Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)
George M. Middius
OK, Arnii and Scottie, I finally get it. DBTs are the disgusting medicine
of consumer audio. Just as cancer drugs are tested on lab rats by medical
researchers, so are DBTs inflicted on DUTs by audio companies. The rats
are deliberately given cancer so the treatments can be tested, and DUTs
are deliberately given very minor alterations so audio engineers can be
chase after auditory phantoms. It's bad medicine and you want us all to
take it.
But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine? We don't
have any audio illnesses that need curing. Or at least not by Normal
standards. 'Borg standards are something else, though. For You folks, the
illness is our simple, unadulterated enjoyment of music. You want to
pollute our enjoyment with "test" rituals. That way, you hope, Normals
will turn into soulless, music-hating drones like you.
I advise you nimrods to hang it up and hustle off to the cemetary. Unless,
of course, you think you still have a chance of "saving" consumer audio.
ScottW
wrote:
> OK, Arnii and Scottie, I finally get it. DBTs are the disgusting medicine
> of consumer audio. Just as cancer drugs are tested on lab rats by medical
> researchers, so are DBTs inflicted on DUTs by audio companies. The rats
> are deliberately given cancer so the treatments can be tested, and DUTs
> are deliberately given very minor alterations so audio engineers can be
> chase after auditory phantoms. It's bad medicine and you want us all to
> take it.
>
> But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine?
I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.
> We don't
> have any audio illnesses that need curing.
No, but you've the severest case of Arnyitis ever recorded.
ScottW
Arny Krueger
news:0238c828-01b3-4e08...@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com
Phildo and George over in AAPLS are giving the Middiot a run for his title
of "Gay guy on Usenet most obsessed with Arny".
Clyde Slick
>
> I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
> you as subject. You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> confused.
>
Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.
Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
WITH you as the subject are also worthless.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On May 8, 12:56 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr_geo...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine?
>
> I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
> you as subject.
Apparently you also wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT
with you as subject.
LOL!
Clyde Slick
The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers.
Scott is not a reviewer, nor is he corrupt. I am also pure of heart,
so I don't need to do any
DBT's, either.
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
>The purpose[sic] of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers.
At last -- the "problem" is identified.
>Scott is not a reviewer, nor is he corrupt.
Remuneration isn't the only thing that corrupts. Ideology does it too. As
far as being carried in the womb of a hard-drinking chain smoker, the jury
is still out.
BretLudwig
rather well. What it does not do is really establish whether something is
any good, only that the listener can't consistently tell.
--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html
Clyde Slick
> The purpose of DBTs is to debunk expensive and looney ideas. It does this
> rather well. What it does not do is really establish whether something is
> any good, only that the listener can't consistently tell.
>
Thanks for admitting that the tests are biased.
ScottW
> On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
> > you as subject. You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > confused.
>
> Let's expand on that truth.
> You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> else but you are completely useless.
Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.
> Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
> WITH you as the subject are also worthless.
Hey, you're the one who says Ringdacs are crap :).
ScottW
ScottW
Clearly the deep seated resentment George has for his mother
has been transferred to all women.
ScottW
Clyde Slick
I never called it crap.
I prefer soemthing else.
And my bias was that it would be preferable.
George M. Middius
Flea-brain yaps on.
>> You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
>> else but you are completely useless.
> Not at all. If some BARK BARK BARK! biased reviewer YAP YAP YAPPITY YAP expects me to
> believe his BS WOOFWOOFBARKBARK pontifications and pay GROWL! SNARL! <scratch scratch scratch>
> him for it, he's gotta WALKIES! NOW! provide some YAP YAP!! <piddling on carpet>
> AAAAH! <whimper> proof.
So much for Scottie's training.
>> Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
>> WITH you as the subject are also worthless.
>
>Hey, crap :).
Good doggie! Eat this treat.
George M. Middius
Did I hit one of Scottie's multitude of raw nerves?
> > Remuneration isn't the only thing that corrupts. Ideology does it too. As
> > far as being carried in the womb of a hard-drinking chain smoker, the jury
> > is still out.
> Clearly the deep seated resentment George has for his mother
> has been transferred to all women.
Funny how you assumed I was referring to you. BTW, I don't really think
you're corrupt. More misguided, or perhaps retarded.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
> > > you as subject. You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > confused.
>
> > Let's expand on that truth.
> > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > else but you are completely useless.
>
> Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> he's gotta provide some proof.
My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.
Which is to say "not at all".
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
This was just a vehicle for 2pid to vent more homophobic fears. Don't
take it personally.
Clyde Slick
>
> Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> he's gotta provide some proof.
>
No he does not.
He has to provide his opinion.
That you think his opinion is BS, that is your opinion.
And you don't have to prove that either.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
I think this thought will be too deep for 2pid to comprehend.
ScottW
Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.
ScottW
ScottW
> On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> No he does not.
Try to read what I wrote.
and if he wants me to pay him for it, he does.
ScottW
Clyde Slick
the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
I guess you re including all adults in the US
btw, There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?
Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?
Clyde Slick
Subscribe to an alternate magazine that does.
Oops! there aren't any.
Start your own, after all you just claimed there is a market of
hundreds of millions
of potential subscribers.
ScottW
At least all housholds. Where does one draw the line
between "high end" and the rest of the audio
market? I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
playback systems. How many households
are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
"high end".
>There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
> Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?
Is the market potental everyone who eats? Can marketing
overcome the social stigma of eating bugs?
How about bugs as basic source of protein
like soy?
> Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?
I'm sure they'd like to have Time and Newsweek
ad rates.
ScottW
ScottW
Strawmen.
Bottom line is Atkinson and S'phile have a niche
of gullible subscribers that advertisers will pay to
reach. I don't have to like it and I think it's
generally bad for the hobby.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Then your option is to not buy it.
Huffing and puffing about reviewers doing DBTs when you will not
perform one yourself is a bit silly, yes?
LOL!
Clyde Slick
We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions
> >There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
> > Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?
>
> Is the market potental everyone who eats? Can marketing
> overcome the social stigma of eating bugs?
> How about bugs as basic source of protein
> like soy?
>
> > Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?
>
> I'm sure they'd like to have Time and Newsweek
> ad rates.
>
There aren't enough bugeaters in America.
Clyde Slick
"At least" you know what's out there.
Use your own common sense when reading it, and you'll be ok.
ScottW
I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
unsubstantiated declaration.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
No.
> Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
> playback systems. How many households
> are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
> "high end".
No.
> >There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
> > Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?
>
> Is the market potental everyone who eats?
No.
> Can marketing
> overcome the social stigma of eating bugs?
> How about bugs as basic source of protein
> like soy?
Yap yap yap.
> > Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?
>
> I'm sure they'd like to have Time and Newsweek
> ad rates.
That wasn't the question now, was it?
Yap yap yap.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Then buy "S'phile" amd force him to do DBTs. Otherwise, you aren't
paying him.
GeoSynch
> There aren't enough bugeaters in America.
There's only one known 'round here - fancied himself a speaker builder.
GeoSynch
John Atkinson
<artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 9, 5:03 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > > he's gotta provide some proof.
> > >
> > > No he does not.
> >
> > Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay him for it,
> > he does.
>
> aren't paying him.
The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
100 since my first in the spring of 1977. My rejection of them
as a general reviewing tool is based on that considerable
experience. Remind me again how many blind tests ScottW
has taken part in?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
George M. Middius
John Atkinson said:
> The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
> and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
> 100 since my first in the spring of 1977. My rejection of them
> as a general reviewing tool is based on that considerable
> experience.
That just shows you're short on faith.
> Remind me again how many blind tests ScottW
> has taken part in?
That's really unfair, you know. Scottie is hoping to reshape the consumer
audio industry from inside the "debating trade" dimension, where reality
is unwelcome.
Clyde Slick
It dosesn't require a definition.
It is what it is; it
isn't set in stoen.
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> > > We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions
> >
> > I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
> > unsubstantiated declaration.
>
> It dosesn't require a definition.
> It is what it is; it
> isn't set in stoen.
You're butting up against Scottie's total lack of self-awareness. Even a
nitwit like Yapper can see how idiotic his "discussion" of magazine
reviews is. It's obvious the poor thing is getting bent about something
unrelated, but his disabilities prevent him from connecting the source of
his annoyance to the complaints he spouts.
(If you didn't pick up on it, what's really bothering Dimbulb this week is
the prospect of growing old. Something happened recently that brought him
up short at the realization of impending mortality, but he hasn't dropped
any clues about that specific event. He did go on a projection rampage
recently that revealed how uncomfortable his advancing age makes him.)
ScottW
How do you determine the market size for something
undefined?
> It is what it is; it
> isn't set in stoen.
Could you be any more vague?
ScottW
ScottW
> On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 9, 5:03 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > > > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > > > No he does not.
>
> > > Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay him for it,
> > > he does.
>
> > Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise, you
> > aren't paying him.
>
> The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
> and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
> 100 since my first in the spring of 1977. My rejection of them
> as a general reviewing tool is based on that considerable
> experience.
Yes, IIRC your complaint is they'd make your subjective
reviews extremely suspect.
> Remind me again how many blind tests ScottW
> has taken part in?
Just as many reviews as I've been paid to write.
ScottW
ScottW
wrote:
Not that is ironic. George invoking reality. LoL.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Not (sic) 2pid's utter lack of self-awareness.
> LoL. (sic)
I agree.
Yap yap yap.
Clyde Slick
You need ti be able to see the forest from
the trees and can deal with generalities.
Arny Krueger
message
news:2ba6634e-9289-4fe4...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On May 9, 5:03 pm, Clyde Slick
>>> <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to
>>>>> believe his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
>>>>> he's gotta provide some proof.
>>>>
>>>> No he does not.
>>>
>>> Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay
>>> him for it, he does.
>>
>> Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise,
>> you aren't paying him.
>
> The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
> and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
> 100 since my first in the spring of 1977.
Typically, there's always been some kind of shall I be gentle and say
"distraction" in SP's published BTs.
> My rejection of them as a general reviewing tool is based on that
> considerable experience.
I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or informal peer review.
There is this recurrent flaw - introduction of spurious elements that seem
to be designed to further the SP "Everthing sounds different" agenda.
> Remind me again how many blind
> tests ScottW has taken part in?
You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.
John Atkinson
> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> messagenews:2ba6634e-9289-4fe4...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
> > On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay
> >>> him for it, he does.
> >>
> >> Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise,
> >> you aren't paying him.
> >
> > The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
> > and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
> > them as a general reviewing tool is based on that
>> considerable experience.
>
> I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or informal
> peer review.
As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, this
statement is irrelevant in the contect of _my_ experience
of organizing and taking part in such tests, which is
considerable, with that of blind-test advocate ScottW,
which is zero.
But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
than Stanley Lipshitz has gone on record commending
Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
blind speaker tests in the 1990s.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
George M. Middius
John Atkinson said:
> But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
> than Stanley Lipshitz has gone on record commending
> Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
> blind speaker tests in the 1990s.
<chuckle>
What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers. You say it's to bypass all
biases and isolate the sound of a system from all other factors. You're
both wrong, of course. If you want the truth, you have to get it from
Arnii Krooger, who got it from Nousiane. The purpose of blind tests is to
show that if you don't know what's playing, it all sounds the same. Did
the tests done at Stereophile reach this conclusion? No, they did not.
Therefore your tests are fatally flawed.
Science is like modeling clay. You have to know how to shape it.
Arny Krueger
> On May 11, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:2ba6634e-9289-4fe4...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>>> On May 10, 3:31 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>>> <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On May 10, 12:09 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Try to read what I wrote. and if he wants me to pay
>>>>> him for it, he does.
>>>>
>>>> Then buy "S'phile" and force him to do DBTs. Otherwise,
>>>> you aren't paying him.
>>>
>>> The irony is that Stereophile has occasionally done SBTs
>>> and DBTs and personally I have taken part in more than
>>> 100 since my first in the spring of 1977...My rejection
>>> of them as a general reviewing tool is based on that
>>> considerable experience.
>>
>> I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or
>> informal peer review.
> As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal,
> this statement is irrelevant in the contect of _my_
> experience of organizing and taking part in such tests,
The fact that a publication is not formally peer-reviewed is not a blank
check for shoddy work. I'm under the impression that the SR and Audio
Magazine tests that David Clark helped organize would have passed peer
review.
> But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
> than Stanley Lipshitz has gone on record commending
> Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
> blind speaker tests in the 1990s.
I have no familiarity with that.
Speaker tests are irrelevant to tests on electronics and cables for the
reason that there is no controversy over the idea that most loudpeakers
sound signficantly different. So, mention of them can easily be dismissed on
the grounds that they are a red herring.
In the opinons of many myuself included, SP regularly prints lengthy
articles claiming audible differences among electronic components that in
fact would be indistinguishable in a test of just audible performance.
IOW, if you want to base your audio purchases on appearance and perceived
repuation but not sound quality, then SP is just the magazine for you.
Clyde Slick
>
> I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or informal peer review.
> There is this recurrent flaw - introduction of spurious elements that seem
> to be designed to further the SP "Everthing sounds different" agenda.
>
So now, each DBT must pass official academic peer reveiw!
Clyde Slick
>
> What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
> overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.
Did you just have a senior moment???????
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> > What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
> > overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.
>
> Did you just have a senior moment???????
"The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers."
Sorry, I must've paraphrased you too loosely. Your dogma is even weirder
than what I remembered. (At least I remembered what you posted YESTERDAY,
Mr. Alzheimer's.)
Clyde Slick
>
> You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-
So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?
Clyde Slick
that statement of mine was summarizing Scott's views,
in part of a post where I was following his 'logic'
to its conclusion.
You took me completely out of context.
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> > > > What is the purpose of blind tests of audio gear? Sacky says it's to
> > > > overcome the biases of paid (shill) reviewers.
> >
> > > Did you just have a senior moment???????
> >
> > "The purpose of DBT's is to fight universal corruption of reviewers."
> >
> > Sorry, I must've paraphrased you too loosely. Your dogma is even weirder
> > than what I remembered. (At least I remembered what you posted YESTERDAY,
> > Mr. Alzheimer's.)
>
> that statement of mine was summarizing Scott's views,
> in part of a post where I was following his 'logic'
> to its conclusion.
Oh, I see.
> You took me completely out of context.
Not so. You failed to explain that you were paraphrasing Pea-Brain,
instead leaving unsuspecting readers to assume that your words were your
own opinion. What do you drink in Romania, anyway?
ScottW
We've got enough general confusion.
ScottW
Clyde Slick
Most everybody here is aware of my views on DBT's
I haven't chaged them
ScottW
I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
I've always had to purchase it first.
ScottW
Clyde Slick
You certainly do comparative listening.
ScottW
Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
I've bought.
Clyde Slick
I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.
According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you, unless you just want to
play the role of audio nanny.
John Atkinson
> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> > On May 11, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or
> >> informal peer review.
> >
> > As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal,
> > experience of organizing and taking part in such tests,
> > advocate ScottW, which is zero.
>
> not a blank check for shoddy work.
Of course not. And as I said, the test methodology we
used for some of the tests in which I was involved was
praised by a recognized authority in the field.
> > But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
> > than Stanley Lipshitz has gone on record commending
> > Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
> > blind speaker tests in the 1990s.
>
> I have no familiarity with that.
I don't see why not. Stanley's letter was published in
Stereophile. Are you suggesting that if you don't
take the time to read something, it does not exist,
Mr. Krueger?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> We've got enough general confusion.
Define "we".
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
It is odd, isn't it.
ScottW
> On 11 Mai, 15:06, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 11, 12:00 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 11 Mai, 14:52, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 11, 11:05 am, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11 Mai, 10:31, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You don't need to be a racer to understand how races can be *fixed*.-
>
> > > > > So, Scott never auditions audio equipment?
>
> > > > I auditioned my Quads though not in my home.
> > > > I've never "auditioned" equipment in my home.
> > > > I've always had to purchase it first.
>
> > > You certainly do comparative listening.
>
> > Occasionally at shops and at home on stuff
> > I've bought.
>
> I just fail to see the logical connection whereby you
> will buy stuff without even having ever heard it, and
> yet you object to reviews based upon opinions.
No really. I object to reviews that always find wonder
where there is none.
> According to your criteria, you don't even need reviews at all,
> DBT or otherwise.So its nothing to you,
Now you got it. S'phile is nothing to me. All I've ever said is
I would those BS pontifications a bit more credible if they
had some DBT proof with 'em.
Without it, they're just another opinion with the stench of
corruption wrapped around 'em. I can find less biased
opinions elsewhere so I have no need.
> unless you just want to
> play the role of audio nanny.
I'm not insisting you share my opinion.
Why do you seem so distressed that I don't
share yours, Nanny?
ScottW
Clyde Slick
no, you insist that stereophile write DBT reviews.
You are not insisting I share your opinion,
nor do I insist you share mine,.
I only point out the fallacies and inconsistencies of yours.
Clyde Slick
has nothing to do with your or my opinions.
it has to do with your selected role as Self Proclaimed
Protector of The Audio Consumer
ScottW
That's right, and I stomped foot too when I insisted.
So why aren't they doing it? Could it be that me
"insisting" is an absurdity?
It's really annoying when I say...here's what I think,
and somebody say's no, you think something else.
Tell you what, you go ahead and define my position
for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies
in it, and have a riproaring good time argument with yourself.
ScottW
George M. Middius
Another fat one floats across the plate.
> Tell you what, you go ahead and define my position
You're an idiot and you don't care.
> for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies
A policy to continually repeat the same discredited "opinions" is
self-defeating.
> in it, and have a riproaring good time argument[sic] with yourself.
BARKBARKBARK! YAPYAPYAP! WOOF! BARK! GROWL!
ScottW
LoL.... That would be your opinion of my opinion.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Like your opinions have no proof to 'em.
> Without it, they're just another opinion with the stench of
> corruption wrapped around 'em. I can find less biased
> opinions elsewhere so I have no need.
But those opinions have no value to 'em as you're gonna buy your stuff
without hearing 'em.
> > unless you just want to
> > play the role of audio nanny.
>
> I'm not insisting you share my opinion.
> Why do you seem so distressed that I don't
> share yours, Nanny?
Clyde is not telling other people what they need to do. Clyde lets 'em
decide for themslves.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> Tell you what, you go ahead and define my position
> for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies
> in it, and have a riproaring good time argument with yourself.
Sounds like a dog chasing its tail. I hear they have a good time with
'em. ;-)
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > has nothing to do with your or my opinions.
> > it has to do with your selected role as Self Proclaimed
> > Protector of The Audio Consumer
>
> LoL.... That would be your opinion of my opinion.
Duh.
Arny Krueger
> On May 11, 11:03 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:fd3e71f7-2cc6-4fa7...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com
>>> On May 11, 10:31 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I know of no SP blind test that has passed a formal or
>>>> informal peer review.
>>>
>>> As Stereophile is not a peer-reviewed academic journal,
>>> this statement is irrelevant in the [context] of _my_
>>> experience of organizing and taking part in such tests,
>>> which is considerable [compared] with that of blind-test
>>> advocate ScottW, which is zero.
>>
>> The fact that a publication is not formally
>> peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.
>
> Of course not.
Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other than one test of
loudspeakers (not electronics) that Stanley liked?
> And as I said, the test methodology we
> used for some of the tests in which I was involved was
> praised by a recognized authority in the field.
Well, one instance. With no attempt to correct your past screw-ups.
>>> But to address your point anyway, no less an authority
>>> than Stanley Lipshitz has gone on record commending
>>> Tom Norton and myself for the methodology of our
>>> blind speaker tests in the 1990s.
>>
>> I have no familiarity with that.
>
> I don't see why not.
Unlike you John, I don't claim to be a mind-reader or omnisicent.
> Stanley's letter was published in Stereophile.
Seems appropriate.
> Are you suggesting that if you don't
> take the time to read something, it does not exist,
> Mr. Krueger?
That seems very stupid, John. Why would you even bother to ask such a
ludicrous question?
Maybe it is true that you ghost-write for some of the RAO anonymous trolls,
after all. ;-)
>
> John Atkinson
> Editor, Stereophile
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> >> The fact that a publication is not formally
> >> peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.
>
> > Of course not.
>
> Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other than one test of
> loudspeakers (not electronics) that Stanley liked?
2pid is just as upset about this as you are, GOIA.
2pid also recently admitted that he doesn't read reviews to base his
buying decisions. More surprisingly, 2pid also admitted that he
doesn't even listen to equipment before buying it.
How about you, GOIA? Do you base you buying decisions on reviews in
audio magazines? Or do you listen to it before buying something? What
drives your audio purchases, GOIA?
I presume you base your decisions on reviews. Otherwise, your concern
about how reviews are written seems rather insane.
Arny Krueger
wrote in message
news:76e840aa-20e1-40a5...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
> On May 12, 8:18 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>
>>>> The fact that a publication is not formally
>>>> peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.
>>
>>> Of course not.
>>
>> Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other
>> than one test of loudspeakers (not electronics) that
>> Stanley liked?
>
> 2pid is just as upset about this as you are, GOIA.
>
> 2pid also recently admitted that he doesn't read reviews
> to base his buying decisions. More surprisingly, 2pid
> also admitted that he doesn't even listen to equipment
> before buying it.
>
> How about you, GOIA?
As a matter of principle SHITR, I'm not going to respond to any more posts
from you that refer to anybody being insane, not even the Middiot or
yourself.
George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> How about you, GOIA? Do you base you buying decisions on reviews in
> audio magazines? Or do you listen to it before buying something? What
> drives your audio purchases, GOIA?
Nothing fancy. Mainly the percentage discount off list. Turdy' speakers,
for example, are a pair of NHTs, which he purchased in the mistaken belief
that Ken Kantor, NHT's head of design, was a kindred spirit in the aBxism
religion. Of course, the Kroo waited until they were on clearance so he
could afford them.
> I presume you base your decisions on reviews. Otherwise, your concern
> about how reviews are written seems rather insane.
It's a mistake to connect the "debating trade" to reality. Krooger's
komplaints about reviews are conceived in the logical vacuum of an
aBxism-infused existence. In that dementian�, publishing subjective
reviews leads to forfeiture of the publisher's assets, and/or death.
Krooger would come right out and say "Don't fuck with us!" except that as
a good Kristian, he frowns on cursing in public.
Arny Krueger
message news:05lh24h7vajdp8ehu...@4ax.com
> My master Arny Krueger's speakers, for example, are a pair of NHTs,
Shows how poorly informed you are, Middiot.
I own 4 pair of NHT speakers:
One pair 2.5i
One pair A10
One pair Super One
One pair Super Zero
> he purchased in the mistaken belief that Ken Kantor,
> NHT's head of design, was a kindred spirit in the aBxism
> religion.
Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people whose opinion I
respected.
> Of course, the Kroo waited until they were on
> clearance so he could afford them.
All the above products remained in production for several years after I
purchased them.
In the case of the A10s, they remained in production for a shorter time than
the rest, due to a certain RAO regular's successful attempt to force their
manufacturer out of business through defamation and mismanagement.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artygu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote
> > On May 12, 8:18 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "John Atkinson" <stereoedi...@earthlink.net> wrote in
>
> >>>> The fact that a publication is not formally
> >>>> peer-reviewed is not a blank check for shoddy work.
>
> >>> Of course not.
>
> >> Then why the dreary track record of your magazine, other
> >> than one test of loudspeakers (not electronics) that
> >> Stanley liked?
>
> > 2pid is just as upset about this as you are, GOIA.
>
> > 2pid also recently admitted that he doesn't read reviews
> > to base his buying decisions. More surprisingly, 2pid
> > also admitted that he doesn't even listen to equipment
> > before buying it.
>
> > How about you, GOIA?
>
> As a matter of principle SHITR, I'm not going to respond to any more posts
> from you that refer to anybody being insane, not even the Middiot or
> yourself.
Perfect. For the record, I've never called George or myself "insane".
So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines in your buying
decisions? If "yes" which ones?
If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're done?
Clyde Slick
<artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> How about you, GOIA? Do you base you buying decisions on reviews in
> audio magazines? Or do you listen to it before buying something? What
> drives your audio purchases, GOIA?
>
>
Maybe Arny's steak habits will provide us a clue.
http://groceryguy.blogspot.com/2006/12/cheap-steaks-for-cheapskates.html
JBorg, Jr.
>> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> no, you insist that stereophile write DBT reviews.
>
>
>
>
> for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies
> in it,
>
>
Do you make an effort when asking stupid questions,
or is it a gift ?
There are numerous inconsistencies and fallacies
in your position. Number 0ne, in requiring the reviewers
to perform dbt audio testing on review samples, the test
would not proved anything to me if they fail to detect
differences.
Number two, there are cluster of aphids glowing on top
of your head. You will need a skillful barber to have
them remove. Let him shave your head and have him
scrape these clumps of tubules sticking out of your
scalp for small, additional fee.
Number three, these business of audio testing has gone
way over your head that I now think that eating bugs
would be a better alternative in helping to keep your
mind in check when you aren't so preoccupied with
your audio hardware. You should start by tallying the types
of bugs available to you in your front yard and have these
information ready next time McKelvy rear his ugly head
at Rao.
Number four, invite Arny "Tuck 'em boys" Krooger to your
house there in SoCal. Have him read the Bible while he's
sitting in your dining area. Have him read the passages
aloud all by himself as everyone gathers behind him.
After 20 minutes, immediately drill a quarter-inch holes
on bony prominences in the back of his head. Draw as
much blood as possible while observing Krooger closely as
he lapses further back into incoherancy. After 30 minutes,
plug the holes on the back of his head using rubber corks
sized to fit. Tell Arny to go fuck himself.
>
> ScottW
Clyde Slick
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artygu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in messagenews:76e840aa-20e1-40a5...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
Congrats to Shhh!
He finally figured out to silence Insane Arny.
Clyde Slick
>
> In the case of the A10s, they remained in production for a shorter time than
> the rest, due to a certain RAO regular's successful attempt to force their
> manufacturer out of business through defamation and mismanagement.
Who is that??
I really want you to answer, so I'll pass on calling you insane,
for just this one post.
Harry Lavo
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:g_ydnQpN7bGvRbXV...@comcast.com...
<snip>
> Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people whose opinion I
> respected.
>
In other words, he *didn't* listen to them. Reviewers subjective opions
are just for misleading the public, but those of your friends are a paragon
of objectivism, is that right Arny?
Arny Krueger
> So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines
> in your buying decisions?
Generally no.
> If "yes" which ones?
> If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're done?
Public safety and welfare. Also, just having fun shooting holes in a target
at least as big as the side of a barn.
I think every person who is interested in honesty and reason should have a
punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)
Arny Krueger
news:YvydnY6YNfUs-rTV...@comcast.com
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:g_ydnQpN7bGvRbXV...@comcast.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people
>> whose opinion I respected.
>>
>
> In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.
You're insane, Harry. You want everybody to think that I bought this stuff
and never listened to it! Trust me, I've listened to it all!
It's not my fault that so many people are stuffy about listening to the
equipment before they buy it!
> Reviewers subjective opions are just for misleading the public,
Well, those reviewers often first mislead themselves.
Secondly, I have not read a subjective review that did not make a big point
out of the reviewers thoughts about sound quality. Since most of these
reviewers don't know how to properly listen to audio gear, why should
anybody give them any credibility at all?
> but those of your friends are a paragon of objectivism, is that right
> Arny?
Not at all.
Almost all of my friends know what really matters, and they are smart enough
to know a reasonable listening test from an unreasonable one.
Harry Lavo
> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YvydnY6YNfUs-rTV...@comcast.com
>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>> news:g_ydnQpN7bGvRbXV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people
>>> whose opinion I respected.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.
>
> You're insane, Harry. You want everybody to think that I bought this stuff
> and never listened to it! Trust me, I've listened to it all!
>
> It's not my fault that so many people are stuffy about listening to the
> equipment before they buy it!
So you listened to it......but bought it based "on the recommendation of
people whose opinion I respected". That's you're statement. Doesn't say
much for your trust in your own judgement, does it Arny? Is that what this
is all about....you don't trust yourself to know really good sound from
mediocre sound,, and so you have to rely on the advice of "objectivist
friends" and measurements to tell you what buy?
Pretty pathetic.
>
>> Reviewers subjective opions are just for misleading the public,
>
> Well, those reviewers often first mislead themselves.
>
> Secondly, I have not read a subjective review that did not make a big
> point out of the reviewers thoughts about sound quality. Since most of
> these reviewers don't know how to properly listen to audio gear, why
> should anybody give them any credibility at all?
And you know how they listen, how? Would you care to quote specific
examples?
>> but those of your friends are a paragon of objectivism, is that right
>> Arny?
>
> Not at all.
>
> Almost all of my friends know what really matters, and they are smart
> enough to know a reasonable listening test from an unreasonable one.
And a reasonable listening test in your opinion is what, Arny, since you've
already ruled out ABX for speakers?
George M. Middius
Harry Lavo said:
> >> In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.
> > You're insane, Harry.
Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the "debating trade"
handbook requires you to ignore any post containing the word "insane".
ScottW
> > ScottW wrote:
> >> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
> >> no, you insist that stereophile write DBT reviews.
>
> > Tell you what, you go ahead and define my position
> > for me, point out the fallacies and inconsistencies
> > in it,
>
> Do you make an effort when asking stupid questions,
> or is it a gift ?
>
> There are numerous inconsistencies and fallacies
> in your position. Number 0ne, in requiring the reviewers
> to perform dbt audio testing on review samples, the test
> would not proved anything to me if they fail to detect
> differences.
To you. All I say is it would matter to me.
>
> Number two, there are cluster of aphids glowing on top
> of your head. You will need a skillful barber to have
> them remove. Let him shave your head and have him
> scrape these clumps of tubules sticking out of your
> scalp for small, additional fee.
>
> Number three, these business of audio testing has gone
> way over your head that I now think that eating bugs
> would be a better alternative in helping to keep your
> mind in check when you aren't so preoccupied with
> your audio hardware. You should start by tallying the types
> of bugs available to you in your front yard and have these
> information ready next time McKelvy rear his ugly head
> at Rao.
Why does my opinion of the value of DBT in audio
reviews send you into such a tizzy?
You'd think I hit you with an ESD gun set to 15 kV.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
As it turns out, that only applies to those calling GOIA insane.
George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > > >> In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.
> > > > You're insane, Harry.
> >
> > Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the "debating trade"
> > handbook requires you to ignore any post containing the word "insane".
>
> As it turns out, that only applies to those calling GOIA insane.
I don't know about that. Krooger has previously asserted that he is
obliged to follow "debating trade" rules. ;-)
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artygu...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in messagenews:e95f2935-4bc0-42ee...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
> > So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines
> > in your buying decisions?
>
> Generally no.
Therefore the two biggest advocates of DBTs for subjective magazine
reviews do not use reviews in their buying decision.
> > If "yes" which ones?
> > If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're done?
>
> Public safety and welfare.
I don't but based on reviews either. Who are you "protecting"?
> Also, just having fun shooting holes in a target
> at least as big as the side of a barn.
But you aren't. That's the funny part.
Isn't it true that a DBT only determines if that individual can detect
a difference in that setting?
> I think every person who is interested in honesty and reason should have a
> punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)
So in your opinion magazine reviewers "lie" when they write reviews.
Are you envious of the success JA has in the audio industry?
George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > I think every person who is interested in honesty and reason should have a
> > punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)
>
> So in your opinion magazine reviewers "lie" when they write reviews.
> Are you envious of the success JA has in the audio industry?
Krooger's list of taboo words:
1. insane
2. envious
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> Why does my opinion of the value of DBT in audio
> reviews send you into such a tizzy?
I didn't know that pointing out hypocrisy, misinformation, or poor
critical thinking skills qualified as a "tizzy". Is this (another) new
word definition?
UnsteadyKen
> Did you miss this, Harry? The latest revision of the "debating trade"
> handbook requires you to ignore any post containing the word "insane".
>
>
>
Post ignored
--
Ken
ScottW
That is poor critical thinking. See how easy meaningless
platitudes can be spewed?
Let's address your intellectual laziness next or will that just
send you into another tizzy?
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Hm. How can it be that your being really, really pissed that a
magazine you don't read whose reviews you don't use aren't doing tests
that you've never done yourself might be considered "hypocrisy" or
"poor critical thinking"?
And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
on my part?
LOL! Please explain.
Arny Krueger
> On May 13, 6:13 am, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artygu...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:e95f2935-4bc0-42ee...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> So do you use reviews of equipment from audio magazines
>>> in your buying decisions?
>> Generally no.
> Therefore the two biggest advocates of DBTs for
> subjective magazine reviews do not use reviews in their buying decision.
Reason being that magazine reviews are cheap slapdash affairs, whose
fabricators can't be bothered with the trouble to use adequate procedures to
back up their recommendations.
>>> If "yes" which ones?
>>> If "no", why are you so concerned about how they're
>>> done?
>> Public safety and welfare.
> I don't but based on reviews either. Who are you "protecting"?
I'm not protecting anybody. However, I am against abusing people by foisting
off opinons based on inadequate evidence.
>> Also, just having fun shooting holes in a target
>> at least as big as the side of a barn.
> But you aren't.
Delusions of omniscience noted. How do you know whether I'm having fun or
not?
>That's the funny part.
What's funny is watching you abuse logic and reason, SHITR.
> Isn't it true that a DBT only determines if that
> individual can detect a difference in that setting?
That would be true for DBTs involving just one individual. If that one
individual is me, then the results would be completely relevant to me.
>> I think every person who is interested in honesty and
>> reason should have a
>> punching bag about the size of John Atkinson. ;-)
> So in your opinion magazine reviewers "lie" when they
> write reviews.
I think that many of them are so poorly-informed that they are probably
sincere about the bilge they write and have published under their names or
aliases.
> Are you envious of the success JA has in the audio
> industry?
Do you seriously call what John has done to his reputation in serious
technical circles "success"?
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:Lb-dnRbtodC75LTV...@comcast.com...
>> "Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:YvydnY6YNfUs-rTV...@comcast.com
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g_ydnQpN7bGvRbXV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Nahh, I bought them on the recommendation of people
>>>> whose opinion I respected.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In other words, he *didn't* listen to them.
>>
>> You're insane, Harry. You want everybody to think that I
>> bought this stuff and never listened to it! Trust me,
>> I've listened to it all!
>> It's not my fault that so many people are stuffy about
>> listening to the equipment before they buy it!
>
> So you listened to it......but bought it based "on the
> recommendation of people whose opinion I respected".
You have the steps out of order.
> That's you're statement.
No, that's your statement. As usual, you've got things bass ackwards. ;-)
> Doesn't say much for your trust
> in your own judgement, does it Arny?
I guess you're unaware of the concept of return privileges, Harry. Here's a
tip Harry, return priveleges are what you get when you buy things through
most modern sales facilities as opposed to buying from Sick Sam a nearby
parking lot.
> Is that what this
> is all about....you don't trust yourself to know really
> good sound from mediocre sound,, and so you have to rely
> on the advice of "objectivist friends" and measurements
> to tell you what buy?
That's a wild set of conclusions you've lept to, Harry.
> Pretty pathetic.
Pretty pathetic how you leap to conclusions, Harry.
>>> Reviewers subjective opions are just for misleading
>>> the public,
>>
>> Well, those reviewers often first mislead themselves.
>> Secondly, I have not read a subjective review that did
>> not make a big point out of the reviewers thoughts about
>> sound quality. Since most of these reviewers don't know
>> how to properly listen to audio gear, why should anybody
>> give them any credibility at all?
> And you know how they listen, how?
Read the articles.
> Would you care to quote specific examples?
Well, lets start with any formal power amplifier review from Stereophile,
published in the last 40 or so years.
>>> but those of your friends are a paragon of objectivism,
>>> is that right Arny?
>
>> Not at all.
>> Almost all of my friends know what really matters, and
>> they are smart enough to know a reasonable listening
>> test from an unreasonable one.
> And a reasonable listening test in your opinion is what,
> Arny, since you've already ruled out ABX for speakers?
ABX for power amplifiers and players.
Arny Krueger
news:MPG.2293e948f...@news.btinternet.com
Not worth the trouble - I ignored every post that the Middiot made that
mentioned me or one of my posts for several years, and it had no effect on
his posting habits whatsoever. He obviously posts for himself. I guess the
idea of typing something in no matter how childish and stupid, and then
seeing it on the Internet is all he needs.
George M. Middius
KrazyBorg lied:
> > Therefore the two biggest advocates of DBTs for
> > subjective magazine reviews do not use reviews in their buying decision.
> Reason being that magazine reviews are cheap slapdash affairs
Stop lying, Turdbucket. The "reason" is you're too demented to understand
what the reviewers are talking about.
The fact is that subjective reviews are quite the opposite of "slapdash".
They are typically exhaustive, excruciatingly detailed, and laden with a
haze of ineffable concepts. All of those characteristics overtax your
limited ability to process human language.
Arnii, it's too bad your insanity prevents you from seeing yourself as
Normals see you. Otherwise you'd be forced to, you know, end it all.
ScottW
<artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 1:13 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 10:53 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 13, 11:05 am, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Why does my opinion of the value of DBT in audio
> > > > reviews send you into such a tizzy?
>
> > > I didn't know that pointing out hypocrisy, misinformation, or poor
> > > critical thinking skills qualified as a "tizzy". Is this (another) new
> > > word definition?
>
> > That is poor critical thinking. See how easy meaningless
> > platitudes can be spewed?
> > Let's address your intellectual laziness next or will that just
> > send you into another tizzy?
>
> Hm. How can it be that your being really, really pissed
I'm not. I know reality is elusive to you but do rry to get a grip.
> that a
> magazine you don't read whose reviews you don't use aren't doing tests
> that you've never done yourself might be considered "hypocrisy" or
> "poor critical thinking"?
If you said corrupt, I'd yell bingo for you.
>
> And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
> on my part?
How about just plain wrong?
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
According to GOIA, they're lying. According to you, they're corrcupt.
LOL!
> > And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
> > on my part?
>
> How about just plain wrong?
If you yelled "I'm stupid!" I'd yell "Bingo!" for you.
ScottW
You complain when I take out letters, how about your tendency to add
them?
>
> > > And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
> > > on my part?
>
> > How about just plain wrong?
>
> If you yelled "I'm stupid!" I'd yell "Bingo!"
All your arguments boil down to the same childish hate.
Oh well....
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On May 13, 2:43 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > According to GOIA, they're lying. According to you, they're corrcupt.
> > LOL!
>
> You complain when I take out letters, how about your tendency to add
> them?
Are yrs smple tpos? LOL!
> > > > And how is that a "meaningless platitude", or "intellectual laziness"
> > > > on my part?
>
> > > How about just plain wrong?
>
> > If you yelled "I'm stupid!" I'd yell "Bingo!"
>
> All your arguments boil down to the same childish hate.
> Oh well....
Hate? LOL!