| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
RAHE challenges Stereophile.to a DBT contest
I challenged:
"It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. N.B. * Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.* So far whenever people are tested by DBT/ABX method the reported result is: "It all sounds the same" How gross the difference has to be to overcome the ABX/DBT hurdle and be heard by us peasants, the crossection of listeners?" You dug up one reference dated #August 1984#! "Here's one. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm" This was prof. S. Lip****z testing in 1984 one single witness: Tiefenbrun developer and manufacturer of all of the Linn stuff: loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges. Still active. A typical " statistically valid crosssection of audio listeners, typically random (not a preselected, trained group)". Right Mr. McKelvy? And they were NOT comparing components but testing some rash Tiefenbrun statements on matters of not the slightest importance to an average audiophile. Right Mr. McKelvy? And what was the upshot of this one and only ( you remember you said you had "many")1984 test you managed to dig up from the bottom of the barrel? Lipschitz said: "In summary, then, ****no**** evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably: (a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room, (b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or (c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit." Experienced, trained manufacturer-developer Tiefenbrun failed. Another NEGATIVE ABX\DBT test. What exacxtly was the point? Did you undergo a conversion and tried to strengthen my hand? Or are you so desperate that you quote- hoping that no one will check? Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message m... I challenged: "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. N.B. * Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.* So far whenever people are tested by DBT/ABX method the reported result is: "It all sounds the same" How gross the difference has to be to overcome the ABX/DBT hurdle and be heard by us peasants, the crossection of listeners?" You dug up one reference dated #August 1984#! "Here's one. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm" This was prof. S. Lip****z testing in 1984 one single witness: Tiefenbrun developer and manufacturer of all of the Linn stuff: loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges. Still active. A typical " statistically valid crosssection of audio listeners, typically random (not a preselected, trained group)". Right Mr. McKelvy? And they were NOT comparing components but testing some rash Tiefenbrun statements on matters of not the slightest importance to an average audiophile. Right Mr. McKelvy? And what was the upshot of this one and only ( you remember you said you had "many")1984 test you managed to dig up from the bottom of the barrel? Lipschitz said: "In summary, then, ****no**** evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably: (a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room, (b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or (c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit." Experienced, trained manufacturer-developer Tiefenbrun failed. Another NEGATIVE ABX\DBT test. What exacxtly was the point? Did you undergo a conversion and tried to strengthen my hand? Or are you so desperate that you quote- hoping that no one will check? Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
ludovic mirabel wrote:
I challenged: "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. N.B. * Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.* Part Two:Making a good loudspeaker - imaging, space and great sound in rooms. By Dr. Floyd E. Toole Vice President Acoustical Engineering Harman International Industries, Inc. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121 http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf See page 17, 18 and following pages: "Four expensive and highly regarded loudspeakers are evaluated in the shuffler room, in a double-blind test. These are the measurements. The listeners, of course, do not get to see them until it is all over." "After several rounds of listening to different kinds of music, several listeners yielded subjective preference ratings that were processed in a statistical analysis program. One of the results is a bar graph showing the average rating for the group of listeners, for each of the loudspeakers. The tiny lines on top of the bars show the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings are greater than these lines, the differences are probably statistically significant, and not due to chance. The two top-rated speakers are not significantly different from each other, according to this rule. The other two are truly less good." The test room is described at: A New Laboratory for Evaluating Multichannel Audio Components and Systems By Sean E. Olive, Brian Castro, and Floyd E. Toole Harman International Industries, Inc. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1018 http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/HarmanW...steningLab.pdf -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/ ..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis. Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message m... I challenged: "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. N.B. * Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.* So far whenever people are tested by DBT/ABX method the reported result is: "It all sounds the same" How gross the difference has to be to overcome the ABX/DBT hurdle and be heard by us peasants, the crossection of listeners?" You dug up one reference dated #August 1984#! "Here's one. http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm" This was prof. S. Lip****z testing in 1984 one single witness: Tiefenbrun developer and manufacturer of all of the Linn stuff: loudspeakers, turntables and cartridges. Still active. A typical " statistically valid crosssection of audio listeners, typically random (not a preselected, trained group)". Why would you want to exclude a pretrained group? You don't wanthe most likely people able to hear what is being compared? Right Mr. McKelvy? And they were NOT comparing components but testing some rash Tiefenbrun statements on matters of not the slightest importance to an average audiophile. I guess I'm not average. I thought it was interesting that a loudmouthed anti-digital idiot was shot down. Right Mr. McKelvy? And what was the upshot of this one and only ( you remember you said you had "many")1984 test you managed to dig up from the bottom of the barrel? Lipschitz said: I've been busy. I'll look more when I have a chance. Have you checked witht he AES, BBC. any makers of hearing aid equipment or other groups that have been using ABX? Is it your contention that none of the above use ABX or DBT? "In summary, then, ****no**** evidence was provided by Tiefenbrun during this series of tests that indicates ability to identify reliably: (a) the presence of an undriven transducer in the room, (b) the presence of the Sony PCM-F1 digital processor in the audio chain, or (c) the presence of the relay contacts of the A/B/X switchbox in the circuit." Experienced, trained manufacturer-developer Tiefenbrun failed. Another NEGATIVE ABX\DBT test. What exacxtly was the point? Maybe things sound more alike than you care to admit. Did you undergo a conversion and tried to strengthen my hand? What hand? Or are you so desperate that you quote- hoping that no one will check? Ludovic Mirabel I thought you wanted a good ABX test. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: I challenged: "It would if you could quote JUST ONE such test that was done on ANYTHING in audio, including loudspeakers, (see S. Olive's article ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that I quoted to begin with) that had a POSITIVE result. N.B. * Naturally it should be controlled (preplanned methods), statistically valid (significant numbers),randomised ( not a preselected, trained group) and truly double blind.* Part Two:Making a good loudspeaker - imaging, space and great sound in rooms. By Dr. Floyd E. Toole Vice President Acoustical Engineering Harman International Industries, Inc. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=121 http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/Loudspeakers&RoomsPt2.pdf See page 17, 18 and following pages: "Four expensive and highly regarded loudspeakers are evaluated in the shuffler room, in a double-blind test. These are the measurements. The listeners, of course, do not get to see them until it is all over." "After several rounds of listening to different kinds of music, several listeners yielded subjective preference ratings that were processed in a statistical analysis program. One of the results is a bar graph showing the average rating for the group of listeners, for each of the loudspeakers. The tiny lines on top of the bars show the 95% confidence intervals. If the differences in the ratings are greater than these lines, the differences are probably statistically significant, and not due to chance. The two top-rated speakers are not significantly different from each other, according to this rule. The other two are truly less good." The test room is described at: A New Laboratory for Evaluating Multichannel Audio Components and Systems By Sean E. Olive, Brian Castro, and Floyd E. Toole Harman International Industries, Inc. http://www.harman.com/wp/index.jsp?articleId=1018 http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/HarmanW...steningLab.pdf -- http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/ .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC) Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94 Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing for years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists, he's not going to admit it. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis. Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth. No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-) |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ink.net... I thought you wanted a good ABX test. I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp. |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net... Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing for years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists, he's not going to admit it. If you were not as immune to irony as Arny is. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ink.net... I thought you wanted a good ABX test. I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp. Middius tells us you do. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net Ludo doesn't really want this sort of information, he's been posturing for years. If he is actually exposed to what he already knows exists, he's not going to admit it. Agreed. It's just a troll. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis. Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth. No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-) Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt. |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis. Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth. No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-) Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt. No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: I thought you wanted a good ABX test. I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp. "At least" you didn't lug in a reference to gay marriage. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: I thought you wanted a good ABX test. I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp. "At least" you didn't lug in a reference to gay marriage. "at least" you are on topic: oxymorons. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis. Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth. No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-) Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt. No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject. I'm way too old to be one of your trainees. Sorry Art, but the fact is that Middius already had you very well trained. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis. Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth. No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-) Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt. No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject. I'm way too old to be one of your trainees. Sorry Art, but the fact is that Middius already had you very well trained. Sorry Arny, George doesn't even have a basement. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: I thought you wanted a good ABX test. I'd rather have a jumbo shrimp. "At least" you didn't lug in a reference to gay marriage. "at least" you are on topic: oxymorons. Failure to notice thuddingly subtle irony noted, note. you got me on that one. |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "S888Wheel" wrote in message ... From: "Arny Krueger" Date: 12/13/2004 6:21 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. Funny how it bites Arny on the ass on a regular basis. Then 'good science' has a 'bad taste' in its mouth. No Art, it is you have the bad taste in your mouth. Stop eating crap, and your mouth will taste better. This is a scientific fact, BTW. ;-) Confirmed via your ****-eating pcabx tests, no doubt. No Art, I've used you for my experimental subject. I'm way too old to be one of your trainees. Sorry Art, but the fact is that Middius already had you very well trained. Sorry Arny, George doesn't even have a basement. True, I've never heard of a room in a jail or mental hospital with its own basement. But, I never said he did. |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts Try opening your eyes. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message k.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts Try opening your eyes. Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message k.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message Duh Mikey is a complete idiot. Facts won't alter his religious preconceptions regarding his worship of bad science. Art, this compares how to your abhorrence of good science? I love good science; if only you could show me some. You wouldn't know good science if it bit you in the nose, Art. That's cause we don't see any from your gargantuam volume of posts Try opening your eyes. Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news  "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head. The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective. I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine control over cussing that one might pick up with military service. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head. The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective. I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine control over cussing that one might pick up with military service. Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter, then he declares victory. |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head. The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective. I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine control over cussing that one might pick up with military service. Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter, then he declares victory. I can't claim victory because Zelnicker ran too fast for me to catch him and beat him. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that he's very nasty. |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
nk.net "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that he's very nasty. Well, there's that, and then there is a raft of non-answers to a variety of relevant technical questions. I believe his final answer was that he was afraid I was going to work some of my debating trade mojo on him, so he was afraid to give an answer. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head. The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective. I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine control over cussing that one might pick up with military service. Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter, then he declares victory. I can't claim victory because Zelnicker ran too fast for me to catch him and beat him. Yes, he's way too fast for you. You'll never catch up. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that he's very nasty. He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick. |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
Clyde Slick said: dither ... Zeliniker He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick. He also proved Krooger doesn't know dither from blither. Jorge, It seems to me that you have been consumed by your feelings towards Arny. Apart from belittling him as often as possible, you really do have very little to say. Remember: Hate leads to anger, and we all the know the rest... |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. Absolute proof that they were all over Art's head. The real truth is that they were a study in how well Zelnicker could dodge questions that might be embarassing to him. He scored a little less deceptive than Atkinson, but no more effective. I do admit that Zelnicker can out-cuss me any day or night of the week, especially when I'm not trying. I sense that he lacks the fine control over cussing that one might pick up with military service. Typical Arny, he has his head handed to him on a platter, then he declares victory. I can't claim victory because Zelnicker ran too fast for me to catch him and beat him. Yes, he's way too fast for you. You'll never catch up. The choice to run rather than stand his ground was up to him. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... "Michael McKelvy" wrote in message news
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Open yours. Arny has been debunked by his 'betters' time after time again. How do you know? In what areas? Examples? For one, go to Google and look up the Zelnicker exchanges. You mean the dither nonsense? I was reading it at the time, Zeliniker went off on a profanity spewing rant and essentially proved only that he's very nasty. He proved that Arny is as thick as a brick. That's just your prejudices speaking, Art. By then I'd sent you off whipped, screaming for help, many times. |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote in message Schizoid Man said: He also proved Krooger doesn't know dither from blither. Jorge, ? Forgive me. I've lived in Texas too long. It seems to me that you have been consumed by your feelings towards Arny. Your diagnosis is erroneous. Apart from belittling him as often as possible, you really do have very little to say. And the job is nowhere near being finished. Remember: Hate leads to anger, and we all the know the rest... We do? Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| RAHE Moderators finally show their true colors | Audio Opinions | |||
| A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency | Audio Opinions | |||
| Latest RAHE Moderator Questionable Justification For Refusing My Posts | Audio Opinions | |||
| Memo to Krooborg | Audio Opinions | |||
| Neumann contest results | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
