Nousaine = No Science
Powell
Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
panel... ho-hum. The use of a listening panel to support
the bias of his benefactor... the magazine publisher...
really impressive :-(. Where does he get the subjects for
these listening panels? He says that they are
audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
known... no.
The red-herring of his arguments is the use of people who
may or may not be qualified subjects. What was the total
pool of subjects available for these listening tests? Of
this group what methodology was used to screen the subjects
with the highest hearing acuity? In what area of science
are test run using unscreened subjects and the results
published as facts... none... whoops, Stereo Review.
Nousaine = No Science.
Behaviorist
We3millerz
>Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
>panel... ho-hum. The use of a listening panel to support
>the bias of his benefactor... the magazine publisher...
It is too easy to shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. I am not a
huge fan of Stereo Review either, much less it publishers, but one of the
things I think it has going for it is the fact that it publishes Tom Nousaine's
articles.
Over the years, I have found Nousaine to be one of the most reliable of writers
I have read--and one whose results I find consistently repeatable in my own
work and experience. I find this especially true with regard to his many and
utterly reliable articles on the realtionship between speaker and subwoofer
placement and room response.
Your belittling of the methodology does not necessarily negate the findings,
and I think one has to see the work and the article in the scope and context of
the effort. Otherwise, you sound like a champion of the tobacco industry
saying [until the industry finally fessed up, caved in and paid the claims and
fines] that the researched was flawed and there was no conclusive proof in the
studies, etc., ad nauseum.
The best way to challenge Nousaine's findings would be to repeat the work with
a larger sampling and any more rigorous method of procedure and control--and
then publish your results...unless, of course, your interest is in simply
thumbing your nose...
RCGRND
Really well said, we3millerz.
Actually, it would seem that the large difference in cost of the two systems
should not require specially trained listeners to hear the benefit of the
larger expenditure...if there was one.
A key is repeatability and that is one of Nousaine's strong suits. I expect
that he would be happy if someone...anyone...would run the same test with
equipment of their choice, with a little care, and report the results.
Regards
Marc Blank
RCGRND wrote:
Of course, this HAS been done, and the results have been discussed here
regularly (just recently about the Stereophile blind tests). Basically, they
are dismissed out of hand by Nousaine and his crowd. As I've said before, this
argument is really about faith and dogma, because results from either camp are
refuted by the other.
It is just as fair to trash Nousaine's tests as it is for him to trash other
people's tests. I leave it to you to decide just how fair both sides have
been....
- Marc
Powell
We3millerz<WE3MI...@AOL.COM wrote
>
>Your belittling of the methodology does
>not necessarily negate the findings, and
>I think one has to see the work and the
>article in the scope and context of the
>effort.
>
It's not rocket science. Garbage in garbage out.
>The best way to challenge Nousaine's
>findings would be to repeat the work with
>a larger sampling and any more rigorous
>method of procedure and control--and
>then publish your results...
>
This has been done why re-invent the wheel. Perhaps all
that is need is for Nousaine to clean up his act... and for
you... get a decent audio subscription :-).
Gene Steinberg
In article <35648A12...@eidetic.com>, Marc Blank
<mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote:
>Of course, this HAS been done, and the results have been discussed here
>regularly (just recently about the Stereophile blind tests). Basically, they
>are dismissed out of hand by Nousaine and his crowd. As I've said
before, this
>argument is really about faith and dogma, because results from either camp are
>refuted by the other.
One day you will make an accurate statement. But I won' thold my breath.
The issues involving those blind tests have been explained chapter and
version. Read them before you make up this crap.
>
>It is just as fair to trash Nousaine's tests as it is for him to trash other
>people's tests. I leave it to you to decide just how fair both sides have
>been....
He doesn't trash other people's tests unless the methodology is faulty.
You, however, will trash his trash because you don't like the results.
MtryCraft
we3mi...@aol.com (We3millerz) wrote:
>Date: Thu, May 21, 1998 7:48 PM
>Message-id: <199805211948...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>snips
>The best way to challenge Nousaine's findings would be to repeat the >work
with
>a larger sampling and any more rigorous method of procedure and control->-and
>then publish your results...unless, of course, your interest is in simply
>thumbing your nose...
Or he is afraid of the answers. Don't do the experiment if you cannot accept
the data.
MtryCraft
rcg...@aol.com (RCGRND) wrote
>Date: Thu, May 21, 1998 8:05 PM
>Message-id: <199805212005...@ladder03.news.aol.com>
>Really well said, we3millerz.
Yes it was.
>Actually, it would seem that the large difference in cost of the two >systems
>should not require specially trained listeners to hear the benefit of the
>larger expenditure...if there was one.
>A key is repeatability and that is one of Nousaine's strong suits. I expect
>that he would be happy if someone...anyone...would run the same test with
>equipment of their choice, with a little care, and report the results.
>Regards
Tom is doing the high-end's work in trying to prove the hypothesis and the ad
nausium of claims. He is not afraid of the resulting data whereas the hi-end
is; consequently they don't do it.
Peter Corey
On Thu, 21 May 1998 13:11:19 -0400
Powell wrote:
> Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
> panel... ho-hum. The use of a listening panel to support
> the bias of his benefactor... the magazine publisher...
> really impressive :-(. Where does he get the subjects for
> these listening panels? He says that they are
> audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
> know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
> known... no.
>
> The red-herring of his arguments is the use of people who
> may or may not be qualified subjects. What was the total
> pool of subjects available for these listening tests? Of
> this group what methodology was used to screen the subjects
> with the highest hearing acuity? In what area of science
> are test run using unscreened subjects and the results
> published as facts... none... whoops, Stereo Review.
> Nousaine = No Science.
Would you consider holding Stereophile to the same standard ?
God luv ya !
^ __
0 || --
Reply to :
pc...@bellevue.org
FAX: 1-2BU TNM YSHU
Marc Blank
Gene Steinberg wrote:
False. I distrust his results because of his biases and because of the
methodology. Is this sufficient? (it is for you...)
- Marc
Steve Maki
Powell wrote:
> Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
> panel... ho-hum. The use of a listening panel to support
> the bias of his benefactor... the magazine publisher...
> really impressive :-(. Where does he get the subjects for
> these listening panels? He says that they are
> audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
> know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
> known... no.
I was a member of his "panel". I am an audio enthusiast.
I'm sure Tom would love to have YOU take part in his next
test. Are you game Powell?
--
Steve Maki
James M. Cate
Powell wrote:
> We3millerz<WE3MI...@AOL.COM wrote
> >
> >Y
> The effort was little... the desired outcome pre-determined.
> It's not rocket science. Garbage in garbage out.
Exactly what did you find to be "garbage," Powell? And what exactly is
YOUR desired outcome??Your biases have been documented over and over on
this group, and oviously the SR tests don't support YOUR biases. --
That's the real issue with respect to your notes.
>
>
> >The best way to challenge Nousaine's
> >findings would be to repeat the work with
> >a larger sampling and any more rigorous
> >method of procedure and control--and
> >then publish your results...
> >
> This has been done why re-invent the wheel. Perhaps all
> that is need is for Nousaine to clean up his act... and for
> you... get a decent audio subscription :-).
Again, exactly where does he need to "clean up" his act? As mentioned
in previous notes, with the glaring contrast between the high end
system, and the low end Geak system, any audiophiles chosen at random
should have EASILY detected OBVIOUS, GLARING differences between the two
systems, if the "Black Magic", "you get what you pay for" positions had
any validity whatsoever..You shouldn't need a carefully selected group
of golden ears for a simple test like this. Yet, unless you want to
disbelieve anything he says, he DID select a group of careful,
conscientious audiophiles, several of whom had high-end systems. Yet
NONE of them (not one) could tell the difference within statistically
significant margins. --
Concerning the tests to which you refer:
(a) Were the tested systems level matched within .1dB? (If not,
they were meaningless.)
(b) Did the listeners know which component or system they were
listening to?
(c) Were the listeners seated in the same position, at the same
distance from the speakers, during all the tests?
(d) Were the components to be tested selected randomly?
--Need to go back and clean up your act, Powell?
JimCate
Marc Blank
James M. Cate wrote:
> Again, exactly where does he need to "clean up" his act? As mentioned
> in previous notes, with the glaring contrast between the high end
> system, and the low end Geak system, any audiophiles chosen at random
> should have EASILY detected OBVIOUS, GLARING differences between the two
> systems, if the "Black Magic", "you get what you pay for" positions had
> any validity whatsoever..You shouldn't need a carefully selected group
> of golden ears for a simple test like this. Yet, unless you want to
> disbelieve anything he says, he DID select a group of careful,
> conscientious audiophiles, several of whom had high-end systems. Yet
> NONE of them (not one) could tell the difference within statistically
> significant margins. --
I think you're wrong about this. I see a HUGE, glaring contrast between a
VHS picture and a LaserDisc picture (not to mention DVD). Probably you do
too. However, to the vast majority of consumers (who are also mid-fi
buyers), the differences are small and, to 70% I believe in one survey, not
worth paying for. How do you explain this?
The fact is that to someone who has a passing interest in music, a given set
of differences are probably very small or even inaudible. To someone with a
significant interest, the differences are likely to appear larger. To an
"audiophile", obsessed with the quality of sound, those same differences may
be "major".
I think you are fooling yourself if you think that most audiophiles believe
that "large" differences are large in the absolute sense, rather than in a
personal sense, to THEM.
- Marc
Marc Blank
Mikeylikst wrote:
Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists are anything more
than deluded.
--
Nobody but a moron makes statements like the above.
- Marc
Marc Blank
Mikeylikst wrote:
The fact that you were on the panel, Steve, proves to me that the test
cannot be taken seriously. Can you say "placebo effect"? Since you
have staked many a claim here about differences not existing, how can
ANYONE take this seriously. GMAB.
- Marc
Gruvmyster
MtryCraft wrote:
>Tom is doing the high-end's work in trying to prove the hypothesis and the ad
>nausium of claims. He is not afraid of the resulting data whereas the hi-end
>is; consequently they don't do it.
Yup! You done nailed it on the head!
The reason I do not do all these tests is because I'm afraid of the
results. It has nothing to do with being satisfied with my current
system, having better things to do, not caring if you like my system,
or not having to prove anything to you.
It's all fear!
Whatta guy!
Doug
Mikeylikst
>From: "Behaviorist"
Perhaps one of B.F. Skinner's progeny. Everything OK in the box?
>Well said.
>Powell wrote in message <6k1ni8$6qp$1...@supernews.com>...
>>Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
>>panel... ho-hum. The use of a
Yes it's a well written piece of drivel, by someone who doesn't know what they
are talking about.
Mike McKelvy
No one ever went broke
underestimating the taste
of the American public.
Mikeylikst
>From: we3mi...@aol.com (We3millerz)
>It is too easy to shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. I am not
>a
>huge fan of Stereo Review either, much less it publishers, but one of the
>things I think it has going for it is the fact that it publishes Tom
>Nousaine's
>articles.
>
>Over the years, I have found Nousaine to be one of the most reliable of
>writers
>I have read--and one whose results I find consistently repeatable in my own
>work and experience. I find this especially true with regard to his many and
>utterly reliable articles on the realtionship between speaker and subwoofer
>placement and room response.
>
>Your belittling of the methodology does not necessarily negate the findings,
>and I think one has to see the work and the article in the scope and context
>of
>the effort. Otherwise, you sound like a champion of the tobacco industry
>saying [until the industry finally fessed up, caved in and paid the claims
>and
>fines] that the researched was flawed and there was no conclusive proof in
>the
>studies, etc., ad nauseum.
>
>The best way to challenge Nousaine's findings would be to repeat the work
>with
>a larger sampling and any more rigorous method of procedure and control--and
>then publish your results...unless, of course, your interest is in simply
>thumbing your nose...
></PRE></HTML>
NOW THAT, is well said.
Mikeylikst
>From: Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com
>RCGRND wrote:
>> Really well said, we3millerz.
>> A key is repeatability and that is one of Nousaine's strong suits. I
>expect
>> that he would be happy if someone...anyone...would run the same test with
>> equipment of their choice, with a little care, and report the results.
>>
>Of course, this HAS been done, and the results have been discussed here
>regularly (just recently about the Stereophile blind tests). Basically, they
>are dismissed out of hand by Nousaine and his crowd.
Only the ones that are improperly done.
> As I've said before, this
>argument is really about faith and dogma, because results from either camp
>are
>refuted by the other.
Let's see we have the incompetent from Stereophile, doing poorly controlled
listening, with too few trials, refuting the people like Nousaine, Maki,
Carlstrom, et al, who run tests with proper controls and trials. Jeez whom
should I believe? GMAB.
The faith and dogma comes from the Stereophile/TAS/Fi crowd, making claims that
are at best feelings. The bottom line is they are sore loosers, and refuse to
believe that sighted tests are meaningless.
>It is just as fair to trash Nousaine's tests as it is for him to trash other
>people's tests. I leave it to you to decide just how fair both sides have
>been....
>
>- Marc
How could any rational person trust the claims of the subjectivists?
The niche they have carved out for themselves is miniscule, in comparison to
people with degrees in Electronics and related audio fields. They laugh at
subjectivists beliefs about audio electronics. It's a fact that what Nousaine
and the rest do in the way of testing is supported by researchers around the
world. Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists are
anything more than deluded.
Mikeylikst
>From: Steve Maki
>Powell wrote:
>
>> Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
>> panel... ho-hum. The use of a listening panel to support
>> the bias of his benefactor... the magazine publisher...
>> really impressive :-(. Where does he get the subjects for
>> these listening panels? He says that they are
>> audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
>> know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
>> known... no.
>
>I was a member of his "panel". I am an audio enthusiast.
>
>I'm sure Tom would love to have YOU take part in his next
>test. Are you game Powell?
>
>--
>Steve Maki
Is that clucking I hear from you Powell?
A. Kuan
Mikeylikst wrote:
> Let's see we have the incompetent from Stereophile, doing poorly controlled
> listening, with too few trials, refuting the people like Nousaine, Maki,
> Carlstrom, et al, who run tests with proper controls and trials. Jeez whom
> should I believe? GMAB.
> The faith and dogma comes from the Stereophile/TAS/Fi crowd, making claims that
> are at best feelings. The bottom line is they are sore loosers, and refuse to
> believe that sighted tests are meaningless.
>
>
> How could any rational person trust the claims of the subjectivists?
> The niche they have carved out for themselves is miniscule, in comparison to
> people with degrees in Electronics and related audio fields. They laugh at
> subjectivists beliefs about audio electronics. It's a fact that what Nousaine
> and the rest do in the way of testing is supported by researchers around the
> world. Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists are
> anything more than deluded.
>
Then why bother responding to the subjectivists' post? You basically saying
that the subjectivists are indeed very small in number and everyone knows they
are deluded. If that is true, let them alone! They are not a threat. What are you
afraid of? More unsuspecting individuals falling into the high-end scam?
No way is going to happen since most peope have "more than 2 active neurons".
I'm still trying to make some sense out of this post...
Arny Krüger
Powell wrote in message <6k1ni8$6qp$1...@supernews.com>...
>Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
>panel... ho-hum. The use of a listening panel to support
>the bias of his benefactor... the magazine publisher...
Since you seem to be independently wealthy, you may be unfamiliar with most
people's need to work and get paid for it, to earn a living. Tom's a
free-lance writer.
>really impressive :-(. Where does he get the subjects for these listening
panels?
Experienced audiophiles in the age range from about 20 to about 50, many
with really pretty good home systems. Some of them have shown themselves in
my blind tests to be among the most sensitive listeners around. For example,
one guy he used was the only one of 2 people to return positive results for
the more demanding tracks of my "Perceptual Challenge" CD's.
>He says that they are
>audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him?
I know some of these guys well for over a decade and I've known Tom for
about 20 years. They are all for real.
>Are they
>know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
>known... no.
I suspect that if any known audio writers took one of my perceptual
challenge CD's they would do no better than Tom's listeners.
>The red-herring of his arguments is the use of people who
>may or may not be qualified subjects.
A valid concern, but based on what I know about who these guys were, simply
not the problem.
>What was the total
>pool of subjects available for these listening tests?
I think Tom knows over 100 audiophiles who were potential candidates for
this.
>Of this group what methodology was used to screen the subjects
>with the highest hearing acuity?
I don't think we have any evidence that any of the magazine writers you love
and admire are, on the average, more sensitive listeners than the folks Tom
used.
> In what area of science
>are test run using unscreened subjects and the results
>published as facts... none... whoops, Stereo Review.
>Nousaine = No Science.
Since you have tacitly admitted you know of no problems with Tom's
listeners, you are just speculating.
Sander deWaal
On Thu, 21 May 1998 13:11:19 -0400, "Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote
the following:
>Yet another published article by Nousaine using a listening
>panel... ho-hum. The use of a listening panel to support
>the bias of his benefactor... the magazine publisher...
>really impressive :-(. Where does he get the subjects for
>these listening panels? He says that they are
>audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
>know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
>known... no.
While I didn't read the article, I can't imagine
mr. Nousaine using anybody else than
"audio enthousiasts" for his tests.
Who else would be interested?
If I were to live in the US, I'd sure try
to attend such a test one day.
Maybe you should, too, Powell.............
_
Sander deWaal
postm...@pegasus.demon.nl
www.pegasus.demon.nl
_______________________________________________
krom...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3564EA41...@eidetic.com>,
But:
1)As was mentioned, several people in the test had high-end megabuck
systems. They may not 'care' about audio as much as you would like them
to, but there's no denying that they were not Joe Average.
2)If you asked Joe Average to pick out which looked better, VHS or
LD, (assuming you used a non-widescreen LD because JA would say "VHS is
better, if has more picture" :-) ), I'm *positive* nobody would mistake
the quality difference.
Andy K.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
krom...@my-dejanews.com
Powell
>Arny Krüger wrote
>Since you seem to be independently wealthy,
>you may be unfamiliar with most people's
>need to work and get paid for it, to earn a
>living. Tom's a free-lance writer.
Ok... let me see if I understand what your saying here.
Even if Nousaine was paid for his article he was under NO
obligation to follow the most basic scientific method. If
his findings had proved the contrary would Stereo Review
have published the story... I think NOT.
>Experienced audiophiles in the age range
>from about 20 to about 50, many with really
>pretty good home systems. Some of them
>have shown themselves in my blind tests to
>be among the most sensitive listeners
>around.
>
I'm sure you would not want to be perceived as a
hypocrite... so please provide documentation showing that
the selected hearing panel possesses a hearing acuity
greater than the average human being. To use your words
"The usual criteria for a serious scientific test is 99%
confidence...". Ok... show a 99% confidence level above the
baseline (average person) for hearing acuity. You want to
be taken seriously don't you?
>I know some of these guys well for over
>a decade and I've known Tom for about
>20 years. They are all for real.
>
>A valid concern, but based on what I know
>about who these guys were, simply not the
>problem.
>
You have one of the poorest hearing acuity levels of anyone
I know. If your association with panel members is proof of
their capabilities then your making my case. I don't need
your help... thank you :-).
>I think Tom knows over 100 audiophiles
>who were potential candidates for this.
>
Is that a fact or opinion... do you know the difference?
>I don't think we have any evidence that any
>of the magazine writers you love and admire
>are, on the average, more sensitive listeners
>than the folks Tom used.
>
Heheheh... oh, a moment of jocularity. Well since you put
it that way here is my list of panel members for your
subjectivist equipment screening tests: G. Holt, H. Pearson,
A. Cordesman. Get them... I'll forgo the need to quantify
hearing acuity in that portion of the pre-screening phase of
a scientifically based test.
>Since you have tacitly admitted you
>know of no problems with Tom's listeners,
>you are just speculating.
>
I'm not saying all Objectivists are back-sliders... just
your group. Why is it that your group is so anal compulsive
when it comes to matching line levels and the sort but
overlook all other parameters? We are all seeking the
truth... but you'll not achieve your objective through
mental masturbation... of which your are the King ;-).
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <6k288e$i4m$1...@supernews.com>, Powell <hig...@gtii.com> wrote:
>We3millerz<WE3MI...@AOL.COM wrote
>The effort was little... the desired outcome pre-determined.
>It's not rocket science. Garbage in garbage out.
That is an accusation of scientific fraud.
Either provide some evidence of your claim, or cease making it.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1998, 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
In article <3565012f...@news.idt.net>,
Gruvmyster <dhau...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>It has nothing to do with being satisfied with my current
>system, having better things to do, not caring if you like my system,
>or not having to prove anything to you.
That's your preference. Your preference is fine. In that case, why
do you care, if you are so indifferent, that people explain how to run
non-biased tests? Why do you engage in your disputatious, misleading
attacks on those people?
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
>a larger sampling and any more rigorous method of procedure and control--and
>then publish your results...unless, of course, your interest is in simply
>thumbing your nose...
switching, and have a large, well-trained body of subjects.
If you do that, you should be able to publish this in a good referred
journal. That would be a start.
Powell
>Sander deWaal wrote
>
>While I didn't read the article, I can't imagine
>mr. Nousaine using anybody else than
>"audio enthousiasts" for his tests.
>
That statement "I can't imagine" a is leap-of-faith. There
is no place for such assumptions in the scientific method.
Could you take people off the street (non-audio
enthousiasts) and repeat the panel test and find contrary
findings... of course NOT.
George M. Middius
Marc Blank said:
>Mikeylikst wrote:
>Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists
>are anything more than deluded.
>Nobody but a moron makes statements like the above.
I thought it was settled that Mikey is an imbecilic retard.
George M. Middius
remove "jiffy" to reply
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The Audio Campfire Song
On top of Smug Mountain all covered in SNOT,
The Krooborg is lurking, its brain soon to clot.
Now music's a pleasure and measurements are grief,
And a metronic cyborg allows no relief.
A tube amp will please you and the music make whole,
But a cyborg will goo you and smother your soul.
"Tube bigot!" it cries, with its circuits closed tight,
"Do what I tell you, and don't give me a fight!"
As humans love music, yet they must also be free,
The Krooborg's so smarmy that it cackles with glee.
It tells you to "listen," and a placebo you'll hear,
Then out comes the goo-tank to fill you with fear.
All humans have feelings but cyborgs do not,
When you speak of pleasure, it answers with SNOT.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <35650CF4...@eidetic.com>,
Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com> wrote:
>The fact that you were on the panel, Steve, proves to me that the test
>cannot be taken seriously. Can you say "placebo effect"? Since you
>have staked many a claim here about differences not existing, how can
>ANYONE take this seriously. GMAB.
Marc, until you can provide evidence, you're simply engaging in ad-hominem
attacks here.
If you can show from the subjective data that he is shirking, OUT with
the data. If you can't, stop making this claim.
In my tests, some of the most skeptical people are also the most sensitive,
productive (in terms of accuracy) listeners.
There is NO reason to disqualify Maki based on his preconceptions. That's
what blind tests with controls are FO.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <6k4152$m3j$1...@supernews.com>, Powell <hig...@gtii.com> wrote:
>
>Even if Nousaine was paid for his article he was under NO
>obligation to follow the most basic scientific method.
under obligation to be fair, and what is your evidence that he
was unfair even if that option was open to him?
>If
>his findings had proved the contrary would Stereo Review
>have published the story... I think NOT.
What is your evidence?
>I'm sure you would not want to be perceived as a
>hypocrite... so please provide documentation showing that
>the selected hearing panel possesses a hearing acuity
>greater than the average human being.
And, now, you claim that hearing acuity is important in a listening
test? More important that training? Does this imply that not only
you claim to know that Arnold's data gathered in subjects is false, but
also that "hearing acuity" is more important than actual measured performance
on tests?
I think you're far, far afield here.
>You have one of the poorest hearing acuity levels of anyone
>I know.
Interesting assertion. Care to prove it?
>If your association with panel members is proof of
>their capabilities then your making my case.
Guilt by association? The browns would be proud of you.
>Is that a fact or opinion... do you know the difference?
He said "I think". Read much?
>Heheheh... oh, a moment of jocularity. Well since you put
>it that way here is my list of panel members for your
>subjectivist equipment screening tests: G. Holt, H. Pearson,
>A. Cordesman. Get them... I'll forgo the need to quantify
>hearing acuity in that portion of the pre-screening phase of
>a scientifically based test.
Oooh. Ok. How about you get them all to agree to come here, for
free, and participate in a controlled test that I can publish
the results of?
Powell
>jj, curmudgeon wrote
>
>That is an accusation of scientific fraud.
>
Yup!
>Either provide some evidence of your claim, or cease making
it.
>
I asked questions... what part of the English language
didn't you understand <:-|?
Powell
jj, curmudgeon wrote
>>If his findings had proved the contrary
>>would Stereo Review have published
>>the story... I think NOT.
>What is your evidence?
>
Empirical... the existence of Stereo Review.
>And, now, you claim that hearing acuity
>is important in a listening test?
>
HELLO... clue phone... it for you jj.
>I think you're far, far afield here.
>
Hehehehehe.... right!
>Oooh. Ok. How about you get them all
>to agree to come here, for free, and
>participate in a controlled test that I
>can publish the results of?
>
Oh yea... I'm sure if I dropped your name they would flock
to such an experiment... being so well known as you ego
suggests ;-).
Steve Maki
Marc Blank wrote:
> The fact that you were on the panel, Steve, proves to me that the test
> cannot be taken seriously. Can you say "placebo effect"? Since you
> have staked many a claim here about differences not existing, how can
> ANYONE take this seriously. GMAB.
I'll ignore the insult.
But what about the other (six?) listeners? Don't they deserve your
*fair* benefit of the doubt, unless you have *evidence* to the
contrary?
GMAB. You've been sliding lately Marc.
--
Steve Maki
Greg Pavlov
Powell (hig...@gtii.com) wrote:
:
: .... Where does he get the subjects for
: these listening panels? He says that they are
: audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
: know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
: known... no.
:
My suspicion is that regardless of one's biases,
such a test constitutes a competition and most
people (males, anyway) will try to "win", which
in this case is to be able to distinguish compon-
ents.
: The red-herring of his arguments is the use of people who
: may or may not be qualified subjects. What was the total
: pool of subjects available for these listening tests? Of
: this group what methodology was used to screen the subjects
: with the highest hearing acuity? .....
:
Since the only restriction on the purchase of audio
components is whether one has the money (or plastic)
to buy them, I do not see the utility of selecting
subjects "with the highest hearing acuity". But if
you believe this to be an important condition, why
not demand that Sereophile and TAS subject all of its
reviewers to evaluations to ensure that they, also,
have the "highest hearing acuity" ?
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with Canisius College]
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <6k43qi$r1o$1...@supernews.com>, Powell <hig...@gtii.com> wrote:
>>jj, curmudgeon wrote
>>That is an accusation of scientific fraud.
>Yup!
asking questions.
Provide some evidence, please.
>I asked questions... what part of the English language
>didn't you understand <:-|?
I understand clearly. You won't provide any support for the
accusations you made.
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
In article <6k44jc$id$1...@supernews.com>, Powell <hig...@gtii.com> wrote:
>> me
>>And, now, you claim that hearing acuity
>>is important in a listening test?
>HELLO... clue phone... it for you jj.
that one has undamaged ears, etc.
It does not include listening experience.
Your claim, as written, indicated that listening experience was
unnecessary.
Please provide your evidence.
>Oh yea... I'm sure if I dropped your name they would flock
>to such an experiment... being so well known as you ego
>suggests.
Why don't you try, and find out?
Oh, and if you're making a claim that I am lying about my
experience, either provide proof, OR RETRACT YOUR ACCUSATION
IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!
Oh, and btw.
Deliver the accusation of lying you have made IMMEDIATELY
to my professional societies' ethics committees, or be known to be violating
any oaths of ethics you have taken in yours.
STAND AND DELIVER!
George M. Middius
Phoebe puts on her Stoopid Cap.
>>It has nothing to do with being satisfied with my current
>>system, having better things to do, not caring if you like
>>my system, or not having to prove anything to you.
>That's your preference. Your preference is fine.
Tell that to the Bug Eater. He thinks tube amps
are "inferior." And the Krooborg! Don't get me
started. "If you like inaccurate, distorted sound,
your gun, your bullet .... ;-)"
>In that case, why do you care, if you are so indifferent,
>that people explain how to run non-biased tests?
If you think that's what your vile crew are up to,
you're even more deluded than previously thought.
>Why do you engage in your disputatious,
>misleading attacks on those people?
When good men stand idly by, then does evil
flourish. So we don't, and it doesn't.
Powell
>jj, curmudgeon
>Oh, and if you're making a claim that
>I am lying about my experience, either
>provide proof, OR RETRACT YOUR
>ACCUSATION IMMEDIATELY AND
>WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!
>
I can hear you stomping your feet from this side of the
keyboard. Temper-temper little boy... do you need your
mommy, jj :-).
>Deliver the accusation of lying you have
>made IMMEDIATELY to my professional
>societies' ethics committees, or be known
>to be violating any oaths of ethics you
>have taken in yours.
>
>STAND AND DELIVER!
>
I have seen this boiler plate response before... I'm
unimpressed... ho-hum.
jsrt...@colorado.net
> his findings had proved the contrary would Stereo Review
> have published the story... I think NOT.
>
How you can make this statement is beyond me, since you have shown not the
slightest familiarity with the scientific method...
> Heheheh... oh, a moment of jocularity. Well since you put
> it that way here is my list of panel members for your
> subjectivist equipment screening tests: G. Holt, H. Pearson,
> A. Cordesman. Get them... I'll forgo the need to quantify
> hearing acuity in that portion of the pre-screening phase of
> a scientifically based test.
>
Tell you what Powell: You get Cordesman, Holt and Pearson to submit to a
double-blind test conducted by Tom Nousaine, with Nousaine in complete charge
of the testing, and I'll gladly pay you $100.00. If any of them score in the
95-99% range, I'll pay you an additional $100.00 for each listener that so
scores.
After all, since these guys are your fellow Flat-Earthers, they should be
delighted to help you out.
Jeff Ryan
George M. Middius
Phoebe screeched:
>Oh, and if you're making a claim that I am lying about my
>experience, either provide proof, OR RETRACT YOUR ACCUSATION
>IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT QUALIFICATION!
Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam
Wonderful Spam!
>Oh, and btw.
>Deliver the accusation of lying you have made IMMEDIATELY
>to my professional societies' ethics committees, or be known to be violating
>any oaths of ethics you have taken in yours.
Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam
Wonderful Spam!
>STAND AND DELIVER!
Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam Spam
Wonderful Spam!
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Powell
>Greg Pavlov wrote
> Since the only restriction on the purchase
>of audio components is whether one has
>the money (or plastic) to buy them, ...
>
Oh please don't tell me you own a handgun, Greg.
Powell
>jsrt...@colorado.net wrote
>Tell you what Powell: You get Cordesman,
>Holt and Pearson to submit to a
>double-blind test conducted by Tom
>Nousaine, with Nousaine in complete charge
>of the testing, and I'll gladly pay you
>$100.00. If any of them score in the
>95-99% range, I'll pay you an additional
>$100.00 for each listener that so scores.
>
WHAT... and be responsible for taking all the money you
have... I really couldn't ;-).
Mikeylikst
>From: j...@research.att.com (jj,
Powell, an obvious shill for the subjectivist audio press wrote:
>>Heheheh... oh, a moment of jocularity. Well since you put
>>it that way here is my list of panel members for your
>>subjectivist equipment screening tests: G. Holt, H. Pearson,
>>A. Cordesman. Get them... I'll forgo the need to quantify
>>hearing acuity in that portion of the pre-screening phase of
>>a scientifically based test.
>Oooh. Ok. How about you get them all to agree to come here, for
>free, and participate in a controlled test that I can publish
>the results of?
>--
>Copyright j...@research.att.com
I don't believe you could pay those guys to do an blind, level matched
listening test. The risk of discovering their house is made of cards, would be
way to scarey. Even assuming they participated and the expected results were
doucumented, the cries of,"the box colored the sound", or some other excuse
would
be a forgone conclusion.
Mikeylikst
>From: au...@pegasus.demon.nl (Sander deWaal)
>If I were to live in the US, I'd sure try
>to attend such a test one day.
>Maybe you should, too, Powell.............
Won't happen. It would reveal his/her true indentity.
Powell
Mikeylikst wrote
>.....
Squeak, squeak, squeak... Mike, adjust your controls...
squeak, squeak... the only thing coming through is
gibberish.
Mikeylikst
>From: Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com (George M. Middius)
>>>It has nothing to do with being satisfied with my current
>>>system, having better things to do, not caring if you like
>>>my system, or not having to prove anything to you.
>>That's your preference. Your preference is fine.
>Tell that to the Bug Eater. He thinks tube amps
>are "inferior." And the Krooborg! Don't get me
>started. "If you like inaccurate, distorted sound,
>your gun, your bullet .... ;-)"
In general, at live volume levels, the vast majority of tube amps are inferior
to solid state amps. They have more distortion. Since we call this audio
stuff "high fidelity", which has a specific meaning, then tube amps must be
considered inferior in relation to
the stated goal of reproducing a signal without audible distortion.
Of course you knew those were the reasons why I, and others, consider them
inferior. You just can't pass up the chance to add some distortion of your own
can you Doug.....er Powell....I mean Gindy...oh yeah it's George in this one.
Perhaps you should be put in a tube.
>>Why do you engage in your disputatious,
>>misleading attacks on those people?
>
>When good men stand idly by, then does evil
>flourish. So we don't, and it doesn'
You are the one doing the most evil.
Mikeylikst
>From: Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com>
>Date: Fri, May 22, 1998 0
>Mikeylikst wrote:
>
>Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists are anything
>more
>than deluded.
>Nobody but a moron makes statements like the above.
Nobody but a moron keeps up a campaign of lies, slander, misrepresentation,
evasion, and strawman arguments, in an effort to cast doubt on verifiable
facts. Persons with integrity, will try to find the proof of their beliefs.
Proof is anathema to the writers at
Stereophile, et al.
Only a moron doubts that.
Mikeylikst
>From: "A. Kuan" <ak...@ti.com>
>Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists are
>> anything more than deluded.
>>
>
>
>Then why bother responding to the subjectivists' post? You basically saying
>that the subjectivists are indeed very small in number and everyone knows
>they
>are deluded. If that is true, let them alone! They are not a threat. What are
>you
>afraid of? More unsuspecting individuals falling into the high-end scam?
>No way is going to happen since most peope have "more than 2 active neurons".
>I'm still trying to make some sense out of this post...
>
>
The problem I have is I revere truth and integrity, so I have a natural
reaction about the kind of nonsense put fort by the subjectivists. It is
sypmtomatic of either a lack of integrity, that they seem to be predisposed to
ignore or distort the truth in favor of their whims, (or advertising revenues).
Edward Derson Hou
Can anyone (human) keep a straight face reading this?
-Eddie
Jeff Adams
On Fri, 22 May 1998 11:53:59 -0400, Steve Maki <st...@oakcom.com>
wrote:
>Marc Blank wrote:
>
>> The fact that you were on the panel, Steve, proves to me that the test
>> cannot be taken seriously. Can you say "placebo effect"? Since you
>> have staked many a claim here about differences not existing, how can
>> ANYONE take this seriously. GMAB.
>
>I'll ignore the insult.
>
>But what about the other (six?) listeners? Don't they deserve your
>*fair* benefit of the doubt, unless you have *evidence* to the
>contrary?
Perhaps you or Mr. Noussaine could describe the other people that
participated, e.g., what sort of systems do they own, how often they
go to live concerts, etc. That would be interesting.
======CORRECT EMAIL: remove the xyz======================================
| Jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com) | GTE Electronic Systems Division |
| 415-966-2122 | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| All opinions are mine and not my employer or internet access provider. |
==========================================================================
Jeff Adams
On Fri, 22 May 1998 10:09:25 -0400, "Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote:
>Heheheh... oh, a moment of jocularity. Well since you put
>it that way here is my list of panel members for your
>subjectivist equipment screening tests: G. Holt, H. Pearson,
>A. Cordesman.
Holt must be in his sixties by now, Cordesman in his fifties at least,
and I don't know how old Pearson is (fifties to sixties)? I guess as
long as none of the tests relied on differences in frequency response
above around 12 to 15 k, they might do well...???.
So, JJ, on average, where does male 50-60 year olds (or older) hearing
response start falling off? And how fast?
George M. Middius
The Bug Eater attempts to legislate his own idea
of taste.
>>Tell that to the Bug Eater. He thinks tube amps
>>are "inferior."
>In general, at live volume levels, the vast majority of tube amps
>are inferior to solid state amps. They have more distortion.
Mikey, I don't even need to resort to the
time-honored proof-by-assertion gambit. You've
just proved the point for me. BTW, you're not
thinking of moderating any discussions on how to
distinguish preference from measurements, are you?
>Since we call this audio stuff "high fidelity", which has a specific
>meaning, then tube amps must be considered inferior in relation to
>the stated goal of reproducing a signal without audible distortion.
You can call it "high fidelity" if you want to.
Some of us are content with "high-end".
>Of course you knew those were the reasons why I, and others,
>consider them inferior.
Of course. I guess. Whatever. Anyway, you've
established once and for all that what normals
choose for themselves is still subject to your
one-dimensional judgment. You determine the
"quality" of a box by its specifications and
measurements, whereas normal people (not to
mention the manufacturers) judge them by how they
sound.
>You just can't pass up the chance to add some distortion of your own
>can you Doug.....er Powell....I mean Gindy...oh yeah it's George in this one.
>Perhaps you should be put in a tube.
Ah, the *required* gratuitous personal attack. A
sure sign that the so-called "scientist" has lost
the argument. Quite pathetic, Mikey. How about a
nice helping of cockroach casserole?
>>>Why do you engage in your disputatious,
>>>misleading attacks on those people?
>>When good men stand idly by, then does evil
>>flourish. So we don't, and it doesn'
>You are the one doing the most evil.
There, there, Mikey. Try some ice-cold gnat nectar
with your dinner. You'll wake up tomorrow quite
refreshed.
George M. Middius
Lt. Cmdr. Edward Derson Hou, Resistance West, asked:
>> The problem I have is I revere truth and integrity, so I have a natural
>> reaction about the kind of nonsense put fort by the subjectivists. It is
>> sypmtomatic of either a lack of integrity, that they seem to be predisposed to
>> ignore or distort the truth in favor of their whims, (or advertising revenues).
>Can anyone (human) keep a straight face reading this?
I can't. It's quite funny, but in a sad way. It's
sad because Mikey has railed loud and often about
the failures of the American educational system, of
which he is a product. Critical thinking? Don't
bother teaching it to Mikey because he already knows
the TRVTH.
jsrt...@colorado.net
In article <6k46gt$a...@niktow.canisius.edu>,
pav...@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg Pavlov) wrote:
>
>
> Powell (hig...@gtii.com) wrote:
> :
> : .... Where does he get the subjects for
> : these listening panels? He says that they are
> : audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
> : know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
> : known... no.
> :
>
> My suspicion is that regardless of one's biases,
> such a test constitutes a competition and most
> people (males, anyway) will try to "win", which
> in this case is to be able to distinguish compon-
> ents.
>
I don't know if testosterone is the issue, but I haven't returned Arny's
"Perceptual Coding" challenge CD becauseI am having great difficulty
discerning differences in the tests that follow the first.
It would be easy for me just to return it saying "no differences noted", but
I refuse to give up yet. (Though Arny has probably given up on ME!)
>
> Since the only restriction on the purchase of audio
> components is whether one has the money (or plastic)
> to buy them, I do not see the utility of selecting
> subjects "with the highest hearing acuity". But if
> you believe this to be an important condition, why
> not demand that Sereophile and TAS subject all of its
> reviewers to evaluations to ensure that they, also,
> have the "highest hearing acuity" ?
>
See my challenge to Powell.
Watcher
George M. Middius wrote:
>
> I thought it was settled that Mikey is an imbecilic retard.
>
> George M. Middius
> remove "jiffy" to reply
LOL - listen to the morons ramble.
Marc Blank
Edward Derson Hou wrote:
> On 22 May 1998, Mikeylikst wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem I have is I revere truth and integrity, so I have a natural
> > reaction about the kind of nonsense put fort by the subjectivists. It is
> > sypmtomatic of either a lack of integrity, that they seem to be predisposed to
> > ignore or distort the truth in favor of their whims, (or advertising revenues).
> >
>
> Can anyone (human) keep a straight face reading this?
> -Eddie
It's hard, but I tried. I guess somehow the world according to Mike consists of
people who think as he does (i.e. truthful people with integrity) and those that
disagree with him (i.e. dishonest and fraudulent people). Given the complexities of
today's world, it must be nice to be so simpleminded.
- Marc
Behaviorist
Why not just let the "everything sounds the same" crowd enjoy their
receivers, rack systems,VCRs, pan and scan movies, and zipcord, and call it
a day. If mid-fi is all that one requires to enjoy the music and watch
movies, then be it. Bose makes the best speakers, there is no difference
between receivers and seperates, the cheap cables that came with the VCR
will work as good as the expensive stuff. Stereo Review and CR are the
Bibles of true audio sound quality and making purchasing decisions.
Stereophile and Fi are bad things. Whatever.
Marc Blank wrote in message <3564EA41...@eidetic.com>...
>James M. Cate wrote:
>
>> Again, exactly where does he need to "clean up" his act? As mentioned
>> in previous notes, with the glaring contrast between the high end
>> system, and the low end Geak system, any audiophiles chosen at random
>> should have EASILY detected OBVIOUS, GLARING differences between the two
>> systems, if the "Black Magic", "you get what you pay for" positions had
>> any validity whatsoever..You shouldn't need a carefully selected group
>> of golden ears for a simple test like this. Yet, unless you want to
>> disbelieve anything he says, he DID select a group of careful,
>> conscientious audiophiles, several of whom had high-end systems. Yet
>> NONE of them (not one) could tell the difference within statistically
>> significant margins. --
>
>I think you're wrong about this. I see a HUGE, glaring contrast between a
>VHS picture and a LaserDisc picture (not to mention DVD). Probably you do
>too. However, to the vast majority of consumers (who are also mid-fi
>buyers), the differences are small and, to 70% I believe in one survey, not
>worth paying for. How do you explain this?
>
>The fact is that to someone who has a passing interest in music, a given
set
>of differences are probably very small or even inaudible. To someone with a
>significant interest, the differences are likely to appear larger. To an
>"audiophile", obsessed with the quality of sound, those same differences
may
>be "major".
>
>I think you are fooling yourself if you think that most audiophiles believe
>that "large" differences are large in the absolute sense, rather than in a
>personal sense, to THEM.
>
>- Marc
>
jsrt...@colorado.net
In article <6k4d2u$i93$1...@supernews.com>,
Weaseled right out of that one, didn't you? It was put up or shut up time,
you didn't put up, so SHUT UP.
hea...@ix.netcom.com
jsrt...@colorado.net wrote:
> Tell you what Powell: You get Cordesman, Holt and Pearson to submit to a
> double-blind test conducted by Tom Nousaine, with Nousaine in complete charge
> of the testing, and I'll gladly pay you $100.00. If any of them score in the
> 95-99% range, I'll pay you an additional $100.00 for each listener that so
> scores.
Pretty cheap considering you don't think they have a snowball's chance
in Hell. Come on, Jeff-- put up your house, or at least a couple of Get
Out of Jail Free cards.........
>
> After all, since these guys are your fellow Flat-Earthers, they should be
> delighted to help you out.
Ah...so it was a *joke*!
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Marc Blank wrote:
>
> James M. Cate wrote:
>
> > Again, exactly where does he need to "clean up" his act? As mentioned
> > in previous notes, with the glaring contrast between the high end
> > system, and the low end Geak system, any audiophiles chosen at random
> > should have EASILY detected OBVIOUS, GLARING differences between the two
> > systems, if the "Black Magic", "you get what you pay for" positions had
> > any validity whatsoever..You shouldn't need a carefully selected group
> > of golden ears for a simple test like this. Yet, unless you want to
> > disbelieve anything he says, he DID select a group of careful,
> > conscientious audiophiles, several of whom had high-end systems. Yet
> > NONE of them (not one) could tell the difference within statistically
> > significant margins. --
>
> I think you're wrong about this. I see a HUGE, glaring contrast between a
> VHS picture and a LaserDisc picture (not to mention DVD). Probably you do
> too. However, to the vast majority of consumers (who are also mid-fi
> buyers), the differences are small and, to 70% I believe in one survey, not
> worth paying for. How do you explain this?
> The fact is that to someone who has a passing interest in music, a given set
> of differences are probably very small or even inaudible. To someone with a
> significant interest, the differences are likely to appear larger. To an
> "audiophile", obsessed with the quality of sound, those same differences may
> be "major".
Bing-O! Your TV picture analogy is a great one for me. I've never seen a
DVD picture, so I don't honestly know if I could tell one from VHS or
not. The critical factor is that I DON'T CARE about TV pictures, since I
rarely watch anything that I feel just *has* to have an ultra-lifelike
quality-- I don't attach any real importance to that. Bart Simpson looks
just fine on the old Sony 19", you know? I think there are lots and
lots of people that place the same importance on music reproduction that
I do on picture quality. Judging by participation in the high-end, I'd
say most of them.
> I think you are fooling yourself if you think that most audiophiles believe
> that "large" differences are large in the absolute sense, rather than in a
> personal sense, to THEM.
That's one of their oldest strawmen-- one they just can't let go, truth
be damned.
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Mikeylikst wrote:
>
> >From: Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com>
> >Date: Fri, May 22, 1998 0
>
> >Mikeylikst wrote:
> >
> >more
> >than deluded.
>
>
> Nobody but a moron keeps up a campaign of lies, slander, misrepresentation,
> evasion, and strawman arguments, in an effort to cast doubt on verifiable
> facts.
Now go figure. I thought you *liked* Arny!
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Mikeylikst wrote:
> The problem I have is I revere truth and integrity, so I have a natural
> reaction about the kind of nonsense put fort by the subjectivists. It is
> sypmtomatic of either a lack of integrity, that they seem to be predisposed to
> ignore or distort the truth in favor of their whims, (or advertising revenues).
Mike, if you so revere truth and integrity, then don't stoop to
stereotyping and pigeonholing. Those you label "subjectivists" are as,
if not *more*, diverse a lot than your own "objectivists" (couldn't we
shorten these danmn pejoratives??), in terms of beliefs and opinions re
audio. This bullshit practice of rounding up and branding is far from
"truth and integrity".
Brian
Chuck Ross
>
> Tell you what Powell: You get Cordesman, Holt and Pearson to submit to a
> double-blind test conducted by Tom Nousaine, with Nousaine in complete charge
> of the testing, and I'll gladly pay you $100.00. If any of them score in the
> 95-99% range, I'll pay you an additional $100.00 for each listener that so
> scores.
>
> After all, since these guys are your fellow Flat-Earthers, they should be
> delighted to help you out.
I do believe they would rather have dental work done by Adolph Hitler than
submit to abuse from Tom Noussaine.
Chuck Ross
In article <199805221741...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
mikey...@aol.com (Mikeylikst) wrote:
> >From: j...@research.att.com (jj,
>
> Powell, an obvious shill for the subjectivist audio press wrote:
> >>Heheheh... oh, a moment of jocularity. Well since you put
> >>it that way here is my list of panel members for your
> >>subjectivist equipment screening tests: G. Holt, H. Pearson,
> >>A. Cordesman. Get them... I'll forgo the need to quantify
> >>hearing acuity in that portion of the pre-screening phase of
> >>a scientifically based test.
> >Oooh. Ok. How about you get them all to agree to come here, for
> >free, and participate in a controlled test that I can publish
> >the results of?
> >--
> >Copyright j...@research.att.com
>
> I don't believe you could pay those guys to do an blind, level matched
> listening test. The risk of discovering their house is made of cards,
would be
> way to scarey. Even assuming they participated and the expected results were
> doucumented, the cries of,"the box colored the sound", or some other excuse
> would
> be a forgone conclusion.
Powell, these guys all stick up for each other, notice? You make a harsh
comment to one of them, all the other arms of the hive somehow know about it
immediately and jump in to defend the original target.
You cannot talk sense to a 'borg hive! They'll ask you to "stand and deliver",
"take a blind test with the labels hidden" and all sorts of boilerplate.
Why waste your time?
You might ask me the same question.
Chuck Ross
> In article <6k4d2u$i93$1...@supernews.com>,
> "Powell" <hig...@gtii.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >jsrt...@colorado.net wrote
> > >Tell you what Powell: You get Cordesman,
> > >Holt and Pearson to submit to a
> > >double-blind test conducted by Tom
> > >Nousaine, with Nousaine in complete charge
> > >of the testing, and I'll gladly pay you
> > >$100.00. If any of them score in the
> > >95-99% range, I'll pay you an additional
> > >$100.00 for each listener that so scores.
> > >
> > WHAT... and be responsible for taking all the money you
> > have... I really couldn't ;-).
> >
>
> Weaseled right out of that one, didn't you? It was put up or shut up time,
> you didn't put up, so SHUT UP.
>
> Jeff Ryan
Here's the legal arm of the 'borg hive, Powell. Sticking up for the
hive gestalt.
Chuck Ross
In article <EtD46...@research.att.com>, j...@research.att.com (jj,
curmudgeon and tiring philalethist) wrote:
> >a larger sampling and any more rigorous method of procedure and control--and
> >then publish your results...unless, of course, your interest is in simply
> >thumbing your nose...
> Well, what one might to is add controls, allow for fast as well as slow
> switching, and have a large, well-trained body of subjects.
>
> If you do that, you should be able to publish this in a good referred
> journal. That would be a start.
That might be a lot more impressive than Stereo Review, no?
Chuck Ross
> Marc Blank wrote:
>
> > The fact that you were on the panel, Steve, proves to me that the test
> > cannot be taken seriously. Can you say "placebo effect"? Since you
> > have staked many a claim here about differences not existing, how can
> > ANYONE take this seriously. GMAB.
>
> I'll ignore the insult.
>
> But what about the other (six?) listeners? Don't they deserve your
> *fair* benefit of the doubt, unless you have *evidence* to the
> contrary?
>
> GMAB. You've been sliding lately Marc.
>
> --
> Steve Maki
First of all, Steve is a Ham Radio Operator. It is a well-known fact
that Hams have no taste at all, and can be expected to feel that anything
that works is good enough. I can't stand hams. Pharmacists, either.
It would be unreasonable to believe otherwise in Steve's case. Of course,
that is not true. Steve does have good taste. I know this for a fact.
I can only believe he's a spy for the resistance.
Yep...that's gotta be it.
Chuck Ross
In article <Oi7o4fch9GA.202@uppubnews03>, "Behaviorist"
<lw...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Why not just let the "everything sounds the same" crowd enjoy their
> receivers, rack systems,VCRs, pan and scan movies, and zipcord, and call it
> a day. If mid-fi is all that one requires to enjoy the music and watch
> movies, then be it. Bose makes the best speakers, there is no difference
> between receivers and seperates, the cheap cables that came with the VCR
> will work as good as the expensive stuff. Stereo Review and CR are the
> Bibles of true audio sound quality and making purchasing decisions.
> Stereophile and Fi are bad things. Whatever.
You just don't understand. It's really kinda fun to poke at these
humorless excuses for people to watch them get upset and say stuff
like "Either provide some evidence of your claim, or cease making it."
and "Deliver the accusation of lying you have made IMMEDIATELY
to my professional societies' ethics committees, or be known to be violating
any oaths of ethics you have taken in yours."
Have you ever heard anyone talking like that anywhere?
Peter Corey
On 22 May 1998 15:44:29 GMT
Greg Pavlov wrote:
> Powell (hig...@gtii.com) wrote:
> :
> : .... Where does he get the subjects for
> : these listening panels? He says that they are
> : audio-enthusiast but do you really believe him? Are they
> : know audio writers so their bias and reputations are
> : known... no.
And yours ?
>
> My suspicion is that regardless of one's biases,
> such a test constitutes a competition and most
> people (males, anyway) will try to "win", which
> in this case is to be able to distinguish compon-
> ents.
>
> : The red-herring of his arguments is the use of people who
> : may or may not be qualified subjects. What was the total
> : pool of subjects available for these listening tests? Of
> : this group what methodology was used to screen the subjects
> : with the highest hearing acuity? .....
> :
>
> Since the only restriction on the purchase of audio
> components is whether one has the money (or plastic)
> to buy them, I do not see the utility of selecting
> subjects "with the highest hearing acuity". But if
> you believe this to be an important condition, why
> not demand that Sereophile and TAS subject all of its
> reviewers to evaluations to ensure that they, also,
> have the "highest hearing acuity" ?
>
> greg pavlov
> [not affiliated with Canisius College]
He must be kidding ;
To begin with , that's not their objective .
Their honesty would be a more proper requirement !
Quit while you're ahead Greg.
You're wasting your time.
--
^ __
0 || --
Reply to :
pc...@bellevue.org
FAX: 1-2BU TNM YSHU
Steve Maki
Jeff Adams wrote:
> >But what about the other (six?) listeners? Don't they deserve your
> >*fair* benefit of the doubt, unless you have *evidence* to the
> >contrary?
> Perhaps you or Mr. Noussaine could describe the other people that
> participated, e.g., what sort of systems do they own, how often they
> go to live concerts, etc. That would be interesting.
Unfortunately, I don't have the faintest idea who the others were.
I think everyone did their thing on separate days. Tom?
--
Steve Maki
Steve Zipser
Chuck Ross wrote:
> It is a well-known fact that Hams have no taste at all
Besides, they aren't even Kosher :-)
Zip
Steve Zipser
Mikeylikst wrote:
>
> Humorless? Prove it. Stand and deliver.
Is that anything like in the navy when the Pharmacists Mate or Corpsman
tells you to bend over and spread em?
Lighten up, guys!
Zip
Steve Zipser
Mikeylikst wrote:
>
> >From: hea...@ix.netcom.com
>
> >Marc Blank wrote:
>
> >> James M. Cate wrote:
>
> >Bing-O! Your TV picture analogy is a great one for me. I've never seen a
> >DVD picture, so I don't honestly know if I could tell one from VHS or
> >not. The critical factor is that I DON'T CARE about TV pictures, since I
> >rarely watch anything that I feel just *has* to have an ultra-lifelike
> >quality-- I don't attach any real importance to that. Bart Simpson looks
> >just fine on the old Sony 19", you know?
>
>
> >I think there are lots and
> >lots of people that place the same importance on music reproduction that
> >I do on picture quality. Judging by participation in the high-end, I'd
> >say most of them.
>
> involving" system, the objectivists say they want the electronics to not
> produce audible distortion, so they can concentrate on getting speakers that
> please them. Ther's not really much difference in the goals of either side.
> The objectivists just do it for less money.
And the subjectivists have better sounding systems.
> Can't we all just get along?
That is a good question, Mikey.
Zip
>
> Mike McKelvy
> No one ever went broke
> underestimating the taste
> of the American public.
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://sunshinestereo.com
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores FL 33138
PASS Labs Carver Lightstar Faroudja CODA Audible Illusions
Camelot Technology Audio Logic CEC Parasound Kinergetics
Chiro Benz Micro Gallo Acoustics Dunlavy Audio NEAR NHT
Cabasse Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision Straightwire Jadis
Rega Cleanlines by Vans Evers ENTECH by Monster Cable ESP
Arcane Audio Labs Enlightened Audio Designs Mordaunt Short
*** ENJOY THE MUSIC! ***
Keith McDonald
> Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists are
> anything more than deluded.
I bet a lot of "objectivists" (how that's defined, I'm not sure), believe a lot of
stranger
things than tweaks and similarly-spec'd amplifiers sounding the same. In fact, I
know this guy at work who believes that Armageddon is upon us, yet he makes fun of
people who think that they can hear differences between types of audio cables.
George M. Middius
Brian L. said:
>Mikeylikst wrote:
>> Nobody but a moron keeps up a campaign of lies, slander,
>> misrepresentation, evasion, and strawman arguments, in an
>> effort to cast doubt on verifiable facts.
>Now go figure. I thought you *liked* Arny!
LOL! Good one, Brian. Mikey is getting so
forgetful these days.
George M. Middius
remove "jiffy" to reply
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Mikeylikst
>From: "Powell" <hig...@gtii.com>
>>jsrt...@colorado.net wrote
>>Tell you what Powell: You get Cordesman,
>>Holt and Pearson to submit to a
>>double-blind test conducted by Tom
>>Nousaine, with Nousaine in complete charge
>>of the testing, and I'll gladly pay you
>>$100.00. If any of them score in the
>>95-99% range, I'll pay you an additional
>>$100.00 for each listener that so scores.
>>
>WHAT... and be responsible for taking all the money you
>have... I really couldn't ;-).
>
>
>
We know. Mustn't cloud our fantasies with any truth.
Mikeylikst
>From: ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck
>You just don't understand. It's really kinda fun to poke at these
>humorless excuses for people to watch them get upset and say stuff
>like "Either provide some evidence of your claim, or cease making it."
Humorless? Prove it. Stand and deliver.
>and "Deliver the accusation of lying you have made IMMEDIATELY
>to my professional societies' ethics committees, or be known to be violating
>any oaths of ethics you have taken in yours."
No, but one generally doesn't get subjected to the kind of filth that spews
from the minds of people like Middius. I wonder how you might react under
similar circumstances?
>Have you ever heard anyone talking like that anywhere?
Have you ever met anyone like Middius in "real" life?
Mikeylikst
>From: hea...@ix.netcom.com
>Marc Blank wrote:
>> James M. Cate wrote:
>Bing-O! Your TV picture analogy is a great one for me. I've never seen a
>DVD picture, so I don't honestly know if I could tell one from VHS or
>not. The critical factor is that I DON'T CARE about TV pictures, since I
>rarely watch anything that I feel just *has* to have an ultra-lifelike
>quality-- I don't attach any real importance to that. Bart Simpson looks
>just fine on the old Sony 19", you know?
Then why pick a high picture quality set like a SONY?
>I think there are lots and
>lots of people that place the same importance on music reproduction that
>I do on picture quality. Judging by participation in the high-end, I'd
>say most of them.
Who would they be? The subjectivists insist they are after a "musically
involving" system, the objectivists say they want the electronics to not
produce audible distortion, so they can concentrate on getting speakers that
please them. Ther's not really much difference in the goals of either side.
The objectivists just do it for less money.
Can't we all just get along?
Mikeylikst
>From: hea...@ix.netcom.com
>Mikeylikst wrote:
>>
>> >From: Marc Blank <mbl...@eidetic.com>
>> >Date: Fri, May 22, 1998 0
>>
>> >Mikeylikst wrote:
>> >
>> >Nobody with more than 2 active neurons thinks the subjectivists are
>anything
>> >more
>> >than deluded.
>>
>> >Nobody but a moron makes statements like the above.
>>
>> Nobody but a moron keeps up a campaign of lies, slander, misrepresentation,
>> evasion, and strawman arguments, in an effort to cast doubt on verifiable
>> facts.
>
>Now go figure. I thought you *liked* Arny!
>
>Brian
There you go again!
Mikeylikst
>From: Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com (George M. Middius)
>I can't. It's quite funny, but in a sad way. It's
>sad because Mikey has railed loud and often about
>the failures of the American educational system, of
>which he is a product. Critical thinking? Don't
>bother teaching it to Mikey because he already knows
>the TRVTH.
I can think a bit better than I can type, punctuate or spell. I can read
well. When all other explanations fail the truth is what's left.
I've read enough and done enough of my own investigating, that I feel i have a
good grasp of what is real and what is snake oil, when it comes to audio. I
think my critical faculty is working just fine, after all I know what a puke
you are.
Mikeylikst
>From: Marc Blank
>It's hard, but I tried. I guess somehow the world according to Mike consists
>of
>people who think as he does (i.e. truthful people with integrity) and those
>that
>disagree with him (i.e. dishonest and fraudulent people). Given the
>complexities of
>today's world, it must be nice to be so simpleminded.
>
>
You would know.
It's too bad I have never said anything that remotely resembles your
conclusion.
Mikeylikst
>From: hea...@ix.netcom.com
>Mike, if you so revere truth and integrity, then don't stoop to
>stereotyping and pigeonholing.
The reason we have generalizations is because they are generally true.
It is a fair generalization to say that the subjectivists who participate on
RAO,( the ones who post at least) are contemptable in their tactics. One can
love a quality audio system and not have a fucking clue about why it is so.
They can also choose to ignore the empirical evidence. I choose not to. I
also choose to do the best i can to find what is true and what is snake oil.
So sue me.
>Those you label "subjectivists" are as,
>if not *more*, diverse a lot than your own "objectivists" (couldn't we
>shorten these danmn pejoratives??), in terms of beliefs and opinions re
>audio.
Diverse, as in no training in anything related to audio or electronics?
I'm not interested in beliefs, I'd rather be right.
>This bullshit practice of rounding up and branding is far from
>"truth and integrity".
If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck, people are
likely to think you are a duck.
Mikeylikst
>From: "Powell"
>Mikeylikst wrote
>>.....
>Squeak, squeak, squeak... Mike, adjust your controls...
>squeak, squeak... the only thing coming through is
>gibberish.
Then you have need of better equipment.
Mikeylikst
>From: Glan...@jiffypop.erols.com
>The Bug Eater attempts to legislate his own idea
>of taste.
Liar.
>>Tell that to the Bug Eater. He thinks tube amps
>>>are "inferior."
>>In general, at live volume levels, the vast majority of tube amps
>>are inferior to solid state amps. They have more distortion.
>Mikey, I don't even need to resort to the
>time-honored proof-by-assertion gambit. You've
>just proved the point for me. BTW, you're not
>thinking of moderating any discussions on how to
>distinguish preference from measurements, are you?
If you don't think this assertion about tube amps has been covered clearly
enough here on RAO, then nothing more i can say about it gong be meaningful for
you. It is independently verifiable.
The only thing I'm thinking of mderating is my sense of nausea, when I read
your stuff.
>>Since we call this audio stuff "high fidelity", which has a specific
>>meaning, then tube amps must be considered inferior in relation to
>>the stated goal of reproducing a signal without audible distortion.
>You can call it "high fidelity" if you want to.
>Some of us are content with "high-end".
And the difference is................
>>Of course you knew those were the reasons why I, and others,
>>consider them inferior.
>
>
>Of course. I guess. Whatever. Anyway, you've
>established once and for all that what normals
>choose for themselves is still subject to your
>one-dimensional judgment.
Liar. I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THAT EACH PERSON SHOULD BUY WHATEVER MAKES HIM
FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT! Why must you lie?
>You determine the
>"quality" of a box by its specifications and
>measurements, whereas normal people (not to
>mention the manufacturers) judge them by how they
>sound.
That pretty much means how the SPEAKERS sound in your room, at least if your
using properly functioning SS gear.
>>You just can't pass up the chance to add some distortion of your own
>>can you Doug.....er Powell....I mean Gindy...oh yeah it's George in this
>one.
>>Perhaps you should be put in a tube.
>Ah, the *required* gratuitous personal attack. A
>sure sign that the so-called "scientist" has lost
>the argument.
You perfected the technique, why be upset by it?
>>>When good men stand idly by, then does evil
>>>flourish. So we don't, and it doesn'
>
>
>>You are the one doing the most evil.
Roy Briggs
Mikeylikst wrote
>I can think a bit better than I can type, punctuate or spell. I can read
>well. When all other explanations fail the truth is what's left.
Have I imagined those three sentences? Can people really make
statements like that and be allowed to wander free in society?
>I've read enough and done enough of my own investigating, that I feel
>i have a good grasp of what is real and what is snake oil, when it
>comes to audio. I think my critical faculty is working just fine, after all
>I know what a puke you are.
You're a bit lifeless really, aren't you? Are you certain you haven't died?
What is your 'critical faculty', BTW? And what is a 'puke'? Have you ever
seen a 'puke'? How often do you see them? Why are you stupid? Have you
always been like this? Do you want people to pity you? You really do eat
repulsive, filthy little creatures, don't you? And you enjoy them, don't
you?
I bet you pop slugs and eat them, don't you?
______________________________________
Roy Briggs. Remove [SPAMOFF] to reply.
Roy Briggs
Mikeylikst wrote
>If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck, people are
>likely to think you are a duck.
If you talk like a fool, act like a fool, drool like a fool, people are
going to say—
Uh. Why bother.
George M. Middius
Cmdr. Roy Briggs ponders the aberration of society
we know as Mikey, Eater of Bugs.
>Mikeylikst wrote
>>I can think a bit better than I can type, punctuate or spell. I can read
>>well. When all other explanations fail the truth is what's left.
>Have I imagined those three sentences? Can people really make
>statements like that and be allowed to wander free in society?
Perhaps Mikey has been deemed to be not dangerous
to others. The symptoms we see here are consistent
with former drug abuse or, quite possibly,
incorrect use of prescription drugs.
>>I think my critical faculty is working just fine, after all
>>I know what a puke you are.
>You're a bit lifeless really, aren't you? Are you certain you haven't died?
An interesting theory, Roy. What, really, is the
physical nature of cyborgism? Does it necessarily
entail the replacement of the human brain with a
cybernetic CPU? Can engrams be transferred intact?
Perhaps Mikey will one day reveal the technical
details of The Assimilation That Didn't Take.
>What is your 'critical faculty', BTW? And what is a 'puke'? Have you ever
>seen a 'puke'? How often do you see them? Why are you stupid? Have you
>always been like this? Do you want people to pity you? You really do eat
>repulsive, filthy little creatures, don't you? And you enjoy them, don't
>you? I bet you pop slugs and eat them, don't you?
I'd call that a critical analysis. :-)
Steve Maki
Chuck Ross mediates:
> First of all, Steve is a Ham Radio Operator. It is a well-known fact
> that Hams have no taste at all, and can be expected to feel that anything
> that works is good enough.
Some of us DO have accurate taste probes. Works good enough for me!
> I can't stand hams. Pharmacists, either.
How long have you had these feelings, Mr. Ross?
Do you still have your ham ticket?
Do you have any Prozac?
Do you have any weapons? :-)
> I can only believe he's a spy for the resistance.
>
> Yep...that's gotta be it.
Mmmm, yeah, that's it.
--
Steve Maki
George M. Middius
The Bug Eater tries hand-walking again.
>The reason we have generalizations is because they are generally true.
Ouch! Only 90 seconds ago you posted a denial of
your own stupidity. Just before that, you asserted
your expertise in recognizing "pukes" and also
claimed you were fully critical faculty-wise.
Now this? It's sad, really. You're not putting us
on, are you, Mikey? Centipede sandwich?
>It is a fair generalization to say that the subjectivists who participate on
>RAO,( the ones who post at least) are contemptable in their tactics.
Oh, he cuts us deeply, he does. Now tell us some
more about Arnii.
>One can love a quality audio system and not have a fucking clue about why it is so.
But you're not stupid, right? If you're not
stupid, why do so many normals laugh out loud when
they read gibberish like that one there?
>They can also choose to ignore the empirical evidence.
>I choose not to. I also choose to do the best i can to find
>what is true and what is snake oil. So sue me.
What is the category, Alex?
>>Those you label "subjectivists" are as, if not *more*,
>>diverse a lot than your own "objectivists" (couldn't we
>>shorten these danmn pejoratives??), in terms of beliefs
>>and opinions re audio.
>Diverse, as in no training in anything related to audio or electronics?
I believe Brian was talking about being alive and
aware, like a normal adult human, in a free
country, who has some wherewithal for the good
things in life. But if you need to repeat for the
277th time why You Are Superior to those fucking
subjectivists, please do so.
>I'm not interested in beliefs, I'd rather be right.
I'd rather be human than be like you.
>>This bullshit practice of rounding up and branding is far from
>>"truth and integrity".
>If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck,
>people are likely to think you are a duck.
One human's duck is another human's swan.
I can get you a discount on your next order of
Dork-in-a-Bottle. Let me know when you're ready.
Chuck Ross
In article <199805230318...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mikey...@aol.com (Mikeylikst) wrote:
> >From: ckr...@enteract.com (Chuck
>
> >You just don't understand. It's really kinda fun to poke at these
> >humorless excuses for people to watch them get upset and say stuff
> >like "Either provide some evidence of your claim, or cease making it."
>
> Humorless? Prove it. Stand and deliver.
>
> >and "Deliver the accusation of lying you have made IMMEDIATELY
> >to my professional societies' ethics committees, or be known to be violating
> >any oaths of ethics you have taken in yours."
>
> No, but one generally doesn't get subjected to the kind of filth that spews
> from the minds of people like Middius. I wonder how you might react under
> similar circumstances?
>
> >Have you ever heard anyone talking like that anywhere?
>
> Have you ever met anyone like Middius in "real" life?
Of course! MIDDIUS! Filth?? No way! He tells the truth. He calls it
like it is.
Chuck Ross
In article <6k5gr7$2...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
http://sunshinestereo.com wrote:
> Mikeylikst wrote:
> >
> > Humorless? Prove it. Stand and deliver.
>
> Is that anything like in the navy when the Pharmacists Mate or Corpsman
> tells you to bend over and spread em?
>
> Lighten up, guys!
> Zip
Heh...you say, "Hello" to one of them and they say, "Prove it! Stand and
Deliver!"
Chuck Ross
In article <199805230348...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
mikey...@aol.com (Mikeylikst) wrote:
> I can think a bit better than I can type, punctuate or spell. I can read
> well. When all other explanations fail the truth is what's left.
> I've read enough and done enough of my own investigating, that I feel i have a
> good grasp of what is real and what is snake oil, when it comes to audio. I
> think my critical faculty is working just fine, after all I know what a puke
> you are.
Hah! If anyone believes this, I have a bridge you might be interested in...
Chuck Ross
In article <199805230400...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Well, then, you must believe you're right, right?
> If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck, people are
> likely to think you are a duck.
And if you walk like a bugeater, talk....oh, you know...
Chuck Ross
Steve Maki <st...@oakcom.com> wrote:
> Chuck Ross mediates:
>
> > First of all, Steve is a Ham Radio Operator. It is a well-known fact
> > that Hams have no taste at all, and can be expected to feel that anything
> > that works is good enough.
>
> Some of us DO have accurate taste probes. Works good enough for me!
>
> > I can't stand hams. Pharmacists, either.
>
> How long have you had these feelings, Mr. Ross?
Quite a long while. I can now walk with head up and say, "I don't do that
any more!"
> Do you still have your ham ticket?
Check http://www.lantz.com/htbin/cbs
> Do you have any Prozac?
That's for depressed people. I am happy! Ha ha ha!
> Do you have any weapons? :-)
Not really. An Ouzi, a Colt Python and a couple of old grenades that I
am not sure will work any more. Nothing major.
> > I can only believe he's a spy for the resistance.
> >
> > Yep...that's gotta be it.
>
> Mmmm, yeah, that's it.
I knew it.
Mikeylikst
>From: Steve Zipser <z...@sunshinestereo.com>
>And the subjectivists have better sounding systems.
And you know this because................?
>> Can't we all just get along?
>
>That is a good question, Mikey.
>Zip
I know, you get the subjectivists to not lie, distort, or evade objective
evidence, and I'll see if I can't get objectivists to stop telling them about
it.
Mikeylikst
>From: "Roy Briggs" <roy.briggs1[SPAMOFF]@virgin.net>
>Mikeylikst wrote
>
>>If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck, and look like a duck, people are
>>likely to think you are a duck.
>
>If you talk like a fool, act like a fool, drool like a fool, people are
>going to say—
>
>Uh. Why bother.
>___________________________
Exactly! Please, please, don't bother.