In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.

So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
explain them (by Robert, and others). Or they were completely ignored.
All that you all have shown me, is that the only reason you would ever
want to debate theories is to have something else to have vicious
arguments about. That's about all audio means to most RAO regulars
he arguing.

wrote in message
oups.com...

In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.

So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
explain them (by Robert, and others).

Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:

1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
whether the tweaks you advocate work. I suspect that you make money off the
"electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
advertising exposure you gain here.
2. I do not know whether you believe in the tweaks yourself.
3. With respect to the "cream", and your relationship with PWB Electronics,
there is the "appearance of impropriety." This does not mean that it has
been factually established that there is an impropriety. However, anyone who
is engaged in journalistic, or alleged independent reporting is aware that
the appearance of impropriety renders a person subject to public censure
4. I consider that it is possible that you and PWB Enterprises share a
common economic interest in the promotion of their products.

Or they were completely ignored.
All that you all have shown me, is that the only reason you would ever
want to debate theories is to have something else to have vicious
arguments about. That's about all audio means to most RAO regulars
he arguing.

And it will never change. R.A.O is THE place for arguments, insults, and
lost reputations. Have you ever wondered why salesmen don't hang around
here, Mr. Graham? It's because the dialog that ensues damages their
business. Here in r.a.o., "why" is the most important question. We have no
faith, in you or anybody else, and desire none. We refuse to acknowledge
your claim that you are intellectually superior to us, and it offends us,
and those of us who might have listened have closed our minds to your
insults.

I have told you that I do not have an opinion as to whether your "free"
tweaks work. Perhaps they work, for some individuals, metaphysically, since
enjoyment of music is related to consciousness, which has not been
integrated into the framework of the physical sciences. However, there is an
important reason I feel the tweaks should not be explored. What follows is a
lot of supposition, but I've examined "biogeometry", and found that the
assertions of that so-called science are themselves no more than
suppositions. The playing field is level.

Let's suppose, as one way of bridging your sensibilities and mine, that each
of us inhabits a copy of the universe that is subtly different. Suppose
further, that each of us, by concentration of our perception, actively
influences the properties of our personal universe. In my case, I choose for
my universe one strongly compliant with the bundle of properties known as
"the physical universe." Another person may manage to influence the
properties of his personal universe to include characteristics outside the
above, which I refer to as "magic", which I define to include all
nonrepeatable, objectively nonverifiable experiences that are not observable
or testable by the techniques that characterize "the physical universe."

It may take 30 seconds to "apply a tweak", but the techniques of
experimental psychology, required to validate any improvement, are time
consuming indeed. I'm too busy. But suppose I did have the time. Another
question arises.

If I try your tweaks, I may change my personal universe, to one which
validates behavior that I would characterize as neurotic or magical. I don't
want this. I prefer my physical universe, because the behaviors of objects
within my universe are highly predictable and repeatable, according to
physical laws of long standing. In this universe, I can make money, run my
life, have interesting relationships with other people, and enjoy music. I
enjoy music alot. I hear it just fine. I don't need it any better. I do not
need to complicate my life by cutting clothing labels, freezing pictures,
and putting labels with incantations such as "sound has priority" on my
equipment. Even if it did work, it is too costly in terms of cluttering up
my head space. Life is for more important things.

If I want to enjoy the music I'm listening to more, I perform a mental
adjustment. I focus in; or I change the recording, or I move my seat, or I
just change my mood. And the music changes my mood, and I have fun. I need
nothing more.

soundhaspriority wrote







In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. [...]

Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?

How did you determine this?


You show
that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.

So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
explain them (by Robert, and others). Or they were completely ignored.
All that you all have shown me, is that the only reason you would ever
want to debate theories is to have something else to have vicious
arguments about. That's about all audio means to most RAO regulars
he arguing.


I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion is
that they're false but not directly verifiable.




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

wrote in message
oups.com

That's about all
audio means to most RAO regulars he arguing.

Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.

There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio and the
love of music well-reproduced. Middius and his disciples made that pretty
much go away.

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com


That's about all
audio means to most RAO regulars he arguing.


Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.

There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio

Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
religion ruined everything.

"Fella" wrote in message

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com


That's about all
audio means to most RAO regulars he arguing.


Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.

There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons
about audio

Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds
the same" religion ruined everything.

That's right. The "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same" religion" is
something that Middius fabricated. It's a figment of his warped,
minimally-functional brain. Middius' mental acuity has degraded so much over
the years that he's been posting here that I'm surprised he still has the
ability to swallow for himself. Maybe one reason nobody ever sees him in
public is that he's being fed by a tube. If that's true, its really tragic.

angrily wrote:

Finally, the truth about them,
no science and they are for stupid, lazy people.

Thank you for this example, Westface. Ok guys, THIS is the example that
proves exactly what I said above. Your only purpose here is to wage war
on ideas you are ignorant of and that differ from your religiously-held
beliefs. Such as where Westface interprets me having said that they
have a scientific basis as: "Finally the truth about them, no science".
Then he goes on to insult me personally by saying they're for "stupid
lazy people". Ignorant bigotry at its finest, and typical of all the
responses I have received on this newsgroup to my tweaks. I'm sorry
but when you're this hostile to new ideas and you don't start to
question your intelligence, it's because you're not.

My response to Westface: Obviously they're not for stupid, lazy
people, otherwise you'd have tried them.

Signal wrote:



I tried the L shape tweak, but it had a negative effect.

I pretty much said as much in my post "L-shape tweak for dummies". I
designed it simply to demonstrate that it has an effect.

So what you have just observed is that shapes and symbols do have an
effect on our perception of sound. That means you're already ahead of
the game, where the rest of the audio community stands.

JBorg, Jr. wrote:

Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?

How did you determine this?

How do you think? I listened.

I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion is
that they're false but not directly verifiable.

That's a very strange thing to say, and I don't know if it came
before the acid trip you took or afterward. First of all, you can not
verify and conclude the validity of any tweak or audio phenomenon by
simply "reading" about it. To do so would be making a judgement call
that leads you into ignorant bigotry. It shows your belief system is a
religious, faith-based one; so don't kid yourself about adhering to
scientific principles. Secondly, if they're not directly verifiable,
then nothing in audio is. Which is about as absurd as your first
statement about making "conclusions" on phenomena you've never tested
and know nothing about.

Fella said:

Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
religion ruined everything.

My teachings are not in the public domain. That'll be $1.65, please.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

Arny Krueger postured:

wrote in message
oups.com

That's about all
audio means to most RAO regulars he arguing.

Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.


Arny, get out of my thread and go jump on someone who's dissing ABX
somewhere. Stop poisoning people's threads with your political
posturing. No one bought your arguments in 10 years, no one's buying
them now. So why do you do it? Crater-sized ego, perhaps? Mental
deficiencies?


There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio and the
love of music well-reproduced.

Yes. Just before you came on the scene and decided to promote your ABX
agenda and try to brainwash as many people as possible into believing
that everything in audio sounds the same, and the holy ABX box tells us
so. You and your polemicist friends are even more religious than the
so-called "subjectivists".


Middius and his disciples made that pretty
much go away.

Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that. Remember that Shovels
can not have "disciples". He's a follower, not a leader.

wrote:
angrily wrote:

Finally, the truth about them,
no science and they are for stupid, lazy people.

Thank you for this example, Westface. Ok guys, THIS is the example that
proves exactly what I said above. Your only purpose here is to wage war
on ideas you are ignorant of and that differ from your religiously-held
beliefs. Such as where Westface interprets me having said that they
have a scientific basis as: "Finally the truth about them, no science".
Then he goes on to insult me personally by saying they're for "stupid
lazy people". Ignorant bigotry at its finest, and typical of all the
responses I have received on this newsgroup to my tweaks. I'm sorry
but when you're this hostile to new ideas and you don't start to
question your intelligence, it's because you're not.

My response to Westface: Obviously they're not for stupid, lazy
people, otherwise you'd have tried them.

I'm back.
[ clue ]
(get a mirror)

0101100101

0101100101

0101100101

0101100101

I'm betting your still clueless, O superior one.

Arny Krueger wrote:

Maybe one reason nobody ever sees him in
public is that he's being fed by a tube.


Well he recently revealed the make of the power amp he uses and I
believe that brand does not make tube gear in general. He did go on to
say that he doesn't employ tubes anywhere else in his system so one of
you is lying here Arny old chum.

Moreover, I have a friend that has tube gear (he actually builds them
himself) and I've seen him in public on occasion.

George M. Middius wrote:


Fella said:


Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
religion ruined everything.


My teachings are not in the public domain. That'll be $1.65, please.


Thank you Mr. Midiius for being so origionial for once admitting to your
commercial agenda on this groupd Mr. Midiot, noted.

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that. Remember that Shovels
can not have "disciples". He's a follower, not a leader.

Dear Mr. Graham:
"Shovels" is the name by which George Middius refers to you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger postured:

wrote in message
oups.com

That's about all
audio means to most RAO regulars he arguing.

Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.

Arny, get out of my thread and go jump on someone who's
dissing ABX somewhere.

Red herring argument noted.

BTW, does such a person exist outside of RAO and RAHE?

Stop poisoning people's threads
with your political posturing.

See what I get for agreeing with you, Mr. Sound?

No one bought your arguments in 10 years,

Wrong. ABX and audio DBTs are widely-accepted.

no one's buying them now.

See above.

So why do you do it?

This is about Middius, not DBTs.

Crater-sized ego, perhaps?

Yours?

Mental deficiencies?

You're not mentally deficient given how well you've trolled this place, so I
can't turn that one around! ;-)

There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons
about audio and the love of music well-reproduced.

Yes. Just before you came on the scene and decided to
promote your ABX agenda and try to brainwash as many
people as possible into believing that everything in
audio sounds the same,

Oh, so you were brain-washed by Middius as well, eh Mr. Sound?

and the holy ABX box tells us so.

Yup, definate signs of yet another weak mind re-programmed by Middius.


You and your polemicist friends are even more religious
than the so-called "subjectivists".

I am a real subjectivist. but I don't know where all these zombie so-called
subjectivists come from. Do you?

Middius and his disciples made that pretty
much go away.

Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that.

It's true that he inhereted his role from Alan/Ellen/Allen Derrida.

Remember that Shovels can not have "disciples".

Sure he can, your flawed logic notwithstanding. After all, what is Sackman?

He's a follower, not a leader.

Never heard of multi-layer hierarchies, I take it?

My imposter made this post and I now offer a corrected version. I am
running short of time so everybody please read this emendation quickly.

The recent spate of messages I have posted has doubtless caused many of
you to wonder why I get obsessed about the inane but fanciful nature of
my tweaks. I am ready to debate anything with anybody because my
intellectual stamina is equal to anybody's. And by intellectual I mean, of
course, verboseness. I will point out one relatively unassailable fact:
The tweaks I have freely given you are the product of many months of
dreamily staring at the ceiling in my quiet room. Nobody else could have
discovered these amazing and scientifically robust tweaks because I am
uniquely gifted. My superiority is legendary, especially compared to you
dead-in-the-head so-called audiophiles who are nothing but poseurs.
How long would it take you to simply try my tweaks, you simple-minded
imbeciles? You are all so lazy it makes me want to scream. Your absurd
and malicious inquisitions about the science behind the tweaks is completely
beside the point. If you weren't a herd of dunderheads, you would be able
to recognize true wisdom when it is offered to you gratis.

My preconceived opinions about you lowlife mental masturbators (except for
George and Arny and Stephen and Robert, who are certainly REAL masturbators
too) were completely borne out by your displays of ignorance and misplaced
jeering. The towering monument you've erected of scorn, derision, mockery and
ridicule proved to me that you are the proverbial swine on whom my pearls are
entirely wasted. You have wasted my little tweak gems just as you waste so many
hours of your so-called lives. I, on the other hand, am proving over and over how
superior I am to you ankle biters. My superiority is evident through the concise
prose I deliver to this forum in the hope of enlightening a few of you groundhogs.


There. I hope you feel better now.


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"Fella" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com


That's about all
audio means to most RAO regulars he arguing.


Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.

There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons about audio

Yes, Middius and his klan's "ABX it and it'll all sounds the same"
religion ruined everything.

That's about right, since he and his ilk are the only ones who say that
everything sounds the same. The rest of us know better.

soundhaspriority wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:




Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?

How did you determine this?

How do you think? I listened.

Ok so, after you've listen, your tweak work after you cut an unbleach
3" x 2" rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) underneath the
said paper having an aspirin on the center pinhole. And then, placed
atop the speaker box.

Based on this, you were able to determine this tweak of yours worked
after you've "listened."

Is it safe for me to assume this?


I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion is
that they're false but not directly verifiable.


That's a very strange thing to say, and I don't know if it came
before the acid trip you took or afterward. First of all, you can not
verify and conclude the validity of any tweak or audio phenomenon by
simply "reading" about it.

Well HOW did you verify that the above tweak of yours work after you've
placed the unbleach paper atop the speaker box and "listen" to it sir ?


To do so would be making a judgement call
that leads you into ignorant bigotry. It shows your belief system is a
religious, faith-based one; so don't kid yourself about adhering to
scientific principles.

(Can we save this for later?)

Secondly, if they're not directly verifiable,
then nothing in audio is. [...]

That is incorrect.

Which is about as absurd as your first statement about making
"conclusions" on phenomena you've never tested and know
nothing about.


Well then, how did you directly verify that the above tweak of yours work
after you've placed the unbleach paper with an aspirin atop the speaker
box and "listen" to it sir ?




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

Robert Morein dishonestly wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.

So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
explain them (by Robert, and others).

Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:

I noticed that you isolated the word "deceit", but not the other two. I
take that as an admission that you were being hostile and malicious
toward me in your so-called "debate" attempts. I was not ascribing all
three terms to all those who debated me, Robert. I was lumping it all
in. And in your case, I don't think I can apply the word "deceit",
but the other two fit well enough (ie. DON'T CREAM YOUR EYEGLASSES).


1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
whether the tweaks you advocate work.

And your opinions about the cream are merely ignorant ones, since you
presume to know how it all works.

I suspect that you make money off the
"electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
advertising exposure you gain here.

Just about one of the stupidest things I've heard you say. What
you've got going for you is that fortunately, you have a lot smarter
things to say than stupid things. I can't say that for most of the
remainder. Try thinking for half a second. No, I mean "really"
thinking, not the blind conjecure you make: I've insulted just about
every person on this group, save for the one female. I've been doing
so since my first post. Now after buttering everyone up, I'm supposed
to sell them vials of "cream" according to you?

Do you have ANY idea of just how stupid what you just said really is?


2. I do not know whether you believe in the tweaks yourself.

I don't know whether you believe in anything you write on RAO, and
I've often suspected that your posts to me are merely insincere
trolls. But from your responses to me in email, you specifically told
me that you did at least believe I was sincere about the tweaks, and I
recall you even declared as much on the group. So its obvious that you
saying you don't know whether I believe in the tweaks is an insincere
lie, that you're putting out to troll me.


3. With respect to the "cream", and your relationship with PWB Electronics,
there is the "appearance of impropriety."

With respect to a LOT of the activities that you engage on in this
group, there is the "appearance of impropriety". Do I look to you like
a man who cares about "appearances"? THINK about what you say, Robert.
Just for a half second, even.


This does not mean that it has
been factually established that there is an impropriety. However, anyone who
is engaged in journalistic, or alleged independent reporting is aware that
the appearance of impropriety renders a person subject to public censure

4. I consider that it is possible that you and PWB Enterprises share a
common economic interest in the promotion of their products.

Just as it is possible that you share a common economic interest in
Near field monitors, which you have promoted on this group. In fact,
you promoted speaker companies far more than I promoted tweak products.
Let's put it this way, if PWB hired me as a spokesperson for their
products here, I must be the world's worst spokesperson ever. I never
mentioned the company, rarely brought up the name of the inventor, I
don't discuss the products, from the very beginning I personally went
out of my way to trash every one that might have been a potential
customer, and even after the tar and feathers came out, and I'm still
doing so. So do you think I should start taking orders now for
products, oh clueless one? (I'll put you down for some eyeglass
cream, how about that?).

What have we learned here? Robert is not as clever as he thinks he is.


And it will never change. R.A.O is THE place for arguments, insults, and
lost reputations.

Tell me something I don't know.

Have you ever wondered why salesmen don't hang around
here, Mr. Graham? It's because the dialog that ensues damages their
business.

Tell me something I don't know.

Here in r.a.o., "why" is the most important question. We have no
faith, in you or anybody else, and desire none.

Not at all true. The problem is you all have too much faith, and it is
your religious beliefs that prevent you from understanding what is and
isn't true in the world (including the world of audio). You for
example, you have faith in "science". But only what you know about
science. Science can be like a religion too, most people here treat it
that way, and that is the way that you apply it in your life.
Saddest of all, is that while you place your faith in all these
external entitites, you all have little to no faith in yourselves.

We refuse to acknowledge
your claim that you are intellectually superior to us, and it offends us,
and those of us who might have listened have closed our minds to your
insults.

Strawman argument. I did not claim to be "intellectually superior" to
anyone here, and would not make that claim. But perhaps I have a basis
for making it after all, since no one was able to properly interpret
what I said about being "superior", in my thesis. Not westface, not
Powell, not Walt, not Sullivan, not even you with your 7 phd's! Does
not bode well for the intellectual strength of this group's
participants, does it?

I have told you that I do not have an opinion as to whether your "free"
tweaks work. Perhaps they work, for some individuals, metaphysically, since
enjoyment of music is related to consciousness, which has not been
integrated into the framework of the physical sciences.

Do you now consider quantum mechanics and biology "metaphysical"?

However, there is an
important reason I feel the tweaks should not be explored.

Is that so? Is it because you and others here are that hostile to
education, and learning entirely new applications in audio and science?
Or is it because 30 seconds is far too long to invest in trying them,
even though it just took you 100 times longer to write and to dream up
this response?

What follows is a
lot of supposition, but I've examined "biogeometry", and found that the
assertions of that so-called science are themselves no more than
suppositions. The playing field is level.

No doubt, that's exactly what you wanted to find, and what a
surprise! That's what you claim you found. Well I think there's far
too much documented evidence, and field tests that prove it isn't
simply suppositions.

Let's suppose, as one way of bridging your sensibilities and mine, that each
of us inhabits a copy of the universe that is subtly different. Suppose
further, that each of us, by concentration of our perception, actively
influences the properties of our personal universe. In my case, I choose for
my universe one strongly compliant with the bundle of properties known as
"the physical universe." Another person may manage to influence the
properties of his personal universe to include characteristics outside the
above, which I refer to as "magic", which I define to include all
nonrepeatable, objectively nonverifiable experiences that are not observable
or testable by the techniques that characterize "the physical universe."

Note that everyone has different "views of the world" and in a way,
this defines their "universe". But that's where "absolute truth"
comes in. There is only one universe, it abides by certain laws, some
of which we know, some of which we DON'T know. Some of which we can
only suppose or assume (which doesn't mean we don't know it be
true, only that we don't know "for certain").

People here love putting me in a box in order to isolate and discredit
me (note that fascists have been doing this since the beginning of
time). But the truth is, we both live under the same universe and
believe in many of the same laws that we feel governs this universe.

It may take 30 seconds to "apply a tweak", but the techniques of
experimental psychology, required to validate any improvement, are time
consuming indeed.

Wasn't that the point of my post that started all this?

I'm too busy.

But you're certainly not too busy to try any of the tweaks. If you
had time to research the science of biogeometry, you had time to try
the tweaks.

But suppose I did have the time. Another
question arises.

If I try your tweaks, I may change my personal universe, to one which
validates behavior that I would characterize as neurotic or magical. I don't
want this.

I know. I already spoke about this mental limitation in my thesis,
"Message to the Ignorant Pigs of RAO", when I wrote about the
"insecurities" that people have, which lead them to being "mindless
sheep" in life. But there's really nothing "neurotic or magical"
about any of this. I can understand how it seems that way to those
ignorant of what it's all about, but it's pure science.

I prefer my physical universe, because the behaviors of objects
within my universe are highly predictable and repeatable, according to
physical laws of long standing.

Then your universe is very limited indeed. In the actual (real)
universe, randomness is an inherent part of it; you'll find
randomness in quarks, quantum mechanics, string theory... My theory is
that it scares insecure people, plays with their insecurities, to not
be able to predict the behaviour of every part and particle in the
universe. In your limited Newtonian view of the audio universe, things
may be more highly predictable and repeatable. Unfortunately for you,
perception of sound is not limited to the Newtonian view of the audio
universe; this was discovered 25 years ago.

In this universe, I can make money, run my
life, have interesting relationships with other people, and enjoy music. I
enjoy music alot. I hear it just fine. I don't need it any better. I do not
need to complicate my life by cutting clothing labels, freezing pictures,
and putting labels with incantations such as "sound has priority" on my
equipment. Even if it did work, it is too costly in terms of cluttering up
my head space. Life is for more important things.

You mean like writing thousands of messages on RAO and making sure
Brian McCarty is regularly harassed?

Again, you are able to come up with some of the finest excuses anyone
has ever given me for not trying 30 second free tweaks; ie. "cluttering
up my head space". I feel I should be giving you an award of some kind
for that. But I admit, the products and techniques are not for
everyone, never said they were. They're for "serious audiophiles".
They require an active relationship with your hifi kit, and so, not for
"lazy" audiophiles. It's not just telling the hifi installer "well
put that over there", and that's the end of your commitment to your
sound. If your standards in audio are such that whether you now have as
an audio system is perfectly fine with you, then that's perfectly
fine with me. My standard is simply higher than yours, I believe.

Also keep in mind the fact that we don't miss what we don't know. I
think that despite what you say here, it's probably more of a
pyschological problem for you. I think what would really "complicate
your life" is to have to admit that what I've been claiming about
perception of sound being influenced by elements of quantum mechanices
and biology, or other reasons that have nothing to do with the signal
itself or sound pressure waves, makes you feel like you'd have to
rewrite everything you know about audio, if that turns out to be true.
You've obviously put in too much time and energy to have to "start
all over again" in effect, and rethink everything you know about audio.

But even if I wasn't prepared to commit myself to being an active
audiophile, I'd be curious simply to know whether perception of sound
can be affected by quantum/biological factors, particulary considering
that thousands of people have already heard such effects. But that's
just me. I like to be informed by taking in as many diverse opinions as
I can find on a subject that interests me.

If I want to enjoy the music I'm listening to more, I perform a mental
adjustment. I focus in; or I change the recording, or I move my seat, or I
just change my mood. And the music changes my mood, and I have fun. I need
nothing more.

That's fine, I have no problem with that. All those things can change
the sound of the music for me as well, I'm sure. But I find the
techniques that I use have the capability to change it to a far more
significant degree than an adjustment in seating position and such.

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com
Arny Krueger postured:

wrote in message
oups.com

That's about all
audio means to most RAO regulars he arguing.

Agreed.

That's the Middius legacy.

Arny, get out of my thread and go jump on someone who's
dissing ABX somewhere.

Red herring argument noted.

Noting of red herring argument noted.


BTW, does such a person exist outside of RAO and RAHE?

I don't think so. I don't think anyone bothers talking about ABX
comparators outside these 2 groups.


Stop poisoning people's threads
with your political posturing.

See what I get for agreeing with you, Mr. Sound?


Yes. The truth. That's what everyone gets from me. Whether they want
it or not.


No one bought your arguments in 10 years,

Wrong. ABX and audio DBTs are widely-accepted.

I don't know anyone that walks into a high end hifi shop with their
ABX comparator in hand, and asks the dealer to let him plug in the
comparator before he will consider a purchase. Does anyone here? Let
them speak now or forever hold their peace. silence I think I've
proven my point, Mr. Krueger/Kruger.


no one's buying them now.

See above.

I did. It said "Mr. Sound is right".


So why do you do it?

This is about Middius, not DBTs.

You mean you've spent 10 years here fighting off the subjectivist
scourge, because of Shovels 8 years trying weakly to fend you off?


Crater-sized ego, perhaps?

Yours?

Mental deficiencies?

You're not mentally deficient given how well you've trolled this place, so I
can't turn that one around! ;-)

Thank you. You're not in my league, but you're a pretty good troll
yourself, Arny. I guess 10 years of practice... hard not to be, eh?
Problem with you is.... you're like the Wizard Of Oz, viewed from
behind. You're a small man with a very big mouth, but we can see you
manipulating the machine from behind your facade. Only you carry on, as
if no one knows what you're about, what a liar, a troll and a
deceitful debater you are. Etcetera, etcetera.


There was a time when RAO was dominated by discussons
about audio and the love of music well-reproduced.

Yes. Just before you came on the scene and decided to
promote your ABX agenda and try to brainwash as many
people as possible into believing that everything in
audio sounds the same,

Oh, so you were brain-washed by Middius as well, eh Mr. Sound?

If only you were smart enough to ever get a clue in life, you'd
realize how funny what you just said is. I'll just laugh at you
quietly, for your ignorance.


and the holy ABX box tells us so.

Yup, definate signs of yet another weak mind re-programmed by Middius.


Don't insult me, Mr. Krueger. I'm the one who taught Middius what
an ABX box is.


You and your polemicist friends are even more religious
than the so-called "subjectivists".

I am a real subjectivist.

If you're a "real subjectivist", then none of my tweaks work and
I'm simply insane to believe that applying tweaks to my plumbing
fixtures is going to improve the sound of my audio system. And besides,
being a "subjectivist" doesn't mean you're not a polemicist.

but I don't know where all these zombie so-called
subjectivists come from. Do you?

Same place you did, I imagine. The last circle of hell?

Middius and his disciples made that pretty
much go away.

Trust me when I say, Shovels did not start that.

It's true that he inhereted his role from Alan/Ellen/Allen Derrida.


Who's boots he isn't fit to lick, from all I've seen of Shovels.
BTW, you appear to have a problem understanding people's first names,
Arny/Arnold/Alice. Why do you suppose that is?


Remember that Shovels can not have "disciples".

Sure he can, your flawed logic notwithstanding. After all, what is Sackman?

You're right. Shovels can have disciples, but these are "followers of
followers"; truly low-grade waste matter. I don't know that Sackman
fits that bill, but definitely this "Fella" fella. He even talks like
Shovels.


He's a follower, not a leader.

Never heard of multi-layer hierarchies, I take it?

You mean like pretending to be a devout follower of scientific beliefs,
whilst adhering to the religious beliefs of Christianity?

angrily wrote:

I'm betting your still O superior one.

I'm betting you're right.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein dishonestly wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.

So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
explain them (by Robert, and others).

Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:

I noticed that you isolated the word "deceit", but not the other two. I
take that as an admission that you were being hostile and malicious
toward me in your so-called "debate" attempts. I was not ascribing all
three terms to all those who debated me, Robert. I was lumping it all
in. And in your case, I don't think I can apply the word "deceit",
but the other two fit well enough (ie. DON'T CREAM YOUR EYEGLASSES).


1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
whether the tweaks you advocate work.

And your opinions about the cream are merely ignorant ones, since you
presume to know how it all works.

I suspect that you make money off the
"electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
advertising exposure you gain here.

Just about one of the stupidest things I've heard you say. What
you've got going for you is that fortunately, you have a lot smarter
things to say than stupid things. I can't say that for most of the
remainder. Try thinking for half a second. No, I mean "really"
thinking, not the blind conjecure you make: I've insulted just about
every person on this group, save for the one female. I've been doing
so since my first post. Now after buttering everyone up, I'm supposed
to sell them vials of "cream" according to you?

Dr. Graham, I've learned a bit more about you. From talking with
individuals around London, I now understand that you are a practicing
psychiatrist at Priory and for NHS, with an specialty in adolesence. With
that in mind I believe I can discuss with you what you do on this group, in
terms you are uniquely equipped to understand.
You have elected to have a helpful, semiprofessional association with
PWB Electronics, where by exercise of your admirable literary skills, you
can presumably advance both their interests, and a subject that you consider
epistomologically valid, which you and others refer to as biogeometry.
Regardless of whether you receive remuneration from PWB, or choose to write
for them out of the perception of mutual benefit, there is an associated
social obligation. PWB chose to have a relationship with an individual who
could be relied upon to comport himself in a professional manner. Your
credentials suggest that you would do that. Your responsibility over other
human beings is huge.
Unfortunately, your behavior on this newsgroup is hurting PWB
Electronics. You are one individual, Dr. Richard Graham. The entities
"soundhaspriority" and "Richard Graham" do not enjoy absolution for each
other's actions. Let is now progress to the question of subjugation of the
ego. The subjugated ego is subject to societal controls. Anonymization,
which has reached the extreme on the Internet, has tempted some individuals
to release their egos from subjugation, in varying degree. While your
intellectual gifts cannot be denied, the better part of your posts here
demonstrate some degree of "acting out", which seems to be motivated by an
extreme need for personal respect and acceptance of your intellectual
offerings.
It seems that you have chosen to segment your life, allowing your
identity "soundhaspriority" behaviors not permitted to Dr. Richard Graham. I
personally know a number of mental health professionals, and I know that the
profession can be extremely frustrating, engendering great anger in the
therapist as a consequence of the nonresponsiveness of clients. However, the
notion that a "pen name" provides anonymity is fraught with peril. It does
not, as you might think, shield you from personal consequences. It is a
shield built on deceptive logic.
You are inevitably acquainted with the term "theory of mind".
According to those of us who are not believers in mental telepathy, it is
"theory of mind" that allows us to empathize and explore the minds of
others. The power of it cannot be overestimated. When I read your words,
whether they be a PWB Electronics newsletter, or one of these posts, or
private correspondence, I feel your mind with an intimacy that is alarming
and terrible. I sense the reverse of the river of thought and influence,
flowing now from patient to therapist. I cannot think of anything more
frustrating than the mental care of adolescents, but you must not allow this
river to continue the reverse of its course, or it will destroy you.
You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your relationship
with PWB.

Regards,
Robert Morein

Robert Morein said to Shovels:

You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your relationship
with PWB.

Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use this
newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not of
their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
Shovels amuse himself?







--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

soundhaspriority wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
soundhaspriority wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:




Why do you feel that implementing your tweaks which take about 30
seconds would leads one to validate whether it work or not ?

How did you determine this?

How do you think? I listened.

Ok so, after you've listen, your tweak work after you cut an unbleach
3" x 2" rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) underneath the
said paper having an aspirin on the center pinhole. And then, placed
atop the speaker box.

Based on this, you were able to determine this tweak of yours worked
after you've "listened."

Is it safe for me to assume this?


I "read" your tweaks, and with regard to their validity, my conclusion
is
that they're false but not directly verifiable.


That's a very strange thing to say, and I don't know if it came
before the acid trip you took or afterward. First of all, you can not
verify and conclude the validity of any tweak or audio phenomenon by
simply "reading" about it.

Well HOW did you verify that the above tweak of yours work after you've
placed the unbleach paper atop the speaker box and "listen" to it sir ?


To do so would be making a judgement call
that leads you into ignorant bigotry. It shows your belief system is a
religious, faith-based one; so don't kid yourself about adhering to
scientific principles.

(Can we save this for later?)

Secondly, if they're not directly verifiable,
then nothing in audio is. [...]

That is incorrect.

Which is about as absurd as your first statement about making
"conclusions" on phenomena you've never tested and know
nothing about.


Well then, how did you directly verify that the above tweak of yours work
after you've placed the unbleach paper with an aspirin atop the speaker
box and "listen" to it sir ?




Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on your bong?



Oh c'mon! I'm barely warming up. Your above comment is known around
here as a non-answer. With all due respect, that is a sign of a cowardice -
if I may. You have refer to all the regulars here with the most ungracious
insults. They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.


Go ahead now, and put forth a lucid reply to my post above.




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Robert Morein said to Shovels:

You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your
relationship
with PWB.

Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use this
newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not of
their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
Shovels amuse himself?

What happened to Richman? We could have the "Battle of the Shrinks", held in
the Shrinkodrome.

wrote:
angrily wrote:

I'm betting your still O superior one.

I'm betting you're right.

That mathematics degree from Leeds must come
in handy when you need to wipe your ass.

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Robert Morein dishonestly wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

In response to recent messages I read, and as a response to all my
detractors who get obsessed about the theoretical foundations behind my
tweaks that they are clearly either not prepared to debate, or don't
have the intellectualy capacity to debate, I will point out one simple
inalienable fact: All the tweaks I posted takes about 30 seconds to
implement. That's FAR less time than the days and weeks it would take
hashing out belligerent arguments about the science behind the tweaks.
From the endless heap of scorn, derision, mockery and ridicule that I
received from almost every regular on this group, you have proven to me
that not a single one of you doesn't have 30 seconds to spare. Many
of you have nothing better in life to do -but- waste time. You show
that by hundreds and thousands of posts on RAO on your member record.

So if you were really that curious to start learning something about
how much you don't know about audio, the first thing you would have
done is try the tweaks to see if they have any scientific merit in the
experimental domain. Since its much, MUCH easier than trying to become
an expert on whatever particular theories or science is behind each of
them (although people have shown that it isn't difficult to pretend
you are, and attempt to refute them anyway). Whenever I have mentioned
details on the basis for the tweaks, either they were sweepingly
dismissed without any proof (even by so-called would-be "scientists"
and pretend researchers like Steven Sullivan or elmi), or I was
personally attacked with deceit, hostility and malice when trying to
explain them (by Robert, and others).

Deceit? None at all. Here is my personal opinion again:

I noticed that you isolated the word "deceit", but not the other two. I
take that as an admission that you were being hostile and malicious
toward me in your so-called "debate" attempts. I was not ascribing all
three terms to all those who debated me, Robert. I was lumping it all
in. And in your case, I don't think I can apply the word "deceit",
but the other two fit well enough (ie. DON'T CREAM YOUR EYEGLASSES).


1. With the exception of the "electret cream", I have no opinion as to
whether the tweaks you advocate work.

And your opinions about the cream are merely ignorant ones, since you
presume to know how it all works.

I suspect that you make money off the
"electret cream", and that you want us to buy it from you, as a result of
advertising exposure you gain here.

Just about one of the stupidest things I've heard you say. What
you've got going for you is that fortunately, you have a lot smarter
things to say than stupid things. I can't say that for most of the
remainder. Try thinking for half a second. No, I mean "really"
thinking, not the blind conjecure you make: I've insulted just about
every person on this group, save for the one female. I've been doing
so since my first post. Now after buttering everyone up, I'm supposed
to sell them vials of "cream" according to you?

Dr. Graham, I've learned a bit more about you. From talking with
individuals around London, I now understand that you are a practicing
psychiatrist at Priory and for NHS, with an specialty in adolesence. With
that in mind I believe I can discuss with you what you do on this group, in
terms you are uniquely equipped to understand.
You have elected to have a helpful, semiprofessional association with
PWB Electronics, where by exercise of your admirable literary skills, you
can presumably advance both their interests, and a subject that you consider
epistomologically valid, which you and others refer to as biogeometry.
Regardless of whether you receive remuneration from PWB, or choose to write
for them out of the perception of mutual benefit, there is an associated
social obligation. PWB chose to have a relationship with an individual who
could be relied upon to comport himself in a professional manner. Your
credentials suggest that you would do that. Your responsibility over other
human beings is huge.
Unfortunately, your behavior on this newsgroup is hurting PWB
Electronics. You are one individual, Dr. Richard Graham. The entities
"soundhaspriority" and "Richard Graham" do not enjoy absolution for each
other's actions. Let is now progress to the question of subjugation of the
ego. The subjugated ego is subject to societal controls. Anonymization,
which has reached the extreme on the Internet, has tempted some individuals
to release their egos from subjugation, in varying degree. While your
intellectual gifts cannot be denied, the better part of your posts here
demonstrate some degree of "acting out", which seems to be motivated by an
extreme need for personal respect and acceptance of your intellectual
offerings.
It seems that you have chosen to segment your life, allowing your
identity "soundhaspriority" behaviors not permitted to Dr. Richard Graham. I
personally know a number of mental health professionals, and I know that the
profession can be extremely frustrating, engendering great anger in the
therapist as a consequence of the nonresponsiveness of clients. However, the
notion that a "pen name" provides anonymity is fraught with peril. It does
not, as you might think, shield you from personal consequences. It is a
shield built on deceptive logic.
You are inevitably acquainted with the term "theory of mind".
According to those of us who are not believers in mental telepathy, it is
"theory of mind" that allows us to empathize and explore the minds of
others. The power of it cannot be overestimated. When I read your words,
whether they be a PWB Electronics newsletter, or one of these posts, or
private correspondence, I feel your mind with an intimacy that is alarming
and terrible. I sense the reverse of the river of thought and influence,
flowing now from patient to therapist. I cannot think of anything more
frustrating than the mental care of adolescents, but you must not allow this
river to continue the reverse of its course, or it will destroy you.
You must choose now to honor both your profession, and your relationship
with PWB.

Regards,
Robert Morein

Wow, if they have peer monitoring, I wonder if he tells his
shrink about these alter egos that he banters around the internet as?
That would considered somewhat deviant behavior, wouldn't it?

soundhaspriority wrote:








Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on your bong?




Before, when someone discuss your free tweaks, you do not
hesitate to share your thoughts and opinion. You give forth lengthy
responses filled with many information explaining about your tweaks
and how interesting they are. Your replies were loooonnggg and
eloquently express everything you have in mind. The information
you gave rekindle my curiosity and the enthusiasm which we share
about our hobby.


But this is no more.


Now you simply accuse others of ingesting illicit drugs and
hastily go away. This cannot be. Seasoned Rao'ers expect
more than just a faltering and befuddling non-answer.





[ Ok, have to step out now and put in the 8 hrs...]




--
I'm in the convoluted-mind fixing business. All my works are guaranteed.

JBorg, Jr. trolled:



Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on your bong?



Oh c'mon! I'm barely warming up.

You're dead in the water, far as I'm concerned.

Your above comment is known around
here as a non-answer. With all due respect, that is a sign of a cowardice -
if I may.

Oooh... .you said the "C" word! Now I GOTTA do as you ask, because now
it's serious! After all, my virtual honour is at stake! Geez JB,
you're not even an idiot like the rest. You're an "amateur idiot".

You have refer to all the regulars here with the most ungracious
insults.

Really? I kinda thought they were gracious insults.

They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.

Not a word of truth in that, jackass. I've only insulted those who
insulted me, and even then, only when they really, really wouldn't
stop. And only on permission from my priest, first.

Go ahead now, and put forth a lucid reply to my post above.

Write a lucid reply, and we'll see. Better yet, write an intelligent,
no BS post, you might have a better chance of getting my attention.
Troll me again like you did twice now, and you'll get what you dish
out, or... you'll be talking to the hand, not the face.

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 01:48:04 GMT, "JBorg, Jr."
wrote:
They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.


I very much like this sentence. Is it from the Psalms? :-)

It's so very true too.

JBorg, Jr. wrote:
soundhaspriority wrote:

Before, when someone discuss your free tweaks, you do not
hesitate to share your thoughts and opinion. You give forth lengthy
responses filled with many information explaining about your tweaks
and how interesting they are. Your replies were loooonnggg and
eloquently express everything you have in mind. The information
you gave rekindle my curiosity and the enthusiasm which we share
about our hobby.


But this is no more.

Sad, isn't it? You missing out on all the fun and all, to mock and
ridicule me. I'm sure you'll get your chance to mock and ridicule
someone else who speaks of audio ideas you are thoroughly ignorant of.
Strange that you wrote this 2 minutes before I sent you my reply to
your last complaint, which makes it the second time you reply to the
same post?!

It's very simple. If you want to play games with me, such as asking
me stupid questions, I don't have the time for that. If you want to
discuss the tweaks in a sincere manner, I might grant you the time. In
which case you'd better be clear, concise, and entirely serious.

Now you simply accuse others of ingesting illicit drugs and
hastily go away. This cannot be. Seasoned Rao'ers expect
more than just a faltering and befuddling non-answer.

Than why, 9 times out of 10, do they give one to me?

wrote in message
oups.com
Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:

Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term
project to build his own private reality. Once that goal
has been reached, he will use this newly crafted reality
to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
individuals he can find, and then program to commit
nefarious deeds not of their own volition. It's evil,
yes, but how else can a loony tune like Shovels amuse
himself?

Shovels, do you realize you've just described your agenda
on RAO for the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but how else
can a loony tune like you amuse yourself?

Beating up on his mother? ;-)

wrote:


It's very simple. If you want to play games with me, such as asking
me stupid questions, I don't have the time for that.

Yes you do. Don't kid yourself.

//Walt

wrote in message
oups.com...

Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:

Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use
this
newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not
of
their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
Shovels amuse himself?

Shovels, do you realize you've just described your agenda on RAO for
the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but how else can a loony tune like
you amuse yourself?

Dear Dr. Graham:
"Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers to you.

Regards,
Robert Morein

Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:

Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term project to build
his own private reality. Once that goal has been reached, he will use
this
newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the most vulnerable
individuals he can find, and then program to commit nefarious deeds not
of
their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a loony tune like
Shovels amuse himself?

Shovels, do you realize you've just described your agenda on RAO for
the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but how else can a loony tune like
you amuse yourself?


"Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers to you.

Who's "George Middius"?

wrote in message
ups.com
Robert Morein wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Shovels, filled with guilt and irony, wrote:

Shovie is preoccupied at the moment with his long-term
project to build his own private reality. Once that
goal has been reached, he will use this
newly crafted reality to draw in others, probably the
most vulnerable individuals he can find, and then
program to commit nefarious deeds not of
their own volition. It's evil, yes, but how else can a
loony tune like Shovels amuse himself?

Shovels, do you realize you've just described your
agenda on RAO for the last 8 years? It's evil yes, but
how else can a loony tune like you amuse yourself?


"Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers
to you.

Who's "George Middius"?

Yet another RAO sockpuppet/alias like you. ;-)

Shovels joins forces with Mikey and the Krooborg.

"Shovels" is a term by which George Middius refers to you.

Who's "George Middius"?

Both of your role models, i.e. duh-Mikey and Arnii Kroofeces, also resort
to the "who said what?" copout when they're cornered. Congratulations,
Shovie -- you finally picked an RAO "team".





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

soundhaspriority wrote
JBorg, Jr. trolled:
soundhaspriority wrote




Is it safe for me to assume you took one too many hits on
your bong?



Oh c'mon! I'm barely warming up.

You're dead in the water, far as I'm concerned.

Your above comment is known around here as a non-answer.
With all due respect, that is a sign of a cowardice - if I may.

Oooh... .you said the "C" word! Now I GOTTA do as you ask,
because now it's serious! After all, my virtual honour is at stake!
Geez JB, you're not even an idiot like the rest. You're an
"amateur idiot".

You have refer to all the regulars here with the most ungracious
insults.

Really? I kinda thought they were gracious insults.

They have reasoned politely with you but yet, you have retorted
back to them abusively and lewdly with words so unkind.

Not a word of truth in that, jackass. I've only insulted those who
insulted me, and even then, only when they really, really wouldn't
stop. And only on permission from my priest, first.

Go ahead now, and put forth a lucid reply to my post above.

Write a lucid reply, and we'll see. Better yet, write an intelligent,
no BS post, you might have a better chance of getting my attention.
Troll me again like you did twice now, and you'll get what you dish
out, or... you'll be talking to the hand, not the face.



Which part of my post was BS, and why?

You said that your free tweak can be directly verified. So in essence,
all that I ask was: How did you directly verify that the 3" x 2" unbleach
rectangular white paper with a small hole in each corner and a
photograph of a cut-out 4-legged animal (with a tail) having an aspirin
on the center pinhole work when placed atop the speaker box?

Fair enough ?

soundhaspriority wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote:
soundhaspriority wrote:




Before, when someone discuss your free tweaks, you do not
hesitate to share your thoughts and opinion. You give forth lengthy
responses filled with many information explaining about your tweaks
and how interesting they are. Your replies were loooonnggg and
eloquently express everything you have in mind. The information
you gave rekindle my curiosity and the enthusiasm which we share
about our hobby.


But this is no more.

Sad, isn't it? You missing out on all the fun and all, to mock and
ridicule me. I'm sure you'll get your chance to mock and ridicule
someone else who speaks of audio ideas you are thoroughly ignorant of.
Strange that you wrote this 2 minutes before I sent you my reply to
your last complaint, which makes it the second time you reply to the
same post?!

It's very simple. If you want to play games with me, such as asking
me stupid questions, I don't have the time for that. If you want to
discuss the tweaks in a sincere manner, I might grant you the time. In
which case you'd better be clear, concise, and entirely serious.


Where and when did I mock and ridicule you ?

Why was the question I ask stupid ?


Now you simply accuse others of ingesting illicit drugs and
hastily go away. This cannot be. Seasoned Rao'ers expect
more than just a faltering and befuddling non-answer.

Than why, 9 times out of 10, do they give one to me?


I don't know. Who?