talking about "the tweaks" and not your obsession with me,
> right? Because if it is my posting free tweaks that is the "unseemly
> activity", would you care to explain what you consider, say, Shovels
> posting insults about my dying mother as, if not "unseemly activity"?
> How about Shovels writing about Krueger's wife being a cheap whore?
> Would that also fall into your esteemed analysis as "unseemly
> activity"?
>
> >This is just a place
> > to shout; but you, the shouter, are an entire human being whose pain I feel
> > very deeply.
>
> You're the one shouting, Robert. Some of the things you're
> shouting, speaks a lot about the burden of guilt your family has placed
> on your shoulders. You know, there is a lot of pressure to achieve in
> family's with backgrounds such as yours, where education has a high
> value placed upon it. And the fact that, as you told me, your twin
> brother is a successful lawyer but you never achieved such success in
> your endeavours, must be really playing with your balance of sanity. I
> know that you have brought much shame and humiliation to bear on your
> family because of your usenet addiction. Your father in particular, who
> had so many hopes for you. No one can understand why, instead of going
> out and making a name for yourself in the real world, you've chosen
> to hole up and make a name for yourself in Shovel's fantasy world
> (the world of Usenet audio newsgroups). But I think I can (because
> I'm your friend, and have gotten to know you very well). You're
> insane.
>
> I'm probably not dropping any bombshells here, because your
> reputation as a pill-popping neurotic Jewish basket case on this
> newsgroup has long been established with its regulars. What I'm
> suggesting is that your addiction to anti-depressants is not the core
> of your problems. Certain key phrases and actions here and there
> suggest you suffer from mild schizophrenia which, if not treated soon,
> may result in untreatable symptoms later on. You start off small with
> conspiracies against you (ie. the thousands of posts against Brian
> McCarty), but once you start seeing people talking about you wherever
> you go well.... let's just hope you get help with that ASAP. I really
> do care about you, and sincerely want to see you well. Be sane.
>
> Your virtual friend,
>
>
> Dr. Richard Graham

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Could we have a rest and a change?.
> Ludovic Mirabel.

Good Idea deLudo.... I've been pondering
where people find the music you seek.
I find the local FM radio stuff is usually extremely
uninteresting. We have one independent FM
station that is mildly interesting KPRI but
I don't find it worth while. I find myself
more and more listening at work (and at home when
on the PC) to internet feeds. There I can find
a wide diversity from places like Aural Moon
where in a day I might hear a few classic prog
cuts from Crimson but also get to hear stuff
I would never find on FM, from artists like
Jerry Goodman, Annie Moses, Iona, The Box.

I hope the day will come in my time when streaming
lossless audio on the net will available.

Note to Bob, EVDO rev. B was announced as
being rolled out next year. Check it out.
http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2006/060407_expects_commercialization_ev.html

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:CHTZf.110$EA3.28@dukeread10...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Could we have a rest and a change?.
>> Ludovic Mirabel.
>
> Good Idea deLudo.... I've been pondering
> where people find the music you seek.
> I find the local FM radio stuff is usually extremely
> uninteresting. We have one independent FM
> station that is mildly interesting KPRI but
> I don't find it worth while. I find myself
> more and more listening at work (and at home when
> on the PC) to internet feeds. There I can find
> a wide diversity from places like Aural Moon
> where in a day I might hear a few classic prog
> cuts from Crimson but also get to hear stuff
> I would never find on FM, from artists like
> Jerry Goodman, Annie Moses, Iona, The Box.
>
> I hope the day will come in my time when streaming
> lossless audio on the net will available.
>
> Note to Bob, EVDO rev. B was announced as
> being rolled out next year. Check it out.
> http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2006/060407_expects_commercialization_ev.html
>
> ScottW
Thanks, Scott, for the heads-up, but it's not a carrier rollout. That will
follow in yet another year. Of course, we both know that in a general sense,
be it EVDO, HSPDA, etc., the future is glorious. But these are purely urban
and suburban technologies. There seems to be no clear indication of when, if
ever, the boonies I travel to will be beneficiaries of 3G or 4G. Until that
time, I have to stick with my slow but almost omnipresent EDGE/GPRS device,
and WIFI at Starbucks et al.

With respect to FM, I find myself torn between the fact that IP radio, at
current bitrates, is artifact ridden. FM is much better, but as you say,
there is practically no programming. Here in Philly, we are fortunate to
have three listenable stations, two of which broadcast music, and one of
which is the NPR talk feed. I have a couple of "super tuners" that I used to
use to pick up semilocal low power college stations. Some of the stuff was
pretty interesting, but my CD collection has expanded to the point that I
don't bother.

[ScottW]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "ScottW" > wrote in message
> news:CHTZf.110$EA3.28@dukeread10...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> Could we have a rest and a change?.
>>> Ludovic Mirabel.
>>
>> Good Idea deLudo.... I've been pondering
>> where people find the music you seek.
>> I find the local FM radio stuff is usually extremely
>> uninteresting. We have one independent FM
>> station that is mildly interesting KPRI but
>> I don't find it worth while. I find myself
>> more and more listening at work (and at home when
>> on the PC) to internet feeds. There I can find
>> a wide diversity from places like Aural Moon
>> where in a day I might hear a few classic prog
>> cuts from Crimson but also get to hear stuff
>> I would never find on FM, from artists like
>> Jerry Goodman, Annie Moses, Iona, The Box.
>>
>> I hope the day will come in my time when streaming
>> lossless audio on the net will available.
>>
>> Note to Bob, EVDO rev. B was announced as
>> being rolled out next year. Check it out.
>> http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2006/060407_expects_commercialization_ev.html
>>
>> ScottW
> Thanks, Scott, for the heads-up, but it's not a carrier rollout.

Actually...when they say commericialization that is exactly what
they mean... but it will probably be in Korea first unless their
regulatory group impedes. Verizon will be all over it if their
current EV-DO uptake shows demand and capacity need.

Interesting to me...is the conflict Qualcomm has created
with mediaflo which offers great video with much lower BW
requirements. EV-DO at these rates will mostly be
adopted by people who combine mobile needs with
basic internet service. If they continue to offer service in the
sub $100 range and modems get cheap enough...
one could see some competition with cable internet access.

So you do use your device as modem for your laptop or PC?

> That will follow in yet another year. Of course, we both know that in a
> general sense, be it EVDO, HSPDA, etc., the future is glorious. But these
> are purely urban and suburban technologies. There seems to be no clear
> indication of when, if ever, the boonies I travel to will be beneficiaries
> of 3G or 4G.

Probably never until immigration makes us coast to coast ants.

> Until that time, I have to stick with my slow but almost omnipresent
> EDGE/GPRS device, and WIFI at Starbucks et al.
>
> With respect to FM, I find myself torn between the fact that IP radio, at
> current bitrates, is artifact ridden. FM is much better, but as you say,
> there is practically no programming. Here in Philly, we are fortunate to
> have three listenable stations, two of which broadcast music, and one of
> which is the NPR talk feed. I have a couple of "super tuners" that I used
> to use to pick up semilocal low power college stations. Some of the stuff
> was pretty interesting, but my CD collection has expanded to the point
> that I don't bother.

Thats where I'm at...looking for something new and it ain't on the radio
:(.

ScottW

[Sander deWaal]

"JBorg, Jr." > said:


>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without it,
>and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.

>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed
>to them -- by listening?


I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
better.
I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
today I removed it.

I noticed the difference (for the worse).

Replacing it made things "right" again.

Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.

--

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

[Robert Morein]

One explanation would be that, due to your innate sense of obligation to
fairness, you were biased to the positive.

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "JBorg, Jr." > said:
>
>
>>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
>>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
>>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without
>>it,
>>and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
>
>>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
>>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
>>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and
>>attributed
>>to them -- by listening?
>
>
> I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
> better.
> I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
> today I removed it.
>
> I noticed the difference (for the worse).
>
> Replacing it made things "right" again.
>
> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.
>
> --
>
> - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you
> with experience. -

[[email protected]]

ScottW wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Could we have a rest and a change?.
> > Ludovic Mirabel.
>
> Good Idea deLudo.... I've been pondering
> where people find the music you seek.
> I find the local FM radio stuff is usually extremely
> uninteresting. We have one independent FM
> station that is mildly interesting KPRI but
> I don't find it worth while. I find myself
> more and more listening at work (and at home when
> on the PC) to internet feeds. There I can find
> a wide diversity from places like Aural Moon
> where in a day I might hear a few classic prog
> cuts from Crimson but also get to hear stuff
> I would never find on FM, from artists like
> Jerry Goodman, Annie Moses, Iona, The Box.
>
> I hope the day will come in my time when streaming
> lossless audio on the net will available.
>
> Note to Bob, EVDO rev. B was announced as
> being rolled out next year. Check it out.
> http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2006/060407_expects_commercialization_ev.html
>
> ScottW

----------------------------------------------------------

When the remedial class graduate like
ScottW agrees with one the natural reaction is:
"What have I done wrong?"
Because it so happens that between them
ScottW and his intellectual
peer NYOB are responsable for most of the non-
audio postings in RAO. They ventilate their
4th grade juvenile political opinions onto the
defenceless group.
But not to worry. It is still the same
ScottW who does not know where to find his hometown's
Public Library He strains for wit. He reaches deep
into his grey matter and produces a hilarious
schoolyard pun on my name: "Deludo"
What will he think of next? Mind boggles.
Ludovic Mirabel

[ScottW]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Could we have a rest and a change?.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel.
>>
>> Good Idea deLudo.... I've been pondering
>> where people find the music you seek.
>> I find the local FM radio stuff is usually extremely
>> uninteresting. We have one independent FM
>> station that is mildly interesting KPRI but
>> I don't find it worth while. I find myself
>> more and more listening at work (and at home when
>> on the PC) to internet feeds. There I can find
>> a wide diversity from places like Aural Moon
>> where in a day I might hear a few classic prog
>> cuts from Crimson but also get to hear stuff
>> I would never find on FM, from artists like
>> Jerry Goodman, Annie Moses, Iona, The Box.
>>
>> I hope the day will come in my time when streaming
>> lossless audio on the net will available.
>>
>> Note to Bob, EVDO rev. B was announced as
>> being rolled out next year. Check it out.
>> http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2006/060407_expects_commercialization_ev.html
>>
>> ScottW
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> When the remedial class graduate like
> ScottW agrees with one the natural reaction is:
> "What have I done wrong?"
> Because it so happens that between them
> ScottW and his intellectual
> peer NYOB are responsable for most of the non-
> audio postings in RAO. They ventilate their
> 4th grade juvenile political opinions onto the
> defenceless group.
> But not to worry. It is still the same
> ScottW who does not know where to find his hometown's
> Public Library He strains for wit. He reaches deep
> into his grey matter and produces a hilarious
> schoolyard pun on my name: "Deludo"
> What will he think of next? Mind boggles.
> Ludovic Mirabel

Opportunity lost Ludo. Is that better?
Your court...last chance.

ScottW
>

[paul packer]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 09:29:44 -0700, "ScottW" >
wrote:

>
>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>> We Yanks ......
>
>Anybody else find it a bit unnerving when Bob decides to speak for the
>entire country?
>
>Yo Bob, just once I'd like you to show enough balls to speak for
>yourself instead of cowering behind some ficticious group
>membership in your mind.

Yanks are "ficticious"?

[JBorg, Jr.]

>soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>> You are an embarrassment to this newsgroup
>> and should be ashamed of yourself.
>
>
>
> If I'm an embarassment to this newsgroup, then



You've yet to explain your persistent refusal to give forth direct
response to questions pose to you concerning your tweaks.

Please do so now.





Is there something wrong with your chicken?

Head or Tail ?








--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 09:29:44 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>>> We Yanks ......
>>
>>Anybody else find it a bit unnerving when Bob decides to speak for the
>>entire country?
>>
>>Yo Bob, just once I'd like you to show enough balls to speak for
>>yourself instead of cowering behind some ficticious group
>>membership in your mind.
>
> Yanks are "ficticious"?

The U.S. may be past the pinnacle of power, but we aren't exactly buried by
the sands of time.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> ScottW wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Could we have a rest and a change?.
>> > Ludovic Mirabel.
>>
>> Good Idea deLudo.... I've been pondering
>> where people find the music you seek.
>> I find the local FM radio stuff is usually extremely
>> uninteresting. We have one independent FM
>> station that is mildly interesting KPRI but
>> I don't find it worth while. I find myself
>> more and more listening at work (and at home when
>> on the PC) to internet feeds. There I can find
>> a wide diversity from places like Aural Moon
>> where in a day I might hear a few classic prog
>> cuts from Crimson but also get to hear stuff
>> I would never find on FM, from artists like
>> Jerry Goodman, Annie Moses, Iona, The Box.
>>
>> I hope the day will come in my time when streaming
>> lossless audio on the net will available.
>>
>> Note to Bob, EVDO rev. B was announced as
>> being rolled out next year. Check it out.
>> http://www.qualcomm.com/press/releases/2006/060407_expects_commercialization_ev.html
>>
>> ScottW
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> When the remedial class graduate like
> ScottW agrees with one the natural reaction is:
> "What have I done wrong?"
> Because it so happens that between them
> ScottW and his intellectual
> peer NYOB are responsable for most of the non-
> audio postings in RAO. They ventilate their
> 4th grade juvenile political opinions onto the
> defenceless group.
> But not to worry. It is still the same
> ScottW who does not know where to find his hometown's
> Public Library He strains for wit. He reaches deep
> into his grey matter and produces a hilarious
> schoolyard pun on my name: "Deludo"
> What will he think of next? Mind boggles.
> Ludovic Mirabel
>
Ludovic, I would complain to the animal control officer. Scott should be
fitted with a shock collar.

[Robert Morein]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 18:03:34 -0400, "Robert Morein"
> > wrote:
>
>>One explanation would be that, due to your innate sense of obligation to
>>fairness, you were biased to the positive.
>
> Wow, that's reaching, Robert. Also crawling at the same time.

Alright, Richard bought him off ;)

[JBorg, Jr.]

> Sander deWaal wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. said:
>
>
>
>
>>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
>>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
>>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without it,
>>and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
>
>>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
>>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
>>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and attributed
>>to them -- by listening?
>
>
> I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
> better.


Ok.


> I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
> today I removed it.
>
> I noticed the difference (for the worse).
>
> Replacing it made things "right" again.


Ok.


> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.


To explain, imo, begs the question to explore your sensation to
stimulus that causes effect and reaction in your consciousness
when presented to you.

Give an example, or explain what triggers upon your perception
in having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
centerhole -- as you listen -- while placed atop your speaker box.




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


[ bbl... ]

[Robert Morein]

"JBorg, Jr." > wrote in message
t...
>> Sander deWaal wrote
>>> JBorg, Jr. said:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
>>>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
>>>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without
>>>it,
>>>and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
>>
>>>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
>>>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
>>>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and
>>>attributed
>>>to them -- by listening?
>>
>>
>> I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
>> better.
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>> I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
>> today I removed it.
>>
>> I noticed the difference (for the worse).
>>
>> Replacing it made things "right" again.
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.
>
>
> To explain, imo, begs the question to explore your sensation to
> stimulus that causes effect and reaction in your consciousness
> when presented to you.
>
> Give an example, or explain what triggers upon your perception
> in having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
> centerhole -- as you listen -- while placed atop your speaker box.
>
One 3rd person I spoke with stated that, according to the theory, it changes
the listener, not the equipment. The specific modality was that humans are
constantly being bombarded with "alarm stimulus." By eliminating or masking
such stimuli, it is claimed, a human is now more receptive to the music.
Presumably the animal represents a positive animistic influence (a pet?),
while the aspirin represents relief from pain. To me, the theory
overestimates the importance of symbols. Symbols are not reality. Yet it is
accepted that decor, paint, rugs, comfy chairs, etc., all have an influence
on mood, and therefore, perception.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:

> One explanation would be that, due to your innate sense of obligation to
> fairness, you were biased to the positive.

Don't be a hypocrite Robert. You heard positive changes from applying
the L-shape to your CDs, and were certainly not baised toward the
positive. You told me your training as a conventional engineer made it
impossbile for you to take the idea seriously, yet you tried it anyway,
"just to humour me", as you said. I'd say that is biased toward the
negative, wouldn't you?


>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "JBorg, Jr." > said:
> >
> >
> >>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
> >>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
> >>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without
> >>it,
> >>and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
> >
> >>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
> >>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
> >>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and
> >>attributed
> >>to them -- by listening?
> >
> >
> > I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
> > better.
> > I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
> > today I removed it.
> >
> > I noticed the difference (for the worse).
> >
> > Replacing it made things "right" again.
> >
> > Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.
> >
> > --
> >
> > - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you
> > with experience. -

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

> If I'm an embarassment to this newsgroup, then I apologize.

Don't apologize to the group, JB. You need to apologize to -me-.

> You've yet to explain your persistent refusal to give forth direct
> response to questions pose to you concerning your tweaks.

No, I did explain that to you very patiently, and I have no more
patience with a troll like you, at this point, sockpuppet. You never
explained your persistent refusal to give me a direct, or any response,
as to why you keep talking about these tweaks, but haven't tried
them. Until you respond to and explain that, you can stop your
miserable whining already. And even if you do explain the mystery that
is apparently stopping you from trying the tweak you keep blabbing to
me about, you'd have to give me a sincere apology for your hostile
malevolence toward me, before I even consider helping you out.

> Please do so now.

You mean you calling me a "mother****er" is not reason enough?



> Is there something wrong with your chicken?
>
> Head or Tail ?

Pull my finger. I got a suprise for you.

[Robert Morein]

Just for the sake of clarity, I did not try the tweak. Neither have I
expressed a negative opinion about it, although I do feel that Dr. Richard
Graham, who posts here as "soundhaspriority", is a total asshole.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>
>> One explanation would be that, due to your innate sense of obligation to
>> fairness, you were biased to the positive.
>
> Don't be a hypocrite Robert. You heard positive changes from applying
> the L-shape to your CDs, and were certainly not baised toward the
> positive. You told me your training as a conventional engineer made it
> impossbile for you to take the idea seriously, yet you tried it anyway,
> "just to humour me", as you said. I'd say that is biased toward the
> negative, wouldn't you?
>
>
>>
>> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "JBorg, Jr." > said:
>> >
>> >
>> >>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
>> >>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
>> >>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and
>> >>without
>> >>it,
>> >>and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
>> >
>> >>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
>> >>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
>> >>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and
>> >>attributed
>> >>to them -- by listening?
>> >
>> >
>> > I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
>> > better.
>> > I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
>> > today I removed it.
>> >
>> > I noticed the difference (for the worse).
>> >
>> > Replacing it made things "right" again.
>> >
>> > Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you
>> > with experience. -
>

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> Just for the sake of clarity, I did not try the tweak. Neither have I
> expressed a negative opinion about it, although I do feel that Dr. Richard
> Graham, who posts here as "soundhaspriority", is a total asshole.

This coming from a guy who started off calling me a "crook" for trying
to help people improve their audio sound for free, who later graduated
to calling me a coke fiend, crack addict, lied about emails I never
wrote to him, threatened to sue me for reporting the fact that he
actually told me in email that he had tried one of my tweaks and liked
it (the L-shape), and basically wentn on an obsessive rampage to
discredit every part of my character he could possibly think to do.
Only problem is... he lied to himself about who I was, and like a total
asshole and complete fool that he is, sullied the reputation of a
totally innocent person.

Robert, I don't know how you and Shovels came to end up in this
fantasy life that you both have on RAO, but I really wish you both
would stop inflicting your neurosis and egomania on this newsgroup. No
one appreciates that, and you're just causing harm to yourselves and
other innocent people.


>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> >
> >> One explanation would be that, due to your innate sense of obligation to
> >> fairness, you were biased to the positive.
> >
> > Don't be a hypocrite Robert. You heard positive changes from applying
> > the L-shape to your CDs, and were certainly not baised toward the
> > positive. You told me your training as a conventional engineer made it
> > impossbile for you to take the idea seriously, yet you tried it anyway,
> > "just to humour me", as you said. I'd say that is biased toward the
> > negative, wouldn't you?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > "JBorg, Jr." > said:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
> >> >>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
> >> >>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and
> >> >>without
> >> >>it,
> >> >>and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak work.
> >> >
> >> >>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
> >> >>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
> >> >>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and
> >> >>attributed
> >> >>to them -- by listening?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
> >> > better.
> >> > I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
> >> > today I removed it.
> >> >
> >> > I noticed the difference (for the worse).
> >> >
> >> > Replacing it made things "right" again.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > - Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you
> >> > with experience. -
> >

[[email protected]]

Shovels, still suffering from delusions but also plagued by irony,
wrote:

> Robert Morein said:
>
> > Just for the sake of clarity, I did not try the tweak. Neither have I
> > expressed a negative opinion about it, although I do feel that Dr. Richard
> > Graham, who posts here as "soundhaspriority", is a total asshole.
>
> Let's put it to a vote, shall we: All in favor of declaring Dr. Richard
> Graham (aka "soundhaspriority", aka Shovels) a total asshole, signify so by
> posting "Aye!"

This from a guy who lies about what I wrote to him in email, insulted
my dying mother, insulted another member's dead son, called his wife
a cheap whore many times over, sent pornographic email to members on
this group, and stabbed his one-time friends in the back inumerable
times. Starting by using whatever they wrote to him in email, against
them at a later point.

Middius, as they say, it takes an asshole to know one. You're not
just an asshole, but also a very dumb asshole, for beleiving everything
you're told, like a good little sheep (ie. I'm Dr. Richard Graham).


> Here's mine: Aye!

Truth by popularity vote. Ask me how much I care, Shovels. Keep
pretending you matter in the world.

- soundhaspriority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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

[Sander deWaal]

"Robert Morein" > said:


>Alright, Richard bought him off ;)


I already wondered what that big box with "Belt Imperium" written
across it, was doing in the drive way.

Now I know. Thanks, Robert!

--

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

[ScottW]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 09:29:44 -0700, "ScottW" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>>> We Yanks ......
>>
>>Anybody else find it a bit unnerving when Bob decides to speak for the
>>entire country?
>>
>>Yo Bob, just once I'd like you to show enough balls to speak for
>>yourself instead of cowering behind some ficticious group
>>membership in your mind.
>
> Yanks are "ficticious"?

As defined by Morein, yes.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> Just for the sake of clarity, I did not try the tweak. Neither have I
>> expressed a negative opinion about it, although I do feel that Dr.
>> Richard
>> Graham, who posts here as "soundhaspriority", is a total asshole.
>
> Let's put it to a vote, shall we: All in favor of declaring Dr. Richard
> Graham (aka "soundhaspriority", aka Shovels) a total asshole, signify so
> by
> posting "Aye!"
>
> Here's mine: Aye!
>
Aye!

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > said:
>
>
>>Alright, Richard bought him off ;)
>
>
> I already wondered what that big box with "Belt Imperium" written
> across it, was doing in the drive way.
>
> Now I know. Thanks, Robert!
>
Don't know who left them. Mine were the Havanas.

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> If I'm an embarassment to this newsgroup, then I apologize.
>
> Don't apologize to the group, JB. You need to apologize to -me-.


?

>> You've yet to explain your persistent refusal to give forth direct
>> response to questions pose to you concerning your tweaks.
>
> No, I did explain that to you very patiently,


No you didn't.



> and I have no more
> patience with a troll like you, at this point, sockpuppet. You never
> explained your persistent refusal to give me a direct, or any response,
> as to why you keep talking about these tweaks, but haven't tried
> them. Until you respond to and explain that, you can stop your
> miserable whining already. And even if you do explain the mystery that
> is apparently stopping you from trying the tweak you keep blabbing to
> me about, you'd have to give me a sincere apology for your hostile
> malevolence toward me, before I even consider helping you out.
>
>
>> Please do so now.
>
> You mean you calling me a "mother****er" is not reason enough?


The reason I called you that is because it has become apparent to me
that after having only few exchanges with you, you were becoming very
evasive and starting to selectively snip my post with each of your reply.
That's why I called you a mother****er.



>
>> Is there something wrong with your chicken?
>>
>> Head or Tail ?
>
> Pull my finger. I got a suprise for you.
>

[JBorg, Jr.]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Sander deWaal wrote
>>>> JBorg, Jr. said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound propagated by the
>>>>speaker box having a 4-legged animal in unbleach white paper on its top
>>>>with an aspirin on the center pinhole. You listened with it and without
>>>>it, and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded that your tweak
>>>>work.
>>>
>>>>What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal HAS
>>>>which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence of sound
>>>>difference which physically exist could be directly verified and
>>>>attributed to them -- by listening?
>>>
>>> I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a difference for the
>>> better.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>> I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a few days, and
>>> today I removed it.
>>>
>>> I noticed the difference (for the worse).
>>>
>>> Replacing it made things "right" again.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>>> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.
>>
>> To explain, imo, begs the question to explore your sensation to
>> stimulus that causes effect and reaction in your consciousness
>> when presented to you.
>>
>> Give an example, or explain what triggers upon your perception
>> in having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
>> centerhole -- as you listen -- while placed atop your speaker box.
>
>
>
> One 3rd person I spoke with stated that, according to the theory, it changes
> the listener, not the equipment.



Based on the statement provided by SdW above, I must think
differently.

The changes that occurred in the listener is caused by the change
unto the "part" of the equipment. SdW was able to detect the
difference when it was remove and out of the way.

If SdW himself changes and not the equipment, how was he then able
to "verify" and detect difference on his equipment when the 4-legged
animal on white paper was remove.

That is, if he knows that the 4-legged animal was there and it was
himself "the listener" that changes, how was he able to detect and
verify a difference when the 4-legged animal wasn't there -- hence,
changing (part of) the equipment. As it is only the part of the
equipment here that was change.




>The specific modality was that humans are constantly being bombarded with
>"alarm stimulus." By eliminating or masking such stimuli, it is claimed, a
>human is now more receptive to the music. Presumably the animal represents a
>positive animistic influence (a pet?), while the aspirin represents relief
>from pain. To me, the theory overestimates the importance of symbols. Symbols
>are not reality. Yet it is accepted that decor, paint, rugs, comfy chairs,
>etc., all have an influence on mood, and therefore, perception.



Ok, a bias towards symbolism. But again, how was SdW able to perform the
process of "detecting" a difference when it was remove

Clearly, something is triggering SdW's perception with regard to the
4-legged animal tweak atop his speaker box as he is able to detect sound
difference with it and without it.



***

I stand by my original position and that is: The 4-legged animal in white
paper tweak is false but not directly verifiable.


So again, SdW needs to give an example, or explain what triggers upon his
perception about having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
centerhole atop his speaker box -- as he listen.


I wonder what would happen if it is the images of adult kinky sex toys
placed atop the speaker box next time around.

http://www.xandria.com/?aid=gglstc

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > soundhaspriority wrote
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> If I'm an embarassment to this newsgroup, then I apologize.
> >
> > Don't apologize to the group, JB. You need to apologize to -me-.
>
>
> ?

Sorry, I'm not accepting question marks as an apology.


> >> You've yet to explain your persistent refusal to give forth direct
> >> response to questions pose to you concerning your tweaks.
> >
Sorry if answering senseless and pointless questions doesn't interest
me. You have a persistent refusal to disclose why you're still
bantering on about my tweaks instead of trying them, if that's what
you're even interested in. If you don't want to respond to my questions
then you can shove yours where the sun don't shine.

> > No, I did explain that to you very patiently,
>
>
> No you didn't.

YES I DID, you stupid asshole.


> > and I have no more
> > patience with a troll like you, at this point, sockpuppet. You never
> > explained your persistent refusal to give me a direct, or any response,
> > as to why you keep talking about these tweaks, but haven't tried
> > them. Until you respond to and explain that, you can stop your
> > miserable whining already. And even if you do explain the mystery that
> > is apparently stopping you from trying the tweak you keep blabbing to
> > me about, you'd have to give me a sincere apology for your hostile
> > malevolence toward me, before I even consider helping you out.
> >
> >
> >> Please do so now.
> >
> > You mean you calling me a "mother****er" is not reason enough?
>
>
> The reason I called you that is because it has become apparent to me
> that after having only few exchanges with you, you were becoming very
> evasive and starting to selectively snip my post with each of your reply.

That was me weeding out the stupid bull**** in your posts. Consider
yourself lucky you even got a reply from me at all. I would have
snipped all of it, but I could tell you were going to break down and
cry worse than Fella did, had I done so. Post after whining post from
you, and I still don't know what the hell you're after me for, and you
STILL never told me what the hell is stopping you from trying my tweak
instead of arguing with me about it.

> That's why I called you a mother****er.

Oh yeah, that's a good reason. Well you did the same thing with mine,
mother****er.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

> ***
>
> I stand by my original position and that is: The 4-legged animal in white
> paper tweak is false but not directly verifiable.

No ignorant clod, the only thing that's not directly verifiable here is
your wits. dDon't even try to pretend you're an expert on things you
don't understand and have never experimented. If you're too dumb to
figure out how to try the tweak, how credible to do you think your
ignorant, witless arguments are?

> So again, SdW needs to give an example, or explain what triggers upon his
> perception about having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
> centerhole atop his speaker box -- as he listen.
>
>
> I wonder what would happen if it is the images of adult kinky sex toys
> placed atop the speaker box next time around.
>
> http://www.xandria.com/?aid=gglstc

You see, this is EXACTLY why I didn't want to respond to you. I could
see that you were just another arrogant fool, out to diss what you're
too stupid to understand, and too fearful to try. So you come along
after all the ad hominem fun is coming to a close, and think that you
want to add your two bits of mockery and ridicule of my tweaks like
your buddies here did, and that you're making an original or clever
statement here? You're nothing but a sack of trash filled with
yesterday's news, Jr. Go back to playing with your adult toys, I'm sure
you find it very amusing.

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "JBorg, Jr." > said:
>
>
>> So you listen and it work. You listened to the sound
>> propagated by the speaker box having a 4-legged animal
>> in unbleach white paper on its top with an aspirin on
>> the center pinhole. You listened with it and without
>> it, and from then, you detected a diff. and concluded
>> that your tweak work.
>
>> What does the unbleach white paper with 4-legged animal
>> HAS
>> which lead you to believe and conclude that the precence
>> of sound difference which physically exist could be
>> directly verified and attributed to them -- by listening?

> I tried this tweak, and by listening, I detected a
> difference for the better.
> I had the paper + picture + aspirin in my system for a
> few days, and today I removed it.
>
> I noticed the difference (for the worse).
>
> Replacing it made things "right" again.
>
> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived
> it.

Two words - sighted evaluation.

Obviously perceiving differences no matter how illusory makes you guys days.

Sad.

[Sander deWaal]

"JBorg, Jr." > said:


>So again, SdW needs to give an example, or explain what triggers upon his
>perception about having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
>centerhole atop his speaker box -- as he listen.


I don't "need to" explain anything, or "prove" anything for that
matter.
I've been through all this with the "objectivists" .

Either you try and accept what happens, or you do not.
If you choose to remain uninformed, that's your loss.


>I wonder what would happen if it is the images of adult kinky sex toys
>placed atop the speaker box next time around.


Oh puhleeze.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived
>> it.


>Two words - sighted evaluation.

>Obviously perceiving differences no matter how illusory makes you guys days.

>Sad.


Ah, there you are, I wondered already what took you so long.

Did you try the tweak, Arny?

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> Did you try the tweak, Arny?

Silly Normal, the Krooborg doesn't want his stereo to sound "better". Such a
happenstance would invalidate all the underpinnings of his crack-brained
religion. As long as Mr. **** is confident that everything sounds the same,
his faith can remain intact and he can remain complacent and smug. What more
could a 'borg want?






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

[Arny Krueger]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > said:
>
>
>>> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I
>>> perceived it.
>
>
>> Two words - sighted evaluation.
>
>> Obviously perceiving differences no matter how illusory
>> makes you guys days.
>
>> Sad.
>
>
> Ah, there you are, I wondered already what took you so
> long.
>
> Did you try the tweak, Arny?

My moma raised nobody *that* naive or foolish.

[Sander deWaal]

"Arny Krueger" > said:


>> Did you try the tweak, Arny?


>My moma raised nobody *that* naive or foolish.


Step through that door, Arny.

I know you can.

--

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

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >My moma

> Step through that door, Arny.

The door to the art museum? What a strange exchange this is.






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

[Steven Sullivan]

Sander deWaal > wrote:
> "JBorg, Jr." > said:


> >So again, SdW needs to give an example, or explain what triggers upon his
> >perception about having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
> >centerhole atop his speaker box -- as he listen.


> I don't "need to" explain anything, or "prove" anything for that
> matter.
> I've been through all this with the "objectivists" .

> Either you try and accept what happens, or you do not.
> If you choose to remain uninformed, that's your loss.

No, Sander, you're leaving out the possibility that the
explanation you arrive at for yourself, about your
experience, is wrong. People do that all the time...leap
to wrong conclusions about *why* something occurred.
It explains why shops that sell lottery tickets will
post signs advertising 'winning ticket sold here last month!'.


> >I wonder what would happen if it is the images of adult kinky sex toys
> >placed atop the speaker box next time around.


> Oh puhleeze.

Any particular reason that *wouldn't* work as well?

It's always funny when 'believers' in the inane
decide there's something that's simply *beyond the pale* even
to them. That's been the principle source of amusement here since
Shippy's appearance...watching you guys define *boundaries of
the ridiculous*.


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

[Steven Sullivan]

Sander deWaal > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > said:


> >> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived
> >> it.


> >Two words - sighted evaluation.

> >Obviously perceiving differences no matter how illusory makes you guys days.

> >Sad.


> Ah, there you are, I wondered already what took you so long.

> Did you try the tweak, Arny?

Did you, or Arny, or anyone, try it with standard controls in place, Sander?

*That's* the more important question...and the only one whose answer
will even begin to bring you closer to the truth of the matter.



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

[Steven Sullivan]

Sander deWaal > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > said:


> >> Did you try the tweak, Arny?


> >My moma raised nobody *that* naive or foolish.


> Step through that door, Arny.

> I know you can.

It's a cellar door, Sander, and you've already fallen through...
I fear some cranial damage may have occurred.


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

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>
> Two words - sighted evaluation.
>
> Obviously perceiving differences no matter how illusory makes you guys
> days.
>
> Sad.
>

Its the way we live our life.

Face it, audio 'is' an illusion.




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

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Sander deWaal said:
>
>> Did you try the tweak, Arny?
>
> Silly Normal, the Krooborg doesn't want his stereo to sound "better". Such
> a
> happenstance would invalidate all the underpinnings of his crack-brained
> religion. As long as Mr. **** is confident that everything sounds the
> same,
> his faith can remain intact and he can remain complacent and smug. What
> more
> could a 'borg want?
>

Two words:

"Class envy"



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

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > Two words - sighted evaluation.

> Its the way we live our life.
> Face it, audio 'is' an illusion.

But feces is real, so Krooger is way ahead of us mere music-lovers.





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

[Sander deWaal]

Steven Sullivan > said:


>> Either you try and accept what happens, or you do not.
>> If you choose to remain uninformed, that's your loss.


>No, Sander, you're leaving out the possibility that the
>explanation you arrive at for yourself, about your
>experience, is wrong.


How can something that pleases me be wrong?


>> >I wonder what would happen if it is the images of adult kinky sex toys
>> >placed atop the speaker box next time around.


>> Oh puhleeze.


>Any particular reason that *wouldn't* work as well?


Dunno, maybe I *should* try it.
After *you* try the paper/animal pictue/aspirin tweak, ok? ;-)

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

Steven Sullivan > said:


>> Did you try the tweak, Arny?


>Did you, or Arny, or anyone, try it with standard controls in place, Sander?


My "standard controls" are simple: in my system, enjoying the music.
What are yours?


>*That's* the more important question...and the only one whose answer
>will even begin to bring you closer to the truth of the matter.


My truth is my truth.
This question is not only extremely unimportant, it doesn't even
*exist*. It is a non-question.
I have nothing to prove, least of all to this group.

If you don't want to read about it, skip my posts.

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

Steven Sullivan > said:


>> Step through that door, Arny.

>> I know you can.


>It's a cellar door, Sander, and you've already fallen through...
>I fear some cranial damage may have occurred.


My parents live across a home for the mentally disabled.
Every time I visit them, step out of my car and see how happy those
people are, I wonder who's better off..............

--

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

[Steven Sullivan]

Sander deWaal > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > said:


> >> Either you try and accept what happens, or you do not.
> >> If you choose to remain uninformed, that's your loss.


> >No, Sander, you're leaving out the possibility that the
> >explanation you arrive at for yourself, about your
> >experience, is wrong.


> How can something that pleases me be wrong?

A statement of fact can be wrong, whether it pleases
you or not.


> >> >I wonder what would happen if it is the images of adult kinky sex toys
> >> >placed atop the speaker box next time around.


> >> Oh puhleeze.


> >Any particular reason that *wouldn't* work as well?

> Dunno, maybe I *should* try it.
> After *you* try the paper/animal pictue/aspirin tweak, ok? ;-)


Nah, doesn't work that way, Sander. We've been through this
already.






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

[Steven Sullivan]

Sander deWaal > wrote:
> Steven Sullivan > said:


> >> Did you try the tweak, Arny?


> >Did you, or Arny, or anyone, try it with standard controls in place, Sander?


> My "standard controls" are simple: in my system, enjoying the music.

As proof of difference from listening, these are no standards at all.


> What are yours?

Should I want to claim something sounds different based
purely on listening, it would involve DBT.


> >*That's* the more important question...and the only one whose answer
> >will even begin to bring you closer to the truth of the matter.


> My truth is my truth.

LOL. As such, it's indistinguishable from *making stuff up*.


> This question is not only extremely unimportant, it doesn't even
> *exist*. It is a non-question.

A damn shame that the world so often requires that we accept *other people's
truths*...or as they are commonly called, 'facts'.


> I have nothing to prove, least of all to this group.

For someone who has nothing to prove, you sure posted a lot about it.


> If you don't want to read about it, skip my posts.


Sounding a bit defensive there, Sander.


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

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan arrogantly wrote:

> > My "standard controls" are simple: in my system, enjoying the music.
>
> As proof of difference from listening, these are no standards at all.

These are the ONLY standards any audiophile needs and requires. If you
don't like them, who cares what you think? Use your own, who cares.

> Should I want to claim something sounds different based
> purely on listening, it would involve DBT.

Who cares? We're not interested in your testing standards. What
don't you understand about that fact?

> LOL. As such, it's indistinguishable from *making stuff up*.
>

What you spout here all the time is indistinguishable from *making
stuff up*. You're a pseudo-scientific religious zealot is all.

> A damn shame that the world so often requires that we accept *other people's
> truths*...or as they are commonly called, 'facts'.

Who the heck said you have to accept our truths, our facts? You don't
like the tweaks, then shut up about them. Why are you still going on
about it?

> For someone who has nothing to prove, you sure posted a lot about it.

For someone posting so much about my tweaks, you sure are going to
great lengths to denounce something you think is silly.

> > If you don't want to read about it, skip my posts.

> Sounding a bit defensive there, Sander.

That's the truth. If you're not interested in the tweaks, why are
you talking about them still?

[paul packer]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:53:49 +0200, Sander deWaal >
wrote:


>How can something that pleases me be wrong?

How many paedophiles have said that. :-)

[[email protected]]

paul packer wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:53:49 +0200, Sander deWaal >
> wrote:
>
>
> >How can something that pleases me be wrong?
>
> How many paedophiles have said that. :-)

Now you're equating tweaking stereo systems with molesting
children???!!!

That's gotta be the stupidest thing anyone's ever said around here.

And that's saying something, Packer.

[Sander deWaal]

(paul packer) said:


>>How can something that pleases me be wrong?


>How many paedophiles have said that. :-)


How one gets to know his fellow groupmates this way....

--

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

[Sander deWaal]

Signal > said:

>"Sander deWaal" emitted :

>>After *you* try the paper/animal pictue/aspirin tweak...


>You first... ;-)



You want piccies, son?

--

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

[JBorg, Jr.]

> Sander deWaal wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. said:
>
>
>
>
>
>>So again, SdW needs to give an example, or explain what
>>triggers upon his perception about having a 4-legged animal
>>on white paper with an aspirin in centerhole atop his speaker
>>box -- as he listen.
>
>
> I don't "need to" explain anything, or "prove" anything for that
> matter.


Yes, of course.

I was attempting to seek ways to understand and to explain how
this tweak might have work but in doing so, became tactless
and needlessly contentious towards you.

Sander, I apologize.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > Sander deWaal wrote
> >> JBorg, Jr. said:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>So again, SdW needs to give an example, or explain what
> >>triggers upon his perception about having a 4-legged animal
> >>on white paper with an aspirin in centerhole atop his speaker
> >>box -- as he listen.
> >
> >
> > I don't "need to" explain anything, or "prove" anything for that
> > matter.
>
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> I was attempting to seek ways to understand and to explain how
> this tweak might have work but in doing so, became tactless
> and needlessly contentious towards you.
>
> Sander, I apologize.

Yo Homey, where's -my- apology?

[JBorg, Jr.]

> Robert Morein wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>> Sander deWaal wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sorry, I have no explanation, but this is how I perceived it.
>>
>>
>> To explain, imo, begs the question to explore your sensation to
>> stimulus that causes effect and reaction in your consciousness
>> when presented to you.
>>
>> Give an example, or explain what triggers upon your perception
>> in having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
>> centerhole -- as you listen -- while placed atop your speaker box.
>
>
> One 3rd person I spoke with stated that, according to the theory,


Whom about this"3rd" Goddamn person and of his theory?

Can we have a one-on-one talk with him ?



> it changes the listener, not the equipment. The specific modality was that
> humans are constantly being bombarded with "alarm stimulus." By eliminating
> or masking such stimuli, it is claimed, a human is now more receptive to the
> music. Presumably the animal represents a positive animistic influence (a
> pet?), while the aspirin represents relief from pain. To me, the theory
> overestimates the importance of symbols. Symbols are not reality. Yet it is
> accepted that decor, paint, rugs, comfy chairs, etc., all have an influence
> on mood, and therefore, perception.

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>> I stand by my original position and that is: The 4-legged animal in white
>> paper tweak is false but not directly verifiable.
>
> No ignorant clod, the only thing that's not directly verifiable here is
> your wits. dDon't even try to pretend you're an expert on things you
> don't understand and have never experimented.



Could you give an example where I tried to be an expert as you
claim, Jamie?





> If you're too dumb to
> figure out how to try the tweak, how credible to do you think your
> ignorant, witless arguments are?
>
>> So again, SdW needs to give an example, or explain what triggers upon his
>> perception about having a 4-legged animal on white paper with an aspirin in
>> centerhole atop his speaker box -- as he listen.
>>
>>
>> I wonder what would happen if it is the images of adult kinky sex toys
>> placed atop the speaker box next time around.
>>
>> http://www.xandria.com/?aid=gglstc
>
> You see, this is EXACTLY why I didn't want to respond to you. I could
> see that you were just another arrogant fool, out to diss what you're
> too stupid to understand, and too fearful to try. So you come along
> after all the ad hominem fun is coming to a close, and think that you
> want to add your two bits of mockery and ridicule of my tweaks like
> your buddies here did, and that you're making an original or clever
> statement here? You're nothing but a sack of trash filled with
> yesterday's news, Jr. Go back to playing with your adult toys, I'm sure
> you find it very amusing.



You're still outta order.

[Sander deWaal]

"JBorg, Jr." > said:


>Yes, of course.

>I was attempting to seek ways to understand and to explain how
>this tweak might have work but in doing so, became tactless
>and needlessly contentious towards you.

>Sander, I apologize.


Accepted.

For an explanation, I'll have to refer you to mr. SHP (the real one,
of course).

I'm just a silly tweako-freako with no thoughts of his own, who
happens to enjoy his audio system even more than before.

--

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

[soundhaspriority]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven Sullivan arrogantly wrote:
>
>> > My "standard controls" are simple: in my system, enjoying the music.
>>
>> As proof of difference from listening, these are no standards at all.
>
> These are the ONLY standards any audiophile needs and requires. If you
> don't like them, who cares what you think? Use your own, who cares.
>
>> Should I want to claim something sounds different based
>> purely on listening, it would involve DBT.
>
> Who cares? We're not interested in your testing standards. What
> don't you understand about that fact?
>
>> LOL. As such, it's indistinguishable from *making stuff up*.
>>
>
> What you spout here all the time is indistinguishable from *making
> stuff up*. You're a pseudo-scientific religious zealot is all.
>
>> A damn shame that the world so often requires that we accept *other
>> people's
>> truths*...or as they are commonly called, 'facts'.
>
> Who the heck said you have to accept our truths, our facts? You don't
> like the tweaks, then shut up about them. Why are you still going on
> about it?
>
>> For someone who has nothing to prove, you sure posted a lot about it.
>
> For someone posting so much about my tweaks, you sure are going to
> great lengths to denounce something you think is silly.
>
>> > If you don't want to read about it, skip my posts.
>
>> Sounding a bit defensive there, Sander.
>
> That's the truth. If you're not interested in the tweaks, why are
> you talking about them still?
>
Because we're interesting, bro. We're a real pair of characters. Blimey!

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > soundhaspriority wrote
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I stand by my original position and that is: The 4-legged animal in
> >> white
> >> paper tweak is false but not directly verifiable.
> >
> > No ignorant clod, the only thing that's not directly verifiable here is
> > your wits. dDon't even try to pretend you're an expert on things you
> > don't understand and have never experimented.
>
>
>
> Could you give an example where I tried to be an expert as you
> claim, Jamie?

Is it not OBVIOUS enough to you?? You just finished quoting it! You
just finished telling Sander the 5-pinhole paper tweak is "false" [...]



*** Because it is, no expertise needed.



and "not directly verifiable" [...]


*** Because they're not.


You're telling this to someone who you
know DID verify it, [...]


*** No. SdW verified with me that he does not want to discuss
how he verified your tweak. He referred me to YOU dumb dumb
****.



and as far as I know, you NEVER tried to verify any
of my tweaks. [...]


*** What the **** do you think I been doin the whole time
****in asshole.


All you seem to know how to do is talk about them, in
nonsensical ways to boot. Which reminds me, you never answered my
question: WHY are you still talking to people about the tweak, instead
of trying it for yourself? It takes a fraction of the time you wasted
talking about it, to try it. Why do you think people should waste their
time answering your pointless questions on their theory, when you
can't find 30 seconds to try the tweaks that you so ignorantly mock?[...]



*** This "is" the place to talk about it else why would you talk about it
here. If you just want to do it then, you should open a shop or a kiosk
from where you're at with audio equipment inside, and persuade
passerby (for a small fee) to try out your 4-legged animal paper
tweak for 30 second to demonstrate and prove that your tweak work.

*** You entice me to open my mind. Well, one problem I have with that
is the fact that the more that I do, the more it tells me that YOU are full
of **** you ****in ****.



> > snip


> You're still outta order.

That seems to be your favourite expression. Anyone with a nasty case of
Tourret's syndrom like you (every time I turn around I hear a "God
damn" this and a "mother****er" that from you), who talks about adult
sex toys in mocking tweaks he pretends to have an interest in, has no
call to be calling others "out of order". Comprendé, caballero?

*** That's because you are a dumb dumb **** like nyob & Arnii.

*** If I don't have to go to work, I'll be more than please to shred your
ilk and your ****in ass into pieces and disperse the remains from
here to the mounts at Timbukto. Shut the **** up.

[paul packer]

On 11 Apr 2006 07:44:12 -0700, wrote:

>
>paul packer wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:53:49 +0200, Sander deWaal >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >How can something that pleases me be wrong?
>>
>> How many paedophiles have said that. :-)
>
>Now you're equating tweaking stereo systems with molesting
>children???!!!
>
>That's gotta be the stupidest thing anyone's ever said around here.
>
>And that's saying something, Packer.

Never did I regret more that Free Agent has no fillfile.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr scarfed a bunch of bananas, went on a fine kook rant:

JBorg, Jr.

> > soundhaspriority wrote
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > > soundhaspriority wrote
> > >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:

> Is it not OBVIOUS enough to you?? You just finished quoting it! You
> just finished telling Sander the 5-pinhole paper tweak is "false" [...]

>
> *** Because it is, no expertise needed.

No expertise needed to be an ignorant bumclot, apparently. Which is
what you are, Eddie.


> and "not directly verifiable" [...]
>
>
> *** Because they're not.

Obviously, you don't realize what an idiot you sound like saying
that, as many times as you have. I've concluded that you don't
actually know what the term "verify" means. Given your incessant
incoherent ramblings in your most cogent posts, I'm going to have to
presume English is not your first language. Get a dictionary, you
idiot, before you start trying to argue with people in English.

>
>
> You're telling this to someone who you
> know DID verify it, [...]
>
>
> *** No. SdW verified with me that he does not want to discuss
> how he verified your tweak. He referred me to YOU dumb dumb
> ****.

And you think you're going to discuss my tweaks while calling me a
"dumb dumb ****", is that it? First of all you stupid ****, it's
pretty obvious that Sander "verified" my tweak, and how he did so. You
seem to use the word "verify" to mean a lot of things. Like I said,
you're a hopeless retard. You drive everyone nuts because you can't
seem to fathom just what a cretin you are, so you keep misapplying
basic words and concepts in English that you obviously don't properly
understand. Then you get frustrated when someone like me points out
that you're a moron, who's not making any sense, and can only curse
like a sailor on shore leave.

> and as far as I know, you NEVER tried to verify any
> of my tweaks. [...]
>
>
> *** What the **** do you think I been doin the whole time
> ****in asshole.

Being a dickhead, basically. Certainly at no point did you ever tell me
you tried any of the tweaks, and I would have remembered that, since I
asked you this question 16 times, you stupid dickhead.

> All you seem to know how to do is talk about them, in
> nonsensical ways to boot. Which reminds me, you never answered my
> question: WHY are you still talking to people about the tweak, instead
> of trying it for yourself? It takes a fraction of the time you wasted
> talking about it, to try it. Why do you think people should waste their
> time answering your pointless questions on their theory, when you
> can't find 30 seconds to try the tweaks that you so ignorantly mock?[...]
>
> *** This "is" the place to talk about it else why would you talk about it
> here.

Do you have a freaking bowling ball on your shoulders, you blithering
moron? Maybe you should drill some more holes in it, because nothing I
ever say is getting through to you. I just finished telling you that I
wasn't going to bother going around in circles with you, trying to
answer the same stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical questions about the
tweaks, if you weren't going to bother trying any of them. Maybe you
shouldn't be reading RAO without supervision, Eddie.

> If you just want to do it then, you should open a shop or a kiosk
> from where you're at with audio equipment inside, and persuade
> passerby (for a small fee) to try out your 4-legged animal paper
> tweak for 30 second to demonstrate and prove that your tweak work.

I don't have to demonstrate and prove anything to anybody dickhead,
least of all a dumb **** like yourself. Get bent.

>
> *** You entice me to open my mind. Well, one problem I have with that
> is the fact that the more that I do, the more it tells me that YOU are full
> of **** you ****in ****.

No, what happened is that when you opened your mind, a whole bunch of
**** fell out of it, and that's basically because you have
****-for-brains, you dumb ****.

> That seems to be your favourite expression. Anyone with a nasty case of
> Tourret's syndrom like you (every time I turn around I hear a "God
> damn" this and a "mother****er" that from you), who talks about adult
> sex toys in mocking tweaks he pretends to have an interest in, has no
> call to be calling others "out of order". Comprendé, caballero?
>
> *** That's because you are a dumb dumb **** like nyob & Arnii.

Nyob and Arnii are ****ing geniuses compared to you, you drooling
retard.

> *** If I don't have to go to work, I'll be more than please to shred your
> ilk and your ****in ass into pieces and disperse the remains from
> here to the mounts at Timbukto. Shut the **** up

ROTFLMAO!! More pathetic threats of violence from a complete idiot who
can't figure out how to put together a piece of paper, a picture and
an aspirin. Where do I begin, you dumb asshole? Okay first of all, you
don't know what "ilk" is any more than you understand the word
"verify". You don't say to someone "I'm going to shred your ilk",
you dumbass ranting retard. What you just threatened to do was "shred
me and everyone that you think is like me". That would require you hop
on a plane and travel around the world, "shredding people", whatever
the hell that means. And what kind of a threat is "I would shred your
ass if I didn't have to go to work"?? Who does that, exactly? Man,
you're a riot!

Next stupid line: "I'm going to shred your ****in ass into pieces and
disperse the remains from here to the mounts at Timbukto". It's
"Timbuktu" you cretin ("TOMBOUCTOU" would also have been acceptable).
Do you have ANY idea how much it would cost to travel to Timbuktu, and
stop at many points along the way, to discard tiny pieces of ass? Since
you can't even afford an aspirin tablet to try out my tweak then
trust me, its beyond your means. And what would be the point to doing
that, exactly? To avoid having the ass pieces surgically replanted? You
see what I mean about you making no sense, you whining imbecile? Now
shut up and go back to slinging hash browns at McDonald's, you little
cockroach. I don't want to see your face in my threads any longer. In
fact, I don't want to see you talking about my tweaks again. End of
story.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > soundhaspriority wrote
> >> JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > > soundhaspriority wrote
etc........

Welcome to Skippyworld, 2 moons off axis from Westworld.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> Never did I regret more that Free Agent has no fillfile.

You can get Agent for $30 US, cheapskate.





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

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote >
> ...a nasty case of
> Tourret's syndrom like you (every time I turn around I hear a "God
> damn" this and a "mother****er" that from you),

Next stupid line: "I'm going to shred your ****in ass into pieces and
disperse the remains from here to the mounts at Timbukto". It's
"Timbuktu" you cretin ("TOMBOUCTOU" would also have been acceptable).
........................

well, fair's fair,
the syndrome *is* actually called Tourette's

corrector

[[email protected]]

Ruud Broens wrote:
> > wrote >
> > ...a nasty case of
> > Tourret's syndrom like you (every time I turn around I hear a "God
> > damn" this and a "mother****er" that from you),
>
> Next stupid line: "I'm going to shred your ****in ass into pieces and
> disperse the remains from here to the mounts at Timbukto". It's
> "Timbuktu" you cretin ("TOMBOUCTOU" would also have been acceptable).
> .......................
>
> well, fair's fair,
> the syndrome *is* actually called Tourette's
>
> corrector

Skippy suffers from Turrets syndrome, spinning around,and pointing
in all directions.
When he's experiencing vertigo, it becomes Turnstile syndrome.
At least he didn't consider sending the remains to Tippiecanoe :-)

[paul packer]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:49:17 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>paul packer said:
>
>> Never did I regret more that Free Agent has no fillfile.
>
>You can get Agent for $30 US, cheapskate.

The last word answers your implied quiery.

[Bill Riel]

In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:49:17 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >paul packer said:
> >
> >> Never did I regret more that Free Agent has no fillfile.
> >
> >You can get Agent for $30 US, cheapskate.
>
> The last word answers your implied quiery.

heh, well you can always get MicroPlanet Gravity for free - I prefer it
to Agent and it does do killfiles:
http://mpgravity.sourceforge.net/index.html

--
Bill

[JBorg, Jr.]

soundhaspriority wrote
> ***JBorg, Jr. wrote



> Is it not OBVIOUS enough to you?? You just finished quoting it! You
> just finished telling Sander the 5-pinhole paper tweak is "false" [...]

>
> *** Because it is, no expertise needed.

No expertise needed to be an ignorant bumclot, apparently. Which is
what you are, Eddie.[...]



*** In my reply to RM above, I already imply you don't need to be an
expert to reason so. If you think that I was wrong then respond to
that post YOU COWARD.



> and "not directly verifiable" [...]
>
>
> *** Because they're not.

Obviously, you don't realize what an idiot you sound like saying
that, as many times as you have. I've concluded that you don't
actually know what the term "verify" means. Given your incessant
incoherent ramblings in your most cogent posts, I'm going to have to
presume English is not your first language. Get a dictionary, you
idiot, before you start trying to argue with people in English.[...]


*** **** you.

*** It is not directly verifiable because I know that in this groups,
anyone who directly admit that it work will decline to clarify and justify
why it is so.



> You're telling this to someone who you
> know DID verify it, [...]
>
>
> *** No. SdW verified with me that he does not want to discuss
> how he verified your tweak. He referred me to YOU dumb dumb
> ****.



And you think you're going to discuss my tweaks while calling me a
"dumb dumb ****", is that it? [...]


*** NO. It is because You are a COWARD. You are a dumb dumb
**** because Long Talk is all you do. Your tweak is no phenomena --
it is the product of your own serrated and repugnantly convoluted
thoughts.



First of all you stupid ****, it's
pretty obvious that Sander "verified" my tweak, and how he did so.


*** NO, you dumb dumb ****. He decline to describe "how"
he verified that your tweak work YOU ****IN ****.




You seem to use the word "verify" to mean a lot of things. Like I said,
you're a hopeless retard. You drive everyone nuts because you can't
seem to fathom just what a cretin you are, so you keep misapplying
basic words and concepts in English that you obviously don't properly
understand. Then you get frustrated when someone like me points out
that you're a moron, who's not making any sense, and can only curse
like a sailor on shore leave.[...]



*** Shut the **** up you shimmering, glittering and glistening asshole.



> and as far as I know, you NEVER tried to verify any
> of my tweaks. [...]
>
>
> *** What the **** do you think I been doin the whole time
> ****in asshole.


Being a dickhead, basically. Certainly at no point did you ever tell me
you tried any of the tweaks, and I would have remembered that, since I
asked you this question 16 times, you stupid dickhead.



*** Listen piece of ****, can you at least describe or illustrate using
examples or comparisons how your tweak work ?



> All you seem to know how to do is talk about them, in
> nonsensical ways to boot. Which reminds me, you never answered my
> question: WHY are you still talking to people about the tweak, instead
> of trying it for yourself? It takes a fraction of the time you wasted
> talking about it, to try it. Why do you think people should waste their
> time answering your pointless questions on their theory, when you
> can't find 30 seconds to try the tweaks that you so ignorantly mock?[...]
>
> *** This "is" the place to talk about it else why would you talk about it
> here.


Do you have a freaking bowling ball on your shoulders, you blithering
moron? Maybe you should drill some more holes in it, because nothing I
ever say is getting through to you. I just finished telling you that I
wasn't going to bother going around in circles with you, trying to
answer the same stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical questions about the
tweaks, if you weren't going to bother trying any of them. Maybe you
shouldn't be reading RAO without supervision, Eddie.


*** As I just said to you , you goddamn piece of ****, can you at least
describe or illustrate using examples or comparisons how your tweak
work ?



> If you just want to do it then, you should open a shop or a kiosk
> from where you're at with audio equipment inside, and persuade
> passerby (for a small fee) to try out your 4-legged animal paper
> tweak for 30 second to demonstrate and prove that your tweak work.


I don't have to demonstrate and prove anything to anybody dickhead,
least of all a dumb **** like yourself. Get bent.[...]



*** ****IN ASSHOLE Listen, THEN why do you kept proving and stating
to everyone that your tweak work ?


*** If you don't want to demonstrate or illustrate or prove to anybody that
your tweak work, then how could you claim or state or know or prove and
brag that your ****ing tweak work mother****er.



> *** You entice me to open my mind. Well, one problem I have with that
> is the fact that the more that I do, the more it tells me that YOU are full
> of **** you ****in ****.


No, what happened is that when you opened your mind, a whole bunch of
**** fell out of it, and that's basically because you have
****-for-brains, you dumb ****.


*** Talk is all you are numbnut.


> That seems to be your favourite expression. Anyone with a nasty case of
> Tourret's syndrom like you (every time I turn around I hear a "God
> damn" this and a "mother****er" that from you), who talks about adult
> sex toys in mocking tweaks he pretends to have an interest in, has no
> call to be calling others "out of order". Comprendé, caballero?
>
> *** That's because you are a dumb dumb **** like nyob & Arnii.

Nyob and Arnii are ****ing geniuses compared to you, you drooling
retard.[...]



*** They're both geniuses in as far as the creative ways they enfold
THEIR tails as they ran away with their tail away in their merry way .

LoL!



> *** If I don't have to go to work, I'll be more than please to shred your
> ilk and your ****in ass into pieces and disperse the remains from
> here to the mounts at Timbukto. Shut the **** up



ROTFLMAO!! More pathetic threats of violence from a complete idiot who
can't figure out how to put together a piece of paper, a picture and
an aspirin. Where do I begin, you dumb asshole? Okay first of all, you
don't know what "ilk" is any more than you understand the word
"verify". You don't say to someone "I'm going to shred your ilk",
you dumbass ranting retard. What you just threatened to do was "shred
me and everyone that you think is like me". That would require you hop
on a plane and travel around the world, "shredding people", whatever
the hell that means. And what kind of a threat is "I would shred your
ass if I didn't have to go to work"?? Who does that, exactly? Man,
you're a riot!

Next stupid line: "I'm going to shred your ****in ass into pieces and
disperse the remains from here to the mounts at Timbukto". It's
"Timbuktu" you cretin ("TOMBOUCTOU" would also have been acceptable).
Do you have ANY idea how much it would cost to travel to Timbuktu, and
stop at many points along the way, to discard tiny pieces of ass? Since
you can't even afford an aspirin tablet to try out my tweak then
trust me, its beyond your means. And what would be the point to doing
that, exactly? To avoid having the ass pieces surgically replanted? You
see what I mean about you making no sense, you whining imbecile? Now
shut up and go back to slinging hash browns at McDonald's, you little
cockroach. I don't want to see your face in my threads any longer. In
fact, I don't want to see you talking about my tweaks again. End of
story.



*** I'm disappointed in you Jamie, if that's who you are. The fact that
you are a coward. There is no excuse for that.



JBorg, Jr
Reporting for Rao



--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>> Ruud Broens wrote:
>> >soundhaspriority wrote
>
>
>
>> > ...a nasty case of
>> > Tourret's syndrom like you (every time I turn around I hear a "God
>> > damn" this and a "mother****er" that from you),
>>
>> Next stupid line: "I'm going to shred your ****in ass into pieces and
>> disperse the remains from here to the mounts at Timbukto". It's
>> "Timbuktu" you cretin ("TOMBOUCTOU" would also have been acceptable).
>> .......................
>>
>> well, fair's fair,
>> the syndrome *is* actually called Tourette's
>>
>> corrector
>
> Skippy suffers from Turrets syndrome, spinning around,and pointing
> in all directions.
> When he's experiencing vertigo, it becomes Turnstile syndrome.
> At least he didn't consider sending the remains to Tippiecanoe :-)




I am uncertain though how it will be to entice people inside kiosk into
admitting that the tweak work. Are we talking extortion, oral copulation
or something utterly alike to the latter.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. demonstrates his Zen meditation excercise methods for the
benefit of RAO members.....


JBorg, Jr. ranted until his ears bled:

> *** In my reply to RM above, I already imply you don't need to be an
> expert to reason so. If you think that I was wrong then respond to
> that post YOU COWARD.

> *** **** you.

> > *** No. SdW verified with me that he does not want to discuss
> > how he verified your tweak. He referred me to YOU dumb dumb
> > ****.

> *** NO. It is because You are a COWARD. You are a dumb dumb
> **** because Long Talk is all you do. Your tweak is no phenomena --
> it is the product of your own serrated and repugnantly convoluted
> thoughts.

> *** NO, you dumb dumb ****. He decline to describe "how"
> he verified that your tweak work YOU ****IN ****.

> *** Shut the **** up you shimmering, glittering and glistening asshole.

> > *** What the **** do you think I been doin the whole time
> > ****in asshole.

> *** Listen piece of ****, can you at least describe or illustrate using
> examples or comparisons how your tweak work ?

> *** As I just said to you , you goddamn piece of ****, can you at least
> describe or illustrate using examples or comparisons how your tweak
> work ?

> *** ****IN ASSHOLE Listen, THEN why do you kept proving and stating
> to everyone that your tweak work ?

> *** If you don't want to demonstrate or illustrate or prove to anybody that
> your tweak work, then how could you claim or state or know or prove and
> brag that your ****ing tweak work mother****er.

> > *** You entice me to open my mind. Well, one problem I have with that
> > is the fact that the more that I do, the more it tells me that YOU are full
> > of **** you ****in ****.

> *** Talk is all you are numbnut.

> > *** That's because you are a dumb dumb **** like nyob & Arnii.

> > *** If I don't have to go to work, I'll be more than please to shred your
> > ilk and your ****in ass into pieces and disperse the remains from
> > here to the mounts at Timbukto. Shut the **** up


Does it hurt when you bang the nail into your nose, JB? Sure looks like
it does. You're a very unhappy, angry, bitter, and miserable little
man, aren't you. That can't be doing good things for your sound. You
know what's a good cure for your pain and misery, JB? Bang some more
nails into your face. That oughta do it, I figure.

> JBorg, Jr
> Reporting for Rao

Thank you for representing RAO with such honor and dignity, "J Borg".
I'm certain the group is very proud of your work.

[JBorg, Jr.]

> soundhaspriority wrote
>
>
>
>
>snip
>
>
> Does it hurt when you bang the nail into your nose, JB? Sure looks like
> it does. You're a very unhappy, angry, bitter, and miserable little
> man, aren't you. That can't be doing good things for your sound. You
> know what's a good cure for your pain and misery, JB? Bang some more
> nails into your face. That oughta do it, I figure.
>
>> JBorg, Jr
>> Reporting for Rao
>
> Thank you for representing RAO with such honor and dignity, "J Borg".
> I'm certain the group is very proud of your work.



Am done with you on these thread, SoundPriority. Time for cowardly
imbeciles like you to return back to oblivious quarters you called home
there across the Atlantic. You'll get your ass disconnected to bits and
pieces here each time you come with these fantastic ideas you have
in head.

Wisecracking coward merrymaker like yourself are best to shelter
themselves in places like r.a.h.e. which is ran by cyber ninnies of
virtuous creed, and hobnob with their close-knit, social congregation
of gentle do-gooders filled to the max with nimrods and dunderheads.


................... don't forget to bring your marvelous tweaks as gift.



JBorg, Jr
Reporting to Rao

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > soundhaspriority wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> > Does it hurt when you bang the nail into your nose, JB? Sure looks like
> > it does. You're a very unhappy, angry, bitter, and miserable little
> > man, aren't you. That can't be doing good things for your sound. You
> > know what's a good cure for your pain and misery, JB? Bang some more
> > nails into your face. That oughta do it, I figure.
> >
> >> JBorg, Jr
> >> Reporting for Rao
> >
> > Thank you for representing RAO with such honor and dignity, "J Borg".
> > I'm certain the group is very proud of your work.
>
>
>
> Am done with you on these thread, SoundPriority.

No you're not. I was done with you a long time ago. I was only playing
with you to see how far you'd kook out . And boy, you sure lit up a lot
of Xmas trees around here, with those fantastically frothing mad rants
of yours. Funniest stuff I've ever seen! You can barely string two
coherent sentences together on a good day, but when you get angry?
Watch out, Queen Elizabeth! The English lanuage has never seen such
abuse done to it.

> Time for cowardly
> imbeciles like you to return back to oblivious quarters you called home
> there across the Atlantic.

Oh yeah, that. Newsflash imbecile: I'm not Dr. Graham. I realize you're
a little slow to catch up, Jr. That's why I'm giving you all the time
in the world. As for "cowards", well that one's easy, chickensquawker:
You're the little insecure twit too cowardly to put together a piece of
paper, an animal picture and an aspirin. Afraid that people will laugh
at you (hell, they laugh at you anyways!). You're such a laughable
coward, that you actualy threatened to do violence against me, but then
reserved doing so on the condition that "you had to go to work". Now
I've seen some cowards in my time (Shovels and Arny to name a couple),
but I know I have never seen such a cowardly and downright dumb threat
of violence EVER!

You ought to be ashamed of the fact that you haven't committed suicide
yet.

> You'll get your ass disconnected to bits and
> pieces here each time you come with these fantastic ideas you have
> in head.

Looks to me like YOU got your ass "disconnected to bits and pieces"
from all the tirades I made you take! And you got your ass handed on a
plate, after I humiliated the holy hell out of you. You're a lot of fun
to troll Jr., because you're just so impossibly stupid.

> Wisecracking coward merrymaker like yourself are best to shelter
> themselves in places like r.a.h.e. which is ran by cyber ninnies of
> virtuous creed, and hobnob with their close-knit, social congregation
> of gentle do-gooders filled to the max with nimrods and dunderheads.

If that typically incoherent rant of yours is an invitation to do the
same on RAHE, then maybe I'll accept your invitation. Of course, don't
even think of following me. You're too stupid to follow the threads on
this group, never mind RAHE. And you start another one of your profane,
steam-shooting from your nostrils tirades on RAHE, and you'll end up
sweeping the floors of alt.clueless.newbies. I would love to see you
try to follow me into RAHE, you dumb little coward. Too bad you're too
scared to ever do that.

>
> .................. don't forget to bring your marvelous tweaks as gift.


Don't worry, I bring all my gifts wherever I go.


> JBorg, Jr
> Reporting to Rao

Reporting that you're a dumb lunatic, is about it.

[[email protected]]

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
> > soundhaspriority wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >snip
> >
> >
> > Does it hurt when you bang the nail into your nose, JB? Sure looks like
> > it does. You're a very unhappy, angry, bitter, and miserable little
> > man, aren't you. That can't be doing good things for your sound. You
> > know what's a good cure for your pain and misery, JB? Bang some more
> > nails into your face. That oughta do it, I figure.
> >
> >> JBorg, Jr
> >> Reporting for Rao
> >
> > Thank you for representing RAO with such honor and dignity, "J Borg".
> > I'm certain the group is very proud of your work.
>
>
>
> Am done with you on these thread, SoundPriority.

No you're not. I was done with you a long time ago. I was only playing
with you to see how far you'd kook out . And boy, you sure lit up a lot
of Xmas trees around here, with those fantastically frothing mad rants
of yours. Funniest stuff I've ever seen! You can barely string two
coherent sentences together on a good day, but when you get angry?
Watch out, Queen Elizabeth! The English lanuage has never seen such
abuse done to it.

> Time for cowardly
> imbeciles like you to return back to oblivious quarters you called home
> there across the Atlantic.

Oh yeah, that. Newsflash imbecile: I'm not Dr. Graham. I realize you're
a little slow to catch up, Jr. That's why I'm giving you all the time
in the world. As for "cowards", well that one's easy, chickensquawker:
You're the little insecure twit too cowardly to put together a piece of
paper, an animal picture and an aspirin. Afraid that people will laugh
at you (hell, they laugh at you anyways!). You're such a laughable
coward, that you actualy threatened to do violence against me, but then
reserved doing so on the condition that "you had to go to work". Now
I've seen some cowards in my time (Shovels and Arny to name a couple),
but I know I have never seen such a cowardly and downright dumb threat
of violence EVER!

You ought to be ashamed of the fact that you haven't committed suicide
yet.

> You'll get your ass disconnected to bits and
> pieces here each time you come with these fantastic ideas you have
> in head.

Looks to me like YOU got your ass "disconnected to bits and pieces"
from all the tirades I made you take! And you got your ass handed on a
plate, after I humiliated the holy hell out of you. You're a lot of fun
to troll Jr., because you're just so impossibly stupid.

> Wisecracking coward merrymaker like yourself are best to shelter
> themselves in places like r.a.h.e. which is ran by cyber ninnies of
> virtuous creed, and hobnob with their close-knit, social congregation
> of gentle do-gooders filled to the max with nimrods and dunderheads.

If that typically incoherent rant of yours is an invitation to do the
same on RAHE, then maybe I'll accept your invitation. Of course, don't
even think of following me. You're too stupid to follow the threads on
this group, never mind RAHE. And you start another one of your profane,
steam-shooting from your nostrils tirades on RAHE, and you'll end up
sweeping the floors of alt.clueless.newbies. I would love to see you
try to follow me into RAHE, you dumb little coward. Too bad you're too
scared to ever do that.

>
> .................. don't forget to bring your marvelous tweaks as gift.


Don't worry, I bring all my gifts wherever I go.


> JBorg, Jr
> Reporting to Rao

Reporting that you're a dumb lunatic, is about it.