Lionel wrote:


Some of you use to say that Arnold Krueger is insane. Why not I don't know.

What do you think about the following demonstration of paranoid and
megalomaniac behaviour. Obviously you are not obliged to answer...

Hmmm, Humour ?
Ooops sorry, yes, let me laugh... :-(

---------------------------------------------------------------

De :George M. Middius )
Objet : Wanted: opinions on audio equipment
Groupes de discussion :rec.audio.opinion
Date :2004-06-04 07:40:37 PST

Mark Shaw said:

Another bit of help for the helpless....
JVC XLMC2000 200 Disc CD Changer

Can't find the manual at www.jvc.com; therefore no idea if it'll do
that.
"Play Modes: All Disc Random, Program and Continous play"
Very difficult to find. Took 30 seconds.

Yes, I found the same thing. But what, exactly, does "all
disk random" mean? I guess I could find out, if I could get
to a copy of the manual.

Still playing helpless, eh?

I spoon-fed you the obvious fact that it *does* meet your "requirement".
But you didn't believe the stated claim on the manufacturer's Web site
because, apparently, you were still withered by my tubes crack.

I did the obvious next thing, rather than what you did (i.e. puling in
public about how helpless you are and how inadequate your research skills
are). I called a dealer! This took several minutes, mainly because the guy
had to look it up. But he gave me the answer. Is the "answer" the one you
want? Difficult to say. You reject obvious facts that seem to provide the
info you claim to want.

I'm pretty sure this is all about honing your stroke skills and not about
actual shopping. Having fun with the passive-aggressive "please read my
mind" game? Disappointed you got busted?


Look, I really do think you're trying to be helpful -- in a
playfully snide and typically usenettish way -- but I don't

I was at first, but now I'm making fun of you. It's soooooo easy to find
out what you claim to want, but you're not making any real effort. BLAM!
BLAM! It's like an arcade game.


think you actually know what it is I'm looking for.

And why would that be? Any chance you failed to describe what you're
looking for? ;-) BLAM! 50 points for the shooter.

I said previously: thanks anyway.

No, I'm still having fun with you. Have you met Arnii Krooborg, by any
chance? He doesn't do well with research either. In fact, he believes
software and databases lie to him. No joke. ;-(








First of all, "insanity",. at least in the USA, is a *legal* term not a
psychological term. More specifically, it is usually reserved for usage only
in cases of criminal law, not civil proceedings. Therefore, unless used as a
defense in a criminal trial, the term has no relevant meaning. For example,
there is a 14 year old kid here in South Florida who allegedly slit the throat
of one his classmates in the school restroom. His diaries were full of
drawings of weapons, "enemies" lists, etc. His attornies are going to use a
"not guilty by reason of insanity" defense according to news reports (he's
already been evaluated by several mental health experts).

There is no evidence that I can detect, professionally speaking, of any
"megalomania" or "paranoia" in George's post. It takes more than a tone of
annoyance and some aggressive mockery to indicate either of those 2 syndromes.
I don't detect any evidence of omnipotence or claims of omniscience one might
reasonably associate with megalomania (the term would probably better be
applied to some American politicians, IMHO). Similarly, the suspicion-tinged
allegations of plots or conspiracy theories, or ideas of reference (you can
look that one up in a psychiatric text) are simply not in evidence in this
post.

For the record, FWIW, I used to *do* competency to stand trial evaluations for
various judges in the Broward County Court syystem, as part of a panel of
psychologists and psychiatrists assigned to determine if those charged with
varioius crimes met the legal definition of 'INSANITY'. As stated above, the
term has some specific meanings, and requires presentation in a legal court
(usually criminal) of professional opinions as to such questions as (a) was the
person able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the alleged offense,
(b) was the person able to exercise control of his own behavior and resist an
"irresistable impulse" to engage in criminal behavior. These questions most
often come up in cases involving assault, battery and/or murder.

While I realize it's not his area of practice, perhaps Mr. Jim "Seabisquit"
Sanders, Esquire could also comment about insanity defenses and their
use/definition in California.

I can't help but wonder what the criteria for such a condition might be in
France. My only acquaintance with the legal system there would be - musically
- through listening to the original cast recording of Les Miserables (a great
score) .

Now playing: Rickie Lee Jones - Girl At Her Vocalno - the 10" LP on Warner
Bros. 23805. A rare recording, so I'm told, but well worth seeking out for
both performance and sonics. Interestingly, this LP is, according to the
jacket, digitally recorded and digitally mastered. It is also available on
cassette, but there is no indicator as to whether it is available on CD. If it
is, one could, perhaps, compare the 3 versions, as Carl suggested, to see if
differences exist. In any case, perhaps because of close miking, perhaps
because of careful attention to details, the sense of acoustic space and
realistic reproduction of both voice and instruments is striking. I also have
a CD of Rickie Lee Jones' "Pop, Pop" and although I understand a vinyl version
of this is now available (it wasn't when I got the CD), the CD is again, very
well done.

Next up: Simon & Garfunkel - Bookends.
(Columbia CS 9529)




And finally - Grover Washington - Winelight.(Elektra 6E 305)
Bruce J. Richman

"Lionel" wrote

Just for info the definitions given by my online dictionary
for insanity :

Syn: Syn- Insanity, Lunacy, Madness, Derangement,
Aliention, Aberration, Mania, Delirium,
Frenzy, Monomania, Dementia.

We can barely get our hands around the concept of what
constitutes consciousness. Insanity by comparison is
quantum mechanics (uncertainty principle/theoretical).
Much of the pain and suffering of people around the
world is due to misunderstanding of what constitutes
rational/irrational behavior (other theologies or deeply
held belief systems). One of the most dangerous
thinking patterns is to engage in simplistic thinking
(stereotyping, labeling, rationalizations, self-absorption,
bigotry, and cultural norms) All psychological disorders,
insanity for example, are *thinking/thought disorders*.
As a result you cannot really know George unless you
can first obtain intellectual parity with him... and he is
never so revealing, IME .

Powell wrote:


Lionel" wrote

Just for info the definitions given by my online dictionary
for insanity :

Syn: Syn- Insanity, Lunacy, Madness, Derangement,
Aliention, Aberration, Mania, Delirium,
Frenzy, Monomania, Dementia.


In terms of scientific findings, the above quoted "dictionary definition" is
garbage. Any knowledgable mental health professional would laugh at it and
advise all readers to disregard it. For example, 2 of the so-called "syhonyms"
listed are NOT synonyms at all - (1) mania and (2) dementia. Both refer to
diagnosable behaviors that are concretely defined by specific sets of symptoms.
Further, the symptoms have little in common with each other. The manic phase
of bipolar disorder, often characterized by a "flight of ideas", grandiosity,
and hyperverbal, hyperactive agitation has little in common with dementia, a
disorder associated with recent/remote memory loss and decreasing ability to
comprehend things.

We can barely get our hands around the concept of what
constitutes consciousness. Insanity by comparison is
quantum mechanics (uncertainty principle/theoretical).
Much of the pain and suffering of people around the
world is due to misunderstanding of what constitutes
rational/irrational behavior (other theologies or deeply
held belief systems).

Agreed. Labeling others as "abnormal" is somewhat culture-dependent, and
certainly subject to abuse.


One of the most dangerous
thinking patterns is to engage in simplistic thinking
(stereotyping, labeling, rationalizations, self-absorption,
bigotry, and cultural norms) All psychological disorders,
insanity for example, are *thinking/thought disorders*.

The very foundation of current, modern cognitive theory and
cognitive-behavioral therapy rests on this premise. As the ancient Greeks
(Epictetus) used to say, "the thought is father of the deed".



As a result you cannot really know George unless you
can first obtain intellectual parity with him... and he is
never so revealing, IME .













Bruce J. Richman

"George M. Middius" wrote

As a result you cannot really know George unless you
can first obtain intellectual parity with him... and he is
never so revealing, IME .

quack, quack, quack.....

Stop stealing and get your own material, please .

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

Lionel" wrote

Just for info the definitions given by my online dictionary
for insanity :

Syn: Syn- Insanity, Lunacy, Madness, Derangement,
Aliention, Aberration, Mania, Delirium,
Frenzy, Monomania, Dementia.


In terms of scientific findings, the above quoted "dictionary
definition" is garbage. Any knowledgable mental health
professional would laugh at it and advise all readers to
disregard it.

Agreed. I’ve personally experienced all of these attributes...
in other people, but not in myself )).


We can barely get our hands around the concept of what
constitutes consciousness. Insanity by comparison is
quantum mechanics (uncertainty principle/theoretical).
Much of the pain and suffering of people around the
world is due to misunderstanding of what constitutes
rational/irrational behavior (other theologies or deeply
held belief systems).

Agreed. Labeling others as "abnormal" is somewhat
culture-dependent, and certainly subject to abuse.

Indeed. Growth often follows abnormal behavior/thinking
and is most often a positive biological mechanism of
human evolution. Certainly feelings of self-image can be
stymied when we perceive our own thought patterns as
abnormal (socially unacceptable/Lionel's list)... when it is
often just the reverse by biological design (mechanism
for growth we don’t fully understand/inability to
appropriately relate to).


One of the most dangerous
thinking patterns is to engage in simplistic thinking
(stereotyping, labeling, rationalizations, self-absorption,
bigotry, and cultural norms) All psychological disorders,
insanity for example, are *thinking/thought disorders*.

The very foundation of current, modern cognitive theory
and cognitive-behavioral therapy rests on this premise.
As the ancient Greeks (Epictetus) used to say, "the
thought is father of the deed".

I personally like the psychological precept that there is no
such thing as a bad thought or idea. It’s the
externalization with the environment where the snag
sometimes occurs.


As a result you cannot really know George unless you
can first obtain intellectual parity with him... and he is
never so revealing, IME .

Note no retort on subject, George

Oh, I see Bruce, you’re content to see me not only go out
on a limb with George but to also saw off the limb, all by
myself

Powell wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

Lionel" wrote

Just for info the definitions given by my online dictionary
for insanity :

Syn: Syn- Insanity, Lunacy, Madness, Derangement,
Aliention, Aberration, Mania, Delirium,
Frenzy, Monomania, Dementia.


In terms of scientific findings, the above quoted "dictionary
definition" is garbage. Any knowledgable mental health
professional would laugh at it and advise all readers to
disregard it.

Agreed. Ive personally experienced all of these attributes...
in other people, but not in myself )).



Thank you for sharing that with us.

We can barely get our hands around the concept of what
constitutes consciousness. Insanity by comparison is
quantum mechanics (uncertainty principle/theoretical).
Much of the pain and suffering of people around the
world is due to misunderstanding of what constitutes
rational/irrational behavior (other theologies or deeply
held belief systems).

Agreed. Labeling others as "abnormal" is somewhat
culture-dependent, and certainly subject to abuse.

Indeed. Growth often follows abnormal behavior/thinking
and is most often a positive biological mechanism of
human evolution. Certainly feelings of self-image can be
stymied when we perceive our own thought patterns as
abnormal (socially unacceptable/Lionel's list)... when it is
often just the reverse by biological design (mechanism
for growth we dont fully understand/inability to
appropriately relate to).


One of the most dangerous
thinking patterns is to engage in simplistic thinking
(stereotyping, labeling, rationalizations, self-absorption,
bigotry, and cultural norms) All psychological disorders,
insanity for example, are *thinking/thought disorders*.

The very foundation of current, modern cognitive theory
and cognitive-behavioral therapy rests on this premise.
As the ancient Greeks (Epictetus) used to say, "the
thought is father of the deed".

I personally like the psychological precept that there is no
such thing as a bad thought or idea. Its the
externalization with the environment where the snag
sometimes occurs.


As a result you cannot really know George unless you
can first obtain intellectual parity with him... and he is
never so revealing, IME .

Note no retort on subject, George

Oh, I see Bruce, youre content to see me not only go out
on a limb with George but to also saw off the limb, all by
myself




Sheesh!!!! I was basically agreeing with you by remaining silent. How many
explicit strokes do you want? (Note several agreements above).

Although I'm not sure I would have used the words "intellectual parity" re.
getting to know somebody. For example, there are a few poor souls ("them")
posting to RAO wityh whom I would hope to *never* have intellectual parity.
But, your point is well taken inasmuch as means that you can't really evaluate
a person's behavior without knowing what "drives" it so to speak, i.e. the
assumptions (schemas/thoughts) behind it.



Bruce J. Richman

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - - samedi 5
Juin 2004 19:10 wrote:

Powell wrote:


Lionel" wrote

Just for info the definitions given by my online dictionary
for insanity :

Syn: Syn- Insanity, Lunacy, Madness, Derangement,
Aliention, Aberration, Mania, Delirium,
Frenzy, Monomania, Dementia.


In terms of scientific findings, the above quoted "dictionary definition"
is
garbage. Any knowledgable mental health professional would laugh at it
and
advise all readers to disregard it. For example, 2 of the so-called
"syhonyms"
listed are NOT synonyms at all - (1) mania and (2) dementia. Both refer
to diagnosable behaviors that are concretely defined by specific sets of
symptoms.
Further, the symptoms have little in common with each other. The manic
phase
of bipolar disorder, often characterized by a "flight of ideas",
grandiosity, and hyperverbal, hyperactive agitation has little in common
with dementia, a disorder associated with recent/remote memory loss and
decreasing ability to comprehend things.

Bruce between you and me. Why should we care ?
If we agree that the above definition is our basic reference, this would
allow us to initiate a discussion.;-)


Sorry, I don't support definitions that are inaccurate and blatently confusing.
If you want to talk about abnormal behavior - a subjective judgment, fine.
But, as previously stated, "insanity", "mania" and "dementia" have specific
meanings that are universally accepted by most mental health professionals and
attornies, for that matter. I have no intention of injecting vagueness and
ambiguity where none is required.


I suggest that you use your influence and notoriety to request an amandement
to the Webster's definition.




I suggest that you reinroll in Sarcasm 101 and take a refresher course.






Bruce J. Richman

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - - samedi 5
Juin 2004 22:34 wrote:

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman - - samedi
5 Juin 2004 19:10 wrote:

Powell wrote:


Lionel" wrote

Just for info the definitions given by my online dictionary
for insanity :

Syn: Syn- Insanity, Lunacy, Madness, Derangement,
Aliention, Aberration, Mania, Delirium,
Frenzy, Monomania, Dementia.


In terms of scientific findings, the above quoted "dictionary
definition" is
garbage. Any knowledgable mental health professional would laugh at it
and
advise all readers to disregard it. For example, 2 of the so-called
"syhonyms"
listed are NOT synonyms at all - (1) mania and (2) dementia. Both refer
to diagnosable behaviors that are concretely defined by specific sets of
symptoms.
Further, the symptoms have little in common with each other. The manic
phase
of bipolar disorder, often characterized by a "flight of ideas",
grandiosity, and hyperverbal, hyperactive agitation has little in common
with dementia, a disorder associated with recent/remote memory loss and
decreasing ability to comprehend things.

Bruce between you and me. Why should we care ?
If we agree that the above definition is our basic reference, this would
allow us to initiate a discussion.;-)


Sorry, I don't support definitions that are inaccurate and blatently
confusing.
If you want to talk about abnormal behavior - a subjective judgment,
fine.
But, as previously stated, "insanity", "mania" and "dementia" have
specific meanings that are universally accepted by most mental health
professionals and
attornies, for that matter. I have no intention of injecting vagueness
and
ambiguity where none is required.


I suggest that you use your influence and notoriety to request an
amandement to the Webster's definition.


I suggest that you reinroll in Sarcasm 101 and take a refresher course.

Why ? You are unfair with me on this one...

Not at all. I believe in accuracy whenever possible.


The basic dictionary reference is laughable ? Change it !
Any other position *could* be interpreted as an attempt to "elitization"...

Only by those interested in distortions, falsification, and support for false
claims.
Endorsement of the dictionary definition is endorsement of inaccuracy, false
information, and above all, a meaningless mix of contradictory pieces of data.

...I am already inrolled in Troll 533. )





I realize that.




Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman - - samedi 5
Juin 2004 22:34 wrote:

I suggest that you reinroll in Sarcasm 101 and take a refresher course.

Why ? You are unfair with me on this one...

Not at all. I believe in accuracy whenever possible.

Richman : 1 - Chapuis : 0

BTW you don't tell me if you have already listen to the last Diana
Krall's Lp ?

(Bruce J. Richman) said:

Not at all. I believe in accuracy whenever possible.

Flase calim, proove it, mr. tube biggot .


;-)

LOL!


--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

Lionel wrote:


Bruce J. Richman a écrit :

Lionel wrote:
Bruce J. Richman - - samedi
5
Juin 2004 22:34 wrote:

I suggest that you reinroll in Sarcasm 101 and take a refresher course.

Why ? You are unfair with me on this one...

Not at all. I believe in accuracy whenever possible.

Richman : 1 - Chapuis : 0

BTW you don't tell me if you have already listen to the last Diana
Krall's Lp ?









No, I haven't heard any of her albums. I've seen her a few times on TV. I'm
sort of ambivalent about whether or not to get her albums. Jazz vocalists I've
collected are only a small part of my collection, but I'm open to adding a few
more.





Bruce J. Richman

Sander deWaal wrote:


(Bruce J. Richman) said:

Not at all. I believe in accuracy whenever possible.

Flase calim, proove it, mr. tube biggot .


;-)

LOL!


--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy








If iron knees killed. Been there, done that! I'll bet you can't eeven list
the low-resolution components in my many audio gear sisterns.

Thanks for admitting you haven't gone to church on Sundays, Sandy :

And how do we know you are who you say you are? You could be one of
Stereophile's band of thugs using sockpuppets and phony European posting spots
to fool newbies!!

ROFLYAOMTO !!!!

LOOOT's!







Bruce J. Richman

Bruce J. Richman a écrit :
Lionel wrote:



Bruce J. Richman a écrit :


Lionel wrote:

Bruce J. Richman - - samedi

5

Juin 2004 22:34 wrote:

I suggest that you reinroll in Sarcasm 101 and take a refresher course.

Why ? You are unfair with me on this one...

Not at all. I believe in accuracy whenever possible.

Richman : 1 - Chapuis : 0

BTW you don't tell me if you have already listen to the last Diana
Krall's Lp ?










No, I haven't heard any of her albums. I've seen her a few times on TV. I'm
sort of ambivalent about whether or not to get her albums. Jazz vocalists I've
collected are only a small part of my collection, but I'm open to adding a few
more.

So follow my advice, as you appreciate Rickie Lee Jones I guess that you
will like this one.