"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Robert Morein wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message


[snip]
More arrogant twaddle from someone who apparently has highly
limited reading and thinking skills. I'm thinking Paul that
maybe you have an IQ in the 110-120 range? IQ is not a
really good indicator, but your inability to see the more
obvious subtlties of the situation point in that direction.

Arny,
I'm flattered that you copied my "so-and-so is a stupid person"
gambit,
but Paul is not the guy to do it to. Unlike you, me, or practically
anybody
else on r.a.o., Paul has never stooped to a low blow. He has been a
model
of cordiality. Except in very rare circumstances, it is impossible to
tell
very much about a person's native intelligence, and certainly not from
someone's attitudes. In David Halberstam's book, "The Best and the
Brightest", he chronicles how some of the most talented and brilliant
member
of this country's elite made the tragic mistake called Vietnam. The
correlation between "book intelligence" and common sense is not as
strong as
it should be.

By his own admission, Paul is not pointed toward hard science, but
he
may have sensibilities and abilities of an artistic, verbal, and
proportional nature of which you are unaware. Paradoxically, the music
we
listen to and care so much about is mostly composed by non scientists,
created by people who mostly don't care about our argument at all.

Your reply to Paul is a stark illustration of your antisocial
tendencies. While such a post might be excused in the context of the
gamesmanship that goes on with other players here, it will not be
understood
in terms of Paul's gentle challenge to you.

Note to Middius: Arny's post is unequivocal evidence of your thesis
that
he's nuts. While whether he's insane is up in the air, Arny has strong
antisocial tendencies. He doesn't play well with his friends. I suggest
retaining Arny's reply for periodic FAQ posts.
__________________________________________________ _______________

I agree: there is something very odd about Arny's response to civility.
Recently I recognised his knowledge of electronics, gave him credit for
inventiveness and literacy, acknowledged the usefulness of his ABX
method in research and appealed to him for a civilised response to
civilised questioning of its applicability to the study of audio
component comparisons by listening panels. I omitted to add that when I
once asked for help in an electronics problem I got a courteous and
helpful answer from him.

Yes, Arny's boundaries are rigid. Within a limited realm of discourse, he
is
helpful and knowledgeable.

But don't dare to question his Empire building! In place of discussion
I got stream of abuse about my low intelligence level and my poor
immigrant's English; and zero response to the matter of fact questions.
It seems that he understands abuse and responds to it enthusiastically
on the same level but civilised argument is beyond his scope. Paul
Packer is only the latest in line trying to get to the man through the
paranoid carapace and getting all the eight tentacles out for an
answer.
Ludovic Mirabel

Ludovic, thanks for fleshing out the anti ABX position.

The anti-ABX position is in direct contradiction to reality.

Your collation of of
the evidence has been most useful, and presents an insuperable challenge
to
the ABXers.

No, it is a denial of reality.

An interesting conundrum is, why does ABX work so poorly?

A false statement, it works ecactly as intended.

I
think there is at least a masters thesis in the analysis.

Go ahead and write one and then get it critiqued by the real experts and
prepare for another ass whuppin'.

I really do think
that as flawed as the current execution may be, there is merit in the
concept. But it will require a better mind than Arny's to find the flaws.

It is not flawed in any way that you have described. It does what it is
supposed to exactly as it is supposed to do it, that is whay it is
recognized as a valid test protocol.