Robert Morein, and his many personalities, postulated:

There is much current contention on rec.audio.opinion regarding Mr. Richard
Graham, a resident of the U.K., who posts as "Soundhaspriority." This is a
fact-finding inquiry that solicits opinions and additions from all the
people known to post to r.a.o. Contributions from identities that are not
known to this author will not be accepted for addition.


Thank you for this obsessive deconstruction of me, Mr. Morein. You've
made my job a lot, lot easier. You've demonstrated proof in black and
white, of a number of observations that I've made. Which include
these:

A. You're a troll, and not a mentally stable one at that. And despite
the many hats you wear, you're nevertheless a troll with a heck of a
lot of free time, and an obsessive personality disorder.


B. Your so-called "fact finding mission" about me, looks more like the
Spanish Inquisition. Or a witch hunt. It, and the responses to it, has
given me more laughs than I've had in years. Perhaps it looks like
"the Spanish Inquisition" because your belief system is modelled after
the religious approach, as it is with the rest of RAO. What I mean by
that is that while you or may not sincerely be attempting to seek the
truth about me ("why" you have such an obession with me is another
issue entirely between you and your psychiatrist...), you are perfectly
content with accepting personal opinions from any random number of
ignorant fools, including yourself, as "the truth". "Opinions" (in the
form of conjecture, heresay, etc.) are not "proven facts". They're
the equivalent of centuries-old fables, like you find in the Bible, by
coincidence. The non-thinking "sheep" (what I affectionately call you
and the other members here) mindlessly gobble up whatever "faux facts"
(opinions) they are spoon-fed, and they believe it without question.
You and the rest of the group don't even exhibit the capability to
discern what is and isn't a proven fact. This despite your 7 phd's,
your engineering and scientific background. Instead, you believe that
anything that "smells like a fact", such as Goofball claiming that
after finding a picture on the internet of an old lady behind her car
he has properly identified me, must be a fact.

Little Georgie (Middius), the troll you called a "mosquito" to me (and
which I agreed with your assessment of George), can for example, be
seen proving how this process works in this very thread. First, he
believed what Goofball said about me being Mrs. Belt. Which means he
didn't believe I was who I said I was. Like the true imbecile George
is, he kept referring to this picture in addressing me. Continually
reinforcing what a mindless fool he is, in doing so. But when you gave
him enough "evidence" that I was Graham, "evidence" that was never
evidence because it was simply another Goofball-esque "revelation" that
you never verified, George gobbled up your sheep chow, like the good
little non-thinker that he is. And so the pattern goes. I must have
seen at least 100 false allegations made about me before this thread.
Allegations that were never proven, but yet, perceived as "the TRUTH"
by the mindless sheep you find on RAO. There must be at least 100 more
in this thread alone! Besides you of course, Elmi..., Paul Packer,
GeoSynch, Dave Weill, Arny Krueger, ScottW, Fella, Middius,
"Footlong"/Walt, and Steven "Hey guys, I'm A Scientisisist!" Sullivan
can so far be counted among this (in this single thread alone) who have
all made false presumptions about me. And the thread appears to just be
getting off the ground! There's only one person out of all the
respondents that didn't say anything false about me in this thread.
See if you're smart enough to guess who that is? LOL!

Hint: Out of all those I dealt with on this group, he's consistently
made the least false presumptions about me. Note that I consider the
"smart" people in our society, as those who make the least presumptions
(hence the reason I consider most people I've seen here either
"imbeciles", or "true imbeciles"). Not merely those who posess the most
"knowledge", because they've studied some field or other. Because
"knowledge" is not "truth" per se, it is merely "what is known". What
may be "known" may not be "true", or does not negate other "truths"
that may seem to overlap what is known. There is a quality to
information. "Knowing" something which isn't true, is more than just
"worthless knowledge". Because it now represents "truth" in the mind of
those who accept lies as truth, but as it is a lie, it takes you
further away from the truth, and filling your mind with quality
information. Much better to be ignorant of what is true while remaining
open to the truth, than to be ignorant of the truth and have a mind
poisoned with lies, that leaves little place for truth to reside, when
it happens along. So those who are the most careful about making false
presumptions about things (ie. those who don't arrogantly dismiss
ideas they know nothing about and haven't even experimented with),
are the one's most likely to be smarter and/or wiser than the rest of
the flock. They won't have minds filled with false presumptions
(lies), and therefore closed to valid information (truth). Following my
premise, there is of course nothing stupider than to believe that you
are on a "truth seeking inquiry", when your protocol is to query a chat
group of belligerent ne'er do wells, who couldn't possibly be more
biased and prejudiced on the subject you raise, for opinions on a
person they've never met and know nothing about. But nevertheless
have no shortage of "truth" to impart over.

This speaks to a greater issue, of course, because it has always been
my contention that you and the rest of RAO use this same "religious"
approach in your understanding of audio. That is to say, you believe
whatever "truth" you are given (directly or by what you read,
indirectly), rather than finding out for yourself what is and isn't
true. Or dismissing opinions if you can't. You're ALL skeptical of
EVERYTHING, except what you have already "bought" as "the truth". In
the case of the objectivist camp, "the TRUTH" they have bought is that
just about "everything in audio sounds the same". In the case of the
subjectivists, "the TRUTH" they have bought is "things sound different,
but only the things that the majority of consumers believe sounds
different. If we never heard of it, or if it sounds implausible, it's
bogus". This is precisely what you've made of the tweaks I generously
gave you, and precisely why you will never understand much of what is
and isn't true in audio. Or in life, for that matter, since this
approach you all take is one that rules your lives. And rather petty
lives at that, I must say, judging by this thread and the level of
"conversation" it has generated, and that in most others.


C. This newsgroup is FILLED TO THE BRIM with hyper-paranoid, insecure
social misfits, who apparently have nothing better going on in their
lives, that they have to spend their days coming up with endless
theories of conjecture about someone they keep saying should be
ignored, and that they have no interest in. After a day of not reading
this group, I see a new thread about me with 35 posts in it so far,
that proves me right again.

So I can't wait to see what happens at the end of this "fact finding
mission of yours", when you tally all the so-called "facts" about me,
from the people on your list that you consider "credible", and then try
to arrive at a "factual conclusion", which you've foolishly convinced
yourself is "the truth". Had you any idea what a fool you are, Robert,
you'd understand why I'm laughing so hard at you and the rest of
your friends in this thread.

Let me see how good you're doing so far, on this "fact finding
mission" of yours!.....


Mr. Graham has so far expressed an interest in two subjects:

1. "Tweaks", or minor adjustments, to audio reproduction systems, that he
claims work by methods other than those known to acoustical physics and
electronics.


Oh well. That's wrong to begin with. Bad start on your fact-finding
journey! Not the first time you've claimed to interpret my position
and gotten it wrong either (remember when you ignorantly said all my
audio concepts are based on "Eastern" philosophies? And when other RAO
members believe you, simply because you said that?).

I DO NOT believe that "tweaks" are "minor adjustments". I only believe
that YOUR tweaks are. Mine can be much more significant in the changes
they provide, than changing a completely different audio component.
I'd hardly be able to transform the entire sound of my system, as I
have, with "minor adjustments".


2. A "cream", which applied to eyeglasses, speakers, etc. is said to improve
audio reproduction by methods unknown to acoustical physics and
electronics.


Wow, you finally got one teeny tiny thing right, in your brilliant
interpretations. Pure accident on your part, no doubt.


Mr. Graham has said, "I do have tweaks for glasses, including aspecial cream
that you apply to your eyeglasses to improve the sound you hear from your
audio system. It's not free though, and certainly not cheap." This
statement suggests that Mr. Graham has a proprietary interest in this
product. We do not know the specifics of this interest, if there is one.

Gosh, and you were doing so well in the first part of no. 2..... Well,
here's where you prove that you belong on this newsgroup, Bob. And I
wish you and the rest of the sheep, a happy life together.

It's been my observation that most people on this group are insecure
and paranoid, and you've just proven that about yourself, except you
have many more "psychological difficulties" than the average RAO
regular. You take a statement that I make about a product as a
"suggestion that I have a proprietary interest in it". Well, as we all
now know thanks to me, a "suggestion" is enough for the fools on RAO to
accept as "the RAO TRUTH". So once having made a "suggestion", you then
go on to say that "we" ("we" being RAO presumably, and not all the
voices in your head battling for air time), "do not know the specifics
of this interest". And would you believe that there are some who still
don't understand how a pious carpenter from Nazareth could be hailed
the world over as "the son of a God", for over 2000 years?

And with all these religious beliefs of yours Bob, you say you don't
believe in Jesus? There's a lot more evidence to "suggest" (one of
your favourite terms....) that Jesus existed, than there is in your
ridiculously stupid conjecture. How "ridiculously stupid" are you,
exactly? Here's an example:

Every single person on this newsgroup who EVER advocated ANY product in
audio, let's say Near 50m speakers, suggests they have a "proprietary
interest in the product". According to your idiotic logic, or lack
thereof, that would make you and everyone else here a shill. Welcome to
the Shill's Club, Robert.

I take it back, Francois Yves Le Imbecile was right about you. You ARE
a moron.


It appears that George Middius and Dave Weil consider Mr. Graham an
unmitigated fraud.

So do you (if the 5000 accusations of "liar!" that you wrote about me
are to believed), and so do most people here. Except that Weill and
Middius, or anybody else for that matter, never proved that I was a
fraud. They only spew the same BS that everyone does. I however, _have_
proven that Weill and Middius are BOTH frauds. I proved this about
Weill in a post I made today, and I proved this to you about Middius,
after having sent you the email I sent him, which he lied to the entire
group about, saying that it contained attacks against you.

That's the difference between "the absolute TRUTH" (as shown by
valid, verifiable evidence) and "the TRUTH is it is known and believed
by RAOphiles" (ie. lies, as shown by vigorous assertion, and nothing
more).

An example of "the RAO TRUTH" would be the one by Dave "Garbage Boy"
Weill, who's most intelligent response to a debate you and I were
having about this cream product that you have such a hard-on about, was
"That's a load of total bumkum" (sic). I assumed he was talking to me
since he addressed my post, but I did consider the fact that he could
have just been talking to his good pal, George the Greek, over other
activities they had "just shared together".


This has resulted in a thread heavily into adhominem
attacks between Middius and Weil, on one side, and Mr. Graham on the other.

And don't forget you with your "DON'T CREAM!" warning thread and
other attack threads against me, which include ad hominem attacks of
your own.

The author of this post, Robert Morein, has asked Mr. Graham for an
explanation of how this cream works.


I like the way you refer to yourself in the third person, Robert. It
makes the question of your sanity even less of a controversy, in case
anyone still doubts that about you. I can see now that I was wrong to
have given in to your pleas in email that I retract what you had said
to me about having tried my tweak, because of how it would compromise
your position with the IEEE, and McCarty breathing down your neck. I
lied on your behalf over what you said to me about having tried the
L-shape tweak and found that it did make a difference, because you
asked me to do so as a friend, and because I thought you had some
integrity, and I respected that. But now after all these lies you're
trying to make up about me, I see that I was wrong about you. I don't
see much difference between you being a lunatic and a troll, and your
arch-nemesis, Brian McCarty. You're a sick enough puppy that for all
I know, you ARE "Brian McCarty". aka "The other guy Robert has an
obsession with".

Go on, Morein. Send me some more emails threatening litigation for
having briefly mentioned that you tried the L-shape tweak, and found
that you did hear a change. See how much I care about that. I will
simply show the court the email you sent in which you made the
observation, along with the IP address of your ISP. You'll be laughed
out of the house, Robert, before it ever gets to trial.


Mr. Graham responded by stating that my
knowledge of science is not current, and therefore, that I am incapable of
understanding the "theory", which involves quantum mechanics. I responded
that my knowledge of science is current, and that I am very familiar with
quantum mechanics. Mr. Graham then indicated that he could not tell me,
because the "theory" is proprietary. Mr. Graham lambasts Dave Weil for not
understanding the "theory", but no theory has been presented.

Wrong again. You're purposefully trying to deceive. A "debating
trade" tactic which you borrowed from your friends Krueger, Weill and
Middius. My lambasting of Weill for not understanding the theory had
nothing to do with the conversation between you and me. It referred to
another concept (the 5 pinhole paper tweak) in which Weill demanded
that I present the theory for. Then when I _did_, Weill blustered, much
like you do, and pretended to understand the theory, but the fool
didn't even understand the term used in the theory. Likewise, if he
did, he would been able to debate me on it, but instead, "Garbage Boy"
Weil tucked tail and ran like the coward he is. Or maybe he just heard
the sound of garbage trucks coming, and lost interest due to the call
of his hunger. Even though I reminded him 15 times that he never had
the education or intelligence to debate me on that.

As to the cream, I never said the "theory is proprietary", that's
again a strawman argument, which you appear quite fond of. AFAIK, the
product you have such a hard-on about works on the strengths and
weaknesses of morphic resonance energy patterns. Where things went
awry, is when you started making all these false assumptions about the
product (ie. you kept insisting the word "electret" in the name meant
it was an electret!), and you either wanted or needed proprietary
information about the product, in order to address your specific
questions. I told you I was not the inventor of the product, and its
not my job in life to supply you with detailed information about a
product that you're interested in. In fact, its not my job to supply
you with any information about any product, when you can and should
damn well do the research yourself. There was a time when I would have
been happy to supply you with any information you needed, even if it
meant me doing research on your behalf. I supplied you with many such
details and web site links regarding the theories behind the concepts I
talked with you about. That was a time when you and I once "were" able
to have reasonable conversations in email about alternative audio
concepts and products.

You can believe that after your many recent malicious attacks (not
including all the other ones in which you called me a "liar" on the
group, when you knew I was telling the truth), that time has now
passed, and I'm not interested in having serious and sincere
conversations with you on audio or anything else. Nevertheless, before
this latest attack thread of yours in which you are desperately trying
to promulgate a whole host of lies about me, I was willing to reveal
to you some of my "guesses" about the product's possible composure
and nature. Things that I never told anyone, but that I was willing to
tell you, so that you might better understand what you're talking
about, and not be so obsessive and defensive about an audio product
like the cream, simply because you haven't a clue about it.
Nevertheless, I emailed this information to you, and you're still
pretending you know nothing about the product, judging by what you've
written in this attack thread, and by the fact that you never returned
my email to continue discussing the product, outside of the hostile
environment you helped create in the thread we were discussing the
product in.

Like I already told you publically, I was not willing to reveal this
information except privately, because if my findings about the product
are correct (and I have much reason to believe they are), then it would
compromise the inventor's rights to exclusive manufacture. But now
that I see your hostile reaction, maybe that's exactly what you
wanted in the first place? More information so that you could
obliterate the manufacturer's research and market a "me-too" product
yourself, that you never designed? At this point, you've proven to be
such a lying troll, I wouldn't put it past you to do that.


Therefore, we have a "cream", which is alleged by Mr. Graham to work, but
without any explanation of how.

Several questions present themselves:
1. Is Mr. Graham using this newsgroup to advertise a product he sells?

Right. Besides being a professional lunatic, it's a good thing
you're not a magistrate. But since I'm supposed to be the audio
equivalent of a "witch doctor", I guess that your little "witch hunt"
here is quite apropos. All I know is this: if I'm "guilty" of
advertising a product by the mere MENTION of it, then so are you.
You're a shill for Polk and Near loudspeakers, among other things. A
far worse shill than I, who named a product without continuing to
mention its full name or manufacturer. You gave the entire model names
and manufacturer of the loudspeakers you allegedly are trying to sell
us. (And NO, I'm not buying your crappy Polk and Near loudspeakers,
Morein. Just the kind of thing a know-nothing audiophile would buy,
because he thinks recording studios have the best and most "neutral"
equipment).


If
so, does he violate the newsgroup charter? There certainly is a newsgroup
for audio sales -- rec.audio.marketplace.


Pfffffffffffffffffttttttttt!!!!!!! ROTLFMAO!!!!!!


Now I KNOW you're insane, Robert! I'm one of the only people here
in a long time, who started trying to get the group back on topic about
subjects related to audio, with my tweak contributions. This is on a
group where 98% of the posts are all flame wars. ALL of my audio posts
were turned into attack threads, just as you have done with the
discussion on eyeglass treatments that we were having. The vast
majority of the posts here are a violation of newsgroup charter. Got a
newsflash for you Morein: RAO has long since unainmously decided it
does not give a rat's ass about the newsgroup's charter. This is no
longer an audio discussion group, its a flame war group, like
alt.flame. Audio is merely occasional background chatter here, and
there are never ANY productive discussions on audio EVER. Because of
belligerent fools like yourself.


2. Your opinions are solicited regarding Mr. Graham's offerings:

a. His "free tweaks", such as the aspirin-and-pinhole, or the cutting
off of the corners of clothing labels

One would have to wonder why "free tweaks" is in quotation marks, and
then reflect a little more on the lack of your sanity. Judging by all
your other paranoid theories, you probably think the government is
living in your toilet, so you "go potty" in your bed.

b. His offering of the "cream".

That's a blatant LIE now, since Google will show I offered NOTHING,
except FREE tweak ideas. In fact, because the cream is a commercial
product, and not a cheap one at that, I did not want to go into details
about it, lest I be called a "shill" again, by unscrupulous posters
such as yourself. This product was only _one_ of numerous ideas that I
mentioned could negate diffraction effects of eyeglass, and cause them
to become beneficial to the audiophile wearer. You ignored my
mentioning other ideas besides the cream product, some of which were
free. YOU are the one who kept pushing me to provide details about the
commercial cream product, Morein. At NO POINT did I ever offer the
product for sale, or give ANY details whatsoever about its commercial
availability. I did not even mention who manufactures it.

In contrast, YOU advocated people go blind and miss seeing their
favourite performer at a concert, in order to improve some
unquantifiable degree of acoustic degradation, due to the alleged
effects of the presence of your eyeglasses on acoustic pressure waves.
You advocated this, because all you ignorantly understand of the
physical world is your quaint, hundreds-of-years old archaic laws of
physics. Which is precisely why you engineers and engineer wanna-bes
(like your friends McKelvy and Krueger) are always advocating that
differences in audio are mostly insignificant. What is "insignificant"
Robert, is your knowledge of what produces good sound in audio. In
fact, I don't just question your mental competence, I'm questioning
your professional competence, here.

Well after having made a convincing performance here as an obsessive
lunatic, thank you for proving what a proven liar that you are, Robert.



3. Is Mr. Graham to be believed? If not:

a. Does Mr. Graham believe himself that these methods and offerings
work?


That's interesting, since you are on record as having SAID as much
yourself, that you believe the tweaks are sincere.

In fact, you even started a new thread just to declare this....


One of Robert Morein's personalities speaks:

"I have been involved in a private discussion with Soundhaspriority. I

intend to preserve the confidentiality of this discussion. However, I
would
like to tell you that it is my impression that he is not a troll. His
posts
are not mischief; they are expressions of deeply held beliefs, with
substantial philosophy behind them. While our viewpoints are
significantly
different, I accord him my respect, due to the cogency with which he
presents his beliefs, which stem from outside the Western framework of
logical thought."


Since multiple personality disorder does seem to be one of your
psychological failings, I can't say I'm a bit surprised about your
lack of consistency.


b. Is Mr. Graham a fraud, in the sense of awareness that these methods
and offerings do not work, but advocating and promoting them nevertheless?


Now you're talking about me being a fraud, which seems to be one of
your favourit pet words (Google shows you calling people a "fraud" no
less than 506 times). A few days ago, you publically wrote this:

One of Robert Morein's personalities speaks:

"For the record, I have no indication, nor do I assert, that Mr.
Graham's business practices are in any way fraudulent."


Now about your latest insane accusation.... am I a "fraud" as much as
YOU are a fraud for advocating that people starve themselves to death
to improve their perception of sound, or electrocute themselves by
using a cheater plug, or that people adjust their speakers according to
mystical principles of "Feng Shui", or that eating ice cream will
render your hifi system a useless piece of junk, or any of the other
crazy ideas you advocated to RAO as "Free tweaks for TRUE
AUDIOPHILES!".

"True Audiophiles" Mr. Morein? "True Lunatics" is more like it.


All of you are invited to respond: John Atkinson, Arny, Mike McKelvy, Sander
deWaal, George Middius, Dave Weil, Andre Jute, Ludovic Mirabel, Paul Packer,
Trevor Wilson, Francois Yves LeGal, "Shhhh! I'm Listening", Scott Wheeler,
Jenn, Bret Ludwig, Howard Ferstler, "Fella", "Walt",
"Goofball_star_dot_etal", etal

The results will be tallied, excluding individuals I do not know, to avoid
"rigging."
PLEASE IGNORE/DO NOT RESPOND TO ADHOMINUM RESPONSES. I will tally all the
answers. "Adhominum" will distract from the purpose.


It's "ad hominem" idiot (the study of Latin apparently not one of
your PHDs). And it certainly didn't seem to distract from your
purppose of attacking my character when you used it against me in your
posts.