Arny Kreuger, PROVEN liar
George M. Middius
> You should be ashamed of yourself.
> Liar.
Um..... Boon, those two statements don't go together in Arniiworld.
Yes, Mr. Shit is a liar -- an unrepentant, habitual, compulsive,
demented liar. But far from being ashamed of his liarhood, it's what
makes him *proud* of his disgusting self.
George M. Middius
Marc Phillips
No, I understand this completely. That's why I think he is such an utter piece
of shit...he sits at his computer all day, lies and commits one hypocrisy after
another, is surrounded by people who hate his guts, and somehow gets off on it.
What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
Boon
trotsky
Agreed.
Arny Krueger
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20001129060717...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> No, I understand this completely.
Mr. Phillips, nobody understands anything *completely*, or are you
nominating yourself as the first truly omniscient person to exist on
earth in the past 19 or so centuries?
> That's why I think he is such an utter piece of sh*t...
I really get under your skin, don't I, troll-boy? ;-)
> he sits at his computer all day,
Nope, that's a lie. I live a normal life - eat, sleep, associate with
my family work about 8-10 hours a day, etc. Of course a lot of my
work is about computers - but the Usenet part of that is usually
small.
>...lies and commits one hypocrisy after another,
Mr. Phillips, we know that you use the Middius definition of lie: A
lie is anything that is not revealed truth in the holy words of the
author of "The Resistance"
> is surrounded by people who hate his guts,
That would be people who have been trapped in some lie(s),
deception(s), flimsy rationale(s), self-contradiction(s), OSAF, old
wife's tale, etc. Many times I don't have to trap them at all. I just
wind 'em up and let them hang themselves with their own tongues.
It wouldn't have to be this way, but as long as you "Resistance" guys
pursue your agenda of hate, it probably will.
> and somehow gets off on it.
Mr. Phillips, if I wasn't making a lot of my points, why would you
"Resistance" people act so hurt?
> What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
Mr. Phillips, I'm surprised that your signature "assclown" or "you're
my bitch" has not been gratuitously tacked on at some point in your
post. You are such a gentleman and a scholar, of course!
Arny Krueger
"trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
> > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
> Agreed.
Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who have
watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
>news:20001129060717...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
>
>
>> No, I understand this completely.
>
>Mr. Phillips, nobody understands anything *completely*, or are you
>nominating yourself as the first truly omniscient person to exist on
>earth in the past 19 or so centuries?
>
>> That's why I think he is such an utter piece of sh*t...
>
>I really get under your skin, don't I, troll-boy? ;-)
Sounds like Phillips has gotten under *your* skin...
BTW, I'm still waiting for your apology for your false claim about the
"soundcards web pages" that I claimed that you substituted...
<chuckle>
Arny Krueger
news:3a25067f.1345305@news...
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:33:25 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@pop3free.com>
> wrote:
> >"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20001129060717...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
> >> No, I understand this completely.
> >Mr. Phillips, nobody understands anything *completely*, or are you
nominating yourself as the first truly omniscient person to exist on
earth in the past 19 or so centuries?
> >> That's why I think he is such an utter piece of sh*t...
> >I really get under your skin, don't I, troll-boy? ;-)
> Sounds like Phillips has gotten under *your* skin...
Not really. Just waiting for the water to heat up for my bath.
> BTW, I'm still waiting for your apology for your false claim about
the "soundcards web pages" that I claimed that you substituted...
Hardly worth my trouble, Mr. Weil. if an apology is in order then you
owe it to me. I proved your claim was false once, and that should
suffice. If I provide the proof again, you'll just slither out of it
or ignore the proof, based on your past performance.
Frankly, I'm surprised that you are trolling this lamely, Mr. Weil.
Table-waiting was tough last night?
Trotsky
Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this Waveform
Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled. Rather than discuss the
topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I was
"dismissing and running." I am the single most tenacious individual on
this group, thus you are a liar. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
dave weil
wrote:
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3a25067f.1345305@news...
>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:33:25 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
><ar...@pop3free.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
>news:20001129060717...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
>
>> >> No, I understand this completely.
>
>> >Mr. Phillips, nobody understands anything *completely*, or are you
>nominating yourself as the first truly omniscient person to exist on
>earth in the past 19 or so centuries?
>
>> >> That's why I think he is such an utter piece of sh*t...
>
>> >I really get under your skin, don't I, troll-boy? ;-)
>
>> Sounds like Phillips has gotten under *your* skin...
>
>Not really. Just waiting for the water to heat up for my bath.
>
>> BTW, I'm still waiting for your apology for your false claim about
>the "soundcards web pages" that I claimed that you substituted...
>
>Hardly worth my trouble, Mr. Weil.
I'll take that as you're not man enough to offer an apology, even as
you demand one of others.
> if an apology is in order then you
>owe it to me. I proved your claim was false once,
Your claim that *I* claimed that you substituted *soundcards pages *
was patently false. Please prove that I mentioned more than the DAL
page. DN references please.
And I note yet again that *I* apologized for that, not once but
several times.
Be a man Arny. For once. I don't think you have it in you but I'm
willing to hope.
> and that should
>suffice. If I provide the proof again, you'll just slither out of it
>or ignore the proof, based on your past performance.
I'm still waiting for a DN reference that shows that I claimed that
you substituted multiple soundcard pages. Show me *any* reference that
shows that I claimed that you inserted updated pages after the fact
for anything other than the DAL soundcard.
>
>Frankly, I'm surprised that you are trolling this lamely, Mr. Weil.
>Table-waiting was tough last night?
No, but closing on my new house today is going to be a little tedious
with all of that document signing.
Arny Krueger
"Trotsky" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
news:3A250CD6...@enteract.com...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> > "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
> >
> > > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
> >
> > > Agreed.
> > Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who
have
> > watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
> > honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
> Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this
Waveform
> Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled.
No, Mr. Singh I think I got you to show your true colors with
sufficient bias and hypersaturation, and left you to stew in your own
juices. I think Mr. Atkinson and others did pretty much the same.
Given that your arguments go around and around like blades on a fan,
and are just as thin, the phrase "tilting at windmills" often comes
to mind. Who wants to play Don Quixote with you for very long?
> Rather than discuss the
> topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I
was
> "dismissing and running."
You did. You took a discussion of Waveform's demise and turned it
into a recitation of your tummy-aches, including spelling, syntax,
formatting, and how bad you feel because I show you up so many times
in audio discussions.
> I am the single most tenacious individual on this group, thus you
are a liar.
I don't think so. I'd put Mr. Weil way ahead of you in terms of
staying even vaguely on-topic.
> I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
When I next see some truth escape from your mouth Mr. Singh, I'll be
sure that you are the first to know whether it causes me pain. No
pain here!
dave weil
wrote:
>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
>>
>> > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
>>
>> > Agreed.
>>
>> Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who have
>> watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
>> honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
>
>
>
>Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this Waveform
>Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled. Rather than discuss the
>topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I was
>"dismissing and running." I am the single most tenacious individual on
>this group, thus you are a liar. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to the
snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that indicated that
it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the manufacturing
process that was the primary factor in his demise.
And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was that
even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family turn a
wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride to
him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and barrel
to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
And also his fawning over The Audio Critic and Mr. Aczel. Heck, with
The Audio Critic, did he *really* need Stereophile? <chuckle>
Arny Krueger
> I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to
the
> snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that indicated
that
> it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the manufacturing
> process that was the primary factor in his demise.
This relates to concepts like "craftsmanship" which some might not
understand.
> And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was that
> even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family turn
a
> wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride to
> him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and
barrel
> to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
This relates to "facing up to business realities", which again
non-entrepreneurs might find strange.
> And also his fawning over The Audio Critic and Mr. Aczel. Heck,
with
> The Audio Critic, did he *really* need Stereophile? <chuckle>
Agreed.
Dan
> No, I understand this completely. That's why I think he is such an utter piece
> of shit...he sits at his computer all day, lies and commits one hypocrisy after
> another, is surrounded by people who hate his guts, and somehow gets off on it.
> What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
Apart from that, though, he's an OK guy?
Trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Trotsky" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
> news:3A250CD6...@enteract.com...
> >
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > >
> > > "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
> > >
> > > > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
> > >
> > > > Agreed.
>
> > > Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who
> have
> > > watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
> > > honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
>
> > Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this
> Waveform
> > Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled.
>
> No, Mr. Singh I think I got you to show your true colors with
> sufficient bias and hypersaturation, and left you to stew in your own
> juices. I think Mr. Atkinson and others did pretty much the same.
> Given that your arguments go around and around like blades on a fan,
> and are just as thin, the phrase "tilting at windmills" often comes
> to mind. Who wants to play Don Quixote with you for very long?
Arny, this is why RAO is a very boring place. An intelligent and feisty
guy like me tries to discuss an audio related topic, and guys of
questionable intelligence like you and Sanders egest piles of snot, goo,
and detritus in return. Then, adding insult to injury, you seat
yourself on the pile of garbage just deposited, and say, "See! I bested
all your arguments!" But you didn't, you merely made the thread stink
so much that no one ones to go through it. As I magazine, I don't like
Stereophile one bit. And I have repeatedly, consistently, raised point
after point of valid criticism. Most people knock me for this, either
because they don't understand the issues (Sanders), or they think JA is
a nice guy and should be treated as such. I don't think JA is a nice
guy--I think, in effect, he told John Otvos to fuck off and die with his
comments on Waveform's marketing. I think promoting sour grapes, sound
cards, and Denon receivers doesn't help the high end one bit. I think
"better marketing" will further trash the high end, as people attempt to
package garbage like Bose's "Wave technology" and sell it as
breakthroughs. And that's why you are such a hypocrite and a horse's
ass, Arny: Bose is the real purveyor of snake oil, making billions. But
where is your criticism of this company, Arny?
>
> > Rather than discuss the
> > topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I
> was
> > "dismissing and running."
>
> You did. You took a discussion of Waveform's demise and turned it
> into a recitation of your tummy-aches, including spelling, syntax,
> formatting, and how bad you feel because I show you up so many times
> in audio discussions.
Arny, you are not an intelligent man. I can't rehash and spoon feed you
the discussions over and over again--it wasn't even that fun the first
time around.
>
> > I am the single most tenacious individual on this group, thus you
> are a liar.
>
> I don't think so. I'd put Mr. Weil way ahead of you in terms of
> staying even vaguely on-topic.
I'm not sure "dave wail" will see that as a compliment. Speaking of
dave weil, when are you going to have a go at those Neil Finn lyrics?
That should be a hoot! Do you have any examples of lyric writing that
you'd like to share with the group? "Amazing Grace", perhaps?
>
> > I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
>
> When I next see some truth escape from your mouth Mr. Singh, I'll be
> sure that you are the first to know whether it causes me pain. No
> pain here!
Do you worship Satan?
Trotsky
dave weil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:04:14 -0600, Trotsky <gsi...@enteract.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>
> >> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
> >>
> >> > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
> >>
> >> > Agreed.
> >>
> >> Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who have
> >> watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
> >> honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
> >
> >
> >
> >Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this Waveform
> >Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled. Rather than discuss the
> >topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I was
> >"dismissing and running." I am the single most tenacious individual on
> >this group, thus you are a liar. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
>
> I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to the
> snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that indicated that
> it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the manufacturing
> process that was the primary factor in his demise.
dave, my point of view was primarily in discussing Atkinson's editorial
comments--I feel that discussing how Otvos ran his company is a separate
issue. Thus, even if Atkinson was correct in his assessment of
Waveform's marketing (and I don't think he was), I think there is a
limit to what he should be saying publically, unless he wants to invite
comments about Musical Fidelity/Audio Advisor, and I'm pretty goddamned
sure he doesn't want to do that!
> And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was that
> even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family turn a
> wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride to
> him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and barrel
> to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
I have no doubt that he's very eccentric. I am also surprised at how
much I liked the sound of his speakers every time I've heard them.
Curiously, the last time I heard them was at the S-phile hi-fi show in
Chicago, which of course Otvos forked over dough to be at.
>
> And also his fawning over The Audio Critic and Mr. Aczel. Heck, with
> The Audio Critic, did he *really* need Stereophile? <chuckle>
Like I said, he's obviously eccentric. It might have been a roundabout
way to get JA to invest in Waveform, so he can pull an Aczel an hype a
company he has invested in. (No, I'm not saying that JA would ever do
such a thing.)
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3a250fd6.3736621@news...
>
>
>> I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to
>the
>> snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that indicated
>that
>> it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the manufacturing
>> process that was the primary factor in his demise.
>
>This relates to concepts like "craftsmanship" which some might not
>understand.
Well yes, Arny. I talked about that in the post. And I'm quite
familiar with the concept as I have several "craft" audio products.
Can you say the same?
>
>> And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was that
>> even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family turn
>a
>> wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride to
>> him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and
>barrel
>> to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
>
>This relates to "facing up to business realities", which again
>non-entrepreneurs might find strange.
No, facing up to "business realities" is hiring more than just your 18
year old son during the summer to help you build a growing line of
speakers. Facing up to "business realitites" is realizing that if you
want to grow your business, you have to place trust in a workforce,
whether of not it's a small, nahdpicked crew, or a large multi-facted
far flung workforce. It's called "management." If you want to hand
build speakers, it's fine. But your viability as a business will
always be limited by what you can produce with your own hands. It
reminds me of that UPS commercial where the new company goes on line
and sees their first order pop up. And then 2. Then 100. Then 1,000.
Their spirits go sky-high, until they see the numbers increase almost
exponentially until they're into the 100,000s.
If you crow about how you aren't going to relinquish control of the
design and manufacturing process, and that's a major selling point for
your product, it seems to me that if you can't make the company work,
you don't sell out your intellectual property. That is, unless maybe
you weren't serious about what you were saying in the first place. If
you don't trust a guy to build a speaker under your supervision,
you're going to sell the company and walk away from what you've put
your prideful name on for 14 years? Something's a bit askew here. He
certainly has the right to do that, but it makes all of the posturing
on his website just that - posturing.
And none of this is *any* type of comment on the product, the
craftsmanship, or how he should or should not have proceeded. It
sounds to me like he could have happily built a limited number of
speakers for years but he tried to expand his product line past what
he was able to manage. As well as buying some expensive equipment that
he couldn't capitalize.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>
>dave weil wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:04:14 -0600, Trotsky <gsi...@enteract.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
>> >>
>> >> > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
>> >>
>> >> > Agreed.
>> >>
>> >> Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who have
>> >> watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
>> >> honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this Waveform
>> >Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled. Rather than discuss the
>> >topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I was
>> >"dismissing and running." I am the single most tenacious individual on
>> >this group, thus you are a liar. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
>>
>> I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to the
>> snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that indicated that
>> it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the manufacturing
>> process that was the primary factor in his demise.
>
>
>
>dave, my point of view was primarily in discussing Atkinson's editorial
>comments--I feel that discussing how Otvos ran his company is a separate
>issue. Thus, even if Atkinson was correct in his assessment of
>Waveform's marketing (and I don't think he was), I think there is a
>limit to what he should be saying publically, unless he wants to invite
>comments about Musical Fidelity/Audio Advisor, and I'm pretty goddamned
>sure he doesn't want to do that!
I just feel that any discussion of the impact that Stereophile's
decision regarding Waveform's inclusion in the Recommended Components
listing needs to acknowledge the fact that it was the nuts and bolts
of the way that he conducted his business that pretty much spelled his
doom. After all, it was brought up that Otvos might have felt that his
advertising might have gone for naught and that it might have
contributed to his closing the company. Actually, I think given his
mindset, a successful ad campaign might have sunk him even quicker.
And the reason that I posted that stuff was not in response to your
original post but to the direction that the conversation had taken.
>
>
>
>> And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was that
>> even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family turn a
>> wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride to
>> him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and barrel
>> to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
>
>
>
>I have no doubt that he's very eccentric. I am also surprised at how
>much I liked the sound of his speakers every time I've heard them.
>Curiously, the last time I heard them was at the S-phile hi-fi show in
>Chicago, which of course Otvos forked over dough to be at.
Having never heard the speakers, I'll take your word for this. I am a
bit nervous though about the fact that Ferstler apparently loved them
(at least the small cheaper ones.) <g>
I really think that his offering the company for sale obviates all of
that high-and-mighty tauting of his philosophy regarding his company.
>
>
>
>>
>> And also his fawning over The Audio Critic and Mr. Aczel. Heck, with
>> The Audio Critic, did he *really* need Stereophile? <chuckle>
>
>
>Like I said, he's obviously eccentric. It might have been a roundabout
>way to get JA to invest in Waveform, so he can pull an Aczel an hype a
>company he has invested in. (No, I'm not saying that JA would ever do
>such a thing.)
It sounded like frustration with Stereophile, that's for sure
(especially when you consider the shots that he took at Stereophile
earlier in the FAQ.)
I'm always saddened to see a "craft-type" company bite the dust.
Now if I can only pick up a Croft OTL amp to go with my Croft
preamp...
dave weil
wrote:
>
>
>Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>> "Trotsky" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
>> news:3A250CD6...@enteract.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
>> > >
>> > > > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
>> > >
>> > > > Agreed.
>>
>> > > Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who
>> have
>> > > watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
>> > > honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
>>
>> > Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this
>> Waveform
>> > Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled.
>>
>> > Rather than discuss the
>> > topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I
>> was
>> > "dismissing and running."
>>
>> You did. You took a discussion of Waveform's demise and turned it
>> into a recitation of your tummy-aches, including spelling, syntax,
>> formatting, and how bad you feel because I show you up so many times
>> in audio discussions.
>
>
>
>Arny, you are not an intelligent man. I can't rehash and spoon feed you
>the discussions over and over again--it wasn't even that fun the first
>time around.
>
>
>>
>> > I am the single most tenacious individual on this group, thus you
>> are a liar.
>>
>> I don't think so. I'd put Mr. Weil way ahead of you in terms of
>> staying even vaguely on-topic.
>
>
>
>I'm not sure "dave wail" will see that as a compliment. Speaking of
>dave weil, when are you going to have a go at those Neil Finn lyrics?
>That should be a hoot! Do you have any examples of lyric writing that
>you'd like to share with the group? "Amazing Grace", perhaps?
Actually I was waiting for *you* to give your commentary.
I asked *you* to comment.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > Arny Krueger wrote:
> > > > > Agreed.
Mr. Singh I think your list of "guilty parties" is incomplete. Just
in the past week or so I've seen guys of "questionable intelligence"
like John Atkinson, Dr. John Feng, Jim Johnston, and Stewart
Pinkerton watch potentially interesting audio topics turn into a pile
of warm smelly stuff in your expert "care".
>Then, adding insult to injury, you seat
> yourself on the pile of garbage just deposited, and say, "See! I
bested
> all your arguments!"
Mr. Singh it appears that you are the person in the greatest pain.
Therefore, are we to conclude that as hurting as you are, you were
the victor? All these other people like John Atkinson, Dr. John Feng,
Jim Johnston, and Stewart Pinkerton and even Mr. Sanders and Mr.
Middius seem to be still scampering about with alacrity, and in far
less pain.
> But you didn't, you merely made the thread stink so much that no
one ones to go through it.
Mr. Singh I was just trying to help you understand why so many people
quit the thread while you were manipulating it.
> As I (sic) magazine, I don't like Stereophile one bit.
OK, that is a kind of opinion that we all get to have, no matter how
many letter substitutions it takes to make it into a proper sentence.
> And I have repeatedly, consistently, raised point after point of
valid criticism.
I think that there are a variety people who don't agree with that and
for a variety of reasons, many well-stated. Certainly neither nor
Pinkerton, nor Atkinson, nor Phillips nor Krueger (is there a more
diverse group?) agreed with you.
>Most people knock me for this, either because they don't understand
the issues (Sanders), or they think JA is a nice guy and should be
treated as such.
I think the personalities should be subservient to the issues. JA and
I are hardly bosom buddies and we don't even agree about why your
opinions seemed so ill-founded to us, but we agreed that your
opinions seemed ill-founded. I said that in the beginning and I just
sat back and watched you wind up and do your thing for a while until
just about everybody got pissed off with you and quit. Then when
everybody pretty much quit the field because it was such a mess due
to your irrelevant comments and flawed comparisons, I tried to help
you Mr. Singh, understand some of the problems with your arguments.
See what good it did me? You immediately started attacking me
personally every way you could!
> I don't think JA is a nice guy--I think, in effect, he told John
Otvos to f*ck off and die with his comments on Waveform's marketing.
I disagree, regardless of what I think of Mr. Atkinson. I think that
Mr. Atkinson's words are relevant because of who he is, but I think
that their accuracy and applicability should stand on their own
merits. I think his comments had merit as far as they went.
>I think promoting sour grapes, sound cards, and Denon receivers
doesn't help the high end one bit.
I agree with the sour grapes. The rest, Mr. Singh seems to say more
about your personal prejudices (we all know that you are an audio
luddite who is so deaf that he can't hear tics and pops on his sacred
vinyl) than the relevant facts of the matter.
>I think "better marketing" will further trash the high end, as
people attempt to package garbage like Bose's "Wave technology" and
sell it as breakthroughs.
Strangely enough Bose's "Wave Technology" is based on technology they
patented (legal claim for innovation and uniqueness) and technology
that most people who really understand how speakers work agree has
technical merit and more general applicability.
OTOH Mr. Singh, you seem to think that audio snake oil as typified
by Musical Fidelity's "X-ponents" and "Nu-Vista" wires represents
"innovation". X-ponents are just an audio cliché - stick a tube in it
and it's done!
>And that's why you are such a hypocrite and a horse's ass, Arny:
Bose is the real purveyor of snake oil, making billions. But where
is your criticism of this company, Arny?
I've often said that I question the price/performance of their
equipment. Many others seem to say the same thing. What is wrong with
that?
> > > Rather than discuss the topic like a man, you childishly
changed the header and claimed I was "dismissing and running."
> > You did Mr. Singh. You took a discussion of Waveform's demise and
turned it into a recitation of your tummy-aches, including spelling,
syntax, formatting, and how bad you feel because I show you up so
many times in audio discussions.
That's known in the "debating trade" as a meltdown, BTW.
> Arny, you are not an intelligent man.
One and only one of us still remembers what we learned in engineering
school and is able to apply it to real-world audio situations. One
and only one of us has his work praised in in well-known and
authoritative audio publications (print and web) from two continents.
I suppose that counts as failing an IQ test in your book, right Mr.
Singh?
>I can't rehash and spoon feed you the discussions over and over
again--it wasn't even that fun the first time around.
Mr. Singh you forget that in the process you also "lost" Pinkerton,
Atkinson, and Phillips to name a few parties that got grossed out
with your windmill of irrelevancies and left you to turn in the wind.
I supplied a little wind.
> > > I am the single most tenacious individual on this group, thus
you are a liar.
> > I don't think so. I'd put Mr. Weil way ahead of you in terms of
staying even vaguely on-topic.
> I'm not sure "dave wail" will see that as a compliment.
Irrelevant. I'm just telling the facts as I see them.
> Speaking of dave weil, when are you going to have a go at those
Neil Finn lyrics? That should be a hoot! Do you have any examples
of lyric writing that you'd like to share with the group? "Amazing
Grace", perhaps?
Irrelevant.
> > > I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
> > When I next see some truth escape from your mouth Mr. Singh, I'll
be sure that you are the first to know whether it causes me pain. No
pain here!
> Do you worship Satan?
I avoid worshipping Satan every chance I get Mr. Singh. I guess
that's why I never see you at church.
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:32:04 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@pop3free.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:3a250fd6.3736621@news...
> >> I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to
the
> >> snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that
indicated that
> >> it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the
manufacturing
> >> process that was the primary factor in his demise.
> >This relates to concepts like "craftsmanship" which some might not
> >understand.
> Well yes, Arny. I talked about that in the post. And I'm quite
> familiar with the concept as I have several "craft" audio products.
> Can you say the same?
My approach to "craft" audio products is to have audio gear that I
personally crafted.
Can you say the same?
> >> And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was
that
> >> even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family
turn a
> >> wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride
to
> >> him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and
barrel
> >> to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
> >This relates to "facing up to business realities", which again
> >non-entrepreneurs might find strange.
> No, facing up to "business realities" is hiring more than just your
18
> year old son during the summer to help you build a growing line of
> speakers.
Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
> Facing up to "business realitites" (sic) is realizing that if you
> want to grow your business, you have to place trust in a workforce,
> whether of not it's a small, nahdpicked (sic) crew, or a large
multi-facted (sic)
> far flung workforce.
Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
>It's called "management." If you want to hand
> build speakers, it's fine. But your viability as a business will
> always be limited by what you can produce with your own hands.
Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
> It
> reminds me of that UPS commercial where the new company goes on
line
> and sees their first order pop up. And then 2. Then 100. Then
1,000.
> Their spirits go sky-high, until they see the numbers increase
almost
> exponentially until they're into the 100,000s.
Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
> If you crow about how you aren't going to relinquish control of the
> design and manufacturing process, and that's a major selling point
for
> your product, it seems to me that if you can't make the company
work,
> you don't sell out your intellectual property.
What would you suggest be done with it?
>That is, unless maybe
> you weren't serious about what you were saying in the first place.
If
> you don't trust a guy to build a speaker under your supervision,
> you're going to sell the company and walk away from what you've put
> your prideful name on for 14 years?
I didn't know Mr. Otvos' name was "Waveform".
>Something's a bit askew here. He
> certainly has the right to do that, but it makes all of the
posturing
> on his website just that - posturing.
Mr. Weil, thank you for finally saying something that I can agree to.
> And none of this is *any* type of comment on the product, the
> craftsmanship, or how he should or should not have proceeded. It
> sounds to me like he could have happily built a limited number of
> speakers for years but he tried to expand his product line past
what
> he was able to manage. As well as buying some expensive equipment
that
> he couldn't capitalize.
My associates in the woodworking business tell me that if you want to
produce complex wooden parts, the expensive equipment in question is
a virtual necessity. Have I missed evidence that buying this piece
of equipment "broke" the Waveform business?
Arny Krueger
"Dan" <d.c.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A2518D9...@durham.ac.uk...
> Marc Phillips wrote:
> > No, I understand this completely. That's why I think he is such
an utter piece
> > of shit...he sits at his computer all day, lies and commits one
hypocrisy after
> > another, is surrounded by people who hate his guts, and somehow
gets off on it.
>
The origin of the whole "lies" thing is that sometimes I discuss
things with people and don't agree with them. They seem to feel that
during the discussion I demolished them or something like that
because later they feel the need to explain that the only way I could
do that is by "lying".
George M. Middius
> > No, I understand this completely. That's why I think he is such an utter piece
> > of shit...he sits at his computer all day, lies and commits one hypocrisy after
> > another, is surrounded by people who hate his guts, and somehow gets off on it.
> > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
> Apart from that, though, he's an OK guy?
He does fantasize about beating people to death with baseball bats.
George M. Middius
Arny Krueger
"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
news:f1ba2tsfdurgpengb...@4ax.com...
Don't even own any. Haven't even had them in the house for maybe a
decade.
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3a2519c4.6278867@news...
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:32:04 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
><ar...@pop3free.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3a250fd6.3736621@news...
>
>> >> I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to
>the
>> >> snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that
>indicated that
>> >> it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the
>manufacturing
>> >> process that was the primary factor in his demise.
>
>> >This relates to concepts like "craftsmanship" which some might not
>> >understand.
>
>> Well yes, Arny. I talked about that in the post. And I'm quite
>> familiar with the concept as I have several "craft" audio products.
>
>> Can you say the same?
>
>My approach to "craft" audio products is to have audio gear that I
>personally crafted.
>
>Can you say the same?
Would you like to list the components in your current system that you
have "personally crafted?"
>
>> >> And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was
>that
>> >> even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family
>turn a
>> >> wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride
>to
>> >> him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and
>barrel
>> >> to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
>
>> >This relates to "facing up to business realities", which again
>> >non-entrepreneurs might find strange.
>
>> No, facing up to "business realities" is hiring more than just your
>18
>> year old son during the summer to help you build a growing line of
>> speakers.
>
>Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
As it very well could have been in this case. They add new lines of
speakers and buy expensive equipment to facilitate production and
after 14 years, suddenly they close their doors. Looks like possible
linkage to me. But more important is whether or not he was able to
keep up with demand.
>
>> Facing up to "business realitites" (sic) is realizing that if you
>> want to grow your business, you have to place trust in a workforce,
>> whether of not it's a small, nahdpicked (sic) crew, or a large
>multi-facted (sic)
>> far flung workforce.
You missed a (sic) in the above sentence. I guess this means that you
aren't up to the proof-reading task.
>Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
See above.
>
>>It's called "management." If you want to hand
>> build speakers, it's fine. But your viability as a business will
>> always be limited by what you can produce with your own hands.
>
>Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
See above.
>
>> It
>> reminds me of that UPS commercial where the new company goes on
>line
>> and sees their first order pop up. And then 2. Then 100. Then
>1,000.
>> Their spirits go sky-high, until they see the numbers increase
>almost
>> exponentially until they're into the 100,000s.
>
>Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
See above.
>
>> If you crow about how you aren't going to relinquish control of the
>> design and manufacturing process, and that's a major selling point
>for
>> your product, it seems to me that if you can't make the company
>work,
>> you don't sell out your intellectual property.
>
>What would you suggest be done with it?
I have no suggestion. I'm merely commenting on the self-aggrandizing
nature of his comments regarding his total control of his product.
>
>>That is, unless maybe
>> you weren't serious about what you were saying in the first place.
>If
>> you don't trust a guy to build a speaker under your supervision,
>> you're going to sell the company and walk away from what you've put
>> your prideful name on for 14 years?
>
>I didn't know Mr. Otvos' name was "Waveform".
Yes, they are certainly linked, especially by Mr. Otvos. Otvos is
Waveform and Waveform is Otvos. Simple as that.
>
>>Something's a bit askew here. He
>> certainly has the right to do that, but it makes all of the
>posturing
>> on his website just that - posturing.
>
>Mr. Weil, thank you for finally saying something that I can agree to.
>
>> And none of this is *any* type of comment on the product, the
>> craftsmanship, or how he should or should not have proceeded. It
>> sounds to me like he could have happily built a limited number of
>> speakers for years but he tried to expand his product line past
>what
>> he was able to manage. As well as buying some expensive equipment
>that
>> he couldn't capitalize.
>
>My associates in the woodworking business tell me that if you want to
>produce complex wooden parts, the expensive equipment in question is
>a virtual necessity.
This is not true. It just makes it easier and more efficient and more
uniform. Taylor did it for years with their guitars, until they bought
such a router. It wasn't a "necessity" to build their guitars. They
did it just fine for years before they bought that equipment.
> Have I missed evidence that buying this piece
>of equipment "broke" the Waveform business?
There's indirect evidence on the web site. You might go there and see
for yourself. In fact, Otvos poses the very question when he speaks of
his possible purchase of said equipment. He says something to the
effect of "talk to me in a year to see how it goes." Well, we know how
it went. And now he's selling the same router as part of the deal.
dave weil
wrote:
>
Was hat due to a restraining order?
Arny Krueger
Speculation at best.
> >> Facing up to "business realitites" (sic) is realizing that if
you
> >> want to grow your business, you have to place trust in a
workforce,
> >> whether of not it's a small, nahdpicked (sic) crew, or a large
> >multi-facted (sic)
> >> far flung workforce.
> You missed a (sic) in the above sentence. I guess this means that
you
> aren't up to the proof-reading task.
If its the one I think, that was intentional. I didn't want to look
too nit-picky. 3 hits on one paragraph seemed like a good stopping
point.
> >Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
> See above.
Still highly speculative. In a recent comment he mentioned that he
had a lot of orders once he announced that he was quitting the
business. That suggests to me that demand, not supply was the
problem.
> >>It's called "management." If you want to hand
> >> build speakers, it's fine. But your viability as a business will
> >> always be limited by what you can produce with your own hands.
> >
> >Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
> See above.
Still speculative and now rebutted.
> >> It
> >> reminds me of that UPS commercial where the new company goes on
> >line
> >> and sees their first order pop up. And then 2. Then 100. Then
> >1,000.
> >> Their spirits go sky-high, until they see the numbers increase
> >almost
> >> exponentially until they're into the 100,000s.
> >
> >Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
> See above.
Still speculative and now rebutted.
> >> If you crow about how you aren't going to relinquish control of
the
> >> design and manufacturing process, and that's a major selling
point
> >for
> >> your product, it seems to me that if you can't make the company
> >work,
> >> you don't sell out your intellectual property.
> >
> >What would you suggest be done with it?
>
> I have no suggestion. I'm merely commenting on the
self-aggrandizing
> nature of his comments regarding his total control of his product.
> >
> >>That is, unless maybe
> >> you weren't serious about what you were saying in the first
place.
> >If
> >> you don't trust a guy to build a speaker under your supervision,
> >> you're going to sell the company and walk away from what you've
put
> >> your prideful name on for 14 years?
> >
> >I didn't know Mr. Otvos' name was "Waveform".
> Yes, they are certainly linked, especially by Mr. Otvos. Otvos is
> Waveform and Waveform is Otvos. Simple as that.
...in your mind...
> >>Something's a bit askew here. He
> >> certainly has the right to do that, but it makes all of the
> >posturing
> >> on his website just that - posturing.
> >Mr. Weil, thank you for finally saying something that I can agree
to.
> >> And none of this is *any* type of comment on the product, the
> >> craftsmanship, or how he should or should not have proceeded. It
> >> sounds to me like he could have happily built a limited number
of
> >> speakers for years but he tried to expand his product line past
> >what
> >> he was able to manage. As well as buying some expensive
equipment
> >that
> >> he couldn't capitalize.
> >My associates in the woodworking business tell me that if you want
to
> >produce complex wooden parts, the expensive equipment in question
is
> >a virtual necessity.
> This is not true.
It is true if reasonable cost, even at high end prices is involved.
BTW Mr. Weil, tell us about the woodworking businesses that you've
owned recently...
>It just makes it easier and more efficient and more
> uniform. Taylor did it for years with their guitars, until they
bought
> such a router. It wasn't a "necessity" to build their guitars. They
> did it just fine for years before they bought that equipment.
> > Have I missed evidence that buying this piece
> >of equipment "broke" the Waveform business?
> There's indirect evidence on the web site. You might go there and
see
> for yourself. In fact, Otvos poses the very question when he speaks
of
> his possible purchase of said equipment. He says something to the
> effect of "talk to me in a year to see how it goes." Well, we know
how
> it went. And now he's selling the same router as part of the deal.
Speculative again.
Mr. Weil if this is the best you've got, don't bother replying. ;-(
Arny Krueger
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:19:04 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
<ar...@pop3free.com>
> wrote:
> >"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
> >news:f1ba2tsfdurgpengb...@4ax.com...
> >> He does fantasize about beating people to death with baseball
bats.
> >Don't even own any. Haven't even had them in the house for maybe a
decade.
> Was hat (sic) due to a restraining order?
No, it was due to my last two children's lack of interest in
baseball. I think #2 son, the little league player, wanted them when
he moved into his own home.
BTW, tell us about your experiences with restraining orders, Mr.
Weil. They seem to be on your mind...
dave weil
wrote:
<no comment from Mr. Krueger>
Yes it *is* speculation. *All of this is speculation, including your
own comments.
>
>> >> Facing up to "business realitites" (sic) is realizing that if
>you
>> >> want to grow your business, you have to place trust in a
>workforce,
>> >> whether of not it's a small, nahdpicked (sic) crew, or a large
>> >multi-facted (sic)
>> >> far flung workforce.
>
>> You missed a (sic) in the above sentence. I guess this means that
>you
>> aren't up to the proof-reading task.
>
>If its the one I think, that was intentional. I didn't want to look
>too nit-picky. 3 hits on one paragraph seemed like a good stopping
>point.
Sure. Nice backpedal.
>
>> >Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
>
>> See above.
>
>Still highly speculative. In a recent comment he mentioned that he
>had a lot of orders once he announced that he was quitting the
>business. That suggests to me that demand, not supply was the
>problem.
Are you dense or what? If he can't supply the demand, then he's got a
problem. If he can't get demand for his supply, that's *also* a
problem. He *obviously* didn't feel that he could meet demand for
various reasons. Either he didn't price the speakers properly and he
couldn't make enough per unit, or perhaps he upgraded his facilities
too quickly, or perhaps he just got "tired." Who knows? If he had
plenty or orders, why did he quit? Maybe it just wasn't worth it
anymore.
>
>> >>It's called "management." If you want to hand
>> >> build speakers, it's fine. But your viability as a business will
>> >> always be limited by what you can produce with your own hands.
>> >
>> >Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
>
>> See above.
>
>Still speculative and now rebutted.
Bullshit.
>
>> >> It
>> >> reminds me of that UPS commercial where the new company goes on
>> >line
>> >> and sees their first order pop up. And then 2. Then 100. Then
>> >1,000.
>> >> Their spirits go sky-high, until they see the numbers increase
>> >almost
>> >> exponentially until they're into the 100,000s.
>> >
>> >Only relevant if demand was throttled by lack of availability.
>
>> See above.
>
>Still speculative and now rebutted.
Bullshit.
>
>
>> >> If you crow about how you aren't going to relinquish control of
>the
>> >> design and manufacturing process, and that's a major selling
>point
>> >for
>> >> your product, it seems to me that if you can't make the company
>> >work,
>> >> you don't sell out your intellectual property.
>> >
>> >What would you suggest be done with it?
>>
>> I have no suggestion. I'm merely commenting on the
>self-aggrandizing
>> nature of his comments regarding his total control of his product.
>> >
>> >>That is, unless maybe
>> >> you weren't serious about what you were saying in the first
>place.
>> >If
>> >> you don't trust a guy to build a speaker under your supervision,
>> >> you're going to sell the company and walk away from what you've
>put
>> >> your prideful name on for 14 years?
>> >
>> >I didn't know Mr. Otvos' name was "Waveform".
>
>> Yes, they are certainly linked, especially by Mr. Otvos. Otvos is
>> Waveform and Waveform is Otvos. Simple as that.
>
>...in your mind...
No, on his website. By his customers. By the media. Perhaps by
everyone but *you.*
>
>> >>Something's a bit askew here. He
>> >> certainly has the right to do that, but it makes all of the
>> >posturing
>> >> on his website just that - posturing.
>
>> >Mr. Weil, thank you for finally saying something that I can agree
>to.
>
>> >> And none of this is *any* type of comment on the product, the
>> >> craftsmanship, or how he should or should not have proceeded. It
>> >> sounds to me like he could have happily built a limited number
>of
>> >> speakers for years but he tried to expand his product line past
>> >what
>> >> he was able to manage. As well as buying some expensive
>equipment
>> >that
>> >> he couldn't capitalize.
>
>> >My associates in the woodworking business tell me that if you want
>to
>> >produce complex wooden parts, the expensive equipment in question
>is
>> >a virtual necessity.
>
>> This is not true.
>
>It is true if reasonable cost, even at high end prices is involved.
You didn't qualify it that way, now did you?
>BTW Mr. Weil, tell us about the woodworking businesses that you've
>owned recently...
Tell us about *your* woodworking businesses first.
>
>>It just makes it easier and more efficient and more
>> uniform. Taylor did it for years with their guitars, until they
>bought
>> such a router. It wasn't a "necessity" to build their guitars. They
>> did it just fine for years before they bought that equipment.
>
>> > Have I missed evidence that buying this piece
>> >of equipment "broke" the Waveform business?
>
>> There's indirect evidence on the web site. You might go there and
>see
>> for yourself. In fact, Otvos poses the very question when he speaks
>of
>> his possible purchase of said equipment. He says something to the
>> effect of "talk to me in a year to see how it goes." Well, we know
>how
>> it went. And now he's selling the same router as part of the deal.
>
>Speculative again.
No, it's not speculation at all. Here are the quotes:
"The remaining assets of Waveform are for sale along with the Anderson
CNC router which will either be sold along with the company or
separately. I have access to all the suppliers, spare parts, molds,
jigs, fixtures and of course the trade marked Waveform name. The CNC
is also being actively sold separately, for like the inventory sale,
it must be on a first come first serve basis."
"
Work is the best way to avoid boredom. Ancient Chines proverb says
the cookie! Since I have no experience at employing other people and
since carrying on this activity is very much for me personally a
lifestyle, I sometimes fear if I got the greed bug, I might lose the
whole show trying to get efficiency, quality and honesty from people I
may not know. Over the years I have employed my children and continue
to do so for both school year part-time and summer full-time slave,
child labour. The current method works for now; the major
disadvantages are that I am working too many hours and that
prospective owners have to wait a little longer, before they can have
their orders filled. That's really not so bad. However, the purchase
of a CNC router has been considered for the past four years, and it
would greatly speed up production and produce more consistent results.
CNC machines are the way of the world. The unresolved question
remains for society to engage in the ethical debate, about how these
machines effect us as human beings. The mostly unsustainable
environment they leave behind is just cause for concern. Ask me in a
year if I bought the machine and hired a worker to oversee it, as this
ditty is being written in the spring of '99. Business often has a
life of its own. "
Well Arny, you want to ask him? You want to ask him why he's putting
the pillow over the face of his business?
>Mr. Weil if this is the best you've got, don't bother replying. ;-(
Don't frown Arny, it accentuates your "laugh lines."
dave weil
wrote:
>
>"dave weil" <ddw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3a252fdc.11935814@news...
>> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:19:04 GMT, "Arny Krueger"
><ar...@pop3free.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >"George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
>> >news:f1ba2tsfdurgpengb...@4ax.com...
>
>> >> He does fantasize about beating people to death with baseball
>bats.
>
>> >Don't even own any. Haven't even had them in the house for maybe a
>decade.
>
>> Was hat (sic) due to a restraining order?
>
>No, it was due to my last two children's lack of interest in
>baseball. I think #2 son, the little league player, wanted them when
>he moved into his own home.
>
>BTW, tell us about your experiences with restraining orders, Mr.
>Weil. They seem to be on your mind...
I have none.
I just wanted to make sure that your wife was safe, that's all.
sandmanj
"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20001129060717...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
>
> >Marc Phillips said to BestialBorg:
> >
> >> You should be ashamed of yourself.
> >> Liar.
> >
> >
> >Um..... Boon, those two statements don't go together in Arniiworld.
> >Yes, Mr. Shit is a liar -- an unrepentant, habitual, compulsive,
> >demented liar. But far from being ashamed of his liarhood, it's what
> >makes him *proud* of his disgusting self.
> >
> No, I understand this completely. That's why I think he is such an utter
piece
> of shit...he sits at his computer all day, lies and commits one hypocrisy
after
> another, is surrounded by people who hate his guts, and somehow gets off
on it.
>
> What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
Feeding Krooshit to RAO is kind of like feeding a year-old, moldy,
disease-ridden pretzel to a squirrel.
Sandman
trotsky
dave weil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:11:44 -0600, Trotsky <gsi...@enteract.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >dave weil wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:04:14 -0600, Trotsky <gsi...@enteract.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "trotsky" <gsi...@qwestonline.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3A250299...@qwestonline.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Agreed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yup, I'm just as sick and twisted as all those other people who have
> >> >> watched you rant and rave and make irrelevant insults instead of
> >> >> honestly and sincerely defending your claims.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Arny, you attempted to have a relevant discussion about this Waveform
> >> >Acoustics issue, and you completely fizzled. Rather than discuss the
> >> >topic like a man, you childishly changed the header and claimed I was
> >> >"dismissing and running." I am the single most tenacious individual on
> >> >this group, thus you are a liar. I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
> >>
> >> I found it a little strange that you (Trotsky) didn't respond to the
> >> snippets that I pulled off of the Waveform website that indicated that
> >> it was Otvos's reluctance to give up control of the manufacturing
> >> process that was the primary factor in his demise.
> >
> >
> >
> >dave, my point of view was primarily in discussing Atkinson's editorial
> >comments--I feel that discussing how Otvos ran his company is a separate
> >issue. Thus, even if Atkinson was correct in his assessment of
> >Waveform's marketing (and I don't think he was), I think there is a
> >limit to what he should be saying publically, unless he wants to invite
> >comments about Musical Fidelity/Audio Advisor, and I'm pretty goddamned
> >sure he doesn't want to do that!
>
> I just feel that any discussion of the impact that Stereophile's
> decision regarding Waveform's inclusion in the Recommended Components
> listing needs to acknowledge the fact that it was the nuts and bolts
> of the way that he conducted his business that pretty much spelled his
> doom. After all, it was brought up that Otvos might have felt that his
> advertising might have gone for naught and that it might have
> contributed to his closing the company. Actually, I think given his
> mindset, a successful ad campaign might have sunk him even quicker.
>
> And the reason that I posted that stuff was not in response to your
> original post but to the direction that the conversation had taken.
dave, there seems to be some confusion. I'm going to try and be cool
about this, but, as you know, I have very little patience about this
kind of thing. Atkinson's criticism was based on marketing. Otvos
complained of marketing problems, too, due to lack of exposure in
S-phile. These marketing problems add up to lack of sales. Now, what
you had posted was something about Otvos not delegating the
manufacturing tasks, which would relate directly to not being able to
produce enough products. Lack of orders does NOT create a situation
where production inefficiency is a problem. So you are barking up the
wrong tree. Do you understand?
> >> And of course the irony is, as I pointed out in that post, was that
> >> even though he was loath to let *anyone* other than his family turn a
> >> wrench or squirt some glue (and it seemed a big point of pride to
> >> him), he's now willing to turn over his ideas lock, stock and barrel
> >> to complete outsiders. Strange principles if you ask me.
> >
> >
> >
> >I have no doubt that he's very eccentric. I am also surprised at how
> >much I liked the sound of his speakers every time I've heard them.
> >Curiously, the last time I heard them was at the S-phile hi-fi show in
> >Chicago, which of course Otvos forked over dough to be at.
>
> Having never heard the speakers, I'll take your word for this. I am a
> bit nervous though about the fact that Ferstler apparently loved them
> (at least the small cheaper ones.) <g>
Ferstler likes Dunlavys, too. Ferstler can recognize good
speakers--it's just everything else that is audio related that confuses him.
>
> I really think that his offering the company for sale obviates all of
> that high-and-mighty tauting of his philosophy regarding his company.
Actually, what it means is a general disgust for what the audio industry
has become, and his figuring he might as well get while the getting is
good. And I assume you mean "tout" not "taut".
> >>
> >> And also his fawning over The Audio Critic and Mr. Aczel. Heck, with
> >> The Audio Critic, did he *really* need Stereophile? <chuckle>
> >
> >
> >Like I said, he's obviously eccentric. It might have been a roundabout
> >way to get JA to invest in Waveform, so he can pull an Aczel an hype a
> >company he has invested in. (No, I'm not saying that JA would ever do
> >such a thing.)
>
> It sounded like frustration with Stereophile, that's for sure
> (especially when you consider the shots that he took at Stereophile
> earlier in the FAQ.)
>
> I'm always saddened to see a "craft-type" company bite the dust.
Agreed.
>
> Now if I can only pick up a Croft OTL amp to go with my Croft
> preamp...
Maybe Pinkerton can help you with that.
trotsky
dave weil wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:03:31 -0600, Trotsky <gsi...@enteract.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm not sure "dave wail" will see that as a compliment. Speaking of
> >dave weil, when are you going to have a go at those Neil Finn lyrics?
> >That should be a hoot! Do you have any examples of lyric writing that
> >you'd like to share with the group? "Amazing Grace", perhaps?
>
> Actually I was waiting for *you* to give your commentary.
>
> I asked *you* to comment.
dave, I'm starting to lose patience with you. You asked me or *others*
to comment, so Arny counts. Look up the post, buddy.
trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "Trotsky" <gsi...@enteract.com> wrote in message
> news:3A251AA7...@enteract.com...
>
>
> > Arny, this is why RAO is a very boring place. An intelligent and
> feisty
> > guy like me tries to discuss an audio related topic, and guys of
> > questionable intelligence like you and Sanders egest piles of snot,
> goo,
> > and detritus in return.
>
> Mr. Singh I think your list of "guilty parties" is incomplete. Just
> in the past week or so I've seen guys of "questionable intelligence"
> like John Atkinson, Dr. John Feng, Jim Johnston, and Stewart
> Pinkerton watch potentially interesting audio topics turn into a pile
> of warm smelly stuff in your expert "care".
Well, I'll tell you what, Arny: if it's a thread that *I* started the
Lord can giveth and the Lord can taketh away. Here's the list of
interesting audio related threads that *you've* started:
<none>
>
> >Then, adding insult to injury, you seat
> > yourself on the pile of garbage just deposited, and say, "See! I
> bested
> > all your arguments!"
>
> Mr. Singh it appears that you are the person in the greatest pain.
> Therefore, are we to conclude that as hurting as you are, you were
> the victor? All these other people like John Atkinson, Dr. John Feng,
> Jim Johnston, and Stewart Pinkerton and even Mr. Sanders and Mr.
> Middius seem to be still scampering about with alacrity, and in far
> less pain.
Translation from the horsepucky, please?
>
> > But you didn't, you merely made the thread stink so much that no
> one ones to go through it.
>
> Mr. Singh I was just trying to help you understand why so many people
> quit the thread while you were manipulating it.
Which people, Arny? Be specific, and also compare and contrast those
people with your list of "liars" while you're at it. ROTFL!
>
> > As I (sic) magazine, I don't like Stereophile one bit.
>
> OK, that is a kind of opinion that we all get to have, no matter how
> many letter substitutions it takes to make it into a proper sentence.
Ouch, you got me!
>
> > And I have repeatedly, consistently, raised point after point of
> valid criticism.
>
> I think that there are a variety people who don't agree with that and
> for a variety of reasons, many well-stated. Certainly neither nor
> Pinkerton, nor Atkinson, nor Phillips nor Krueger (is there a more
> diverse group?) agreed with you.
Arny, do you have any idea how pointless your viewpoint is? I don't
suppose that you do.
>
> >Most people knock me for this, either because they don't understand
> the issues (Sanders), or they think JA is a nice guy and should be
> treated as such.
>
> I think the personalities should be subservient to the issues. JA and
> I are hardly bosom buddies and we don't even agree about why your
> opinions seemed so ill-founded to us,
"Us"? You don't have a point of view here, Arny. You are just too
stupid to keep up with the discussion. This isn't a flame, it's a
statement of fact. Moreover, you continue to have the problem of
hanging on the coattails of credible people: "JJ and me think..." "JA
and me think..." "Pinkie and me think..." None of those people want to
have anything to do with you, Krueger.
but we agreed that your
> opinions seemed ill-founded. I said that in the beginning and I just
> sat back and watched you wind up and do your thing for a while until
> just about everybody got pissed off with you and quit. Then when
> everybody pretty much quit the field because it was such a mess due
> to your irrelevant comments and flawed comparisons, I tried to help
> you Mr. Singh, understand some of the problems with your arguments.
> See what good it did me? You immediately started attacking me
> personally every way you could!
Arny, I have been very eloquent about the ways in which you are vile and
disgusting, so I think my reactions are justified.
>
> > I don't think JA is a nice guy--I think, in effect, he told John
> Otvos to f*ck off and die with his comments on Waveform's marketing.
>
> I disagree, regardless of what I think of Mr. Atkinson. I think that
> Mr. Atkinson's words are relevant because of who he is, but I think
> that their accuracy and applicability should stand on their own
> merits. I think his comments had merit as far as they went.
I literally couldn't care less about your opinion.
>
> >I think promoting sour grapes, sound cards, and Denon receivers
> doesn't help the high end one bit.
>
> I agree with the sour grapes. The rest, Mr. Singh seems to say more
> about your personal prejudices (we all know that you are an audio
> luddite who is so deaf that he can't hear tics and pops on his sacred
> vinyl) than the relevant facts of the matter.
As above.
>
> >I think "better marketing" will further trash the high end, as
> people attempt to package garbage like Bose's "Wave technology" and
> sell it as breakthroughs.
>
> Strangely enough Bose's "Wave Technology" is based on technology they
> patented (legal claim for innovation and uniqueness) and technology
> that most people who really understand how speakers work agree has
> technical merit and more general applicability.
Awesome.
>
> OTOH Mr. Singh, you seem to think that audio snake oil as typified
> by Musical Fidelity's "X-ponents" and "Nu-Vista" wires represents
> "innovation". X-ponents are just an audio cliché - stick a tube in it
> and it's done!
Arny, you are disagreeing with S-phile and agreeing with me in the above
paragraph. How confused are you?
>
> >And that's why you are such a hypocrite and a horse's ass, Arny:
> Bose is the real purveyor of snake oil, making billions. But where
> is your criticism of this company, Arny?
>
> I've often said that I question the price/performance of their
> equipment. Many others seem to say the same thing. What is wrong with
> that?
You are unable to put it in perspective: it would take 150 Monster
Cables to make the profits of Bose Corp. Is any of this getting
through, buddy?
>
> > > > Rather than discuss the topic like a man, you childishly
> changed the header and claimed I was "dismissing and running."
>
> > > You did Mr. Singh. You took a discussion of Waveform's demise and
> turned it into a recitation of your tummy-aches, including spelling,
> syntax, formatting, and how bad you feel because I show you up so
> many times in audio discussions.
>
> That's known in the "debating trade" as a meltdown, BTW.
Prove it.
>
> > Arny, you are not an intelligent man.
>
> One and only one of us still remembers what we learned in engineering
> school and is able to apply it to real-world audio situations. One
> and only one of us has his work praised in in well-known and
> authoritative audio publications (print and web) from two continents.
> I suppose that counts as failing an IQ test in your book, right Mr.
> Singh?
How's that bibliography coming along, Arny? Why I laugh?
>
> >I can't rehash and spoon feed you the discussions over and over
> again--it wasn't even that fun the first time around.
>
> Mr. Singh you forget that in the process you also "lost" Pinkerton,
> Atkinson, and Phillips to name a few parties that got grossed out
> with your windmill of irrelevancies and left you to turn in the wind.
> I supplied a little wind.
As stated previously, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. BTW,
Pinkerton was chillin' in the sanitarium while this was going, so what
are you talking about?
>
> > > > I am the single most tenacious individual on this group, thus
> you are a liar.
>
> > > I don't think so. I'd put Mr. Weil way ahead of you in terms of
> staying even vaguely on-topic.
>
> > I'm not sure "dave wail" will see that as a compliment.
>
> Irrelevant. I'm just telling the facts as I see them.
"Telling the facts"? What a tortured turn of a phrase.
>
> > Speaking of dave weil, when are you going to have a go at those
> Neil Finn lyrics? That should be a hoot! Do you have any examples
> of lyric writing that you'd like to share with the group? "Amazing
> Grace", perhaps?
>
> Irrelevant.
Why?
>
> > > > I'm sorry if the truth hurts.
>
> > > When I next see some truth escape from your mouth Mr. Singh, I'll
> be sure that you are the first to know whether it causes me pain. No
> pain here!
>
> > Do you worship Satan?
>
> I avoid worshipping Satan every chance I get Mr. Singh. I guess
> that's why I never see you at church.
Wow, a James Lince caliber statement--good job!
trotsky
Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> "George M. Middius" <Glan...@ipo.net> wrote in message
> news:f1ba2tsfdurgpengb...@4ax.com...
> > Dan said about Mr. Filth:
> >
> > > > No, I understand this completely. That's why I think he is
> such an utter piece
> > > > of shit...he sits at his computer all day, lies and commits one
> hypocrisy after
> > > > another, is surrounded by people who hate his guts, and somehow
> gets off on it.
> > > > What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
> >
> > > Apart from that, though, he's an OK guy?
> >
> >
> > He does fantasize about beating people to death with baseball bats.
>
> Don't even own any. Haven't even had them in the house for maybe a
> decade.
Is that what you told the cops?
Arny Krueger
Why would they ask?
George M. Middius
> > > > He does fantasize about beating people to death with baseball bats.
> > > Don't even own any. Haven't even had them in the house for maybe a
> > > decade.
The humans note that what you have "in the house" has no bearing on
your fantasies.
> > Is that what you told the cops?
> Why would they ask?
We'd better slow down the conversation here so Mr. Shit can keep up.
Because
you
told
them
about
your
fantasies.
George M. Middius
[This post reformatted by the Resistance, laboring tirelessly
to de-Kroogerize Usenet.]
Marc Phillips
>"Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
>news:20001129060717...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
>
>
>> No, I understand this completely.
>
>Mr. Phillips, nobody understands anything *completely*, or are you
>nominating yourself as the first truly omniscient person to exist on
>earth in the past 19 or so centuries?
>
>> That's why I think he is such an utter piece of sh*t...
>
>I really get under your skin, don't I, troll-boy? ;-)
>
>> he sits at his computer all day,
>
>Nope, that's a lie. I live a normal life - eat, sleep, associate with
>my family work about 8-10 hours a day, etc. Of course a lot of my
>work is about computers - but the Usenet part of that is usually
>small.
>
>>...lies and commits one hypocrisy after another,
>
>Mr. Phillips, we know that you use the Middius definition of lie: A
>lie is anything that is not revealed truth in the holy words of the
>author of "The Resistance"
>
>> is surrounded by people who hate his guts,
>
>That would be people who have been trapped in some lie(s),
>deception(s), flimsy rationale(s), self-contradiction(s), OSAF, old
>wife's tale, etc. Many times I don't have to trap them at all. I just
>wind 'em up and let them hang themselves with their own tongues.
>
>It wouldn't have to be this way, but as long as you "Resistance" guys
>pursue your agenda of hate, it probably will.
>
>> and somehow gets off on it.
>
>Mr. Phillips, if I wasn't making a lot of my points, why would you
>"Resistance" people act so hurt?
>
>> What a sick, twisted excuse for a human being.
>
>Mr. Phillips, I'm surprised that your signature "assclown" or "you're
>my bitch" has not been gratuitously tacked on at some point in your
>post. You are such a gentleman and a scholar, of course!
Of course you're trying to take this in a different direction. Account for
your lying, LIAR.
Boon
Marc Phillips
>The origin of the whole "lies" thing is that sometimes I discuss
>things with people and don't agree with them. They seem to feel that
>during the discussion I demolished them or something like that
>because later they feel the need to explain that the only way I could
>do that is by "lying".
Wrong. You lied. Account for your lies, LIAR.
Boon
Marc Phillips
>He does fantasize about beating people to death with baseball bats.
>>
>>Don't even own any. Haven't even had them in the house for maybe a
>>decade.
What part of the word "fantasize" did you have trouble with, LIAR? Account for
your lies. COWARD.
Boon
Stewart Pinkerton
>> Now if I can only pick up a Croft OTL amp to go with my Croft
>> preamp...
>
>Maybe Pinkerton can help you with that.
I don't think Croft do an OTL amp, and I certainly wouldn't recommend
one!
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Dan
> "Marc Phillips" <boon...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
> Mr. Phillips, nobody understands anything *completely*, or are you
> nominating yourself as the first truly omniscient person to exist on
> earth in the past 19 or so centuries?
Gosh Arny, your nitpicking pedanticness is so clever and original. We
all gasp at your skill in decimating opponents in the debating trade.
Or not.
> That would be people who have been trapped in some lie(s),
> deception(s), flimsy rationale(s), self-contradiction(s), OSAF, old
> wife's tale, etc. Many times I don't have to trap them at all. I just
> wind 'em up and let them hang themselves with their own tongues.
Now you're sounding like Howard.
George M. Middius
> > Mr. Phillips, nobody understands anything *completely*, or are you
> > nominating yourself as the first truly omniscient person to exist on
> > earth in the past 19 or so centuries?
> Gosh Arny, your nitpicking pedanticness is so clever and original. We
> all gasp at your skill in decimating opponents in the debating trade.
At first glance, it sort of seems like Krooger is trying to be
clever by emphasizing nice little nuances of ideas in a sly manner
evocative of informed, wry humor.
After a few days' exposure to Mr. Sack, that notion soon passes.
George M. Middius
Dan
> The origin of the whole "lies" thing is that sometimes I discuss
> things with people and don't agree with them. They seem to feel that
> during the discussion I demolished them or something like that
> because later they feel the need to explain that the only way I could
> do that is by "lying".
Does it occur to you that this is your tactic? You can't blame them for
using it against you. Oops, you just did. My bad.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > The origin of the whole "lies" thing is that sometimes I discuss
> > things with people and don't agree with them. They seem to feel
that
> > during the discussion I demolished them or something like that
> > because later they feel the need to explain that the only way I
could
> > do that is by "lying".
> Does it occur to you that this is your tactic?
It occurs to me all the time that it could be a possibility, but its
one I'm on the lookout for in my own work.
> You can't blame them for using it against you.
If they weren't lying when they do it, that would be something else.
>Oops, you just did. My bad.
No Dan, your posturing.
Dan
>>> The origin of the whole "lies" thing is that sometimes I discuss
>>> things with people and don't agree with them. They seem to feel
>>> that during the discussion I demolished them or something like
>>> that because later they feel the need to explain that the only
>>> way I could do that is by "lying".
>> Does it occur to you that this is your tactic?
> It occurs to me all the time that it could be a possibility, but its
> one I'm on the lookout for in my own work.
You accuse people of lying quite frequently when, usually, at worst what
they are is /mistaken/. Big difference.
You accuse people of lying or making false claims when they misquote you
by one, irrelevant, word, or make a trivial factual error that does not
change the overall meaning of what they are saying. For example, if
someone said you admitted to killing a chicken at 12:01 on the 10th
October and you knew your post was actually sent at 12:02, you would
respond with "false claim", "liar" or "prove it". When the post was
produced you would say "see! You were lying". Do you claim this
behaviour is reasonable?
In short, you practise deception and obfuscation of the truth.
Apparently, you feel this is justified if you can do it whilst adhering
to the letter of the truth. But deceit is deceit and no one is
impressed by it.
>> You can't blame them for using it against you.
> If they weren't lying when they do it, that would be something else.
What can I say!
>> Oops, you just did. My bad.
> No Dan, your posturing.
It's called rhetoric, silly. I think you should ask George if you can
borrow his dictionary, which seems to have a lot of good words in it.
Then you could be more specific about what sort of posturing someone is
practising.
Arny Krueger
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> >>> The origin of the whole "lies" thing is that sometimes I
discuss
> >>> things with people and don't agree with them. They seem to feel
> >>> that during the discussion I demolished them or something like
> >>> that because later they feel the need to explain that the only
> >>> way I could do that is by "lying".
> >> Does it occur to you that this is your tactic?
> > It occurs to me all the time that it could be a possibility, but
its
> > one I'm on the lookout for in my own work.
> You accuse people of lying quite frequently when, usually, at worst
what
> they are is /mistaken/. Big difference.
Dan, many of what you see as mistakes are old lies. I've been living
with these people for years in many cases. How long have you been
here? weeks? Is it over a month?
> You accuse people of lying or making false claims when they
misquote you
> by one, irrelevant, word, or make a trivial factual error that does
not
> change the overall meaning of what they are saying.
In many cases that is how they formulate their lies again and again.
> For example, if
> someone said you admitted to killing a chicken at 12:01 on the 10th
> October and you knew your post was actually sent at 12:02, you
would
> respond with "false claim", "liar" or "prove it".
On occasion, if people practice that level of nit picking with me, I
think that turnabout is fair play.
>When the post was produced you would say "see! You were lying".
Do you claim this
> behavior is reasonable?
Context Dan, context.
> In short, you practice deception and obfuscation of the truth.
Dan if absolute standards are applied you have practiced deception
and obfuscation of the truth as recently as yesterday in the
discussion of programming languages with Mr. Dormer. OK, is that a
hanging offense or acceptable hyperbole for rec.audio.opinion?
> Apparently, you feel this is justified if you can do it whilst
adhering
> to the letter of the truth. But deceit is deceit and no one is
> impressed by it.
Look in the mirror Dan. If you want to live by that standard, then
live by that standard.
> >> You can't blame them for using it against you.
> > If they weren't lying when they do it, that would be something
else.
> What can I say!
Dan, try saying something that is not as hypocritical as what you are
trying to perpetrate now.
> >> Oops, you just did. My bad.
> > No Dan, your posturing.
> It's called rhetoric, silly.
OK Dan, then what I do is called rhetoric, silly.
> I think you should ask George if you can
> borrow his dictionary, which seems to have a lot of good words in
it.
Mr. Middius' dictionary has a track record for having a number of
interesting bends and twists in it. OTOH we play dueling (standard)
dictionaries around here from time to time.
> Then you could be more specific about what sort of posturing
someone is practicing.
I really am not aware of a standard list of sorts of posturing... Got
one?
Dan
>> what they are is /mistaken/. Big difference.
> with these people for years in many cases. How long have you been
> here? weeks? Is it over a month?
It's pretty obvious sometimes what is a mistake and what is a lie.
>> For example, if someone said you admitted to killing a chicken at
>> 12:01 on the 10th October and you knew your post was actually
>> sent at 12:02, you would respond with "false claim", "liar" or
>> "prove it".
> On occasion, if people practice that level of nit picking with me, I
> think that turnabout is fair play.
"In the short time that I have been here" you are the one person who
comes across as doing it the most. Time and again, even in that short
time.
>> When the post was produced you would say "see! You were lying".
>> Do you claim this behavior is reasonable?
> Context Dan, context.
So you don't claim it is reasonable? :-)
>> In short, you practice deception and obfuscation of the truth.
> Dan if absolute standards are applied you have practiced deception
> and obfuscation of the truth as recently as yesterday in the
> discussion of programming languages with Mr. Dormer. OK, is that a
> hanging offense or acceptable hyperbole for rec.audio.opinion?
Um, I made a rather thoughtless comment that ended up offending Mr
Dormer, something I had not intended to do. I therefore posted my full
thoughts on the matter - if you're gonna get in a fight it might as
well be over the right thing...
OTOH, I was fairly confident that you would not be deeply offended by my
comment, any more than I am offended when you call me ignorant and
posturing. And I never had any intention to deceive anyone about any
significant truth.
>> Apparently, you feel this is justified if you can do it whilst
>> adhering to the letter of the truth. But deceit is deceit and
>> no one is impressed by it.
> Look in the mirror Dan. If you want to live by that standard, then
> live by that standard.
Whom do I attempt to deceive? Where?
Paul D.
>Um, I made a rather thoughtless comment that ended up offending Mr
>Dormer, something I had not intended to do. I therefore posted my full
>thoughts on the matter
Dan I read your post, sorry I haven't had time to respond yet. Now I
understand where you were coming from, I'm amused rather than
offended.
S i g n a l . . . . .