FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a successful pilot experiment in individual human psychology
conducted using only the internet's own resources. The only cost was
the time of the researchers. There were no material costs.

VENUE
The Usenet consists of public correspondence groups accessible to
anyone on the Internet. It is a part of the Internet beside the World
Wide Web, accessible to anyone with a computer and an internet
connection.

BACKGROUND
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
engineer or a sound recording engineer. His professional qualifications
are not known. The only known sound recording he has done is of his
local church choir, of which he sends people copies. He claims to have
special expertise in placebo tests but, again, his professional
qualification or experience is unascertainable. He has a self-made
netsite on which he describes his methods; they would not earn an
undergraduate a pass mark. He is widely known, to the point of
notoriety, as a Usenet flamer, that is, an unscrupulous debater who
insists on winning every argument and will resort to extreme means to
counter or suppress the views of those who disagree with him.

Mr Krueger was warned in advance that he would be the subject of a
psychological study. Several of his likely associates were also warned
and all viewed the warning to him; we know this because they
contributed to the relevant threads. This study limited itself to
replicating subject Krueger's observed routine behaviour under
controlled circumstances for the purposes of benchmark description and
definition. No motivational manipulation was attempted.

THE HYPOTHESIS
That the subject Krueger has contempt for scientific method. That the
subject Krueger will use illegitimate means to win an argument. That
the subject Krueger will refuse to accept that he can be in error.

METHODOLOGY
An article was posted to the Usenet on a subject, listener preferences
between transistor and tube audio amplifiers, on which Krueger is known
to hold strong views. The article included a paragraph from a report on
a series of real placebo tests with the specific description of the
particular test subjects removed and substituted by a non-specific,
wordy description of the very large and varied generic class to which
they belong. Without the specific information on the particular test
subjects the article makes no sense, nor can it be criticised in
anything approaching a scientific or professional manner.

The absence of the necessary information was intended to be obvious to
anyone qualified to discuss or conduct placebo tests. Its obviousness
was tested: Twelve honours students were given this short article as
part of a coursework test and asked for a response within fifteen
minutes (just long enough to read it); all identified the anomaly and
asked for details of the test subject group.

The article was then provocatively (to Krueger) named "Why tubes are
the paradigm" and posted, when the opportunity arose, as an apparent
reply to pre-existing correspondence. The article and the resulting
thread is at:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...aa51186ea4b171

RESULT OF THE INITIAL TEST
Subject Krueger responded immediately in an aggressively hostile
manner.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...f9e1eb9 48304
He apparently did not notice, or if he noticed did not care, that the
test subjects were not specified. He did not ask for the test subjects
to be specified. Instead he stated that the tests could not be valid
because the generic group to which they belong, musical performers,
"are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds".
This is in fact true of small minority of the universe from which the
actual test subjects were drawn but not of the particular test
subjects. He then proceeded to claim that other named subgroups from
the universe were also either hearing-impaired or capable of impairing
their hearing (singers).

He did not at this time or at any later point succeed in identifying
the test subjects.

Subject Krueger offered further unscientific, spurious or personally
insulting reasons for doubting the results:
"(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music.
That they would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense."
This is of course impossible in tests where the subjects cannot see the
machines under test.
"(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
sure that
they are biased against modern technology."
A common smear tactic from subject Krueger's armory.
"(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that [are] endemic among
performers who must endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform."
Note "endemic" and "extraordinary SPLs" (sound pressure
levels), neither of which is justified by any evidence he proffered
either at this point or later.

These points were then argued with subject Krueger by team leader Jute
but Krueger snipped Jute's arguments and claimed:
" Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada)
critical points. Therefore they stand."
"snip empty rhetoric"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/9f37729ce5c847/db0142000dfc0120?q=%22Jute+has+properly+addressed+ (none)+(zero)+(nada)+critical%22&rnum=3#db0142000d fc0120

CONCLUSIONS OF THE FIRST TEST
All three strands of the hypothesis were proved correct as stated
1. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
He did not ask for the specifics of the test subject.
2. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments.
3. Subject Krueger will not admit error.

SECOND TEST
At this point it was decided to discover how far subject Krueger would
carry his denial of error. He was publicly bluntly confronted with
posing as an expert when he didn't know what the subject was. A new
thread was started for this purpose in which proof was demanded of his
statements in relation to the test subjects, which were still not
identified him:
"Classical performers hearing-damaged" - Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9730fa608eb787

The result was a great deal more personal abuse directed at subject
Krueger's interlocutors. Having been advised that he had not been
informed of the specifics of the test group, he still did not request
information about the particular test group. Instead he went at random
through a wide variety of performers from the huge possible universe,
attempting to prove with data he found on Google that the outcome of
the tests described in the original article "Tubes are the
paradigm" could not be true. He continued to insist that he was the
ultimate expert on the subject. Here is his final admission, after more
than 200 messages in various threads, of his error, complete with
further personal abuse:

"The definition of a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood. However,
Jute accuses me of lying because I talked about musicians:
'...without knowing who they are or what they play or where.'
Therefore, Jute has stipulated that I spoke in ignorance, not malice.
Therefore Jute is either ignorant of the meaning of simple English
words or is he himself lying."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...53f45437 e3c5

Six hours after subject Krueger finally admitted "I spoke in
ignorance" he was once more in denial, telling one of his followers:
"It definitely separated the posers from the players," implying
that he won the argument. He furthermore deliberately restricted
dissemmination of his message admitting ignorance to only one of the
newsgroups in the debate; it was the only one of his messages he so
restricted.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE SECOND TEST
All the conclusions of the first test were confirmed:

4. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
Having been clearly and repeatedly told that he did know all the
necessary facts, he still did not ask for the specifics of the test
subjects, he still pontificated as if he were an authority, regardless
of the fact that he could not say an authority on what.
5. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments, and personal abuse to intimidate those who
defeat him in straight argument.
6. Subject Krueger does not admit fallibility. When forced under severe
pressure to admit a gross error, he tries to limit dissemmination of
his admission, he tries to shift blame for it onto those who have
proved the error and within hours claims a victory, denying that he
committed the error.

COMPLETE REPORT
The full analysis with tables containing message counts and time
intervals will be available at the end of February. The appendix of
psycho-textual analysis will be available in May.
E&OE
JT, MH, RN, JK, supervised by AJ

You're a regular Ralph Greenson, Jute. Now give yourself a Nembutal
enema, **** off, and DIE!

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

Robert Morein wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
roups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

He molests collies.

dippyborg lied:

He molests collies.

That's better than servicing donkeys, as you do.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL
RESEARCH
Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks
at the very top of literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I
put a lot of work into a post, but Jute's efforts dwarf
mine.

Morein, just about everybody's efforts at anything worthwhile dwarf your's.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL
RESEARCH
Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks
at the very top of literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I
put a lot of work into a post, but Jute's efforts dwarf
mine.

Morein, just about everybody's efforts at anything worthwhile dwarf
your's.
Arny, I present to you the gift of a small edit. In the above sentence,
"your's" should be "yours". In fact, the contractive form you used does not
exist for the word "your." Your writing is, in fact, very typical of an
engineer. You have things to say, but at best, your prose is utilitarian.
More often, it is simply defective.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL
RESEARCH
Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks
at the very top of literary skills on usenet. Sometimes
I put a lot of work into a post, but Jute's efforts
dwarf mine.

Morein, just about everybody's efforts at anything
worthwhile dwarf your's.

Arny, I present to you the gift of a small edit.

Lame attempt at obfuscation.

Robert Morein wrote:

What does this guy actually do in real life?



Write posts like yours and then fap fap fap over them.


Adam

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
roups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

No doubt you've already done a Google. There's an Andre Jute who's a
thriller writer who also writes books on how to be a thriller writer,
plus appears to be have been everywhere and done everything. That
fits.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
roups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
creative writing to college kids.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In , Stewart Pinkerton wrote :

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
groups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a
level of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent
publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
creative writing to college kids.

It's not really surprising that such narcissic guy loves to replay "Dead
Poets Society" all the days of his life.
Too bad he's also confusing hedonism and epicurism. ;-)


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

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

Stewart Pinkerton, Postman of Spam, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
roups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post, but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
creative writing to college kids.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nope, I don't teach creative writing, though it is true that my
textbooks in writing are prescribed texts in various such courses.
Others of my books are prescribed in other courses. A novel of mine was
once prescribed as a text in a course at an English university for
high-level civil servants, soldiers and policemen in the anti-terrorist
branches; it was taught by Brigadier Richard Clutterbuck.

I'm interested in where we can find your college-level textbooks,
Pinkerton.

Some of my books, including novels and technical texts, with reviews,
can be found at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
The Times clearly didn't consult Pinkothicko before they wrote:
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he
describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and
ecological concerns are important.." -- Times Literary Supplement

Andre Jute
Interdisciplinary. Bend over, Pinko.

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

Stewart Pinkerton, Postman of Spam, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:57:08 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Andre Jute" wrote in message
roups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

Whoever Jute is, and regardless of his ethics, he ranks at the very top
of
literary skills on usenet. Sometimes I put a lot of work into a post,
but
Jute's efforts dwarf mine.

This futher arouses my curiousity about him. Regardless of his motives
or
ethics, which I will not judge here, the demonstrated skill implies a
level
of comfort and practice that can only be maintained by frequent
publication.

What does this guy actually do in real life?

He wrote some potboiler novels about twenty years ago, now he teaches
creative writing to college kids.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Nope, I don't teach creative writing, though it is true that my
textbooks in writing are prescribed texts in various such courses.
Others of my books are prescribed in other courses. A novel of mine was
once prescribed as a text in a course at an English university for
high-level civil servants, soldiers and policemen in the anti-terrorist
branches; it was taught by Brigadier Richard Clutterbuck.

I'm interested in where we can find your college-level textbooks,
Pinkerton.

Some of my books, including novels and technical texts, with reviews,
can be found at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
The Times clearly didn't consult Pinkothicko before they wrote:
"Jute has clearly conducted a great deal of research into everything he
describes, investing the novel with an air of prophecy. His moral and
ecological concerns are important.." -- Times Literary Supplement

Andre Jute
Interdisciplinary. Bend over, Pinko.

Of course if they saw what you write here, they'd be leading the charge to
have you sent to Bedlam.

Keerist...

Most anyone with a decent education is able to parse a sentence. Few
take the trouble. The problem is that even if the shovel is
gold-plated, the information being cast about may not be as good as the
shovel.

Frequent publication:

Not necessarily so. Those who respect the English (any, comes to it)
language will try to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Shakespeare put it most aptly when he wrote: Brevity is the soul of
wit. Dickens was paid by the word, so in his case, he had a special
interest in fulsome writing over the elegant and economical conveyance
of information. The presumption (at least on my part) is that this
venue should value information over style, and judge the information
and its clarity rather than the surrounding fluff and flummery.

All kidding aside, elegant prose with the sole and only purpose being
character assasination, even if perceived by the writer as true and
just, is so sad. I know absolutely nothing about Andre Jute except what
he has exposed to us here, and then only recently, and a litte from his
website. But, those things that are obvious are that he has a very
large and very fragile ego, and that he is the living embodyment of the
Peter Pan syndrome. I suspect that if one tip-toes around his ego, and
if one makes due provision for his self-image (not hardly the same
thing), he could be a very nice fellow....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Vannabe Vicked Wieckie sent a long miaow. She stormed into RAT a
fortnight ago and with prissy lips tried to tell me how I should
behave. She still hasn't discovered that no one with a fragile ego
survives long on the net. She is another little Kroogeroid control
freak who thinks that by denigrating her betters she will seem larger
than she is. Her fake humility, were it real, would be fully justified
by vast tundra empty of achievement and an arid soul full of
schadenfreude (which I already demonstrated, of course; google it). Who
wants to bet on how long before Vicked Wieckie flounces out in a huff?
Pick a week, let me know by e-mail how much you want to bet and I'll
give you odds.

Andre Jute

PS Wieckie-baby, prove that I ever in more than ten years on RAT struck
anyone who didn't strike me first, and I'll forego calling you a
slack-arse envious hypcrite who didn't do his homework and discover
that *everyone* I **** on struck me first. Including you.

pfjw aka Vannabe Vicked Wieckie, @aol.com miaows:
Keerist...

Most anyone with a decent education is able to parse a sentence. Few
take the trouble. The problem is that even if the shovel is
gold-plated, the information being cast about may not be as good as the
shovel.

Frequent publication:

Not necessarily so. Those who respect the English (any, comes to it)
language will try to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Shakespeare put it most aptly when he wrote: Brevity is the soul of
wit. Dickens was paid by the word, so in his case, he had a special
interest in fulsome writing over the elegant and economical conveyance
of information. The presumption (at least on my part) is that this
venue should value information over style, and judge the information
and its clarity rather than the surrounding fluff and flummery.

All kidding aside, elegant prose with the sole and only purpose being
character assasination, even if perceived by the writer as true and
just, is so sad. I know absolutely nothing about Andre Jute except what
he has exposed to us here, and then only recently, and a litte from his
website. But, those things that are obvious are that he has a very
large and very fragile ego, and that he is the living embodyment of the
Peter Pan syndrome. I suspect that if one tip-toes around his ego, and
if one makes due provision for his self-image (not hardly the same
thing), he could be a very nice fellow....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Andre,

Proving the negative is a logical fallacy, kiddo. The world is seldom
kind and owes no one anything, least of all appreciation or
recognition. And if I were to force myself to '**** back' at every
perceived slight real or imagined, there would not be enough time for
much of anything else, and I surely would be inviting attacks were they
not real in the first place. The brute fact of the matter is that
pretty much the entire world simply does not care.

There are only seven fallacies. So far, in two posts you have managed
three. I am sure with a wee bit of research, I could find all seven in
your ramblings. However, you are yourself a most excellent and enduring
demonstration of the Pathetic Fallacy... and lest you protest from
faint knowledge yet again, that has NOTHING to do with pathos.

One wonders if you would actually pass the Turing Test.

Your most prolific fallacy is the use of the "Bellman's Proof",
something that again will likely escape you without further research.
It is sorta-kinda a combination of two of the classical references,
being circular reasoning and false premises. Betcha Don would get this
one right away as well? Don? (Actually, I hope you are not spinning
your wheels reading this tripe.)

Now, keep in mind that fragile egos _always_ have something to prove.
Those that manage to channel the insecurity to productive ends quite
typically shine in the real world. Those who do not often subsume very
real achievements in meaningless unnecessary defenses and irrational
accusations. Were you so damned sure of your facts, you would have no
need for pointless rants and painfully silly dissertations on exactly
how many angels might dance on the head of a theoretical pin of unknown
dimensions... to an entirely uncaring audience. The saddest part of
all.

What's worse is that you and Phil spend a good deal of time answering
your own posts. Steve Dinius, a waste-of-air from another NG has that
habit, and he admits to being on very strong meds. What's your excuse?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

wrote in message
ups.com...
Andre,

Proving the negative is a logical fallacy, kiddo. The world is seldom
kind and owes no one anything, least of all appreciation or
recognition. And if I were to force myself to '**** back' at every
perceived slight real or imagined, there would not be enough time for
much of anything else, and I surely would be inviting attacks were they
not real in the first place. The brute fact of the matter is that
pretty much the entire world simply does not care.

There are only seven fallacies. So far, in two posts you have managed
three. I am sure with a wee bit of research, I could find all seven in
your ramblings. However, you are yourself a most excellent and enduring
demonstration of the Pathetic Fallacy... and lest you protest from
faint knowledge yet again, that has NOTHING to do with pathos.

One wonders if you would actually pass the Turing Test.

Your most prolific fallacy is the use of the "Bellman's Proof",
something that again will likely escape you without further research.
It is sorta-kinda a combination of two of the classical references,
being circular reasoning and false premises. Betcha Don would get this
one right away as well? Don? (Actually, I hope you are not spinning
your wheels reading this tripe.)

Now, keep in mind that fragile egos _always_ have something to prove.

I feel reasonably confident that the real Andre Jute has a perfectly fine
ego, but the person who posts here is likely not that person.

Those that manage to channel the insecurity to productive ends quite
typically shine in the real world. Those who do not often subsume very
real achievements in meaningless unnecessary defenses and irrational
accusations. Were you so damned sure of your facts, you would have no
need for pointless rants and painfully silly dissertations on exactly
how many angels might dance on the head of a theoretical pin of unknown
dimensions... to an entirely uncaring audience. The saddest part of
all.

What's worse is that you and Phil spend a good deal of time answering
your own posts. Steve Dinius, a waste-of-air from another NG has that
habit, and he admits to being on very strong meds. What's your excuse?

It is my opinion, that whoever is behind the Andre Jute persona, they are
only here for the puprose of making themeslves a pain in the ass. If this
is the real Andre Jute then, what a ****head.

in article ,
at wrote on 12/20/05 4:32 PM:

Keerist...

Most anyone with a decent education is able to parse a sentence. Few
take the trouble. The problem is that even if the shovel is
gold-plated, the information being cast about may not be as good as the
shovel.

Frequent publication:

Not necessarily so. Those who respect the English (any, comes to it)
language will try to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Shakespeare put it most aptly when he wrote: Brevity is the soul of
wit. Dickens was paid by the word, so in his case, he had a special
interest in fulsome writing over the elegant and economical conveyance
of information. The presumption (at least on my part) is that this
venue should value information over style, and judge the information
and its clarity rather than the surrounding fluff and flummery.

All kidding aside, elegant prose with the sole and only purpose being
character assasination, even if perceived by the writer as true and
just, is so sad. I know absolutely nothing about Andre Jute except what
he has exposed to us here, and then only recently, and a litte from his
website. But, those things that are obvious are that he has a very
large and very fragile ego, and that he is the living embodyment of the
Peter Pan syndrome. I suspect that if one tip-toes around his ego, and
if one makes due provision for his self-image (not hardly the same
thing), he could be a very nice fellow....

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA



Oh dear! You ****ed of Peter Pan coming to his defense. That's gratitude
for ya, and well deserved at that.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH

This and the foloowing are the biggest batch of unmitigated bull**** I have
ever seen.
You made this up after having your ass handed to you and losing in a
discussion on why Tubed SET amps are ****, a fact which everyone but a few
idiots seems to realize.
Allegedly conducting a DBT of some sort of musicans, you were then made
aware of the fact that they tend not to hear very well.


BACKGROUND
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
engineer

An EE. This is true even if you don't beleive it.

or a sound recording engineer.
A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

His professional qualifications
are not known.

That is a lie.

The only known sound recording he has done is of his
local church choir, of which he sends people copies. He claims to have
special expertise in placebo tests but, again, his professional
qualification or experience is unascertainable.

Not true.

He has a self-made
netsite on which he describes his methods; they would not earn an
undergraduate a pass mark. He is widely known, to the point of
notoriety, as a Usenet flamer, that is, an unscrupulous debater who
insists on winning every argument and will resort to extreme means to
counter or suppress the views of those who disagree with him.

He insists on winning when the truth is on his side. In audio discussion,
that is nearly all the time.




Mr Krueger was warned in advance that he would be the subject of a
psychological study.

The person needing to be studied is the obviously deranged habitual liar,
Andre Jute.

THE HYPOTHESIS
That the subject Krueger has contempt for scientific method. That the
subject Krueger will use illegitimate means to win an argument. That
the subject Krueger will refuse to accept that he can be in error.

Which you failed to demonstrate, since it was not a scientific study that
was attempted.


METHODOLOGY
An article was posted to the Usenet on a subject, listener preferences
between transistor and tube audio amplifiers, on which Krueger is known
to hold strong views.

It has nothing to do with strong views, it has to do with the fact that tube
amplifers are technically inferior to transistor amplifers in all but very
rare instances. When they aren't inferior, they sound identical to
tranistor amplifers, that is they have so signnature sound of their own.

The article included a paragraph from a report on
a series of real placebo tests with the specific description of the
particular test subjects removed and substituted by a non-specific,
wordy description of the very large and varied generic class to which
they belong. Without the specific information on the particular test
subjects the article makes no sense, nor can it be criticised in
anything approaching a scientific or professional manner.


Nor was, other than to point out that musicans tend to suffer from hearing
loss.

The absence of the necessary information was intended to be obvious to
anyone qualified to discuss or conduct placebo tests.

More likely you did no such tests and just make this up as you go along.

Its obviousness
was tested: Twelve honours students were given this short article as
part of a coursework test and asked for a response within fifteen
minutes (just long enough to read it); all identified the anomaly and
asked for details of the test subject group.

The article was then provocatively (to Krueger) named "Why tubes are
the paradigm" and posted, when the opportunity arose, as an apparent
reply to pre-existing correspondence. The article and the resulting
thread is at:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...aa51186ea4b171

RESULT OF THE INITIAL TEST
Subject Krueger responded immediately in an aggressively hostile
manner.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...f9e1eb9 48304

That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers, are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.

Hardly hostile, a simple statement of fact.



He apparently did not notice, or if he noticed did not care, that the
test subjects were not specified. He did not ask for the test subjects
to be specified. Instead he stated that the tests could not be valid
because the generic group to which they belong, musical performers,
"are likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds".

Please point out where in the post referenced by you where he said any such
thing.
Here is the rest of the post to help you.

37. Arny Krueger
Dec 9, 8:56 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.audio.tubes
From: "Arny Krueger" - Find messages by this
author
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:56:19 -0500
Local: Fri, Dec 9 2005 8:56 am
Subject: Why tubes are the paradigm
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show original | Report Abuse



"Andre Jute" wrote in message


oups.com...


It is the result at the ear that counts. If to the most experienced
and
refined ears in the world, professional classical performers, the
people who make their living playing, recording, listening to the
music
I wish to reproduce, a particular set of componentry sounds more
like
an open window on the concert hall, that is the set of componentry I
want. I don't care whether the components are tubes or transistors
or
some self-mimicking biological growth.


That professional musicians have extraordinary abilities to hear
imperfections due to techical issues is just and old wife's tale. For
openers, professional musicians, particularly classical performers,
are
likely to be hearing-damaged due to exposure to loud sounds. Even
soloists,
particularly soloists are likely to have their hearing damaged by the
extraordinarly loud sounds they can make with their own voices.


In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes.


Probably due to a number of factors.

(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music. That
they
would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense.


(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
sure that
they are biased against modern technology.


(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that endemic among performers who
must
endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform.


(4) Problems related to the fact that musical performers *are* often
very
sensitive listeners for *musical* differences, but not technical
differences. IOW, if you want to know that a note is off key, ask a
musician. If you want to know if it has audible nolinear distortion,
find a
trained technical listener.





This is in fact true of small minority of the universe from which the
actual test subjects were drawn but not of the particular test
subjects. He then proceeded to claim that other named subgroups from
the universe were also either hearing-impaired or capable of impairing
their hearing (singers).

He didn't claim it, he posted data as did others to confirm it.


He did not at this time or at any later point succeed in identifying
the test subjects.

Since he didn't know he posted info on a variety of musicans, at no time did
he say that they were in fact the people you claim to have studied.

Subject Krueger offered further unscientific, spurious or personally
insulting reasons for doubting the results:
"(1) Classical musicians are basically performers of retro-music.
That they would prefer retro-technology makes perfect sense."
This is of course impossible in tests where the subjects cannot see the
machines under test.
"(2) Said blind tests were set by Andre Jute. Therefore we know for
sure that
they are biased against modern technology."
A common smear tactic from subject Krueger's armory.
"(3) Aformentioned hearing problems that [are] endemic among
performers who must endure extraordinary SPLs as they perform."
Note "endemic" and "extraordinary SPLs" (sound pressure
levels), neither of which is justified by any evidence he proffered
either at this point or later.

These points were then argued with subject Krueger by team leader Jute
but Krueger snipped Jute's arguments and claimed:
" Bottom line, Jute has properly addressed (none) (zero) (nada)
critical points. Therefore they stand."
"snip empty rhetoric"

IOW, he told the truth and made you look foolish again.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.tubes/browse_frm/thread/9f37729ce5c847/db0142000dfc0120?q=%22Jute+has+properly+addressed+ (none)+(zero)+(nada)+critical%22&rnum=3#db0142000d fc0120

CONCLUSIONS OF THE FIRST TEST
All three strands of the hypothesis were proved correct as stated
1. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
He did not ask for the specifics of the test subject.
2. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments.
3. Subject Krueger will not admit error.


Complete and utter bull**** from the mind of Andre Jute.


SECOND TEST
At this point it was decided to discover how far subject Krueger would
carry his denial of error. He was publicly bluntly confronted with
posing as an expert when he didn't know what the subject was.

Another lie, he simply posted reasons why any such test was likely to be
flawed.

A new
thread was started for this purpose in which proof was demanded of his
statements in relation to the test subjects, which were still not
identified him:
"Classical performers hearing-damaged" - Arny Kruger Lie No. 51281
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...9730fa608eb787

The result was a great deal more personal abuse directed at subject
Krueger's interlocutors. Having been advised that he had not been
informed of the specifics of the test group, he still did not request
information about the particular test group. Instead he went at random
through a wide variety of performers from the huge possible universe,
attempting to prove with data he found on Google that the outcome of
the tests described in the original article "Tubes are the
paradigm" could not be true. He continued to insist that he was the
ultimate expert on the subject. Here is his final admission, after more
than 200 messages in various threads, of his error, complete with
further personal abuse:

"The definition of a lie is knowingly telling a falsehood. However,
Jute accuses me of lying because I talked about musicians:
'...without knowing who they are or what they play or where.'
Therefore, Jute has stipulated that I spoke in ignorance, not malice.
Therefore Jute is either ignorant of the meaning of simple English
words or is he himself lying."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...53f45437 e3c5

Six hours after subject Krueger finally admitted "I spoke in
ignorance" he was once more in denial, telling one of his followers:
"It definitely separated the posers from the players," implying
that he won the argument. He furthermore deliberately restricted
dissemmination of his message admitting ignorance to only one of the
newsgroups in the debate; it was the only one of his messages he so
restricted.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE SECOND TEST
All the conclusions of the first test were confirmed:


You confirmed that you are not technically competent to conduct such tests
and that you don't understnd the meaing of the word lie.


4. Subject Krueger does not understand or honour the scientific method.
Having been clearly and repeatedly told that he did know all the
necessary facts, he still did not ask for the specifics of the test
subjects, he still pontificated as if he were an authority, regardless
of the fact that he could not say an authority on what.
5. Subject Krueger wants to win so badly that he uses illegitimate
means to win arguments, and personal abuse to intimidate those who
defeat him in straight argument.

More of that famous Jute "projection," whereupon you ascribe your traints
to others.


6. Subject Krueger does not admit fallibility.

Sure he does but only when he's wrong.

When forced under severe
pressure to admit a gross error, he tries to limit dissemmination of
his admission, he tries to shift blame for it onto those who have
proved the error and within hours claims a victory, denying that he
committed the error.

Since no error was committed, no reason to claim that he made one. He was
not giving a specific reason why such a test as you claim to have conducted
was invalid, but why the general category of "musicians" was not a good one.


COMPLETE REPORT
The full analysis with tables containing message counts and time
intervals will be available at the end of February. The appendix of
psycho-textual analysis will be available in May.
E&OE
JT, MH, RN, JK, supervised by AJ

Thank you for that self serving heap of crapola where you show yourself once
again to be an unmitigated liar.

wrote in message
nk.net...


Thank you for that self serving heap of crapola where you show yourself
once again to be an unmitigated liar.


"At least" Arny is a mitigated liar, being that he is insane.

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Once again, Mr. McKelvy, your unquestioned faith leads you astray.
All you needed to do was enter "Krueger" + "professional" +
"engineer" in the Google search engine and you would have found the
relevant threads.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Once again, Mr. McKelvy, your unquestioned faith leads you astray.
All you needed to do was enter "Krueger" + "professional" +
"engineer" in the Google search engine and you would have found the
relevant threads.

Well excuse the **** out of me for missing that tid bit.
I still don't see how that makes my statement incorrect. It is not his
occupation it is something he does for his church. He may in fact be as
qualified as a professional, neither yo nor I have any decent evidence of
his abilities in that area. The one snippet he posted is hardly enough
evidence on which to base a conclusion.

wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Well excuse the **** out of me for missing that tid bit.
I still don't see how that makes my statement incorrect.

Arny Krueger himself has contradicted you, is all I am pointing out.

It is not his occupation it is something he does for his church.

Personally I agree, However, Arny Krueger has violently objected
when that point has been made to him.

He may in fact be as qualified as a professional, neither yo nor I have
any decent evidence of his abilities in that area.

Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
recordings. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Well excuse the **** out of me for missing that tid bit.
I still don't see how that makes my statement incorrect.

Arny Krueger himself has contradicted you, is all I am pointing out.

It is not his occupation it is something he does for his church.

Personally I agree, However, Arny Krueger has violently objected
when that point has been made to him.

He may in fact be as qualified as a professional, neither yo nor I have
any decent evidence of his abilities in that area.

Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
recordings. :-)

And that's one less bad mastering job I have to be stuck with

wrote in message
ups.com...


Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
recordings. :-)


Does that mean that he is not really a "perfeshunal komputer konsultent"?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Its not his abilities that disqualify AK as a professional recording
engineer, it's the fact that no-one pays him money to make
recordings. :-)


Hi John,

I have it on good authority that the reverse is usually the case. People get
paid to "arniisit" by his family or caseworkers.

Cheers,

Margaret

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

I actually fell for this ruse and tried to find a relevant post.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pr...fe=off&num=10&

I guess Atkinson will have to provide a URL to make a believer out of me.

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed claim that
this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording engineer, due
to the cash value of the work he donated to his church free of charge.

I actually fell for this ruse and tried to find a relevant post.
...
I guess Atkinson will have to provide a URL to make a believer out of me.

Sure. The Google message ID is
posted by you in rec.audio.pro on Thu, 19 May 2005 23:10:22. This is
what you wrote:

"Given that people occasionally pay me for some of my audio
efforts, can't I squeek by as a professional? When they have
to hire someone to do my job at church, its a $150 gig for
him. Small pototoes in the larger view, but isn't creating
value at the rate of about $8K a year worth some kind of
standing? ;-)"

Perhaps you can explain to Mr. McKelvy that you disagree with
him regarding your "professional" status.

BTW, I am pleased to note in another message uncovered by my
search, this time in r.a.o., that my standing as an "audio
professional"
was vouchsafed by no less than Arny Krueger, on 1997/02/04 in message
.
A belated thank you, Mr. Krueger.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
ups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed claim that
this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording engineer, due
to the cash value of the work he donated to his church free of charge.

I actually fell for this ruse and tried to find a relevant post.
...
I guess Atkinson will have to provide a URL to make a believer out of me.

Sure. The Google message ID is
posted by you in rec.audio.pro on Thu, 19 May 2005 23:10:22. This is
what you wrote:

"Given that people occasionally pay me for some of my audio
efforts, can't I squeek by as a professional? When they have
to hire someone to do my job at church, its a $150 gig for
him. Small pototoes in the larger view, but isn't creating
value at the rate of about $8K a year worth some kind of
standing? ;-)"

Anybody with a brain can see that this is a humorous rhetorical question.
;-)

Perhaps you can explain to Mr. McKelvy that you disagree with
him regarding your "professional" status.

Any fool can see that the paragraph above is not a claim, but a
light-hearted rhetorical question intended to poke fun at people who put on
*professional* airs.

Thanks Atkinson for showing that despite your self-acclaimed literary
talents and experience, you are unable to discern such simple things. One
might think that the question marks and the smiley emoticon would be sure
indicators.

For the record, I don't care whether *anybody* thinks I'm a professional
whatever or not. The whole point of the paragraph was that I really don't
care, I just do what I do.

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.The above, by definition does not make him a professional
recording engineer, although we should applaud the work he does for
charity. The dictionary definition of a professional is
a person who earns a living by his craft (in this case recording)
I am told that Mr Kreuger assembles computers in his daytime job

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.


Iain

Iain Churches said:

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???

I've heard two. Krooger denies that the first one exists. The "debating
trade" is such a labyrinth. ;-)

Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

"Bull****! Bull****! Bull****!"

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

It's my understanding that in contrast, John Atkinson has actually made some
recordings of note. He has personally lined up artists, venues, and
equipment. Atkinson, at least some of the time personally selected, obtained
and set up the equipment, loaded and unloaded recording media of his
personal choice, was the sole technician who personally placed, adjusted,
and started and stopped the equipment.

AFAIK Atkinson has edited at least some (I think all) of his recordings
himself using editing facilities that he personally selected and/or owned,
personally mastered some or all of the recordings, and on occasion delivered
the masters for reproduction by subcontractors that he personally selected
and made the arrangements for.

There's a good chance that Atkinson even owns the copyrights to some of his
recordings, which are thus truely his.

Note that while I've explained these differences to Iain before on several
occasions, he continues to act like they don't exist. In short, he's either
BSing, or he's seriously delusional.

Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
finish.

In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
for the finished product.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

Why do you say stuff like this? Google shows you wrong in seconds, and
none of your hair-splitting about legal rights or collaborative work or
who hired the equipment changes that.

Stephen

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.


THIS PURE BULL****, ARNY. I REMEMBER WELL WHEN YOU MADE THAT POST ON RAP.
BECAUSE IT STRUCK ME AS LUDICROUS AT THE TIME (AND STILL DOES TODAY).


snip remainder as too silly to comment on, and subsequently refuted).

A sound recording engineer is a man who for his daily bread or an
habitual part of his daily bread makes sound recordings. He is a
professional. It doesn't matter whether he works on a team or alone.
Ownership of copyright is irrelevant. Ownership of machinery is
irrelevant.

Someone who records his church choir for free and then claims the money
they didn't pay a professional, for a job they probably didn't want
done in the first instance (1), makes him a professional is a
professional fool; this person is no more than a hobbyist. Arny Krueger
fits this category.

The person who puts together the artists and venue and pays the
salaries is the producer. He usually doesn't own anything either, being
a salaried employee or freelance for hire to the distributor, the
record company. He too is a professional, not to be confused with a
hobbyist going along to his pre-existing church choir and recording
them.

These are pretty standard definitions in great many industries.

Iain Churches, who has a veriable track record as a professional sound
recordist, fits the first category. He is a professional in sound
recording.

Arny Krueger fits this the second category of a hobbyist. It is
significant that Krueger tries to inflate his standing by denigrating a
professional. A real professional would never in a million do anything
that silly.

HTH.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) ... for a job they probably didn't want done in the first instance!
We all know amateur idiots who insist on photographing or recording
events whether the victims want it or not. To this class of
insensitive, bullying hobbyist a church choir, full of Christians too
charitable to put him back in his box must seem a godsent.

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

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as...
a sound recording engineer.

A job he does for his church, not an occupation.

Except that on r.a.p. a few months back. Arny Krueger did indeed
claim that this actviity qualified him as a "professional" recording
engineer, due to the cash value of the work he donated to his
church free of charge.

Firstly, even by Mr.Kruger's own twisted logic, his statement is
nonsense.

AFAIK, its a fabrication. I sure can't find anything that looks like it.

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.

In fact nobody has ever heard any of Iain's recordings because there are
none. All of the recordings that Iain has taken credit for had most of the
work done on them by others. He has no legal rights to them at all. Whatever
small contribution he did make to them was performed using equipment,
artists, and venues that were obtained by others and at the expense of
others.

It's my understanding that in contrast, John Atkinson has actually made some
recordings of note. He has personally lined up artists, venues, and
equipment. Atkinson, at least some of the time personally selected, obtained
and set up the equipment, loaded and unloaded recording media of his
personal choice, was the sole technician who personally placed, adjusted,
and started and stopped the equipment.

AFAIK Atkinson has edited at least some (I think all) of his recordings
himself using editing facilities that he personally selected and/or owned,
personally mastered some or all of the recordings, and on occasion delivered
the masters for reproduction by subcontractors that he personally selected
and made the arrangements for.

There's a good chance that Atkinson even owns the copyrights to some of his
recordings, which are thus truely his.

Note that while I've explained these differences to Iain before on several
occasions, he continues to act like they don't exist. In short, he's either
BSing, or he's seriously delusional.

Iain is like I guy who slaps fenders on Jeeps in the Chrysler plant about 6
miles from my house, and tells his friends that he makes cars from start to
finish.

In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of no
note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal, mill
the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as compared to a
new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can honestly take credit
for the finished product.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...


In contrast, there are people all over Detroit who have little garages of
no note or notice, who still build cars from bolts, nuts, raw sheet metal,
mill the metal parts, etc. Their cars may lack some refinements as
compared to a new Jeep Grand Cheokee or Dodge Magnum, but they can
honestly take credit for the finished product.


I hope they aren't stealing your intellectual
property, i.e., your astray designs.

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

I am told that Mr Kreuger assembles computers in his daytime job

Secondly. Have you heard any of Arny's recordings???
Professional is not a word that comes to mind.




Have you ever used one of his komputerz?

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH


BACKGROUND
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
engineer or a sound recording engineer. His professional qualifications
are not known.

That is not true. We know that he has contributed to
the design of the Omni ashtray.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
FLAME WARRIOR
Preliminary report of
AN INTERNET EXPERIMENT IN LOW RESOURCE MOTIVATIONAL RESEARCH


BACKGROUND
Mr Arny Krueger describes himself on audiophile newsgroups as an
engineer or a sound recording engineer. His professional qualifications
are not known.

That is not true. We know that he has contributed to
the design of the Omni ashtray.
Also, "coasters" made of CDs that burned unsatisfactorily.
All of Krueger's designs have a single orginal element: a hole in the
middle.