Richard Graham hijacks physics again

[Robert Morein]

I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics. All kinds of
mountebanks have done this over the ages. First he attempted to explain that
the "cream...works by quantum mechanics", which is actually not an
explanation. He now makes the same fallacious association with respect to
"morphic fields."

I don't have any particular problem with references to "morphic fields." The
problem here is a form of false advertising. "Quantum mechanics" used here
like a movie star endorsement, as in, "Ooooooh, qmech, it must be real." It
is an associational form of false advertising, not unlike "as seen on TV".

Whether or not morphic fields exist, there is currently no logical
association with quantum mechanics, except the desire of a promoter to
associate one mystery with another. Read below.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
[snip]
>
> They are capable of influencing matter, and can incorporate numerous
> systems, including biological forms and crystals. If you don't fully
> understand a science or theory, then don't pretend you're an expert on
> it and that you're going to "educate" everyone on it. Please stop
> puking your ignorance all over this group, Powell. Arny has more than
> his share of ignorance, and there's more than enough to go around when
> he finally keels over and dies from atheriosclerosis.
>
> A Quantum Explanation of Sheldrake's Morphic Resonance:
>
> http://www.swcp.com/~hswift/swc/Essays/Sheldrake.html
>
This is not a quantum explanation. It might qualify as quantum philosophy.
It is frequently not understood that quantum mechanics, unlike physics, is a
closed axiomatic system, just as Euclidean geometry is a closed axiomatic
system. The axioms may be viewed at
http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/aerts/publications/1999EinmagIndigo.pdf

The implications of the axiomatic system called quantum mechanics are
puzzling and paradoxical when mapped into the physical world, except for the
"correspondence principle", which states that in the mean of large numbers
of particles, the behavior of a quantum system is identical to that
prescribed by classical mechanics, another closed axiomatic system.

Many people use the mystery of this mapping in attempts to justify
speculative theories such as Sheldrake's. Unfortunately, this is pointless.
Because quantum mechanics is so mysterious, many people have attempted to
associate mysteries of their particular interest with it. "Quantum
mechanics" is simply a set of axioms. Simply referring to the name of the
axiom set without using it for mathematical proofs is not a valid form of
reasoning.

The above discussion does not contradict the possibility that Sheldrake's
musings may have some validity. However, it is important to understand that
merely wrapping a mystery in another mystery is not an explantion. Another
example of this abuse is the search for the source of consciousness and free
will. Many people have speculated that the source lies buried in the
"apparent" randomness of quantum behavior. But Henry Stapp, physicist at
Lawrence Livermore, who is the most active theorist in this area, believes
this is not correct. His explanation is, in fact, far more radical, but
capable of integrating the paradoxes of the Solvay Conference.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics.
> All kinds of mountebanks have done this over the ages.
> First he attempted to explain that the "cream...works by
> quantum mechanics", which is actually not an explanation.
> He now makes the same fallacious association with respect
> to "morphic fields."

Your problem Robert is demonstrating the practical problems with these
ludicrous so-called tweaks without resorting to the much-hated
bias-controlled listening tests.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>> I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics.
>> All kinds of mountebanks have done this over the ages.
>> First he attempted to explain that the "cream...works by
>> quantum mechanics", which is actually not an explanation.
>> He now makes the same fallacious association with respect
>> to "morphic fields."
>
> Your problem Robert is demonstrating the practical problems with these
> ludicrous so-called tweaks without resorting to the much-hated
> bias-controlled listening tests.
>
Arny, I don't hate them. I told you that if I were fortunate enough to have
one of your ABX boxes, I would treat it as a valuable testing tool, unless
it was obviously flawed.

ABX is not a black-and-white issue. It has uses. While IMHO it is neither
practical nor necessary for the experienced listener to do ABX for every
piece of equipment under consideration, the current scenario is very much
different. Here we have an individual who is not merely expressing a
personal opinion, but has the messianic goal of changing how people relate
to stereo.

But there are potential invalidations in blind protocols as well. A blind
test would have to accomodate the best efforts of the tweaker without
invalidation of the test protocol. Nothing can be assumed about the test
apparatus or the protocol.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics.
>>> All kinds of mountebanks have done this over the ages.
>>> First he attempted to explain that the "cream...works by
>>> quantum mechanics", which is actually not an
>>> explanation. He now makes the same fallacious
>>> association with respect to "morphic fields."
>>
>> Your problem Robert is demonstrating the practical
>> problems with these ludicrous so-called tweaks without
>> resorting to the much-hated bias-controlled listening
>> tests.

> Arny, I don't hate them.

Ignorance might be more like it.

> I told you that if I were
> fortunate enough to have one of your ABX boxes, I would
> treat it as a valuable testing tool, unless it was
> obviously flawed.

Whatever that means.


> ABX is not a black-and-white issue. It has uses.

Miniscule compared to the issued related to sighted testing.

> While IMHO it is neither practical nor necessary for the
> experienced listener to do ABX for every piece of
> equipment under consideration, the current scenario is
> very much different. Here we have an individual who is
> not merely expressing a personal opinion, but has the
> messianic goal of changing how people relate to stereo.

He's pulling a lot of strings, that's all.

The people with the most to fear from him are the subjectivists.

Any reasonable so-called objectivist will simply dismiss him.

Also, its clear that he is better known to some here than others - obviously
those closest to him are more likely to be in on the joke.


> Invalidations in blind protocols as well.

In English?

> A blind test would have to accomodate the best
> efforts of the tweaker without invalidation of the test
> protocol.

Many have, still giving tweakers no quarter.

> Nothing can be assumed about the test apparatus
> or the protocol.

Whatver that means.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein, with great stress and nervousness, wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> Arny, I don't hate them. I told you that if I were fortunate enough to have
> one of your ABX boxes, I would treat it as a valuable testing tool, unless
> it was obviously flawed.

It is obviously flawed, as flawed as your diseased mind, Robert. But
how would it help you even if it wasn't? In email, you explained to
me that you are not able to reliably detect differences even under
sighted conditions, because of your neuroses? Since an ABX comparator
does still require subjective listening to determine objective results,
an ABX comparator would be as useless to you as say, a pill that
didn't alter your mind or mood.

> ABX is not a black-and-white issue. It has uses.

I agree. Doorstop. Table support. Paperweight. All kinds of valuable
uses.

> While IMHO it is neither
> practical nor necessary for the experienced listener to do ABX for any
> piece of equipment under consideration, the current scenario is very much
> different.

I agree.

> Here we have an individual who is not merely expressing a
> personal opinion, but has the messianic goal of changing how people relate
> to stereo.

Threatens the HELL out of you, doesn't it? :-) LOL!

Yup, Robert's entire IEEE-brainwashed world is fraying at the edges
now, that 3 people on this group have already proven his entire
understanding of audio to be WRONG.

And it isn't just "my personal opinion" or that of the others here
who've heard that alternative audio concepts are very much real and
very much beneficial to our perception of sound. It's also the
thousands of PWB customers who've tried and continue to purchase Belt
products, that have proved that everything you thought you knew about
audio was WRONG. Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it? ROTFL! Now
THAT'S what I like to see! Engineers and wanna-be engineers running
around like chicken little, declaring the sky is going to fall if you
try to think outside the box of conventional audio theory!

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein, the Pope of RAO, polishes up his strawman and attempts
> to refute his own fallacious arguments about claims that were never
> made:
>
>> I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics.
>
> <Robert Morein's egomaniacal pseudo-scientific strawman arguments
> snipped>
>
Richard Graham's rant <snipped>

Inability to respond to the challenge, noted.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Ignorance might be more like it.

You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of your
tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on that
fact.

> > I told you that if I were
> > fortunate enough to have one of your ABX boxes, I would
> > treat it as a valuable testing tool, unless it was
> > obviously flawed.
>
> Whatever that means.

It means the box or methodology is flawed Arny. I know how hard a
concept that is to get past the bricks in your thick head. But the fact
remains, you've experienced flawed ABX comparators in the past, and
you've had your methodlogy proven flawed many times in the past as
well.

> > ABX is not a black-and-white issue. It has uses.
>
> Miniscule compared to the issued related to sighted testing.

ABX is irrelevant to the practice of purchasing consumer audio, since
it brings upon it conditions that are not present when the consumer is
making use of the products in question under normal circumstances.
Stereo systems have to be evaluated in the manner in which they will be
used.

> > While IMHO it is neither practical nor necessary for the
> > experienced listener to do ABX for every piece of
> > equipment under consideration, the current scenario is
> > very much different. Here we have an individual who is
> > not merely expressing a personal opinion, but has the
> > messianic goal of changing how people relate to stereo.
>
> He's pulling a lot of strings, that's all.

That theory has since proven to be false, when two members tried the
tweaks and found them valid. You however, are still afraid to try them,
and you will be until the day your sorry ass is planted 6 feet into the
ground. Even though it takes about 30 seconds to find out if I'm
pulling strings.

> The people with the most to fear from him are the subjectivists.

Interesting that you and others (ie, Paul Packer) bring up the concept
of "fear" a lot, in your discussions of audio ideologies. It really
shows how much fear that you, so-called "objectivists", have of new
ideas and new thinking in audio. You say the most to fear are the
subjectivists, but the only two who were NOT afraid to try the ideas
were subjectivists. However, you and Robert, Steven and Scott and many
others here responded with cries of outrage at the idea that these
subjectivists were going against their religious beliefs about audio.
So the proof here is, the people who show they fear me the most are the
objectivists, like you and Morein. If it weren't the case, you
wouldn't even be writing post after post condeming me, my theories,
my tweaks, and the people who've tried my tweaks. It appears that I
have rattled your religious cages. Which pleases me to no end!

> Any reasonable so-called objectivist will simply dismiss him.

There is no such thing as a "reasonable" objectivist. In fact,
there's no such thing as an "objectivist" on this group. What you are
calling "objectivists" are merely dogmatic polemicists like you, with
an agenda to administer. Nothing objective about that, or about the ABX
& DBT tests you religiously preach. Secondly, it is not "reasonable" to
dismiss someone's ideas or theories without ever being able to
provide sufficent, valid, verifiable, incontrovertible evidence that
the ideas don't work or the theories are incorrect. So far, not you
or anyone else has even attempted to disprove my tweaks. Dismissing
them without experimenting with them or disproving them therefore, is
an act of great ARROGANT BIGOTRY. Nothing less, nothing more. That does
not fall under the heading "reasonable". That is quite irrational and
unscientific. Which makes you, Robert, Sullivan and others here
arrogant bigots, unscientific and irrrational nutcases. Unlike your
so-called "objectivists" here, I have provided far more evidence to the
group that my tweaks are valid, from the empirical evidence gathered,
and my own DBTs.


> Also, its clear that he is better known to some here than others

Are you saying that Richard Graham has had allies that are regulars on
this group? Where's your evidence? As non-existent as your evidence
against my tweaks I suppose?

-> obviously
> those closest to him are more likely to be in on the joke.

Those closest to you are likely to be in on the joke of your ABX test.
ie. Your sockpuppet Nyob.....

> > A blind test would have to accomodate the best
> > efforts of the tweaker without invalidation of the test
> > protocol.
>
> Many have, still giving tweakers no quarter.

Your dumb, flawed, outdated ABX tests invalidates practically
everything in audio under tests of music. Conclusion: If we lived life
according to what ABX comparators tell us, we'd still be living in
caves, smashing rocks to try to create fire. That's ABX's progress
to the audio industry.

>
> > Nothing can be assumed about the test apparatus
> > or the protocol.
>
> Whatver that means.

That mental block is really in tight there, isn't it? It means, fool,
that you can't assume your apparatus or protocol is not flawed.
Otherwise so are your results and conclusions.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein notes that he is a deluded egomaniac:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Robert Morein, the Pope of RAO, polishes up his strawman and attempts
> > to refute his own fallacious arguments about claims that were never
> > made:
> >
> >> I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics.
> >
> > <Robert Morein's egomaniacal pseudo-scientific strawman arguments
> > snipped>
> >
> Richard Graham's rant <snipped>
>
> Inability to respond to the challenge, noted.

<Robert Morein's delusional rant snipped>

Inability to respond to the question, noted.

Inability to recognize fiction from reality, and Richard Graham from
soundhaspriority, also noted.

Inability to remain sane and rational without the use of psychotropic
drugs, also noted.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Ignorance might be more like it.
>
> You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of your
> tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on that
> fact.
>
Richard, let's get back to the question. You constantly claim that "quantum
mechanics" is responsible for your tweaks, yet quantum mechanics is nothing
more than an axiomatic system. I don't hear you claiming that plane geometry
is responsible, yet all that cutting and snipping makes it all the more
relevant.

If I were like you, I would say something preemptorily judgemental. Please
address my challenge in an informative fashion.

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
> > I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics.
> > All kinds of mountebanks have done this over the ages.
> > First he attempted to explain that the "cream...works by
> > quantum mechanics", which is actually not an explanation.
> > He now makes the same fallacious association with respect
> > to "morphic fields."
>
> Your problem Robert is demonstrating the practical problems with these
> ludicrous so-called tweaks without resorting to the much-hated
> bias-controlled listening tests.

Geez, never mind bias-controlled tests, the egomaniac has never even
done SIGHTED listening tests on any of these tweaks, to gain any
empirical evidence of them whatsoever. And he's about as much an
expert on morphogenetic fields as you are, Arny.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein notes that he is a deluded egomaniac:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Robert Morein, the Pope of RAO, polishes up his strawman and attempts
>> > to refute his own fallacious arguments about claims that were never
>> > made:
>> >
>> >> I'm a bit concerned about Graham's hijacking of physics.
>> >
>> > <Robert Morein's egomaniacal pseudo-scientific strawman arguments
>> > snipped>
>> >
>> Richard Graham's rant <snipped>
>>
>> Inability to respond to the challenge, noted.
>
> <Robert Morein's delusional rant snipped>
>
Richard, you are evasive.

[Walt]

wrote:

> Inability to respond to the question, noted.
>
> Inability to recognize fiction from reality, and Richard Graham from
> soundhaspriority, also noted.
>
> Inability to remain sane and rational without the use of psychotropic
> drugs, also noted.

Inability to refrain from spewing a kook rant noted.

Really, Shippy, how much time did you waste over the weekend checking
Google every 20 minutes to see if anybody had responded to you?

How many hours did you spend obsessively composing multi page kook rants
in response?

There is a thin line between kook-hunting and being a kook oneself. The
line is crossed when you can't stay away. And you can't. You're
hooked; you can't quit.

Talk to you in a few days, maybe a few weeks. Meanwhile, I'll go back
to discussing audio, and otherwise enjoying a thing called "a life". If
you had one of those you might not be so easily trolled.

///Walt

[[email protected]]

Walt, doing his impression of Count Blah, kooked out another fabulous
kook rant:

> wrote:
>
> > Inability to respond to the question, noted.
> >
> > Inability to recognize fiction from reality, and Richard Graham from
> > soundhaspriority, also noted.
> >
> > Inability to remain sane and rational without the use of psychotropic
> > drugs, also noted.


> Inability to remain sane and rational without the use of psychotropic
> drugs, also noted.


> Inability to blah from spewing a blah blah noted.

> Really, Blah, how much blah did you blah over the blah checking
> blah every blah blah to blah if blah had blah blah you?


> How many blah did you blah blah blah multi page blah blah
> in blah ?


> There is a blah line between blah -blah and being a blah oneself. The
> blah is blah when you can't blah away. And you can't. You're
> blah ; you can't blah .


> Talk to you in a few blah , maybe a few blah blah. Meanwhile, I'll go blah
> blah discussing blah , and otherwise enjoying a blah called "a blah ". If
> you had one of those blah might not be so easily blah.


///Walt Blah.


Q. What the hell are you blabbering about??

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein forgot his medication again and fell into another
delusional fit:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> Ignorance might be more like it.
> >
> > You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of your
> > tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on that
> > fact.
> >
> Richard, let's get back to the question. You constantly claim that "quantum
> mechanics" is responsible for your tweaks, yet quantum mechanics is nothing
> more than an axiomatic system. I don't hear you claiming that plane geometry
> is responsible, yet all that cutting and snipping makes it all the more
> relevant.
>
> If I were like you, I would say something preemptorily judgemental. Please
> address my challenge in an informative fashion.


Who's "Richard"?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Walt, doing his impression of Count Blah, kooked out another fabulous
> kook rant:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Inability to respond to the question, noted.
>> >
>> > Inability to recognize fiction from reality, and Richard Graham from
>> > soundhaspriority, also noted.
>> >
>> > Inability to remain sane and rational without the use of psychotropic
>> > drugs, also noted.
>
>
>> Inability to remain sane and rational without the use of psychotropic
>> drugs, also noted.
>
>
>> Inability to blah from spewing a blah blah noted.
>
> > Really, Blah, how much blah did you blah over the blah checking
>> blah every blah blah to blah if blah had blah blah you?
>
>
>> How many blah did you blah blah blah multi page blah blah
>> in blah ?
>
>
>> There is a blah line between blah -blah and being a blah oneself. The
>> blah is blah when you can't blah away. And you can't. You're
>> blah ; you can't blah .
>
>
>> Talk to you in a few blah , maybe a few blah blah. Meanwhile, I'll go
>> blah
>> blah discussing blah , and otherwise enjoying a blah called "a blah ".
>> If
>> you had one of those blah might not be so easily blah.
>
>
> ///Walt Blah.
>
>
> Q. What the hell are you blabbering about??
>
You.

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Robert Morein forgot his medication again and fell into another
> delusional fit:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ignorance might be more like it.
>> >
>> > You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of your
>> > tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on that
>> > fact.
>> >
>> Richard, let's get back to the question. You constantly claim that
>> "quantum
>> mechanics" is responsible for your tweaks, yet quantum mechanics is
>> nothing
>> more than an axiomatic system. I don't hear you claiming that plane
>> geometry
>> is responsible, yet all that cutting and snipping makes it all the more
>> relevant.
>>
>> If I were like you, I would say something preemptorily judgemental.
>> Please
>> address my challenge in an informative fashion.
>
>
> Who's "Richard"?
>
Get back to the question, Richard. It's not about your own identity.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein, in the throes of another manic depression, very much
unhappy, deluded and insecure, wrote:

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Robert Morein forgot his medication again and fell into another
> > delusional fit:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Ignorance might be more like it.
> >> >
> >> > You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of your
> >> > tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on that
> >> > fact.
> >> >
> >> Richard, let's get back to the question. You constantly claim that
> >> "quantum
> >> mechanics" is responsible for your tweaks, yet quantum mechanics is
> >> nothing
> >> more than an axiomatic system. I don't hear you claiming that plane
> >> geometry
> >> is responsible, yet all that cutting and snipping makes it all the more
> >> relevant.
> >>
> >> If I were like you, I would say something preemptorily judgemental.
> >> Please
> >> address my challenge in an informative fashion.
> >
> >
> > Who's "Richard"?
> >
> Get back to the question, Richard. It's not about your own identity.

Who's "Richard"?

[Robert Morein]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Robert Morein, in the throes of another manic depression, very much
> unhappy, deluded and insecure, wrote:
>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Robert Morein forgot his medication again and fell into another
>> > delusional fit:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ignorance might be more like it.
>> >> >
>> >> > You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of
>> >> > your
>> >> > tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on that
>> >> > fact.
>> >> >
>> >> Richard, let's get back to the question. You constantly claim that
>> >> "quantum
>> >> mechanics" is responsible for your tweaks, yet quantum mechanics is
>> >> nothing
>> >> more than an axiomatic system. I don't hear you claiming that plane
>> >> geometry
>> >> is responsible, yet all that cutting and snipping makes it all the
>> >> more
>> >> relevant.
>> >>
>> >> If I were like you, I would say something preemptorily judgemental.
>> >> Please
>> >> address my challenge in an informative fashion.
>> >
>> >
>> > Who's "Richard"?
>> >
>> Get back to the question, Richard. It's not about your own identity.
>
> Who's "Richard"?
>
You don't want to talk about the "theory" of the tweaks, do you, Richard?

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Robert Morein, in the throes of another manic depression, very much
> > unhappy, deluded and insecure, wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> > Robert Morein forgot his medication again and fell into another
> >> > delusional fit:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote in message
> >> >> oups.com...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Ignorance might be more like it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of
> >> >> > your
> >> >> > tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on that
> >> >> > fact.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Richard, let's get back to the question. You constantly claim that
> >> >> "quantum
> >> >> mechanics" is responsible for your tweaks, yet quantum mechanics is
> >> >> nothing
> >> >> more than an axiomatic system. I don't hear you claiming that plane
> >> >> geometry
> >> >> is responsible, yet all that cutting and snipping makes it all the
> >> >> more
> >> >> relevant.
> >> >>
> >> >> If I were like you, I would say something preemptorily judgemental.
> >> >> Please
> >> >> address my challenge in an informative fashion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Who's "Richard"?
> >> >
> >> Get back to the question, Richard. It's not about your own identity.
> >
> > Who's "Richard"?
> >
> You don't want to talk about the "theory" of the tweaks, do you, Richard?

Oh yes, sure I do. But who's "Richard"? For that matter, who do you
think you are? "Robert Morein" or me? You post under both names, you
know that.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From:
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 2:16 pm
Email:

>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??

Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?

I thought you had to go back to work and ****.

[soundhaspriority]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Robert Morein, in the throes of another manic depression, very much
>> > unhappy, deluded and insecure, wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> > Robert Morein forgot his medication again and fell into another
>> >> > delusional fit:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > wrote in message
>> >> >> oups.com...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Ignorance might be more like it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You would know a lot about ignorance Arny, wouldn't you? Much of
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > tiny blinkered understanding of audio and the world is based on
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > fact.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Richard, let's get back to the question. You constantly claim that
>> >> >> "quantum
>> >> >> mechanics" is responsible for your tweaks, yet quantum mechanics is
>> >> >> nothing
>> >> >> more than an axiomatic system. I don't hear you claiming that plane
>> >> >> geometry
>> >> >> is responsible, yet all that cutting and snipping makes it all the
>> >> >> more
>> >> >> relevant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If I were like you, I would say something preemptorily judgemental.
>> >> >> Please
>> >> >> address my challenge in an informative fashion.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Who's "Richard"?
>> >> >
>> >> Get back to the question, Richard. It's not about your own identity.
>> >
>> > Who's "Richard"?
>> >
>> You don't want to talk about the "theory" of the tweaks, do you, Richard?
>
> Oh yes, sure I do. But who's "Richard"? For that matter, who do you
> think you are? "Robert Morein" or me? You post under both names, you
> know that.
>
We're joined at the hip, bro.

[paul packer]

On 10 Apr 2006 14:59:31 -0700, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>From:
>Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 2:16 pm
>Email:
>
>>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??
>
>Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?
>
>I thought you had to go back to work and ****.

Is that what he does at work?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

From: paul packer
Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 10:11 pm
Email: (paul packer)

>>>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??

>>Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?

>>I thought you had to go back to work and ****.

>Is that what he does at work?

Who knows?

Maybe he has an autoresponder that just throws out random drivel.

You know, kind of like if you give a million monkeys typewriters...

[soundhaspriority]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> From: paul packer
> Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 10:11 pm
> Email: (paul packer)
>
>>>>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??
>
>>>Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?
>
>>>I thought you had to go back to work and ****.
>
>>Is that what he does at work?
>
> Who knows?
>
> Maybe he has an autoresponder that just throws out random drivel.
>
> You know, kind of like if you give a million monkeys typewriters...
>
Beware. I cannot control my evil twin.

[[email protected]]

soundhaspriority wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > From: paul packer
> > Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 10:11 pm
> > Email: (paul packer)
> >
> >>>>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??
> >
> >>>Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?
> >
> >>>I thought you had to go back to work and ****.
> >
> >>Is that what he does at work?
> >
> > Who knows?
> >
> > Maybe he has an autoresponder that just throws out random drivel.
> >
> > You know, kind of like if you give a million monkeys typewriters...
> >
> Beware. I cannot control my evil twin.

Twins, clones, cloned twins?
Morphagenetics run amok I say.

[soundhaspriority]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> soundhaspriority wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> message
>> ups.com...
>> > From: paul packer
>> > Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 10:11 pm
>> > Email: (paul packer)
>> >
>> >>>>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??
>> >
>> >>>Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?
>> >
>> >>>I thought you had to go back to work and ****.
>> >
>> >>Is that what he does at work?
>> >
>> > Who knows?
>> >
>> > Maybe he has an autoresponder that just throws out random drivel.
>> >
>> > You know, kind of like if you give a million monkeys typewriters...
>> >
> > Beware. I cannot control my evil twin.
>
> Twins, clones, cloned twins?
> Morphagenetics run amok I say.
>
You sniff the plan. My evil twin will deal with you.

[[email protected]]

soundhaspriority wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > soundhaspriority wrote:
> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > From: paul packer
> >> > Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 10:11 pm
> >> > Email: (paul packer)
> >> >
> >> >>>>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??
> >> >
> >> >>>Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?
> >> >
> >> >>>I thought you had to go back to work and ****.
> >> >
> >> >>Is that what he does at work?
> >> >
> >> > Who knows?
> >> >
> >> > Maybe he has an autoresponder that just throws out random drivel.
> >> >
> >> > You know, kind of like if you give a million monkeys typewriters...
> >> >
> > > Beware. I cannot control my evil twin.
> >
> > Twins, clones, cloned twins?
> > Morphagenetics run amok I say.
> >
> You sniff the plan. My evil twin will deal with you.

Westpase-he_ac is out of the office.
Please forward messages to Omicron Persie 8 Regional Headquarters.
All messages will be handled in the order they are received.

[soundhaspriority]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> soundhaspriority wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > soundhaspriority wrote:
>> >> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> ups.com...
>> >> > From: paul packer
>> >> > Date: Mon, Apr 10 2006 10:11 pm
>> >> > Email: (paul packer)
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>Q. What the hell am I blabbering about??
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Good question, SHP. If you don't know, how are we supposed to?
>> >> >
>> >> >>>I thought you had to go back to work and ****.
>> >> >
>> >> >>Is that what he does at work?
>> >> >
>> >> > Who knows?
>> >> >
>> >> > Maybe he has an autoresponder that just throws out random drivel.
>> >> >
>> >> > You know, kind of like if you give a million monkeys typewriters...
>> >> >
>> > > Beware. I cannot control my evil twin.
>> >
>> > Twins, clones, cloned twins?
>> > Morphagenetics run amok I say.
>> >
> > You sniff the plan. My evil twin will deal with you.
>
> Westpase-he_ac is out of the office.
> Please forward messages to Omicron Persie 8 Regional Headquarters.
> All messages will be handled in the order they are received.
>
Bro, warm up the particle accelerator backpacks. This is a job for MIB (Men
in Bull****).