Arny Krueger a écrit :
"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:07:32 -0600, dave weil
wrote:


On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass
can
damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't
make
it perfectly safe.

I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
art.


http://www.iger.bbsrc.ac.uk/Community/GrassArt.htm

You lose.


Again. ;-)

Louder !!!
....He is deaf. )


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Iain Churches said:

1. The violinists

Careful! It says "violists."

Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
viol, with six strings, was indeed used.

But, there again, perhaps he just can't spell:-))

Krooglish is the ideal dialect for whitewashing small differences. :-)

Are you the Andy Cowley who is ****ed off at me because I potted your
wife's countryman, the little Serbian fascist Choky?

Andy Cowley wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:



Andre Jute
Precision is the first scientific virtue


Second to honesty, but you wouldn't know about that.

It appears that your accusation about Arnie is in
fact Jute Lie No. 1.618 * 10^99. Orchestral
musicians _do_ indeed suffer from noise induced
hearing damage. Care to apologise?

Not at all. You see, your bumbuddy Krueger spouted off about a group of
people without discovering which group of people they were. I carefully
didn't tell him which class of performers I used for my tests. They
weren't orchestral musicians.

Now Krueger, who pretends to be a scientist, having spouted off on a
subject, is running around trying to discover what the subject was.
Neat little experiment to discover what Krueger is made of, don't you
think? He clearly has no understanding of scientific method, for a
start.

For another thing, if Krueger had any decency, he would have admitted
his error immediately and apologized. Instead he tries to cover up with
personal abuse.

You're idiot for trying to defend the indefensible, Cowley. You're a
hypocrite, Cowley, for defending indefensible scum like Krueger who is
caught out in a gross lie -- because you have some personal beef with
me.

Andy

Unsigned out of contempt
Science is an impersonal art without room for personalities

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Andre Jute wrote:
Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely to
be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
about orchestral performers.

You're lying again. He specifically mentioned them.


In fact, Krueger doesn't know about which musicians he made this
blanket accusion of hearing damage because I never said which
performers I used.

Actually you did in at least one post.

Really. Then why didn't Krueger talk about them? Why did Krueger talk
about a subject of which he knew nothing and then, when it was pointed
out to him, start trying to find out if the subject was orchestal
layers, piccolo players, singers, etc, etc, a whole long list.

Tell me Mr Mickey McMickey, does even a stage fool like you speak on a
subject you pulled out of the air, and give irrelevant references, and
abuse everyone else in the conversation, and then be forced to ask,
"Eh, what is the subject under discussion anyway?"

That is what Kruger did.

He doesn't know which performers I was talking about because I
carefully didn't tell him. It was a test I devised to discover if
Krueger honours the scienitific method. He clearly doesn't. Krueger has
no idea of scientific method. Krueger merely likes hearing the sound of
his own voice.

Krueger is a proven liar, and a clumsy oaf like you cannot prove
otherwise.

That is why Krueger is being asked specifically to:

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Get used to the fact that if it's about audio, Arny will have data to back
him up.

I've already proven that Krueger is a pretend-expert. Knowledgeable
people don't throw a lot of scare stories into the air and hope to hit
a target. They chose the target and then aim their information at it.
In this instance Krueger is still running around in circles like a dog
on bad dope, trying to find out the target.

You should know that I've already asked my professional associates to
look at Arnie's socalled ABX site. When their reports are in I shall,
if that site is still up, make and publish an analysis of Krueger's
gross misunderstandings and errors in placebo testing.

Andre Jute
Precision is the first scientific virtue

And one you don't seem to possess.

Oh, I'm demonstrating it to the satisfaction of all the better minds
than yours. That is why no one of any consequence tries to defend
Krueger. He has made an irretrievable error which displays at once his
ignorance and his lack of scientific rigour, his vicious character and
his deceitful debating method. I have a mailbox full of admiration from
my peers for another clever piece of work out of my online motivational
laboratory. I have won a lot of money in bets by predicting what
Krueger will do next.

You are blinded by love, Nyobe, Queen of Darkness.

Andre Jute

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

You should know that I've already asked my professional associates to
look at Arnie's socalled ABX site. When their reports are in I shall,
if that site is still up, make and publish an analysis of Krueger's
gross misunderstandings and errors in placebo testing.

I have no ABX site.

Jute, you lose!

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likelyto
be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
my tests.

THEN WHAT KIND OF MUSICANS DID YOU USE?

At you're getting a glimmering, Mike. I knew that if we explained it to
you often enough, you'd
You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.

STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

After Krueger, spouting off without knowing the subject, has already
given a hundred wrong answers.

Is that how you do science in America these days, Mike?

Let's look at that again:

STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

Eh? After all these lies from Krueger on a subject even you now admit
he was igorant on, how do you expect us ever to believe him again?

In any event, I already have the answer and Krueger doesn't. He is
still trying to find out what the question is -- after he spouted off a
hundred wrong answers.

So far data has been provided on many diffferent kind of perormers, what did
you use? People who play the Zither? Ducimer? Autoharp? Harmonica? Stop
being such a **** and get on with it.

Excuse me? I expose an abusive liar who postures as an expert -- and
you call me a ****?

You want a specific answer give specific data.

Try again, Mickey. I already have the answer. Krueger doesn't even have
the question -- you're trying to help him get the question -- but he
lies about the answer to question he has never heard.

I don't need the help of a pretend-expert like Krueger. None of us do.
You don't either.

Andre Jute
Precision is the essential art of science

Below my signature is a listing of all the anwers Krueger gave to a
question even his loyal sidekicks now admit Krueger didn't know.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site" -- Hi-Fi News & Record Review

http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com...g/hearing.html

"Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
cause
hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the high-frequencies.
The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
jackhammer at 30 feet.

"Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
high-frequency
harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while
practicing
to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri,
Eller
et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994; Teie
1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing
disorder,
with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common
maladies.
(Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)

http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm

"But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank
up
to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran opera
singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.

http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm

Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
have
a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).

And on, and on, and on...

Yup. And on and on and on irrelevantly drones Mr Arny Krueger,
pretend-expert

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Andre Jute wrote:
Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely
to
be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

While in this thread I'm glad to see Poopie do some work for a change
rather than just carp uselessly, the context of Krueger's lie was not
about orchestral performers.

You're lying again. He specifically mentioned them.


In fact, Krueger doesn't know about which musicians he made this
blanket accusion of hearing damage because I never said which
performers I used.

Actually you did in at least one post.

Really. Then why didn't Krueger talk about them? Why did Krueger talk
about a subject of which he knew nothing and then, when it was pointed
out to him, start trying to find out if the subject was orchestal
layers, piccolo players, singers, etc, etc, a whole long list.

Tell me Mr Mickey McMickey, does even a stage fool like you speak on a
subject you pulled out of the air, and give irrelevant references, and
abuse everyone else in the conversation, and then be forced to ask,
"Eh, what is the subject under discussion anyway?"

That is what Kruger did.

He doesn't know which performers I was talking about because I
carefully didn't tell him. It was a test I devised to discover if
Krueger honours the scienitific method. He clearly doesn't. Krueger has
no idea of scientific method. Krueger merely likes hearing the sound of
his own voice.

Krueger is a proven liar, and a clumsy oaf like you cannot prove
otherwise.

That is why Krueger is being asked specifically to:

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Get used to the fact that if it's about audio, Arny will have data to
back
him up.

I've already proven that Krueger is a pretend-expert. Knowledgeable
people don't throw a lot of scare stories into the air and hope to hit
a target. They chose the target and then aim their information at it.
In this instance Krueger is still running around in circles like a dog
on bad dope, trying to find out the target.

You should know that I've already asked my professional associates to
look at Arnie's socalled ABX site. When their reports are in I shall,
if that site is still up, make and publish an analysis of Krueger's
gross misunderstandings and errors in placebo testing.

Andre Jute
Precision is the first scientific virtue

And one you don't seem to possess.

Oh, I'm demonstrating it to the satisfaction of all the better minds
than yours. That is why no one of any consequence tries to defend
Krueger. He has made an irretrievable error which displays at once his
ignorance and his lack of scientific rigour, his vicious character and
his deceitful debating method. I have a mailbox full of admiration from
my peers for another clever piece of work out of my online motivational
laboratory. I have won a lot of money in bets by predicting what
Krueger will do next.

You are blinded by love, Nyobe, Queen of Darkness.

Andre Jute


You are demonstrating that you are a blustering ****head without as ****ing
clue aobut the scientific method or simple decency.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281:

professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are likely
to
be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds

Prove this vicious generalization, Krueger.

Krueger, I know all that stuff below. But it is about orchestral
musicians and singers and jazzmen. They're not the musicians I used for
my tests.

THEN WHAT KIND OF MUSICANS DID YOU USE?

At you're getting a glimmering, Mike. I knew that if we explained it to
you often enough, you'd
You rashly made a statement in a particular context about
musicians whose description you did not know. Now I'm asking you to
prove it. None of the stuff below is more than marginally relevant.
Stop wriggling and get on with your proof.

STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

After Krueger, spouting off without knowing the subject, has already
given a hundred wrong answers.

Is that how you do science in America these days, Mike?

Let's look at that again:

STOP PLAYING GAMES AND GI E SPECIFICS ON THE KIND OF PEOPLE YOU USED AND
YOU'LL GET A SPECIFIC ANSWER

Eh? After all these lies from Krueger on a subject even you now admit
he was igorant on, how do you expect us ever to believe him again?

In any event, I already have the answer and Krueger doesn't. He is
still trying to find out what the question is -- after he spouted off a
hundred wrong answers.

So far data has been provided on many diffferent kind of perormers, what
did
you use? People who play the Zither? Ducimer? Autoharp? Harmonica? Stop
being such a **** and get on with it.

Excuse me? I expose an abusive liar who postures as an expert -- and
you call me a ****?

You want a specific answer give specific data.

Try again, Mickey. I already have the answer. Krueger doesn't even have
the question -- you're trying to help him get the question -- but he
lies about the answer to question he has never heard.

I don't need the help of a pretend-expert like Krueger. None of us do.
You don't either.

Andre Jute
Precision is the essential art of science

Below my signature is a listing of all the anwers Krueger gave to a
question even his loyal sidekicks now admit Krueger didn't know.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site" -- Hi-Fi News & Record Review

http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com...g/hearing.html

"Musical instruments can generate considerable sound and thus can also
cause
hearing loss. The most damaging type of sounds is in the
high-frequencies.
The piccolo generates sound levels up to 112 dB.roughly equivalent to a
jackhammer at 30 feet.

"Violins and violas can be sufficiently loud to cause permanent hearing
loss. This is typically worse in the left ear which is nearer the
instrument. Unlike other instruments, the ability to hear the
high-frequency
harmonics is crucial to these musicians. Mutes can be used while
practicing
to reduce long term exposure. (Karlsson, Lundquist et al. 1983; Ostri,
Eller
et al. 1989; Royster, Royster et al. 1991; Sataloff 1991; Palin 1994;
Teie
1998; Obeling and Poulsen 1999; Hoppmann 2001; Kahari, Axelsson et al.
2001). In a study of rock/Jazz musicions, almost 3/4 had a hearing
disorder,
with hearing loss, hyperacusis and tinnitus being the most common
maladies.
(Kaharit, Zachau et al. 2003)

http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm

"But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger
halls
with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to
crank
up
to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
front of the brass, have been deafened as a result. And some veteran
opera
singers, thanks to years of being screeched at by their fellow divas at
close range, have lost a good deal of hearing.

http://www.lhh.org/noise/facts/music.htm

Studies show that 37% of rock musicians and 52% of classical musicians
have
a measurable hearing loss (Chasin, M., 1998).

And on, and on, and on...

Yup. And on and on and on irrelevantly drones Mr Arny Krueger,
pretend-expert

So far he's demonstrated far more audio expertise than you have.

Krueger has admitted his guilt so stop wasting everyone's time with
your slothlike devotion to a proven charlatan. -- Andre Jute

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lionel wrote:
Dédé Jute a écrit :

Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
were not orchestral.


Prove it !!!

You're getting hysterical, Lionel.

Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
what they play or where.

He didn't tell a lie you stupid ass. He gave data that was applicable to
many different kinds of musicans. That whatever people you claim to have
tested aren't on the list is not a lie.

It is up to him to find out who they are and
what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
them.

Provide the information about who they are.

I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
escape the consequences of his lies.

I can't imagine why you would not state what kind of musicans you are
talking about unless they don't exist or you already know there is data that
backs up his point.

If Krueger were a decent human being, or a moral person, or a
Christian, he would admit he made a terrible mistake, apologise and
promise to improve his behaviour. Instead he's launched on a campaign
of name-calling.

If you were a decnet human being you'd stop the stupid charade and state
what kind of people you tested. Your refusal to do casts you in a bad light
not him.

"Precision is the essential art of science"

Indeed, as I am demonstrating, in competent hands precision is a
rapier.

And you're being cut to shreds.


PS : you can go to bed now, you will start to lie again in few hours. ;-)

The inane grimacing picon won't save your hero or you, you wretched
little piece of sewerage. The difference between you and me is that I
prove every point twice over. I have proved that Krueger is a wilful
liar.

The only thing you proved is you are **** and von artist.

You can try to prove that I ever told a single lie or you can
apologise now for calling me a liar. One or the other or you're scum,
and I shall be reminding the world of it.

The only thing you're doing is proving once again what a scummy piece of
**** you are.

Unsigned out of contempt

You are contemptable that much is true.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Krueger has admitted his guilt so stop wasting everyone's time with
your slothlike devotion to a proven charlatan. -- Andre Jute

Jute lie number 12,258. He admitted no such thing.


wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lionel wrote:
Dédé Jute a écrit :

Perhaps you're having a linguistic misunderstanding, Lee-oooh-knell. I
couldn't have "done an ass of himself" because the performers involved
were not orchestral.


Prove it !!!

You're getting hysterical, Lionel.

Arny Kruger told a lie about performers without knowing who they are or
what they play or where.

He didn't tell a lie you stupid ass. He gave data that was applicable to
many different kinds of musicans. That whatever people you claim to have
tested aren't on the list is not a lie.

It is up to him to find out who they are and
what they play and where. Then it is up to him to prove his lie about
them.

Provide the information about who they are.

I cannot imagine why you believe I should help slime like Arny Krueger
escape the consequences of his lies.

I can't imagine why you would not state what kind of musicans you are
talking about unless they don't exist or you already know there is data
that
backs up his point.

If Krueger were a decent human being, or a moral person, or a
Christian, he would admit he made a terrible mistake, apologise and
promise to improve his behaviour. Instead he's launched on a campaign
of name-calling.

If you were a decnet human being you'd stop the stupid charade and state
what kind of people you tested. Your refusal to do casts you in a bad
light
not him.

"Precision is the essential art of science"

Indeed, as I am demonstrating, in competent hands precision is a
rapier.

And you're being cut to shreds.


PS : you can go to bed now, you will start to lie again in few hours.
;-)

The inane grimacing picon won't save your hero or you, you wretched
little piece of sewerage. The difference between you and me is that I
prove every point twice over. I have proved that Krueger is a wilful
liar.

The only thing you proved is you are **** and von artist.

You can try to prove that I ever told a single lie or you can
apologise now for calling me a liar. One or the other or you're scum,
and I shall be reminding the world of it.

The only thing you're doing is proving once again what a scummy piece of
**** you are.

Unsigned out of contempt

You are contemptable that much is true.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out.

It's just more defensive hair-splitting.

Nonsense, my dearArny. You are the one who is constantly
rattling on about precision, so please be precise.

Fact is that musical instruments and voices can easily be loud enough that
they will damage any ears that are nearby, especially after protracted
exposures.

The same applies to motor cyle engines, car engines, cement mixers, or a
million other sources of noise at high level.

Look, perfectly innocent and common experiences like cutting the grass can
damage your ears. Just because its done in the pursuit of art doesn't make
it perfectly safe.

Agreed.

Iain

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Jenn wrote:

http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm

"... Countless violists, who sit right in
front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.

1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

Careful! It says "violists."

Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
viol, with six strings, was indeed used.

Someone would have to hit you with one to damage your hearing!

Indeed.

Henry VIII referred to the viol as "The most gentle and pleasing
instrument of musicke"

Iain

Dédé Jute a écrit :

Krueger has admitted his guilt so stop wasting everyone's time with
your slothlike devotion to a proven charlatan. -- Andre Jute

"Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone who criticizes your
hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your conclusion."


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Iain Churches a écrit :
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...


Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out.

It's just more defensive hair-splitting.


Nonsense, my dearArny. You are the one who is constantly
rattling on about precision, so please be precise.


Just do like most of the contributors have done. The number of links and
example posted in this thread have clearly demonstrated that people on
RAO have the urgent *need* to kill what could be a dramatic a priori.

BTW you will note that the person at the origin of the statement :
"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."
prefers to not divulgate the *scientific* method which has allowed the
recruitment of his listening panel in a group of people recognized "at
risk" concerning hearing problem.


Did you request for precision ?
You are right : "Precision is the essential art of science"... :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Iain Churches wrote:
"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Iain Churches" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Jenn wrote:

http://homepages.kdsi.net/~sherman/hearingloss.htm

"... Countless violists, who sit right in
front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.

1. The violinists don't sit "right in front of the brass".
2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

Careful! It says "violists."

I dislike that word intensely. It conjures up all the wrong images. We
were talking about it once and Keith Pascoe of the Vanbrugh SQ said,
"Not me. I've had too much beer already."

Was this Arny again? Maybe he has special information
relating to baroque (pre-classical) ensembles, where the
viol, with six strings, was indeed used.

Someone would have to hit you with one to damage your hearing!

Indeed.

Henry VIII referred to the viol as "The most gentle and pleasing
instrument of musicke"

I can just see Krueger, after a quick foray into Google, claiming those
were all viola da gamba, and misconcluding that *therefore* (his
favourite word of misdirection and miscomprehension) they were *big*
and *loud*. In fact, perhaps I should have waited for him to do so...
The name is misleading; at the time it applied to any viol played on
the lap or between the legs; none of them were the size of later the
instruments segueing (1) into the size we know today.

Iain

Andre Jute

(1) Last month I was discussing a script with a film director. The word
segue is used for a particular kind of transition employing sound
overlap to establish location- or time-shift. In da moom pitchers it is
pronounced sea-gew. I asked him about it. He didn't know there is a
musical connotation or another pronunciation. "Those musicians steal
from everybody," he assured me earnestly. I invented a sudden
inspiration that could only be satisfied by an instant walk alone along
the beach where he couldn't hear me laugh.

Andy Cowley wrote:

Jenn wrote:

"But Furtwängler's story illustrates a downside. To fill the larger halls
with sufficient sound, the voices, instruments and ensembles had to crank up
to potentially ear-damaging levels. Countless violists, who sit right in
front of the brass, have been deafened as a result.

2. The last sentence is obvious hyperbole. "Deafened"?

Yes, deafened - having their hearing capabilities diminished.
Deafness is not an absolute but a whole spectrum of impairments.

Yes, you just don't just go deaf, like some turning down the volume control.
Young people think that's how it happens, and there will
always be a volume control to turn up to compensate.

Ah no, ppl get all these noises in their ears, bad enough to send ppl crazy,
or destroy social life.
And perhaps slight noise becomes crashingly loud, so you can't even wash the
dishes
without thinking the clank of the plates is "deafening".

Being blinded means having one's sight removed,
usually blinded means just that, no sight, so we say partially blinded
or sight impaired, we should say the same about hearing....

Patrick Turner.



Andy

Andre Jute a écrit :


Andre Jute

(1) Last month I was discussing a script with a film director.

5. If people are watching just inflate a little bit more your ego and
use it as a screen.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Dédé Jute a écrit :

paul packer wrote:

On 15 Dec 2005 05:51:44 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:



3. They are ineffably stupid, best seen in their self-laceration, of
which Lionel several times assualting me after I demonstrated on his
skin that I am not a victim, is a good example.

Is the misspelling "assualt" to check if we're reading the full text?


Now, do I sound like the sort of fellow who would play a sly trick like
that?

Nah, I blame the French for that slip of the fingers. I was sitting
here thinking in French so that the froggie slut could understand me
clearly and not mistake kicks to the goolies for a light bitchslapping,
then translating back into English so as not to give the false
impression that French is still a world language. Think in French for a
minute or two and you will see where the spelling error arises.


Oh, oh, Dédé feels oblige to answer me via a third party !!!

At least I know *one* coward Aussie now... ;-)




Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site" -- Hi-Fi News & Record Review



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Iain Churches wrote:



Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
time:-)

Any time Iain. :-)

Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
levels of audio perception often quite astounding.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)

Other posters have pointed out that the probable cause of hearing
damage is their own instruments, as evidenced by the lateral assymetry
of the damage in violinists. Instruments which produce higher
frequencies are most damaging. Although the trained perceptions
of a skilled musician can probably distinguish subtleties most
of us are unaware of, this is likely to be the result of 'post
processing', i.e. brain activity, rather than superior hearing.
The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
best ears. Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
would probably be the best.

"Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"

All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
least as much about the listener as the source.


best

Andy

dave weil wrote:


I'd be interested in seeing someone cut the grass in the pursuit of
art.

Google for Andy Goldsworthy ;-)

best

Andy

On 16 Dec 2005 02:11:51 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Henry VIII referred to the viol as "The most gentle and pleasing
instrument of musicke"

I can just see Krueger, after a quick foray into Google, claiming those
were all viola da gamba

Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
of accordion.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...

Andy Cowley said:

All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
least as much about the listener as the source.

Oh god, now you've done it -- asserted the primacy of subjective sensory
impressions over the desiccated "facts" that crawl throughout the Hive.
Prepare for a torrent of BorgSmugSnot.

dave weil said:

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...

What wine goes with crabapple pie? G

Andre Jute wrote:

Are you the Andy Cowley who is ****ed off at me because I potted your
wife's countryman, the little Serbian fascist Choky?

No.
snip

It appears that your accusation about Arnie is in
fact Jute Lie No. 1.618 * 10^99. Orchestral
musicians _do_ indeed suffer from noise induced
hearing damage. Care to apologise?


Not at all. You see, your bumbuddy Krueger spouted off about a group of
people without discovering which group of people they were. I carefully
didn't tell him which class of performers I used for my tests. They
weren't orchestral musicians.

So what were they? Tightrope walkers? Tap dancers? or Musicians?
Other posters have given references to studies showing detectable
sound induced hearing loss in classical musicians due to their
own instruments so 'orchestras' are not part of the question.

Now Krueger, who pretends to be a scientist, having spouted off on a
subject, is running around trying to discover what the subject was.
Neat little experiment to discover what Krueger is made of, don't you
think? He clearly has no understanding of scientific method, for a
start.
Your post hoc justification is feeble. It seems that for once Arny
got it right. An now you are flailing around blustering to cover up
your faux pas. Your understanding of scientific method is not evident
from any of your posts.


For another thing, if Krueger had any decency, he would have admitted
his error immediately and apologized. Instead he tries to cover up with
personal abuse.

Which error was that?

You're idiot for trying to defend the indefensible, Cowley. You're a
hypocrite, Cowley, for defending indefensible scum like Krueger who is
caught out in a gross lie

ROTFLMAO!
If Jute "had any decency, he would have admitted his error immediately
and apologized. Instead he tries to cover up with personal abuse."
Pots and kettles. Biter bit. Oh, what a fool you are! Almost charming
in your imbecility. Certainly very amusing. More please.


Don't have a cow.

Andy

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:31:53 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



dave weil said:

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...

What wine goes with crabapple pie? G

Fat *******.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:34:44 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote:

Being blinded means having one's sight removed,
usually blinded means just that, no sight, so we say partially blinded
or sight impaired, we should say the same about hearing....

MOST people do. They say hearing impared. To most people, if you say
someone is deaf, it means to them that you are talking about someone
who can't hear at all or so little that they must resort to sign
language, not their Uncle Fred, the one with the hearing aid who
sometimes had to lean into the conversation.

Then again, you've got Frenchmen who apply the term to their "enemies"
just to puff themselves up. shrug Probably projecting worries about
their ongoing decrepitude.

I just threw in the last bit to give the little poodle something to
gnaw on.

Andy Cowley wrote:

Iain Churches wrote:


Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
time:-)

Any time Iain. :-)

Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
levels of audio perception often quite astounding.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)

Other posters have pointed out that the probable cause of hearing
damage is their own instruments, as evidenced by the lateral assymetry
of the damage in violinists. Instruments which produce higher
frequencies are most damaging. Although the trained perceptions
of a skilled musician can probably distinguish subtleties most
of us are unaware of, this is likely to be the result of 'post
processing', i.e. brain activity, rather than superior hearing.
The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
best ears. Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
would probably be the best.

Perhaps native indians living deep in the Amazon have the best hearing.



"Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"

I doubt this statement is entirely correct.

99% of valve amps have a flat response like any other amp, tests routinely
proove this,
20Hz to 20kHz is routinely the -1dB points in many amps i test.

Middle aged men have much varying response patterns depending on noise
exposures
and genetic variations.
All the ones I know don't like "bright" sounding speakers, or overly
"bright" recordings,
mainly because their ears have become slightly super sensitive to
loud sound, with discomfort occuring if the volume is to loud, especially
if there is too much treble that
simply isn't noticed by a 20 yr old.
A tone control makes sense to the brightness heard by many middle aged
ppl.

Lo and behold, when i test speakers that older guys complain about being
bright,
they generally are bright, often with a hump in the response at
between 2k and 10k, +3bD is typical, and a with an early roll off.
Guys like to sit on axis, and have ideas of setting up properly, and
speakers are
designed to work well in shops to give a slight loudness factor if
anything,
lest ppl think the flat response speaker has less detail.


Older ppl generally want **balance** in their lives, thay have moved from
being
besotted with their emotions and senses, and seek milder and more complex
entertainments that delight with complexity, and the lack of repetitions,
the boredoms,
without exceeding the capabilities of their slight sense limitations.
Lets face it, at 55 most ppl have reduced hearing abilities, worse
eyesight,
poorer sexual abilities, more aches and pains, poorer ability to taste and
smell,
and half have reduced mental acuman due to booze and smoking or other
abuse from the previous years, or because that's their genetics. And they
have put on weight and look
less delightful, and its all a matter of luck as how they survive the next
20 years.
Some think and act according to how they know they have become, and that's
a wise thing,
because you sure can't live as if you are 25 at 55, even if you are
stoinking rich.

I don't know a single person over 40 who likes more than about
85 dB average SPL levels.

But some middle aged men at least get obsessive about their interests,
and move into getting deep with their technical preferences, they want
ultimates, the best,
and some will get tube amps because not only do they find tube amps
give very blameless hi-fi, warmth, natural sound, plenty of power for the
walses and sambas,
they have some inherent attraction, a link to the past, a manifestation of
the primitive
and instinctive connection our beings have with fire, that goes back
millions of years.
Some middle aged men spend years re-building a hot rod,
others like doing all sorts of persuits that give them meaning,
even if it isn't all conscious, they just do it, inately knowing
that next year they may not be able to, that its nice to have had a past
when the future cannot seem to stretch out forever as it does
with a man of 20.

All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
least as much about the listener as the source.

Listening tests do test the listener....

Patrick Turner.




best

Andy

Andy Cowley a écrit :
Iain Churches wrote:



Sorry to butt in, Andy, when you are all having such a good
time:-)


Any time Iain. :-)


Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out. I work daily with classical performers who have never played
in a symphony orchestra, and are never likely to do so. I find their
levels of audio perception often quite astounding.

Just my 2 cents. Carry on:-)


Other posters have pointed out that the probable cause of hearing
damage is their own instruments, as evidenced by the lateral assymetry
of the damage in violinists. Instruments which produce higher
frequencies are most damaging. Although the trained perceptions
of a skilled musician can probably distinguish subtleties most
of us are unaware of, this is likely to be the result of 'post
processing', i.e. brain activity, rather than superior hearing.
The studies that other posters have referred to seem to indicate
that they are not a good group to sample if you wish to get the
best ears.

Very pertinent, IMHO.

Young people from rural areas in less developed countries
would probably be the best.


I must say *very*, very pertinent

"Valve amplifiers are favoured by middle aged men because the
colouration produced suits their normal hearing loss"

All listening tests are subjective and the results reflect at
least as much about the listener as the source.


best

Andy

Thank you Andy for this constructive participation.

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
of accordion.

This is a lie...
I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. or, in this case, the tree
doesn't stand far from the fallen apple...

Redneck philosophy ?

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

In article ,
Lionel wrote:

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
of accordion.

This is a lie...
I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?

Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:

http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/desc.../taxonomy.html

Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
accordians with buttons and no keyboard.

Next topic, quiche vs pie.

Stephen

MINe 109 a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:


dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
of accordion.

This is a lie...
I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?


Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:

http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/desc.../taxonomy.html

Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
accordians with buttons and no keyboard.

Next topic, quiche vs pie.

It's ok for me ! :-D

Thank you Stephen.


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:11:06 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

MINe 109 a écrit :
In article ,
Lionel wrote:


dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
of accordion.

This is a lie...
I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?


Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:

http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/desc.../taxonomy.html

Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
accordians with buttons and no keyboard.

Next topic, quiche vs pie.

It's ok for me ! :-D

Another view of the world. In fact, several contradictory views of the
world in the same link.

I can put up my own links, but because you're self-satisfied, I won't
destroy your self esteem.

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:11:06 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


MINe 109 a écrit :

In article ,
Lionel wrote:



dave "deaf" weil a écrit :



Yes, it's like Lionel trying to claim that the bandoleon isn't a form
of accordion.

This is a lie...
I have wrote that bandoleon isn't the same insturment than an accordion.
Do you really want that I prove you are a liar ?


Since I'm bored of this argument and have actually been exposed to
musical instrument taxonomy, I hope this settles the matter:

http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/desc.../taxonomy.html

Both are hand-blown (don't get excited, everyone) framed-reed free-reed
free aerophones. After that, it's buttons vs. keyboards and there are
accordians with buttons and no keyboard.

Next topic, quiche vs pie.

It's ok for me ! :-D


Another view of the world. In fact, several contradictory views of the
world in the same link.

I can put up my own links,

As I already told you 10s of time, *YOU* have built up all this *boring*
story of bandoleon/accordeon just to be able to place your famous :

"You lose

Again"

The best for you now is that you keep your links for your personal use
and read them again and again to help your weakening erection.
Poor Dave...

but because you're self-satisfied,

This is not a matter which has brought me some satisfaction. But it's
the case of all the subjects that I have tried to *discuss* with you and
that you was only interested to *win*.

I won't
destroy your self esteem.

Unlike your hearing, you can't. :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:53:26 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

Just for the record, Arny said "classical performers" not
orchestral musicians. There is a huge difference as Jenn pointed
out.

It's just more defensive hair-splitting. [...]

Shouldn't that be ear-splitting? :-)

- YD.




--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:45:34 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

This is not a matter which has brought me some satisfaction. But it's
the case of all the subjects that I have tried to *discuss* with you and
that you was only interested to *win*.

Sounds like it's YOU who's only interested in the win.

In fact, it was YOU who started this whole thing anyway, going after
an off-handed comment I made about enjoying the sound of the
accordion.

You need to look in the mirror and see how your behavior is so
suspect.

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:45:34 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


This is not a matter which has brought me some satisfaction. But it's
the case of all the subjects that I have tried to *discuss* with you and
that you was only interested to *win*.


Sounds like it's YOU who's only interested in the win.

Not true.
BTW it would be impossible to "win" a discussion against you.
Your argumentation belongs to the McKelvy type.
Does someone already "win" a debate against McKelvy ?
You see it's not possible... ;-)


In fact, it was YOU who started this whole thing anyway, going after
an off-handed comment I made about enjoying the sound of the
accordion.


Re-read the thread. Your memory is as weakening as your hearing.


You need to look in the mirror and see how your behavior is so
suspect.

I must leave now, so please study carefully again and again your links
and all your litterature concerning accordeons and bandoneons.
I suspect that it's not the last time that you are boringly bringing
back this subject to RAO.
Who knows, perhaps in the end you will finaly have a subject on which
you will be *really* performant... ;-)

Poor Stephen !!!

PS : if your familly and friends read RAO this should give them an idea
of present for your next birthday. :-D


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:00:34 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

In fact, it was YOU who started this whole thing anyway, going after
an off-handed comment I made about enjoying the sound of the
accordion.


Re-read the thread. Your memory is as weakening as your hearing.

NO, YOU need to go back and read the original thread and see who made
this an issue in the first place.

I'm glad though that you are leaving for a while. I can only hope that
it's to spend some quality weekend time with your loved ones. if
that's the case, then you will WIN.

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


NO, YOU need to go back and read the original thread and see who made
this an issue in the first place.

Prove it....

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 23:11:06 +0100, Lionel
wrote:


Next topic, quiche vs pie.

Real men don't eat quiche. Obviously pie wins by default.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:37:11 +0100, Lionel
wrote:

dave "deaf" weil a écrit :


NO, YOU need to go back and read the original thread and see who made
this an issue in the first place.

Prove it....

Thank you, Arnold.

I rest my case.