I apologise for reposting what I wrote 3 days ago.
It disappeared from Google within two hours swamped by more of SHP. I
just found his retort.
More about my inadequacies but not a word about EVIDENCE
by controlled experiment for his tweaks or Belts' audio aids.

Mr. SHP said:
"Speaking of bugs, doctors had such faith in the prevailing wisdom of
the day, that they ridiculed a 19th century Hungarian surgeon named
Ignaz Semmelweiss. Who argued that doctors could pass on potentially
life threatening diseases, if they did not disinfect their hands before
an operation. Despite evidence that deaths on his ward were reduced,
Semmelweiss' findings were ignored by the conservatives that were
prevalent in the medical/scientific industry. People DIED because of
people like you, Elmir. Don't forget that.
They ***DIED***, in case you didn't get that."
I answered:

" I couldn't have said it better myself. Doctors, witch=
doctors and quacks were killing people for millenia. They were
applying spider webs to open wounds, cauterised and bled the sick
wholesale.
Why? Because like Semmelweis contemporaries they
relied on gorgeous theories like noxious miasmas, stars in a bad
configuration, devils
in the flesh, morphic resonances and hymns to quantum rather than
looking for a little thing called evidence.
If women were still dying wholesale of puerperal fever
in 1952 Dr. Semmelweis would be writing a paper for "The Lancet"
demonstrating a dramatic fall in mortality rates in women treated by
doctors with clean hands.
The trick is not to invent more loony-bin ideas
like pinpricks in a sheet of paper with photos of animals- fourlegged,
no chicken,
pigeons or centipedes- but to show that they WORK for believers and
nonbelievers alike..
Granted that would be quite difficult in the world
of subjective perceptions. So if it works for you or Mssrs, Fella and
De Waal well and good. All kinds of things work for all kinds of people
in the world of likes and dislikes.
If someone believes that he had wonderful
intercourse with a beautiful extraterrestrial who am I to argue? It is
only when he wants to start a movement and begins to sell amulets that
one recalls other messianic movements ending in mass-suicide."
Or.. when he takes over a hitherto half-sane forum."

Belatedly it came to me that I did not define EVIDENCE
Evidence ideally would comprise a representative crosssection of
listeners: genders, ages, audio experience etc. Obviously very
difficult or not feasible.
So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.
Of course such a single blind test would not be acceptable to a JAES
editor. DBT and repeats with a statistically significant group would be
required. But a little is enough for RAO.
Witching incantations are not
L.M.
wrote:
I apologise for reposting what I wrote 3 days ago.
It disappeared from Google within two hours swamped by more of SHP. I
just found his retort.
More about my inadequacies but not a word about EVIDENCE
by controlled experiment for his tweaks or Belts' audio aids.

Mr. SHP said:
"Speaking of bugs, doctors had such faith in the prevailing wisdom of
the day, that they ridiculed a 19th century Hungarian surgeon named
Ignaz Semmelweiss. Who argued that doctors could pass on potentially
life threatening diseases, if they did not disinfect their hands before
an operation. Despite evidence that deaths on his ward were reduced,
Semmelweiss' findings were ignored by the conservatives that were
prevalent in the medical/scientific industry. People DIED because of
people like you, Elmir. Don't forget that.
They ***DIED***, in case you didn't get that."
I answered:

" I couldn't have said it better myself. Doctors, witch=
doctors and quacks were killing people for millenia. They were
applying spider webs to open wounds, cauterised and bled the sick
wholesale.
Why? Because like Semmelweis contemporaries they
relied on gorgeous theories like noxious miasmas, stars in a bad
configuration, devils
in the flesh, morphic resonances and hymns to quantum rather than
looking for a little thing called evidence.
If women were still dying wholesale of puerperal fever
in 1952 Dr. Semmelweis would be writing a paper for "The Lancet"
demonstrating a dramatic fall in mortality rates in women treated by
doctors with clean hands.
The trick is not to invent more loony-bin ideas
like pinpricks in a sheet of paper with photos of animals- fourlegged,
no chicken,
pigeons or centipedes- but to show that they WORK for believers and
nonbelievers alike..
Granted that would be quite difficult in the world
of subjective perceptions. So if it works for you or Mssrs, Fella and
De Waal well and good. All kinds of things work for all kinds of people
in the world of likes and dislikes.
If someone believes that he had wonderful
intercourse with a beautiful extraterrestrial who am I to argue? It is
only when he wants to start a movement and begins to sell amulets that
one recalls other messianic movements ending in mass-suicide."
Or.. when he takes over a hitherto half-sane forum."

wrote in message
oups.com...
Belatedly it came to me that I did not define EVIDENCE
Evidence ideally would comprise a representative crosssection of
listeners: genders, ages, audio experience etc. Obviously very
difficult or not feasible.
So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.

My faith in audiophiles that with experience, they can remove a large
percentage of bias, is somewhat shaken. While I still believe that many
audiophiles can compare well enough for their personal purposes, is there
anything that can be done to protect the audiophile who might decide to give
Richard Graham a large sum of money for a PWB tweak? Is there any kind of
prophylactic education that could be provided? Or should we sacrfice such an
individual in defence of our own freedom?

This is bound to lead to a discussion of Arny on the way to the mention of
Adoph Hitler.

Ludo said:

Belatedly it came to me that I did not define EVIDENCE
Evidence ideally would comprise a representative crosssection of
listeners: genders, ages, audio experience etc. Obviously very
difficult or not feasible.
So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.
Of course such a single blind test would not be acceptable to a JAES
editor. DBT and repeats with a statistically significant group would be
required. But a little is enough for RAO.
Witching incantations are not


This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended to convince
you or anybody else that what they perceived was "real". Who cares if
they imagined it? Form your own opinion of the procedures or the
participants, but it's farfetched to believe anybody who undertakes a
"tweak" involving a drawing and an aspirin tablet is pursuing a
scientific inquiry.




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

George M. Middius wrote:
Ludo said:

Belatedly it came to me that I did not define EVIDENCE
Evidence ideally would comprise a representative crosssection of
listeners: genders, ages, audio experience etc. Obviously very
difficult or not feasible.
So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.
Of course such a single blind test would not be acceptable to a JAES
editor. DBT and repeats with a statistically significant group would be
required. But a little is enough for RAO.
Witching incantations are not


This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended to convince
you or anybody else that what they perceived was "real". Who cares if
they imagined it? Form your own opinion of the procedures or the
participants, but it's farfetched to believe anybody who undertakes a
"tweak" involving a drawing and an aspirin tablet is pursuing a
scientific inquiry.

On reflection- you're right. To each his own and vive la liberte.
Ludovic Mirabel


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

wrote:

I apologise for reposting what I wrote 3 days ago.
It disappeared from Google within two hours swamped by more of SHP. I
just found his retort.
More about my inadequacies but not a word about EVIDENCE
by controlled experiment for his tweaks or Belts' audio aids.

Good bloody lord, are you BLIND? Did you poke your eyes out with a
spoon recently? How many times do I have to answer you on this, for you
to stop saying I never answered you? DO THE DAMN TESTS YOURSELF, and
shut up already about it. I explained to you in very clear terms that I
am not forcing you to use any specific methodology in whatever you want
to test. YOU are the one interested in blind tests, no one else is. So
don't try to bring others into it, and ask them to do tests that YOU
are interested in. (For that matter, since you can't even hear the
effects of the pinhole tweak that hundreds of others can, I doubt VERY
MUCH that you would ever be able to do 12 out of 12 in a blind test
comparing Klipsch horn-driven speakers with a pocket transistor radio -
How big of you to insist on imposing standards on others YOU can't even
reach).

Furthermore, don't be lying about "NOT A WORD OF EVIDENCE" by
controlled experiment for my tweaks and Belt's audio accessories, you
lying sack of crap. I have already talked about the DBTs I did on my
tweaks MANY TIMES on this group, and I have already mentioned to you
the DBT studies the medical establishment did on Belt's audio aids.

I don't know if its something in the water that turns your brains into
sludge but no matter how how many times I say this, it doesn't seem to
sink in with you people: Not I nor ANYONE ELSE has anything to prove to
anyone here. If you're interested in my tweaks, then try them and shut
up talking about trying them. If you're not interested then shut up
talking about them, period. I don't know how I could dumb it down
further than that.


snip redundant post quote

I already responded to this post that you reposted. Obviously, if I did
that, then Google had no problem uploading your post. YOU just have a
problem figuring out how to use Google. No kidding you have a problem
figuring out how to use my tweaks. Jeez!

Or.. when he takes over a hitherto half-sane forum."

I didn't "take over" anything, you dumb sack of crap. The lunatics are
very much in charge of this asylum, and if you had a pair of working
eyes and half a brain in your head, you'd bloody well be able to see
that an average of 7 of the top 10 threads on this group are attacks
against my character, started by you or others here. Exactly how much
of a fool are you to claim that I'm able to control people's minds and
take over this newsgroup?
That's a rhetorical question, btw. No need to answer that either.

You have officially tried my patience now. Don't talk to me again about
DBTs, ABXs or any acronyms for that matter. You wanna do such tests
that's YOUR business. No one else needs to hear about it. And don't
pretend I'm evading things that I have already responded to, and DON'T
give me your same messages to respond to, over and over again. LEARN
HOW TO USE YOUR NEWS SERVICE. It pays dividends in the end.

Shovels decides that science includes only what he knows about:

This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended to convince
you or anybody else that what they perceived was "real". Who cares if
they imagined it? Form your own opinion of the procedures or the
participants

So far, I actually agree with you, Shovels. Seems like occasionally, at
least by accident, you can write a cogent statement, and not look like
a complete ignorant.

, but it's farfetched to believe anybody who undertakes a
"tweak" involving a drawing and an aspirin tablet is pursuing a
scientific inquiry.

.....But here's where you get all "stupid" on me again. It's "far
fetched" that one object can be in two places at the same time. And yet
in the world of quantum mechanics, electrons do. Educate yourself, you
ignorant asshole. Just because you can't figure out a way to wrap your
Middiass brain around something, doesn't make it invalid. If you're too
dumb to educate yourself, and you don't have the courage to do the
scientific experiment of the 5-pinhole tweak, then stop squawking about
things you know nothing about, Shovels. ie. My tweaks.

Crazy Bob Morein the fraudulent shill wrote:

My faith in audiophiles is somewhat shaken.

Welcome to the club. So is mine. There are far too many people like you
calling themselves "audiophiles", with arses so tight and minds so shut
you are already half dead.

While I still believe that many
audiophiles can compare well enough for their personal purposes, is there
anything that can be done to protect the audiophile who might decide to give
Richard Graham a large sum of money for a PWB tweak?

Richard Graham is getting large sums of money for his tweaks? How can I
get in on that action? Hey, if anyone wants to give me large sums of
money for my FREE TWEAKS, who am I to argue? Please email your
donations to my Paypal address at:

Is there any kind of
prophylactic education that could be provided?

You want me to teach a course on safe sex with every FREE TWEAK?
Anything else? Should I be coaching your kid's little league team with
every FREE TWEAK as well? Morein, I'd say you went off the deep end,
but you obviously found a deeper end to go off of.

Get help, you nutbar.

This is bound to lead to a discussion of Arny on the way to the mention of
Adoph Hitler.

Given your fascist tendences of demanding that people bend to your will
and not think for themselves, you're more comparable to Hitler, than
Arny is. And it's "Adolph" idiot, not "Adoph". You should at least know
the name of the guy you pledge allegiance to every day, you audio
fascist.

Or should we sacrfice such an
individual in defence of our own freedom?

I nominate we sacrifice an individual. I nominate that be you, since it
was your idea. And I propose the traditional binding of you to a wooden
stake, and planting you near a volcanic mountain, to become a backscrub
for King Kong. Or how about we just push you into the volcano, would
you prefer that, Condom Boy?

On 17 Apr 2006 00:33:08 -0700,
wrote:

And it's "Adolph" idiot, not "Adoph".

Actually I thought it was "Adolf".

wrote in message
oups.com

The trick is not to invent more loony-bin ideas
like pinpricks in a sheet of paper with photos of
animals- fourlegged, no chicken,
pigeons or centipedes- but to show that they WORK for
believers and nonbelievers alike..

Keep thinking like that Mirabel, and you may even start liking audio DBTs.

Granted that would be quite difficult
in the world of subjective perceptions. So if it works
for you or Mssrs, Fella and De Waal well and good. All
kinds of things work for all kinds of people in the world
of likes and dislikes.

It is irrational to like one thing and dislike another when in fact you
can't discern any difference between them.

If someone believes that he had wonderful
intercourse with a beautiful extraterrestrial who am I
to argue? It is only when he wants to start a movement
and begins to sell amulets that one recalls other
messianic movements ending in mass-suicide."

Or.. when he takes over a hitherto half-sane forum."

Can't be RAO. It started at hafl-crazy in the days of Derrida. Middius and
his crowd pushed it down hill from there.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message
news
This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended
to convince you or anybody else that what they perceived
was "real".

Thanks Middius for admitting that you see no value in reality.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Crazy Bob Morein the fraudulent shill wrote:

My faith in audiophiles is somewhat shaken.

Welcome to the club. So is mine. There are far too many people like you
calling themselves "audiophiles", with arses so tight and minds so shut
you are already half dead.

While I still believe that many
audiophiles can compare well enough for their personal purposes, is there
anything that can be done to protect the audiophile who might decide to
give
Richard Graham a large sum of money for a PWB tweak?

Richard Graham is getting large sums of money for his tweaks? How can I
get in on that action? Hey, if anyone wants to give me large sums of
money for my FREE TWEAKS, who am I to argue? Please email your
donations to my Paypal address at:

Richard, your game is very simple. Lure people in with the "free tweaks",
and then pitch them the "cream", as you have already done.
You are a fraud.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Shovels decides that science includes only what he knows about:

This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended to convince
you or anybody else that what they perceived was "real". Who cares if
they imagined it? Form your own opinion of the procedures or the
participants

So far, I actually agree with you, Shovels. Seems like occasionally, at
least by accident, you can write a cogent statement, and not look like
a complete ignorant.

, but it's farfetched to believe anybody who undertakes a
"tweak" involving a drawing and an aspirin tablet is pursuing a
scientific inquiry.

....But here's where you get all "stupid" on me again. It's "far
fetched" that one object can be in two places at the same time. And yet
in the world of quantum mechanics, electrons do.

This is not correct. It is a misstatement. of the wave-particle duality,
which is caused by the attempted transliteration of a mathematical formula
to the domain of common experience. It is acceptable to do this as an
intuitive aid, but it does not produce a deductively useful step.

But that's Richard's "As Seen on TV" version of science.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

I apologise for reposting what I wrote 3 days ago.
It disappeared from Google within two hours swamped by more of SHP. I
just found his retort.
More about my inadequacies but not a word about EVIDENCE
by controlled experiment for his tweaks or Belts' audio aids.

Good bloody lord, are you BLIND? Did you poke your eyes out with a
spoon recently? How many times do I have to answer you on this, for you
to stop saying I never answered you? DO THE DAMN TESTS YOURSELF,

It is not valid to do this.

Robert Morein said:


Richard Graham is getting large sums of money for his tweaks? How can I
get in on that action? Hey, if anyone wants to give me large sums of
money for my FREE TWEAKS, who am I to argue? Please email your
donations to my Paypal address at:


Richard, your game is very simple. Lure people in with the "free tweaks",
and then pitch them the "cream", as you have already done.
You are a fraud.


Yep, I just ordered a 200 liter container of the stuff.
Unfortunately, I don't wear glasses, so I intend to smear it all over
my windows instead.
I think I'll sell the rest to some unsuspecting audiophiles in the
Netherlands.
Rudy, how much do you need?
Don't answer that, I'll *tell* you how much you will need.

Oh SHP, please don't forget my commission!

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

" said:


So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.


Now why should I do that?
Just to satisfy *your* curiosity?

Come on Elmir, you're sounding just like Arny here.

I never responded well to the phrase "Prove it!"

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

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

This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended
to convince you or anybody else that what they perceived
was "real".

Thanks Middius for admitting that you see no value in reality.


Tweakers like Sander and Shippy and Fella do seem to believe something
real happened to the sound after playing their games with
their gear.

Of course, that's rather like Monopoly fans claiming they really are
wealthier after they play a winning round.




___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

I apologise for reposting what I wrote 3 days ago.
It disappeared from Google within two hours swamped by more of SHP. I
just found his retort.
More about my inadequacies but not a word about EVIDENCE
by controlled experiment for his tweaks or Belts' audio aids.

Good bloody lord, are you BLIND? Did you poke your eyes out with a
spoon recently? How many times do I have to answer you on this, for you
to stop saying I never answered you? DO THE DAMN TESTS YOURSELF,

It is not valid to do this.

By the principle of garbage in, garbage out,
all the crappy, poorly-controlled tests in the world can't validate
the claim.



___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

Sander deWaal wrote:
" said:


So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.


Now why should I do that?
Just to satisfy *your* curiosity?

Come on Elmir, you're sounding just like Arny here.

I never responded well to the phrase "Prove it!"

If you're very sensitive to having your claims challenged, perhaps
you should refrain from posting them.


___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - soundhaspriority

Stupey Sillybot pounds his scientism pulpit.

If you're very sensitive to having your claims challenged, perhaps
you should refrain from posting them.

I'm sure Sander knows better than to kowtow to the whiney demands of a
nerd who sports a snootful of Kroo-poo.






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

In article ,
Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended
to convince you or anybody else that what they perceived
was "real".

Thanks Middius for admitting that you see no value in reality.


Tweakers like Sander and Shippy and Fella do seem to believe something
real happened to the sound after playing their games with
their gear.

After they've been so careful to avoid giving that impression...

Of course, that's rather like Monopoly fans claiming they really are
wealthier after they play a winning round.

Interesting analogy. The Monopoly fans are "wealthier" on the game's
terms and remain so until they leave the game.

Stephen

Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended
to convince you or anybody else that what they perceived
was "real".

Thanks Middius for admitting that you see no value in reality.


Tweakers like Sander and Shippy and Fella do seem to believe something
real happened to the sound after playing their games with
their gear.

So have thousands of others who have experimented with such tweaks and
PWB products.
Real things do happen to the sound.

Of course, that's rather like Monopoly fans claiming they really are
wealthier after they play a winning round.

Except you couldn't possibly know that, since you haven't tried a
single product or experiment, and all you've done here is flap your
gums about it, for thousands and thousands of lines.

Truth is, we ARE "wealthier". Wealthier, in terms of our enjoyment and
relationship to our audio systems. We're more relaxed too, when we are
in the company of said audio system, since the tweaks have an effect on
reducing stress in the room (even when the system is not on).






___
-S
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - Steven Sullivan

soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

Shovels decides that science includes only what he knows about:

This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended to convince
you or anybody else that what they perceived was "real". Who cares if
they imagined it? Form your own opinion of the procedures or the
participants

So far, I actually agree with you, Shovels. Seems like occasionally, at
least by accident, you can write a cogent statement, and not look like
a complete ignorant.

, but it's farfetched to believe anybody who undertakes a
"tweak" involving a drawing and an aspirin tablet is pursuing a
scientific inquiry.

....But here's where you get all "stupid" on me again. It's "far
fetched" that one object can be in two places at the same time. And yet
in the world of quantum mechanics, electrons do.

This is not correct.

As seen on the web:

http://forum.physorg.com/One-object-...aces_1940.html

Crazy Bob's invalid argument snipped

But that's Richard's "As Seen on TV" version of science.

Who's "Richard"?

soundhaspriority aka Crazy Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Crazy Bob Morein the fraudulent shill wrote:

My faith in audiophiles is somewhat shaken.

Welcome to the club. So is mine. There are far too many people like you
calling themselves "audiophiles", with arses so tight and minds so shut
you are already half dead.

While I still believe that many
audiophiles can compare well enough for their personal purposes, is there
anything that can be done to protect the audiophile who might decide to
give
Richard Graham a large sum of money for a PWB tweak?

Richard Graham is getting large sums of money for his tweaks? How can I
get in on that action? Hey, if anyone wants to give me large sums of
money for my FREE TWEAKS, who am I to argue? Please email your
donations to my Paypal address at:


Richard, your game is very simple. Lure people in with the "free tweaks",
and then pitch them the "cream", as you have already done.
You are a fraud.


I don't know who "Richard" is but if I was him, I'd object to that,
Crazy Bob. My free tweaks http://www.belt.demon.co.uk have nothing to
do with commercial products. I abhor shilling buy some cream electret
of any kind. It is against my principles, and yes, my very nature buy
foils too.

It is YOU that is the fraud here Morein. For trying to brainwash people
into believing your nonsense http://www.belt.demon.co.uk.

Geez, you even have a PWB approved handle, you lying mental case!

soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

I apologise for reposting what I wrote 3 days ago.
It disappeared from Google within two hours swamped by more of SHP. I
just found his retort.
More about my inadequacies but not a word about EVIDENCE
by controlled experiment for his tweaks or Belts' audio aids.

Good bloody lord, are you BLIND? Did you poke your eyes out with a
spoon recently? How many times do I have to answer you on this, for you
to stop saying I never answered you? DO THE DAMN TESTS YOURSELF,

It is not valid to do this.

Well, not for you it isn't. As I showed by reprinting your words to me,
you claimed that because of your neurotic afflictions, you can't
reliably detect differences in ANYTHING, as your listening capability
changes randomly from moment to moment!

Sander deWaal wrote:

Robert Morein said:


Richard Graham is getting large sums of money for his tweaks? How can I
get in on that action? Hey, if anyone wants to give me large sums of
money for my FREE TWEAKS, who am I to argue? Please email your
donations to my Paypal address at:


Richard, your game is very simple. Lure people in with the "free tweaks",
and then pitch them the "cream", as you have already done.
You are a fraud.


Yep, I just ordered a 200 liter container of the stuff.
Unfortunately, I don't wear glasses, so I intend to smear it all over
my windows instead.
I think I'll sell the rest to some unsuspecting audiophiles in the
Netherlands.
Rudy, how much do you need?
Don't answer that, I'll *tell* you how much you will need.

Oh SHP, please don't forget my commission!

It's on its a way, along with a complimentary vial of green morphic sex
cream. "Good for whatever ails ya!". wink

p.s. Don't forget you have wax your floors and polish your walls with
the stuff. So in all consideration, 200l might not be enough. But you
can get a 10% discount if you say "Shippy sent me".

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Sander deWaal wrote:
" said:


So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.


Now why should I do that?
Just to satisfy *your* curiosity?

Come on Elmir, you're sounding just like Arny here.

I never responded well to the phrase "Prove it!"

If you're very sensitive to having your claims challenged, perhaps
you should refrain from posting them.

You're confused again, Sullyvan. No one here is "sensitive to having
their claims challenged". We don't care what you wish to sweepingly
dismiss. If you are sensitive to feeling humiliated because you opened
up your mind for once in your sorry life, then perhaps you should
refrain from commenting on the tweaks until such time as you are
courageous enough and have enough scientific integrity to try them
yourself, instead of demanding others do that for you.




___
-SHP
"Excuse me? What solid proof do you have that I'm insane?" - Steven Sullivan

Sander deWaal wrote:
" said:


So let's compromise. As I said before; to begin with let's hear
from De Waal and Fella. that they listened blind to 15 repeats of a
musical fragment with someone changing randomly from "with tweak" to
"without tweak" . They would have to fill in "like", "don't like"
squares. 12 correct ("like it better with the tweak") guesses would be
statistically signifcant but 10 out of twelve would be of interest.


Now why should I do that?
Just to satisfy *your* curiosity?

Come on Elmir, you're sounding just like Arny here.

I never responded well to the phrase "Prove it!"

============================================
Sorry, I take it back. I thought you may want to satisfy your own
curiosity. My mistake. It is obvious that making 5 pinholes in a piece
of paper, with a photo of an animal and an aspirin tablet is bound to
improve your sound.
Don't look any further and happy listening.
Ludovic Mirabel
- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

wrote:

Sorry, I take it back. I thought you may want to satisfy your own
curiosity. My mistake.

Stop being an arrogant prick, you arrogant prick. I have already
explained to you that my curiousity was satisfied, and it was satisfied
20 years ago. You think any of this crap is new to me, you think I just
started trying pinhole tweaks yesterday, you think you're the only one
who's ever heard of a DBT, you arrogant prick? Just because you can't
figure out how to put together a piece of paper, an animal pic and an
aspirin and you're frustrated about that, does not mean everyone is as
incompetent or as deaf as you, Ludovic.

I doubt very much that you spent time in the hifi shop doing DBTs in
order to select the components you have in your audio system. Yet like
a hypocrite that you are, you expect everyone else to perform DBTs on
audio devices that you're not even prepared to do.

It is obvious that making 5 pinholes in a piece
of paper, with a photo of an animal and an aspirin tablet is bound to
improve your sound.

It is to many people that try it and hear that it does, yes. 3 people
on ths group tried it, 3 people found that it did improve their sound.
Theoretically, that's another story. Nothing is "obvious" in the world
of quantum mechanics and morphogenetics.

Don't look any further and happy listening.

I have looked as far as anyone needs to, in order to validate this
stuff. I have had people confirm changes even though I never told them
that I did ANYTHING to the stereo, and the theories make sense to me.
I've even taken DBTs already, not because I believe in that crap but
just to satisfy a friend of mine. Of course, you choose to ignore that,
as many times as I've said it to you. Just because you are an eternal
skeptic, does not mean everyone should be.

Bottom line: I've spent the last 20 years "satisfying my curiousity"
that Belt's tweaks and products WORK, and work as advertized. You've
probably spent 20 seconds, if that, and concluded your manhood was
robbed from you, and that I'm a rotten SOB for suggesting they work.
And your asking me, Sander and Fella to confirm these things for YOU??
And complaining that I'm not "properly satisfying my curiousity"? What
an arrogant prick you are!

Had you properly tried the L-shape printout I suggested and been HONEST
with your findings, you would probably finally find out what a
misguided, ignorant bigot you've been all these years, and how little
you really know about our world.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

The trick is not to invent more loony-bin ideas
like pinpricks in a sheet of paper with photos of
animals- fourlegged, no chicken,
pigeons or centipedes- but to show that they WORK for
believers and nonbelievers alike..

Keep thinking like that Mirabel, and you may even start liking audio DBTs.

Granted that would be quite difficult
in the world of subjective perceptions. So if it works
for you or Mssrs, Fella and De Waal well and good. All
kinds of things work for all kinds of people in the world
of likes and dislikes.

It is irrational to like one thing and dislike another when in fact you
can't discern any difference between them.

If someone believes that he had wonderful
intercourse with a beautiful extraterrestrial who am I
to argue? It is only when he wants to start a movement
and begins to sell amulets that one recalls other
messianic movements ending in mass-suicide."

Or.. when he takes over a hitherto half-sane forum."

Can't be RAO. It started at hafl-crazy in the days of Derrida. Middius and
his crowd pushed it down hill from there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Arny, far from being an enemy of blind tests I wrote a paper promoting
one five years ago. And you know it. You argued against it off and on
for several years because it was not ABX. I usually refrain from
mentioning it not to raise a hornets' nest but since you insist...:
Instead of ABXing the "tweak" in successive trials "with
and without" do something much simpler, not requiring switches and
feats of memory for memorising A and B and X in succession. Have a
friend or a patient wife put the tweak on one side and no tweak on the
other of your stereo. You're blinded. Your assistant changes sides
randomly to eliminate the room effects, speaker volume differences etc.
If you consistently prefer the tweaked side the tweak works.
Like it Arny? No switches , no apparatus. Conforms to
the KISS principle.
Remember of course that the results are valid for you
and you only. Who knows SHP may plump for the tweak every time.
Blinded.
Ludovic Mirabel

SHP is getting very annoyed with me. Not only he makes himself a
mouthpiece for helpless de Waal, unasked, but his language is getting
more and more pungent. (Courtly de Waal never would plunge in the
gutter this way):
"Lying sack of crap"
"Dumb sack of crap"
"Arrogant prick"
and a comparative endearment:"Crazy *******"
Judging by his and Pinkerton's identical discussion methods
the British middle classes striving anxiously to keep up with
hiphoppers have succeeded. They deserve each other.
But I must be doing something right to get his dander up
sky-high.
All I said was that references to "morphic resonances" and
such do not explain how he arrived at his tweak. Resonances or no
resonances- five pinpricks, aspirin and a portrait of a dog are not a
blindingly obvious, hitherto missed, route to enhance your audio. So
the enquiry about his own thought processes and research to get there
seem not unreasonable. All one is asking for is documentation that the
tweak WORKS Not just for him. For who, how many of them, how selected,
where and when?.
He talks about his own blind tests.
One craves to hear some of the tantalising details: Some of
them: how long and how many sleepless nights in his lab. did it take
him to settle on five pinholes in preference to one, two, three or
four? Why a fourlegged animal rather than a bird or a snake? That alone
must have cost him hundreds of tests over hundreds of hours. Not to
mention the choice of aspirin out of thousands of items in the
pharmacopeia.
Was it just he alone or others with him? Where and when
did he submit his research to an editorial review for publication?
SHP not only refuses to document his own "research" but he
quotes his guru,lady Belt who will not disclose which "Chemical X" she
uses on the "treated foil".
Mystery substances sold for profit are a hallmark of
CRUDE quackery relying on thousands of idiots with cash to burn.
If you have an original discovery and want to sell it you
submit it to the patent office. Or you may give it to humanity for
free. You don't sell "antibiotic X" or "tranquiliser Y".
That a publicity agent for the "Chemical X" writes for
an audio forum is not surprising. That his rubbish is discussed in all
seriousness is.
Ludovic Mirabel
-=-----------------------------------------------------------------

wrote:
wrote:

Sorry, I take it back. I thought you may want to satisfy your own
curiosity. My mistake.

Stop being an arrogant prick, you arrogant prick. I have already
explained to you that my curiousity was satisfied, and it was satisfied
20 years ago. You think any of this crap is new to me, you think I just
started trying pinhole tweaks yesterday, you think you're the only one
who's ever heard of a DBT, you arrogant prick? Just because you can't
figure out how to put together a piece of paper, an animal pic and an
aspirin and you're frustrated about that, does not mean everyone is as
incompetent or as deaf as you, Ludovic.

I doubt very much that you spent time in the hifi shop doing DBTs in
order to select the components you have in your audio system. Yet like
a hypocrite that you are, you expect everyone else to perform DBTs on
audio devices that you're not even prepared to do.

It is obvious that making 5 pinholes in a piece
of paper, with a photo of an animal and an aspirin tablet is bound to
improve your sound.

It is to many people that try it and hear that it does, yes. 3 people
on ths group tried it, 3 people found that it did improve their sound.
Theoretically, that's another story. Nothing is "obvious" in the world
of quantum mechanics and morphogenetics.

Don't look any further and happy listening.

I have looked as far as anyone needs to, in order to validate this
stuff. I have had people confirm changes even though I never told them
that I did ANYTHING to the stereo, and the theories make sense to me.
I've even taken DBTs already, not because I believe in that crap but
just to satisfy a friend of mine. Of course, you choose to ignore that,
as many times as I've said it to you. Just because you are an eternal
skeptic, does not mean everyone should be.

Bottom line: I've spent the last 20 years "satisfying my curiousity"
that Belt's tweaks and products WORK, and work as advertized. You've
probably spent 20 seconds, if that, and concluded your manhood was
robbed from you, and that I'm a rotten SOB for suggesting they work.
And your asking me, Sander and Fella to confirm these things for YOU??
And complaining that I'm not "properly satisfying my curiousity"? What
an arrogant prick you are!

Had you properly tried the L-shape printout I suggested and been HONEST
with your findings, you would probably finally find out what a
misguided, ignorant bigot you've been all these years, and how little
you really know about our world.

wrote in message
oups.com...

soundhaspriority aka Crazy Robert Morein wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

Crazy Bob Morein the fraudulent shill wrote:

My faith in audiophiles is somewhat shaken.

Welcome to the club. So is mine. There are far too many people like you
calling themselves "audiophiles", with arses so tight and minds so shut
you are already half dead.

While I still believe that many
audiophiles can compare well enough for their personal purposes, is
there
anything that can be done to protect the audiophile who might decide
to
give
Richard Graham a large sum of money for a PWB tweak?

Richard Graham is getting large sums of money for his tweaks? How can I
get in on that action? Hey, if anyone wants to give me large sums of
money for my FREE TWEAKS, who am I to argue? Please email your
donations to my Paypal address at:


Richard, your game is very simple. Lure people in with the "free tweaks",
and then pitch them the "cream", as you have already done.
You are a fraud.


I don't know who "Richard" is but if I was him, I'd object to that,
Crazy Bob.

You're just a scammer.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:

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

This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended
to convince you or anybody else that what they perceived
was "real".

Thanks Middius for admitting that you see no value in reality.


Tweakers like Sander and Shippy and Fella do seem to believe something
real happened to the sound after playing their games with
their gear.

So have thousands of others who have experimented with such tweaks and
PWB products.
Real things do happen to the sound.

Real loss of money occurs to the victim.

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Sorry, I take it back. I thought you may want to satisfy your own
curiosity. My mistake.

Stop being an arrogant prick, you arrogant prick.
Richard, you are an arrogant prick.

wrote in message
ups.com...
soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

I apologise for reposting what I wrote 3 days ago.
It disappeared from Google within two hours swamped by more of SHP. I
just found his retort.
More about my inadequacies but not a word about EVIDENCE
by controlled experiment for his tweaks or Belts' audio aids.

Good bloody lord, are you BLIND? Did you poke your eyes out with a
spoon recently? How many times do I have to answer you on this, for you
to stop saying I never answered you? DO THE DAMN TESTS YOURSELF,

It is not valid to do this.

Well, not for you it isn't.

It isn't. You are a scammer.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Only one fact is relevant. You are a scammer.

Not-Shovels rips off the bandage, and out pours the dark light.

you arrogant prick
you arrogant prick
any of this crap
you arrogant prick
as incompetent or as deaf as you

Tsk, tsk. Mind your temper, Not.

I'm a rotten SOB

Well, of course we knew that.

an arrogant prick you are!
misguided, ignorant bigot

Did you get permission from the real Shovels to carry on like this in
his/her name?





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

soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message
news
This is bizarre. Neither of those guys said they intended
to convince you or anybody else that what they perceived
was "real".

Thanks Middius for admitting that you see no value in reality.


Tweakers like Sander and Shippy and Fella do seem to believe something
real happened to the sound after playing their games with
their gear.

So have thousands of others who have experimented with such tweaks and
PWB products.
Real things do happen to the sound.

Real loss of money occurs to the victim.


Where's your proof?

soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Sorry, I take it back. I thought you may want to satisfy your own
curiosity. My mistake.

Stop being an arrogant prick, you arrogant prick.
Richard, you are an arrogant prick.

Robert, you're an arrogant prick.

(And who's "Richard"?)

soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Only one fact is relevant. You are a scammer.

Only one fact is relevant. YOU are a scammer.