Re: L.Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51 [Archive]

ScottW

June 5th 07, 02:42 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On 10 Feb 2006 in message
> om>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text
>> were examined at length in International Audio Review
>> and Stereophile in the mid-1980s, whose editors were
>> supplied copies of the original manuscript.
>
> Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
> between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
> version that was published in Stereophile Review has
> been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
> http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>

Interesting article. I've selected a segment that highlights my questions.

"I think it's unfortunate that more of the original report didn't make it into
print, instead being sacrificed to Stereo Review's editorial viewpoints. "

Yet you're willing to link to Stereo Review's original, but fail to fill in the
gaps with the missing segments
from Greenhills original. Instead you choose to make unsubstantiated claims on
what the
missing data showed. I've seen too many data butchers in audio to accept that.

"Greenhill and his friends from the Audiophile Society (who provided eight of
the listeners for the cable test) have tried several double-blind listening
tests, and none of them have come up with positive results (ie, reliable
identification of the components in question). Here they finally achieve success
in the form of interesting results, but those results are obscured by the time
the report makes it into print."

So fix that. You gave a link to one objectionable summary. Give us the
original referenced
in footnote 6.

"The first interesting result is that the listening panel's preconceptions of
cable performance had a large effect on perceived differences between cables
when they knew which cables were in use."

Wow, sounds like StereoReview

"Second, differences were still perceived in double-blind testing, but to a much
lesser degree."

Vinegar effect?

"Third, panel members were surprised that the differences between cables were so
subtle and difficult to distinguish."

You're joking right?....What qualifications did these panel members hold?

"Fourth, the performance of different panel members varied widely: there was one
truly amazing "ear" amongst them, and four very good ones."

Or just random luck. We can't really know as we don't get to see ALL the data.

"Fifth, differences between very similar cables (none of them using exotic
materials or cable geometry in their construction) could still be reliably
picked out, even when (in one trial) the resistances of the different wires were
artificially matched with a potentiometer."

This conclusion isn't demonstrated at all in the Stereo Review article.
Produce the full Greenhill report please.

"Sixth, pink noise is a better test signal for discrimination than the choral
music selection used (not necessarily all music)."

Shocking....was this the few tenths of db SPL or the FR difference?..Why didn't
the level match BTW?

With a list of positive results such as this, it really makes you wonder why
Stereo Review chose to emphasize only the negative.

I guess thats a secret buried in the elusive original Greenhill submission
(footnote 6).

ScottW

JBorg, Jr.[_2_]

June 5th 07, 05:10 AM

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> John Atkinson wrote
>>
>>
>> Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
>> between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
>> version that was published in Stereophile Review has
>> been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
>> http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .
>>
>> John Atkinson
>> Editor, Stereophile
>>
> Oh, no! JA, this is "fire season". We could lose thousands of acres
> over this!

It is there for all to see that Greenhill's original report and compilation
were hijacked and carefully misrepresented to suit Stereo Review's
editorial standpoint, which is -- a committement of badmouthing high-end
audio, something like that.

I also read that Larry Greenhill said during that time that he had trouble
ascribing thoughts to Stereo Review's editorial staff.

I don't have anything against SR, in fact, I got interested in audio early
on from reading the mag and their product reviews. I didn't know that
they are so mean.

> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

JBorg, Jr.[_2_]

June 5th 07, 05:26 AM

> Soundhaspriority wrote:

> As someone who has wired his systems with triple runs of 16 gauge zip
> cord, I find myself distressed to read of claims that there is
> something better. It cannot be! :)
>
> From the article, I think I see that that 16 gauge is distinguished
> from 16 gauge Monster. Since I've read only the critique, and not the
> article itself, I'm not sure. But if this is the case, it does raise
> the question: which is better?

A fair question but certainly was not the objective goal of
the test.

> There is some reason to suspect that
> "rope wind" cable could be inferior to simple zip cord, since the
> strand length is greater.
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

JBorg, Jr.[_2_]

June 5th 07, 06:44 AM

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>
>>
>> I don't have anything against SR, in fact, I got interested in audio
>> early on from reading the mag and their product reviews. I didn't
>> know that they are so mean.
>>
> "Are?" "Are?"

I was attributing that to SR's editorial staff whom I refer to as "they"
which
I presume are still around, instead of "it" -- the nonexistent mag.

> It hasn't been published since 1999.

Good.

> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-

JBorg, Jr.[_2_]

June 5th 07, 11:57 AM

> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>> JBorg, Jr.wrote
>>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't have anything against SR, in fact, I got interested in
>>>> audio early on from reading the mag and their product reviews. I
>>>> didn't know that they are so mean.
>>>>
>>> "Are?" "Are?"
>>
>> I was attributing that to SR's editorial staff whom I refer to as
>> "they" which I presume are still around, instead of "it" -- the
>> nonexistent mag.
>>
>>> It hasn't been published since 1999.
>>
>> Good.
>>
> But the inability of consumer interest to support the magazine is
> bad. I do find it puzzling that a nonpolitical magazine would find
> it necessary to "take a line" and "spin the truth."

How do you mean 'spin the truth'? What other motivation would you
suggest SR's editorial staff had in mind to sandbag Greenhill's
report. I find that the issue concerns 'fair play' and striking
prevarication to deceive the public at large.

> I was an avid reader of Stereo Review. What else could I aspire to as
> a college kid? And I'll tell you another thing: the sound wasn't very
> good, but the pleasure was sweeter.

You could aspire that sound has priority.

> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

John Atkinson

June 5th 07, 12:04 PM

On Jun 4, 9:42 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> you're willing to link to Stereo Review's original, but fail to fill in the
> gaps with the missing segments from Greenhills original.

At the time (1983), Larry requested that his original manuscript not
be republished, only quoted from. Somewhere in the my boxes of old
files, I have the manuscript. When and if I find it, I can answer your
questions.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Sylvan Morein, DDS

June 5th 07, 01:31 PM

On 6/5/07 20:57, in article ,
"JBorg, Jr." > wrote:

>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>> JBorg, Jr.wrote
>>>> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>>>>> JBorg, Jr. wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have anything against SR, in fact, I got interested in
>>>>> audio early on from reading the mag and their product reviews. I
>>>>> didn't know that they are so mean.
>>>>>
>>>> "Are?" "Are?"
>>>
>>> I was attributing that to SR's editorial staff whom I refer to as
>>> "they" which I presume are still around, instead of "it" -- the
>>> nonexistent mag.
>>>
>>>> It hasn't been published since 1999.
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>> But the inability of consumer interest to support the magazine is
>> bad. I do find it puzzling that a nonpolitical magazine would find
>> it necessary to "take a line" and "spin the truth."
>
>
> How do you mean 'spin the truth'? What other motivation would you
> suggest SR's editorial staff had in mind to sandbag Greenhill's
> report. I find that the issue concerns 'fair play' and striking
> prevarication to deceive the public at large.
>
>
>> I was an avid reader of Stereo Review. What else could I aspire to as
>> a college kid? And I'll tell you another thing: the sound wasn't very
>> good, but the pleasure was sweeter.
>
>
> You could aspire that sound has priority.

He can't aspire to ANYTHING- even when proven wrong, he can't stop. It's an
illness and has completely debilitated my sick son Robert Morein his whole
life.

My son Bob Morein is an ignorant 53 year old unemployed
loser, who couldn't get a college degree even AFTER suing Drexel University
for it. And he tried to claim the work of his professor as HIS in a patent
application. Any real engineer/machinist would steer clear of Bob's newest
life failure, solar engineering.

This after he spent thousands of MY money buying a basement full of
now-worthless camera and lighting equipment, thinking in his flawed way that
this equipment would make him a famous filmmaker. Now it sits unused like
all his attempts at a career, because he found out it takes WORK and not
bull****ting. He's now bought a pile of sound equipment too, only to find
out that it takes WORK to be a sound engineer, too!

Facts about my Son, Robert Morein

Dr. Sylvan Morein, DDS
--

Bob Morein History
--
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/4853918.htm

> Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
> By L. STUART DITZEN
> Philadelphia Inquirer
>
> PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
> at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.
>
> They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
> so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
> to challenge his dismissal.

The Supremes have already rejected this appeal, btw.
>
> "It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
> pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
> do come to a larger issue here."

An "inventive genius" that has never invented anything. And hardly
"pleasantly" eccentric.

> A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
> Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
> by the media and the public.

Because no one gives a **** about a 50 year old loser.
>
> But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.
>
> Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
> years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
> computer engineering.

Not to mention the 12 years it took him to get thru high school!
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
> thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
> rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
> patented.

A contention rejected by three courts. From a 50 YEAR OLD that has
done NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with his life.

>
> In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
> ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

An idea that was worth nothing, because it didn't work. Just like
Robert Morein, who has never worked a day in his life.

>
> Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
> Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

Funnily enough, Drexel AGREED to reinstate Morein, who rejected the
offer because he knew he was and IS a failed loser. Spending daddy's
money to cover up his lack of productivity.
>
> That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
> tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.
>
> Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
> representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
> state Superior Court.
>
> The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
> restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
> time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
> affairs was reasserted.
>
> The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
> litigation, that would have been the end of it.
>
> But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
> asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

Daddy throws more money down the crapper.

> His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
> even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
> right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
> compensation.
>
> "Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
> Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
> happened to him is pretty common."

It's called HIGHER EDUCATION, honey. The students aren't in charge,
the UNIVERSITY and PROFESSORS are.

> Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
> that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."
>
> "I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
> "We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
> intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
> pursuing self-destructive litigation."

No **** sherlock.

> The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
> committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
> Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.
>
> His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
> minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
> and electronic systems.
>
> The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
> calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
> nuclear plant or a computer.

My estimation theory? There is NO brain at work inside the head of
Robert Morein, only sawdust.

>
> Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
> and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
> through a university lawyer, declined to comment.
>
> At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
> 1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
> related to estimation theory.
>
> Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
> Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
> International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
> it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
> industrial processes.
>
> Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
> inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
> problem Kalata had presented.
>
> Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.
>
> K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.
>
> Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
> into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
> became alienated from Kalata.
>
> As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
> The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
> patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

Because it was bogus. Even Kalata was mortified that he was a victim
of this SCAMSTER, Robert Morein.

> In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
> department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
> asked for a new faculty adviser.

The staff at Drexel laughed wildly at the ignorance of Robert Morein.

> He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
> Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.
>
> Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
> complete his thesis.

So Morein ****s up his first couple years, gets new faculty advisers
(a TEAM), and then ****s up again! Brilliant!

>
> Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Morein makes LOTS of claims that are nonsense. One look thru the
usenet proves it.

>
> Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
> opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

So much for political machine judges.
>
> The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
> about 100 of them.
>
> Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
> appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
> intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
> Pennsylvania courts.

> Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

Just like all the failed "causes" Morein pursues. Heck, he's been
chasing another "Brian McCarty" for years and yet has ZERO impact on
anything.

Failure. Look it up in Websters. You'll see a picture of Robert
Morein. The poster boy for SCAMMING LOSERS.

>
> "I had to seek closure," he said.
>
> Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
> hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

Who better to tell us about "artificial intelligence".
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>
> As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
> from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
> make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
> an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
> bulletlike stream of water.

FAILED STUDENT
FAILED MOVIE MAKER
FAILED SCREENWRITER
FAILED INVESTOR
FAILED DRIVER
FAILED SON
FAILED PARENTS
FAILED INVENTOR
FAILED PLAINTIFF
FAILED HOMOSEXUAL
FAILED HUMAN
FAILED
FAILED

> But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.
>
> "I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
> gnawing thing."

John Atkinson

June 5th 07, 02:36 PM

Hide quoted text

Arny Krueger

June 5th 07, 02:51 PM

"John Atkinson" > wrote
in message
ps.com
> On 10 Feb 2006 in message
> om>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>> The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text
>> were examined at length in International Audio Review
>> and Stereophile in the mid-1980s, whose editors were
>> supplied copies of the original manuscript.
>
> Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
> between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
> version that was published in Stereophile Review has
> been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
> http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .

(1) Must be a slow day in the Stereophile offices when so much attention is
paid to a 24 year old article.

(2) The analysis must be taken on faith because no relevant raw data is
provided, it only alluded to.

The article in question summarized itself into 4 points:
(1) "The first interesting result is that the listening panel's
preconceptions of cable performance had a large effect on perceived
differences between cables when they knew which cables were in use."

In fact, just another indictment of sighted evaluations.

(2) "Second, differences were still perceived in double-blind testing, but
to a much lesser degree. "

Debunking the idea that nobody hears differences in DBTs. No eyes were poked
out in the execution of these tests.

(3) "Third, panel members were surprised that the differences between cables
were so subtle and difficult to distinguish."

Welcome to the real world.

(4) "Fourth, the performance of different panel members varied widely: there
was one truly amazing "ear" amongst them, and four very good ones. "

In fact the individual panel members were not tested properly if the goal
was to determine whether the observed differences were due to actual
differences in listener acuity, or whether it was due to the lack of enough
data for individual listeners to produce reliable evidence related to this
secondary issue.

ScottW

June 5th 07, 05:32 PM

On Jun 5, 4:04 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Jun 4, 9:42 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > you're willing to link to Stereo Review's original, but fail to fill in the
> > gaps with the missing segments from Greenhills original.
>
> At the time (1983), Larry requested that his original manuscript not
> be republished, only quoted from.

Any you hired this guy? Why am I not surprised?

What an absolute crock. If Greenhill isn't willing to be open and
completely forthcoming, then the whole story is moot IMO and
all your claims of Stereo Review bias remain unsubstantiated.

There is always something with you guys to cloud things up
unnecessarily.
You're worse than the Bush administration from a DailyKos
POV.

> Somewhere in the my boxes of old
> files, I have the manuscript.

Greenhill dead or what? Get his approval to publish the thing
on your web site in its entirety or burn it.

> When and if I find it, I can answer your
> questions.

Only way you can anwer my questions is by
releasing the whole thing. Otherwise,
another golden ear will be cherry picked from
reams of random trials.

ScottW

John Atkinson

June 5th 07, 06:27 PM

On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 4:04 am, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > At the time (1983), Larry requested that his original manuscript
> > not be republished, only quoted from.
>
> What an absolute crock.

No, it was the truth.

> If Greenhill isn't willing to be open and completely forthcoming,
> then the whole story is moot IMO and all your claims of Stereo
> Review bias remain unsubstantiated.

You can compare both versions of the conclusions, one
as written by the author, the second as edited and rewritten
by Stereo Review's editors, both of which are included in
the reprint of the 1983 Stereophile article, and make up
your own mind about our claims, ScottW. You can also
examine the test data provided in the Stereo Review pdf,
to see if supports the conclusion drawn by Stereo Review's
editors.

> Only way you can anwer my questions is by
> releasing the whole thing. Otherwise,
> another golden ear will be cherry picked from
> reams of random trials.

I certainly believe in people being skeptical about what
they read, ScottW, but you are taking skepticism to
a ridiculous extreme, IMO.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ScottW

June 5th 07, 06:51 PM

On Jun 5, 10:27 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 4:04 am, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> > > At the time (1983), Larry requested that his original manuscript
> > > not be republished, only quoted from.
>
> > What an absolute crock.
>
> No, it was the truth.

I think Greenhills position refusing complete
release is a crock.

>
> > If Greenhill isn't willing to be open and completely forthcoming,
> > then the whole story is moot IMO and all your claims of Stereo
> > Review bias remain unsubstantiated.
>
> You can compare both versions of the conclusions, one
> as written by the author, the second as edited and rewritten
> by Stereo Review's editors, both of which are included in
> the reprint of the 1983 Stereophile article, and make up
> your own mind about our claims, ScottW.

Sorry, I need the data to know which version of the conclusion
is reasonable.

> You can also
> examine the test data provided in the Stereo Review pdf,
> to see if supports the conclusion drawn by Stereo Review's
> editors.

I have. But that data set is apparently incomplete.
Is it?

>
> > Only way you can anwer my questions is by
> > releasing the whole thing. Otherwise,
> > another golden ear will be cherry picked from
> > reams of random trials.
>
> I certainly believe in people being skeptical about what
> they read, ScottW, but you are taking skepticism to
> a ridiculous extreme, IMO.

You claim controversy about conclusions. Only one
way to form an opinion about the accuracy of conclusions
and that is to examine the data and see for oneself
what conclusions it supports.
Your own description of Greenhills repeated
efforts to find a positive does not lead me to believe
his is without bias in interpretting the data.

ScottW

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 09:44 PM

Robert said:

> > I certainly believe in people being skeptical about what
> > they read, ScottW, but you are taking skepticism to
> > a ridiculous extreme, IMO.

> Why not give the article to a fair and balanced committee, which would
> abstract the data, critique the conclusions, and prepare a publishable
> document derived from the original? I nominate George M. Middius and Arnold
> Krueger.

I nominate you and Bwian.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 09:59 PM

John Atkinson wrote:
> On 10 Feb 2006 in message
> om>
> John Atkinson wrote:
>
>>The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text
>>were examined at length in International Audio Review
>>and Stereophile in the mid-1980s, whose editors were
>>supplied copies of the original manuscript.
>
>
> Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
> between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
> version that was published in Stereophile Review has
> been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
> http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile

I see that you are still defending your turf, John.

Anyway, I chatted with Greenhill over the phone some time
after his article was published and he told me that the
furor it caused showed him just how petty and bitter members
of the lunatic fringe can be. He indicated that the Stereo
Review staff did an exemplary job of editing his material.

Yeah, I have been away, and upon my temporary return I see
that the group is as goofy as ever. Good reason for me to
move on.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 10:03 PM

John Atkinson wrote:

> On Jun 4, 9:42 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>>you're willing to link to Stereo Review's original, but fail to fill in the
>>gaps with the missing segments from Greenhills original.
>
>
> At the time (1983), Larry requested that his original manuscript not
> be republished, only quoted from. Somewhere in the my boxes of old
> files, I have the manuscript. When and if I find it, I can answer your
> questions.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
>
I will again note (after posting elsewhere a minute ago)
that when I talked to Greenhill on the phone he indicated
that the furor the article caused clued him in on just how
petty and malicious members of the lunatic fringe could be.

He also indicated that the editorial staff at Stereo Review
did an exemplary job of working over his article.

Incidentally, I am still writing "lightly" for The Sensible
Sound, but am essentially retired from battles with a
lunatic fringe that is a combination of insanity and crass
commercialism.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 10:04 PM

John Atkinson wrote:

> On Jun 5, 12:32 pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
>>On Jun 5, 4:04 am, John Atkinson >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>At the time (1983), Larry requested that his original manuscript
>>>not be republished, only quoted from.
>>
>>What an absolute crock.
>
>
> No, it was the truth.
>
>
>>If Greenhill isn't willing to be open and completely forthcoming,
>>then the whole story is moot IMO and all your claims of Stereo
>>Review bias remain unsubstantiated.
>
>
> You can compare both versions of the conclusions, one
> as written by the author, the second as edited and rewritten
> by Stereo Review's editors, both of which are included in
> the reprint of the 1983 Stereophile article, and make up
> your own mind about our claims, ScottW. You can also
> examine the test data provided in the Stereo Review pdf,
> to see if supports the conclusion drawn by Stereo Review's
> editors.
>
>
>>Only way you can anwer my questions is by
>>releasing the whole thing. Otherwise,
>>another golden ear will be cherry picked from
>>reams of random trials.
>
>
> I certainly believe in people being skeptical about what
> they read, ScottW, but you are taking skepticism to
> a ridiculous extreme, IMO.
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
>
>
I will again note (after posting elsewhere a minute ago)
that when I talked to Greenhill on the phone he indicated
that the furor the article caused clued him in on just how
petty and malicious members of the lunatic fringe could be.

He also indicated that the editorial staff at Stereo Review
did an exemplary job of working over his article.

Incidentally, I am still writing "lightly" for The Sensible
Sound, but am essentially retired from battles with a
lunatic fringe that is a combination of insanity and crass
commercialism.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 10:09 PM

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "John Atkinson" > wrote
> in message
> ps.com
>
>>On 10 Feb 2006 in message
om>
>>John Atkinson wrote:
>>
>>>The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text
>>>were examined at length in International Audio Review
>>>and Stereophile in the mid-1980s, whose editors were
>>>supplied copies of the original manuscript.
>>
>>Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
>>between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
>>version that was published in Stereophile Review has
>>been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
>>http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .
>
>
> (1) Must be a slow day in the Stereophile offices when so much attention is
> paid to a 24 year old article.
>
> (2) The analysis must be taken on faith because no relevant raw data is
> provided, it only alluded to.
>
> The article in question summarized itself into 4 points:
> (1) "The first interesting result is that the listening panel's
> preconceptions of cable performance had a large effect on perceived
> differences between cables when they knew which cables were in use."
>
> In fact, just another indictment of sighted evaluations.
>
> (2) "Second, differences were still perceived in double-blind testing, but
> to a much lesser degree. "
>
> Debunking the idea that nobody hears differences in DBTs. No eyes were poked
> out in the execution of these tests.
>
> (3) "Third, panel members were surprised that the differences between cables
> were so subtle and difficult to distinguish."
>
> Welcome to the real world.
>
> (4) "Fourth, the performance of different panel members varied widely: there
> was one truly amazing "ear" amongst them, and four very good ones. "
>
> In fact the individual panel members were not tested properly if the goal
> was to determine whether the observed differences were due to actual
> differences in listener acuity, or whether it was due to the lack of enough
> data for individual listeners to produce reliable evidence related to this
> secondary issue.

Hi, Arny,

Just passing through, but I want to point out that when I
talked to Greenhill on the phone some time after the
published text appeared he indicated that the furor the
article caused clued him in on just how petty and malicious
members of the lunatic fringe could be.

He also indicated that the editorial staff at Stereo Review
did an exemplary job of working over his article.

Incidentally, I am still writing "lightly" for The Sensible
Sound, but am essentially retired from battles with a
lunatic fringe that is a combination of insanity and crass
commercialism.

Frankly, I am mystified that you continue to duke it out
with the morons within this group.

Howard Ferstler

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 10:15 PM

Brother Horace the Turfless whines about feeling neglected.

> > Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
> > between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
> > version that was published in Stereophile Review has
> > been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
> > http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .

> I see that you are still defending your turf, John.

How's your woodworking coming, Clerkie? Can we expect a 2000-page tome
on the niceties of Skil and Craftsman tools vs. the overpriced
"high-end" brands like Bosch and Makita?

> Yeah, I have been away

In more ways than one, needless to say.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 10:16 PM

Brother Horace the self-fulfilling shadow remonstrates with Lord
Atkinson.

> I will again note (after posting elsewhere a minute ago)

"Help! I've fallen and I can't get up!"

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 10:17 PM

Brother Horace the Tediously Trite stamps his dorky little feet.

> I will again note (after posting elsewhere a minute ago)

Thousands of notes later, Clerkie, you're still repeating yourself. No
wonder you bombed out of college.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 10:18 PM

Brother Horace the Kroo-lover demonstrates his poor choice of company.

> Just passing through, but I want to point out that when I

Arnii doesn't think much of you, Clerkie. In fact, the Beast's opinion
of you is quite similar to mine. Just ask it. ;-)

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 10:48 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

> How's your woodworking coming, Clerkie? Can we expect a 2000-page tome
> on the niceties of Skil and Craftsman tools vs. the overpriced
> "high-end" brands like Bosch and Makita?

My woodworking and other home-improvement projects are
coming along fine, George.

I recently put 400 feet of extra timber bracing into my
home's attic, put another 200 feet of extra bracing around
the fascia of the same house (both operations readying it
for the hurricane season), drove an additional 1,100 framing
nails into the sidewalls (better holding the sheets to the
studs), built two speakers (floor-standing center-channel
units, using Allison and NHT parts), built plywood panels to
cover the windows in case of a storm, added a new room (the
third) to my workshop, built two nifty stepping stands for
my wife, added extra insulation to the attic (R50 in most
places, with additional insulation around the AC-heat pipes)
installed new solid-core doors within the home's interior
(replacing the hollow-core items that came with the place),
replaced the front door, replaced the garage-entry door,
installed new counter tops to the kitchen cabinets (I
replaced the cabinets themselves two decades ago), installed
ventilated bi-fold doors on all of the interior closets (the
old ones were unventilated sliding jobs), installed the
electrical connections and switchover network for a
power-outage generator, and did major reinforcing work on
the exterior electrical service post attached to the house
to make it less likely to rip away from the place should a
tree branch from the small forest of trees around my house
blow into the line during a storm.

My tools (framing nailers, finishing nailer, brad nailer,
palm nailer, four hand routers, shaper, two band saws, table
saw, two drill presses, three circular saws, five hand
drills, two impact wrenches, jointer, thickness planer,
scroll saw, biscuit saw, spindle sander, belt sander,
benchtop sander, random-orbit sander, palm sander, detail
sander, etc., etc., plus two walls full of peg-board-holding
hand tools) are made by a variety of manufacturers,
including Ridgid, Delta, Ryobi, Hitachi, Makita, Craftsman,
and Skil (the latter is owned by Bosch), plus numerous
smaller companies.

Incidentally, I did all of the home-upgrading work while
still managing to do a few articles for The Sensible Sound.
More articles are coming, George.

You are still here, posting I see within this circus, and
this tells me you should be institutionalized.

Adios, goofball.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 10:52 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Brother Horace the Tediously Trite stamps his dorky little feet.
>
>
>>I will again note (after posting elsewhere a minute ago)
>
>
> Thousands of notes later, Clerkie, you're still repeating yourself. No
> wonder you bombed out of college.

I manage to make use of the block and drop feature of the
computer, George. It saves me a lot of time, particularly
when I am dealing with guys like you who basically say the
same thing over and over. Speaking of time, it seems to be
something that you have plenty of, and I have to wonder if
your boss knows about you spending so much time at the
keyboard, goofing off.

Hey, I am retired, and I have plenty of time, but even I do
not plan on posting over and over again here on rao and
duking it out with members of the tweako establishment.
Indeed, it is about time for me to pack it in again for a
few months. Only guys like you enjoy being a member of this
mental institution.

Howard Ferstler

Jenn

June 5th 07, 10:55 PM

In article <4665cf21@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
wrote:

> John Atkinson wrote:
> > On 10 Feb 2006 in message
> > om>
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> >
> >>The changes made in the editing to Dr. Greenhill's text
> >>were examined at length in International Audio Review
> >>and Stereophile in the mid-1980s, whose editors were
> >>supplied copies of the original manuscript.
> >
> >
> > Just a note that Stereophile's analysis of the differences
> > between Larry Greenhill's orginal manuscript and the
> > version that was published in Stereophile Review has
> > been posted in Stereophile's on-line archives
> > http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .
> >
> > John Atkinson
> > Editor, Stereophile
>
> I see that you are still defending your turf, John.
>
> Anyway, I chatted with Greenhill over the phone some time
> after his article was published and he told me that the
> furor it caused showed him just how petty and bitter members
> of the lunatic fringe can be. He indicated that the Stereo
> Review staff did an exemplary job of editing his material.

You keep saying that.

>
> Yeah, I have been away, and upon my temporary return I see
> that the group is as goofy as ever. Good reason for me to
> move on.

You keep saying that as well.

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 10:55 PM

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Brother Horace the Kroo-lover demonstrates his poor choice of company.
>
>
>>Just passing through, but I want to point out that when I
>
>
> Arnii doesn't think much of you, Clerkie. In fact, the Beast's opinion
> of you is quite similar to mine. Just ask it. ;-)

The most remarkable thing about your rao situation is how
quickly you managed to respond to my few messages. I think
that you just sit at a desk all day long, reading rao posts
and hitting the "get messages" button over and over.

Reflect for a moment on the ramifications of that kind of
life, George.

Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler

June 5th 07, 10:58 PM

Jenn wrote:

> In article <4665cf21@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
> wrote:

>>I see that you are still defending your turf, John.
>>
>>Anyway, I chatted with Greenhill over the phone some time
>>after his article was published and he told me that the
>>furor it caused showed him just how petty and bitter members
>>of the lunatic fringe can be. He indicated that the Stereo
>>Review staff did an exemplary job of editing his material.

> You keep saying that.

For good reason: its is true. Of course, members of the
lunatic fringe have skewed approaches to truth to begin with.

>>Yeah, I have been away, and upon my temporary return I see
>>that the group is as goofy as ever. Good reason for me to
>>move on.

> You keep saying that as well.

For good reason: it is true.

Howard Ferstler

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 11:03 PM

Brother Horace the Stupendously Inconsequential reveals his
"professional" secrets.

> > Thousands of notes later, Clerkie, you're still repeating yourself. No
> > wonder you bombed out of college.

> I manage to make use of the block and drop feature of the
> computer, George.

That's a software feature, you dunderhead.

> duking it out with members of the tweako establishment

http://www.slawcio.com/castle8.jpg

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 11:04 PM

Brother Horace the Magnificently Petty tries to spank himself.

> > Arnii doesn't think much of you, Clerkie. In fact, the Beast's opinion
> > of you is quite similar to mine. Just ask it. ;-)

> The most remarkable thing about your rao situation is how
> quickly you managed to respond to my few messages.

Lest anybody forget, Clerkie, you complain when Normals take too long to
reply to your posts as well as when the replies appear too quickly.
Could it be that complaining is your Prime Directive? ;-)

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

George M. Middius

June 5th 07, 11:06 PM

Brother Horace tries to escape the quicksand of his lower-class
existence.

> > How's your woodworking coming, Clerkie? Can we expect a 2000-page tome
> > on the niceties of Skil and Craftsman tools vs. the overpriced
> > "high-end" brands like Bosch and Makita?

> Ridgid, Delta, Ryobi, Hitachi, Makita, Craftsman,
> and Skil (the latter is owned by Bosch), plus numerous
> smaller companies.

So you're saying that as far as you can tell, they're all the same.
Figures.

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

Jenn

June 5th 07, 11:11 PM

In article <4665dd13$1@kcnews01>,
Howard Ferstler > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> > In article <4665cf21@kcnews01>, Howard Ferstler >
> > wrote:
>
> >>I see that you are still defending your turf, John.
> >>
> >>Anyway, I chatted with Greenhill over the phone some time
> >>after his article was published and he told me that the
> >>furor it caused showed him just how petty and bitter members
> >>of the lunatic fringe can be. He indicated that the Stereo
> >>Review staff did an exemplary job of editing his material.
>
> > You keep saying that.
>
> For good reason: its is true. Of course, members of the
> lunatic fringe have skewed approaches to truth to begin with.

Do you consider Arny to be a member of said fringe?

>
> >>Yeah, I have been away, and upon my temporary return I see
> >>that the group is as goofy as ever. Good reason for me to
> >>move on.
>
> > You keep saying that as well.
>
> For good reason: it is true.
>
> Howard Ferstler

John Atkinson

June 6th 07, 12:26 AM

On Jun 5, 5:03 pm, Howard Ferstler > wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 9:42 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> >>"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >>you're willing to link to Stereo Review's original, but fail to fill in the
> >>gaps with the missing segments from Greenhills original.
>
> > At the time (1983), Larry requested that his original manuscript not
> > be republished, only quoted from. Somewhere in the my boxes of old
> > files, I have the manuscript. When and if I find it, I can answer your
> > questions.
>
> I will again note (after posting elsewhere a minute ago)
> that when I talked to Greenhill on the phone he indicated
> that the furor the article caused clued him in on just how
> petty and malicious members of the lunatic fringe could be.

And yet, following the publication of the Stereo Review article,
he put aide his ABX box and joined that lunatic fringe, where
he remains to this day. I even count Larry as a friend -- how
could that be?

> He also indicated that the editorial staff at Stereo Review
> did an exemplary job of working over his article.

According to the new rule instituted by ScottW, all
such declarations on r.a.o. must be accompanied by
documentary proof, Howard. Sorry.

> Incidentally, I am still writing "lightly" for The Sensible
> Sound, but am essentially retired from battles with a
> lunatic fringe that is a combination of insanity and
> crass commercialism.

And, of course, I am truly sorry for disturbing you from
your slumbers, Mr. Ferstler. Forgive me, but I wasn't
aware The Sensible Sound was still being published
after Karl Nehring's departure. Who has replace Karl
as editor?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

George M. Middius

June 6th 07, 02:09 AM

Robert said:

> > So you're saying that as far as you can tell, they're all the same.
> > Figures.

> His woodworking skills are impressive.

Really? How can you tell?

> Could it be we are arguing with a life-size bust?

I'd buy that for a dollar!

--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

ScottW

June 6th 07, 03:18 AM

"John Atkinson" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>> He also indicated that the editorial staff at Stereo Review
>> did an exemplary job of working over his article.
>
> According to the new rule instituted by ScottW, all
> such declarations on r.a.o. must be accompanied by
> documentary proof, Howard. Sorry.
>

Since Larry is your friend that shouldn't be too difficult.
Seriously though, since you insist on misstating my
intent I must clarify. It's really quite simple. You've
created controversy by challenging SR interpretation
of Greenhill's tests with your own conclusions and
you put it to the public to choose one over the other.
I think it is quite reasonable to ask to see the test
data before making a decision.
Matter of fact, I find it rather
absurd for you to even press the matter given
Greenhill won't grant you approval to publish his work
in entirety. Why is that? Your "friend" places you
on shaky ground.

ScottW

JBorg, Jr.[_2_]

June 6th 07, 05:58 AM

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.stereophile.com/historical/1283cable/ .
>
> (1) Must be a slow day in the Stereophile offices when so much
> attention is paid to a 24 year old article.
>
> (2) The analysis must be taken on faith because no relevant raw data
> is provided, it only alluded to.

It's your lucky day.

> The article in question summarized itself into 4 points:
>
>
> (1) "The first interesting result is that the listening panel's
> preconceptions of cable performance had a large effect on perceived
> differences between cables when they knew which cables were in use."
>
> In fact, just another indictment of sighted evaluations.

No, that's not a fact. The above analysis regards specific observation
attributed to the listening test.

> (2) "Second, differences were still perceived in double-blind
> testing, but to a much lesser degree. "
>
> Debunking the idea that nobody hears differences in DBTs. No eyes
> were poked out in the execution of these tests.

The (my) contention has always been its methodology and preventing
guesses as the test progress.

> (3) "Third, panel members were surprised that the differences between
> cables were so subtle and difficult to distinguish."
>
> Welcome to the real world.

Yes, welcome to the real world of panel members, audio testing, and DBTs.
As the going gets tough, the guessing comes easy.

> (4) "Fourth, the performance of different panel members varied
> widely: there was one truly amazing "ear" amongst them, and four very
> good ones. "
> In fact the individual panel members were not tested properly if the
> goal was to determine whether the observed differences were due to
> actual differences in listener acuity, or whether it was due to the
> lack of enough data for individual listeners to produce reliable
> evidence related to this secondary issue.

Well here's a fact for YOU: the test will prove for those with truly amazing
ear. For the rest, it will NOT proved the absence of subtle differences.

JBorg, Jr.[_2_]

June 6th 07, 06:13 AM

> Howard Ferstler wrote:

> My tools

What could be so lacking in Howard Ferstle's life that he
feels strong desires to extol, more than necessary, his pride
collection at his disposal.

> (framing nailers, finishing nailer, brad nailer,
> palm nailer, four hand routers, shaper, two band saws, table
> saw, two drill presses, three circular saws, five hand
> drills, two impact wrenches, jointer, thickness planer,
> scroll saw, biscuit saw, spindle sander, belt sander,
> benchtop sander, random-orbit sander, palm sander, detail
> sander, etc., etc., plus two walls full of peg-board-holding
> hand tools) are made by a variety of manufacturers,
> including Ridgid, Delta, Ryobi, Hitachi, Makita, Craftsman,
> and Skil (the latter is owned by Bosch), plus numerous
> smaller companies.
>
>
>
> Adios, goofball.
>
> Howard Ferstler

Palm nailer ?

John Atkinson

June 6th 07, 11:47 AM

On Jun 5, 10:18 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> It's really quite simple. You've created controversy
> by challenging SR interpretation of Greenhill's tests
> with your own conclusions...

Er, no. I republished a 1983 article from Stereophile,
written by Larry Archibald, as part of my continuing
project to make all 45 years' worth of Stereophile's
content available on-line free of charge. That article,
in my opinion is quite capable of standing on its own.

> you put it to the public to choose one over the other.

Yes, back in 1983. Perhaps you should have been
raising these issues and your doubts back then?

> I think it is quite reasonable to ask to see the test
> data before making a decision.

And as I have explained to you, ScottW, until I
can find the original manuscript you will have to
wait. I am sorry you appear to find that intolerable,
or that you find it impossible to take Larry
Archibald's statements at face value, but those
are issues we will both have to live with.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Peter Wieck

June 6th 07, 02:48 PM

On Jun 5, 9:36 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> Hide quoted text

John:

Those of us who have the entire Morein coterie killfiled do not see
this crap until some poor benighted fool gives it feet and answers it.
In this case, that would be you.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

hank alrich

June 6th 07, 05:01 PM

Peter Wieck > wrote:

> On Jun 5, 9:36 am, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > Hide quoted text
>
> John:
>
> Those of us who have the entire Morein coterie killfiled do not see
> this crap until some poor benighted fool gives it feet and answers it.
> In this case, that would be you.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA

Your robot is concept challenged. And you might study your killfile for
the settings that include more than just header info, assuming you use a
real newsreader.

Oh, wait... you're posting from AOL via GoogleGroups. Forget the
advanced killfile action. But seeing that does make your posts make more
sense.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Andre Jute

June 6th 07, 05:27 PM

hank alrich wrote:
> Peter Wieck > wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:36 am, John Atkinson >
> > wrote:
> > > Hide quoted text
> >
> > John:
> >
> > Those of us who have the entire Morein coterie killfiled do not see
> > this crap until some poor benighted fool gives it feet and answers it.
> > In this case, that would be you.
> >
> > Peter Wieck
> > Wyncote, PA
>
> Your robot is concept challenged. And you might study your killfile for
> the settings that include more than just header info, assuming you use a
> real newsreader.
>
> Oh, wait... you're posting from AOL via GoogleGroups. Forget the
> advanced killfile action. But seeing that does make your posts make more
> sense.

We call him Worthless Wieckless for a reason.

You might also with profit enquire where Worthless, a jumped-up
janitor, gets the cheek from to abuse John Atkinson, editor of
Stereophile, in public. Wieckless is not only the village idiot, he is
an impertinent idiot.

> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

Half a century of history in six words. Clever.

Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless -- CE Statement of Conformity

John Atkinson

June 6th 07, 06:38 PM

On Jun 6, 9:48 am, Peter Wieck > wrote:
> On Jun 5, 9:36 am, John Atkinson >
> wrote:
> > Hide quoted text
>
> Those of us who have the entire Morein coterie killfiled do not see
> this crap until some poor benighted fool gives it feet and answers it.
> In this case, that would be you.

Actually, Mr. Wieck, the 3 words above are all that remained of the
idiotic "Sylvan Morein" post. I merely responded to return the
thread heading to its original so that I wouldn't have to keep reading
the ridiculous version on the groups.google.com browser. Sorry if my
doing so offended your sensibilities.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Peter Wieck

June 6th 07, 07:29 PM

On Jun 6, 12:27 pm, Andre Jute > wrote:

Andre:

I understand that your strokes have left you brain-damaged and
permanently medicated for which you have my sympathies. And given your
condition I now treat you as any other handicapped individual with due
accommodations to your limitations.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

ScottW

June 6th 07, 08:37 PM

On Jun 6, 3:47 am, John Atkinson >
wrote:
> On Jun 5, 10:18 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > It's really quite simple. You've created controversy
> > by challenging SR interpretation of Greenhill's tests
> > with your own conclusions...
>
> Er, no. I republished a 1983 article from Stereophile,
> written by Larry Archibald, as part of my continuing
> project to make all 45 years' worth of Stereophile's
> content available on-line free of charge. That article,
> in my opinion is quite capable of standing on its own.
>
> > you put it to the public to choose one over the other.
>
> Yes, back in 1983. Perhaps you should have been
> raising these issues and your doubts back then?
>
> > I think it is quite reasonable to ask to see the test
> > data before making a decision.
>
> And as I have explained to you, ScottW, until I
> can find the original manuscript you will have to
> wait. I am sorry you appear to find that intolerable,
> or that you find it impossible to take Larry
> Archibald's statements at face value, but those
> are issues we will both have to live with.

I see no reason for me to treat Larry Archibald
different than you are treating Stereo Review.

ScottW