wrote in message
ups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
wrote:


swallowing your codswallop

Is that some kind of seafood dish, cod and scallops, perhaps

No, Mr. Slick. This is just one frustrated chapel member venting his
spite.
Mind you , it could be worse. At least Sullivan stops at inventing a
funny ha ha name for me: and talking about "codswallop". I wonder how
I earned all this bile? Could it really be that it sticks in his craw
that I am an M.D and a Fellow of the Royal College and a former
researcher in the Medical Research Ccil of Great Britain while he
contributes to news groups. Does seem a little primitive but what is
one to think knowing that once he really took trouble to search for my
credentials (in the wrong place) hoping to prove that I was a fake
because he could not find my name in the U.S. sources where I never
practiced.
At that his is only a mild version of the foam at the mouth fury
of some of his brethren in the in true faith chapel. "Liar" from the
pens of these fanatics for truth the fatuous NYOB and his pal Scottie,
"Lying ****bag" repeated 3 times in one posting from Pinkerton when I
caught him spewing fake references. that had nothing to do with the
subject under discussion.
That is why I feel obliged to note that Krueger, at least in his
arguments with me, kept to the rules of civilised discourse. Which does
not mean that I won't continue fighting him tooth and nail....on paper.
I do wish though he'd stop giving the impression he suspects that most
of those disagreeing with him are in a sinister plot.
Ludovic Mirabel

Not being able to resist argument but unwilling to have
Sullivan go into one of his "I don't have an answer" silent sulks (
Sully sulking. Ha ha- irresistibly funny. Almost as funny as his "Dr.
Mirabilis") I'll say something here about his posting today:

He says: "The scores were not *uniformly* worse".
My sentence was: "uniformly worse when MUSIC was played" (as compared
with pink noise)
Granted anputating crucial sense in this fashion allows you to argue
still standing up. All in a day's work for our local self-nominated
representative of science. Since it seems consistent with his standards
of debate he can have it and keep it.

He continues:
" In fact the scores were
almost uniformly *better* whenever 24 guage was used --
and two listeners still scoring better than chance regardless of
sound samples used. That is sufficient evidence that the two
cables were *different* -- a result that you have claimed, btw,
never occurs in audio gear ABX tests"

It is hard to believe that a man wants to be taken seriously
while attributing such moronisms dug out from the depths of his
distorted psyche to others. I "claimed" that you can "never" get a
"different result".in ABX!!!!.
Just two weeks ago I rereviewed for his benefit the Oakland
ABX website that Sullivan quoted at me twice. For the nth time I
pointed out that the had positive results but only when comparing
badly dissimilar components that a deaf man would have a problem not
hearing.. Of course you have positive results when you compare apples
with oranges or a 24 g wire with a 16 g wire- using man made noise
instead of music.

Now kiddies watch Sullivan tie himself up in knots..
Greenhill's states his statistical criteria thus( loc.cit.p.50) "It is
generally accepted that the threshold at which a phenomenon can be
considered definitely audible is when listeners are aware of it at
least 75% of the time" Did you see it? 75&. Two listeners out of 11
just reached that threshold. I pointed out several times before and
Sullivan must know (am I overestimating him?) that the moderators of
all the other "Stereo Review" and "Audio" ABX component comparions
amalgamated the results and came up with nul, negative majority verdict
while in my opinion the only interesting panelists were those few who
HEARD inspite of the ABX fog. There was quite a discussion about it in
RAHE with Marcus the litigation lawyer putting on a positively last
appearance in this thread telling me how wrong I was
I was severely chastised by the other members and friends
of Sullivan's chapel Ovchain, Pierce, JJ etc. (Quotes on request) The
positive results were just flukes- majority rules, Mirabel doesn't know
what he's talking about.
Lo and behold Suddenly our Sullivan prefers the minority
verdict. At his convenience- when it suits him he finds "sufficient
evidence" in a testimony of two.
more gifted listeners. And he has the brass to charge ME with
neglecting those who did better than the average........
Watch now. .As it happens TWO ( note;also TWO) listeners also
reached this threshold of "hits" when comparing Monster vs. 16 gauge
cable (same diameter- remember?:"wire is wire) in pink noise test. They
HEARD the difference.

Same diameter my ass..... look at this pdf page 3
http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/Greenhill.pdf

The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.

Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats putting it
politely.

ScottW

Scottie says in posting Nr.1:

"The monster cable looks to be 12 gauge equivalent.
Resistance measurements for a 30 foot run are .09 ohms
vs .24 ohms for the 16 gauge.
Ludo... you are simply not to be trusted... and thats
putting it politely."
And in Nr.2:
Olive said, "In most cases, the differences between the
loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective
and subjective)and
therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which
speaker do they
prefer, by how much, and why?" "

Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same
thickness as 16 gauge".

Quite Scottie quite- I said that Olive asked :"Which one
do you like better". In fact he said "prefer" And you trumpeted
that as "Mirabel's lies". You are a card , you are.. Try harder
and you'll find more of my lies like this one.
Now Scottie found another bone to chew at. "It
looks (the Monster) to be 12g" . he said. And I said- 16. Gotcha.
In this latst posting it no longer "looks" .Now it IS 12g-

It might... might be 14... but it sure as hell is thicker than 16.


I have no intention of downloading a long and
boring PDF to find out what the diameter "looks to be".

But you have no problem misstating its content.

So your original statement that they were same thickness is
a based upon what? An article you never read.

Ludo, you're an absolute nut. But I think you know that.

ScottW