wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and
death
matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".

Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.

Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for
my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat
himself.

ScottW

Scottie seems to think that everyone has no other life
to
live but like he lives and breathes lurking in the undergrowth of the
web waiting for an opportunity to yap at someone.
Reluctantly and feeling somewhat nauseated I had to
answer his semiliterate efforts several times before. Every time the
answer was followed by a couple of weeks silence. Then a new clever,
clever trap would be sprung quoting past failures as though they
were victories.
So in his phrase: "for the record". He started by
accusing me of
"hypocrisy" about Greenhill article. My hypocrisy consisted of quoting
one
of the participants 82% accuracy score, when distinguishing between
cables and repeating Greenhill's description of him as "golden ear".-
This was my reason for criticising the "Stereo Review"
writers'
invariable conclusions that the outcome of their ABX tests were
negative
ignoring individuals such as the "golden ear'". The distinction between

*quoting* and expressing an opinion about the quote was too
sophisticated for Scottie. He called it "hypocrisy"
It also became quite obvious that he was not
familiar with
the meaning of "reference".. After I gave the precise Journal, volume,
names of writers, title and dates reference to an article he wanted me
to copy all of it for his benefit. He claimed that he could not find a
Public Library in the City of San Diego!!! Obviously he never visited
one.
And he has not done so to-date while he has the temerity to pontificate

about subjects he simply does not understand.
His next effort culminated in calling me a liar
over Olive's
article. This was based truly incredibly on one sentence that I chose
to
quote. Once again, equally incredibly, instead of finding and reading
the
original he wanted me to post it to him.
Basing himself on that one sentence this
illiterate buffoon
had the temerity to call me a liar, and repeat it because I said that
Olive's
panel *performed badly when asked to discriminate between components
and much better when asked simply " which one do you prefer?"
So here- reluctantly (because I hate typing nearly
as much
as I hate stupidity)- is more from Olive's article: (JAES, vol.51, #9,
Sept.2003, pps. 806-825)
" "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners
were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant
differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different
categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most
discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times
higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES
ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all
categories of listeners...."
FURTHER:
He says also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of
his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no
ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners'
ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator."
In the future if Scottie yaps again I'll just
requote this text.
Life is to short to deal with Scotties of this world again and again.
Ludovic Mirabel.

To which I will reply:
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.

You sure that was a school you attended.... or an asylum?

ScottW

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message

ScottW wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Paul B wrote:


Paul B. again

The average is supposed to be 1dB which is fairly
coarse when stepping through volume but I wouldn't
care to state I could hear even that little in
a DB test!

Your suggestion was investigated by L.Greenhill, Stereo
Review, Aug. 1983,p.51. Using ABX methodology he found
that most of his panel were unable to distinguish
1,75db difference between the volumes produced by a
thick and a thin cable *when music was used as a
signal* Once again: to follow Sean Olive's
investigation; "difference" appears to be the wrong
question to ask if one wants to prove,* for once* that
people can distinguish components. "Which one do you
like better?" (blinded-why not?) is a much better bet.
But of course that sounds too human and not
"scientific" enough

Ludovic Mirabel

If this message appears twice in some servers I
apologise. Google accepted it yesterday but failed to
post it.

It was a lie the first time you posted it and remains a
lie.

I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.


I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.


Mirabel's error is that he lives in the past and he sets the bar for proof
related to DBTs far higher than he sets the bar for his golden-eared
beliefs.


Typical of his kind. For every article like Greenhill's, there are
dozens if not hundreds of claims of difference in audiophilia
that are based on far flimsier methodology. And his own 'comparisons'
are doubtless no better. So why can't he just admit that unless he's
controlled for standard biases, his own claims of difference are
potentially colored by the same frailties we all share? It's not
so hard to say, 'I might have been imagining what I heard, I can't
know for sure, based on how I did the comparison.'

The answer is easy I'm full of biases: my DNA, education,
musical preferences, experience what not. Unique just like the
fingerprints. I. have my likes and dislikes no doubt influenced by my
biases.
I do not claim that my likes and dislikes can be "proved-or disproved-
by a never validated, never properly researched "test." or by any other
"test" still to come..
I'm well aware that I can keep on repeating this till the
cows come home but someone will still pop up and charge me with "making
claims"
Ludovic Mirabel



--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

John Atkinson wrote:
Steven Sullivan wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
I don't have a manuscript of this article, but I believe that Mirabel's
account is factually correct.

I have it. I'll scan it and send it to you. I'm tired of seeing
floobylovers bull**** about it.

As I have pointed out before, you need to take care reading this
article,
as subsequent discussion with Dr. Greenhill revealed that much of the
published analysis of the data and the resultant editorializing that
appeared under his byline was not written by Greenhill. Instead,
it was written by some of the editors of Stereo Review, particularly,
I understand, by the magazine's long-time technical editor David
Ranada who, sadly, left SR's succesor, Sound & Vision, last week,
along with editor Bob Ankosko and other members of staff.

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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Mr. Atkinson, with all due respect this won't do. The issue was raised
before in RAHE with the same non-resolution.
I understand Greenhill is alive and well. Until and unless he corrects
the only text available to the public the contradictory opinions
printed are the only ones we have and can quote.
If he does not care that's his privilege. If he is misquoted that's
ours.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
Good god, man, you actually post in that cesspool?! I refuse to,
although I do flip to it occasionally just to see if there's anything
besides the usual filth. I'm amused to find my old friend Elmer there.
He used to take umbrage at even the slightest off-color remark. I guess
if you're desperate to be heard, you'll put up with anything.

To save wear and tear on your fax machine, you might refer people to
this page, from which they can download the article;

http://bruce.coppola.name/audio/wisdom.html

bob

I have no way of finding out whom you're addressing. I must (for once)
agree with you: RAO is often a cesspool or a medium for mediocre people
ventilating their views about politics, sex and whatever, views their
wives will no longer listen to.
There is nowhere else. I quit RAHE slamming the door after the
transparently biased Il Duce Bates rejected 9 of my postings in a row
for being "repetitive". I had the temerity to argue with people like
eg. you and he, the "objective" moderator, felt compelled to come out
in your defence as a knowledgeable electronics man, which of course
being a lawyer you're not- no more than I. I don't think he ever
forgave me for his discomfiture.
I objected also to his hypocrisy in supposedly banning the DBT topic.
In practice he allowed people left and right to use transparent
synonyms like "bias-free testing" but banned any counter argument for
being about DBT. As a result all the non-party line contributors left
one by one: MKuller, a Dutch guy whose name I no longer rember, Only
the saintly and patient Harry Lavo remains mindinding his manners.
It is all yours. Breathe the clean air.
Ludovic Mirabel

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-

I have no intention of downloading a long and
boring PDF to find out what the diameter "looks to be". Also
I'm not going to the Public Library just to check Scottie's latest.
Instead I'll run with Scottie's bone. According to
him Greenhill compared a 12 gauge Monster first
against a 24 gauge wire, next against 16g. cable. And NOTE:
He did not, repeat not, match the levels. So: in ALL of his tests
he would get difference in volumes resulting from the difference in
diameters.
In other words according to Scottie Greenhill was completely
out to lunch.. Instead of testing for the perceived difference between
supposed superior *quality* of the Monster vs. zip-cord he tested
the ability of his panel to detect significant volume differences.
He could just as well had used two ordinary wires. Was that his
intention little Scottie dear? Just imagine ; then and in all the years

since no one noticed this fundamental flaw till Scottie spotted it.
And wait: if you're right most of his panel heard no difference
between 50' lengths of Monster and not only 24 but 16 g.cable as
well
See what ABX does to you?.
We now have to decide who is the shoot-myself-in-the-foot
moron- Greenhill or Scottie?
Any bets?
Ludovic Mirabel
I have a suggestion in all kindness.. In the future pick on
adversaries your own minuscule size.

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message
.. .
wrote:

But even before that I want to say something to you. I used to argue
furiously throughout my professional life about serioous life and
death
matters and then have coffee with my opponent. It never as much as
occurred to anybody to call the other side "liars".

Thank you Mirabel for the detailed account. I should note that it was
ScottW that called what you said "a lie", in effect calling you a liar,
not me. Though you know that, just wanted to put it on record.

Then... for the record... Ludo made no attempt to address his
misrepresentation of Olive which I clearly indicated was the reason for
my
classification of Ludo as a liar. He has made this misrepresentation
before... and been corrected before... yet he continues to repeat
himself.

ScottW

Scottie seems to think that everyone has no other life
to
live but like he lives and breathes lurking in the undergrowth of the
web waiting for an opportunity to yap at someone.
Reluctantly and feeling somewhat nauseated I had to
answer his semiliterate efforts several times before. Every time the
answer was followed by a couple of weeks silence. Then a new clever,
clever trap would be sprung quoting past failures as though they
were victories.
So in his phrase: "for the record". He started by
accusing me of
"hypocrisy" about Greenhill article. My hypocrisy consisted of quoting
one
of the participants 82% accuracy score, when distinguishing between
cables and repeating Greenhill's description of him as "golden ear".-
This was my reason for criticising the "Stereo Review"
writers'
invariable conclusions that the outcome of their ABX tests were
negative
ignoring individuals such as the "golden ear'". The distinction between

*quoting* and expressing an opinion about the quote was too
sophisticated for Scottie. He called it "hypocrisy"
It also became quite obvious that he was not
familiar with
the meaning of "reference".. After I gave the precise Journal, volume,
names of writers, title and dates reference to an article he wanted me
to copy all of it for his benefit. He claimed that he could not find a
Public Library in the City of San Diego!!! Obviously he never visited
one.
And he has not done so to-date while he has the temerity to pontificate

about subjects he simply does not understand.
His next effort culminated in calling me a liar
over Olive's
article. This was based truly incredibly on one sentence that I chose
to
quote. Once again, equally incredibly, instead of finding and reading
the
original he wanted me to post it to him.
Basing himself on that one sentence this
illiterate buffoon
had the temerity to call me a liar, and repeat it because I said that
Olive's
panel *performed badly when asked to discriminate between components
and much better when asked simply " which one do you prefer?"
So here- reluctantly (because I hate typing nearly
as much
as I hate stupidity)- is more from Olive's article: (JAES, vol.51, #9,
Sept.2003, pps. 806-825)
" "The loudspeaker preferences AND PERFORMANCE of these listeners
were compared to those of a panel of 12 trained listeners. Significant
differences IN PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different
categories of listeners.. The trained listeners were the most
discriminating and reliable listeners with mean Fl values 3-27 times
higher than the other four listener categories. PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES
ASIDE loudspeaker PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT across all
categories of listeners...."
FURTHER:
He says also " PERFORMANCE AND preference " in the very title of
his article. And defines his index of performance so that there is no
ambiguity thusly: ""This metric accounts for the listeners'
ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability
to repeat their ratings expressed in the denominator."
In the future if Scottie yaps again I'll just
requote this text.
Life is to short to deal with Scotties of this world again and again.
Ludovic Mirabel.

To which I will reply:
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.

You sure that was a school you attended.... or an asylum?

ScottW
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't quote this little gem from Scottie's posting:
Now you've gone on and claimed 12 gauge is the same thickness as 16 gauge.

You sure that was a school you attended.... or an asylum?
Of course Scottie I did "claim" that 12 equals 16. Doesn't it?
Anything . else you can think of little Scottie? If not, think this
one out. According to you it "looks" that that poor misguided Greenhill
tested the fat 12 g. Monster against very thin 24 g. wire- level
unmatched twice- and then against still thin but less so 16 g. wire
(levels unmatched throughout).
In other words he never compared the Monster against wire of the
same diameter. In other words he made sure that it would always sound
BETTER than ordinary wire. Because higher volume is perceived as
"better". (Ask Uncle Krueger if you never heard of that.).
Mo his ABXing audience failed to notice that it was bette and
vote for it as they should.. OObviously poor Greenhill was out to bury
ABX..
.. Mo Greenhill's article was discussed ad nauseam in the
succeeding years. And no one asked why would Greenhill do such a mad
thing? Not Atkinson, not Krueger, no one. It waited for you to discover
it.
Don't let the fame go to your head..
Regards Ludovic M.

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

ScottW wrote:
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".


Scottie says:
It might... might be 14... but it sure as hell is thicker than 16.
I answered:
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

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.
It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:
"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

Imjagine, 0,04 db!!!! That old fraud Greenhill!!!.
The undercover agent of the subjectivists in an
objectivist's clothing loading dice shamelessly
in favour of Monster.
He never reckoned that a sleuth like you will get on the
job and find him out. He deserves to lose his
"Stereophile " publisher and to be banned from the
Psychiatric Association for dishonouring it.
And the good old ABX will get another chance when
the new panel listens carefully for 0,04 db. difference.

I'll draw an imaginary profile Scottie. Nothing to
do with you so you don't need to read it.
Little Jimmy in the Kindergarten- shouts: "Miss, Miss Billy
said bad things about you" Billy is a favourite, he can read
already and plays soccer like a professional.
Jimmy at school- firmly in the middle- ambitious beyond
his IQ level and verry, very envious of the top boys.
Jimmy at Univ. Just manages to get a degree maybe
with a year or two delay for repeating failed exams.
A joiner but never too popular- in fact in the coffee room
people say: "I hope this bore does not come here to
harangue us.
Billy discovers the internet. At last he can spout to his
heart content. Main purpose- lurking in the undergroeth
hoping to trip up all those guys giving themselves airs.
"Think they are clever, do they?.I'll show..em"
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com...

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.

thank-you.

It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:

Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..

"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
come up different? I don't.

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Your suggestion was investigated by L.
Greenhill, Stereo Review, Aug. 1983,p.51.

To do this I would
need to forget about the advances in computer
modeling not available in 1983, advances in
material science, manufacturing techniques,
improvement in overall equipment standards
and the volumes of cable reviews written in
audio magazines.

The inclusion of the last item sets the pace
for the rest of your comment, Powell.
Something about the blind leading the blind.

Mmmm... Greenhill, Stereo Review that was a
magazine review, no?


I’m sorry, I don’t think that I could dumb-down
that far, Arny.

Right, Powell. For you to understand how cables
really work would take a lot of development in the
opposite directiong.

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.

thank-you.

It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:

Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..

"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
come up different? I don't.

ScottW

The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.

thank-you.

It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:

Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..

"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
come up different? I don't.

ScottW

The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
Ludovic Mirabel

Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
between Monster and 16 gauge?
Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.

ScottW

"Powell" wrote in message
news

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

In Powell world, they matter regardless.

Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home audio ain't rocket science.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:41:23 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home audio ain't rocket science.

Wild that you now admit that home audio doesn't follow the laws of
physics.

That's quite a breakthrough for you, Arnold.

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.

thank-you.

It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:

Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..

"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
come up different? I don't.

ScottW

The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
Ludovic Mirabel

Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
between Monster and 16 gauge?
Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.

ScottW

Keep on buzzing 0.04db gnattie. I know it is hard but practice
makes perfect and eventually you may come up with something
half-coherent about Greenvile whoever he is. You'll be then the wonder
of
the world: an objectivist, talking gnat.
Poor Arnie. With you, 124 and NYOB he must feel like Duke Wellington
about his soldiers: " I don't know if they frighten the enemy but they
sure
frighten me".
On the other hand anyone who uses debating tricks like
attributing
moronic statements " Blind tests can never be positive" to his
opponents
deserves all he gets.
Ludovic Mirabel

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.

thank-you.

It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:

Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..

"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
come up different? I don't.

ScottW

The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
Ludovic Mirabel

Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
between Monster and 16 gauge?
Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.

ScottW

Old Greenville(?) appeared to me in a dream (he's a psychiatrist by
profession- dreams are his forte) and said to tell you that anyone
level matching speakers for 0,04 db difference is sort of, kind of
....shall we say ...no I can't bring myself to repeat it..
Regards Ludovic M.

wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Scottie you win. Monster differed from the 16 zipcord.

thank-you.

It took me 0.5 an hour with dialup to download Greenhill's
text and this is what I found:

Poor Ludo... can't even afford DSL..

"There was 0, 16 db (REPEAT 0.16 db) insertion loss
difference between the two cables
(He's talking about Monster vs. 16 zipcord)
or the CORRESPONDING RESPONSE 0,04 (Yes 0,04) db.
VARIATION , when they were connected to the KEF
105.2 speakers..

So you think Home Depot 12 gauge would have
come up different? I don't.

ScottW

The terrier trained to yap out diameters yap by yap ("Trainer
was it 12 or 14 quick please?)
metamorphosed miraculouslyinto a 0.04 of a db. buzzing gnat.
Oh well, such is life on the internet. One has to learn
to put up with gnats till a neighbour lends his can of Fly-Tox
Ludovic Mirabel

Poor Ludo... he get into such a tizzy he hears bugs in his ears when
his loose logic and false statements are exposed.
Why didn't you mention that Greenville didn't do level matched tests
between Monster and 16 gauge?
Or that Monster against more exotic cables came up same for 1 panelist?
Oh... that's right... you didn't read it.

ScottW

Old Greenville(?) appeared to me in a dream (he's a psychiatrist by
profession- dreams are his forte) and said to tell you that anyone
level matching speakers for 0,04 db difference is sort of, kind of
...shall we say ...no I can't bring myself to repeat it..

Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss? You saved the file didn't you
ludo? Or do you need another half hour on your modem
to figure out your mistake?

ScottW

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
think?


In Powell world, they matter regardless.

True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.


Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home
audio ain't rocket science.

Are you familiar with Quantum Chromo-
dynamics?

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
think?


In Powell world, they matter regardless.

True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.

Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on status symbols.

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols - houses, cars, boats,
degrees club memberships. I get that.

Here's a new flash for you Powell: Home
audio ain't rocket science.

Are you familiar with Quantum Chromodynamics?

Right, a joke in the context of audio. ;-)

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
think?


In Powell world, they matter regardless.

True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.

Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on status symbols.

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols - houses, cars, boats,
degrees club memberships. I get that.

Degrees are status symbols?

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
think?

In Powell world, they matter regardless.

True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.

Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on
status symbols.

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
houses, cars, boats, degrees, club memberships. I get
that.

Degrees are status symbols?

Of course.

Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)

However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..


Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)


It will do as well as a city bus, in a pinch.
Go for it!!!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Jenn said:

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols - houses, cars, boats,
degrees club memberships. I get that.

Degrees are status symbols?

Krooger doesn't have any degrees, you know. In his persistent delusional
state he attributes some part of his panorama of failure to that lack.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Jenn said:

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
houses, cars, boats, degrees club memberships. I get
that.

Degrees are status symbols?

Krooger doesn't have any degrees, you know.

There is no such person as "Krooger" in the real world, so of course he or
she or whatever Middius imagines in his delusional state, has no degrees.

OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.

Middius, being a sockpuppet can have whatever degrees he needs at any time
or none, depending what he needs to score debating points.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

Your qualification is a little late, don’t you
think?

In Powell world, they matter regardless.

True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.

Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on
status symbols.

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
houses, cars, boats, degrees, club memberships. I get
that.

Degrees are status symbols?

Of course.

Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)

However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the work of
getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

"Arny Krueger" said:

OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.


I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

Sander deWaal said:

OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.

I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)

Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
in Krooglish? ;-)

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:26:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

Interesting that none of you actually intended to get a degree.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Powell" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Let me sum up your understanding of wire
technology then.

Metallurgy = Metallurgy
Dielectrics = Dielectrics
Geometry = Geometry
Connectors = Connectors
------------------------------
Therefore Wire = Wire

Not at all, Powell.

All of these things matter, depending on the situation.

Your qualification is a little late, don't you
think?

In Powell world, they matter regardless.

True. Regardless if I pay $10 - 200 per foot.

Oh, I get it - you're into spending the big bucks on
status symbols.

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
houses, cars, boats, degrees, club memberships. I get
that.

Degrees are status symbols?

Of course.

Warning! Warning! The turnip truck is coming through town! ;-)

However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the work of
getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

Well, given Arny's need to feel superior to everybody else in every aspect
of his life, how else is he going to do it with other people with degrees
(including many with Masters or PhD's) unless all those people did it for
the status, while HE did it to learn?

LOL.

dave weil said:

However, it hasn't kept any of my family from getting one or more. For us
they are an unintended consequence of learning useful stuff.

Interesting that none of you actually intended to get a degree.

Of course they didn't. It wasn't until Krooger and the Kroo-brats were able
to entrap some university officials in compromising positions that the
degrees even came into the picture.

Harry Lavo said:

Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the work of
getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

Well, given Arny's need to feel superior to everybody else in every aspect
of his life, how else is he going to do it with other people with degrees
(including many with Masters or PhD's) unless all those people did it for
the status, while HE did it to learn?

Harry, you're probably right, but I'd like to offer a word of warning here.
I, too, have attempted to parse the convoluted impulses egotism and
paranoia that fill Krooger's dysfunctional mind. It's a dangerous and
disgusting undertaking. You can, before you realize it, start to feel a
familiarity with the bizarre dimension Krooger has konstructed. If you're
going to dwell there for any length of time, it's wise to take precautions.
Just as psychiatrists need to consult other psychiatrists periodically as a
safeguard against getting drawn too far into their patients' worlds, you
should leave yourself a trail of breadcrumbs. Just in case.

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
said:


Sander deWaal said:

OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.

I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)

Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
in Krooglish? ;-)


George, George, George............

Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

BTW when am I scheduled? I need to know because of a short vacation,
you know.

Can Ruud take over next week?

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

"Jenn" wrote in message


Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the
work of getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

That would be an excluded middle argument.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


Well, given Arny's need to feel superior to everybody
else in every aspect of his life,


Extrenalizing, again Harry?

Please buy, beg, borrow or steal a clue at your earliest convenience!

Sander deWaal said:

Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
in Krooglish? ;-)

George, George, George............

Not my fault. Whatever.

Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

Nice try at defelction Mr. Dweall. Its like you think we don't know you
think we suspect your not a scokpuppet. ;-)

BTW when am I scheduled? I need to know because of a short vacation,
you know.

Looks like you missed the memo. Sockpuppeting assignments are now being
handled by Ferstler. Sacky and I invited him, mostly out of pity because of
his unbearable shame at being exposed for you-know-what. Surprisingly to
me, Harold accepted. Perhaps he felt it was better to be involved in his
lifeblood activity behind the scenes, anonymously even, than not at all.

Can Ruud take over next week?

Very funny. Like we didn't know "Ruud" is really "Lionel". LOl! ;-(

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the
work of getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

That would be an excluded middle argument.

No it isn't.

In article ,
Sander deWaal wrote:

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
said:


Sander deWaal said:

OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.

I bet that takes LoT;S! of knowlege ;-)

Wouldn't it be adorable if Krooger were asked to instruct some enjuhnears
in Krooglish? ;-)


George, George, George............

Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

I haven't been told yet whose sock Arny believes I am. I'm hurt.

Jenn said:

Wow. I've never known of anyone who has gone through the
work of getting a degree simply to have a status symbol.

That would be an excluded middle argument.

No it isn't.

You're venturing into the warped dimension of Kroologic. When the Krooborg
says "excluded middle", it's analogous to when a human says "we're in
agreement".

For more on Kroologic, see Usenet (1997 - present), Audio Asylum, and all
the forums from which the Beast has been banned.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

Jenn said:

Hey, I live in a community that prizes status symbols -
houses, cars, boats, degrees club memberships. I get
that.

Degrees are status symbols?

Krooger doesn't have any degrees, you know.

There is no such person as "Krooger" in the real world, so of course he or
she or whatever Middius imagines in his delusional state, has no degrees.

OTOH Krueger has a BS in Egineering.


in what engineering specialty?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Jenn said:

Next I'll be accused of being/operating a sockpuppet ;-(

I haven't been told yet whose sock Arny believes I am. I'm hurt.


Watch out, watch out, here comes the, delivrey truck full of it ;-(

Thank's Jenn or whatever you're name is, today for admitting your
guilty of scokpuupeting naivety and, a vynil biggot Jenn , LoT;S!

;-)

LOL!

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -