I said


I see now that my presumption that cables were at issue because of
the name Kimber was a mistake on my part.


Arny said


Thanks for finally seeing your error.


You are welcome.


I said



Calling you on your
dismissal of an entire line of products based on prejudice rather
than empirical experience was not a mistake.



Arny said




You call it prejudice, I call it analysis.



Well, if there was any analysis going on you did it in private. All you offered
was conclusions about a product line you have never heard. Without any
description of your analysis I have to call it prejudice. If you can cite any
specific elements of the design you think would cause the entire line to be
dismissed based on experience with other speakers that share those same alleged
design flaws that would constitute analysis and may show your position has
merit.


I said



Mistaken facts based on
presumptions is not the same thing as a lack of understanding.


Arny said




I'll leave the mistaken facts and presumptions up to you, since they seem to
be things that you are a lot more comfortable than I am.


If you want to try to rewrite this sentence so it makes sense I will happily
respond to it. As it stands it makes no sense. In light of the above sentence,
you have no business criticizing my grammar.


Arny said


I find it
revelatory that after you admit that you are wrong about the major point,
you then try to change the thread into a context where you somehow think you
can claim that you're right anyway.


it doesn't take a rocket science to see my general objection was to your
dismissal of a product line without any auctual experience with the product. My
mistaken presumption about the cause of your prejudice against this product
line does not change the broader problem i see with your dismissal. so, if you
really understood my point you would have seen that I was wrong about the
specifics of the minor part of my point. Until you can offer a good argument
that your dismissal was justified I stand by the major part of my point that I
find such dismissals based on prejudice instead of practical experience with
the product to be a bad idea.


Arny said


In fact you're wrong on both points, as
I'll shortly show.


If you do I will admit it. But you can't do it without further explanation.
Explanations that were painfully missing in other posts.




Sure, if you want to deceptively minimize importance of the observable
facts, which is one of your pitiful habits sockpuppet wheel, you can call it
a difference in belief. Or, one can observe that Atlantic Technology has a
track record for producing high-performance loudspeakers at a reasonable
price and has been highly reviewed by tough, factually-based reviewers. One
can also observe that Aperion Audio lacks Atlantic Technology's track
record, relies on deceptive terminology to hype their products, and note
that the only reviews they have come from lightweight subjectivist review
sources such as TAS, CNET etc.


Well, there you have it. Your dismissal is indeed based purely on prejudice. if
this is your evidence and argument that your dismissal was based on anything
other than prejudice you failed to prove your point. You have not heard the
product and you failed to cite any design flaws that are shared by other
products with which you have had practical experience. You really have no clue
what these speakers sound like and you dismissed them. I think that is a bad
idea.

Arny said




You know that same presumptions thing that got you burned once sockpuppet
wheel is burning you again. You presumed that my comparison of these two
sources was based solely on prejudice, when that wasn't the case.


so far the only evidence you offer that your dismissal was not prejudicial is
evidence that supports my claim that your dismissal was prejudicial. How is
that for irony? lets look at your evidence again. 1. a claim that Aperion lacks
a track record compared to Atlantic technology. This point is pure opinion and
says nothing about what the products actually sound like. 2.Aperion relies on
deceptive technology to hype their products. Deceptive because you say so? This
is merely evidence of your prejudice based on differing beliefs with the folks
at Aperion. 3. you don't like the magazines that have reviewed Aperion
products. This is a quintessential example of pure prejudice. How can one be
objective and scientific if one cannot see the difference between proof based
on empirical evidence and logic and proof based on pure prejudice? You were
right when you said you call it analysis and I call it prejudice.


Arny said



Would it be a good thing if I were able to spend a week each listening to
and analyzing both systems before responding?


IMO it is, generally speaking, a good idea to have heard a product before
dismissing it. You always had the option to realize you lacked the requisite
experience with the products and simply refrained from dismissing one of them
out of hand.

Arny said



However in the
newsgroup context, the person asking the question would have very likely
moved on and never seen my response two weeks after he asked his question.

IMO this would have been better than your prejudicial dismissal no response is
usually better than an ill-informed response.


Arny said


Also the chances that any of us would have the opportunity to actually do a
detailed evaluation like this is basically zilch.

Better for him to move on and maybe get an informed opinion somewhere else.

Arny said




The criteria you've set up for me sockpuppet Wheel is totally unrealistic.


I have not set up my criteria for you Arny. It is the same for everyone. I
think it is a bad idea for anyone to dismiss a line of speakers based on pure
prejudice. It is hardly unrealistic to expect people to keep comments on the
sonic performance of components to components that one has actually listened
to.

Arny said


It's a criteria that you won't meet.


bull****. Cite one example of me dismissing an entire line of speakers with no
personal experience with them. Cite one example of me doing anything like this
at all with any product I haven't listened to.


Arny said


just as certainly as I won't meet it.

The only way anyone won't meet my criteria for fair comment is if they feel
compelled to con others into believing they know more than they actually do.

Arny said




It's just a debating trade trick. It's deceptive.


Nonsense. It is a reasonable standard that anybody with integrity and a
controlled ego can live with.


I said



Just because it is your best effort
doesn't make your thread crapping smell any less repulsive.



Arny said



You're just playing games, sockpuppet wheel. You may not have realized that
vinyl is irrelevant to virtually all audiophiles in the 21st century, but
many of the rest of us have.

If you find a thread irrelevant to your interest stay the **** away from it. It
is laughable that someone who has made over 90,000 posts on Usenet would
presume to speak for other people as if you were not completely disconnected
form reality.


Arny said


It's probable that the threads were contrived
to see if you could get some negative comments so that you and your thuggish
friends could have somebody to beat up on.

This shows that you are driven by paranoia, stupidity and hatred. The posts
were audio related posts for people with an interest in the best issues of
certain recordings. Remember what this forum is called? Rec. audio.opinions? I
was offering opinions on audio that others seemed to find interesting and maybe
even useful. Why you felt compelled to crap on it is beyond me.