Earth to Singh etc.
Singh
In article <gsteinberg-01...@ip231.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>
> I think your question is so stupid it's not worth an answer.
Do you have any idea what a phrase like "the crux of the matter" means?
Scientists sit around all the time and discuss hypothetical situations, and
when I try to do this, to illustrate the fallacy or truth, all you can
claim is I'm being 'stupid'. Moral of the story: you are afraid of an
intelligent discussion.
>
> >Your arguments, like Nousaine's, are worthless and weak. You're response
> >should have been, "I have no proof what the moon is made of."
>
> Don't tell me what my responses should be. Nousaine and I and Arny and
> others can point you to years and years of controlled listening tests that
> show what's audible and what isn't (and why a difference may be heard in
> some situations)
No, no, no, no, NO! Don't try to lump yourself in with Arny and Tommy;
this is me, Greg Singh, trying to engage you, Gene Gene Steinborg, in an
<allegedly> intelligent discussion. It's like some kind of Star Trek
episode, with you looking to be baled out by the "collective."
>
> You are so far unable to provide a single logical argument about anything
> I've written. So you have to come up with these pathetic excuses and
> insults instead.
>
> And if you want the answer as to what the moon is made of, review the
> various published analyses of the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo
> astronauts and tell me how many dairy products are in those rocks. You can
> start with NASA's Web site, I suspect.
Don't you guys in the collective EVER read what is posted? I've already
covered the fact that moon rocks have been recovered, but those may have
been from the wrong places. I then said you should come up with ten
samples, with the locations well documented (by Arny and Tom, of course).
If you are saying "No, this is stupid," I would say "Why?" You would
probably say, "Everybody in my collective KNOWS the moon isn't made of
green cheese." "Oh really, where is the proof?"
There is no proof. There doesn't have to be proof. There is no proof that
I can hear the difference between a Nordost cable and a rusty nail. There
doesn't need to be. I like my critical listening skills quite well, thank
you. How about yourself?
--
Greg M. Singh
G...@wwa.com
Gene Steinberg
In article <no-ya02408000R0...@news.wwa.com>, n...@spam.com
(Singh) wrote:
>There is no proof. There doesn't have to be proof. There is no proof that
>I can hear the difference between a Nordost cable and a rusty nail. There
>doesn't need to be. I like my critical listening skills quite well, thank
>you. How about yourself?
If you claim there are real differences between the high-priced cable and
a rusty nail, then one has the right to ask you to prove it. When you
imply a published blind listening test is fraudulent or improperly done,
one has the right to ask you for your evidence that it was a fraud or that
the methodology was deficient.
In both cases, you provide nothing, nada, zilch.
You feel that your subjective audio viewpoint has merit, stand up to the plate.
You feel you don't have to prove or demonstrate anything, fine. But then
don't criticize others who don't feel that way; you've lost your right.
Singh
In article <gsteinberg-01...@ip50.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>
> If you claim there are real differences between the high-priced cable and
> a rusty nail, then one has the right to ask you to prove it. When you
> imply a published blind listening test is fraudulent or improperly done,
> one has the right to ask you for your evidence that it was a fraud or that
> the methodology was deficient.
>
> In both cases, you provide nothing, nada, zilch.
>
> You feel that your subjective audio viewpoint has merit, stand up to the
plate.
>
> You feel you don't have to prove or demonstrate anything, fine. But then
> don't criticize others who don't feel that way; you've lost your right.
But that is entirely the point. You and your white lab coat collective are
constantly yapping at the heels of people such as myself, critcizing that
we are hearing something you can't, and demanding proof. And when you are
told that nobody gives a rat's ass, you really get hostile. You claim I'm
being insulting. You claim I don't have enough facts. You claim I haven't
been probed and tested enough. Blah, blah, blah, blah. I don't have to
"provide" you with anything, because what you know or don't know means
nothing to me.
Gene Steinberg
>You and your white lab coat collective are
>constantly yapping at the heels of people such as myself, critcizing that
>we are hearing something you can't, and demanding proof.
The problem is that when you folks attempt to show what you can hear with
product labels hidden, levels matched, you come up with nothing. So one
has the right to ask you, over and over again, to justify your claim. It's
not the question of you hearing something I can't, but you folks being
unable to demonstrate that you hear what you claim to hear.
Arny Krüger
Singh wrote in message ...
>In article <gsteinberg-01...@ip50.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
>gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>
>>
>> If you claim there are real differences between the high-priced cable and
>> a rusty nail, then one has the right to ask you to prove it. When you
>> imply a published blind listening test is fraudulent or improperly done,
>> one has the right to ask you for your evidence that it was a fraud or
that
>> the methodology was deficient.
>>
>> In both cases, you provide nothing, nada, zilch.
>>
>> You feel that your subjective audio viewpoint has merit, stand up to the
>plate.
>>
>> You feel you don't have to prove or demonstrate anything, fine. But then
>> don't criticize others who don't feel that way; you've lost your right.
>
>constantly yapping at the heels of people such as myself, critcizing that
>we are hearing something you can't, and demanding proof.
I find it very interesting how much you claim you avoid objectivity and
claim its unimportant, but live by objectivity and proof in so many other
areas of your life.
If proof is unimportant to you, then tell me why you validate credit cards
and checks in your store...
I'm sure you never check packing slips when you get shipments, either. NOT!
No, you are just a person who has obtained a measure of success
compartmentalizing his life into objective and subjective parts and creating
an asymetrical world where others have to provide you with proof, but you
don't have to do the same.
>And when you are
>told that nobody gives a rat's ass, you really get hostile.
Historicially, the major source of hostility on RAO is subjectivists like
you. Don't you think you are getting a little hostile right here?
>You claim I'm
>being insulting. You claim I don't have enough facts. You claim I haven't
>been probed and tested enough. Blah, blah, blah, blah. I don't have to
>"provide" you with anything, because what you know or don't know means
>nothing to me.
If that were really true, you'd just read Gene's post, and move on.
Singh
In article <6l0fqa$df1$1...@excalibur.flash.net>, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
Hey, Arny, thanks for popping my "rao cherry"--I hope it was good for you
too, you sexually dysfunctional weirdo...
You, Tom, and Gene have exactly the same problem: you need to have things
repeated to you over and over, like small children. EVERY time I bring up
a hypothetical situation, your white lab coat bunch are unable to even
comprehend what I'm talking about. EVERY time. Once more, for good
measure: EVERY TIME. The above comments were made to Gene Steinborg after
roughly half a dozen posts by him, yapping like the chihuahua-borg that he
is, about how I should "step up to the plate" (he couldn't even come up
with his own words, this phrase was lifted from one of Nousaine's posts.)
I told him if I was to be probed and prodded and made to listen to rusty
nails, he should come up with some prVf first: prove the moon isn't made of
green cheese. He couldn't. He failed the test.
There is no proof, right Arny? Come on, you're the old, wizened,
self-proclaimed rao veteran, surely you can understand what a hypothetical
question is? Or not.
Well, anyway, Gene was really sputtering, starting to spew the bile that
only a 'subjective listener' is supposed to be capable of, so I gave him
the right answer, out of pity: according to current post-modern ABX
philosophy, you can't say the moon ISN'T made of green cheese. There isn't
enough evidence. But Gene, the poor bastard, still didn't get it. Said I
was being stupid, by bringing up a hypothetical question which just so
happens to be an important part of the scientific process.
Yes, my cherry is popped. I now see why guys like Middius go straight to
the flames: clear, logical arguments are a complete and utter waste of time
when dealing with robotic losers that can't even work within the context of
their own school of thought.
Arny Krüger
Singh wrote in message ...
>Hey, Arny, thanks for popping my "rao cherry"--I hope it was good for you
>too, you sexually dysfunctional weirdo...
4 grown children suggest that if I'm sexually dysfunctional, it hasn't
always been that way. Your post suggests that you've been socially
dysfunctional for a long time...
>You, Tom, and Gene have exactly the same problem: you need to have things
>repeated to you over and over, like small children. EVERY time I bring up
>a hypothetical situation, your white lab coat bunch are unable to even
>comprehend what I'm talking about. EVERY time.
I really have not seen you write about even a halfways decent hypothectical
situation, except maybe the ones where act like you can say what you want
and the rest of us have to bow.
>The above comments were made to Gene Steinborg after
>roughly half a dozen posts by him, yapping like the chihuahua-borg that he
>is, about how I should "step up to the plate" (he couldn't even come up
>with his own words, this phrase was lifted from one of Nousaine's posts.)
Actually, Gene and Nousaine have been posting around here so long that it
would take some pretty exhaustive searching to figure out which used that
metaphor first. Since two guys stumbled into the same phrase one time, they
have to be inhuman, right? Seems like weak proof.
>I told him if I was to be probed and prodded and made to listen to rusty
>nails, he should come up with some prVf first: prove the moon isn't made of
>green cheese. He couldn't. He failed the test.
There is conserable evidence that the moon is not 100% green cheese. OTOH,
I'm convinced that you can't hear the difference between the speaker wire of
your dreams and a wire we'd make out of rusty nails that did technically the
same thing. For one thing, your ego seems about the right size so you would
not even try to listen hard.
>There is no proof, right Arny? Come on, you're the old, wizened,
>self-proclaimed rao veteran, surely you can understand what a hypothetical
>question is? Or not.
I know that its very sure, scientifically, that the moon is not 100% green
cheese. I suspect that we could get that 100% down to a very small number,
given that man has been there a few times, and the technical properties of
green cheese strongly mitigate against a planet-sized body of it to exist.
>Well, anyway, Gene was really sputtering, starting to spew the bile that
>only a 'subjective listener' is supposed to be capable of, so I gave him
>the right answer, out of pity: according to current post-modern ABX
>philosophy, you can't say the moon ISN'T made of green cheese.
I think we can say that the moon has vanishinglymall quantiies of green
cheese in it, with quite good certainty. Think otherwise? I'd like to see
you substantiate any claims you might make about the moon having significant
green cheese content.
>There isn't enough evidence.
There is plenty of evidence, and I would think that you'd know it. I susepct
that we knew with as much certainty as anything we know, that the moon had
essentially no green cheese in it, even at the beginning of the century.
Perhaps at the beginning of the previous one, but we'd have to look at how
long there has been a product called green cheese. It might only be 150
years old... ;-)
>But Gene, the poor bastard, still didn't get it. Said I
>was being stupid, by bringing up a hypothetical question which just so
>happens to be an important part of the scientific process.
The scientific process says we do know that the moon is not green cheese -
wrong density, etc. That was determined strictly from the earth's surface,
before man went there.
>Yes, my cherry is popped. I now see why guys like Middius go straight to
>the flames: clear, logical arguments are a complete and utter waste of time
>when dealing with robotic losers that can't even work within the context of
>their own school of thought.
Still waiting to see logical argument number one from you. What I do see is
a lot of name-calling, some slander and quite a bit of dogmatic posturing.
Maybe you could give us objectivists a thrill and get back to talking about
audio, listening to music, and back up your claims about the sonic
properties of rusty nails. I've already volunteered to come and visit you
and do a test. What happened to that?
Anonymous
In article <gsteinberg-01...@ip91.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
> In article <no-ya02408000R0...@news.wwa.com>, n...@spam.com
> (Singh) wrote:
>
> >You and your white lab coat collective are
> >constantly yapping at the heels of people such as myself, critcizing that
> >we are hearing something you can't, and demanding proof.
>
>
> The problem is that when you folks attempt to show what you can hear with
> product labels hidden, levels matched, you come up with nothing.
Do you have any evidence for the above?
btw: I've generally found it trivial to find audible differences between
two different amplifiers ( during double/triple blind, level matched tests
); and
it's trivial to show audible differences in an ABX test of interconnects
in my system.
So much for your claims of "nothing".
Gene Steinberg
>Well, anyway, Gene was really sputtering, starting to spew the bile that
>only a 'subjective listener' is supposed to be capable of, so I gave him
>the right answer, out of pity: according to current post-modern ABX
>philosophy, you can't say the moon ISN'T made of green cheese. There isn't
>enough evidence. But Gene, the poor bastard, still didn't get it. Said I
>was being stupid, by bringing up a hypothetical question which just so
>happens to be an important part of the scientific process.
The right answer here is not what you state. The right answer is that your
messages are filled with venon and attacks, but no facts. If you can show
me how a single point about audio that I've raised is wrong, with facts,
figures, studies, etc., go for it. So far you are so hung up on your
"green chhese" issue that you have lost it, totally. My point is that the
common subjective perception among people like you with the "everything or
most everything sounds different" philosophy is about as credible as the
argument that the moon is made of green cheese. And you still don't
understand the point in that, and you still cannot provide a single fact
to support your point of view.
And that's what it comes down to, right? You are without any cogent
arguments to buttress your point of view, so you lose yourself in personal
attack and try to find hidden meanings behind the "green cheese"
statement, which merely reflects availability of evidence and credibility,
that's all.
Singh
In article <gsteinberg-03...@ip78.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>
> The right answer here is not what you state. The right answer is that your
> messages are filled with venon and attacks, but no facts. If you can show
> me how a single point about audio that I've raised is wrong, with facts,
> figures, studies, etc., go for it. So far you are so hung up on your
> "green chhese" issue that you have lost it, totally. My point is that the
> common subjective perception among people like you with the "everything or
> most everything sounds different" philosophy is about as credible as the
> argument that the moon is made of green cheese. And you still don't
> understand the point in that, and you still cannot provide a single fact
> to support your point of view.
>
> And that's what it comes down to, right? You are without any cogent
> arguments to buttress your point of view, so you lose yourself in personal
> attack and try to find hidden meanings behind the "green cheese"
> statement, which merely reflects availability of evidence and credibility,
> that's all.
Gene, I am very cross with you right now! I have tried numerous times,
just as I have with Nousaine, to get you to comprehend simple concepts in
logic and reasoning: you got to tackle hypothetical situations, and
analogies, and Nousaine got to try understanding the logical fallacies of
his in-print comments. Now don't tell me simple concepts in logic and
reasoning can only be described as "venon and attacks" (isn't the Venon the
next car Hyundai is coming out with?).
Here is another challenge for Gene-o, since you botched the first one.
Print out some of my posts from this thread, take them to a professor that
teaches classes in logic, and ask him what grade I would get. And I'm no
Vulcan.
Here is a parting statement for you to ponder, just to see if I can make
you crash your car on the way to work: if you can't prove the moon isn't
made of green cheese, how can you prove Mpingo discs don't work?
Gene Steinberg
>Gene, I am very cross with you right now! I have tried numerous times,
>just as I have with Nousaine, to get you to comprehend simple concepts in
>logic and reasoning: you got to tackle hypothetical situations, and
>analogies, and Nousaine got to try understanding the logical fallacies of
>his in-print comments. Now don't tell me simple concepts in logic and
>reasoning can only be described as "venon and attacks" (isn't the Venon the
>next car Hyundai is coming out with?).
>
All you've done is go on numerous idiotic flights of fancy, such as
speculating whether I own a Radio Shack receiver, or whether I bought it
from Arny K or whether he ever worked at that firm. Of course there's not
a word of truth to any of this speculation. They're all a pack of lies,
stuff you made up for no purpose at all.
In point of fact, the simple concepts of logic and reason here are not
your fantasies, but the basic facts about what is audible and not audible
in the available audio equipment. The factors that cause audibility or
absense of audibility in amps, cables, whatever, have been known for
years. Double blind, level matched tests confirm those factors. It's old
news.
It's also old news that you have no facts to refute them, so you go into
fantasyland.
You're a waste.
Arny Krüger
Singh wrote in message ...
>Gene, I am very cross with you right now!
Aw, tell the truth, you are kinda incensed with anybody who disagrees with
you. Right now the conspicious ones are Gene, Tom and I. You've been acting
very cross with all of us.
>I have tried numerous times,
>just as I have with Nousaine, to get you to comprehend simple concepts in
>logic and reasoning:
I see no evidence of that.
>you got to tackle hypothetical situations, and analogies,
What is wrong with tackling real-world situations? We got lot of those.
>and Nousaine got to try understanding the logical fallacies of
>his in-print comments.
Which I have yet to see you express.
>Now don't tell me simple concepts in logic and
>reasoning can only be described as "venon and attacks" (isn't the Venon the
>next car Hyundai is coming out with?).
Like you say, you've been "Very cross". If I were a prospective customer
I'd be anxious about visiting your store, even to buy a product I know you
have. You might just start ranting and raving like you seem to be doing on
RAO.
>Here is another challenge for Gene-o, since you botched the first one.
>Print out some of my posts from this thread, take them to a professor that
>teaches classes in logic, and ask him what grade I would get. And I'm no
>Vulcan.
I'd fail your pathetic attempts at logic. I'm no logic prof, but the
arguments of yours I've seen are not even decent arguments - just dogmatic
posturing.
>Here is a parting statement for you to ponder, just to see if I can make
>you crash your car on the way to work: if you can't prove the moon isn't
>made of green cheese, how can you prove Mpingo discs don't work?
Because its easy to prove the moon is NOT made of green cheese, and anybody
with a few simple tools and a good understanding of Newtonian Physics (and a
sample of green cheese) has been able to do so for maybe 100 years or so.
Singh
In article <6l3qsd$mip$1...@excalibur.flash.net>, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
Arny, you are a one-trick pony. Steinberg is still stuck on the green
cheese discussion. You flew right past that (bravo!) only to get
thoroughly stuck on how I perceive the qualities of audio equipment. Why
do always answer the posts that are directed to Gene-o? Is it easier to
backtrack?
And really, the harping on "prospective customers" is too much. Believe it
or not, there are people that buy audio equipment, that's why I have a job.
On the other hand, others can be labelled as "audio deadbeats". Do you see
where I am going with this? Can I call you "a.d." for short?
Kudos, however, for turning the phrase "dogmatic posturing". I'm not sure
how that doesn't apply to your ABX crowd, but it still sounds cool.
Anyway, this continual whining about what I do for a living is dull. What
do you do, Arny? Maybe we need to discuss that for a bit.
Arny Krüger
Singh wrote in message ...
>
>Anyway, this continual whining about what I do for a living is dull. What
>do you do, Arny? Maybe we need to discuss that for a bit.
>
Greg, since you have said that discussion of resumes is off-topic in RAO, I
can't, in good faith, respond to this question. You must have made a mistake
when you posted it, because for you to avoid answering questions about your
work history, and ask me questions about mine would be hypocritical.
Obviously you are not a hypocrite, right? ;-)
Gene Steinberg
>Steinberg is still stuck on the green
>cheese discussion.
More reality distortion, Greg?
Well, actually, you are the one hung up on the "green cheese" issue. It
was only mentioned in passing as an example of facts and reliability of
one's statements. Rather than understand the point, you kept harping on it
as a major issue, whether or not I could demonstrate that the moon was
made of green cheese.
I agree we should move past it, but you are the one who made the big deal
in the first place.
And I notice with all of your patter, you still haven't addressed any of
the points about audio that I've raised. Appears you don't have an answer
to questions about reliability, repeatability and accountability.
Singh
In article <gsteinberg-04...@ip214.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
I'll tell you what, Gene-o, you recap for me what points it is you are
raising and I'll address them individually. However, if the only real
question you are asking is "Why isn't everybody more borg-like?" I'm going
to be extra cross with you!
Singh
In article <6l5p1b$a8c$2...@excalibur.flash.net>, "Arny Krüger"
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
Arny, I still would like to know more about the "Big Brother" program in
the ABX camp, you know, the one where you continually come to Gene's aid
when his posts become a morass of random words from his database.
Gene Steinberg
>I'll tell you what, Gene-o, you recap for me what points it is you are
>raising and I'll address them individually. However, if the only real
>question you are asking is "Why isn't everybody more borg-like?" I'm going
>to be extra cross with you!
This is an exercise in futility with you. I've raised my points a number
of times in prior messages. One of those messages included a challenge for
you to take a double-blind, level matched listening test to see if you
could hear what you think you hear. As far as I'm concerned, that's the
next step. Your complaints and snide insults prove nothing. What is
"borg-like" is the constant repetition of excuses from subjective audio
folk when asked to demonstrate what they can hear.
The ball is in your court. Let's see how you fumble it this time.
Gene Steinberg
>Arny, I still would like to know more about the "Big Brother" program in
>the ABX camp, you know, the one where you continually come to Gene's aid
>when his posts become a morass of random words from his database.
If you think that logical discussions of the sources of real audible
differences and sound advice for would-be purchases of audio equipment is
"random words" to you, that's a reflection of your reading and
comprehension problem.
Mikeylikst
>From: n...@spam.com (Singh)
>Gene, I am very cross with you right now! I have tried numerous times,
>just as I have with Nousaine, to get you to comprehend simple concepts in
>logic and reasoning: you got to tackle hypothetical situations, and
>analogies, and Nousaine got to try understanding the logical fallacies of
>his in-print comments. Now don't tell me simple concepts in logic
>
>
Somebody needs to.
>Here is another challenge for Gene-o, since you botched the first one.
>Print out some of my posts from this thread, take them to a professor that
>teaches classes in logic, and ask him what grade I would get. And I'm no
>Vulcan.
>Here is a parting statement for you to ponder, just to see if I can make
>you crash your car on the way to work: if you can't prove the moon isn't
>made of green cheese, how can you prove Mpingo discs don't work?
>
>
You would get an F, any pofeesor would tell you, you cannot prove a negative.
While you may argue that we haven't dug up the whole moon, to see if there is
any green cheese, you can't argue that it is made out of green cheese without
any evidence. We do have evidence that it is not.
If you want to argue that Mpingo discs work, provide some objective evidence.
Mike McKelvy
No one ever went broke
underestimating the taste
of the American public.
Arny Krüger
Singh wrote in message ...
>
>Arny, I still would like to know more about the "Big Brother" program in
>the ABX camp, you know, the one where you continually come to Gene's aid
>when his posts become a morass of random words from his database.
Actually, Gene is the reason why I decided to post on RAO. ABX is my
invention and I felt challenged to act in a positive way when I saw him
getting abused for promoting something I invented.
Marc Blank
Arny Krüger wrote:
Yes, sometimes I feel sorry for him myself... :)
- Marc
Roy Briggs
Arny Krüger wrote
>Actually, Gene is the reason why I decided to post on RAO. ABX is my
>invention and I felt challenged to act in a positive way when I saw him
>getting abused for promoting something I invented.
I thought you said ABX was invented by someone else?
__________________________________
Roy Briggs. Remove [SPAMOFF] to reply.
Arny Krüger
Roy Briggs wrote in message <6l8bl6$2r6$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>Arny Krüger wrote
>
>>Actually, Gene is the reason why I decided to post on RAO. ABX is my
>>invention and I felt challenged to act in a positive way when I saw him
>>getting abused for promoting something I invented.
>
>I thought you said ABX was invented by someone else?
Fact challenged as usual...
Sad.
Roy Briggs
Arny Krüger wrote
>Fact challenged as usual...
>Sad.
I do beg your pardon. You - and I can quote - claimed ABX was not
your invention but that of other like minds who were working
along similar lines to you, or words to that effect.
You wouldn't care to eat your words, would you, liar?
Arny Krüger
Roy Briggs wrote in message <6l8o56$4ck$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
>
>I do beg your pardon. You - and I can quote - claimed ABX was not
>your invention but that of other like minds who were working
>along similar lines to you, or words to that effect.
>
>You wouldn't care to eat your words, would you, liar?
I'd like to see your quote.
Roy Briggs
I wrote:
>>I thought you said ABX was invented by someone else?
Arnii Kruger wrote:
>Fact challenged as usual...
>Sad.
I wrote:
>I do beg your pardon. You - and I can quote - claimed ABX was not
>your invention but that of other like minds who were working
>along similar lines to you, or words to that effect.
Arnii Kruger wrote:
>I'd like to see your quote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: On audio, cyborgs, and negativity
From: "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
Date: 1998/05/09
Message-ID: <6j1c2a$kaq$1...@excalibur.flash.net>
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
<SNIP>
[I wrote]
>First of all I don't see obsession, as I do with you over your abhorrent
>ABX creation.
[Arnii wrote]
Well, George, I mean Jon, I mean Roy, there is a body of thought that
suggests that ABX is not my creation. This theory, which has been expressed
several times on RAO in the past, suggests that ABX is really an expression
of prior art. And, I think that if if came down to a lawsuit, that opinion
would probably prevail. This is one reason ABX was never patented. So, your
claim that ABX is my creation is not the utter truth you seem to be
claiming.
<SNIP>
_________________________________________________________
That is what you said, isn't it?
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Apparently, the sheer number of lies prohibits him from keeping them
straight. The man needs a staff (and no, I'm not quoting his wife here!)
........:-)
Brian
Arny Krüger
Roy Briggs wrote in message <6lbgjc$6e7$2...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>...
Arny wrote:
>...there is a body of thought that
>suggests that ABX is not my creation. This theory, which has been expressed
>several times on RAO in the past, suggests that ABX is really an expression
>of prior art. And, I think that if if came down to a lawsuit, that opinion
>would probably prevail. This is one reason ABX was never patented. So, your
>claim that ABX is my creation is not the utter truth you seem to be
>claiming.
AFAIK, I built the first ABX Comparator known to exist, and ran the first
test with an ABX Comparator known to be performed. So, did I invent ABX - I
think that in one sense I did,
But in another sense, ABX was not a solidly patentable invention - there was
prior art.
At this time on RAO, there is some ambiguity as to what, precisely ABX
refers to - many use it to cover all kinds of blind audio tests, some of
which are ABX, some of which are son-of-ABX, some of which are like ABX, and
some of which are not like ABX.
Note that none of the local ABX-ers ever dispute my basic claim that I
invented ABX.
It was partially due to my influence that Nousaine changed from tweak to
ABXer.
Just about all of the ABX tests that are in the literature were performed
with ABX equipment that I built or helped build, or was built using plans
making it essentially identical to ABX equipment like that.
However, if I describe ABX to a compentent electronic engineer, he can build
a working ABX box in a few days. It's been done. More recently, folks would
just write a program and use a controller card in a computer.
Arny Krüger
hea...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <357907...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Roy Briggs wrote:
>
>Apparently, the sheer number of lies prohibits him from keeping them
>straight. The man needs a staff (and no, I'm not quoting his wife here!)
>........:-)
Usual audio content-free personal attack trash from HEAudio...
I just ran this thread and found no references to you at all. In a former
post, you sugested that there was an ethical or moral problem with people
who bring you into threads where you are not mentioned. Now, you do that to
yourself?
Please explain why you are in favor of "Moderation Lite" when anything that
would throttle pure personal attack posts would pretty much put you out of
business...
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> hea...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <357907...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >Roy Briggs wrote:
>
> >
> >Apparently, the sheer number of lies prohibits him from keeping them
> >straight. The man needs a staff (and no, I'm not quoting his wife here!)
> >........:-)
>
> Usual audio content-free personal attack trash from HEAudio...
I notice you didn't take issue with what I actually SAID, hwever. Do you
never post "audio content-free"? Or is it just ME that's precluded from
doing so in your jack-booted idea of right and wrong?
> I just ran this thread and found no references to you at all. In a former
> post, you sugested that there was an ethical or moral problem with people
> who bring you into threads where you are not mentioned. Now, you do that to
> yourself?
You've never had a problem with YOUR doing this-- now you want to
castigate ME for it? My, such hypocrisy-- where do you store it all?
Does it make good plant food?
> Please explain why you are in favor of "Moderation Lite" when anything that
> would throttle pure personal attack posts would pretty much put you out of
> business...
My continued presence there would put the lie to your claim that I'd be
"out of business". However, in such a forum you'de be prevented from
posting your usual aromatic blend of lies and slander-- is that what
frightens you so about that proposal?
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Arny Krüger wrote:
> AFAIK, I built the first ABX Comparator known to exist, and ran the first
> test with an ABX Comparator known to be performed. So, did I invent ABX - I
> think that in one sense I did,
>
> But in another sense, ABX was not a solidly patentable invention - there was
> prior art.
AFAIK, I discovered America. But in another sense, the discovery wasn't
recordable - there were some people here when I arrived.
Brian
Arny Krüger
hea...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <357A4A...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
>> Please explain why you are in favor of "Moderation Lite" when anything
that
>> would throttle pure personal attack posts would pretty much put you out
of
>> business...
>
>
>My continued presence there would put the lie to your claim that I'd be
>"out of business".
Are you suggesting you have presence on RAHE? LOL!
> However, in such a forum you'de be prevented from
>posting your usual aromatic blend of lies and slander-- is that what
>frightens you so about that proposal?
Actually, todays RAHE/RAO "Autho Profile" box score is something like this
per Deja News "Current" database:
RAHE - Arny Krueger - 273 posts.
RAO - Arny Krueger - 1620 posts
RAHE - HEAudio - 7 posts
RAO - HEAudio 2095 posts
I submit that since RAO averages about 6 times more total posts than RAHE,
my posting record in these moderated/unmoderated NG's are about comparable.
OTOH, you don't seem to be doing well over on RAHE, do you? Is it that the
moderator's send too much of your stuff back, or is it that you are not
comfortable posting with someone looking over your shoulder? ;-)
Anonymous
On 2 Jun 1998, Anonymous wrote:
> In article <gsteinberg-01...@ip91.tucson3.az.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> gstei...@earthlink.net (Gene Steinberg) wrote:
>
> > In article <no-ya02408000R0...@news.wwa.com>, n...@spam.com
> > (Singh) wrote:
> >
> > >You and your white lab coat collective are
> > >constantly yapping at the heels of people such as myself, critcizing that
> > >we are hearing something you can't, and demanding proof.
> >
> >
> > The problem is that when you folks attempt to show what you can hear with
> > product labels hidden, levels matched, you come up with nothing.
>
> Do you have any evidence for the above?
>
> btw: I've generally found it trivial to find audible differences between
> two different amplifiers ( during double/triple blind, level matched tests
> ); and
> it's trivial to show audible differences in an ABX test of interconnects
> in my system.
>
> So much for your claims of "nothing".
If cables have an audible effect in your system, either you are using the wrong cables
for the application or your system isn't of state-of-the-art design. Mr. Steinberg's
statement does not apply to junk products or junk installations as there is no argument
over their producing deviations from fidelity, hence audible differences WRT more accurate
components.
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> hea...@ix.netcom.com wrote in message <357A4A...@ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> >> Please explain why you are in favor of "Moderation Lite" when anything
> that
> >> would throttle pure personal attack posts would pretty much put you out
> of
> >> business...
> >
> >
> >My continued presence there would put the lie to your claim that I'd be
> >"out of business".
>
> Are you suggesting you have presence on RAHE? LOL!
Where do you read that "suggestion" into what I actually wrote? Stop
foaming at the mouth for a moment and look again: I said, in regard to
the proposed "moderation-lite", that my continued presence *there* would
put the lie to your claim that I'd be "out of business". The result, of
course , is that your agenda-driven fantasies preclude you from seeing
exactly what's been said. How pathetic.......
>
> > However, in such a forum you'de be prevented from
> >posting your usual aromatic blend of lies and slander-- is that what
> >frightens you so about that proposal?
>
> Actually, todays RAHE/RAO "Autho Profile" box score is something like this
> per Deja News "Current" database:
>
> RAHE - Arny Krueger - 273 posts.
> RAO - Arny Krueger - 1620 posts
>
> RAHE - HEAudio - 7 posts
> RAO - HEAudio 2095 posts
>
> I submit that since RAO averages about 6 times more total posts than RAHE,
> my posting record in these moderated/unmoderated NG's are about comparable.
Of course-- things are just as you like them! You can post to RAHE when
you actually have something useful to say, and you can wade into RAO
when the need to lie and slander takes over. The fact that RAO may also
become moderated scares the pants off you. Do you suppose anyone isn't
aware of that, and whay it is so? ;-)
> OTOH, you don't seem to be doing well over on RAHE, do you? Is it that the
> moderator's send too much of your stuff back, or is it that you are not
> comfortable posting with someone looking over your shoulder? ;-)
I don't post to RAHE, idiot. If I did, I guess I'd "do" better, huh? Of
course, you're free to crank up your speculation module-- you know, the
one that came up with the *very sane* notion that Marc and Doug and
George and Roy and I were plants of the evil High-End Audio
Manufacturers Cabal™-- to produce all the reasons you care to as to why
I don't. I'm quite certain however, that none of them will match my
often-stated reasons-- but that shouldn't concern *you* any! Flame away!
This is RAO (for now.....)!
Brian
Anonymous
Gruvmyster
Somebody wrote:
> ... and for ever.
Yup! And if r.a.d passes, you'll be oughtta there, as anonymous
posters probably won't be allowed.
You can, of course, stay on r.a.o.
See ya!
Doug
--
"Theory should be study, not doctrine."-- Carl von Clausewitz
hea...@ix.netcom.com
Gruvmyster wrote:
>
> Somebody wrote:
>
> >
> >On Mon, 8 Jun 1998 hea...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> >
> >> This is RAO (for now.....)!...
>
> > ... and for ever.
>
> Yup! And if r.a.d passes, you'll be oughtta there, as anonymous
> posters probably won't be allowed.
>
> You can, of course, stay on r.a.o.
>
> See ya!
....but most likely, not :-)
Brian