A "Listener's Manifesto" or just more posturing from the religious high end? (part 1 of ???)
Arny Krüger
issues about equipment testing, in the next few weeks or months. John's
mentioned that he thinks that "The Listeners' Manifesto" By Robert Harley,
printed in January 1992, and posted at
http://www.stereophile.com./fullarchives.cgi?20 is relevant.
I hate boring presentations, and certainly one based on this old piece of
refuse would make a boring presentation. So, I'll try to deal with the issues
it alleges before the formal debate.
A "Listener's Manifesto" or just more posturing from the religious high end?
The first problem with this piece is it's title and tone. Harley clearly seems
to be living in a fictional world where there are "listeners" and "not
listeners". The fact is that no matter how he postures, pretty much everybody
is a listener of some sort. He pursues this tack on and off, despite flatly
denying it is true.
Harley seems to think that people in the big mainstream companies and research
areas who disagree with him don't really listen. I'm sitting here thinking
about all the industrial-strength and industrially-situated listening rooms
I've been in, used, and/or or seen pictures of. Harley's posturing about "not
listeners" seems like a conceit of his.
Probably one of the most impressive accounts I've heard of is the AT&T labs
listening room that RAO's own "not listener" JJ has spoken to me of. First
off, the thing was built way to close to a freeway. So, they blew a few 10's
or 100's of thousand$ on making it quiet. It goes uphill from there. ;-)
So, judging by their edifice complexes, people who don't agree with Harley are
willing to pay at least lip service to the idea of serious listening in
dedicated, engineered places. In many cases listening is paid a lot more than
lip service - it is the most important thing and it gets a top salary.
Harley writes:
"The theme of the 91st Audio Engineering Society Convention, "Audio Fact and
Fantasy: Reckoning with the Realities," reflects the increasing polarization
of the audio community over so-called "subjective" and "objective"
audio---also known as "The Great Debate." At one extreme is the "if you can't
measure it you can't hear it" school of thought. This camp rejects the
listening experience, believing that nothing more can be known about audio
equipment quality beyond the numbers
generated by "objective" testing. At the other extreme are those who reject
any role of science in audio
engineering and make absurd pseudoscientific claims about the audibility of
certain phenomena."
Harley actually does not seem to understand the true extremes. While the idea
that "if you can't measure it you can't hear it" exists, it is hardly extreme.
The extreme version is more like ""if you can't measure it with a Simpson 260
it just does not matter to the customers" . The mainstream view of audio
measurements and hearing is more like "If you hear it, there is some
corresponding physical effect that leaves measurable tracks, or it's not a
reliable, inherent property of the equipment, or it's a dramatic new discovery
like we have not had in over 30 years.".
Nobody with a brain rejects the listening experience. They just understand
that it is not always what it seems, and therefore, its not the be-all and
end-all all by itself.
Harley says: "At the other extreme are those who reject any role of science in
audio
engineering and make absurd pseudoscientific claims about the audibility of
certain phenomena.". Well, that is one way to say it, another is "There are
people who routinely claim they can hear a cricket farting at 300 feet in a
thunderstorm". Many such people seem to write for Stereophile. ;-)
Harley says: "I propose there is a third approach that incorporates the
methods of rational, scientific inquiry without rejecting the very real and
important role critical listening can play in advancing audio engineering. "
Again, nobody with a brain rejects that. However, Harley's specific "third
approach" is so flawed and so filled with religious beliefs, poor science and
poor critical thinking that it leads to absurd pseudoscientific claims about
the audibility of certain phenomena.
"This approach doesn't reject measurement, yet recognizes its limitations.
This approach repudiates claims that established physical laws are suspended,
yet believes in the direct reality of the listening experience. This approach
considers subjective critical listening as an expansion of
thought, not as a rejection of rationality."
Well, such an approach might exist, but it is unlikely to come out of
Stereophile's temple and unlikely to be enunciated by Sterephile's high
priests. ;-)
"The objectivists' claim that no sonic differences exist between competently
designed and manufactured audio components (or those having similarly good
measured performance) is an absurd premise that is anathema to the experience
of hundreds of thousands of critical listeners."
If course, this would be true if Harley could show it was true in even one
case. But in his rush to judgement and flawed view of commercial reality, he
throws out the baby with the bathwater and condemns himself to a life of
claims and acts that are just not that relevent to most mainstream audio
engineers.
Interestingly enough, Harley contradicts himself by saying: "No one doubts the
necessity or utility of subjective listening." OK, so he just threw out the
first how many pages of his rant? ;-)
If Harley wants to convince the people that disagree with him that he's right,
he has to do so with levels of rigor that he seems unwilling to subject
himself to. So out the window goes the baby!
"My experience overwhelmingly indicates that many aspects of audio equipment
quality are revealed in the listening room and not in the laboratory."
There is a simple explanation for this, and that is that Harley does not
approach the listening room with the rigor that is pretty much an inherent
part of test equipment evaluation of equipment.
Subjective evaluations have a rotten reputation in much of the mainstream
world. To many, the very word "subjective" conjurs up an antonym for
"objective". In fact, Harley does everything he can to perpetuate this. The
reason is one of simple rhetorical technique: Harley defines "subjective" and
"objective" the ways he does so he can destroy "objective" and leave
"subjective" standing as the only option.
In contrast, weirdos like me, tired of many years of watching a battle that
need not be fought, define objective and subjective in ways that correspond to
human experience: they can coexist and agree, or not: depending on the
circumstance. That pretty well parallels the obvious truth about reliable,
inherent, audible differences in audio equipment: they exist or not, depending
on the circumstance.
Probably the three most important events in the process of making the study of
subjective responses profitable were:
(1) The discovery of the Huntingdon (sp?) effect by Western Electric, ca.
1935.
(2) The recognition of the Placebo Effect and how to control it by the AMA in
ca. 1953-55.
(3) Common knowlege of basic statistical tests for reliability by engineers
which really picked up serious steam in the 50's and 60's.
Well, got to break off to do some computer work to pay the bills. It's clear
that the guy who said he was going to call me "right back" got tied up doing
something else. Time to flog some other projects! Maybe more, tomorrow! ;-)
Seymour F. Goodman
months, or years! Kruger is a first class jerk!
Ed
>
> It's pretty much a given that John Atkinson and I are going to debate some
> issues about equipment testing,
Who cares, how it is tested. If my ears can not HEAR IT, I WILL NOT BUY
IT!!!! AS FAR AS MY DOLLARS ARE CONCERNED MY EARS ARE THE ULTIMATE
TESTING MACHINE!!!!!
VERY FEW PEOPLE SPEND 3K PLUS WITHOUT LISTENING FIRST!!
Barry Rothman
do you? This debate has zero to do with issues regarding equipment
testing. It never has and never will. It is solely about your
charges about Stereophile's engagement in fraudulent behavior. As
promised, I will once again post the exact challenge made by John
Atkinson, which includes his reasons for making such challenge. This
posting is in it's entirety, so don't pull your usual tricks and
attempt to chop it up and distort it's meaning.
>>So Mr. Krüger, answer me this. You have used much r.a.o. bandwidth over the
>>past years attacking audiophiles and my magazine. You have accused my readers
>>of ignorance and of being dupes of an industry that _knows_ its products are
>>based on deception. You have accused me, my writers, and my magazine of
>>intellectual dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption. You have accused
>>engineers and designers for high-end audio companies of being incompetent and
>>corrupt. In another message in this thread, you even imply that subjective
>>reviewers have defective hearing!
>>
>>All I am doing is asking you to make the same claims in a live forum where
>>those you accuse of wrongdoing have the opportunity to make their own cases,
>>and where an audience not beholden to either side in this debate can then
>>make up its own mind. How can you resist such an opportunity to put your
>>beliefs to the test of public opinion
The point is clear. You made accusations of fraud, dishonesty and
corruption. We can go straight to Deja News to quote such comments by
you. Anyone with two eyes can clearly see what JA intended with this
challenge to you. All your posturing and BS cannot change the facts.
So, give it a rest and just make up your mind.
Nousaine
<<<Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it, do
you? This debate has zero to do with issues regarding equipment
testing. It never has and never will. It is solely about your charges about
Stereophile's engagement in fraudulent behavior. As
promised, I will once again post the exact challenge made by John Atkinson,
which includes his reasons for making such challenge. This posting is in it's
entirety, so don't pull your usual tricks and attempt to chop it up and distort
it's meaning.
>>>>
This post sounds like it came from the White House. "This isn't about whether
President Clinton lied to us on national TV (he sure did) but its about his
personal life and his relationship to the two people in his life he loves
most......"
Whee; will JA be tried for fraud? How...all the victims will say their wire
improved their systems. Gee.... this isn't about whether wire has a sound of
its own...its about whether you are a criminal if you say that it does without
any evidence to back you up.
This plea is the classic attempt to turn a question about which no contrary
evidence exists into a 'debate.' i understand the sentiment but I fail to see
the logic of the argument.
IF Atkinson can prove that the wire and the amplifiers he claims have 'sound
with no known cause' actually can be identified with a bias-controlled test
then he wins. If he can't...it isn't a debate about whether that constitutes
fraud...he loses.
So far he hasn't done so. So far NO ONE has done so. So how can an honest man
conduct a debate on an issue where he has NO evidence to support his case? He
can only argue that the evidence against him isn't enough to convict him of
fraud.
Big deal. Arny loses only because he can't find a loser who will admit that his
wire has no sound of its own and feels defrauded? What kind of victory is
that? I agree...I don't think Stereophile reviews surpass the legal stripe of
fraud...at least to the point that it's prosecutable.
But Clinton still lied to me. He shook his finger at me and lied straight out.
You too. Is this a debate?
Steve Zipser
follow through and debate - or participate in a public discusssion, his
BOSSBORG, Tommy So-SadMan Noussaine has to rush to the defence of his
buddy, WEASELBORG.
Those South Wet MichiganWoofus and Tuchus boys gotta stick together.
In article <19990217005529...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
nous...@aol.com says...
> Barry Rothman says:
>
>
> <<<Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it, do
> you? This debate has zero to do with issues regarding equipment
> testing. It never has and never will. It is solely about your charges about
> Stereophile's engagement in fraudulent behavior. As
> promised, I will once again post the exact challenge made by John Atkinson,
> which includes his reasons for making such challenge. This posting is in it's
> entirety, so don't pull your usual tricks and attempt to chop it up and distort
> it's meaning.
> >>>>
>
>
Arny Krüger
Steve Zipser wrote in message ...
>Now that Kreuger has put himself in such hot water over his failure to
>follow through and debate - or participate in a public discusssion, his
>BOSSBORG, Tommy So-SadMan Noussaine has to rush to the defence of his
>buddy, WEASELBORG.
>
>Those South Wet MichiganWoofus and Tuchus boys gotta stick together.
Actually, I'm enjoying reading all the reasoned responses to my first article
in the series.
Letsee:
Seymour F. Goodman wrote in message <36CA35D6...@pinn.net>...
>Kruger doesn't have the guts to debate John Atkinson in the next few weeks,
>months, or years! Kruger is a first class jerk!
The guy is so emotional he can't even spell my name right in either language!
Barry Rothman wrote in message <36CA3979...@bellsouth.net>...
>Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it,
>do you? This debate has zero to do with issues regarding equipment
>testing. It never has and never will. It is solely about your
>charges about Stereophile's engagement in fraudulent behavior.
What does the "fraudulent behavior" at SP involve? Equipment tests.
So how can "fraudulent behaviour regarding equipment tesring"... .... "have
zero to do" with issues regarding equipment testing?
Steve Zipser wrote in message ...
>Now that Kreuger has put himself in such hot water over his failure to
>follow through and debate - or participate in a public discusssion, his
>BOSSBORG, Tommy So-SadMan Noussaine has to rush to the defence of his
>buddy, WEASELBORG.
Letsee, "failure to participate in public discussion"? Yes, that would be John
Atkinson on RAO, unless he's posting under an alias...
>Those South Wet MichiganWoofus and Tuchus boys gotta stick together.
It is true that SE Michigan is a low, wet swampy area. All the wimps left long
ago. That means that those of us who remain are a tough lot, and familiar with
navigating a swamp.
Must be how Nousaine and I "navigated" our way out of religious high end
suspension of disbelief... ;-(
Of course, anybody from Miami who complains about people who live in a
swamp...either does not know where they live or are in denial... ;-)
Sandman
Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990217005529...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> Barry Rothman says:
>
>
> <<<Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it,
do
> you? This debate has zero to do with issues regarding equipment
> testing. It never has and never will. It is solely about your charges
about
> Stereophile's engagement in fraudulent behavior. As
> promised, I will once again post the exact challenge made by John
Atkinson,
> which includes his reasons for making such challenge. This posting is in
it's
> entirety, so don't pull your usual tricks and attempt to chop it up and
distort
> it's meaning.
> >>>>
>
>
> This post sounds like it came from the White House. "This isn't about
whether
It's no wonder Arnii's so confused if this is the kind of "advice" he's
been getting. The question is NOT about who "passes" some blind test
somewhere on any given day. It's whether or not Arnii can garner ANY
***POSITIVE** evidence that JA is a "liar", his magazine is a "fraud", that
high-end manufacturers are "incompetent" and that high-end dealers are
"defrauding consumers".
So far none of the hot air spouted on this NG has provided a SHRED of such
evidence.
Apparently, none of the proponents of the notion that the "evil high-end
establishement" is "defrauding the consumer" ever bothered to check out the
legal definition of fraud, and how to go about proving its elements.
All you guys keep doing is making yourselves look sillier and sillier.
Sandman
CHartm7505
With all due respect, please refer to JA as Mr. Atkinson and show a
little integrity for once!
Your analogy about this debate and President Clinton is a weak one to
say it mildly. If you think Clinton lied and others, what about yourself? Are
you so perfect, that you never was wrong about something or lied for that
matter, too? I know you`re not perfect, since you write for Audio, Sound and
Vision, etc.!
If anybody`s a victim it`s you, since you never review anything but
speakers, which we all know have different sound characteristics. Even your
fellow writers like Ken Pohlman could hear an improvement, albeit a small one,
with the new Entech DAC a few issues back. So has Daniel Kumin heard
differences in some of the equipment he`s reviewed in the past, so are they
liars too?
Perhaps they`re just as much a criminal as others who proclaim to
hear differences between equipment.
In lawyer lingo, you`re making foregone conclusions even before
these debates have even taken place. I find that rather arrogant on your part,
to say the least.
This is a debate, not a trial to see if one has commited a hineous
crime. Please keep your thoughts in this perspective, and don`t drag what
happened with the impeachment trial, as the raison d`etre for these upcoming
debates, provided they even take place.
The dictionary definition of a debate is as follows:" A regulated
discussion of a given proposition between two matched sides as a test of
forensic ability". It mentions nothing about whether one needs specific
evidence to ensure the criteria of said debate, only the right to discuss or
examine a question by considering arguments on both sides. A synonym for debate
is to discuss. Nobody`s on trial here, with a formal judge presiding.
Keep politics out of this disussion about debates, and don`t obfuscate
the facts here.
What do you think, Mr. Nousaine? I`m about the only one who spells
your last name correctly anyhow, so show some respect towards me also! ;-)
Regards,
Charles.
Edward M. Shain
>
>Big deal. Arny loses only because he can't find a loser who will admit that his
>wire has no sound of its own and feels defrauded? What kind of victory is
>that? I agree...I don't think Stereophile reviews surpass the legal stripe of
>fraud...at least to the point that it's prosecutable.
Tom, you're way out of line here, and your arguments,
continued here as elsewhere, are fatuous. I note you are careful not
to allege the same thing, but Mr. Kruger heedlessly crossed the
boundary between argument and slander and has been called out on it.
Mr. Kruger has explicitly alleged fraud so many times it has
become his personal catechism. JA saw it, was angered, and challenged
him on it.
The text of the challenge has been posted many times. Mr.
Kruger bragged he would stand behind those charges. It has nothing to
do with anything else. The controversies between objectives and
subjectives will rage for a while longer, I suspect, but this debate
is not about that. It is about going over the line and impugning
personal and professional reputations, about trying to damage a
corporation's business.
I do agree with you. Kruger is doomed to lose this debate, but
it is one he shaped all by himself, the rhetorical plastique
conforming nicely to the contours of his own body.
It is, most explicitly, not about anything else other than
heedless and vicious slanders.
Ed
Gene Lyle
> Big deal. Arny loses only because he can't find a loser who will admit that his
> wire has no sound of its own and feels defrauded? What kind of victory is
> that? I agree...I don't think Stereophile reviews surpass the legal stripe of
> fraud...at least to the point that it's prosecutable.
>
> You too. Is this a debate?
>
>
Excuse me but what does wire and Bill Clinton have to do with it? All
I've seen since JA's offer to debate AK in Detroit is posturing and
diversionary tactics from both you and Arni. At least have the courage
and integrity to stand up to the original challenge. Debate JA on the
accusations of fraud. Stick to the issue.
Secondly, in spite of your professional and personal associations with
Arny, please understand that you are becoming tarnished by his behavior.
It's not about his knowledge or experience, or even about his opinions
per se. It's about his insulting, demeaning smugness, his failure to
ever acknowledge that someone else might have a point, and most of all,
his complete lack of courage in following through with his "agreement in
principle" in the first place. The least you could do, Tom, is defend him
on the merits of his fraud claims. When you go beyond that you begin to
look more like Arny and less like yourself, and you loose the respect of
people who might formerly have a higher opinion of your work.
You have to make a choice here. Do you want to become an Arny Kruger
clone or do you want to maintain your independence?
I pray that you don't fall further into the trap you're setting for
yourself if you elect to become more like Arny and less like yourself.
Gene Lyle
Barry Rothman
You must be truly obtuse, or else you have such a blind allegiance to
someone who supports you that you cannot read properly.
How this be something other than the actual challenge itself. It has
zero to do with whether Atkinson can prove wire has a sound or whether
Arny can prove that wire has no sound. Or whether either can prove
that sonic differences exist or not in electronic components.
It has one single basis and JA clearly said what that basis is. He
said, point blank:
>>So Mr. Krüger, answer me this. You have used much r.a.o. bandwidth over the
>>past years attacking audiophiles and my magazine. You have accused my readers
>>of ignorance and of being dupes of an industry that _knows_ its products are
>>based on deception. You have accused me, my writers, and my magazine of
>>intellectual dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption. You have accused
>>engineers and designers for high-end audio companies of being incompetent and
>>corrupt. In another message in this thread, you even imply that subjective
>>reviewers have defective hearing!
>>
>>All I am doing is asking you to make the same claims in a live forum where
>>those you accuse of wrongdoing have the opportunity to make their own cases,
>>and where an audience not beholden to either side in this debate can then
>>make up its own mind. How can you resist such an opportunity to put your
>>beliefs to the test of public opinion
Essentially, the challenge to Arny is for him to make his claims of
"intellectual dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption" in a public
foru, where he will be able to provide some evidence. I just don't
think you get it. From everything I have read, JA couldn't care less
if Arny believes that Stereophile is wrong in it's methodology and
conclusions. What appears clear is that he objects to being accused
of fraud, dishonesty and corruption in arriving at his (and the
magazine's) conclusions. That you cannot see the difference is a sad
statement from someone who claims to be a journalist.
Oh, and by the way, don't throw that Clinton shit on this argument.
It bears little relevance to someone's claims of fraud.
BR
Nousaine wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman says:
>
> <<<Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it, do
> you? This debate has zero to do with issues regarding equipment
> testing. It never has and never will. It is solely about your charges about
> Stereophile's engagement in fraudulent behavior. As
> promised, I will once again post the exact challenge made by John Atkinson,
> which includes his reasons for making such challenge. This posting is in it's
> entirety, so don't pull your usual tricks and attempt to chop it up and distort
> it's meaning.
> >>>>
>
> This post sounds like it came from the White House. "This isn't about whether
> President Clinton lied to us on national TV (he sure did) but its about his
> personal life and his relationship to the two people in his life he loves
> most......"
>
> Whee; will JA be tried for fraud? How...all the victims will say their wire
> improved their systems. Gee.... this isn't about whether wire has a sound of
> its own...its about whether you are a criminal if you say that it does without
> any evidence to back you up.
>
> This plea is the classic attempt to turn a question about which no contrary
> evidence exists into a 'debate.' i understand the sentiment but I fail to see
> the logic of the argument.
>
> IF Atkinson can prove that the wire and the amplifiers he claims have 'sound
> with no known cause' actually can be identified with a bias-controlled test
> then he wins. If he can't...it isn't a debate about whether that constitutes
> fraud...he loses.
>
> So far he hasn't done so. So far NO ONE has done so. So how can an honest man
> conduct a debate on an issue where he has NO evidence to support his case? He
> can only argue that the evidence against him isn't enough to convict him of
> fraud.
>
Barry Rothman
Sandman wrote:
>
>
> It's no wonder Arnii's so confused if this is the kind of "advice" he's
> been getting. The question is NOT about who "passes" some blind test
> somewhere on any given day. It's whether or not Arnii can garner ANY
> ***POSITIVE** evidence that JA is a "liar", his magazine is a "fraud", that
> high-end manufacturers are "incompetent" and that high-end dealers are
> "defrauding consumers".
>
> So far none of the hot air spouted on this NG has provided a SHRED of such
> evidence.
>
> Apparently, none of the proponents of the notion that the "evil high-end
> establishement" is "defrauding the consumer" ever bothered to check out the
> legal definition of fraud, and how to go about proving its elements.
>
> All you guys keep doing is making yourselves look sillier and sillier.
And digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole from which they
will one day look up from and wonder how they will keep the dirt from
burying them.
The amazing part of this commentary from Tommy boy is that if several
of us started calling him and Stereo Review perpetrators of fraud,
claiming that he rigs his tests, intentionally distorts his findings
and is in collusion with the manufacturers of equipment he reviews, I
would be willing to bet that we would have a seen a lawsuit already.
Personally, I think JA, Stereophile and Petersen have been far too
lenient in allowing some of the comments made here on RAO and other
public forums.
BR
Edward M. Shain
>Barry Rothman says:
>
>
><<<Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it, do
>you? This debate has zero to do with issues regarding equipment
>testing. It never has and never will. It is solely about your charges about
>Stereophile's engagement in fraudulent behavior. As
>promised, I will once again post the exact challenge made by John Atkinson,
>which includes his reasons for making such challenge. This posting is in it's
>entirety, so don't pull your usual tricks and attempt to chop it up and distort
>it's meaning.
>>>>>
>
>
Tom posits------------>
>This post sounds like it came from the White House. "This isn't about whether
>President Clinton lied to us on national TV (he sure did) but its about his
>personal life and his relationship to the two people in his life he loves
>most......"
Tom, let's try to keep this within bounds. Ordinary free
speech is about everyone's right to express whatever ideas they may
have on any topic whatsoever with only a few limits put on that
expression.
One of those limits restricts the right to express opinions
that deliberately injure in some way. No one, least of all any
magazine or magazine editor/writer, reporter etc. that I know of
contests anyone's right to express any opinion. You don't, JA doesn't
etc. Note also, your express approval of those limits and your
explicit statement that you, yourself, wouldn't go as far as Mr.
Kruger has apparently decided he's entitled to.
Everyone's free to say whatever they wish about Stereophile,
it's reviews etc. Some like them, some hate them, and they have a
gazillion means of doing so: with their wallets, with their keyboards,
and with their mouths. You're also free to say that JA is a good
editor, a bad editor etc., but when you attach something else to that
- such as Atkinson's a fraud, that he knowingly deceives the public,
that Stereophile suppresses information in a conspiracy to defraud -
you're over the limit and into slander and/or libel.
The appropriate thing to do here is retract those statements
which do go over the line. Apologize and let this mess just slide over
into the obscurity it richly deserves, but as long as such slanders
continue, Atkinson has every right to insist that such statements be
made in an open forum and that he be able to respond and defend
himself.
Using slander as a tool for promulgating one's "scientific"
perspective is as nasty as it gets. If you believe your studies then
the means and avenues exist to get those views published and
disseminated, and the marketplace of ideas will properly value them.
Crying "fraud" where none exists and then attempting to use that
accusation for one's own gain. Your own perspectives and studies, and
the evidence to support your contentions have been published
repeatedly in various magazines, as they should be.
If Mr. Kruger wishes to join in the debate, he should develop
various papers and submit them for publication and subject them to
peer review. If he wishes to address consumers, let him apply to Audio
or TAS, or what's left of Stereo Review as anyone else might. If he
can't do that, let him work with you or allow your own work and that
of others to address his concerns. That's the way it works.
If he, however, wants to behave as aggressively as he has,
without regard for others' reputations and others' personal lives, he
should be held strictly accountable for it. RAO may be rough and
tumble and it's culture may allow for imaginative name-calling, but it
doesn't allow someone to deliberately try to injure someone else.
Leave the subjective-objective controversy where it properly
is: as a matter to be judged continually onward, and where it properly
belongs, out among all the other ideas competing for attention. The
focus here is on the maintenance of our tradition of responsible free
speech, and it's nowhere else. If we don't defend that, where are we
at all? If scientific ideas need this sort of proselytizing, perhaps
they aren't scientific notions at all.
So, Tom, by all means beat the drum of dbt within the audio
community and particularly the "high-end." Shriek as loudly as you are
capable that the only trustworthy reviews are those which include dbt
as part of its arsenal of tools for evaluation, but disagreement with
the notion that subjective evaluation is meaningful doesn't grant one
the right to slander, to libel, to disseminate false notions, to
outright lie and deceive in a malicious attempt to damage and injure.
As JJ so passionately declaims: Stand and Deliver!
Ed
Barry Rothman
Wonderfully said!
BR
TorResist
>Tom:
>
>You must be truly obtuse, or else you have such a blind allegiance to
>someone who supports you that you cannot read properly.
No Barry. The point you're missing is that Tom is a bought-and-paid for mid-fi
whore who makes his living putting down high end. You're as likely to get
*truth* out of him as you are to get balanced reporting fron Rush Limbaugh or
unbiased appraisals of Clinton from James Carville.
tor b
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman wrote in message <36CAD2A3...@bellsouth.net>...
>Personally, I think JA, Stereophile and Petersen have been far too
>lenient in allowing some of the comments made here on RAO and other
>public forums.
Freedom of speech and freedom of expression of opinion is a real bitch, isn't
it? ;-)
I really think that JA, Stereophile and Petersen should be given the keys to
Usenet so that stuff that irritates and challenges them just does not see the
light of day. ;-)
Barry Rothman
"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman wrote in message <36CAD2A3...@bellsouth.net>...
>
> >Personally, I think JA, Stereophile and Petersen have been far too
> >lenient in allowing some of the comments made here on RAO and other
> >public forums.
>
> Freedom of speech and freedom of expression of opinion is a real bitch, isn't
> it? ;-)
>
Oh Arny boy, how wrong you are. Fact is, freedom of speech covers
things like:
1.I think Stereophile is wrong.
2. I don't believe they understand science
3. I believe that their methodology is all wrong.
4. I believe that their conclusions are all incorrect as they are
based on a premise that is flawed.
5. I hate Stereophile and think each and every editor and writer is a
fool.
Those kind of statements are protected, Arny boy. What are not
protected are statements that claim fraudulent behavior, collusion
with high end manufacturers to committ fraud, dishonesty and
corruption. Those are the comments that JA has challenged. You have
made them many times and now the time comes for you to make them again
publicly in a forum where all can see how foolish you are.
> I really think that JA, Stereophile and Petersen should be given the keys to
> Usenet so that stuff that irritates and challenges them just does not see the
> light of day. ;-)
Like I said, you are in such serious denial that you are blind to the
reality of the situation, as well as the gravity of it.
BR
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
>What does the "fraudulent behavior" at SP involve? Equipment tests.
>
>So how can "fraudulent behaviour regarding equipment tesring"... .... "have
>zero to do" with issues regarding equipment testing?
My dear pusillanimous pustule, fraud has to do with intent and
motivation. Your problem, which you assumed when you so rancorously
screamed "Fraud!" for all the world to hear, is to demonstrate that
Stereophile, Atkinson et al believed their own processes inadequate
and incompetent while simultaneously trumpeting to the world the
opposite meaning.
You may think you've a better way, but THAT is NOT the issue.
I suspect you are going to have a very difficult time of it.
Ed
>
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
CHartm7505 <chart...@aol.com> wrote:
>Dear Mr. Nousaine:
> With all due respect, please refer to JA as Mr. Atkinson and show a
>little integrity for once!
EVERYONE here knows who JA is. Cut us a break, chartmeister.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it,
>do you?
sixtifour of the debate.
Nousaine
<<<Tom:
You must be truly obtuse, or else you have such a blind allegiance to
someone who supports you that you cannot read properly.
How this be something other than the actual challenge itself. It has
zero to do with whether Atkinson can prove wire has a sound or whether
Arny can prove that wire has no sound. Or whether either can prove
that sonic differences exist or not in electronic components.
It has one single basis and JA clearly said what that basis is. He
said, point blank:>>>>
Now listen here, Atkinson has many times called Julian Hisrch a fake. Someone
who reviews equipment without listening to it. He has written in his magazine
that I faked experimental results.
He has no problem calling others cheats and liars yet he ruffles his feathers
when someone notes that none of his (and his reviewers) claims of "audibility
without known cause" have ever been validated with a properly controlled
test....and that someone thinks this constitutes high-crimes and misdeameanors.
Yeah, I agree that this is not a prosecutable offense. No DA would ever put him
on trial. No real harm. Smart people don't spend lots of extra money on sticks
and stones.
But the main issue here IS the existance of those differences. Mr Atkinson
NEEDS to have the issue parlayed into a debate because he cannot prove his
claims with a bias-controlled test. If he could have he already would have.
He says 2+2=5. Krueger says that every counting experiment shows 4 is the
answer and to say five is fraud. John needs to have the debate center on
whether continuing to say five without showing that it's true is really fraud.
It is vitally important that the issue be on whether the offense requires
removal from office and not whether there was an offense.
Barry Rothman
Stereophile engages in fraudulent practices. The question of the
validity of their testing methodology merely represents opinion.
Fraud, in the context in which Arny has used it, more specifically
addresses whether Stereophile knowingly prints false information, not
wrongheaded opinion. In other words, does Stereophile's review staff
hear one thing, yet report something different. Does their staff
collude with manufacturers to post positive reviews that the review
staff (and editors) know to be unwarranted and untrue.
That is what Arny has said. Gene has said it as well. Personally I
don't think John Atkinson gives a rat's ass whether or not Arny or
Gene (or even Tom) agree or disagree with his (and the magazine's)
opinion that sighted, subjective listening tests are useful (and
perhaps more useful than DBT tests). Clearly what concerns him are
cries of impropriety with respect to Stereophiles' business practices
and ethics. Everything else is just opinion and backbiting.
Barry
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
>
> In article <36CA3979...@bellsouth.net>,
> Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Hey Arny, are you in serious denial or what? You still don't get it,
> >do you?
Nousaine
<<<<Tom, let's try to keep this within bounds. Ordinary free speech is about
everyone's right to express whatever ideas they may have on any topic
whatsoever with only a few limits put on that expression.
One of those limits restricts the right to express opinions that deliberately
injure in some way. No one, least of all any magazine or magazine
editor/writer, reporter etc. that I know of
contests anyone's right to express any opinion. You don't, JA doesn't etc. Note
also, your express approval of those limits and your
explicit statement that you, yourself, wouldn't go as far as Mr. Kruger has
apparently decided he's entitled to.>>>
Ah but JA make statements like this is print all the time. Indeed he recently
said that I conducted an experiment with the intention of producing a certain
result. In effect he called me a fake. So...???
Now how does John get special dispensation when someone says the same thing
about him. It is true that either case is just name calling. How does what
Krueger said suddenly become a slander issue?
<<<Everyone's free to say whatever they wish about Stereophile, it's reviews
etc. Some like them, some hate them, and they have a
gazillion means of doing so: with their wallets, with their keyboards, and with
their mouths. You're also free to say that JA is a good
editor, a bad editor etc., but when you attach something else to that - such as
Atkinson's a fraud, that he knowingly deceives the public,
that Stereophile suppresses information in a conspiracy to defraud - you're
over the limit and into slander and/or libel.>>>
Now c'mon. It's not over the limit in any sense of the word given the context
here or in Stereophile itself.
<<<The appropriate thing to do here is retract those statements which do go
over the line. Apologize and let this mess just slide over
into the obscurity it richly deserves, but as long as such slanders continue,
Atkinson has every right to insist that such statements be made in an open
forum and that he be able to respond and defend
himself.>>>
Well so who said he doesn't? Sure. Of course, you also assume that he won't
mention in the magazine either.
<<<Using slander as a tool for promulgating one's "scientific" perspective is
as nasty as it gets. If you believe your studies then the means and avenues
exist to get those views published and
disseminated, and the marketplace of ideas will properly value them. Crying
"fraud" where none exists and then attempting to use that
accusation for one's own gain. Your own perspectives and studies, and the
evidence to support your contentions have been published
repeatedly in various magazines, as they should be.
If Mr. Kruger wishes to join in the debate, he should develop various papers
and submit them for publication and subject them to peer review. If he wishes
to address consumers, let him apply to Audio or TAS, or what's left of Stereo
Review as anyone else might. If he can't do that, let him work with you or
allow your own work and that
of others to address his concerns. That's the way it works.
If he, however, wants to behave as aggressively as he has, without regard for
others' reputations and others' personal lives, he should be held strictly
accountable for it. RAO may be rough and
tumble and it's culture may allow for imaginative name-calling, but it doesn't
allow someone to deliberately try to injure someone else.>>>
Injury? Surely you jest. What injury? In what context?
<<<Leave the subjective-objective controversy where it properly is: as a matter
to be judged continually onward, and where it properly
belongs, out among all the other ideas competing for attention. The focus here
is on the maintenance of our tradition of responsible free
speech, and it's nowhere else. If we don't defend that, where are we at all? If
scientific ideas need this sort of proselytizing, perhaps they aren't
scientific notions at all.>>>>
Hey Ed. Just becaus eon edoesn't like the results of controlled experiments
doesn't mean that they constitute debate material. If the results are
unpalatable to you PROVE them wrong. You are falling into the debate mode
again.
<<<So, Tom, by all means beat the drum of dbt within the audio community and
particularly the "high-end." Shriek as loudly as you are
capable that the only trustworthy reviews are those which include dbt as part
of its arsenal of tools for evaluation, but disagreement with
the notion that subjective evaluation is meaningful doesn't grant one the right
to slander, to libel, to disseminate false notions, to
outright lie and deceive in a malicious attempt to damage and injure.
As JJ so passionately declaims: Stand and Deliver! Ed>>>
Ed you should be addressing this to Mr Atkinson. Krueger has said nothing about
JA that JA hasn't said in print about others. The only thing that Krueger has
done IS prove to himself and others that what he says is true and can be
repeated in public under bias-controlled conditions. JA has not done that. Is
it fraud? Probably not. Is it fair for Krueger to say that it is in the context
of RAO? Is it fair for JA to say that I fixed the result of a controlled
listening test in his magazine? He is free to say anything he wants.
Will I sue him? No...there was no injury. Reasonable people will read the
experiment details and know that he is wrong.
Krueger is free to say anything he wants in RAO....everyone else surely does.
The remarks about JA were quite mild compared to the norm in this context. JA
plays the Borg-Hive game when it suits him. Why does he get special
consideration here. He defends himself with eloquence...even when he is wrong.
Now let's get back to the issue of "differences with no known cause." It is not
an ideas game. It's a matter that can be proven easily one way or another.
Actually it already HAS been proven. The results are tabulated in 20 years of
controlled listening tests.
Again the "Debate" is not over whether those differences exist. It's not over
whether the claimants will ever produce any evidence. We already knwo they
won't OR the already would have. The Debate is how long the subjectivists can
keep the Debate going with splinter issue....like whether someone has the right
to call you a fraud when you continually make claims that cannot be verified.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
TorResist <torr...@aol.com> wrote:
>No Barry. The point you're missing is that Tom is a bought-and-paid for mid-fi
>whore who makes his living putting down high end. You're as likely to get
>*truth* out of him as you are to get balanced reporting fron Rush Limbaugh or
>unbiased appraisals of Clinton from James Carville.
Now let's see if Shain and Rothman go after you like they have after
Arnold.
Barry Rothman
Nousaine wrote:
>
>> Now listen here, Atkinson has many times called Julian Hisrch a fake. Someone
> who reviews equipment without listening to it. He has written in his magazine
> that I faked experimental results.
If so, then you too would be fool not to take legal action or demand a
public hearing of sorts. After all, a journalist's integrity is
paramount to his/her value.
> He has no problem calling others cheats and liars yet he ruffles his feathers
> when someone notes that none of his (and his reviewers) claims of "audibility
> without known cause" have ever been validated with a properly controlled
> test....and that someone thinks this constitutes high-crimes and misdeameanors.
>
First, you watch too much CNN, CNBC and "talk" news shows. Second, I
have read countless instances where Stereophile has explained their
position of DBT testing and why they do not wish to utilize it. In
fact, I am often surprised how much line space they devote to this
issue. So, no one can ever say that they have not attempted to make
their case in support of the methodology they choose for the
publication.
> Yeah, I agree that this is not a prosecutable offense. No DA would ever put him
> on trial. No real harm. Smart people don't spend lots of extra money on sticks
> and stones.
Actually, making claims of fraud are highly addressable in a civil
court. Unless someone can prove it, such claims often result in an
injunction against the speaker of such claims.
> But the main issue here IS the existance of those differences. Mr Atkinson
> NEEDS to have the issue parlayed into a debate because he cannot prove his
> claims with a bias-controlled test. If he could have he already would have.
>
> He says 2+2=5. Krueger says that every counting experiment shows 4 is the
> answer and to say five is fraud. John needs to have the debate center on
> whether continuing to say five without showing that it's true is really fraud.
> It is vitally important that the issue be on whether the offense requires
> removal from office and not whether there was an offense.
Your last sentence again shows that you need to cut back on the amount
of Larry King, Rush Limbough and all those other news talk shows in
your TV diet.
As I said before, countless times in Stereophile they have addressed
the issue of why they believe that the error is not in the straight
arithmetic of whether 2 + 2 = 5, but rather whether the variables are
really 2 + 2. You may wholeheartedly disagree, you may think they are
morons, you may think they just have bad ears. But to say that fraud
exists is a horse of a different color.
Personally, I don't think your friend Howie is very good at what he
does. But, that I believe him to be a buffoon is far afield from
believing that he engages in fraud in an effort to promote a
particular segment of the audio industry. Arny crosses that threshold
in a manner that goes beyond intellectual disagreement.
Barry
Steve Zipser
nous...@aol.com says...
> Ah but JA make statements like this is print all the time. Indeed he recently
> said that I conducted an experiment with the intention of producing a certain
> result. In effect he called me a fake. So...???
>
So he's right! That's what is so.
Zip
Barry Rothman
anyone in his field heading straight to their attorney to seek an
injunction against anyone who made claims about the propriety of their
work. Claims of fraud and collusion are serious enough to warrant
such action. I would therefore urge Tor to restate his comments, as
they are as foolish as Arny's claims.
(Are you surprised?)
Like I said, I find this whole thing rather amusing. Then again,
that's what happens when you try to take an art and make it into a
science.
"jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist" wrote:
>
TorResist
>I would therefore urge Tor to restate his comments, as
>they are as foolish as Arny's claims.
Well Barry, I stand corrected, and I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. So here
is a restatement:
After reading some of Nousaines horribly written articles, after looking at his
poorly designed methodology and the ridiculous conclusions he draws or, to
which, he alludes, after discussing the matter with many other people, *IT IS
MY CONSIDERED OPINION* that Tom Nousaine is a bought-and-paid-for mid-fi whore
who makes a part of his living by putting down high end and thus, is
unobjective. I've also been told that he is one beady-eyed, ugly-looking
rodent-faced rasp-voiced dick-headed mother-fucker who'd have sex with a snake
if he could hold it still long enough. However, since I've never met the man, I
grant this is merely hearsay and may not be true.
Better? :-)
tor b
Nousaine
> Ah but JA make statements like this is print all the time. Indeed he recently
> said that I conducted an experiment with the intention of producing a certain
> result. In effect he called me a fake. So...???
>
<<<So he's right! That's what is so.
Zip
>>>
Hah. You know I forgot to tell him about your hearing sensitivity Steve. He
would be happy to learn that you personally have proven Krueger's case. So when
are you coming up here with that wire? How about during the Great Debate in
Detroit? It would be a great side-show to have new results available then.
LNVreeland
>John needs to have the debate center on
>whether continuing to say five without showing that it's true is really
>fraud.
>It is vitally important that the issue be on whether the offense requires
>removal from office and not whether there was an offense.
Tom, unless I'm reading you incorrectly, you seem to how be attempting to
influence the direction of this debate before it's even begun. (Rather
unscientific behavior, wouldn't you say? ;-)) I found Atkinson's challenge
to be very clear -- and frankly I'm a little surprised that a journalist such
as yourself didn't, too. All Arny has to say is "yea" or "nay"-- that is,
agree to Atkinson's conditions -- and the thing is on. It's really very
simple. Since I don't recall your name being mentioned in JA's proposal to
Arny, I'm wondering: how do you and your ideas of what Atkinson should or
should not do fit into all this? Aren't you, as it were, inserting yourself in
the middle of a story you should merely be reporting on?
--Leslie
--Leslie
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <19990217105950...@ng125.aol.com>,
>TorResist <torr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>No Barry. The point you're missing is that Tom is a bought-and-paid for mid-fi
>>whore who makes his living putting down high end. You're as likely to get
>>*truth* out of him as you are to get balanced reporting fron Rush Limbaugh or
>>unbiased appraisals of Clinton from James Carville.
>
>Now let's see if Shain and Rothman go after you like they have after
>Arnold.
Sorry, JJ. It's not up to me whether Tom feels slandered or
libeled. I'm sure Tom knows he can challenge Tor to a debate (or
Limerick contest ::grin::) whenever he wishes, or, as I'm sure Barry
will suggest, consult an attorney and do whatever he feels is
appropriate.
Plus, and I have always made this perfectly clear; the sole
person I detest and mistrust in this group is Mr. Kruger, and while I
struggle daily to maintain some restraint, I freely admit that I am
not operating without bias when I respond to or about Mr. Kruger. I am
not the great, detached, indifferent observer and make no pretense to
be, though I try to keep my responses within the pale.
So, if what you're alleging is that I am disgusted by,
revolted by, and appalled by Mr. Kruger to the point of losing
objectivity, by Golly you've got it right.
Are you honest enough to admit the opposite equivalent, JJ, or
are you maintaining you're simply trying to be fair here?
Ed
LNVreeland
>Tom, unless I'm reading you incorrectly, you seem to how be attempting to
>influence...<snipped>
Please replace "now" with "how."
--Leslie
Steve Zipser
In article <19990217145106...@ng-fi1.aol.com>,
nous...@aol.com says...
> Hah.
You have a sense of humor? I don't think we ever saw you smile, but
then, snakes cannot make facial expressions ;-)
> You know I forgot to tell him about your hearing sensitivity Steve.
Day Two: Five straight and then you box broke. You never produced
another box even though your borg lackey, Steve Maki, promised to get us
one.
> He would be happy to learn that you personally have proven Krueger's case.
The only case of Kreugers is that he is a head case, with you diorecting
his every move!
> So when are you coming up here with that wire? How about during the
> Great Debate in Detroit?
Detroit? I wouldn't be there for anything. It is a shit city. Besides,
as I have stated, the test takes place on my reference system in my
reference room. When are you comming down? Florida is a pleasure
compared to filthy, dirty, cold, smoggy Detroit. Then - maybe you have
ingested too many heavy-metal alden fumes to think straight!
> It would be a great side-show to have new results available then.
Sorry, It has to be in my system, since this is where we are using the
cable comaritors - and this is the system we have to use. period.
Zip
--
LETS GO PANTHERS
Sunshine Stereo,Inc http://sunshinestereo.com Tel: 305-757-9358
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores, FL 33138 Fax: 305-757-1367
PASS Rega Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC Camelot Parasound ESP
Audio Logic Chiro Benz-Micro Dunlavy NEAR NHT Gallo Zenith Arcane
Mordaunt-Short EAD Vans-Evers Monster/ENTECH Straightwire Eggleston
TorResist
>I found Atkinson's challenge
>to be very clear -- and frankly I'm a little surprised that a journalist such
>as yourself
You're fluent, facile with the lingo
But here, Les, you're far from a Bingo:
An emission nocturnalist,
Tom is no journalist
Save, if you add the word: *Jingo*.
tor b
Edward M. Shain
>Ed Shain says:
>
>
><<<<Tom, let's try to keep this within bounds. Ordinary free speech is about
>everyone's right to express whatever ideas they may have on any topic
>whatsoever with only a few limits put on that expression.
>
>One of those limits restricts the right to express opinions that deliberately
>injure in some way. No one, least of all any magazine or magazine
>editor/writer, reporter etc. that I know of
>contests anyone's right to express any opinion. You don't, JA doesn't etc. Note
>also, your express approval of those limits and your
>explicit statement that you, yourself, wouldn't go as far as Mr. Kruger has
>apparently decided he's entitled to.>>>
>
>Ah but JA make statements like this is print all the time. Indeed he recently
>said that I conducted an experiment with the intention of producing a certain
>result. In effect he called me a fake. So...???
So sue him, if you think you're libeled, Tom. You have
remedies.
>
>Now how does John get special dispensation when someone says the same thing
>about him. It is true that either case is just name calling. How does what
>Krueger said suddenly become a slander issue?
JA expressly made it one, and made it a condition of the
debate.
Arnold could have declined. He could have apologized, he
could have done a million things. Instead he agreed. Called Atkinson a
fraud again and bragged how he was going to prove it.
Go figure.
>
><<<Everyone's free to say whatever they wish about Stereophile, it's reviews
>etc. Some like them, some hate them, and they have a
>gazillion means of doing so: with their wallets, with their keyboards, and with
>their mouths. You're also free to say that JA is a good
>editor, a bad editor etc., but when you attach something else to that - such as
>Atkinson's a fraud, that he knowingly deceives the public,
>that Stereophile suppresses information in a conspiracy to defraud - you're
>over the limit and into slander and/or libel.>>>
>
>Now c'mon. It's not over the limit in any sense of the word given the context
>here or in Stereophile itself.
Sorry, Tom, but it is. Lots of people here snort in derision
about lots of things. No one but Arny took it to that special place.
You didn't. Stewart didn't. JJ didn't. John Feng didn't. Doug Stabler
didn't.. The list goes on and on.
There are limits, and this time, unfortunately for Arnie,
someone called him on it who's in a position to force something.
>
><<<The appropriate thing to do here is retract those statements which do go
>over the line. Apologize and let this mess just slide over
>into the obscurity it richly deserves, but as long as such slanders continue,
>Atkinson has every right to insist that such statements be made in an open
>forum and that he be able to respond and defend
>himself.>>>
>
>Injury? Surely you jest. What injury? In what context?
Perhaps you're better off asking JA for an answer to that. I'd
guess Arnie, unless the usual occurs ::grin:: , will have every
opportunity to ask him in Detroit.
>
><<<Leave the subjective-objective controversy where it properly is: as a matter
>to be judged continually onward, and where it properly
>belongs, out among all the other ideas competing for attention. The focus here
>is on the maintenance of our tradition of responsible free
>speech, and it's nowhere else. If we don't defend that, where are we at all? If
>scientific ideas need this sort of proselytizing, perhaps they aren't
>scientific notions at all.>>>>
>
>Hey Ed. Just becaus eon edoesn't like the results of controlled experiments
>doesn't mean that they constitute debate material. If the results are
>unpalatable to you PROVE them wrong. You are falling into the debate mode
>again.
I never left the debate mode, Tom. I've been there from the
beginning. Barry Rothman elsewhere made an excellent post in which he
listed all sorts of lovely scurrilous remarks that ARE protected.
IT's JA's prerogative how he might respond to your research
and it's yours to characterize his response with an unlimited palate
of mockery and sadistic sarcasm, if you wish, and we're all free to
choose sides.
Arny, apparently without effort, went over the fine (but
detectable to every other known human in the Universe) line between
free speech and something less innocent.
I assure you, Tom, no one is going to let up on that point
because it IS the salient point and the reason for all this sturm und
drang.
Do you think it's news that you and JA occasionally mildly
reproach each other? ::grin:: I can tell you it would be news if you
or he pursued fraud allegations in public against the other.
Ed
>
>Ed you should be addressing this to Mr Atkinson. Krueger has said nothing about
>JA that JA hasn't said in print about others. The only thing that Krueger has
>done IS prove to himself and others that what he says is true and can be
>repeated in public under bias-controlled conditions. JA has not done that. Is
>it fraud? Probably not.
Precisely! So why are we in the middle of all this? Apologize
so we can return to happily munching on each other over more important
issues.
>of RAO? Is it fair for JA to say that I fixed the result of a controlled
>listening test in his magazine? He is free to say anything he wants.
>Will I sue him? No...there was no injury. Reasonable people will read the
>experiment details and know that he is wrong.
Tom, everyone is free to decide when enough is enough. Mr.
Kruger's behavior here on RAO has been such that this denouement was
inevitable. He simply allowed his behaviour to eventually reach over
and slap the wrong person, someone who had reason to decide he was
offended, and willing to take on the responsibility of answering in
kind.
Kruger's behaviour has been unreasonable. His slanders are
unreasonable. They have been stated and restated too often, so often,
in fact, that they forced a response.
Contrast that when the two of you go at it. JA says something
sharp. You retort equally sharply. End of exchange, if not the end of
the argument.
>
>Krueger is free to say anything he wants in RAO....everyone else surely does.
>The remarks about JA were quite mild compared to the norm in this context. JA
>plays the Borg-Hive game when it suits him. Why does he get special
>consideration here. He defends himself with eloquence...even when he is wrong.
JA certainly doesn't get special treatment from the
objectivists. He has certain built in advantages, many of which you
share. He is well-written, as are you. He expresses himself well, as
do you. He has a sly sense of humour, as do you. That allows one a
great deal of rope to play around with.
He does something else, which is particularly notable. He will
say he is wrong and he will apologize if he believes he has been
inappropriate, and sometimes even when he hasn't. He maintains
civility. This doesn't make him more right, but it certainly gives
give more room to maneuver. Kruger, on the other hand, does not, will
not, and apparently won't ever admit he is ever wrong. He never
apologizes but instead retrenches and becomes even more provocative.
It's been my contention since day one that this is about
character, not science, that it's about ethics, not who's correct
about xyz and who's not.
The fact is, Tom, to defend Kruger here you have to defend all
of his behaviour, how his character manifests itself on this board,
the same character that allowed him to wildly spew insupportable
allegations that have finally gotten him in real trouble.
It ought to be clear by now, that such is the root of this
debate. It just ain't about the science, Tom.
Ed
>
Howard Ferstler
>
> Barry Rothman wrote:
>
> <<<Tom:
>
> You must be truly obtuse, or else you have such a blind allegiance to
> someone who supports you that you cannot read properly.
>
> How this be something other than the actual challenge itself. It has
> zero to do with whether Atkinson can prove wire has a sound or whether
> Arny can prove that wire has no sound. Or whether either can prove
> that sonic differences exist or not in electronic components.
>
> It has one single basis and JA clearly said what that basis is. He
> said, point blank:>>>>
>
> who reviews equipment without listening to it. He has written in his magazine
> that I faked experimental results.
>
> when someone notes that none of his (and his reviewers) claims of "audibility
> without known cause" have ever been validated with a properly controlled
> test....and that someone thinks this constitutes high-crimes and misdeameanors.
>
> on trial. No real harm. Smart people don't spend lots of extra money on sticks
> and stones.
>
> NEEDS to have the issue parlayed into a debate because he cannot prove his
> claims with a bias-controlled test. If he could have he already would have.
>
> He says 2+2=5. Krueger says that every counting experiment shows 4 is the
> whether continuing to say five without showing that it's true is really fraud.
> It is vitally important that the issue be on whether the offense requires
> removal from office and not whether there was an offense.
HEY, EVERYBODY!!!
Why the hell do we need a debate? All a debate will prove
is that someone is a better speaker than another, or is more
able to present his case - be that case valid or specious.
This is not audio; this is lawyering.
What we need is a MAJOR comparison session, where Atkinson,
Cordesman, Kessler, Norton, Holt, Zipser, Greenberg, King,
Phillips, Harley, Pearson, Tellig, and other notables., get
a chance to show the world just how golden their ears are.
Over the years, they have made claims about the audibility
of amplifiers, wire, cables, CD players, etc., and they need
to either put up or shut up.
We don't need no damned debate. We need a MAJOR COMPARISON
FACE OFF, where the big guns of the subjectivist camp can
prove their points. The comparison can be supervised by
someone with solid credentials, whom no one will consider to
be a problem. Someone like, say, Floyd Toole or R.A.
Greiner, or John Eargle, or someone else of their caliber.
If the subjectivists distrust them, perhaps someone from the
academic world, who has a disinterested view of audio, could
supervise the face off. Let's get this mess over with.
A debate would be a waste of time, and all the bantering
back and forth that has been done here is an even bigger
waste of time.
Howard Ferstler
fer...@ibm.net
Author of The Home Theater Companion.
For an on-line review, go to:
HTTP://www.ambiophonics.org/ferstler.htm
Howard Ferstler
> Personally, I don't think your friend Howie is very good at what he
> does. But, that I believe him to be a buffoon is far afield from
> believing that he engages in fraud in an effort to promote a
> particular segment of the audio industry. Arny crosses that threshold
> in a manner that goes beyond intellectual disagreement.
>
> Barry
Given that you have never read my published material, I find
it weird that you think that I am not very good at what I
do.
Anyway, why the hell do we need a debate? All a debate will
prove is that someone is a better speaker than another, or
is more able to present his case - be that case valid or
specious. This is not audio; this is lawyering.
What we need is a MAJOR comparison session, where Atkinson,
Cordesman, Kessler, Norton, Holt, Rothman, Zipser,
Greenberg, King,
Phillips, Singh, Harley, Pearson, Tellig, and other
notables., get a chance to show the world just how golden
their ears are. Over the years, they have made claims about
the audibility of amplifiers, wire, cables, CD players,
etc., and they need to either put up or shut up.
We don't need no damned debate. We need a MAJOR COMPARISON
FACE OFF, where the big guns of the subjectivist camp can
prove their points. The comparison can be supervised by
someone with solid credentials, whom no one will consider to
be a problem. Someone like, say, Floyd Toole or R.A.
Greiner, or John Eargle, or someone else of their caliber.
If the subjectivists distrust them, perhaps someone from the
academic world, who has a disinterested view of audio, could
supervise the face off. Let's finish off this controversy
once and for all.
Sandman
Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
> You must be truly obtuse, or else you have such a blind allegiance to
> someone who supports you that you cannot read properly.
>
> How this be something other than the actual challenge itself. It has
> zero to do with whether Atkinson can prove wire has a sound or whether
> Arny can prove that wire has no sound. Or whether either can prove
> that sonic differences exist or not in electronic components.
>
> It has one single basis and JA clearly said what that basis is. He
> said, point blank:>>>>
> Now listen here, Atkinson has many times called Julian Hisrch a fake.
Irrelevant, even if true. The debate only concerns Arnii's allegations of
fraud.
> He has written in his magazine that I faked experimental results.
Irrelevant, even if true. The debate only concerns Arnii's allegations of
fraud.
> He has no problem calling others cheats and liars yet he ruffles his
feathers
> when someone notes that none of his (and his reviewers) claims of
"audibility
> without known cause" have ever been validated with a properly controlled
> test....and that someone thinks this constitutes high-crimes and
misdeameanors.
Irrelevant, even if true. The debate only concerns Arnii's allegations of
fraud.
> Yeah, I agree that this is not a prosecutable offense. No DA would ever
put him
> on trial.
So why do you continue to goad Arnii into repeating his claims of fraud
against JA, Stereophile, and the entire high-end establishment?
Do you even think for a minute that Arnii, or you, or a consumer, or ANYONE
for that matter even has a civil case of fraud against any of the above?
If not, why do you continue to goad Arnii into repeating his assinine
claims?
Are the two of you begging to be sued for defamation, or what????
> No real harm. Smart people don't spend lots of extra money on sticks and
>stones.
The rest of the rhyme goes: "but names will never hurt me". Unfortunately,
that doesn't apply when defamatory and false accusations of fraud are
involved. Defamatory language is no more "free speech" then yelling "fire"
in a crowded theater.
> But the main issue here IS the existance of those differences. Mr
Atkinson
> NEEDS to have the issue parlayed into a debate because he cannot prove
his
> claims with a bias-controlled test. If he could have he already would
have.
He doesn't have to prove ANYthing. Arnii has to prove JA's a deliberate
liar and and that his magazine's a fraud. If Arnii can't prove his case
(what's he going to do, babble about "null results" to prove a negative?)
then JA wins without so much as uttering a word. How's Arnii going to
prove that differences perceived by JA and the Stereophile reviewers don't
exist, and how is he going to prove that JA "know" that their testimony in
Stereophile to these perceived differences is "false"? How's Arnii going
to prove that every perceived difference reported in Stereophile is nothing
more than placebo effect?
You both still don't get it, do you?
> He says 2+2=5. Krueger says that every counting experiment shows 4 is the
> answer and to say five is fraud. John needs to have the debate center on
> whether continuing to say five without showing that it's true is really
fraud.
> It is vitally important that the issue be on whether the offense requires
> removal from office and not whether there was an offense.
This perspicacity would land you in prison if you attempted to defend a
criminal case in this manner.
Sandman
Edward M. Shain
<hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
Howard, for once in your life, be quiet. What's at issue is
more important than the usual flotsam and jetsam of this group.
We'll pay attention to you when and if paying attention to you
is more important than ....say.....determining who the best cab driver
is in Butte, Montana.
Ed
Barry Rothman
keep thinking that the burden of proof is on Stereophile in matters
such as this. If Stereophile were to file a civil complaint and seek
an injunction, they would have zero to prove. Rather, Arny would have
to show cause why he should be allowed to publicly accuse Stereophile
of conducting fraud.
All I can say is that Arny is lucky I'm not the head of Petersen.
Better still, he is lucky that a tough minded guy like Wayne Huizinga
doesn't run that company. As I noted before, he once filed suit
against a pizza shop that went by the name Blockbuster Pizza, claiming
that use of the name, even in an unrelated business, was deliterious
to value of the "Blockbuster" name (for which he owned the trademark)
and the general business interests of Blockbuster Video. By the way,
a judge quickly ruled in his favor and the pizza shop had to
immediately change names.
BR
>
> Nousaine <nous...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > But the main issue here IS the existance of those differences. Mr
>.> Atkinson NEEDS to have the issue parlayed into a debate because he cannot prove
> > his claims with a bias-controlled test. If he could have he already would
> > have.
>
Barry Rothman
Go back to the library. You might get injured wading into territory
you don't understand. This is not a debate in a classic sense. It
was a challenge issued by John Atkinson to Arny Kruge for Arny to make
his wild claims about Stereophile's business practices and ethics in a
public forum. In case you missed it, here it is once again. (Boy, I
really do love re-quoting this thing - it still gives me goosebumps!)
dated Jan 28, 1999 - John Atkinson is the poster:
>
>>So Mr. Krüger, answer me this. You have used much r.a.o. bandwidth over the
>>past years attacking audiophiles and my magazine. You have accused my readers
>>of ignorance and of being dupes of an industry that _knows_ its products are
>>based on deception. You have accused me, my writers, and my magazine of
>>intellectual dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption. You have accused
>>engineers and designers for high-end audio companies of being incompetent and
>>corrupt. In another message in this thread, you even imply that subjective
>>reviewers have defective hearing!
>>
>>All I am doing is asking you to make the same claims in a live forum where
>>those you accuse of wrongdoing have the opportunity to make their own cases,
>>and where an audience not beholden to either side in this debate can then
>>make up its own mind. How can you resist such an opportunity to put your
>>beliefs to the test of public opinion
It ain't about who's speaker, amp, CD player, etc. sounds better. It
ain't about who's testing methodology is more correct or accurate. It
is only about Arny's accusations of intellectual dishonesty,
incompetence, and corruption. Time and time again Arny has accused
Stereophile of fraud. He has used those exact words. Now he is being
asked to make those same claims in a public venue. The first venue
offered to him he turned down. He is now hedging about the second
such venue, even though he will be surrounded by people who know him
personally and have worked with him on various projects and activities
over the years.
So forget about the other stuff and go back to the stacks. Books are
piling up, cd's need to be ordered, hungry audiophile appetites ready
to be satisfied.
BR
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
>> Why the hell do we need a debate? All a debate will prove
> is that someone is a better speaker than another, or is more
> able to present his case - be that case valid or specious.
> This is not audio; this is lawyering.
>
> What we need is a MAJOR comparison session, where Atkinson,
> Cordesman, Kessler, Norton, Holt, Zipser, Greenberg, King,
> Phillips, Harley, Pearson, Tellig, and other notables., get
> a chance to show the world just how golden their ears are.
> Over the years, they have made claims about the audibility
> of amplifiers, wire, cables, CD players, etc., and they need
> to either put up or shut up.
>
> We don't need no damned debate. We need a MAJOR COMPARISON
> FACE OFF, where the big guns of the subjectivist camp can
> prove their points. The comparison can be supervised by
> someone with solid credentials, whom no one will consider to
> be a problem. Someone like, say, Floyd Toole or R.A.
> Greiner, or John Eargle, or someone else of their caliber.
> If the subjectivists distrust them, perhaps someone from the
> academic world, who has a disinterested view of audio, could
> supervise the face off. Let's get this mess over with.
>
Barry Rothman
debate on audio equipment. Try reading my other post, as well as Deja
News. You really need to either stay out of this stuff, or else
follow it more closely. Kind of like coming into a movie with 10
minutes left and trying to figure out how the director accomplished
his character development.
Howard Ferstler wrote:
>
> Barry Rothman wrote:
>
> > Personally, I don't think your friend Howie is very good at what he
> > does. But, that I believe him to be a buffoon is far afield from
> > believing that he engages in fraud in an effort to promote a
> > particular segment of the audio industry. Arny crosses that threshold
> > in a manner that goes beyond intellectual disagreement.
> >
> > Barry
>
> Given that you have never read my published material, I find
> it weird that you think that I am not very good at what I
> do.
>
> Anyway, why the hell do we need a debate? All a debate will
> prove is that someone is a better speaker than another, or
> is more able to present his case - be that case valid or
> specious. This is not audio; this is lawyering.
>
> What we need is a MAJOR comparison session, where Atkinson,
> Cordesman, Kessler, Norton, Holt, Rothman, Zipser,
> Greenberg, King,
> Phillips, Singh, Harley, Pearson, Tellig, and other
> notables., get a chance to show the world just how golden
> their ears are. Over the years, they have made claims about
> the audibility of amplifiers, wire, cables, CD players,
> etc., and they need to either put up or shut up.
>
> We don't need no damned debate. We need a MAJOR COMPARISON
> FACE OFF, where the big guns of the subjectivist camp can
> prove their points. The comparison can be supervised by
> someone with solid credentials, whom no one will consider to
> be a problem. Someone like, say, Floyd Toole or R.A.
> Greiner, or John Eargle, or someone else of their caliber.
> If the subjectivists distrust them, perhaps someone from the
> academic world, who has a disinterested view of audio, could
> supervise the face off. Let's finish off this controversy
> once and for all.
>
Steve Zipser
eb...@ae0083.pd8.ford.com says...
> Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> > It's pretty much a given that John Atkinson and I are going to debate some
> > issues about equipment testing,
>
> Who cares, how it is tested. If my ears can not HEAR IT, I WILL NOT BUY
> IT!!!! AS FAR AS MY DOLLARS ARE CONCERNED MY EARS ARE THE ULTIMATE
> TESTING MACHINE!!!!!
>
> VERY FEW PEOPLE SPEND 3K PLUS WITHOUT LISTENING FIRST!!
>
This is simply too obvious to comment on - unless you are a borg,
propeller head, computer nerd, from Detroit!
Cheers
Zip
Marc Blank
says...
>
> A debate would be a waste of time, and all the bantering
> back and forth that has been done here is an even bigger
> waste of time.
>
> Howard Ferstler
I agree wholeheartedly. The "debate" will be as useful as the hundreds
of other posts in this thread have been (i.e. worthless). Or as useful
as a debate about the existence of God - converts will be very few and
very far between.
- Marc
p.w. FWIW, I think JA would kick Arny's butt in any debate, this having
nothing whatever to do with the merits of their cases.
Sandman
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<36CAD2A3...@bellsouth.net>...
>
>
> Sandman wrote:
> >
> >
> > It's no wonder Arnii's so confused if this is the kind of "advice" he's
> > been getting. The question is NOT about who "passes" some blind test
> > somewhere on any given day. It's whether or not Arnii can garner ANY
> > ***POSITIVE** evidence that JA is a "liar", his magazine is a "fraud",
that
> > high-end manufacturers are "incompetent" and that high-end dealers are
> > "defrauding consumers".
> >
> > So far none of the hot air spouted on this NG has provided a SHRED of
such
> > evidence.
> >
> > Apparently, none of the proponents of the notion that the "evil
high-end
> > establishement" is "defrauding the consumer" ever bothered to check out
the
> > legal definition of fraud, and how to go about proving its elements.
> >
> > All you guys keep doing is making yourselves look sillier and sillier.
>
> And digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole from which they
> will one day look up from and wonder how they will keep the dirt from
> burying them.
>
> The amazing part of this commentary from Tommy boy is that if several
> of us started calling him and Stereo Review perpetrators of fraud,
> claiming that he rigs his tests, intentionally distorts his findings
> and is in collusion with the manufacturers of equipment he reviews, I
> would be willing to bet that we would have a seen a lawsuit already.
> Personally, I think JA, Stereophile and Petersen have been far too
> lenient in allowing some of the comments made here on RAO and other
> public forums.
Personally, I think they all realize they've got better things to do than
get bogged down in a lengthy lawsuit just to prove a point. I'm sure they
have their own attorneys who have not only pointed out how easy it would be
to demolish Arnii's claims in court, but also how needlessly time-consuming
and expensive it could be. And say they got a million dollar judgment for
defamation against Arnii. You think Arnii's going to pay it? Can you
spell bankruptcy?
No need to bankrupt Arnii financially. He bankrupts himself intellectually
every day on this newsgroup.
Sandman
George M. Middius
>> VERY FEW PEOPLE SPEND 3K PLUS WITHOUT LISTENING FIRST!!
>This is simply too obvious to comment on - unless you are a borg,
>propeller head, computer nerd, from Detroit!
Whatever it is, it's already made a pass at me. Yuck.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
CHartm7505
That`s Mr. chartmeister to you pal! ;-)
The beginning of my last post was meant to be more humorous
then anything else, but to a curmudgeon like you, I suppose you failed to see
the humor! That`s your problem, not mine! ;-)
Since when does anybody cut someone a break here in this
newsgroup? Not that I`ve noticed so far at least.
Well, I guess it`s time to climb back into the woodwork again,
so see you later!
Regards,
Charles.
Sandman
Barry Rothman <brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<36CB3B75...@bellsouth.net>...
> Amazingly, these guys haven't figured out how the system works. They
> keep thinking that the burden of proof is on Stereophile in matters
> such as this.
It really is "amazing", so much so I have to keep pinching myself to see if
I'm not dreaming every time I read one of their posts purporting to believe
that Stereophile has some burden to prove anything here. First, the burden
of production, persuasion, and proof is on Arnii to substantiate each and
every element of each claim he has made against each targeted opponent. If
he fails to meet his burden on any one of those elements in any one of
those claims, he loses. Period. End of story. Only if he could alter
reality to fit his befuddled notions could he do so, in which case (this is
an extremely generous hypo) each target, such as JA, would then be entitled
to establish any one of a number of classic defenses. Note the burden
doesn't shift to JA or Stereophile or the others until and not before Arnii
establishes a prima facie case with sufficent evidence. He hasn't even
begun to climb that mountain yet, and as noted in another post, admits he
can't possibly prove one of the elements of fraud, so he's already lost the
debate.
Yes, I keep pinching myself every time I see their "amazing" crap about
Stereophile's supposed burden of proof. Frankly, I don't know whether this
is just a hot air diversion tactic, designed somehow to offer Arnii a way
to weasel out in the future, or whether they are more reckless about their
disregard for truth than I ever imagined, or perhaps they've been repeating
their false mantras for so many years now that they've bought into their
own bullshit and have actually deceived themselves into thinking their
worthless blather actually amounts to a fraud case against JA, Stereophile,
etc.
Your guess is as good as mine.
> If Stereophile were to file a civil complaint and seek
> an injunction, they would have zero to prove. Rather, Arny would have
> to show cause why he should be allowed to publicly accuse Stereophile
> of conducting fraud.
Obviously, they've never sought any competent legal advice before digging
the hole they don't have the slightest clue about how to crawl out of.
(Clue: only a retraction and apology might do the trick).
> All I can say is that Arny is lucky I'm not the head of Petersen.
> Better still, he is lucky that a tough minded guy like Wayne Huizinga
> doesn't run that company. As I noted before, he once filed suit
> against a pizza shop that went by the name Blockbuster Pizza, claiming
> that use of the name, even in an unrelated business, was deliterious
> to value of the "Blockbuster" name (for which he owned the trademark)
> and the general business interests of Blockbuster Video. By the way,
> a judge quickly ruled in his favor and the pizza shop had to
> immediately change names.
>
> BR
Maybe if Peterson sued it could get the court to order Arny Kruger to
legally change his name to Arnii Krooborg and further order him to walk the
streets of Detroit at night with a sign on his back that says "kick me" :-)
Sandman
Anon E Mouse
On 17 Feb 1999, Sandman wrote:
> It's no wonder Arnii's so confused if this is the kind of "advice" he's
> been getting. The question is NOT about who "passes" some blind test
> somewhere on any given day. It's whether or not Arnii can garner ANY
> ***POSITIVE** evidence that JA is a "liar",
If he speaks knowingly and purposely in half-truths, he is a liar.
If he does not, he is another ignoramus. The "chief" ignoramus leading
the ignoramus. Fortunately, this breed is facing extinction, thanks to
all the knowledgeable people willing to give free advice and share their
reliable experiences on newsgroups like rec.audio.opinion.
> his magazine is a "fraud", that
His ragazine is the vehicle of half-truths. It keeps what sells and
discards the rest. Reading RAO then becomes a complement to reading
Stereophool in order to get a whole informed view of consumer audio.
> high-end manufacturers are "incompetent" and that high-end dealers are
> "defrauding consumers".
>
> So far none of the hot air spouted on this NG has provided a SHRED of such
> evidence.
Does systematic refusal to adhere to _reliable_ means for producing the
information printed, and then _falsely_ purport it as credible, count
as evidence? (Ans: Yes.)
> Apparently, none of the proponents of the notion that the "evil high-end
> establishement" is "defrauding the consumer" ever bothered to check out the
> legal definition of fraud, and how to go about proving its elements.
>
> All you guys keep doing is making yourselves look sillier and sillier.
Let's settle for a lesser offence, Your Honour: Willful half-truth talk.
Sentence: Extinction.
Date: Very soon.
Means: Exposed daily on RAO.
Anon E Mouse
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Barry Rothman wrote:
> [...]
>
> That is what Arny has said. Gene has said it as well. Personally I
> don't think John Atkinson gives a rat's ass whether or not Arny or
> Gene (or even Tom) agree or disagree with his (and the magazine's)
> opinion that sighted, subjective listening tests are useful (and
> perhaps more useful than DBT tests). Clearly what concerns him are
> cries of impropriety with respect to Stereophiles' business practices
> and ethics. Everything else is just opinion and backbiting.
Think again.
Anon E Mouse
On 17 Feb 1999, Sandman wrote:
> [...]
>
> This perspicacity would land you in prison if you attempted to defend a
> criminal case in this manner.
If you defend your clients the way you defend your audio views here, you
will fill this SouthCal county jail in no time. 8-D
Arny Krüger
Ed wrote in message <36C9C881...@ae0083.pd8.ford.com>...
>Arny Krüger wrote:
>>
>> It's pretty much a given that John Atkinson and I are going to debate some
>> issues about equipment testing,
>
>Who cares, how it is tested. If my ears can not HEAR IT, I WILL NOT BUY
>IT!!!! AS FAR AS MY DOLLARS ARE CONCERNED MY EARS ARE THE ULTIMATE
>TESTING MACHINE!!!!!
>
So, you are like the rest of us. What is your point? ;-)
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman wrote in message <36CAEEF8...@bellsouth.net>...
>
>
>"Arny Krüger" wrote:
>>
>> Barry Rothman wrote in message <36CAD2A3...@bellsouth.net>...
>>
>> >Personally, I think JA, Stereophile and Petersen have been far too
>> >lenient in allowing some of the comments made here on RAO and other
>> >public forums.
>>
isn't
>> it? ;-)
>>
>Oh Arny boy, how wrong you are. Fact is, freedom of speech covers
>things like:
>
>1.I think Stereophile is wrong.
I've said that.
>2. I don't believe they understand science
I've said that.
>3. I believe that their methodology is all wrong.
I've said that.
>4. I believe that their conclusions are all incorrect as they are based on a
premise that is flawed.
I've said that.
>5. I hate Stereophile and think each and every editor and writer is a fool.
I've never said that.
>Those kind of statements are protected, Arny boy. What are not
>protected are statements that claim fraudulent behavior, collusion
>with high end manufacturers to committ fraud, dishonesty and
>corruption.
I don't think I've said that directly, at least in those words. Can you show
me saying that, particularly in those words, and particularly in a context
other than me just expressing my opinion?
>Those are the comments that JA has challenged.
I've expressed certain opinions that I'm willing to defend in public, just
like I've defended them in public for the last 2 years.
>You have made them many times and now the time comes for you to make them
again
>publicly in a forum where all can see how foolish you are.
Now, where is this dream world where Usenet Newsgroups are not a public forum?
>>> I really think that JA, Stereophile and Petersen should be given the keys
to
>> Usenet so that stuff that irritates and challenges them just does not see
the
>> light of day. ;-)
>
>Like I said, you are in such serious denial that you are blind to the
>reality of the situation, as well as the gravity of it.
The gravity of the situation is that I've expressed my opinoins in the matter
and provided the best information I can find to substantiate my opinions, as I
will continue to do, even face-to-face with Mr. Atkinson. In short, there is
nothing grave about it at all. It's free speech in a reasonably fine hour!
Arny Krüger
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist wrote in message ...
>In article <19990217105950...@ng125.aol.com>,
>TorResist <torr...@aol.com> wrote:
>>No Barry. The point you're missing is that Tom is a bought-and-paid for
mid-fi
>>whore who makes his living putting down high end. You're as likely to get
>>*truth* out of him as you are to get balanced reporting fron Rush Limbaugh
or
>>unbiased appraisals of Clinton from James Carville.
>
>Now let's see if Shain and Rothman go after you like they have after
>Arnold.
Umm, what actually happened is:
(Rothman waffeled.) He pointed out that Tor was being kinda unwise. Since Tor
claims to have very deep pockets (I don't) it seems like he should be a little
more circumspect unless he wants to spend the big bucks with lawyers.
Paul Dormer
>Nobody with a brain rejects the listening experience.
Which person said some time ago, that he hears the same differences as
everybody else, but disregards them when 'the science' suggests they
are figments of imagination? Ring any bells?
So you reject the listening experience when it comes to judging small
differences between audio components, because there are inherent
distortions in our perception might mask the truth. Sensible, if your
intention is to disregard differences which are not based entirely on
physics or scientific principals.
But.. for consumers.. why ignore these perceptual distortions? They
exist don't they? They are reliable aren't they? If somebody chooses
eg an amplifier based on a listening experience in their own
surroundings, how often do they complain that the sound quality
deviates from one extreme to another on a random basis? How many of
the 'religious high end activists' complain that they are unsatisfied
with the quality of their systems and wish they had bought cheap,
scientifically proven alternatives?
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
Howard Ferstler
>
> You still don't get it! Amazing that you think this is about a real
> debate on audio equipment. Try reading my other post, as well as Deja
> News. You really need to either stay out of this stuff, or else
> follow it more closely. Kind of like coming into a movie with 10
> minutes left and trying to figure out how the director accomplished
> his character development.
Barry!
You guys are obsessed with "getting" people you do not like,
because they are threatening your happy delusions.
The real need is to definitively prove that you guys are
hearing things, both for your own respective goods and for
the good of those who will be embracing the hobby in the
future. A debate will not do that. We need a major face
off, with the kingpins of crank audio participating, and
moderated by people with real integrity. We then need the
results published in special articles in Sound and Vision,
Audio, The Sensible Sound, The Audio Critic, Stereophile,
The Absolute Sound, etc., etc., etc.
We need lots of closely supervised, double-blind,
level-matched comparisons between Krell, Levinson, etc.
amps, DACs, and CD players, and Pioneer, Onkyo, Yamaha, etc.
receivers and CD players. Lots of double-blind comparisons
between Kimber Cable, MIT cable, Monster Cable, etc. and
16-gauge lamp cord, Radio Shack cable, and my favorite Carol
Wire Company 39-cents-a-foot, 12-gauge "speaker" wire.
Comparisons between the exotic interconnects and the OEM
stuff that comes with budget-grade components, with maybe my
Radio Shack Gold cable thrown in for kicks.
When it is over, maybe sanity can return to audio.
Howard Ferstler
fer...@ibm.net
Author of The Home Theater Companion.
For an on-line review, go to:
HTTP://www.ambiophonics.org/ferstler.htm
> > A debate would be a waste of time, and all the bantering
> > back and forth that has been done here is an even bigger
> > waste of time.
> >
> > Howard Ferstler
Howard Ferstler
one. What is the big deal? He is correct, of course, and
anyone with any common sense and integrity is acutely aware
of the fact. I have discussed the topic of magazine
duplicity with quite a large number of technically adept
people, and most of them would agree with Arny about
Stereophile and many of the other loony-tunes magazines (or
loony-tunes columns in otherwise rational magazines) in an
instant.
Mr. Atkinson notes that the "debate" supposedly would be
held in front of an audience "not beholden to either side in
this debate [and] can then make up its own mind." Man, I
wonder what kind of audience that would have been, had he
had his own way about things? If we are going to have a
debate, why not have it take place in front of a group of
audio engineers, rather than if front of a bunch of
glassy-eyed true believers, rooting for their assorted
high-end gurus?
The big problem in audio these days is that most people who
know the truth keep their mouths shut, because the fringe
magazines have so much clout. Also, many tweak-oriented
manufacturers like the controversy those magazines stir up,
because it keeps things in flux. Flux is good for sales -
possibly even mainstream product sales.
Those manufacturers who are disgusted with the goings on in
high-end audio keep their mouths shut, because saying
something that runs counter to all the politically correct
bullshit about wires, cables, amps, CD players, weird
accessories, and the like, would cause a reaction from the
true believers that would undermine sales. A negative
reaction from assorted dealers and enthusiasts would be bad
enough, but a reaction from the tweak press would be bad
news, indeed.
While it isn't about "who's amplifier, wire, or CD player
sounds better," as you note, it is about wild,
customer-pandering, agenda-driven claims made by a large
number of audio-industry types, including high-end designers
and high-end journalists. Audio has become the most phony
high-tech hobby going - one that has a habit of attracting
people who superimpose their hopes, fears, ignorance, and
imaginations on to what should be a rather straightforward
discipline.
Prior to the computer age, the hobby had a lot of technical
types who helped to keep things in line. The new technology
drained off a lot of people who would normally have
instilled a degree of rationality into the world of audio.
That people like Arny, Tom Nousaine, and a few others
continue work to stem the tide is heroic in my opinion.
More power to them.
We have us a bit of a Frankenstein Monster here, and no one
knows how to kill it. At least Arny is trying. He is the
hero, and his opponents are bums.
Howard Ferstler
fer...@ibm.net
Author of The Home Theater Companion.
For an on-line review, go to:
HTTP://www.ambiophonics.org/ferstler.htm
> >> Why the hell do we need a debate? All a debate will prove
> > is that someone is a better speaker than another, or is more
> > able to present his case - be that case valid or specious.
> > This is not audio; this is lawyering.
> >
> > What we need is a MAJOR comparison session, where Atkinson,
> > Cordesman, Kessler, Norton, Holt, Zipser, Greenberg, King,
> > Phillips, Harley, Pearson, Tellig, and other notables., get
> > a chance to show the world just how golden their ears are.
> > Over the years, they have made claims about the audibility
> > of amplifiers, wire, cables, CD players, etc., and they need
> > to either put up or shut up.
> >
> > We don't need no damned debate. We need a MAJOR COMPARISON
> > FACE OFF, where the big guns of the subjectivist camp can
> > prove their points. The comparison can be supervised by
> > someone with solid credentials, whom no one will consider to
> > be a problem. Someone like, say, Floyd Toole or R.A.
> > Greiner, or John Eargle, or someone else of their caliber.
> > If the subjectivists distrust them, perhaps someone from the
> > academic world, who has a disinterested view of audio, could
> > supervise the face off. Let's get this mess over with.
> >
Barry Rothman
- dated Jan 28, 1999 - John Atkinson is the poster:
>
>>So Mr. Krüger, answer me this. You have used much r.a.o. bandwidth over the
>>past years attacking audiophiles and my magazine. You have accused my readers
>>of ignorance and of being dupes of an industry that _knows_ its products are
>>based on deception. You have accused me, my writers, and my magazine of
>>intellectual dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption. You have accused
>>engineers and designers for high-end audio companies of being incompetent and
>>corrupt. In another message in this thread, you even imply that subjective
>>reviewers have defective hearing!
>>
>>All I am doing is asking you to make the same claims in a live forum where
>>those you accuse of wrongdoing have the opportunity to make their own cases,
>>and where an audience not beholden to either side in this debate can then
>>make up its own mind. How can you resist such an opportunity to put your
>>beliefs to the test of public opinion
If you want to claim that you never made the allegations of fraud,
corruption, collusion with high end manufacturers, then come right out
and say so. Fact is, we have already seen many of those quotes
dredged up here by several RAO participants. My bet is that
Stereophile has a nice file full of each and every allegation you have
made.
Stop deluding yourself.
Barry Rothman
would recommend to Tom that he file suit to protect his integrity just
as I feel Stereophile should haul your ass into court.
Nonetheless, in case you forgot what this is all about, here is your
reminder, once again.
- dated Jan 28, 1999 - John Atkinson is the poster:
>
>>So Mr. Krüger, answer me this. You have used much r.a.o. bandwidth over the
>>past years attacking audiophiles and my magazine. You have accused my readers
>>of ignorance and of being dupes of an industry that _knows_ its products are
>>based on deception. You have accused me, my writers, and my magazine of
>>intellectual dishonesty, incompetence, and corruption. You have accused
>>engineers and designers for high-end audio companies of being incompetent and
>>corrupt. In another message in this thread, you even imply that subjective
>>reviewers have defective hearing!
>>
>>All I am doing is asking you to make the same claims in a live forum where
>>those you accuse of wrongdoing have the opportunity to make their own cases,
>>and where an audience not beholden to either side in this debate can then
>>make up its own mind. How can you resist such an opportunity to put your
>>beliefs to the test of public opinion
Stop deluding yourself, Arny.
Arny Krüger
Anon E Mouse wrote in message <1999021810...@replay.com>...
>
>On 17 Feb 1999, Sandman wrote:
>
Symptom of approaching execution: substantial decrease in pages? ;-)
Arny Krüger
Barry Rothman wrote in message <36CB0F95...@bellsouth.net>...
>
>
>Nousaine wrote:
>>
>>> Now listen here, Atkinson has many times called Julian Hisrch a fake.
>> who reviews equipment without listening to it. He has written in his
magazine
>> that I faked experimental results.
>
>public hearing of sorts. After all, a journalist's integrity is
>paramount to his/her value.
It looks to me like Tom is a shewd marketer. He knows that there is a big
market among people that Streophile, TAS, and FI love to castigate.
You've got to remember that the religious high end is a tiny, tiny segment of
humanity. Maybe 200,000 or less people in a country with a population of
almost 300 million. Less than 0.07%. Just about everybody is interested in
reproduced music, but only 0.07% worry about the high end.
Atkinson claims leadership of his pack by selling 100,000 $25 subscriptions a
year. Many of the people I hang out with have to sell 100,000 stereos in
packages that cost $25,000 or more, several times over, each year.
Furthermore, client satisfaction is tied to salary via independent surveys
done repeatedly througout the year. And, if they fail to do well enough, they
don't just slip a little in the circulation indices, they lose their jobs.
>> He has no problem calling others cheats and liars yet he ruffles his
feathers
>> when someone notes that none of his (and his reviewers) claims of
"audibility
>> without known cause" have ever been validated with a properly controlled
>> test....and that someone thinks this constitutes high-crimes and
misdeameanors.
>First, you watch too much CNN, CNBC and "talk" news shows. Second, I
>have read countless instances where Stereophile has explained their
>position of DBT testing and why they do not wish to utilize it.
As I'm showing every day, their arguments are false, deceptive or both. No
matter what, highly self-serving.
>In fact, I am often surprised how much line space they devote to this
>issue.
Zero in most issues. When they print a letter critical of their testing
procedures, they cover it with many others from the faithful.
>So, no one can ever say that they have not attempted to make
>their case in support of the methodology they choose for the
>publication.
Harley attempts to defend their procedures but fails to metion "placebo" even
once... Now that is what I call balanced handling of the topic! ;-)
>> Yeah, I agree that this is not a prosecutable offense. No DA would ever put
him
>> on trial. No real harm. Smart people don't spend lots of extra money on
sticks
>> and stones.
>Actually, making claims of fraud are highly addressable in a civil
>court. Unless someone can prove it, such claims often result in an
>injunction against the speaker of such claims.
The interesting part of this is handling the free speech issues and showing
real damages.
>> But the main issue here IS the existance of those differences. Mr Atkinson
>> NEEDS to have the issue parlayed into a debate because he cannot prove his
>> claims with a bias-controlled test. If he could have he already would have.
>>
>> He says 2+2=5. Krueger says that every counting experiment shows 4 is the
>> answer and to say five is fraud. John needs to have the debate center on
>> whether continuing to say five without showing that it's true is really
fraud.
>> It is vitally important that the issue be on whether the offense requires
>> removal from office and not whether there was an offense.
>Your last sentence again shows that you need to cut back on the amount
>of Larry King, Rush Limbough and all those other news talk shows in
>your TV diet.
It is true that Larry and Rush seem to be pretty much in agreement with the
idea that 2+2=4. What a weird concept! Stamp it out NOW! What would Polanyi or
Derrida say? ;-)
>As I said before, countless times in Stereophile they have addressed
>the issue of why they believe that the error is not in the straight
>arithmetic of whether 2 + 2 = 5, but rather whether the variables are
>really 2 + 2.
Regrettably, they never really allow the contrary view to be given equal time
and rights to equal rebuttal. In terms of their politics, SP, FI, and TAS are
far more biased than most political opinion magazines that I've read
consistently.
>You may wholeheartedly disagree, you may think they are
>morons, you may think they just have bad ears. But to say that fraud
>exists is a horse of a different color.
Arguments based on straw men and deceptive use of terminology is not the least
bit fraudulent, right? ;-)
>Personally, I don't think your friend Howie is very good at what he
>does. But, that I believe him to be a buffoon is far afield from
>believing that he engages in fraud in an effort to promote a
>particular segment of the audio industry. Arny crosses that threshold
>in a manner that goes beyond intellectual disagreement.
For one thing, there is something far more than just intellectual about my
chosen form of disagreement.
It's practical and it is getting a definite response, perhaps even from the
larger marketplace.
The interesting question is why John outwardly ignored me for 2 years and
"suddenly" "noticed" I exist! ;-)
Does the currrent downturn in the high end have anything to do with it?
Arny Krüger
Marc Blank wrote in message ...
>In article <36CB2C73...@mailer.fsu.edu>, hfer...@mailer.fsu.edu
>says...
>>
>> A debate would be a waste of time, and all the bantering
>> back and forth that has been done here is an even bigger
>> waste of time.
>>
>> Howard Ferstler
>
>of other posts in this thread have been (i.e. worthless). Or as useful
>very far between.
I think that with a little focussed PR for this debate, we can pretty well
pack the house with members of the "choir" I belong to.
>p.w. FWIW, I think JA would kick Arny's butt in any debate, this having
>nothing whatever to do with the merits of their cases.
I think that the resale value of your Cary boat-anchor(s) may even depend on
this to a slight degree! ;-)
Arny Krüger
Edward M. Shain wrote in message
<36d02576...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> I never left the debate mode, Tom. I've been there from the
>beginning. Barry Rothman elsewhere made an excellent post in which he
>listed all sorts of lovely scurrilous remarks that ARE protected.
Actually, your personal attacks against me on RAO would get you a strong
censure from any professional moderator, even ejection.
Chuck Ross
Howard! Get a life!
--
"Outside of that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
If you have nothing else to do, check my photo page at
http://www.enteract.com/~ckross
Edward M. Shain
>
>But.. for consumers.. why ignore these perceptual distortions? They
>exist don't they? They are reliable aren't they? If somebody chooses
>eg an amplifier based on a listening experience in their own
>surroundings, how often do they complain that the sound quality
>deviates from one extreme to another on a random basis? How many of
>the 'religious high end activists' complain that they are unsatisfied
>with the quality of their systems and wish they had bought cheap,
>scientifically proven alternatives?
Extraordinary, isn't it, the wilfull ignoring of what's
actually important to the end user?
Ed
Edward M. Shain
wrote:
Huh? In what world are you living in?
Firstly, I'm not the moderator. I'm one of your accusers;
secondly, no one can make a personal attack on your character because,
to the best of anyone's knowledge, you have none; thirdly,
....ahhhh....what's the use? We'll get down to 1,317,986thly and you
still won't get it.
Ed
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Ed <eb...@ae0083.pd8.ford.com> wrote:
>Who cares, how it is tested. If my ears can not HEAR IT, I WILL NOT BUY
>IT!!!! AS FAR AS MY DOLLARS ARE CONCERNED MY EARS ARE THE ULTIMATE
>TESTING MACHINE!!!!!
listening to two things, when you weren't, perhaps by accident?
>VERY FEW PEOPLE SPEND 3K PLUS WITHOUT LISTENING FIRST!!
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>They
>exist don't they?
Certainly unintentional self-influence exists.
> They are reliable aren't they?
NO.
They are NOT reliable. Sorry.
Still, if one wants to base a decision on their gestalt preference,
why not.
One should simply be aware that that is what one is doing.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Are you honest enough to admit the opposite equivalent, JJ, or
>are you maintaining you're simply trying to be fair here?
I have nothing to admit. Arnold's position on blind testing issues
is just fine.
That's my position. Arnold is abused for it here, day in and day out,
just like I am. I am quite sympathetic to the unnecessary abuse he
takes here on that part.
I DO wish he'd stick to the testing issue, yes. I've said so before,
and I probably will have to say so again.
Sandman
Anon E Mouse <Anon_E_Mouse@will_bounce.com> wrote in article
<1999021811...@replay.com>...
>
> On 17 Feb 1999, Sandman wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > This perspicacity would land you in prison if you attempted to defend a
> > criminal case in this manner.
>
>
> If you defend your clients the way you defend your audio views here,
you
> will fill this SouthCal county jail in no time. 8-D
So how come my income is many times yours?
Oh that's right, you're a law school graduate who knows everything,
especially about "artificial intelligence". Your intelligence is indeed
artificial, mouse.
Sandman
Sandman
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Barry Rothman wrote:
> >Those kind of statements are protected, Arny boy. What are not
> >protected are statements that claim fraudulent behavior, collusion
> >with high end manufacturers to committ fraud, dishonesty and
> >corruption.
>
> I don't think I've said that directly, at least in those words. Can you
show
> me saying that, particularly in those words, and particularly in a
context
> other than me just expressing my opinion?
See George's post citing numerous examples of your defamatory comments
about fraud, you lying, hypocritical douchebag.
Sandman
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
nous...@aol.com (Nousaine) wrote:
>
> Now listen here, Atkinson has many times called Julian Hisrch a fake.
While it is true that some journalists have attacked Mr. Hirsch, I don't
believe I have done so,Tom. Please cite the reference.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <36cf238d...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Are you honest enough to admit the opposite equivalent, JJ, or
>>are you maintaining you're simply trying to be fair here?
>I have nothing to admit. Arnold's position on blind testing issues
>is just fine.
>
>That's my position. Arnold is abused for it here, day in and day out,
>just like I am. I am quite sympathetic to the unnecessary abuse he
>takes here on that part.
Quite so. You've been clear on that point. However, I'm
referring to something else other than one's position on dbt, JJ. The
question at hand are the fraud allegations and Mr. Kruger's willful
disregard in that respect.
You're calling my objectivity into question vis a vis the
fraud allegations etc, are you not, and not my position on dbt? I
simply returned the question. Are you objective in your defense of Mr.
Kruger in that context, or are you as biased as I though in an
opposite direction?
If you are going to question my position - and I freely admit
to bias in that regard, though that doesn't make me a priori wrong -
am I not entitled to ask the same of you and get a straight answer?
Ed
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> <blather snipped>
> The interesting question is why John outwardly ignored me for 2 years and
> "suddenly" "noticed" I exist! ;-)
Where does this come from Arny? If you check Deja News, you'll see that you
and I have crossed swords before, when you posted in 1997, that I was an
ex-car mechanic with no audio engineering qualifications. Even after I posted
the requisite laundry list of my qualifications and pointed out that I had
never _been_ a car mechanic, I don't recall that you either backed down or
even apologized.
> Does the currrent downturn in the high end have anything to do with it?
No. Fact is, Arny, that I am not bothered by namecalling. When you call me
stupid or incompetent, as you have done in the past few days, it's the
equivalent of background noise or static. It alway has existed, it always
will exist, I just filter it out. But when you make accusations of fraud, you
have crossed a line. For example, when you implied in several postings last
week that the reason I issued the HI-FI '99 challenge to you was to defraud
my employer out of $1000, we are no longer talking about a difference in
reviewing philosophies, we are talking about a specific accusation of
unethical or even criminal behavior.
As I posted in another message, when such accusations are made, the burden of
proof rests on the accuser. For you to imply that I am guilty of fraud as
accused unless I can prove otherwise is dirty pool. As Ed Shain has stated,
it is medieval in its implications.
Look Arny, Ed has offered a means of bringing this business to an end, which
is for you to apologise to me for the fraud accusations. Everything else you
have said on r.a.o. falls into the "opinion" category, which I respect as
being your right to express freely. For example, while I do not agree with
your position on ABX testing, I have no problem with you expressing that
position. But what you have no right to do is to state that because I
disagree with your position on ABX testing, I must be guilty of fraud. Or
because I have made a business decision that results in your non-appearance
at HI-FI '99, my reasons for doing so must have been fraudulent, as you
posted.
If an apology is offered, then I will, of course, accept it and we can all
get back to our lives. But if you do not feel any apology is warranted, then
I assume we'll meet face to face in Detroit. Unless you are now willing to
take the $150+expenses to debate in Chicago.
Sincerely
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net (Edward M. Shain) wrote:
> As JJ so passionately declaims: Stand and Deliver!
_Very_ well said Ed!
JA
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> You're calling my objectivity into question vis a vis the
>fraud allegations etc, are you not, and not my position on dbt? I
>simply returned the question. Are you objective in your defense of Mr.
>Kruger in that context, or are you as biased as I though in an
>opposite direction?
Simply put, I am suggesting that in fact the question of testing
CAN be relevant to the upcoming battle (excuse me, debate), and
could even be relevant, (but very likely not in this case) if
the individuals doing the "evaluations" believed utterly in their
rightness, becuase of extended evidence to the contrary.
You admit you're an Arnold-attack-dog. I'm NOT an "Arnold-defence
rotweiler". You would notice the difference were I defending
Arnold "against all comers".
Edward M. Shain
>
>If an apology is offered, then I will, of course, accept it and we can all
>get back to our lives. But if you do not feel any apology is warranted, then
>I assume we'll meet face to face in Detroit. Unless you are now willing to
>take the $150+expenses to debate in Chicago.
>
proof of your allegations. Please, then, simply retract your
allegations, and we'll all go on with our lives.
We will all benefit, you as well as everyone else.
Ed
George M. Middius
as "reliable" ;-) as ever.
>I have nothing to admit. Arnold's position on blind testing issues
>is just fine.
>That's my position. Arnold is abused for it here, day in and day out,
>just like I am.
Hahahahahahahaha! Phoebe's in the sky with diamonds today.
You and Fungles and the other abuse-loving, self-abnegating
lightning rods for normals' derision bring it on yourself.
Are you lying to yourself when you croak out that crapola
about "blind testing"? You sure aren't fooling any of the
normals. Your beloved "Arnold" is the butt of all the jokes
and the insults for an entirely separate reason, and any
halfway intelligent human knows what that is.
Your blind allegiance to the grisliest, most pathetic,
slimiest, nastiest, and most loathsome creature ever to
prowl Usenet is what gets you your share of anti-snot. It's
not your ridiculous posturing about "the science" or your
moronic refusal to accept that RAO is an AUDIO CONSUMER
discussion group and not the last word in your nancy-prancy
testing for gnats' farts in a frosty flying hurricane.
>I am quite sympathetic to the unnecessary abuse he
>takes here on that part.
What massive self-delusion you swim in. How pathetic.
>I DO wish he'd stick to the testing issue, yes. I've said so before,
>and I probably will have to say so again.
So you admit NastyBorg starts all the fights. Why all the
posturing about poor Arnii receiving abuse then?
George M. Middius
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>You admit you're an Arnold-attack-dog. I'm NOT an "Arnold-defence
>rotweiler". You would notice the difference were I defending
>Arnold "against all comers".
As much as I respect you, JJ (and I do), you at least seem an
"Arnold-defence-dachshund" ::grin::, the dimunition in this case
reflecting the least passionate defense I've ever seen you muster.
Ed
Barry Rothman
do, it will take him about a week before he continues posting
essentially the same message, only without a direct reference to
fraudulent behavior. He can't help himself. Nothing changes his
approach or attitude. And all this goading won't change things. As
they say in yiddush "es vet helfen via a toiten bonkes". Meaning, "it
will help like blood cups on a dead man".
That said, we can always hope, can't we?
Barry
Gruvmyster
> Unless you are now willing to
> take the $150+expenses to debate in Chicago.
Too late. Deadline's passed. Bummer, huh?
Doug
--
"In the discussions that arose between the brothers on
their views of the peasantry, Sergey Ivanovitch always got
the better of his brother, precisely because Sergey Ivanovitch
had definite ideas about the peasant- his character, his
qualities, and his tastes. Konstantin Levin had no definite
and unalterable idea on the subject, and so in their arguments
Konstantin was readily convicted of contradicting himself."-- Leo Tolstoy,
_Anna Karenina_, 1877
Edward M. Shain
<brot...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Don't be fooled, Ed. Even if he apologizes, which I doubt he would
>do, it will take him about a week before he continues posting
>essentially the same message, only without a direct reference to
>fraudulent behavior. He can't help himself. Nothing changes his
>approach or attitude. And all this goading won't change things. As
>they say in yiddush "es vet helfen via a toiten bonkes". Meaning, "it
>will help like blood cups on a dead man".
>
>That said, we can always hope, can't we?
>
It couldn't hurt, already, a be gezund. I'd settle for the
usual common-garden-variety vitriol at this point ::grin::
Ed
Sandman
Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote in article
<7ahrj9$tkt$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <faWy2.97$TO4...@news.flash.net>,
> "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> > <blather snipped>
> > The interesting question is why John outwardly ignored me for 2 years
and
> > "suddenly" "noticed" I exist! ;-)
>
> Where does this come from Arny? If you check Deja News, you'll see that
you
> and I have crossed swords before, when you posted in 1997, that I was an
> ex-car mechanic with no audio engineering qualifications. Even after I
posted
> the requisite laundry list of my qualifications and pointed out that I
had
> never _been_ a car mechanic, I don't recall that you either backed down
or
> even apologized.
Poor Arnii must have had this confused notion about LA and mixed you up
with him when he posted that. As you've noted before, he is given to
"shooting from the hip" like that (at least a dozen or so times per day)
and the above is but a mild example.
> > Does the currrent downturn in the high end have anything to do with it?
>
> No. Fact is, Arny, that I am not bothered by namecalling. When you call
me
> stupid or incompetent, as you have done in the past few days, it's the
> equivalent of background noise or static. It alway has existed, it always
> will exist, I just filter it out. But when you make accusations of fraud,
you
> have crossed a line. For example, when you implied in several postings
last
> week that the reason I issued the HI-FI '99 challenge to you was to
defraud
> my employer out of $1000, we are no longer talking about a difference in
> reviewing philosophies, we are talking about a specific accusation of
> unethical or even criminal behavior.
How did Peterson appreciate getting dragged into Arnii's cesspool?
> As I posted in another message, when such accusations are made, the
burden of
> proof rests on the accuser. For you to imply that I am guilty of fraud as
> accused unless I can prove otherwise is dirty pool. As Ed Shain has
stated,
> it is medieval in its implications.
Not to mention it demonstrates Arnii's utter ignorance of the law.
Is Arnii still watching Kojak reruns?
> Look Arny, Ed has offered a means of bringing this business to an end,
which
> is for you to apologise to me for the fraud accusations. Everything else
you
> have said on r.a.o. falls into the "opinion" category, which I respect as
> being your right to express freely. For example, while I do not agree
with
> your position on ABX testing, I have no problem with you expressing that
> position. But what you have no right to do is to state that because I
> disagree with your position on ABX testing, I must be guilty of fraud. Or
> because I have made a business decision that results in your
non-appearance
> at HI-FI '99, my reasons for doing so must have been fraudulent, as you
> posted.
>
> If an apology is offered, then I will, of course, accept it and we can
all
> get back to our lives. But if you do not feel any apology is warranted,
then
> I assume we'll meet face to face in Detroit. Unless you are now willing
to
> take the $150+expenses to debate in Chicago.
I've suggested twice now, in view of Arnii's tacit admissions that he can't
possibly provide any evidence of at least one element of his fraud claim,
that his jig is up and there's nothing left for him to do now but retract
and apologize. His response? He just ignores it. Reality never has been
his forte, John, so despite my efforts, Ed's efforts, and now your efforts,
don't expect Arnii to do the honorable thing and put an end to his
nonsense.
This whole thing is a compulsion for him. He couldn't stop even if a
billion angels screamed "STOP IT!!!" at him every minute for the rest of
his life. He doesn't hear me. He doesn't hear Ed. He doesn't hear you.
He couldn't hear the angels screaming. Is it any wonder he can't hear any
differences in audio equipment while diddling with his box?
Sandman
Paul Dormer
>In article <36e10220...@news.clara.net>,
>Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote:
>>But.. for consumers.. why ignore these perceptual distortions?
>Decent question.
Thanks
>>They
>>exist don't they?
>Certainly unintentional self-influence exists.
>> They are reliable aren't they?
>NO.
>
>They are NOT reliable. Sorry.
Oh.. so you are saying the results of sighted listening tests are not
reliable then?
;)
>Still, if one wants to base a decision on their gestalt preference,
>why not.
Yeah, fair enough!
>One should simply be aware that that is what one is doing.
Agree, people should be fully informed of the science arguement and
any counter arguements before they make rushed judgements.
Paul Dormer Me...@clara.net
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sound Design, Editing, Mastering
Paul Dormer
>No. Fact is, Arny, that I am not bothered by namecalling. When you call me
>stupid or incompetent, as you have done in the past few days, it's the
>equivalent of background noise or static. It alway has existed, it always
>will exist, I just filter it out. But when you make accusations of fraud, you
>have crossed a line. For example, when you implied in several postings last
>week that the reason I issued the HI-FI '99 challenge to you was to defraud
>my employer out of $1000, we are no longer talking about a difference in
>reviewing philosophies, we are talking about a specific accusation of
>unethical or even criminal behavior.
>
>As I posted in another message, when such accusations are made, the burden of
>proof rests on the accuser. For you to imply that I am guilty of fraud as
>accused unless I can prove otherwise is dirty pool.
Absolutely!
>while I do not agree with
>your position on ABX testing, I have no problem with you expressing that
>position. But what you have no right to do is to state that because I
>disagree with your position on ABX testing, I must be guilty of fraud.
Well said!
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>"Arnold-defence-dachshund" ::grin::, the dimunition in this case
>reflecting the least passionate defense I've ever seen you muster.
Ed, unless you were there 10 years ago in the birth of USENET, you've
never seen a flame from me.
Oh, I do know how to write them. But since they serve no purpose,
I don't post them, in fact, even on the rare time when I put "flame on"
in a posting I'm relatively mild.
In fact, in some things Arnold is right. Then I defend that position.
Of course, such is commonly used for a whole variety of attack postures,
including the disgraceful behavior you, yourself noted a few days ago.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote:
>>while I do not agree with
>>your position on ABX testing, I have no problem with you expressing that
>>position. But what you have no right to do is to state that because I
>>disagree with your position on ABX testing, I must be guilty of fraud.
>Well said!
At what time does continued refusal to accept the commonly accepted
facts regarding double-blind testing create a position of willful
ignorance. Note, I'm extending this to the whole issue of DBT,
not of ABX.
Now, STILL if you say "we use sighted tests, and we like it that
way" there's nothing to argue about, BUT if there is a stream of
incorrect attacks on DBT'ing, at what point does this stream of
attacks constitute something, and what would it constitute?
Stereophi...@compuserve.com
Gruvmyster <dhaugen9@ididn't.net> wrote:
> Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote:
>
> > Unless you are now willing to
> > take the $150+expenses to debate in Chicago.
>
As I have posted before, there is a slot open on Sunday at the very end of
the Show. -- JA
The Beatific Deathpoodle
phrase that, for most us, is an insignificant step away from direct
accusations. However, it provides him the room to use semantics to weasel
out of backing up his words.
What was the word Ed used to describe him? Guttersnipe. Applies
perfectly. A thoroughly despicable individual, regardless of his
opinions.
Barry Rothman (brot...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
: Don't be fooled, Ed. Even if he apologizes, which I doubt he would
: do, it will take him about a week before he continues posting
: essentially the same message, only without a direct reference to
: fraudulent behavior. He can't help himself. Nothing changes his
: approach or attitude. And all this goading won't change things. As
: they say in yiddush "es vet helfen via a toiten bonkes". Meaning, "it
: will help like blood cups on a dead man".
:
: That said, we can always hope, can't we?
:
: Barry
:
: "Edward M. Shain" wrote:
: >
: > >
: > >If an apology is offered, then I will, of course, accept it and we can all
: > >get back to our lives. But if you do not feel any apology is warranted, then
: > >I assume we'll meet face to face in Detroit. Unless you are now willing to
: > >take the $150+expenses to debate in Chicago.
: > >
: > Mr. Kruger, you have admitted elsewhere you cannot sustain
: > proof of your allegations. Please, then, simply retract your
: > allegations, and we'll all go on with our lives.
: >
: > We will all benefit, you as well as everyone else.
: >
: > Ed
--
Vandit Kalia GO FLYERS!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any fool can make a painting, but it takes a wise man to sell one"
The Beatific Deathpoodle
: At what time does continued refusal to accept the commonly accepted
: facts regarding double-blind testing create a position of willful
: ignorance. Note, I'm extending this to the whole issue of DBT,
: not of ABX.
Commonly accepted by whom? Certainly not Stereophile's readers.
Even assuming it is commonly accepted, there is nothing fraudulent about
holding a different point of view and espousing it. This falls under the
same free speech that Krooger uses as his shield.
Monotheism is a commonly accepted religion. Does that make priest who
espouse tribal gods or some other form of religion frauds?
: Now, STILL if you say "we use sighted tests, and we like it that
: way" there's nothing to argue about, BUT if there is a stream of
: incorrect attacks on DBT'ing, at what point does this stream of
: attacks constitute something, and what would it constitute?
The stream of attacks works both ways. Attacks on validity are one thing
and as JA puts it, he has no problem with it. Extrapolating a
specific instance of FRAUD, a criminal act, is what goes too
far. I dont believe JA ever implied Krooger was a fraud.
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>In article <36d67c40...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> As much as I respect you, JJ (and I do), you at least seem an
>>"Arnold-defence-dachshund" ::grin::, the dimunition in this case
>>reflecting the least passionate defense I've ever seen you muster.
>
>Ed, unless you were there 10 years ago in the birth of USENET, you've
>never seen a flame from me.
You're right, I haven't, and never even came close to saying
so. I think you're mis-reading my humour, JJ. You said you weren't a
Rotwieler. I suggested the much smaller dachshund in recognition of
your very mild defense of Arny so far. Where is "flame" ever suggested
or mention?
>
Ed
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
The Beatific Deathpoodle <vka...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>Commonly accepted by whom? Certainly not Stereophile's readers.
>Even assuming it is commonly accepted, there is nothing fraudulent about
>holding a different point of view and espousing it. This falls under the
>same free speech that Krooger uses as his shield.
ONCE MORE in simple terms.
FORGET ABOUT STEREOPHILE or any other audio magazine. When I say
'commonly accepted' I mean in the science. Specifically divorce
the question from ANY real situation, and answer it.
Now, stop weaselling and give me an answer.
According to your claim, if I sincerely espouse the view (I'm not, please
note, espousing this!) that jumping off of high buildings is both safe
and fun, am I protected by free speech? Yes or no?
Let's set some basics here. According to your claim, any words,
uttered in sincerity, no matter how much contrary evidence the
utterer has been present with, is defensible. Yes or no?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
Edward M. Shain <Vizsl...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> You're right, I haven't, and never even came close to saying
>so.
>I think you're mis-reading my humour, JJ. You said you weren't a
>Rotwieler.
Well, actually, it's been suggested once or twice, between suggestions
of "pit bull" and "coyote".
>I suggested the much smaller dachshund in recognition of
>your very mild defense of Arny so far. Where is "flame" ever suggested
>or mention?
It's not. But bear in mind that a ROTWIELER might well flame ;_)
(Actaully, the ones I've met were among the most peacible, happy dogs
I've I've met. All they cared about was dinner and ear-scratching.)
Edward M. Shain
and tiring philalethist) wrote:
>
>(Actaully, the ones I've met were among the most peacible, happy dogs
>I've I've met. All they cared about was dinner and ear-scratching.)
Speak for yourself, JJ. Those dogs scare the piss of me and
I've owned three dobermans in (a pair for about nine years and a bitch
I had for 13 at another point) my life , all of whom were tractable
and sweet, and all of whom allowed my apartment to be rifled and
thoroughly sacked when I wasn't home (Happened to me twice. I couldn't
F...ing believe it!). I'll take a Dobie. Rotties take a munch and
don't let go.
We've just lost our Vizsla (he was almost 13 and we had to put
him down due to cancer about two weeks ago) and I'm taking a rest from
dogs for a while. I've had one for about 40 straight years now, and
that's enough. Every time they die one's heart gets ripped out and I
haven't the stomach to face that again for quite a while.
Maybe after another decade, I'll even consider a Rottie. I'm
such a sucker for dogs that I need to cross the street when I
encounter a pet store a or I end up coming home and yelling "surprise,
everyone...."
Ed
Gruvmyster
> In article <7ahv8c$h...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>,
> Gruvmyster <dhaugen9@ididn't.net> wrote:
> > Stereophi...@compuserve.com wrote:
> >
> > > Unless you are now willing to
> > > take the $150+expenses to debate in Chicago.
> >
> > Too late. Deadline's passed. Bummer, huh?
>
> As I have posted before, there is a slot open on Sunday at the very end of
> the Show. -- JA
What a perfect time to run your newly designed DBT for the first time.
Doug
--
Nominated for quote of the year is the statement made by
Representative Dick Armey, who when asked if he were in
the President's place, would he resign, responded: "If I
were in the President's place I would not get a chance
to resign. I would be lying in a pool of my own blood
hearing Mrs. Armey standing over me saying, 'How do I
reload this thing?'"-- via email
Paul Dormer
>Paul Dormer <me...@clara.net> wrote:
>>>while I do not agree with
>>>your position on ABX testing, I have no problem with you expressing that
>>>position. But what you have no right to do is to state that because I
>>>disagree with your position on ABX testing, I must be guilty of fraud.
>>Well said!
>At what time does continued refusal to accept the commonly accepted
>facts regarding double-blind testing create a position of willful
>ignorance.
In the medical industry the DBT is seen as an imperfect technique
which is better than the alternatives, a lesser evil. In my
experience of real world medical DBT's, results are generally not
accepted as facts but as evidence.
The impression is, from comments made about DBT here and elsewhere by
some scientifically orientated people, that DBT results present the
unquestionable, ultimate truth. However, when push comes to shove
it's acknowledged it's not an ideal test method.
If somebody finds the body of evidence unconvincing, is that willful
ignorance?
>Now, STILL if you say "we use sighted tests, and we like it that
>way" there's nothing to argue about, BUT if there is a stream of
>incorrect attacks on DBT'ing, at what point does this stream of
>attacks constitute something, and what would it constitute?
Somewhere along the line, isn't it a possibility somebody will hit on
something concrete?
Gretchen Anonymous Remailer
>
> In the medical industry the DBT is seen as an imperfect technique
> which is better than the alternatives, a lesser evil. In my
> experience of real world medical DBT's, results are generally not
> accepted as facts but as evidence.
oh!
>
> The impression is, from comments made about DBT here and elsewhere by
> some scientifically orientated people, that DBT results present the
> unquestionable, ultimate truth.
keep your impressions to yurself.
and dont put words in peoples mouths ok?
However, when push comes to shove
> it's acknowledged it's not an ideal test method.
so what is it? results? the whole shebang.
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
>
> If somebody finds the body of evidence unconvincing, is that willful
> ignorance?
where is it?
make sure you post it "Doctor" Wolphie.................
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
STAND AND DELIVER!
Paul Dormer
>make sure you post it "Doctor" Wolphie.................
Get it into your stupid head I am NOT "Wolphie"
Paul Dormer
>"Paul Dormer" wrote:
>> In the medical industry the DBT is seen as an imperfect technique
>> which is better than the alternatives, a lesser evil. In my
>> experience of real world medical DBT's, results are generally not
>> accepted as facts but as evidence.
>
>oh!
Oh! indeed.. Mr Nobody.
>> The impression is, from comments made about DBT here and elsewhere by
>> some scientifically orientated people, that DBT results present the
>> unquestionable, ultimate truth.
>keep your impressions to yurself.
Who do you think you are? A moderator? If you don't like what I
write, look the other way.. OK?
>and dont put words in peoples mouths ok?
I didn't
>> However, when push comes to shove
>> it's acknowledged it's not an ideal test method.
>so what is it? results? the whole shebang.
What do you mean 'what is it'?
Is 'results?' a question?
Can you write intelligibly?
>> If somebody finds the body of evidence unconvincing, is that willful
>> ignorance?
>
>where is it?
Are you asking me personally, or the 'somebody' I mention that finds
the evidence unconvincing?
>make sure you post it "Doctor" Wolphie.................
Last time I'm going to say this Mr Nobody. I am not Wolphie my name
is in my sig, unlike yourself I don't hide behind an anonymous
identity.
I don't find your attempts at discussion conducive, forgive me if I
ignore them, won't you ;)