That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help notice that
whenever someone writes something about me, and 999 times out of 1,000,
it's something extremely malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a
LIE.

When people aren't writing LIES about me, they're writing ARROGANT
LIES. When they take a break from writing ARROGANT LIES, they're
usually seen writing FALSEHOODS. Some of these FALSEHOODS are based on
speculation, hearsay and conjecture. The rest are found in the category
of "deliberate falsehoods". That's when someone says something about
you they know is a lie. Like when Robert Morein says I'm Richard Graham
(even though everyone else thinks otherwise. Though the rest don't all
agree on who I am, of course. Each one lies to themselves in different
ways).

When people are not writing FALSEHOODS, they're saying wrongful things
about me. When they're not saying wrongful things however, they are
sometimes just misappropriating what I say. But usually, they are busy
making up things OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. Like Robert Morein saying I'm a
crack addict and a murderer. (Sorry to use Robert in so many expamples,
but he really is a shining paradigm of what RAO is all about. Although
he is the sickest puppy on the group, and has got the biggest pitchfork
of all the Demons of RAO).

Sometimes though, people aren't writing FALSHEHOODS about me, or making
things up OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH. Sometimes, they're just fibbing, or being
mendacious, or duplicitious, misleading, beguiling, delusory, roguish,
or plain misleading. But most of the time though, it's just your
old-fashioned LIES that people say about me. Most things said about me
are intentional LIES, and to the truly clueless among you,
unintentional LIES. Here are some of them:

THE TOP TEN LIST OF RAO'S LIES ABOUT ME
(a full list would include thousands of items, actually):
==========================

1. I am Dr. Richard Graham

2. I'm a shill, who's intent is to sell, but not advertize, products.

3. I am affiliated with PWB

4. I'm a working psyhicatrist, specializing in adolescents, and while
it's been proven that I don't have the time to edit my own newsletters,
I somehow do have the time to "rape and pillage" RAO.

5. My tweaks don't work (This is expressed in many, many ways,
including: "Your tweaks are a joke, they're "insane", they're for
"lunatics", etc. etc.)

6. I don't believe myself that my tweaks work.

7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's share of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.

So he's just politely told that he's "fooling himself", and some very
lengthy explanations have been written by some very misguided people
(ie. Robert Morein, Ludovic Mirable, Steve Sullivan, etc) , to try to
convince Sander of why he's fooling himself. None have worked, so far,
because apparently, his new stereo speaks louder than the fools on this
group, trying to convince him he didn't hear what him and his friends
have heard. Even though they've never tried the tweaks themselves.

8. I "raped and pillaged" RAO. (That's one of my favourite lies about
me, just for the sheer irony of it).

9. I went to marketing school.

10. My recounting of my recent experiences with Belt's cream elecret
("The Benefits of Cream Electret: "The Cream Is A Scream!" ) was a lie,
and not a true story.


***************************

There's one thing that all of these lies people have written about me
have in common: not a single one of them is true. There's another thing
that they all have in common: NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN A SINGLE ONE OF
THEIR LIES. In fact, no one has ever even tried to prove one of their
lies. Every time I casually ask someone to prove anything they ever
say, whether its a lie about me, my tweaks, or Arny lying about what he
clearly wrote about Sennheiser 580's or about me being Ernst Raedekcer
in one of his own posts, people on RAO can always be predicted to do
one of two things:

1) Evade the request for proof.
2) Run like hell in the opposite direction, and never show any valid
proof.


Why are so many people lying about me? Because I was kind enough to
give them free tweaks. Something that no one else here has done on the
history of this newsgroup. (That only makes sense here on RAO, so any
new lurkers reading this are going to have to figure that one out for
yourselves). Perhaps this is why most chose not to take advantage of
them. RAO netizens are such a fearful, paranoid group, that they don't
understand why someone they don't know would try to help them. And so
they believe this "helping your fellow audiophile ploy" must be a new
kind of "attack", the likes of which they've never seen before. Which
is why they were in "attack mode" against me FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
And the attack mode only escalated, as they found new reasons to
convince themselves that my giving free tweaks to the group out of the
generosity of my big heart, was somehow an EVIL PLOT, full of deceitful
intention and ill will. I know I've said this before but it bears
repeating: A greater bunch of crackpots you will never find
concentrated in one place, outside of an insane asylum.

The whiners whine...

"But what you're saying is preposterous! It's ridiculous! You're the
one who is lying! For these "lies" as you call them, have long been
accepted as FACT! As Shovels here said to you recently, "We all know
that you.....". And you should know that whatever follows "We all know
that you....." is always a FACT on RAO! Popular opinion by a majority
of ANY group, can always be counted on as being a 101% TRUE FACT! This
is why 10 million Elvis fans aren't wrong, and why all of your tweaks
and the products you mention are BOGUS!"

"People don't have to try them to find out, or even figure out how the
science behind them really works (and not just "pretend" to find out,
and believe they've figured it out). They just have to listen to what
they're about, compare that to what they ALREADY KNOW about audio, and
then laught their bloody guts out! Because as we all know, it's
IMPOSSIBLE for something new to come along that changes what we know
about something else. Otherwise then, what we thought we knew all along
would be wrong, wouldn't it? insert head scratching sfx here

It's IMPOSSIBLE for a majority of people to agree on something, like
your tweaks being a joke, and be WRONG. Yes, EVEN IF HEY HAVEN'T TRIED
THEM! That's the rule of the ignorant bigot, who sheepishly is
constantly checking his peers to see what they think, in order to
establish what he thinks (did anyone say "Shovels"?). That's the rule
we follow here on RAO. If you don't like it, get lost!".

Your honour, I rest my case.

wrote:
crap snipped

That's a serious question, by the way.

No it isn't. It's just another longwinded trolling attempt.

And while you've been quite succcessful hooking lots of little fishies
in this pond, the biggest fish you've hooked is yourself.

//Walt

said:


7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's share of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.


That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

--

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

wrote:

So he's just politely told that he's "fooling himself", and some very
lengthy explanations have been written by some very misguided people
(ie. Robert Morein, Ludovic Mirable, Steve Sullivan, etc) ,

good golly, I never though I'd see myself in *that* particular list.

You must be doing something right, you crazy nut.


to try to
convince Sander of why he's fooling himself. None have worked, so far,
because apparently, his new stereo speaks louder than the fools on this
group, trying to convince him he didn't hear what him and his friends
have heard. Even though they've never tried the tweaks themselves.

No lie: Sander *does* seem to be hearing things lately. I hope he
gets better.



There's one thing that all of these lies people have written about me
have in common: not a single one of them is true. There's another thing
that they all have in common: NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN A SINGLE ONE OF
THEIR LIES.

Prove that your tweaks work, sparky. If you can, James Randi has
$1 million for you.




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

Sander deWaal said:

That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Send paulie some of your tubed Vicodins and all will be OK on that count.







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

wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help notice that
whenever someone writes something about me, and 999 times out of 1,000,
it's something extremely malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a
LIE.

Said by Richard Graham, a true liar.
Arny, am I permitted to invoke "If irony killed?"

Steven Sullivan said:


No lie: Sander *does* seem to be hearing things lately. I hope he
gets better.


Man, things get better by the hour!

LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LL
LLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLL

Maybe this works for you too ;-)

--

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

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
said:


Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.


Send paulie some of your tubed Vicodins and all will be OK on that count.


Have a KT88 and call me in the morning.

--

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

soundhaspriority aka Richard Graham, wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help notice that
whenever someone writes something about me, and 999 times out of 1,000,
it's something extremely malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a
LIE.

Said by Richard Graham, a true liar.

Since you said that "soundhaspriority" is really "Richard Graham", and
since you're "soundhaspriority", that would make you a "true liar".

No proof needed there, you're right.

You're also a true "lunatic", but who here doesn't know that
already?...

Arny, am I permitted to invoke "If irony killed?"

Yes, he gave me permission to grant his catchphrase to you. "If irony
killed", you'd be dead a long time ago, Dr. Graham.

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's share of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.


That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Of course, I have my theories about that too. The very idea that the
alternative tweaks and audio products are serious, and do in fact work
as advertised, makes an awful LOT of people here angry. Angry and
scared. Well, angry, scared and defensive. Okay, angry, scared,
defensive, and paranoid. Maybe even angry, scared, defensive, paranoid
and hostile. Just asking them to "think outside the box" brings up all
those nervous, scary feelings, and they don't much like that. Having
considered you "one of them" for so long, they feel "betrayed" (yes,
there I said it: "BETRAYED"!) by you. Betrayed because you stepped foot
outside the box, and left them inside.

....Yeah so anyway, that's my explanation of why Dave Weil and Paul
Packer don't like as much recently.

As for Arny... well, Arny doesn't like ANYONE that says ANYTHING
contrary to his "everything in audio sounds the same" lunatic
ramblings. He even slogged off JJ if you'll recall, one of his
strongest allies at the time, for "disagreeing with the Kruegmeister".





--

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

Steven Sullivan wrote:

wrote:

So he's just politely told that he's "fooling himself", and some very
lengthy explanations have been written by some very misguided people
(ie. Robert Morein, Ludovic Mirable, Steve Sullivan, etc) ,

good golly, I never though I'd see myself in *that* particular list.

You must be doing something right, you crazy nut.

Caught you in my net, didn't I, little fishy wishy?

to try to
convince Sander of why he's fooling himself. None have worked, so far,
because apparently, his new stereo speaks louder than the fools on this
group, trying to convince him he didn't hear what him and his friends
have heard. Even though they've never tried the tweaks themselves.

No lie: Sander *does* seem to be hearing things lately. I hope he
gets better.

Obviously you're not smart enough to realize this, but you are in fact
acting as supporting evidence to what I wrote about in the message that
started this thread.

When I talked about my tweaks being valid, you never said anything to
me on par with "I hope you get better". No, you were about as nasty as
you get, when I said the same thing. You are also supporting my general
contetion that you are a liar, and all people here do all day, EVERY
DAY, is write lies. Lies about me, lies about everything.

If you had something other than stupid vigorous assertions that Sander
is "hearing things lately", then you might have something to squawk
about, liar. But considering the fact that you're too scared to even
find out if Sander is "hearing things", or if I am, you really have
nothing to say about it, do you, liar?


There's one thing that all of these lies people have written about me
have in common: not a single one of them is true. There's another thing
that they all have in common: NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN A SINGLE ONE OF
THEIR LIES.

Prove that your tweaks work, sparky. If you can, James Randi has
$1 million for you.

Yeah right. As if that con artist even has $1 million to his name. Once
you get through the fine print, you'll find that you have about as much
chance of getting $1 from his death grip, before you'll get $1 million.

I'll tell you what Chuckles: Prove they don't work, and I'll give you
$FIVE million dollars.


___
-SHP
"That's false. I'm no longer with the neo-Nazi's" - Steven Sullivan

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:18:17 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.


Sander, the wedding may be off (I'm not having all those L-shaped
animals and cream jars around the house) but you know we'll always be
friends.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:31:11 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Sander deWaal said:

That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Send paulie some of your tubed Vicodins and all will be OK on that count.

George, ask me how many of your posts I understand. Answer: Not many.

On 20 Apr 2006 17:09:03 -0700, wrote:


Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's share of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.


That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Of course, I have my theories about that too. The very idea that the
alternative tweaks and audio products are serious, and do in fact work
as advertised, makes an awful LOT of people here angry. Angry and
scared. Well, angry, scared and defensive. Okay, angry, scared,
defensive, and paranoid. Maybe even angry, scared, defensive, paranoid
and hostile. Just asking them to "think outside the box" brings up all
those nervous, scary feelings, and they don't much like that. Having
considered you "one of them" for so long, they feel "betrayed" (yes,
there I said it: "BETRAYED"!) by you. Betrayed because you stepped foot
outside the box, and left them inside.

...Yeah so anyway, that's my explanation of why Dave Weil and Paul
Packer don't like as much recently.

You still haven't got my message, Mr. Sound. My message is that I
don't care if the tweaks work. Having read a couple of your links,
especially the review of the strips of foil, I'm inclined to believe
there may be something in some of it, but I don't care. Why? Because
I've already spend the last 30 years trying tweaks, and one thing I
know about tweaks is that, whether they work or not, they can become a
black hole of obsession that distracts one permanently from the music.
Now what you're presenting us here is a mix of things, some of which
may or may not improve the subjective reception of sound, but most are
open ended---that is, once you've discovered, or think you've
discovered, that the little L-shaped thingies work here, then you need
to try them there, and over there, and just above the mantle-piece
and....hang on, didn't it sound a bit better sitting on the right side
of the vase rather than the left, or was that because the wife was
hoovering around my feet at the time? And that cream, how many places
can I find to smear it, and how often do I need to re-smear it, and
does it matter if it attracts dust and looks like the under-side of a
rural pick-up---is it still doing the job? I can well imagine someone
following the whole Belt regime and actually getting better perceived
sound, but the amount of fiddle-arsing before any degree of
satisfaction could be achieved, and then the wondering....wondering if
just another strip of foil here, another smear of cream there...could
it be just a bit, a tiny bit better...where does it all end, Mr.
Sound? And Sander, while you're luxuriating in all this wonderful
sound, aren't you constantly wondering what next? Will you ever be
able to rest until you've tried every possible permutation, every kind
of animal picture, until you have bits of foil flapping all over the
room, cream smeared in every crevice and all over your glasses. It's
just not a road I want to go down, thanks.

He's a thought, Mr. Sound: why don't you tell us about every tweak
you've got in your system and the improvements they've made, and we'll
decide if we want to follow your lead. And if you're not a Belt
salesman, better tell us how much it all cost as well.

See, I can write a long post too, and all with the hunt-n-peck method.

paul packer said:

Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Send paulie some of your tubed Vicodins and all will be OK on that count.

George, ask me how many of your posts I understand. Answer: Not many.

Don't fret, paulie. If I'm too mysterious, maybe you'll have more luck
tuning in the Shovels Priority Network.





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

wrote in message
oups.com...

THE TOP TEN LIST OF RAO'S LIES ABOUT ME
(a full list would include thousands of items, actually):
==========================

1. I am sane.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

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


Sander deWaal said:

That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Send paulie some of your tubed Vicodins and all will be OK on that count.


Where should he place them?



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote in message
oups.com...
Walt wrote:
wrote:
crap snipped

That's a serious question, by the way.

No it isn't. It's just another longwinded trolling attempt.

Ooooh, you really got me there, genius! "You're much too clever for me,
Walter!". But if that's the case, then that must explain why you're
wriggling around my hook like that.

Richard, Walt has it dead on. You're a shill, a troller, a scammera, and a
liar. All those good things

wrote in message
ups.com...

Steven Sullivan wrote:

wrote:

So he's just politely told that he's "fooling himself", and some very
lengthy explanations have been written by some very misguided people
(ie. Robert Morein, Ludovic Mirable, Steve Sullivan, etc) ,

good golly, I never though I'd see myself in *that* particular list.

You must be doing something right, you crazy nut.

Caught you in my net, didn't I, little fishy wishy?

Nope.

wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help notice that
whenever someone writes something about me, and 999 times out of 1,000,
it's something extremely malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a
LIE.

Only if it's complimentary. The rest of the stuff is true.

wrote:
Walt wrote:

crap snipped

And while you've been quite succcessful hooking lots of little fishies
in this pond, the biggest fish you've hooked is yourself.

Well that's physically impossible,

Not at all. You're in auto-troll mode.

You *think* you're clever by trolling others, but you're just as
emotionally wrapped up in it as anybody else. And you can't stop, can
you? You just can't walk away from this little food fight. It's
called being hooked.

// Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Walt wrote:

crap snipped

And while you've been quite succcessful hooking lots of little fishies
in this pond, the biggest fish you've hooked is yourself.

Well that's physically impossible,

Not at all. You're in auto-troll mode.

You *think* you're clever by trolling others, but you're just as
emotionally wrapped up in it as anybody else. And you can't stop, can
you? You just can't walk away from this little food fight. It's called
being hooked.

// Walt

Yes, yes, he's one of us now. Trapped forever.

wrote in message
ups.com...

soundhaspriority aka Richard Graham, wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help notice that
whenever someone writes something about me, and 999 times out of 1,000,
it's something extremely malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a
LIE.

Said by Richard Graham, a true liar.

Since you said that "soundhaspriority" is really "Richard Graham", and
since you're "soundhaspriority", that would make you a "true liar".

No proof needed there, you're right.

You're also a true "lunatic", but who here doesn't know that
already?...

Richard, all that's important is to stop any nascent desires you may have to
exploit r.a.o. commercially. We do this by a number of means. This will
continue into the indefinite future. There is no way to terminate our
process, or our interest in you.

paul packer wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006 17:09:03 -0700, wrote:


Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's share of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.


That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Of course, I have my theories about that too. The very idea that the
alternative tweaks and audio products are serious, and do in fact work
as advertised, makes an awful LOT of people here angry. Angry and
scared. Well, angry, scared and defensive. Okay, angry, scared,
defensive, and paranoid. Maybe even angry, scared, defensive, paranoid
and hostile. Just asking them to "think outside the box" brings up all
those nervous, scary feelings, and they don't much like that. Having
considered you "one of them" for so long, they feel "betrayed" (yes,
there I said it: "BETRAYED"!) by you. Betrayed because you stepped foot
outside the box, and left them inside.

...Yeah so anyway, that's my explanation of why Dave Weil and Paul
Packer don't like as much recently.

You still haven't got my message, Mr. Sound. My message is that I
don't care if the tweaks work. Having read a couple of your links,
especially the review of the strips of foil, I'm inclined to believe
there may be something in some of it, but I don't care. Why? Because
I've already spend the last 30 years trying tweaks, and one thing I
know about tweaks is that, whether they work or not, they can become a
black hole of obsession that distracts one permanently from the music.
Now what you're presenting us here is a mix of things, some of which
may or may not improve the subjective reception of sound, but most are
open ended---that is, once you've discovered, or think you've
discovered, that the little L-shaped thingies work here, then you need
to try them there, and over there, and just above the mantle-piece
and....hang on, didn't it sound a bit better sitting on the right side
of the vase rather than the left, or was that because the wife was
hoovering around my feet at the time? And that cream, how many places
can I find to smear it, and how often do I need to re-smear it, and
does it matter if it attracts dust and looks like the under-side of a
rural pick-up---is it still doing the job? I can well imagine someone
following the whole Belt regime and actually getting better perceived
sound, but the amount of fiddle-arsing before any degree of
satisfaction could be achieved, and then the wondering....wondering if
just another strip of foil here, another smear of cream there...could
it be just a bit, a tiny bit better...where does it all end, Mr.
Sound? And Sander, while you're luxuriating in all this wonderful
sound, aren't you constantly wondering what next? Will you ever be
able to rest until you've tried every possible permutation, every kind
of animal picture, until you have bits of foil flapping all over the
room, cream smeared in every crevice and all over your glasses. It's
just not a road I want to go down, thanks.

He's a thought, Mr. Sound: why don't you tell us about every tweak
you've got in your system and the improvements they've made, and we'll
decide if we want to follow your lead. And if you're not a Belt
salesman, better tell us how much it all cost as well.

See, I can write a long post too, and all with the hunt-n-peck method.

Bravo. Seeing someone write something halfway meaningful makes a
refreshing change from the usual dumb one-liner quips like you get from
"Shovels" et al., that bore the hell out of me. Nevertheless, I must
say I was VERY tempted to "jive-ify" your post, and leave you
hanging.... But your (no doubt temporary) change from your usual
smart-ass rubbish to a rational plea was overpowering....

You get an "almost pass" for your dismissal of the use of the tweaks
and products. For 2 reasons: you admitted there may be something to it
(a surprisingly reasonable thing to hear from the likes of you), and
you have a (somewhat) valid point about the experimentation side of the
'business' of alternative audio tweaks. BUT.... but.... I have a
response for that... .

First of all, it's an "almost pass", because you still haven't
confirmed for yourself whether or not the tweaks have an audible
effect, according to your listening threshold. A true audiophile or
scientist, even a lazy one, should be curious enough to take the 30
seconds to find out what, if anything, it all means. Once you confirm
whether or not there's something to it *for you*, then you get a "full
pass". That is, a "full pass" with "no obligation to continue any
further with it".

Experimentation is not for everyone. However, I will argue that it's
not just necessary for unconventional audio products, its also
necessary for conventional audio products. I assume for example, you
have speakers in your audio system. Well, they require careful
"tweaking" to determine their location. To a lesser degree, so do all
your components. Or did you think just plopping them anywhere on the
shelf was perfectly fine? Wrong! Their exact location on the shelf can
make all the difference, particularly when combined as a whole. Those
are just 2 examples of many ways that conventional audio requires our
input in order to get the best sound out of what we have purchased.

Of course, you could just walk into an audio shop with your credit card
in hand, buy whatever the dealer says is the best system in his shop,
have it installed for you, and then do nothing but fiddle with the
knobs after that. But in no way, shape or form does this make you an
"audiophile". My tweaks are for "audiophiles" and I always made that
pretty clear. I've been applying tweaks to audio for some 25 years, and
while I understand the point about permanent obsessions, I argue that I
like doing both: discovering new things about the art of music
reproduction, and listening to music in a casual endeavour. I don't
feel one must be exclusive of the other. But for me, I generally tend
to get into audio in "spurts"; concentrating on it for a time, then
switching my focus to other things.

As for the Belt products, there's something in ALL of it, despite what
you may nor may not be "convinced" by, from your ivory tower, where you
observe all of it with your eyes. I've not tried a single product or
free idea that didn't make a difference. But some more than others.
Obviously, Belt's products tend to have a much larger impact on sound
than his free tweak ideas (otherwise, they wouldn't be free ideas, I
imagine....). Your description of the cream obviously comes from
someone who's never used it. It does not gunk up your hifi and make it
look like the underside of a Ford pickup. It's not petroleum jelly, its
a very fine emulsification of oil and water. You use a very small
amount, one micron thickness is enough. When I put it on my friend's
cd, you didn't even notice it was there, after it was spread evenly
across the surface. The idea is to put it in places where it isn't
going to get wiped off. Which is why people apply it to speaker
baffles, the underside of equipment covers, the back of equipment, and
so on. Yes, I believe the cream electret still does its job over the
course of time (none of the Belt products or ideas are "temporary"
ones), and it doesn't attract an inordinate amount of dust or dirt, and
doesn't matter if the dirt collects on it. Its presence on a "quantum
level", is all that matters.

True, some things require more fuss than others. The L-shape for
example, morphic messages or the 5-pinhole tweak. They require "fine
tuning", to determine where they are best applied to be of full
benefit. But other things, like the cream electret you mentioned, are
pretty much "fuss free", IMO. You unscrew the jar, you apply the cream
to hifi gear or cd's, and once done, that's it. I'd say the stuff is
better in certain locations than others, but you just need to know a
general rule of where its best applied, no problems there. You don't
have to experiment with it, it will always be of benefit. Where does it
end? Well, that's up to you decide. Alternative audio isn't heroin, you
know. You could say for example, "I will stop at $40" (the cream
electret costs about 20 pounds, I think). Then you open the jar, apply
the entire thing at once to various parts of your system, the plumbing,
the hot water tank, a few mirrors, some of your favorite cd's.... then
once its gone, you stop and you're done with it. If my non-audiophile
friend could hear the effects from treating a single cd, I am quite
sure anyone here can ascertain differences from an entire jar. Even the
objectivists. Whether to proceed from there or leave your system as is,
depends on, I suppose, how much of an effect it has, and how satisfied
you are with that. "Fella" seems to be quite satisfied with only
fitting a single 5 pinhole tweak in his system, and by the description
of the sound he is now getting, I can see why. So that should answer
your question about how to know where to stop.



He's a thought, Mr. Sound: why don't you tell us about every tweak
you've got in your system and the improvements they've made, and we'll
decide if we want to follow your lead. And if you're not a Belt
salesman, better tell us how much it all cost as well.

Don't be a silly twit. Belt doesn't have any "salesman". As far as I
have ever seen of this, the entire Belt sales force comprises his wife.
Belt doesn't advertise either, I've never seen a single ad anywhere.
Unlike the conventional audio companies, that will pimp their wares to
you any chance they get. PWB also offers a money back guarantee on
every product they sell. I don't know of any conventional audio
companies doing that, either. So who's the real charlatans here? PWB,
or the whoring audio companies that curry the favour of audio
journalists through the smell of their mighty, powerful advertising
dollars?

I'm not going to describe for you every tweak I have in my system, and
what each sounds like. Are you kidding me?! You have no idea of all
that comprises of, and this post is already 65 times too long for you
and the average RAO citizen to read. But its an interesting question,
so I'll attempt to answer it. First of all, I have several audio
systems. So I'll assume you're talking about my "el cheapo" system (the
heart of which contains a 30 year old receiver and who's current value
I put at about $300), the one I mentioned in my first post here and
that I used as a test bed for most of my tweaks. The money I put into
transforming this into a high end kit that puts a lot of budget
audiophile gear to shame, cost me about $15. And that is no doubt a
great overestimation. (There is as of yet, actually no genuine Belt
products used on this system, although there are some "Belt-ish"
products used). Some Belt products cost more than the entire audio
system is worth, and I didn't feel it was very prudent to use my
precious, precious Belt stash on this very humble piece of kit. I've
opted to use the Belt products on others systems.

Many of the tweaks that I've applied to this system, I can't tell you
about. Well I could, but I don't want to. In doing so, I would be
revealing many of my best exclusive "Beltish" tweaks that I came up
with. And I would never do such a thing, because I feel it would be
like a reward to a group that has been extremely hostile and malicious
toward me from day one, extremely closed-minded, and does not deserve
it. So instead, I threw you a few bones with my "Advanced Audiophile
Tweaks", but I keep the "good stuff" for myself, and my friends. So
while that rules out a lot of stuff that I did, I suppose I can
generalize a bit... Without telling you how I did it, I can say that I
treated the various fuses in the components in various ways (including
orienting them for best direction), and as well, I treated all
electronic parts (caps, resistors, ic's, the like...), I modified the
PCB boards, I modified the interior casing, I modified the exterior
casing, I applied various products to the internal and external wiring
(both power and ICs), I "dealt with" the free jacks, in the amp I
removed the output transistors from their attached heat sink, I
grounded the cd player to the amp as well as both speakers, I treated
the insulation in the speakers, I attached L-shapes to the inside of
each of the speaker walls, I added a 3" piece of white quarter round
dowelling to each right angle inside the speaker, I made sure all the
slotted screws were vertically aligned (not just on the speaker drivers
but on the electrical outlet and switch plates in the house)... I froze
each component in the system, along with the electrical outlet, along
with the speaker drivers and x-over, along with all the wiring and
cabling, my watch, my kitchen cutlery, my pictures, my special red x
pens... and of course, I also froze my holy water. I added positive
"morphic messages" with the red x pen, all over the equipment, needless
to say. Some of them indeed say "soundhaspriority". But if say I needed
'specific improvements'.... well, some might say "this bass driver has
excellent response".

That's quite a small example of some of the things that was done to my
modest system. But you said "every tweak in my system" and the sad fact
is, many tweaks were not done to the system at all. For example... I
tweaked every light bulb in the room with a treatment (a product not
unlike cream electret). This made it so that every time the light was
on, which is normally something that worsens the sound, sound got
better. I also treated the rugs and the couch and the curtains and the
walls and some of the furniture and the computer and the pipes in the
bathroom and the dryer plug (no, not the outlet, the plug), and the
kitchen sink pipes, and the toilet, and the mirrors, and the doors, and
the electric meter and the water tank and the toaster cord and the
window blind cord and the corners of the windows... you know, now that
I think about it, I suppose there can be a bit of "fiddle-arsing"
involved, if you can call it that. But the important thing is, you're
always learning something.

I expect there'll be no end of criticism toward me for all that, but I
say, if the option is learning something while improving my sound still
further, or sitting here expending a nova of negative energy to fight
with ghosts with no productive result to ever come of it, I think I
will always prefer the former.

soundhaspriority aka Crazy Bob Morein the Pathological Liar, wrote the
following groundless lies and false accusations::

wrote in message
oups.com...
Walt wrote:
wrote:
crap snipped

That's a serious question, by the way.

No it isn't. It's just another longwinded trolling attempt.

Ooooh, you really got me there, genius! "You're much too clever for me,
Walter!". But if that's the case, then that must explain why you're
wriggling around my hook like that.

Richard, Walt has it dead on. You're a shill, a troller, a scammera, and a
liar. All those good things

Again, I have to thank you as well for coming along and proving
everything that I just said in the post that started this thread, about
how all you and the rest can spout off about me is silly, ridiculous,
unproven and unfounded lies, whether about me or Belt products (which
can be found at http://www.belt.demon.co.uk) or my tweaks. That means
you just proved you are lying about me being named "richard", lying
about me being a "shill, troller, scammera" (whatever that is), and a
liar.

Do you find it amuses you to oh so glibly lie about people, Robert? Did
it amuse you to threaten and harass the real "Richard Graham" at 3am on
the phone, along with his wife and colleagues, Robert? Obviously
so.You're not just a liar Rob, you're a sick liar. Get help, son,
before its too late and you threaten and libel the wrong person. Who
ends up using your face to polish his tires.

wrote in message
oups.com

That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help
notice that whenever someone writes something about me,
and 999 times out of 1,000, it's something extremely
malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a LIE.

This newsgroup is dominated by so-called subjectivists - that is completely
obvious. Why then do you even have to ask this question?

Walt wrote:
wrote:
Walt wrote:

crap snipped

And while you've been quite succcessful hooking lots of little fishies
in this pond, the biggest fish you've hooked is yourself.

Well that's physically impossible,

Not at all. You're in auto-troll mode.

You're the one that trolled yourself, Walt. Sorry if the truth is too
hard on you to admit.

You *think* you're clever by trolling others, but you're just as
emotionally wrapped up in it as anybody else.

If "laughter" is an emotion, yes. Yes, you make me laugh.

And you can't stop, can
you?

No, I can. In fact, I have for 4 years straight. And the last time, I
was only here a couple of months, as Shovels was quick to point out.
And they said the same dumb thing about me then that you just said. How
I would never ever leave the group. Now going by your record on Google,
it shows that YOU are the one who can't stop, you've been at it every
day for years and years, troll. Quite the newsgroup junkie, aren't you?
That's why I can always predict that wherever I am, you'll be there
kissing my ass.

You just can't walk away from this little food fight. It's
called being hooked.

You're the one that's "hooked". That's why you're still wriggling
around at the end of my hook, jumping up every time that I post
something. Want me to prove that I'm right again, as I proved I was
right with everything I said in my post here, that started this thread?
Okay....

"Let's see if Little Walt the Troll Bait here can avoid responding to
this message. And every other message of mine for the next.... 7 days.
So long as you don't respond to my posts within 7 days, I will do the
same Walt. Then we'll see which one of is really HOOKED! Ha!

Prepare to get spanked again, monkey boy.

soundhaspriority wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...

soundhaspriority aka Richard Graham, wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...
That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help notice that
whenever someone writes something about me, and 999 times out of 1,000,
it's something extremely malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a
LIE.

Said by Richard Graham, a true liar.

Since you said that "soundhaspriority" is really "Richard Graham", and
since you're "soundhaspriority", that would make you a "true liar".

No proof needed there, you're right.

You're also a true "lunatic", but who here doesn't know that
already?...

Richard, all that's important is to stop any nascent desires you may have to
exploit r.a.o. commercially. We do this by a number of means. This will
continue into the indefinite future. There is no way to terminate our
process, or our interest in you.

Why are you talking to yourself, Richard?

On 21 Apr 2006 01:09:37 -0700, wrote:


You still haven't got my message, Mr. Sound. My message is that I
don't care if the tweaks work. Having read a couple of your links,
especially the review of the strips of foil, I'm inclined to believe
there may be something in some of it, but I don't care. Why? Because
I've already spend the last 30 years trying tweaks, and one thing I
know about tweaks is that, whether they work or not, they can become a
black hole of obsession that distracts one permanently from the music.
Now what you're presenting us here is a mix of things, some of which
may or may not improve the subjective reception of sound, but most are
open ended---that is, once you've discovered, or think you've
discovered, that the little L-shaped thingies work here, then you need
to try them there, and over there, and just above the mantle-piece
and....hang on, didn't it sound a bit better sitting on the right side
of the vase rather than the left, or was that because the wife was
hoovering around my feet at the time? And that cream, how many places
can I find to smear it, and how often do I need to re-smear it, and
does it matter if it attracts dust and looks like the under-side of a
rural pick-up---is it still doing the job? I can well imagine someone
following the whole Belt regime and actually getting better perceived
sound, but the amount of fiddle-arsing before any degree of
satisfaction could be achieved, and then the wondering....wondering if
just another strip of foil here, another smear of cream there...could
it be just a bit, a tiny bit better...where does it all end, Mr.
Sound? And Sander, while you're luxuriating in all this wonderful
sound, aren't you constantly wondering what next? Will you ever be
able to rest until you've tried every possible permutation, every kind
of animal picture, until you have bits of foil flapping all over the
room, cream smeared in every crevice and all over your glasses. It's
just not a road I want to go down, thanks.

He's a thought, Mr. Sound: why don't you tell us about every tweak
you've got in your system and the improvements they've made, and we'll
decide if we want to follow your lead. And if you're not a Belt
salesman, better tell us how much it all cost as well.

See, I can write a long post too, and all with the hunt-n-peck method.

Bravo. Seeing someone write something halfway meaningful makes a
refreshing change from the usual dumb one-liner quips like you get from
"Shovels" et al., that bore the hell out of me. Nevertheless, I must
say I was VERY tempted to "jive-ify" your post,

Unfamiliar with this term Please explain.

and leave you hanging....

You assume a lot, to assume I'd be hanging on your response.

But your (no doubt temporary) change from your usual
smart-ass rubbish to a rational plea was overpowering....

I wasn't aware of making a plea, but at least you put the "rational"
bit in.

You get an "almost pass" for your dismissal of the use of the tweaks
and products. For 2 reasons: you admitted there may be something to it
(a surprisingly reasonable thing to hear from the likes of you), and
you have a (somewhat) valid point about the experimentation side of the
'business' of alternative audio tweaks. BUT.... but.... I have a
response for that... .

Why am I not surprised?

First of all, it's an "almost pass", because you still haven't
confirmed for yourself whether or not the tweaks have an audible
effect, according to your listening threshold.

I'm actually prepared to concede that point. I believe I already have.

A true audiophile or
scientist, even a lazy one, should be curious enough to take the 30
seconds to find out what, if anything, it all means.

Even the lazy audiophiles obviously aren't as lazy as me.

Once you confirm
whether or not there's something to it *for you*, then you get a "full
pass". That is, a "full pass" with "no obligation to continue any
further with it".

Nope. I'm giving myself a full pass now,

Experimentation is not for everyone. However, I will argue that it's
not just necessary for unconventional audio products, its also
necessary for conventional audio products. I assume for example, you
have speakers in your audio system.

Nope. I use headphones exclusively. Have done since the early 70s.
Wouldn't go back to speakers for quids.

Well, they require careful
"tweaking" to determine their location. To a lesser degree, so do all
your components. Or did you think just plopping them anywhere on the
shelf was perfectly fine? Wrong! Their exact location on the shelf can
make all the difference, particularly when combined as a whole. Those
are just 2 examples of many ways that conventional audio requires our
input in order to get the best sound out of what we have purchased.

Well, I have two black components. They go together. And I have two
silver components. They go together. Yep, I'd say that's about right.

Of course, you could just walk into an audio shop with your credit card
in hand, buy whatever the dealer says is the best system in his shop,
have it installed for you, and then do nothing but fiddle with the
knobs after that.

Or you could buy everything off Ebay at quarter the price. That's for
me.

But in no way, shape or form does this make you an
"audiophile".

I'm shattered.

My tweaks are for "audiophiles" and I always made that
pretty clear. I've been applying tweaks to audio for some 25 years, and
while I understand the point about permanent obsessions, I argue that I
like doing both: discovering new things about the art of music
reproduction, and listening to music in a casual endeavour. I don't
feel one must be exclusive of the other. But for me, I generally tend
to get into audio in "spurts"; concentrating on it for a time, then
switching my focus to other things.

You don't find yourself listening to the sound before the music, the
bass and treble before the flute and fiddle, as it were? Because I do.
I've always found "audio", whilst clarifying the music for me, has
always been a bit of a hindrance to its enjoyment. I kind of envy
those people who can hum away delightedly to a table radio and never
notice anything's missing, even the day after a trip to the concert
hall. I even envy Arnie and co in that sense, in their calm certainty
that all amps and CD players ('operating correctly" of course) sound
the same. What distraction this must remove from their listening
experience, even if their systems do sound like table radios.

As for the Belt products, there's something in ALL of it, despite what
you may nor may not be "convinced" by, from your ivory tower, where you
observe all of it with your eyes. I've not tried a single product or
free idea that didn't make a difference. But some more than others.
Obviously, Belt's products tend to have a much larger impact on sound
than his free tweak ideas (otherwise, they wouldn't be free ideas, I
imagine....). Your description of the cream obviously comes from
someone who's never used it. It does not gunk up your hifi and make it
look like the underside of a Ford pickup. It's not petroleum jelly, its
a very fine emulsification of oil and water. You use a very small
amount, one micron thickness is enough. When I put it on my friend's
cd, you didn't even notice it was there, after it was spread evenly
across the surface. The idea is to put it in places where it isn't
going to get wiped off. Which is why people apply it to speaker
baffles, the underside of equipment covers, the back of equipment, and
so on. Yes, I believe the cream electret still does its job over the
course of time (none of the Belt products or ideas are "temporary"
ones), and it doesn't attract an inordinate amount of dust or dirt, and
doesn't matter if the dirt collects on it. Its presence on a "quantum
level", is all that matters.

I was being slightly flippant with the pickup truck remark, but I
appreciate the full explanation of the cream.

True, some things require more fuss than others. The L-shape for
example, morphic messages or the 5-pinhole tweak. They require "fine
tuning", to determine where they are best applied to be of full
benefit. But other things, like the cream electret you mentioned, are
pretty much "fuss free", IMO. You unscrew the jar, you apply the cream
to hifi gear or cd's, and once done, that's it. I'd say the stuff is
better in certain locations than others, but you just need to know a
general rule of where its best applied, no problems there. You don't
have to experiment with it, it will always be of benefit. Where does it
end? Well, that's up to you decide. Alternative audio isn't heroin, you
know.

I'm not sure about that. Anything that tends to cause people to obsess
is heroin in that sense. Maybe hi-fi attracts obsessive people, I
don't know, but I remember a friend back in the 70s buying a B&O
turntable simple because one can't fiddle with B&O turntables, at
least without ruining them. He couldn't help himself, you see, except
maybe by having his wife tie his hands behind his back, and I knew
just how he felt. How would he have gone with Belt products, do you
think?

You could say for example, "I will stop at $40" (the cream
electret costs about 20 pounds, I think). Then you open the jar, apply
the entire thing at once to various parts of your system, the plumbing,
the hot water tank, a few mirrors, some of your favorite cd's.... then
once its gone, you stop and you're done with it.

You think?

If my non-audiophile
friend could hear the effects from treating a single cd, I am quite
sure anyone here can ascertain differences from an entire jar. Even the
objectivists. Whether to proceed from there or leave your system as is,
depends on, I suppose, how much of an effect it has, and how satisfied
you are with that. "Fella" seems to be quite satisfied with only
fitting a single 5 pinhole tweak in his system, and by the description
of the sound he is now getting, I can see why. So that should answer
your question about how to know where to stop.

Nope. Fella's only apparently satisfied for now, or when he made that
post. But thoughts will creep in, I'll guarantee it. Once he's
absorbed the improvements, he'll go and buy some more CDs, one of
which won't sound quite as good as he was expecting, and though he
knows it's a lousy recording, still he'll wonder if he just moved that
pinhole tweak a few mms to the right or left, would that CD come good?
It's the curse of the human mind to continually seek just that bit
better and better, until one day you take a CD out of the rack and
think, "I've never actually listened to this other than for testing a
tweak or adjustment. I've never actually heard it as music rather than
sound." But by then you're turning 60 and your hearing's shot to
pieces.

Here's a thought, Mr. Sound: why don't you tell us about every tweak
you've got in your system and the improvements they've made, and we'll
decide if we want to follow your lead. And if you're not a Belt
salesman, better tell us how much it all cost as well.

Don't be a silly twit. Belt doesn't have any "salesman". As far as I
have ever seen of this, the entire Belt sales force comprises his wife.

Spokesman then. Advocate. Whatever.

Belt doesn't advertise either, I've never seen a single ad anywhere.
Unlike the conventional audio companies, that will pimp their wares to
you any chance they get. PWB also offers a money back guarantee on
every product they sell. I don't know of any conventional audio
companies doing that, either. So who's the real charlatans here? PWB,
or the whoring audio companies that curry the favour of audio
journalists through the smell of their mighty, powerful advertising
dollars?

I can understand why Belt don't advertise. The greatest PR firm in the
world couldn't legitimise these products in the public mind.

I'm not going to describe for you every tweak I have in my system, and
what each sounds like. Are you kidding me?! You have no idea of all
that comprises of, and this post is already 65 times too long for you
and the average RAO citizen to read.

Gratuitous insult noted. But hey, we're used to it.

But its an interesting question,
so I'll attempt to answer it. First of all, I have several audio
systems. So I'll assume you're talking about my "el cheapo" system (the
heart of which contains a 30 year old receiver and who's current value
I put at about $300), the one I mentioned in my first post here and
that I used as a test bed for most of my tweaks. The money I put into
transforming this into a high end kit that puts a lot of budget
audiophile gear to shame, cost me about $15. And that is no doubt a
great overestimation. (There is as of yet, actually no genuine Belt
products used on this system, although there are some "Belt-ish"
products used). Some Belt products cost more than the entire audio
system is worth, and I didn't feel it was very prudent to use my
precious, precious Belt stash on this very humble piece of kit. I've
opted to use the Belt products on others systems.

Many of the tweaks that I've applied to this system, I can't tell you
about. Well I could, but I don't want to. In doing so, I would be
revealing many of my best exclusive "Beltish" tweaks that I came up
with. And I would never do such a thing, because I feel it would be
like a reward to a group that has been extremely hostile and malicious
toward me from day one, extremely closed-minded, and does not deserve
it.

Yep, that's us.

So instead, I threw you a few bones with my "Advanced Audiophile
Tweaks", but I keep the "good stuff" for myself, and my friends. So
while that rules out a lot of stuff that I did, I suppose I can
generalize a bit... Without telling you how I did it, I can say that I
treated the various fuses in the components in various ways (including
orienting them for best direction), and as well, I treated all
electronic parts (caps, resistors, ic's, the like...), I modified the
PCB boards, I modified the interior casing, I modified the exterior
casing, I applied various products to the internal and external wiring
(both power and ICs), I "dealt with" the free jacks, in the amp I
removed the output transistors from their attached heat sink, I
grounded the cd player to the amp as well as both speakers, I treated
the insulation in the speakers, I attached L-shapes to the inside of
each of the speaker walls, I added a 3" piece of white quarter round
dowelling to each right angle inside the speaker, I made sure all the
slotted screws were vertically aligned (not just on the speaker drivers
but on the electrical outlet and switch plates in the house)... I froze
each component in the system, along with the electrical outlet, along
with the speaker drivers and x-over, along with all the wiring and
cabling, my watch, my kitchen cutlery, my pictures, my special red x
pens... and of course, I also froze my holy water. I added positive
"morphic messages" with the red x pen, all over the equipment, needless
to say. Some of them indeed say "soundhaspriority". But if say I needed
'specific improvements'.... well, some might say "this bass driver has
excellent response".

Holy water?

That's quite a small example of some of the things that was done to my
modest system. But you said "every tweak in my system" and the sad fact
is, many tweaks were not done to the system at all. For example... I
tweaked every light bulb in the room with a treatment (a product not
unlike cream electret). This made it so that every time the light was
on, which is normally something that worsens the sound, sound got
better. I also treated the rugs and the couch and the curtains and the
walls and some of the furniture and the computer and the pipes in the
bathroom and the dryer plug (no, not the outlet, the plug), and the
kitchen sink pipes, and the toilet, and the mirrors, and the doors, and
the electric meter and the water tank and the toaster cord and the
window blind cord and the corners of the windows... you know, now that
I think about it, I suppose there can be a bit of "fiddle-arsing"
involved, if you can call it that. But the important thing is, you're
always learning something.

I'm not going to touch any of this, but I'd like to see Crazy
Bob....er... Robert Morein's reaction. Truth to tell, Mr. Sound, I'm
never entirely certain you're not pulling my or someone's leg when you
go into these details. But at least you've given us enough material
for another dozen threads.

I expect there'll be no end of criticism toward me for all that, but I
say, if the option is learning something while improving my sound still
further, or sitting here expending a nova of negative energy to fight
with ghosts with no productive result to ever come of it, I think I
will always prefer the former.

And yet...here you are...


Phew, I'm exhausted. Time for another nap.

Shovels shows just how far gone he is.

I was VERY tempted to "jive-ify" your post, and leave you hanging.

snicker

Well, at least you think you win a point by that tactic. I see it as
similar to Krooger's tactic of distorting other people's statements and
then, in all seriousness, pretending he wins a point because of his own
twisting. That's not at all what the rest of think when you "jive-ify" a
post, though. What did *you* think when I Cockney-ized one of your posts,
Shovie? Did you feel chastened, humiliated, or otherwise bested?








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

wrote in message
ups.com...
Walt wrote:
wrote:
Walt wrote:

crap snipped

And while you've been quite succcessful hooking lots of little fishies
in this pond, the biggest fish you've hooked is yourself.

Well that's physically impossible,

Not at all. You're in auto-troll mode.

You're the one that trolled yourself, Walt. Sorry if the truth is too
hard on you to admit.

You *think* you're clever by trolling others, but you're just as
emotionally wrapped up in it as anybody else.

If "laughter" is an emotion, yes. Yes, you make me laugh.

And you can't stop, can
you?

No, I can. In fact, I have for 4 years straight.

Richard needs to show that he is in control.
I predict you'll be here much longer than four years.

wrote in message
oups.com...
paul packer wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006 17:09:03 -0700, wrote:


Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's share
of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.


That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Of course, I have my theories about that too. The very idea that the
alternative tweaks and audio products are serious, and do in fact work
as advertised, makes an awful LOT of people here angry. Angry and
scared. Well, angry, scared and defensive. Okay, angry, scared,
defensive, and paranoid. Maybe even angry, scared, defensive, paranoid
and hostile. Just asking them to "think outside the box"

is a euphemism for "Buy my scam."


As for the Belt products, there's something in ALL of it, despite what
you may nor may not be "convinced" by, from your ivory tower, where you
observe all of it with your eyes. I've not tried a single product or
free idea that didn't make a difference.

Of course. You're a shill. That's the POV you have to have.

And I would never do such a thing, because I feel it would be
like a reward to a group that has been extremely hostile and malicious
toward me from day one

We're glad you get that impression. We are hostile, and we do intend you
harm. You deserve it, you lousy shill.

wrote:

"Let's see if Little Walt the Troll Bait here can avoid responding to
this message. And every other message of mine for the next.... 7 days.
So long as you don't respond to my posts within 7 days, I will do the
same Walt.

Do sockpuppets count?

//Walt

P.S. I double dog dare you to not respond to this.

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com

That's a serious question, by the way. I couldn't help
notice that whenever someone writes something about me,
and 999 times out of 1,000, it's something extremely
malicious and mean-spirited, it's always a LIE.

This newsgroup is dominated by so-called subjectivists - that is completely
obvious. Why then do you even have to ask this question?

I didn't distinguish between the two, when I said that whatever
opinions most people have about me (and most other things, audio or
not), are completely fabricated LIES. Lies which some believe, or which
others (ie. Crazy Bob), spout simply for the thrill of lying about
someone, in the hopes of discrediting them.

I ask the question because I wonder what the hell you're all doing here
exactly? I don't know if this is perhaps over everyone's tiny little
heads, but it occurs to me that if everything is a LIE, that is if you
never try to be careful about saying something that might not be true,
then nothing anyone says is meaningful. This is why I can't take about
98% of the BS that people write on this group seriously. And no one
else should either, but the problem is.... many do. In fact, you and
the rest seem to take yourselves and the BS you write quite seriously,
much of the time. You with your pseudoscientific worship of the
almighty "double blind test", which itself is a lie, but compounded by
the fact that you have no respect for the truth, and lie deliberately
much of the time.

But why? Why do people like you and Shovels and Morein do this EVERY
SINGLE DAY OF YOUR LIVES, day in, day out? What do you possibly have to
gain by writing meaningless, pointless lies, not caring a whit that you
are not able to stand behind what you say, or refusing to accept the
proof that others offer which indicates you may be wrong in your
beliefs?

There isn't a single person on this group that I have seen, and am not
able to classify as a "HYPOCRITE". For anyone making accusations
against anyone here, is guilty of hypocrisy. Including the accusations
Shovels keeps making against you (ie. wanting to suppress freedom of
choice, being a "borg", having an agenda to promote, etc. etc.). And
all the accusations you make against others (ie. unproven assertions,
lies and deceit, etc. etc.). You're equally guilty of hypocrisy.
Especially since you dismissed my tweaks as invalid without trying
them, and yet for the last 10 years, you've not accepted other people
dismissing your ABX garbage as invalid, without trying it or even
knowing that much about it. Hypocrite.

how about you start answring for all the lies you wrote to me in the
Sennheiser thread, where you pretended you didn't imply the Orpheus was
a ripoff, and the 580's were just as good?

soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
paul packer wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006 17:09:03 -0700, wrote:


Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's share
of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.


That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Of course, I have my theories about that too. The very idea that the
alternative tweaks and audio products are serious, and do in fact work
as advertised, makes an awful LOT of people here angry. Angry and
scared. Well, angry, scared and defensive. Okay, angry, scared,
defensive, and paranoid. Maybe even angry, scared, defensive, paranoid
and hostile. Just asking them to "think outside the box"

is a euphemism for "Buy my scam."


As for the Belt products, there's something in ALL of it, despite what
you may nor may not be "convinced" by, from your ivory tower, where you
observe all of it with your eyes. I've not tried a single product or
free idea that didn't make a difference.

Of course. You're a shill. That's the POV you have to have.

And I would never do such a thing, because I feel it would be
like a reward to a group that has been extremely hostile and malicious
toward me from day one

We're glad you get that impression. We are hostile, and we do intend you
harm. You deserve it, you lousy shill.

Wow. That IS hostile. I can only imagine who all this misdirected anger
and hatred is really intended for. Your mother, perhaps? Drexel U.? You
know, I never really bothered to ask you this Robert, but maybe I
should...

Q. What evidence do you have that I'm a "scammer", or a "shill"?

If you want to be taken seriously here in your rather serious charges,
then you should at least have a good answer for that, which doesn't
sound like your usual bull****.

The only thing I can agree with in all the angry diatribe of yours
above, is that I am a "lousy shill". That's because as you yourself
pointed out, I have insulted every possible customer I might have made
on this group. In fact, I recall many times seeing you actually PLEAD
with me to be a better representative for PWB. And yet I laughed in
your face, and continued to insult people. None of which would have
been potential customers even if you had finally died of a drug
overdose 3 months ago. So that doesn't make me a very good "shill",
quite the contrary....

Oooh! Shovie is steamed up good, right, ain't 'e. Will the Krooborg
survive this fusillade?

I didn't distinguish between the two, wen I said that wotever opinions
most blokes 'ave about me (and most uvver fings, right, audio or not),
are completely fabricated LIES. Lies wich some believe, or wich
uvvers (ie. Crazy Bob), spout simply for the ffrill of lyin' about some
bloke, right, in the bloomin' hopes of discreditin' them.

I ask the question because I wonder wot the bleedin' hell yor all doin'
'ere exactly, isit?I don't know if this is peraps over evry geezer's wee
wee heads, but it occurs ter me that if evryfink is a LIE, that is if yer
never try ter be careful about sayin' sumfink that might not be true,
ffen nuffink any fairy says is meaningful. This is why I can't take
about 98% of the bloody BS that blokes write on this group straight up.
And no geezer else should eever, right, but the problem is.... many do.
Cor blimey guv! In fact, right, yer and the rest seem ter take yorselves
and the bleedin' BS yer write quite straight up, much of the time. Yer
wiv yor pseudoscientific worship of the almighty "double blind test",
wich itself is a lie, but compounded by the fact that yer 'ave no respect
for the truff, right, and lie deliberately much of the bloody time.

But why, then, guv? Why do blokes like yer and Shovels and Morein
do this EVERY SINGLE DAY OF YOUR LIVES, day in, day out, eh,
guv? Wotcher possibly 'ave to gain by writin' meaningless, pointless
lies, right, not carin' a wit that yer ain't able ter stand behind wot yer
say, or refusin' ter accept the proof that uvvers offer wich indicates yer
may be wrong in yor beliefs

There ain't a singgle geezer on this group that I 'ave seen, right, and
am not able ter classify as a "HYPOCRITE". For any fairy makin'
accusations against any fairy 'ere, is guilty of 'ypocrisy. Includin' the
accusations Shovels keeps makin' against yer (ie. I'll get out me
spoons. wantin' ter suppress freedom of choice, right, bein' a "borg",
havin' an agenda ter promote, etc. Cor blimey guv! etc.). And all the
bleedin' accusations yer make against uvvers (ie. unproven assertions,
lies and deceit, etc. etc.). Yor equally guilty of 'ypocrisy. Especially
since yer dismissed me tweaks as invalid wivout tryin' ffem, and yet
for the bloomin' last 10 years, yer've not accepted uvver blokes
dismissin' yor ABX garbage as invalid, wivout tryin' it or even
knowin' that much about it. Hypocrite.

how about yer start answrin' for all the chuffin' lies yer wrote ter me
in the Sennheiser fread, where yer pretended yer didn't imply the
Orpheus were a ripoff, and the 580's were just as good?

I swear, Shovie, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were more
desperate than Arnii to be abused out here in cyberspace's front window.





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

wrote in message
ups.com...

soundhaspriority aka Crazy Bob Morein the Pathological Liar, wrote the
following groundless lies and false accusations::

wrote in message
oups.com...
Walt wrote:
wrote:
crap snipped

That's a serious question, by the way.

No it isn't. It's just another longwinded trolling attempt.

Ooooh, you really got me there, genius! "You're much too clever for me,
Walter!". But if that's the case, then that must explain why you're
wriggling around my hook like that.

Richard, Walt has it dead on. You're a shill, a troller, a scammera, and
a
liar. All those good things

Again, I have to thank you as well for coming along and proving
everything that I just said in the post that started this thread, about
how all you and the rest can spout off about me is silly, ridiculous,
unproven and unfounded lies,

Richard, the truth is simple. You're a liar and a shill.

"Walt" wrote in message
news
wrote:

"Let's see if Little Walt the Troll Bait here can avoid responding to
this message. And every other message of mine for the next.... 7 days.
So long as you don't respond to my posts within 7 days, I will do the
same Walt.

Do sockpuppets count?

//Walt

P.S. I double dog dare you to not respond to this.

I'll do it for him:

I forgive all of you for being obnoxious lying pig jerks. You must learn how
to kiss my ass and love it. Soon I will control this group utterly. You will
be my thought slaves. This is good. Then I will program the most susceptible
among you to buy my Expired Suntan Lotion. Money will come. Then I can buy
more rocks to smoke. This is good.

Me me me me me mememememememememMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEmememem ememmeme.

wrote in message
oups.com...

soundhaspriority wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
paul packer wrote:
On 20 Apr 2006 17:09:03 -0700, wrote:


Sander deWaal wrote:
said:


7. The few people who did try my tweaks and found that they do
indeed
work, are stupid. Well except for Sander, who gets the lion's
share
of
respect because:

a) He's a working audio engineer and
b) He's one of the friendliest types on RAO, he has the "correct
RAO-approved sense of humour" and thus is well liked by all.


That's not entirely correct.
Arny doesn't like me sob
Dave Weil and Paul Packer also seem to dislike me, lately.

Of course, I have my theories about that too. The very idea that the
alternative tweaks and audio products are serious, and do in fact
work
as advertised, makes an awful LOT of people here angry. Angry and
scared. Well, angry, scared and defensive. Okay, angry, scared,
defensive, and paranoid. Maybe even angry, scared, defensive,
paranoid
and hostile. Just asking them to "think outside the box"

is a euphemism for "Buy my scam."


As for the Belt products, there's something in ALL of it, despite what
you may nor may not be "convinced" by, from your ivory tower, where you
observe all of it with your eyes. I've not tried a single product or
free idea that didn't make a difference.

Of course. You're a shill. That's the POV you have to have.

And I would never do such a thing, because I feel it would be
like a reward to a group that has been extremely hostile and malicious
toward me from day one

We're glad you get that impression. We are hostile, and we do intend you
harm. You deserve it, you lousy shill.

Wow. That IS hostile. I can only imagine who all this misdirected anger
and hatred is really intended for. Your mother, perhaps? Drexel U.? You
know, I never really bothered to ask you this Robert, but maybe I
should...

Q. What evidence do you have that I'm a "scammer", or a "shill"?

If you want to be taken seriously here in your rather serious charges,
then you should at least have a good answer for that, which doesn't
sound like your usual bull****.

Not necessary, Richard. This is not a debating society. We are interfering
with your attempt to scam. We will continue to do so for the indefinite
future.

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



Oooh! Shovie is steamed up good, right, ain't 'e. Will the Krooborg
survive this fusillade?

I didn't distinguish between the two, wen I said that wotever opinions
most blokes 'ave about me (and most uvver fings, right, audio or not),
are completely fabricated LIES. Lies wich some believe, or wich
uvvers (ie. Crazy Bob), spout simply for the ffrill of lyin' about some
bloke, right, in the bloomin' hopes of discreditin' them.

I ask the question because I wonder wot the bleedin' hell yor all doin'
'ere exactly, isit?I don't know if this is peraps over evry geezer's wee
wee heads, but it occurs ter me that if evryfink is a LIE, that is if yer
never try ter be careful about sayin' sumfink that might not be true,
ffen nuffink any fairy says is meaningful. This is why I can't take
about 98% of the bloody BS that blokes write on this group straight up.
And no geezer else should eever, right, but the problem is.... many do.
Cor blimey guv! In fact, right, yer and the rest seem ter take yorselves
and the bleedin' BS yer write quite straight up, much of the time. Yer
wiv yor pseudoscientific worship of the almighty "double blind test",
wich itself is a lie, but compounded by the fact that yer 'ave no respect
for the truff, right, and lie deliberately much of the bloody time.

But why, then, guv? Why do blokes like yer and Shovels and Morein
do this EVERY SINGLE DAY OF YOUR LIVES, day in, day out, eh,
guv? Wotcher possibly 'ave to gain by writin' meaningless, pointless
lies, right, not carin' a wit that yer ain't able ter stand behind wot
yer
say, or refusin' ter accept the proof that uvvers offer wich indicates
yer
may be wrong in yor beliefs

There ain't a singgle geezer on this group that I 'ave seen, right, and
am not able ter classify as a "HYPOCRITE". For any fairy makin'
accusations against any fairy 'ere, is guilty of 'ypocrisy. Includin' the
accusations Shovels keeps makin' against yer (ie. I'll get out me
spoons. wantin' ter suppress freedom of choice, right, bein' a "borg",
havin' an agenda ter promote, etc. Cor blimey guv! etc.). And all the
bleedin' accusations yer make against uvvers (ie. unproven assertions,
lies and deceit, etc. etc.). Yor equally guilty of 'ypocrisy. Especially
since yer dismissed me tweaks as invalid wivout tryin' ffem, and yet
for the bloomin' last 10 years, yer've not accepted uvver blokes
dismissin' yor ABX garbage as invalid, wivout tryin' it or even
knowin' that much about it. Hypocrite.

how about yer start answrin' for all the chuffin' lies yer wrote ter me
in the Sennheiser fread, where yer pretended yer didn't imply the
Orpheus were a ripoff, and the 580's were just as good?

I swear, Shovie, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were more
desperate than Arnii to be abused out here in cyberspace's front window.

George, we're just giving him behavior modification. It could cure him or
kill him. The Brits have a neat expression for it: "driving him around the
bend." This refers to an advertisement for a laxative, many years back, with
the catch phrase "It gets around the bend." Which way do you think he'll go?