Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how
many have tried them?

Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.

Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
hear what he has to say.

wrote in message
ink.net...
Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering
how many have tried them?

Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.

Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
hear what he has to say.
I have read Edgar Cayce's diagnosis of your condition. He calls it liatosis,
a foul exhudation of the mouth caused by telling too many lies. The
prescription is a quart of castor oil, taken by mouth, with every meal.

wrote:
Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how
many have tried them?


I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
mickeyMcMoron good?

Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

"Fella" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering
how many have tried them?


I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
mickeyMcMoron good?

Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

I think he'd likely give you the same advice as he gives everybody else, try
it for yourself first and see if works. It appears your head is in need of
some class anyway.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
"Fella."

EddieM seems to have been excommunicated, so perhaps we've found out what
the standards are.
Sad.

wrote:

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how
many have tried them?

I have made the observation that all of those who are ignorant
closed-minded mindless sheep are unwilling to try new ideas, or even
consider trying new ideas (n.b. almost none of the tweaks I posed are
new ideas. I define "new" as simply something people are not familiar
with). In fact, the mockery of my tweaks that people have tried to
assault me with proves that RAO regulars are too stupid to even tell
valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
(of their mind). Trying to make the inane point that anything that
sounds silly to them, is just as valid. And that any concept that
ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
like crabgrass on this newsgroup) don't understand, isn't valid.
Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO always predetermines that
he does not need to understand something that he didn't already know.
"All's he needs to know is" that "it ain't worth a crap in th' woods",
if he can't understand why it would work. The primitive thinker of RAO
won't ever be able to turn off the intellectual switch and do an end
run around the theoretical hurdle, in order to see whether any of the
tweaks have merit, before dismissing them out of hand. And if people
are ridiculing it, then the RAO lemming says "It must be something
worth ridiculing. I'll do that too!".

So to answer your query, those RAO members who are truly intelligent
(as opposed to simply educated), independently minded, and don't fit
the description above have tried the tweaks. Or in other words, sorry
no, nobody on this group has tried them. At least, nobody that is
willing to admit it to me. George "Morc from Orc" Middius made a tiny
little bird peep about the fact that he did try the aspirin with cat
tweak, but when I tried to query him about how he'd applied it, he shut
up about it. Because after later seeing how much ridicule he was in
for, he now "conveniently" distances himself from that earlier
statement. But then, you can't really blame George for that, because
he's an intrinsic coward.

Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.

No you mindless arrogant oaf, no one said Newtonian physics need not
apply any longer. I don't know any of the people you just named, but
I've seen enough of what kind of mindless dross you spew. And I can say
with confidence, I'm sure they're leagues more "brilliant" than you
could hope to be.

Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
hear what he has to say.

I'll save you the suspense. I spoke to him beforehand. He also said
that you're a moron, Mike.

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 4:50 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

This is an utterly useless statement, no better than cheap political
propaganda. You want to talk about 'excluded middle' arguments?

This assumes that all 'subjectivists' agree that the tweaks proposed by
Soundhaspriority are valid and useful. Clearly not all do.

I am, I suppose, a 'subjectivist' but I hardly buy the thought that the
tweaks proposed are valid or even worthy of trying. This last one looks
potentially dangerous to me, at least as far as equipment life is
concerned.

Perhaps I've misunderstood some of the posts I've seen from
'objectivists.' Perhaps the 'objectivists' never actually disagree on
anything and they all proceed in lock-step with one another. I hadn't
thought that to be the case.

I think that trying to pigeonhole either group in such a manner is
counterproductive at best and extremely intellectually dishonest at
worst. The political equivalent is saying that all Democrats are Ted
Kennedy disciples and that all republicans are Pat Robertson disciples
(while that is probably more true for republicans, not ALL republicans
are crazed religious whacko neo-nazis. Just most...).

Those silly 'objectivists.' They all lie and then try to get everybody
to agree with their distorted sense of reality.

Shovels is still smarting from last week's rebuff.

George "Morc from Orc" Middius made a tiny
little bird peep about the fact that he did try the aspirin with cat
tweak, but when I tried to query him about how he'd applied it, he shut
up about it.

Poor Shovels. Did I let you down too roughly? I'll tell you anything you
want to know about my little experiment with your recipe. Ask away.

Fella wrote:

wrote:
Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wonderinghow
many have tried them?


I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
mickeyMcMoron good?

Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

Mike McKelvy? I'd stick him in a home made orgone energy generator and
see if nuclear contamination might smarten him up.

From:
Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 5:39 pm
Email:

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
"Fella."

Here's another example of nob's 'contributions' to r.a.o.

Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
attacks! And it's not *his* fault...

Sad.

I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:

ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
RAO regulars are too stupid
valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
(of their mind).
any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
The primitive thinker of RAO
the RAO lemming

High praise indeed!

(Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

paul packer wrote:

On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:

ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
RAO regulars are too stupid
valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
(of their mind).
any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
The primitive thinker of RAO
the RAO lemming

High praise indeed!

(Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

I'm sure I have NO idea. That's just what the insult-o-meter (c) came
up with.
It's kind of outdated (early 50's model). I suppose it does need a
software upgrade.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
:
: wrote in message
: ink.net...
: Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
: place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering
: how many have tried them?
:
: Also, I find it good to know that we no longer have to rely on Newtonian
: Physics, they were getting in the way of a lot of brilliant people like
: JUte/Munchausen/McCoy, so I say the hell with them.
:
: Sorry, I must go now, I just got a call from Edgar Cayce and I must take
: hear what he has to say.
: I have read Edgar Cayce's diagnosis of your condition. He calls it liatosis,
: a foul exhudation of the mouth caused by telling too many lies. The
: prescription is a quart of castor oil, taken by mouth, with every meal.
:
he, are you being harsh ? i distinctly remember that as "..every _other_ meal"

R.

Fella wrote:
wrote:
Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has classed up the
place by giving everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just wonderinghow
many have tried them?


I wonder how SHP might want to tweak you? Hmmm... Please SHP old chap,
if anything needs tweaking in a quantum mechanics sort of a way, it's
this "thing" called nob, mcmoron, mickeymickmickey, duh!mikey, etc..
Like that Schrödinger's Cat, perhaps if we put him in a tightly sealed
box, with lots of decaying nitrogen 13 atoms and a hammer that hits him
in the head each time an atom decays, and wait for, not ten minutes, but
some ten decades, and open the box to see if he is still alive
afterwards... Whatyasay, shp ol chum? Wouldn't that tweak our
mickeyMcMoron good?

Or what if we knock him against a led wall a quadrillion times a
quadrillion times so as to find out when his atoms and the led wall's
atoms actually line up so that he passes (well his head anyway) through
the wall at least once. Though if and when that happens we can go on to
see when it'll happen again, yes? Awaiting your suggestions.

Please, don't discourage him. Nyob trying for humour and
irony
is fun to watch.
Ludovic Mirabel

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

paul packer wrote:
On 16 Mar 2006 15:44:30 -0800, wrote:

ignorant closed-minded mindless sheep
RAO regulars are too stupid
valid new ideas from silly bogus ones that they pull out of the toilet
(of their mind).
any concept that ignorant backward trailer-trash slack-jawed witless yokels (which breed
like crabgrass on this newsgroup)
Therefore, the cretinous bigoted moron of RAO
The primitive thinker of RAO
the RAO lemming

High praise indeed!

(Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

very zen, if nothing else.
___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

Sillybot, don't you have sinewaves to measure?

(Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

very zen, if nothing else.

Spake Sillybot: "I know all about zen cause I read it in a book, in
college, where I don't go now because I'm all grown up."


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


"Please pass the oil can before my brain rusts." -- Sillybot

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:


This assumes that all 'subjectivists' agree that the tweaks proposed by
Soundhaspriority are valid and useful. Clearly not all do.

Did I miss something? By "not all", who here are you implying does?

I am, I suppose, a 'subjectivist' but I hardly buy the thought that the
tweaks proposed are valid or even worthy of trying.

Yet you have no evidence that they aren't valid or worthy of trying.
Which proves that you're really no different than Arny, who also
mistakenly believes that the only valid things in audio are those that
conform to his flawed thinking. The rest can be casually dismissed
without trial. With qualifications like that, don't pretend you are a
"subjectivist". At best, you're what Arny calls himself: "a reliable
subjectivist".

This last one looks
potentially dangerous to me, at least as far as equipment life is
concerned.

Same ignorant thing that Arny said. Are you sure you're not him? As for
the speaker grounding tweak, not only have I tested it, I've already
given examples of commecial models that incorporate the grounding.
Plus, I've made several offers for people to come and observe my
speaker setup, where I show the speakers being grounded as described,
and the amp working perfectly. That's more evidence I'm supplying than
you've ever shown for any of your false assertions about everything.


Perhaps I've misunderstood some of the posts I've seen from
'objectivists.' Perhaps the 'objectivists' never actually disagree on
anything and they all proceed in lock-step with one another. I hadn't
thought that to be the case.

I've certainly proved it to be the case with subjectivists. Unless you
can come up with one example, that I've asked you for above.


I think that trying to pigeonhole either group in such a manner is
counterproductive at best and extremely intellectually dishonest at
worst.

The exception is what I've said here. What Arny said is worthless, but
that describes just about everything he says. But if it's actually
true, it can't be _reasonably_ disproven (among those who listen to
reason).

Those silly 'objectivists.' They all lie and then try to get everybody
to agree with their distorted sense of reality.

I've already proven that both of you ideologues do that. You ALL reside
under a distorted sense of reality. At least in relation to audio; if
not many other things.

Arny Krueger exemplifies irony:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

I say its the exact opposite reason. If you have a brain as you allege,
then why can't you show evidence that you do by proving the tweaks
don't work? As you would ask "the subs" to do when they make stupid
unfounded assertions? Out of the entire newsgroup dismissing them, not
one "brain" here has been able to do that. Are YOU smart enough to do
that, Arny? Or are you just talking out of your ass like everyone else?
In fact, you've never even tried it so who are you to talk, and how are
you supposed to know they don't work, even in practice?

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was.

Do you think it'll ever get more useless than you are? And does that
mean you'll be announcing your retirement from RAO in 10 years?

How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

I think they might have a ways to go before they get to your level of
glibly accusing a multitude of innocent people of trafficking in child
pornography.

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 5:39 pm
Email:

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
"Fella."

Here's another example of nob's 'contributions' to r.a.o.

Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
attacks! And it's not *his* fault...

Sad.

I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 5:39 pm
Email:

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

I don't know I thought there was nothing lower than Middius, and then up
pops Singh. Just when you think he's the bottom of the barrel, up pops
"Fella."

Here's another example of nob's 'contributions' to r.a.o.

Note that Mr. Middius has not posted to this thread as of the time of
nob's 'gratuitous' attack. Poor nob! r.a.o. is a wasteland of personal
attacks! And it's not *his* fault...

Nor yours either, I suppose.

That wasn't an attack, it was a comment based on observation.

Sad.

I agree. Now put your pecker back in your pants, OK? What would your
kids think if they accidentally walked in and saw you like this?

It always comes down to some sort of sexual thing for you, doesn't it?

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

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
oil.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Mar 16 2006 4:50 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger"

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?


This is an utterly useless statement, no better than cheap political
propaganda. You want to talk about 'excluded middle' arguments?


Arny is a typical "demagog leader" of the borg.

wrote:

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

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
oil.

Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
never tested, as "snake oil".

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 03:38:35 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
wrote:

(Incidentally, what are closed-minded mindless sheep?)

very zen, if nothing else.

Ewe must be kidding. Are you trying to fleece people? If so, you
better hoof it out of here, before you get rammed, or at least pelted.
Quit trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, before you're
forced to go on the lamb or get skinned alive.

I could milk this all night...but Rick caught a salad, uh...

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried
them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!

Arny Krueger wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message


In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:


wrote in message
thlink.net


Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried
them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.


I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!



Jenn Jenn, you've been neglecting your duties in the eyes of the great
kroog Jenn. What have you done for the great kroog today Jenn?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried
them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

I don't comment on everything with which I agree or disagree if others
are doing so and I have nothing new to add.

In article .net,
wrote:

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

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

I agree.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?

I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
has classed up the place by giving everybody who want
them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have
tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not
all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence: "How low can
the so-called subjectivists go?"

I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new to
add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
coming back with an insult?

Jenn wrote:


Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
coming back with an insult?

Not if you re a borg and lick his ..um, sorry. But truth be the
truth, no matter how ugly or disgusting.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
has classed up the place by giving everybody who
want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many
have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet with holier-than-thou
subjectivists who can't seem to find the time to criticize anybody but
objectivists.

Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to the obvious BS we get
here from foul-mothed instigators like Fella and SHP.

I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups is
that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.
In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

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

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short, has
classed up the place by giving everybody who want them
free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even more useless
than
it
was. How low can the so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny. Not all
"subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks seriously.

That any do is a sad statement.

That there are markets at all for things like $400.00 volumen knobs or
that
some people have cryogenicly frozen their cables or believe that the
construction of their component rack has anything to do with the sound of
anything other than the turntable, or that soem people beleive that
lifting
cables off the floor improves the sound, or replacing a stock power cord
with a 250.00 one will change anything. There's quite a market for snake
oil.

Show proof that all of those items are fraudulent. Otherwise, you're
making a sad statement about your ignorance, and that of all
objectivists who denounce everything they don't understand and have
never tested, as "snake oil".

Request for proof of a negative, is proof that there is no proof to be
offered.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for short,
has classed up the place by giving everybody who
want them free tweaks, I'm just wondering how many
have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting even
more useless than it was. How low can the so-called
subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet with holier-than-thou
subjectivists who can't seem to find the time to criticize anybody but
objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It doesn't make
it true. It just seems impolite and inaccurate to ascribe traits to an
entire group like that.


Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to the obvious BS we get
here from foul-mothed instigators like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to non-called-for
insults by you, for example. The knife cuts both ways, so why
generalize?


I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can make a general point about the cowardice of
subjectivists without Jenn whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that. Why weasel out
of your statement?


One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we see on audio groups is
that subjectivists are really all about relativism. There are no fixed
reference points in their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.

Another overly general statement.

In the real world there are almost no audio technicans of note that aren't
objectivists, because part of technical competence involves finding fixed
reference points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
short, has classed up the place by giving
everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
even more useless than it was. How low can the
so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It
doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.


Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
non-called-for insults by you, for example.

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
profanity around here. Fact.

I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
Why weasel out of your statement?

No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward. You're worse than a coward you're
a biased coward. Like Weil you go ballistic over minor nits when they relate
to an so-called objectivist, while you're blind and dumb when subjectivists
**** all over the place not to mention logic and reason.

One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we
see on audio groups is that subjectivists are really all
about relativism. There are no fixed reference points in
their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.

Another overly general statement.

Prove me wrong with deeds not empty words, Jenn.

In the real world there are almost no audio technicans
of note that aren't objectivists, because part of
technical competence involves finding fixed reference
points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

Good to see you didn't try to weasel out of that, Jenn.

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny without him
coming back with an insult?

He's been known insult himself after losing track of who said what in a
thread.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

He's been known insult himself after losing track of who
said what in a thread.

Hmm, I say "coward" and shows his face? :-(

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ink.net

Now that SHP, (can we call you that) or S for
short, has classed up the place by giving
everybody who want them free tweaks, I'm just
wondering how many have tried them?

Nobody with a brain.

It is hard to believe, but this place is getting
even more useless than it was. How low can the
so-called subjectivists go?

Way to put people into groups and judge them, Arny.

Something about about 8 years of experience on Usenet
with holier-than-thou subjectivists who can't seem to
find the time to criticize anybody but objectivists.

People could say the same about just about any group. It
doesn't make it true. It just seems impolite and
inaccurate to ascribe traits to an entire group like that.


Not all "subjectivists" take those kind of tweaks
seriously.

Can't prove it by me. Can't prove it by the google
record.

I've noticed your many denounciations of SHP's crazy
tweeks Jenn. Not!

Avoidance of my point noted.

It's just an unsupported claim. What is there of
substance to avoid?

My point was totally supported by your initial sentence:
"How low can the so-called subjectivists go?"

Show me a general trend of subjectivists objecting to
the obvious BS we get here from foul-mothed instigators
like Fella and SHP.

Show me a general trend of objectivists objecting to
non-called-for insults by you, for example.

What insults? I'm just making statements that are objectively true.

Calling someone a coward is not an insult?


The knife cuts both ways, so why generalize?

Subjectivists lead the pack when it comes to insults, name-calling and
profanity around here. Fact.

Probably true, but it's not because they are subjectivists.


I don't comment on everything with which I agree or
disagree if others are doing so and I have nothing new
to add.

That's the coward's road - it suits you well.

Does everyone notice how one can't make a point to Arny
without him coming back with an insult?

Does anyone notice how one can't make a general point
about the cowardice of subjectivists without Jenn
whining about it?

You implied that I'm a coward. Everyone can see that.
Why weasel out of your statement?

No weasel Jenn - I think you're a coward.

LOL In what way?

You're worse than a coward you're
a biased coward.

Sure, I have biases. Everyone does.

Like Weil you go ballistic over minor nits when they relate
to an so-called objectivist, while you're blind and dumb when subjectivists
**** all over the place not to mention logic and reason.

Where have I "gone ballistic" over minor nits?


One of the problems with so-called subjectism that we
see on audio groups is that subjectivists are really all
about relativism. There are no fixed reference points in
their worlds - just what makes them feel good or bad.

Another overly general statement.

Prove me wrong with deeds not empty words, Jenn.

I'm what you would call a "subjectivist" and I have many "fixed
reference points" in my world.


In the real world there are almost no audio technicans
of note that aren't objectivists, because part of
technical competence involves finding fixed reference
points and basing far-reaching decisions on them.

Good to see you didn't try to weasel out of that, Jenn.

I don't weasel out of things, Arny.