Hi Bruce,

just in case I've missed something.....

Do you ever post on-topic stuff about audio, or are your posts
exclusively personal insults ?

Do you have any technical knowledge about the science of electronics
that makes audio 'work' ?

Even if not - personal preferences about what you hear may be valid
contribution but I have seen none to date. I would be interested to hear
your 'philosophy of audio' from your perspective.

Kinda curious.


Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Even if not - personal preferences about what you hear may be valid
contribution but I have seen none to date. I would be interested to hear
your 'philosophy of audio' from your perspective.


You can always Google it.

"Pooh Bear" wrote

just in case I've missed something.....

You have, perhaps if you have the financial means you
might subscribe to an audio magazine. You appear
to lack the basic vocabulary background needed for
such a discussion.

Do you ever post on-topic stuff about audio, or are your posts
exclusively personal insults ?

Like Scott, Bruce is under the false perception that
Arny's overt intention to impugn his intentions and
reputation results in damage. They give him
weight he doesn't possess.


Do you have any technical knowledge about the science
of electronics that makes audio 'work' ?

An understanding of "electronics science" is at best
ancillary to understanding/application of high end.
Like computer applications knowledge of code is
less useful than an understanding of a program's
operation. It never hurts, however, to be well rounded
because it allows one to appreciate more elements
of the hobby.


Even if not - personal preferences about what you hear
may be valid contribution but I have seen none to date.
I would be interested to hear your 'philosophy of audio'
from your perspective.

Kinda curious.

I would be curious to know your empirical perspective
with high end equipment is, too.

Powell wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote

just in case I've missed something.....

You have, perhaps if you have the financial means you
might subscribe to an audio magazine. You appear
to lack the basic vocabulary background needed for
such a discussion.

Given that I'm a pro-audio designer - I'm fascinated that you think you
have 'words' that I wouldn't understand !

Maybe your 'words' are mischeivious ?


Graham

Clyde Slick wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Even if not - personal preferences about what you hear may be valid
contribution but I have seen none to date. I would be interested to hear
your 'philosophy of audio' from your perspective.


You can always Google it.










He can also get points by generating personal attack threads with the names of
RAO enemies of Krueger in the title.

Oh, I guess he's already discovered that.


Bruce J. Richman

Powell wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote

just in case I've missed something.....

You have, perhaps if you have the financial means you
might subscribe to an audio magazine. You appear
to lack the basic vocabulary background needed for
such a discussion.


He also appears to lack the ability to engage in Google searches and interpret
the posts found there relevant to RAO and Krueger.



Do you ever post on-topic stuff about audio, or are your posts
exclusively personal insults ?

Like Scott, Bruce is under the false perception that
Arny's overt intention to impugn his intentions and
reputation results in damage. They give him
weight he doesn't possess.


Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm certainly correct, as are many
others, about Krueger's intentions. The content of his posts speaks for
itself. But I certainly don't believe Krueger's libelous false claims cause me
any damage. The transparent and twisted agreement Krueger's triggers from a
few people such as Ferstler and McKelvy, plus a few people afraid to use their
real names such as "tor b", "torresists" and now, "Pooh Bear" is certainly
nothing I lose sleep over. You've made the mistake, Powell, of assuming
because I take the time to evaluate (professionally speaking) and expose this
charlatan and pathological liar that I think his comments are damaging. This
is not the case. While Scott has sued him for libel due to his RAO comments, I
have not chosen to do so as of this date. That said, I've challenged him to
print his garbage in an American print publication, and encouraged him to get
Ferstler to help him in that regard. Then I can "kill 2 birds with one stone".
Needless to say, they haven't the cajones to do so, because,. despite their
chronic delusions, they have a few moments of lucidity in which they know they
can't prove one iota of the false and libelous claims they've made about me.





Do you have any technical knowledge about the science
of electronics that makes audio 'work' ?

An understanding of "electronics science" is at best
ancillary to understanding/application of high end.
Like computer applications knowledge of code is
less useful than an understanding of a program's
operation. It never hurts, however, to be well rounded
because it allows one to appreciate more elements
of the hobby.


No argument with that point of view. However, Pooh Bear, like his apparent
role model, Krueger, has made the ridiculous and arrogant mistake of assuming
that unless one possesses an audio engineering or design background,
participation in an audio OPINION newsgroup is less valid. It is this kind of
twisted elitism that has contributed to the decline of RAO and the scorn of a
few pompous, holier-than-thou posters like Pooh Bear who presume to throw their
credentials in everybody's face in the vain hopes that they will gain
acceptance.

And before people accuse me of doing the same thing, I've only mentioned my
credentials in response to personal attacks for the most part, and for the
laughably futile attempts of psychologist wannabees like Krueger and Ferstler
to engage in psychobabble and amateur personality evaluations of their many
targets while remaining totally unqualified to do so.

Audio engineeering and/or design is not the *only* field that requires formal
training .People who ridicule those without formal audio training or
backgrounds, should ridicule themselves for their amateurish and invalid
attempts to "psychoanalyze" tghe behaviors and/or motives of others. They're a
lot less qualified to say anything about a person's personality characteristics
or motives than I am to say anything about my individual audio preferences.







Even if not - personal preferences about what you hear
may be valid contribution but I have seen none to date.
I would be interested to hear your 'philosophy of audio'
from your perspective.

Kinda curious.

I would be curious to know your empirical perspective
with high end equipment is, too.














Bruce J. Richman

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Powell wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote

just in case I've missed something.....

You have, perhaps if you have the financial means you
might subscribe to an audio magazine. You appear
to lack the basic vocabulary background needed for
such a discussion.

Given that I'm a pro-audio designer - I'm fascinated that you think you
have 'words' that I wouldn't understand !

Maybe your 'words' are mischeivious ?

Anything not measusrable is mischeivous.

From: Pooh Bear
Date: 8/14/2004 11:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


Powell wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote

just in case I've missed something.....

You have, perhaps if you have the financial means you
might subscribe to an audio magazine. You appear
to lack the basic vocabulary background needed for
such a discussion.

Given that I'm a pro-audio designer - I'm fascinated that you think you
have 'words' that I wouldn't understand !

You were the one claiming that "pace" had no meaning were you not?


Maybe your 'words' are mischeivious ?

Maybe you don't like the use of some figurative language in audio?