Height of Hypocricy from Arny
Arny Krüger
Marc Blank wrote in message <359FC6C5...@eidetic.com>...
>Arny Krüger wrote:
>
>> Marlon Ben Feld wrote in message
<6nml39$i0$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>...
>> >Peter Corey ("pcor"@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net.) wrote:
>> >: Thought occurred to me that perhaps in order to settle the
controversy
>> >: constantly raging within the group , members might possibly agree to
>> accept
>> >: the results of a poll with respect to the desirability (or
>> undesirability)
>> >: of not viewing components while determining their relative superiority
>> with
>> >
>> >Since when is the goal to "settle" a controversy? The sorry state of
this
>> >group is due to ad hominem attacks, not to differences in beliefs.
>>
>> I agree. Precisely. 100%.
>
>Incredibly hypocrisy, considering that you resort to ad-hominem attacks
more
>frequently than most here.
I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical corrections,
and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions that seem to
otherwise go unaswered.
Most of my ad-hominem attacks are directed at people like you, Middius, and
Gruvmyster who attack me at every opportunity. If you guys would go away or
get back to talking about audio this NG would be a better place.
Gruvmyster
Arny Krüger wrote:
>Marc Blank wrote:
>>Arny Krüger wrote:
>>> Marlon Ben Feld wrote:
>>>>Since when is the goal to "settle" a controversy? The sorry state of
>>>>this group is due to ad hominem attacks, not to differences in beliefs.
>>> I agree. Precisely. 100%.
>>Incredibly hypocrisy, considering that you resort to ad-hominem attacks
>more frequently than most here.
>I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical corrections,
>and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions that seem to
>otherwise go unaswered.
From what I've seen, most of your purely technical posts go without
rebuttal.
>Most of my ad-hominem attacks are directed at people like you, Middius, and
>Gruvmyster who attack me at every opportunity. If you guys would go away or
>get back to talking about audio this NG would be a better place.
Several months ago, Marc stopped posting flames. More recently, I
have.
What has been the net result? Continued harrassment from you. As I
told Mikey this weekend, I can understand the need to "get even" for
the past. When can I expect you to get over it? Would four more weeks
of harrassment be enough?
Doug
--
"The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy.
The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy." --William Hazlitt
Jeff Adams
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 06:28:51 -0400, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
wrote:
>I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical corrections,
>and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions that seem to
>otherwise go unaswered.
>
>Most of my ad-hominem attacks are directed at people like you, Middius, and
>Gruvmyster who attack me at every opportunity. If you guys would go away or
>get back to talking about audio this NG would be a better place.
So why don't you just STOP making ad-hominem attacks? Take the lead,
man! How do you justify acting this way? Why don't you take me up on
my suggestion of cooling it for just 2 weeks, and see what the "other"
side does? What do you have to lose?
And notice - this is NOT a personal attack. It is a simple appeal.
You have admitted in your response that you do make ad-hominem
attacks. I'm simply asking you to stop. I don't think most people
would consider this a personal attack. Do you? If so, why?
======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. |
==========================================================================
Marc Blank
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Marc Blank wrote in message <359FC6C5...@eidetic.com>...
> >Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> >> Marlon Ben Feld wrote in message
> <6nml39$i0$1...@apakabar.cc.columbia.edu>...
> >> >Peter Corey ("pcor"@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net.) wrote:
> >> >: Thought occurred to me that perhaps in order to settle the
> controversy
> >> >: constantly raging within the group , members might possibly agree to
> >> accept
> >> >: the results of a poll with respect to the desirability (or
> >> undesirability)
> >> >: of not viewing components while determining their relative superiority
> >> with
> >> >
> >> >Since when is the goal to "settle" a controversy? The sorry state of
> this
> >> >group is due to ad hominem attacks, not to differences in beliefs.
> >>
> >> I agree. Precisely. 100%.
> >
> >Incredibly hypocrisy, considering that you resort to ad-hominem attacks
> more
> >frequently than most here.
>
> I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical corrections,
> and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions that seem to
> otherwise go unaswered.
>
> Most of my ad-hominem attacks are directed at people like you, Middius, and
> Gruvmyster who attack me at every opportunity. If you guys would go away or
> get back to talking about audio this NG would be a better place.
The same could pretty much be said about you, I'm afraid. (At least you didn't
deny that you resort to ad-hominem attacks).
- Marc
greg singh
George, I think you need to step in here and explain to Jeff the cyborgs'
rules of engagement.
Jeff Adams <jeff....@gscxyz.gte.com> wrote in article
<35a308f0....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
> On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 06:28:51 -0400, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical
corrections,
> >and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions that seem to
> >otherwise go unaswered.
> >
> >Most of my ad-hominem attacks are directed at people like you, Middius,
and
> >Gruvmyster who attack me at every opportunity. If you guys would go away
or
> >get back to talking about audio this NG would be a better place.
>
Arny Krüger
Marc Blank wrote in message <35A102E7...@eidetic.com>...
>
>(At least you didn't deny that you resort to ad-hominem attacks).
>
But Gruvy is in denial about you. Let's have some excerpts from you, old
boy, just in the past week!
> Marc Blank wrote:
>...you lying sack of shit.
>LIAR!
>Liar.
>Asshole.
>You are a filthy, disgusting liar.
> - Marc
Now who is the bigger hypocrite here? ;-(
Arny Krüger
Gruvmyster wrote in message <35a0db83...@news.idt.net>...
Arny wrote:
>>I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical
corrections,
>>and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions that seem to
>>otherwise go unaswered.
>
>From what I've seen, most of your purely technical posts go without
rebuttal.
Some do, some don't. Note how Singh is dumping the personal attacks on my
answer about Dolby Digital. This one started out pure technical, and I've
been editing the personal attacks out of Singh's prose to keep the
discussion as cool as possible - just like I've had to do for you and Blanc
in the past. There is generally no amount of editing that can make anything
like a technical post out of anything that Middis writes.
>Several months ago, Marc stopped posting flames. More recently, I
>have.
Letsee, can we allow that the words "Shit" and "Liar" are symptomatic of
flames? I get three hits for Blanc on Deja news on "Shit" for just the past
week. Three more for "liar". I've looked at the posts and stand by DN's
count. They were flames.
>What has been the net result?
As shown above, the creation of a myth by you.
What's new?
Arny Krüger
Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a308f0....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>So why don't you just STOP making ad-hominem attacks?
I've stopped making ad-hominem attacks for 2 weeks solid, twice in the past
year. Middius and the usual list of suspects never missed a beat.
>Take the lead, man!
Show me a two week period when Middius, etc. did not flame me.
>How do you justify acting this way?
Simple. My record for non-flame posts is quite good in environments where
Middus and Gruvy fear to tread. I can do it if they leave me alone. Trouble
is, if I call them up on their flames, then it is more flames. If I don't,
nothing changes.
>Why don't you take me up on
>my suggestion of cooling it for just 2 weeks, and see what the "other"
>side does? What do you have to lose?
Been there done that twice in the past year. I lost nothing, and they did
not stop flaming, either.
>You have admitted in your response that you do make ad-hominem
>attacks. I'm simply asking you to stop.
You don't get it. Middius has promised not to stop, and Gruvmyster can't
tell a personal attack from a technical post paritcularly when the post is
from him or one of his buds. I ignore the vast majority of their personal
attacks against me, which now number in the many 1,000's. Every once in a
while I turn and bark back.
You simply don't know what its like to sustain this kind of abuse for months
and now its getting close to years. If you were in my shoes you would sing a
different song. Prove otherwise.
George M. Middius
Greg Singh said:
>George, I think you need to step in here and explain to Jeff the cyborgs'
>rules of engagement.
Jeff Adams wrote
>> And notice - this is NOT a personal attack. It is a simple appeal.
>> You have admitted in your response that you do make ad-hominem
>> attacks. I'm simply asking you to stop. I don't think most people
>> would consider this a personal attack. Do you? If so, why?
Actually, Jeff has reached the obvious conclusion.
I'm sure he'll post that opinion soon enough.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
Gruvmyster
"Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net> said:
>Gruvmyster wrote in message <35a0db83...@news.idt.net>...
>Arny wrote:
>>>I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical
>>>corrections, and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions
>>>that seem to otherwise go unaswered.
>>From what I've seen, most of your purely technical posts go without
>rebuttal.
>Some do, some don't. Note how Singh is dumping the personal attacks on my
>answer about Dolby Digital. This one started out pure technical, and I've
>been editing the personal attacks out of Singh's prose to keep the
>discussion as cool as possible - just like I've had to do for you and Blanc
>in the past. There is generally no amount of editing that can make anything
>like a technical post out of anything that Middis writes.
Key phrase: " just like I've had to do for you and Blanc *in the
past*."
I cannot accept responsibility for other posters here. You should not
hold me responsible for them.
How about this: treat other posters as they are treating you.
>>Several months ago, Marc stopped posting flames. More recently, I
>>have.
>Letsee, can we allow that the words "Shit" and "Liar" are symptomatic of
>flames? I get three hits for Blanc on Deja news on "Shit" for just the past
>week. Three more for "liar". I've looked at the posts and stand by DN's
>count. They were flames.
Letsee, did not Marc stop posting flames several weeks ago? I think he
finally just said the hell with it.
>>What has been the net result?
>As shown above, the creation of a myth by you.
>What's new?
Um, the fact you didn't show anything for flames directed at you by
me? Do you not agree I haven't been flaming recently?
Gruvmyster
Arny sez:
>Marc Blank wrote in message <35A102E7...@eidetic.com>...
>>(At least you didn't deny that you resort to ad-hominem attacks).
>But Gruvy is in denial about you. Let's have some excerpts from you, old
>boy, just in the past week!
No, as a matter of fact, Gruvy isn't. IMO, Marc tried to be reasonable
with you a few weeks ago. That he gave up on that tack doesn't alter
the fact he tried it.
>> Marc Blank wrote:
<snip>
>Now who is the bigger hypocrite here? ;-(
Your argument appears to me thus:
"If Gruvy thinks that Mark laid off flaming a few weeks ago, and Mark
is not currently laying off, then Mark is a hypocrite."
That makes about as much sense as holding me responsible for the
actions of others.;-(
Marc Blank
Arny Krüger wrote:
> >Several months ago, Marc stopped posting flames. More recently, I
> >have.
>
> Letsee, can we allow that the words "Shit" and "Liar" are symptomatic of
> flames? I get three hits for Blanc on Deja news on "Shit" for just the past
> week. Three more for "liar". I've looked at the posts and stand by DN's
> count. They were flames.
>
It's true. I DID stop for quite a while, then gave up because I couldn't stand
the filth you post. I stand by all of my posts to you, especially the ones
calling you a liar.
- Marc
Marc Blank
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Marc Blank wrote in message <35A102E7...@eidetic.com>...
>
> >
> >(At least you didn't deny that you resort to ad-hominem attacks).
> >
>
> But Gruvy is in denial about you. Let's have some excerpts from you, old
> boy, just in the past week!
>
> > Marc Blank wrote:
>
> >...you lying sack of shit.
>
> >LIAR!
>
> >Liar.
>
> >Asshole.
>
> >You are a filthy, disgusting liar.
>
> > - Marc
>
> Now who is the bigger hypocrite here? ;-(
Not me, asshole. I never said I wasn't posting flames recently. Show me
where I did.
LIAR.
- Marc
Marc Blank
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a308f0....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>
> >So why don't you just STOP making ad-hominem attacks?
>
> I've stopped making ad-hominem attacks for 2 weeks solid, twice in the past
> year. Middius and the usual list of suspects never missed a beat.
>
Besides Middius, who else? LIAR.
- Marc
Jeff Adams
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:29:57 -0400, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
wrote:
>
>Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a308f0....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>
>>So why don't you just STOP making ad-hominem attacks?
>
>I've stopped making ad-hominem attacks for 2 weeks solid, twice in the past
>year. Middius and the usual list of suspects never missed a beat.
>
>>Take the lead, man!
>
>Show me a two week period when Middius, etc. did not flame me.
I can't (show where Middius stopped). I honestly wasn't aware of the
periods where you had stopped.
>>How do you justify acting this way?
>
>Simple. My record for non-flame posts is quite good in environments where
>Middus and Gruvy fear to tread. I can do it if they leave me alone. Trouble
>is, if I call them up on their flames, then it is more flames. If I don't,
>nothing changes.
Yes, I agree that you have posted a lot to r.a.h-e, and often in a
friendly manner. So why do you behave differently when there is no
moderation? Why are they a factor in how you act? Can't you just
ignore them? Forever?
>>Why don't you take me up on
>>my suggestion of cooling it for just 2 weeks, and see what the "other"
>>side does? What do you have to lose?
>
>Been there done that twice in the past year. I lost nothing, and they did
>not stop flaming, either.
I wasn't aware of this. I stand corrected. Maybe it will take a
month for them to cool it. I don't know, I guess my estimate was low
(for how long it would take them to knock it off). Are you saying
that during these two week periods that you didn't flame them, or,
that in addition to that, you refrained from being
abbrasive/confrontational/etc. (all the other things I've listed in
other posts)? If not the entire list, then I would suggest that they
were still reacting to these other things. I've said it a bunch of
times, but I'll say it again because you haven't directly addressed
the point: Stewart Pinkerton and Bob Myers seem to be able to get the
same points across with much less trouble (i.e., flaming) than you.
Not entirely of course (Stewart has certainly mixed it up plenty, and
I was really very surprised at what a hard time George gave Bob about
DBT's awhile back since I thought Bob was being very civil, as usual).
But generally speaking.
>>You have admitted in your response that you do make ad-hominem
>>attacks. I'm simply asking you to stop.
>
>You don't get it. Middius has promised not to stop, and Gruvmyster can't
>tell a personal attack from a technical post paritcularly when the post is
>from him or one of his buds. I ignore the vast majority of their personal
>attacks against me, which now number in the many 1,000's. Every once in a
>while I turn and bark back.
I can't speak for George or Doug, but I can honestly say that, in my
opinion, Doug has cut way down on his flames. Do you really not see
that? It used to be that for every time George flamed you, there was a
post from Doug within minutes (ok, maybe hours). Now he almost never
"piles on". I'm not saying he's quit, but can't you at least admit
he's gotten better? I think if we asked any impartial observer, they
would agree that he has improved.
With regards to the "barking back", I can understand that temptation
(not specifically, because these circumstances are different, and I
have not been the recipient of 1000's of flames; but as a general
statement, I too have a temptation to bark back when flamed). But I
think what so many people are trying to get across to you is that they
flame you because of your attitude (again see previous posts for a
list of things that bugs people: abrasiveness; general "shortness" or
rudeness; ignoring other people's opinions; an attitude that says "I'm
right about this, and I'm going to present this material in a way that
makes you feel dumb"; etc.). Can you acknowledge that you are guilty
of these sorts of attitudes? I'm not attacking you by pointing this
out, I'm just stating my observations.
>You simply don't know what its like to sustain this kind of abuse for months
>and now its getting close to years. If you were in my shoes you would sing a
>different song. Prove otherwise.
I honestly do sympathize, and have stated so before, and may well
again in the future (despite protestations by George and others). I
am trying as hard as I can to be as friendly and civil about
discussing this with you as I can. And I can't prove that I wouldn't
do what you do. But that's not the point. The point is, the bar of
comparison for behavior is not George, Doug, me, or anyone else. The
bar is comparing to what's the right thing to do. And this just gets
me back to the point I've been trying to get across: you get flamed
not so much for the raw content of your posts, but for how you present
the material. I'll repeat this again for the umpteenth time: their
responses to you are, in my opinion, uncalled for and sometimes vile
and unspeakable. Period. But they do it because they feel you are
provoking them, even when you don't directly address them. Which just
leads right back to the point that other people can get the same
points across with less animosity. Which brings us back to the fact
that, in my opinion, you could save yourself a lot of this grief by
modifying your behavior. It appears they won't change theirs, so, why
change yours, especially when it's the right thing to do anyway?
Arny Krüger
Marc Blank wrote in message <35A16077...@eidetic.com>...
Your alleged "stopping" is hard to detect as an event that really happened.
I guess it is as real as many of the alleged audible differences that you
seem to want to defend to the death.
Pathetic. With you, Middius and Gruvy, personal agenda, and ideology triumph
over truth, almost daily.
Arny Krüger
Marc Blank wrote in message <35A16102...@eidetic.com>...
>
>
>Arny Krüger wrote:
>
>> Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a308f0....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>>
>> >So why don't you just STOP making ad-hominem attacks?
>>
>> I've stopped making ad-hominem attacks for 2 weeks solid, twice in the
past
>> year. Middius and the usual list of suspects never missed a beat.
>>
>
Given your spew of filth and incredibly short memory, its not worth the
trouble to research to answer you.
Arny Krüger
Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a77461....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>On Mon, 6 Jul 1998 18:29:57 -0400, "Arny Krüger" <ar...@flash.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a308f0....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>>
>>>So why don't you just STOP making ad-hominem attacks?
>>
>>I've stopped making ad-hominem attacks for 2 weeks solid, twice in the
past
>>year. Middius and the usual list of suspects never missed a beat.
>>
>>>Take the lead, man!
>>
>>Show me a two week period when Middius, etc. did not flame me.
>
>I can't (show where Middius stopped). I honestly wasn't aware of the
>periods where you had stopped.
I think that even Middius figured out when they both took place.
>>Simple. My record for non-flame posts is quite good in environments where
>>Middus and Gruvy fear to tread. I can do it if they leave me alone.
Trouble
>>is, if I call them up on their flames, then it is more flames. If I don't,
>>nothing changes.
>
>Yes, I agree that you have posted a lot to r.a.h-e, and often in a
>friendly manner.
I've posted a lot in RAO in a friendly manner as well. I think your
hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing even one of them.
>So why do you behave differently when there is no moderation?
Because with no moderation, I am attacked incessantly. I frequently remove
personal attacks from other people's posts to try to keep discusssion
on-tpoic. But, your hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing
that.
>Why are they a factor in how you act?
If you had the "pleasure of what must now be 10,000 or more personal
attacks, you would know. I find it very interesting that you concentrate on
attacking me directly, and leave the subjectivist agitators who attack
alone. Got any guts?
>Can't you just ignore them? Forever?
If your posts had any content worth noticing you would probably find out
what it is like to be me. Then, there might be a chance you would act in a
just way.
>
>>>Why don't you take me up on
>>>my suggestion of cooling it for just 2 weeks, and see what the "other"
>>>side does? What do you have to lose?
>>
>>Been there done that twice in the past year. I lost nothing, and they did
>>not stop flaming, either.
>
>I wasn't aware of this.
Your hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing things like
this. You basically think like Gruvmyster, only with a Bible you thump and a
lower volume of posts.
>I stand corrected. Maybe it will take a
>month for them to cool it.
Your hypocritical subjectivist agenda and lack of historical perspecive
keeps you from seeing the truth. Many of the same people who flame me were
flaming others long before I came on the scene. The flame content on RAO has
probably been higher than it is now in the past, even before I happened on
the scene.
Long ago the subjectivists on RAO figured out that if they flame most people
hard enough they will go away. The threat I provide to them comes from my
ability to not be affected by that.
I have a number of friends that they essentially flamed off RAO. Some still
post on RAHE.
The only reason I started posting on RAO was because I had compassion on
people who were getting flamed for ideas and events that were directly a
result of my actions.
> I don't know, I guess my estimate was low
>(for how long it would take them to knock it off).
As long as people post things that subjectivsts don't agree with, the
subjectivsts will flame them because the subjectivist viewpoint as applied
to audio is very weak. When they run out of weak arguments, the
subjectivists flame. Your hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from
seeing this.
>Are you saying
>that during these two week periods that you didn't flame them, or,
>that in addition to that, you refrained from being
>abbrasive/confrontational/etc. (all the other things I've listed in
>other posts)?
I am quite sure that I did none of those things because I posted nothing at
all! Boy, are you dense!
>If not the entire list, then I would suggest that they
>were still reacting to these other things.
They flamed incessantly before I came on the scene and they will probably
flame long after I die. It is in their ideology. They run out of arguments
and so they flame. It is as simple as that.
>I've said it a bunch of
>times, but I'll say it again because you haven't directly addressed
>the point: Stewart Pinkerton and Bob Myers seem to be able to get the
>same points across with much less trouble (i.e., flaming) than you.
Pinkerton posts less than I but gets about the same level of flaming per
post. Others get similar proportional flaming. Your hypocritical
subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing the truth.
>>You don't get it. Middius has promised not to stop, and Gruvmyster can't
>>tell a personal attack from a technical post paritcularly when the post is
>>from him or one of his buds. I ignore the vast majority of their personal
>>attacks against me, which now number in the many 1,000's. Every once in a
>>while I turn and bark back.
>I can't speak for George or Doug, but I can honestly say that, in my
>opinion, Doug has cut way down on his flames.
You have shown that you don't know a personal attack when you make one. Doug
has not cut back on his personal attacks, he's just wrapped them with more
platitudes. You are so easy to deceive with eyewash.
>Do you really not seethat?
I see a change in his strategy, but the attacks roll on. You are such a
fish!
>It used to be that for every time George flamed you, there was a
>post from Doug within minutes (ok, maybe hours). Now he almost never
>"piles on".
You dream. They've piled on plenty just in the last few days. You deceive
yourself so badly!
>I'm not saying he's quit, but can't you at least admit
>he's gotten better?
Personal attacks wrapped in eyewash are more repulsive to me than the plain
open kind of stuff.
>I think if we asked any impartial observer, they would agree that he has
improved.
That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of
are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on
RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and
stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more
knowlegable you would probably not be so snowed by him.
>With regards to the "barking back", I can understand that temptation
>(not specifically, because these circumstances are different, and I
>have not been the recipient of 1000's of flames; but as a general
>statement, I too have a temptation to bark back when flamed).
I resisted barking back for about the first 6 weeks I was on RAO. I resist
it all the time on RAHE. On RAHE there is a reward for not barking back -
you get to keep talking. On RAO there is no reward to not barking back
except the savings in time, which can be substantial.
>But I
>think what so many people are trying to get across to you is that they
>flame you because of your attitude (again see previous posts for a
>list of things that bugs people: abrasiveness; general "shortness" or
>rudeness; ignoring other people's opinions; an attitude that says "I'm
>right about this, and I'm going to present this material in a way that
>makes you feel dumb"; etc.). Can you acknowledge that you are guilty
>of these sorts of attitudes? I'm not attacking you by pointing this
>out, I'm just stating my observations.
Those attitudes are the result of the 10,000+ plus flames I have received.
Indeed its a weakness that they affect me that way because that is one
reason why the flamers flame me. While they can't overcome the logic and
facts I present, if they keep me irritated, I will not give the best
presentation I can, and so that lets them pull the wool over the eyes of
good-meaning but naive and weak-minded persons such as you who want to
believe in the myth.
>>You simply don't know what its like to sustain this kind of abuse for
months
>>and now its getting close to years. If you were in my shoes you would sing
a
>>different song. Prove otherwise.
>I honestly do sympathize, and have stated so before, and may well
>again in the future (despite protestations by George and others). I
>am trying as hard as I can to be as friendly and civil about
>discussing this with you as I can.
Is that why you kept sending me private email after I asked you to cease and
desist?
>And I can't prove that I wouldn't do what you do.
There is plenty of evidence that if you had 10% the abuse I've received
you'd crack.
>But that's not the point.
It shows that you are a naive hypocrite with a well-known subjectivst agenda
and no guts.
>The point is, the bar of
>comparison for behavior is not George, Doug, me, or anyone else. The
>bar is comparing to what's the right thing to do.
In that sense, the "right thing" can't be done on RAO. There is nothing but
the grim reaper that is going to stop idiots like George, Doug or Marc.
>And this just gets
>me back to the point I've been trying to get across: you get flamed
>not so much for the raw content of your posts, but for how you present
>the material.
And that is because I get flamed so much. Stop the flames around me, as is
the general rule on RAHE and see what you get.
>I'll repeat this again for the umpteenth time: their
>responses to you are, in my opinion, uncalled for and sometimes vile
>and unspeakable. Period.
Of course. But you rarely, if ever say that to the people who do that,
directly. You lack guts.
Nobody attacks you much because you rarely say much. You are proud of your
Christianity in private, but nobody attacks you for it in public because you
pose no public threat.
If Jesus had your lack of guts he would have never been crucified.
If Paul had your poor mouth and abject cowardice, he would have never been
tried and executed Rome.
If Moses had your lack of manhood, he would have never murdered a Egyptian
slave-driver, left town, and been faced with a burning bush.
In short, if the people in your Bible acted like you would have no Bible.
>But they do it because they feel you are
>provoking them, even when you don't directly address them.
Well, you are not completely stupid. If you follow that thought you will see
that I will always be attacked, even if I put forth the effort to be perfect
in your sight. The obvious conclusion: you have a greviously flawed plan
that would have only negligable effect on the flame level on RAO.
>Which just
>leads right back to the point that other people can get the same
>points across with less animosity.
I really don't think that anybody gets as many points across around here
than me. Therefore I will be the most flamed. And that would be true no
matter how mildly I said it, at least untili I said it so mildly that it
would be ignored.
> Which brings us back to the fact
>that, in my opinion, you could save yourself a lot of this grief by
>modifying your behavior.
You've already made a key admission that nets out to be: you are wrong.
> It appears they won't change theirs,
Yet another correct conclusion.
>why change yours, especially when it's the right thing to do anyway?
It's not right to let people lie without calling them up on their lies at
least occasionally.
Tom Albertz
> ...Gruvy...
>
> ... Gruvy...
> ... Gruvmyster ...
Are you really that dense or are you lying to
bait Doug into an attack?
Please quote a recent attack from Doug.
"Gruvy" has stopped. Why don't you quit mentioning his name.
Marc Blank
> Marc Blank wrote in message <35A16077...@eidetic.com>...
> >Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> >> >Several months ago, Marc stopped posting flames. More recently, I
> >> >have.
> >>
> >> Letsee, can we allow that the words "Shit" and "Liar" are symptomatic of
> >> flames? I get three hits for Blanc on Deja news on "Shit" for just the
> past
> >> week. Three more for "liar". I've looked at the posts and stand by DN's
> >> count. They were flames.
> >>
> >
> >It's true. I DID stop for quite a while, then gave up because I couldn't
> stand
> >the filth you post. I stand by all of my posts to you, especially the ones
> >calling you a liar.
>
> Your alleged "stopping" is hard to detect as an event that really happened.
> I guess it is as real as many of the alleged audible differences that you
> seem to want to defend to the death.
>
I left the group ENTIRELY for four months; how's that for "stopping". LIAR.
> Pathetic. With you, Middius and Gruvy, personal agenda, and ideology triumph
> over truth, almost daily.
You are such a STUPID bullshitter, Arny. I have NEVER posted a claim of audible
differences, AND YOU KNOW IT. Why do you continue this nonsense. There are no
"claimed audible differences", no "ideology", no "agenda". YOU, my friend, are
the one with the agenda and ideology.
You are still, as always, a lying sack of shit.
- Marc
Marc Blank
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Marc Blank wrote in message <35A16102...@eidetic.com>...
> >
> >
> >Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a308f0....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
> >>
> >> >So why don't you just STOP making ad-hominem attacks?
> >>
> >> I've stopped making ad-hominem attacks for 2 weeks solid, twice in the
> past
> >> year. Middius and the usual list of suspects never missed a beat.
> >>
> >
> >Besides Middius, who else? LIAR.
>
> Given your spew of filth and incredibly short memory, its not worth the
> trouble to research to answer you.
Or possibly because it's another of your LIES, right?
- Marc
Jeff Adams
wrote:
>
>Jeff Adams wrote in message <35a77461....@wlbr.iipo.gtegsc.com>...
>>I can't (show where Middius stopped). I honestly wasn't aware of the
>>periods where you had stopped.
>
>I think that even Middius figured out when they both took place.
Really? George, could you please give me the dates?
>>Yes, I agree that you have posted a lot to r.a.h-e, and often in a
>>friendly manner.
>
>I've posted a lot in RAO in a friendly manner as well. I think your
>hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing even one of them.
Arny, in another post I said you've also posted some very cordial
messages to r.a.o. Perhaps you hadn't read that post before
responding to this one.
But Arny, you're starting to play very unfair here. I challenge you
to find even ONE post of mine that shows my "hypocritical subjectivist
agenda". I'll go the extra mile and even remove the word hypocritical
from the sentence. Arny, why is it that you must twist things to suit
your argument? This is EXACTLY what angers your opponents. Since my
record is quite clear as not having a "subjectivist agenda", this part
of your argument is void.
>>So why do you behave differently when there is no moderation?
>
>Because with no moderation, I am attacked incessantly. I frequently remove
>personal attacks from other people's posts to try to keep discusssion
>on-tpoic. But, your hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing
>that.
Once again, Arny, I have clearly posted my protestations to people's
personal attacks on you on numerous occasions. I'll just assume you
don't remember that perhaps.
And since my record is clear, and that it is easy to prove that I have
no such "subjectivist agenda", this part of your argument is void.
>>Why are they a factor in how you act?
>
>If you had the "pleasure of what must now be 10,000 or more personal
>attacks, you would know. I find it very interesting that you concentrate on
>attacking me directly, and leave the subjectivist agitators who attack
>alone. Got any guts?
Again, Arny, you have demonstrated your skills in using Dejanews in
the past - my record is clear - I regularly denounce the most vile
personal attacks. So that part of your argument is void.
The next part of your argument is equally flawed. You say I'm
attacking you. I've pointed out that I'm not. I'm simply bringing
some specific behavior patterns of yours to light, suggesting that
they are unbecoming, and asking you to stop. This is not an attack.
So, this part of your argument is also void.
Finally, I don't understand your "Got any guts" quote. It can't mean
that you don't think I also call the "subjectivists" to task for their
attacks, because I do (again, check Dejanews).
>>Can't you just ignore them? Forever?
>
>If your posts had any content worth noticing you would probably find out
>what it is like to be me. Then, there might be a chance you would act in a
>just way.
Well, I have condemned those who have attacked you in the past
multiple times. But it has come to my attention that much of the
animosity displayed toward you is a result of your behavior.
Therefore, it seems quite just to point out those behaviors of yours
that cause the animosity. I honestly think that you may not realize
this.
>>>>Why don't you take me up on
>>>>my suggestion of cooling it for just 2 weeks, and see what the "other"
>>>>side does? What do you have to lose?
>>>
>>>Been there done that twice in the past year. I lost nothing, and they did
>>>not stop flaming, either.
>>
>>I wasn't aware of this.
>
>Your hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing things like
>this. You basically think like Gruvmyster, only with a Bible you thump and a
>lower volume of posts.
Hmmm. This is an interesting one. First of all, since we have
already proved that your "hypocritical subjectivist agenda" accusation
is null and void, I'll just ignore that (but I will ask you to do me
the courtesy of dropping this attack in the future, since you know
it's completely false). If you want to drag things into this public
discussion forum that you know others will have no understanding of or
appreciation for, I would recommend against it. I have tried to
communicate with you privately on those matters, but you rather rudely
and, I have to add, completely falsely, accused me of harassing your
religious beliefs, and threatened to complain to my ISP. So, since
you apparently are unable to respond to my well supported position in
my private email, I'll take your threats as an admission that you
can't support your position. That's the only way I can interpret your
actions, Arny. Unless of course you are ready to attempt to provide
justification, in which case I'm happy to return to email to discuss
the matter.
>>I stand corrected. Maybe it will take a
>>month for them to cool it.
>
>Your hypocritical subjectivist agenda and lack of historical perspecive
>keeps you from seeing the truth. Many of the same people who flame me were
>flaming others long before I came on the scene. The flame content on RAO has
>probably been higher than it is now in the past, even before I happened on
>the scene.
Well, again, we know you just keep repeating the lie about
"hypocritical subjectivist agenda" to taunt me an attempt to make me
attack you. Well, I'm sorry, it won't work. Especially since it's so
obviously untrue. Very poor behavior, Arny. Not at all becoming for
someone who claims the virtues you do.
And as a matter of record, I've been following this group for at least
2 or 3 years, so, I've got plenty of historical perspective. Another
part of your argument declared null and void.
And yes, there were people flaming others before you. People do that.
But I would postulate that they were flaming others for the same
reason they flame you. Notice I've never once said it was ok, just
that it happens.
>> I don't know, I guess my estimate was low
>>(for how long it would take them to knock it off).
>
>As long as people post things that subjectivsts don't agree with, the
>subjectivsts will flame them because the subjectivist viewpoint as applied
>to audio is very weak. When they run out of weak arguments, the
>subjectivists flame. Your hypocritical subjectivist agenda keeps you from
>seeing this.
Arny, please quit with the obvious lie about me having a "hypocritical
subjectivist agenda". Surely you know it's not good to lie.
But continuing to the part of the argument that hasn't been refuted
yet, I would suggest to you that, while some flaming will always
occur, no matter how nicely you or others post, the majority of the
flames would go away if you and others posted in a polite, non
condescending, non arrogant way.
>>Are you saying
>>that during these two week periods that you didn't flame them, or,
>>that in addition to that, you refrained from being
>>abbrasive/confrontational/etc. (all the other things I've listed in
>>other posts)?
>
>I am quite sure that I did none of those things because I posted nothing at
>all! Boy, are you dense!
Ahh, now you are resorting to the personal attacks that you seem to
indicate you don't like. How would I know that you didn't post at
all? This is the first news of that I've received. I'll assume that
you didn't really mean to make that personal attack. See, Arny, this
is EXACTLY the kind of thing I'm talking about. You prove my point
beautifully! You bring the problems on yourself!
But a point of logic here - if you stopped posting entirely, then, how
were they continuing to flame you? I don't get that...
>>If not the entire list, then I would suggest that they
>>were still reacting to these other things.
>
>They flamed incessantly before I came on the scene and they will probably
>flame long after I die. It is in their ideology. They run out of arguments
>and so they flame. It is as simple as that.
I agree - there will always be some level of flames. But, as I have
said over and over and over again, the level would be much much lower
if yours and other people's posts were polite and had grace for the
other persons' viewpoints. Try it. You'll see (but again, you'll have
to do it for an extended period of time).
>>I've said it a bunch of
>>times, but I'll say it again because you haven't directly addressed
>>the point: Stewart Pinkerton and Bob Myers seem to be able to get the
>>same points across with much less trouble (i.e., flaming) than you.
>
>Pinkerton posts less than I but gets about the same level of flaming per
>post. Others get similar proportional flaming. Your hypocritical
>subjectivist agenda keeps you from seeing the truth.
Pinkerton gets flamed only when he is wise and smart and attacks the
people he posts. He doesn't very often get flamed when he posts a
polite response. Like the one I just pointed out yesterday. Did you
notice that NO ONE flamed him for that post?
And again, stop with the lies about my agenda.
>>>You don't get it. Middius has promised not to stop, and Gruvmyster can't
>>>tell a personal attack from a technical post paritcularly when the post is
>>>from him or one of his buds. I ignore the vast majority of their personal
>>>attacks against me, which now number in the many 1,000's. Every once in a
>>>while I turn and bark back.
>
>>I can't speak for George or Doug, but I can honestly say that, in my
>>opinion, Doug has cut way down on his flames.
>
>You have shown that you don't know a personal attack when you make one. Doug
>has not cut back on his personal attacks, he's just wrapped them with more
>platitudes. You are so easy to deceive with eyewash.
No, in fact, I would suggest that you are the one that doesn't
understand the difference between a personal attack and pointing out
facts in evidence and appealing (very courteously, I might add) to you
to change your behavior. Yes, I know, it's no fun to have these
things pointed out, but, they are not personal attacks.
And if you are trying to say that Doug has not cut down on his flames,
I think you are really seriously in denial. I think it's obvious to
everyone but you and maybe one or two others.
>>Do you really not seethat?
>
>I see a change in his strategy, but the attacks roll on. You are such a
>fish!
Well, there are levels of flames and attacks, right? Are you equating
Doug's new approach with the level of some of Brigg's posts? Surely
not. Therefore, you are, it sounds to me, admitting that Doug has
improved.
And the other part of the problem here is that you take any comment
about your behaviour as a personal attack. I can't speak for Doug,
but, when I point out these things, they are not intended as attacks.
It seems that you are unable to make this distinction. I'm sorry if
you think I'm attacking, but, I'm not. Surely you can see the
difference between how I'm approaching this (in other words, extremely
civil, no name calling. no lying, etc.) and how others have tried to
in the past?
Oh, and I'm not entirely sure, but is calling me a fish a personal
attack? I'm guessing you intended it as one.
>>It used to be that for every time George flamed you, there was a
>>post from Doug within minutes (ok, maybe hours). Now he almost never
>>"piles on".
>
>You dream. They've piled on plenty just in the last few days. You deceive
>yourself so badly!
Arny, really. Look at the quantity now, and look at the quantity 6
mo's ago. If you do this, you will HAVE to admit that the quantity is
down considerably. Again, I think plenty of people on "your side"
would say the same. It's just that you can't admit it, or won't, I
don't know which.
>>I'm not saying he's quit, but can't you at least admit
>>he's gotten better?
>
>Personal attacks wrapped in eyewash are more repulsive to me than the plain
>open kind of stuff.
Really!!!! You'd rather have him swear and carry on? That's
interesting! I'm really surprised. And also, I'm surprised that you
would consider Doug's personal opinions, expressed in a civil manner
(not always, but a lot more so recently) as an attack. Can't people
express an opinion that doesn't agree with yours without it being an
attack?
>>I think if we asked any impartial observer, they would agree that he has
>improved.
>
>That impartial observer is not you. The best impartial observers I know of
>are the RAHE moderators. Note how Doug refuses to debate anything with me on
>RAQHE. That is simply because they would force him to clean up his act and
>stick to the facts - an area where he is very weak. If you were more
>knowlegable you would probably not be so snowed by him.
Well, I'd suggest I'm as impartial as they come. You just don't like
it (understandably) that I'm trying to engage you in a conversation
about your behaviour. My record stands speaks for itself. Hundreds
of posts, and maybe only a handful of flames in 2 or 3 years.
And this is the first time I've heard you suggest that you wanted Doug
to debate you on RAHE. Before this, all I've heard about are posting
statistics and all the arguments about how RAHE and the proposed new
group would be redundant. But that really doesn't having anything to
do with the topic at hand, which is your behaviour on this newsgroup.
>>But I
>>think what so many people are trying to get across to you is that they
>>flame you because of your attitude (again see previous posts for a
>>list of things that bugs people: abrasiveness; general "shortness" or
>>rudeness; ignoring other people's opinions; an attitude that says "I'm
>>right about this, and I'm going to present this material in a way that
>>makes you feel dumb"; etc.). Can you acknowledge that you are guilty
>>of these sorts of attitudes? I'm not attacking you by pointing this
>>out, I'm just stating my observations.
>
>Those attitudes are the result of the 10,000+ plus flames I have received.
But you seem to be ignoring my suggestion that a large majority of the
flames are not your message (yes, I've agreed over and over that some
folks will flame no matter how nicely anyone posts), but that they are
a result of the WAY you post your message.
>Indeed its a weakness that they affect me that way because that is one
>reason why the flamers flame me. While they can't overcome the logic and
>facts I present, if they keep me irritated, I will not give the best
>presentation I can, and so that lets them pull the wool over the eyes of
>good-meaning but naive and weak-minded persons such as you who want to
>believe in the myth.
At least we agree on this. I'm glad you recognize this - it wasn't
clear until now based on previous discussion that you were. So, this
just further proves my point that it's in your best interest to not
get irritated and express the qualities that your "opponents" love to
jump all over you for.
>>>You simply don't know what its like to sustain this kind of abuse for months
>>>and now its getting close to years. If you were in my shoes you would sing a
>>>different song. Prove otherwise.
>
>>I honestly do sympathize, and have stated so before, and may well
>>again in the future (despite protestations by George and others). I
>>am trying as hard as I can to be as friendly and civil about
>>discussing this with you as I can.
>
>Is that why you kept sending me private email after I asked you to cease and
>desist?
Can't you comprehend that I sympathize but at the same time think you
should alter your behaviour? The two are not mutually exclusive. The
fact is, your response to my email is basically indefensible. The
fact that you asked me to cease and disist without engaging me in a
civil, polite dialogue containing references that would support your
behaviour simply bolsters my opinion that I'm right and you are unable
or unwilling to back up your actions.
I think that basically you've admitted that your behaviour is not
terrific. You are saying, it seems to me, "Guilty with an
explanation". Fine, I'm just saying that if you tried modifying your
behaviour as I've suggested, you would receive FAR FEWER flames, and
thus the cause of your behaviour would be greatly reduced. Don't you
see that it's a win-win situation?
>>And I can't prove that I wouldn't do what you do.
>
>There is plenty of evidence that if you had 10% the abuse I've received
>you'd crack.
Fine, but we're not discussing me right now. I'd expect anyone who
knew better to point out flaws in my behaviour too. I'd listen with
open ears to constructive advice - especially when it would very
likely lead to a lessening of the problem causing the behaviour.
>It shows that you are a naive hypocrite with a well-known subjectivst agenda
>and no guts.
That's so funny I'm ROTFL. My record and viewpoint is quite the
opposite, and, I think you know it.
And please explain what "no guts" has to do with the conversation? I
really don't understand what I have to do with me attempting to change
your behaviour.
>>The point is, the bar of
>>comparison for behavior is not George, Doug, me, or anyone else. The
>>bar is comparing to what's the right thing to do.
>
>In that sense, the "right thing" can't be done on RAO. There is nothing but
>the grim reaper that is going to stop idiots like George, Doug or Marc.
So we agree that there is a "right thing", and that you're not doing
it. That's a good start. That's kind of been my point (that your
behaviour needs changing) - at least you're agreeing (in a way) that
you have not always been doing the right thing.
>>And this just gets
>>me back to the point I've been trying to get across: you get flamed
>>not so much for the raw content of your posts, but for how you present
>>the material.
>
>And that is because I get flamed so much. Stop the flames around me, as is
>the general rule on RAHE and see what you get.
Fine - I'm saying that the flames are not entirely a result of the
message, but the way in which it is presented. Bob Myers seems to be
able to present similar material, and he receives far fewer flames.
Yes, he posts less. Fine. But, at least admit that when Bob does post
similar viewpoints, he infrequently gets flamed. If you can see that,
you'll understand the heart of my post.
>>I'll repeat this again for the umpteenth time: their
>>responses to you are, in my opinion, uncalled for and sometimes vile
>>and unspeakable. Period.
>
>Of course. But you rarely, if ever say that to the people who do that,
>directly. You lack guts.
Well, Arny, that's just flat out untrue - unless we are debating the
definition of "rarely". I have, on numerous occasions, stood up for
you and others with your viewpoint. I have "yelled" at George,
Briggs, Singh, and others. I've only recently started to see that
your attitude has something to do with their flames. And again, I
don't condone it, it's flat out wrong for them to flame you, but it's
predictable behavour (just like you've admitted that you behave less
than optimally because of the flames you receive - they see it the
same way).
>Nobody attacks you much because you rarely say much. You are proud of your
>Christianity in private, but nobody attacks you for it in public because you
>pose no public threat.
Well, I've just reminded you of the many times I've complained about
people's flames, so, this part of your argument doesn't stand up.
>If Jesus had your lack of guts he would have never been crucified.
I don't have a clue what you are trying to say - or what it has to do
with you chaning your behaviour. Good tactics for trying to get
off-topic though!
>If Paul had your poor mouth and abject cowardice, he would have never been
>tried and executed Rome.
"My poor mouth". Now, what is that supposed to mean? You're grasping
at straws trying to change the subject. As a reminder. the subject is
your behaviour. Not mine.
>If Moses had your lack of manhood, he would have never murdered a Egyptian
>slave-driver, left town, and been faced with a burning bush.
Again, I have no clue what this has to do with anything. I've shown
that I've complained about other's flames towards you, so you can't be
talking about that. Hmm. Don't know.
>In short, if the people in your Bible acted like you would have no Bible.
And the relevance of this is what?
>>But they do it because they feel you are
>>provoking them, even when you don't directly address them.
>
>Well, you are not completely stupid. If you follow that thought you will see
>that I will always be attacked, even if I put forth the effort to be perfect
>in your sight. The obvious conclusion: you have a greviously flawed plan
>that would have only negligable effect on the flame level on RAO.
Well, I of course disagree (and, before I forget to point this out,
I'll take the reference to me being stupid as a personal attack [a
real one as opposed to an imagined one], but, I'll shrug it off even
though I know and you know it's very poor behaviour. Right?).
I think that if you (and others who post with similar attitudes, that
is, without respect for other's opinions; presenting facts abrasively;
etc.) were to alter your attitude/behaviour, we'd see a HUGE
difference in the flame level. I guess we just disagree about this.
>>Which just
>>leads right back to the point that other people can get the same
>>points across with less animosity.
>
>I really don't think that anybody gets as many points across around here
>than me. Therefore I will be the most flamed. And that would be true no
>matter how mildly I said it, at least untili I said it so mildly that it
>would be ignored.
Fine, you dodged the point of the argument though. You admitted in a
previous paragraph that when people flame you, they get you annoyed,
and you don't do as good a job presenting your side.
And again, you say "And that would be true no matter how mildly I said
it", and I disagree, pointing to Bob Myer's posts. I don't think you
can refute this logic.
>> Which brings us back to the fact
>>that, in my opinion, you could save yourself a lot of this grief by
>>modifying your behavior.
>
>You've already made a key admission that nets out to be: you are wrong.
What was that? Perhaps I missed it. I don't think I'm wrong
(obviously, or I wouldn't spend the time to post and respond). I think
it's totally clear to the vast majority that if people post politely,
respect other's opinions even when they think/know them to be wrong,
aren't arrogant, abbrasive, etc., that they won't elicit huge flames.
For the most part. I don't think that even you can disagree with this
point, because you've admitted that your behavour is affected for the
worse by the flames. The next thing I have to do is get you to see
that people consider abbrasiveness (and the rest of the list that I've
detailed numerous times) as a flame in and of itself. And they act
accordingly.
>> It appears they won't change theirs,
>
>Yet another correct conclusion.
>
>>why change yours, especially when it's the right thing to do anyway?
>
>It's not right to let people lie without calling them up on their lies at
>least occasionally.
Fine, I never said don't call them on their lies. I just said do it
politely and with respect, regardless of their behaviour.
I think we made some progress here. Thanks for responding.
Marc Blank
victims of his mean-spirited vile.... It is truly sickening - everyone here can
see clearly why Arny is the most despised person on RAO...
- Marc
George M. Middius
the long-dead humanity he believes to be buried
with the Hugely Grisly Krooborg.
>>>I honestly wasn't aware of the
>>>periods where you had stopped.
>>I think that even Middius figured out when they both took place.
>Really? George, could you please give me the dates?
Well, there was the time the Krooturd had to check
into a hospital for some implant-replacement
surgery. Upon its return, it averred that it had
gone hiking in the woods or some such. Lasted
about 5 days.
Then, earlier this year, the Vile One got booted
off of Concentric because, apparently, they
discovered just what sort of creature to whom they
had granted Internet access. For reasons unknown,
this hiccup resulted in RAO enjoying a two-week
vacation from His Metronic Filthfulness.
Marc Blank
but...
I'm sorry Jeff, but this is exactly what happened to me, Doug, and I'm sure many
others who have just skulked off the group. If it were just my experience, I
wouldn't think as much of it. But the FACT, I'm afraid, is that you are either
Arny's friend or his enemy - there is no middle ground. By advising him to change
his behavior, you have been deemed the enemy, and as such, you are now a
subjectivist, a dishonest person, a liar, a flamer, a pursuer of personal agendas,
and all of Arny's other familiar bugaboos.
ARNY IS A MEAN-SPIRITED HUMAN BEING.
PERIOD.
- Marc
Anonymous
<ar...@flash.net> wrote:
> >How do you justify acting this way?
>
> Simple. My record for non-flame posts is quite good in environments where
> Middus and Gruvy fear to tread. I can do it if they leave me alone. Trouble
> is, if I call them up on their flames, then it is more flames. If I don't,
> nothing changes.
So why are you so emotionally-challenged that you can not "resist" them;
and must succumb to such childish immaturity?
Gruvmyster
>Marc Blank wrote:
>>It's true. I DID stop for quite a while, then gave up because I couldn't
>stand
>>the filth you post. I stand by all of my posts to you, especially the ones
>>calling you a liar.
Why not give it a "go" again, for a few weeks? Let's see what happens.
>Your alleged "stopping" is hard to detect as an event that really happened.
>I guess it is as real as many of the alleged audible differences that you
>seem to want to defend to the death.
Arny, you said you stopped for a couple weeks twice in the last year.
I am aware of one of them, when you changed ISPs. It is my
recollection that the animosity level dropped on r.a.o.
If you feel differently, fine. I will not argue the point.
I do not recall the second. It is, however, not important now. Why not
try for a few weeks to emulate your behavior on r.a.h-e and see what
happens?
>Pathetic. With you, Middius and Gruvy, personal agenda, and ideology triumph
>over truth, almost daily.
Of course that would mean dropping the little jabs like this...
Gruvmyster
To quote my favorite stuffed donkey, Eeyore: "Thanks for noticing.":-)
Jeff Adams
now understand the various forms of posting styles which are
considered offensive by many? Or perhaps this followup didn't make it
to your local news server?
| 650-966-2122 | Mountain View, CA U.S.A. |
| Views expressed are mine and do not necessarily reflect the official |
| position of GTE or any of its subsidiaries |
==========================================================================
James M. Cate
Marc Blank wrote:
> Arny Krüger wrote:
>
> > Marc Blank wrote in message <359FC6C5...@eidetic.com>...
> > >Arny Krüger wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >Incredibly hypocrisy, considering that you resort to ad-hominem attacks
> > more
> > >frequently than most here.
> >
> > I also make more pure technical posts, more accurate technical corrections,
> > and provide more responses to newbies with simple questions that seem to
> > otherwise go unaswered.
> >
> > Most of my ad-hominem attacks are directed at people like you, Middius, and
> > Gruvmyster who attack me at every opportunity. If you guys would go away or
> > get back to talking about audio this NG would be a better place.
>
> The same could pretty much be said about you, I'm afraid. (At least you didn't
> deny that you resort to ad-hominem attacks).
>
> - Marc
_______________________________________--
Marc,
If you were totally honest you would have to admit that Arny, as well as most
of the other objectivists on this board, TRY to participate substantively, and TRY
to stay out of the flame wars, in most cases. -- And it's this very fact that really
sets off guys like yourself and Middius. -- When the subjectivists see a string of
reasoned, audio-oriented notes, they seem to become completely unglued, and
immediately jump in to stir up the pot with their flames, personal insults, cutesy
"humor," etc., and thereby distract the attention of the group from the substance of
the discussion. - Apparently guys like Middius watch the group every day so as to
catch any such discussions at an early stage and nip them in the bud before anyone
has a chance to learn anything from them. (It's sort of like the egocentric boors
who think that, if they can shout down people who disagree with them so that no one
hears what they are saying, then they have won the argument.)
I think that, instead of ridiculing and attacking contributors like Arny, Stew,
Nousaine, et al., you ought to apologize for the discourtesy they have received from
certain contributors to this NG and express your appreciation for their willingness
to participate. It's quite an honor, actually, for us to have men of their
credentials and professional standing as contributors to this NG.
JimCate
James M. Cate
George M. Middius wrote:
> Jeff Adams continues his futile quest to discover
> the long-dead humanity he believes to be buried
> with the Hugely Grisly Krooborg.
>
> >>>I honestly wasn't aware of the
> >>>periods where you had stopped.
>
> >>I think that even Middius figured out when they both took place.
>
> >Really? George, could you please give me the dates?
>
> Well, there was the time the Krooturd had to check
> into a hospital for some implant-replacement
> surgery. Upon its return, it averred that it had
> gone hiking in the woods or some such. Lasted
> about 5 days.
>
> Then, earlier this year, the Vile One got booted
> off of Concentric because, apparently, they
> discovered just what sort of creature to whom they
> had granted Internet access. For reasons unknown,
> this hiccup resulted in RAO enjoying a two-week
> vacation from His Metronic Filthfulness.
>
> George M. Middius
> Remove "jiffy" to reply
________________________________
MORE cutsey remarks, George? - By the way, when was the last time you
actually responded to one of Arny's notes by actually discussing an
audio-related issue in a substantive way, without trying to distract
everyone with your usual flames and personal attacks? When did you
actually step up to the bar and discuss what Arny was saying about a
particular component, testing procedure, etc.? - it would seem to me
that you ought to limit your flames and personal attacks to about 25
percent of your responses to the objectivists. -- That way, we would pay
more attention BOTH to your substantive notes (the 75 percent) as well
as your flames (the remaining 25 percent), since we then would know that
you don't post all those flames merely because you are a twerp who isn't
capable of providing logical responses to Arny's notes in the first
place.
JimCate
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
> Marc,
> If you were totally honest you would have to admit that Arny, as well as most
> of the other objectivists on this board, TRY to participate substantively, and TRY
> to stay out of the flame wars, in most cases.
Yeah right. Everytime someone says I compared two CD Players or two
cables or whatever, the Genes and Toms and Arnies descend on them like
the sword of Damocles. Who are you trying to kid, Cate. Arnie & I went
at it for a year and a half, and he enjoys jumping in the mud. Gene is
famous worldwide as the number one cyber flame artist in all of usenet.
> -- And it's this very fact that really
> sets off guys like yourself and Middius. -- When the subjectivists see a string of
> reasoned, audio-oriented notes, they seem to become completely unglued, and
> immediately jump in to stir up the pot with their flames, personal insults, cutesy
> "humor," etc.,
Oh shut the hell up, Cate. You think you are the voice of reason? You
have got to be kidding, with your ethnic slurs and lies and hypocracy!
You are a joke.
> It's quite an honor, actually, for us to have men of their
> credentials and professional standing as contributors to this NG.
See what drugs'll do to you, boys and girls?
Katie Lied
Zip
greg singh
James M. Cate <jim...@ix.netcom> wrote in article
<35A77ACA...@ix.netcom>...
>
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
> > Jeff Adams continues his futile quest to discover
> > the long-dead humanity he believes to be buried
> > with the Hugely Grisly Krooborg.
> >
> > >>>I honestly wasn't aware of the
> > >>>periods where you had stopped.
> >
> > >>I think that even Middius figured out when they both took place.
> >
> > >Really? George, could you please give me the dates?
> >
Mr. Cate, did you use your slide rule to calculate the above figures?
James M. Cate
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> James M. Cate wrote:
>
> > Marc,
> > If you were totally honest you would have to admit that Arny, as well as most
> > of the other objectivists on this board, TRY to participate substantively, and TRY
> > to stay out of the flame wars, in most cases.
>
> Yeah right. Everytime someone says I compared two CD Players or two
> cables or whatever, the Genes and Toms and Arnies descend on them like
> the sword of Damocles. Who are you trying to kid, Cate. Arnie & I went
> at it for a year and a half, and he enjoys jumping in the mud. Gene is
> famous worldwide as the number one cyber flame artist in all of usenet.
>
> > --> It's quite an honor, actually, for us to have men of their
> > credentials and professional standing as contributors to this NG.
>
> See what drugs'll do to you, boys and girls?
> Katie Lied
> Zip
__________________
Zip,
My point was that Gene and Tom and Arny TRY to keep the dissuasions audio-related
and substantive. Obviously, when they are subject to the constant barrage of personal
attacks and flames they get on this board, they can't always stick to an objective
discussion. Since after Middius et al posts his usual series of cutesy personal attacks,
there is usually nothing left of the substance that started the discussion. Actually,
Steve, you would gain credibility if you would admit that, Steve, and tell Middius et
all to shut up. - Then, if Arny got into a flame war, you would have a valid complaint.
Incidentally, Steve, after your Fourth of July celebrations, I wanted to remind you
that this is the weekend for celebrating Bastille day (July 14). You might be tempted
to ridicule this proposition as a quaint French tradition having no substantive
relevance to you or to Sunshine Stereo, etc. - Au contraire, Steven! Actually, this
holiday represents the turning point in the battles of all mankind against the
royalists and their "divine right" control. Although the actual event (the storming of
the Bastille) was rather anticlimactic in that most of the prisoners had been removed,
the MEANING of this event to all of us, of all races and heritages and religions,
should not be underestimated. -- It was truly the victory heard round the world, and it
marked the end of the monarchies and the beginning of individual rights, e.g., liberte,
fraternite, egalite, etc. -- Incidentally, Steve, these lessons regarding great
historical events are provided to you FREE OF CHARGE, for your edification. More
specifically, no European or American country would have supported the establishment of
the Israeli State after W.W.II if it had not been for the advances achieved as a result
of the enlightenment movement, followed by the US and French revolutions.
JimCate
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
before elections, promises:
>
> > James M. Cate originally bullshits:
> > > If you were totally honest you would have to admit that Arny, as well as most
> > > of the other objectivists on this board, TRY to participate substantively, and TRY
> > > to stay out of the flame wars, in most cases.
> Steve Zipser correctly points out:
> > Yeah right. Everytime someone says I compared two CD Players or two
> > cables or whatever, the Genes and Toms and Arnies descend on them like
> > the sword of Damocles. Who are you trying to kid, Cate. Arnie & I went
> > at it for a year and a half, and he enjoys jumping in the mud. Gene is
> > famous worldwide as the number one cyber flame artist in all of usenet.
Cate, now on his knees, begging for approval whines:
> > > --> It's quite an honor, actually, for us to have men of their
> > > credentials and professional standing as contributors to this NG.
Zip, stunned by the bullshit figures no sane person can brown-nose that
badly points out:
> > See what drugs'll do to you, boys and girls?
> > Katie Lied
> > Zip
>
> __________________
>
> Zip,
> My point was that Gene and Tom and Arny TRY to keep the dissuasions audio-related
> and substantive.
Bulldoody. I don not consider that one some audiophile or hobbyist
states, "this amp sounds better than that one", that Gene's mantra. have
you compared them under blind deaf dumb and dumber lsitening conditions
everythingsoundsthesame, that is furthering an audio discussion.
> Obviously, when they are subject to the constant barrage of personal
> attacks and flames they get on this board, they can't always stick to an objective
> discussion.
It is the same old song from them. It is the same old song from you.
At least they have some audio knowlege, you have none.
> Since after Middius et al posts his usual series of cutesy personal attacks,
> there is usually nothing left of the substance that started the discussion.
Which is true of you too, Cate. At least George has a sense of humor.
> Actually,
> Steve, you would gain credibility if you would admit that, Steve, and tell Middius et
> all to shut up. - Then, if Arny got into a flame war, you would have a valid complaint.
I have credibility, gobs of it, and more than you will ever dream of. I
require no approval from the likes of you, in fact I would abhor it.
> Incidentally, Steve, after your Fourth of July celebrations, I wanted to remind you
> that this is the weekend for celebrating Bastille day (July 14). You might be tempted
> to ridicule this proposition as a quaint French tradition having no substantive
> relevance to you or to Sunshine Stereo, etc.
And you'd be 100% right Cate. It means squat to me.
> - Au contraire, Steven! Actually, this
> holiday represents the turning point in the battles of all mankind against the
> royalists and their "divine right" control.
Cate, my people were fighting against devine right and for religious and
personal freedom when your acestors were chcuking spears out of caves in
France and Germany. Go read what Pesach or Hannukah are about, Cate.
You are an idiot.
> Although the actual event (the storming of
> the Bastille) was rather anticlimactic in that most of the prisoners had been removed,
> the MEANING of this event to all of us, of all races and heritages and religions,
> should not be underestimated. -- It was truly the victory heard round the world, and it
> marked the end of the monarchies and the beginning of individual rights, e.g., liberte,
> fraternite, egalite, etc.
And I suppose it gave closeminded, intyolerant assholes the right to
call some one a NY Jew when they disagree.
> -- Incidentally, Steve, these lessons regarding great
> historical events are provided to you FREE OF CHARGE, for your edification. More
> specifically, no European or American country would have supported the establishment of
> the Israeli State after W.W.II if it had not been for the advances achieved as a result
> of the enlightenment movement, followed by the US and French revolutions.
Getthefuckouttahereyoudonothaveanyideaaboutwhatyouspeak.
Ifitwasn'tforJewathere'dbenoJesusand
wearethefoundersofwesterncivilization - baptistscamemuchlater.
Zip
> JimCate
--
Sunshine Stereo, Inc http://www.sunshinestereo.com
Tel: 305-757-9358 Fax: 305-757-1367
9535 Biscayne Blvd Miami Shores FL 33138
PASS Labs NOVA Acoustics Miranda CODA Audible Illusions CEC
Camelot Technology Audio Logic Parasound Kinergetics Cabasse
Chiro Benz Micro Gallo Acoustics Dunlavy Audio NEAR NHT Jadis
Niles Zenith INTEQ Crystal Vision Straightwire Mordaunt Short ESP
Rega Vans Evers Cleanlines Monster Cable ENTECH EAD Arcane Audio
Sunshine Stereo encourages all audiophiles to support their local
dealers. If you do not have a local dealer, we will gladly assist
you with all your audio and video needs! *** ENJOY THE MUSIC! ***
Gene Steinberg
>Gene is
>famous worldwide as the number one cyber flame artist in all of usenet.
That of course, as you've been shown, is an absolutely, 100% falsehood!
Stop making things up!
The number one flame artist in this newsgroup is probably Middius,
followed by his minions.
James M. Cate
newsgroup. I see I was wrong, at least with respect to the Zipster. --
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> James M. Cate continuing to sound like acarpetbagging politician a week
> before elections, promises:
> ______________________________________
> Now that you mention it, Zip, I was in politics, and the interesting thing was that I won
> three successive elections against three differenct opponents, and was never defeated. It
> may say something about my character and my integrity. Also, I wan't kicked off AOL, or
> fired by VSR.
> > > James M. Cate originally bullshits:
> > > > If you were totally honest you would have to admit that Arny, as well as most
> > > > of the other objectivists on this board, TRY to participate substantively, and TRY
> > > > to stay out of the flame wars, in most cases.
>
> > > > Yeah right. Everytime someone says I compared two CD Players or two
> > > cables or whatever, the Genes and Toms and Arnies descend on them like
> > > the sword of Damocles. Who are you trying to kid, Cate. Arnie & I went
> > > at it for a year and a half, and he enjoys jumping in the mud. Gene is
> > > famous worldwide as the number one cyber flame artist in all of usenet.
>
Steve, If they compared the CD's or cables by comparing them with levels matched to the
same level, within .1 dB, and without knowing which was operating at any given time, then Arny
and Tom and Gene, as well as myself, would congratulate them on their integrity and their
willingness to share meaningful information on the NG. But you know, and I know, that this
isn't what they are talking about. Right, Steve? And if Arny or Tom provide correction to
such propaganda and insight about testing procedures which happens to contradict your buddies
anecdotal "comparative tests," you ought to be THANKFUL to them for furthering substantive
discourse on the NG, rather than trying to curse them and ridicule them and put them down. --
> Cate, now on his knees, begging for approval whines:
> > > > --> It's quite an honor, actually, for us to have men of their
> > > > credentials and professional standing as contributors to this NG.
>
> ________________
Well, Zip, they certainly provide more substance and information and class to the NG than you
and your buddies. Again, you ought to be GRATEFUL for the privilege of having knowledgeable
experts like Arny, Tom, and Stewart on the board. You certainly ought to complement them and
support them on their efforts to post informative, substantive information and their
willingness to share their experience and knowledge with the rest of us. - But you don't seem
to be very thankful at all, Zip. - In fact, you actually seem to resent having knowledgeable
audiophiles on the NG.
> >
> > Zip,
> > My point was that Gene and Tom and Arny TRY to keep the dissuasions audio-related
> > and substantive.
>
> Bulldoody. I don not [sic] consider that one some audiophile or hobbyist
> states, "this amp sounds better than that one", that Gene's mantra. have
> you compared them under blind deaf dumb and dumber lsitening [sic] conditions
> everythingsoundsthesame, that is furthering an audio discussion.
>
> > Obviously, when they are subject to the constant barrage of personal attacks from your
> buddies and supporters....
> >
>
> Actually, Steve, you would gain credibility if you would admit that Middius et al. are a
> major disgrace to this NG. They are the chief initiators of flame wars and personal attacks
> which have resulted in the disentegration of this NG. Thus, you OUGHT to tell Middius,
> Powell, et al, to get a life. -- But you wouldn't do that, would you now, Steve, because you
> know that Middius, Powell, et al. are standing by to brown nose you and support your
> asignine posturing no matter how stupid and arrogant you get.
> >> Incidentally, Steve, after your Fourth of July celebrations, I wanted to remind you
> > that this is the weekend for celebrating Bastille day (July 14). You might be tempted
> > to ridicule this proposition as a quaint French tradition having no substantive
> > relevance to you or to Sunshine Stereo, etc.
>
> And you'd be 100% right Cate. It means squat to me.
>
> > - Au contraire, Steven! Actually, this
> > holiday represents the turning point in the battles of mankind against the
> > royalists and their "divine right" control.
>
> Cate, my people were fighting against devine [sic] right and for religious and
> personal freedom when your acestors [sic] were chcuking [sic] spears out of caves in
> France and Germany. Go read what Pesach or Hannukah are about, Cate.
> You are an idiot.
Yes, Steve, I have visited and studied some of the origins of your people. -- One thing that
interested me was that your "original" designs for the temple and the tabernacles seemed to be
amazingly similar to the designs they learned about from their Egyptian hosts. -- Right down
to the design of the inner court, the HofH, the outer court, the lavers, the courtyard, etc.,
etc. Sort of a strange coincidence. Also, check out the monotheist practices and beliefs of
the Egyptian Pharaoh Akenaten, from the late Middle Kingdom. Again, you will find very
strange coincidences between your monotheistic heritage and that practiced by the Egyptians
during this period.
> >And I suppose it gave closeminded, intyolerant [sic] assholes the right to
> call some one a NY Jew when they disagree.
Actually, Steve, I DO seem to remember something from the founding fathers and the
constitutional amendments relating to freedom of speech. But in your mind, freedom of speech
seems to operate only one. -- It's perfectly OK for you to talk about the Baptists, but it's
a major offense for anyone to talk about you . - The pitiful thing about the NYJ analogy is
that, although the stereotype is exemplified only by a very small minority, YOU seem to be
intent on making yourself a living example of the stereotype - in spades!
> > -- Incidentally, Steve, these lessons regarding great
> > historical events are provided to you FREE OF CHARGE, for your edification. More
> > specifically, no European or American country would have supported the establishment of
> > the Israeli State after W.W.II if it had not been for the advances achieved as a result
> > of the enlightenment movement, followed by the US and French revolutions.
>
> Get the fuck outta here you do not have any idea about what you speak.
> If it wasn't for Jewa there'd be no Jesus and
> we are the founders of western civilization - baptists came much later.
> Zip
>
> _____________________-
Interesting historical account, Zip. So the jews are the founders of western civilization? -
What about the Greeks, the Romans, the Minoans, and the Egyptians, for gosh sakes. - Give me
a break. Regarding your repeated reference to the Baptists, I ain't a Baptist.- Sorry about
that. Regarding your "get the fuck out of here," as I told you before I shut down my E-mail
to your sicko notes to me and my wife, NOT A CHANCE.
Incidentally, Zip, I think you also ought to be THANKFUL to all of us for contributing MORE
THAN TWO BILLION DOLLARS a year in taxes to keep your fellow countrymen going, with both
military and non-military support. Year after year after year, and far more than we give to
any other country. We hear lots of boasting about their accomplishments (mostly well
deserved) but again, not much gratitude or thankfulness, and for some reason, the $2
-3,000,000,000 per year doesn't seem to be widely published. Don't misconstrue my remarks as
advocating that we should cut down the aid. But I do think it ought to be acknowledged and
appreciated. --
JimCate
Gruvmyster
> My point was that Gene and Tom and Arny TRY to keep the dissuasions audio-related
>and substantive. Obviously, when they are subject to the constant barrage of personal
>attacks and flames they get on this board, they can't always stick to an objective
>discussion.
In reality, if EITHER group wanted to, they can avoid the flames by
ignoring the other person. It certainly takes two to tango.
One way I've been able to avoid the temptation of adding more flames
than I do is ignore threads that take this form: (A= poster 1, B=
poster 2)
A
B
A
B
A
B
Doug
--
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The
literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."
-Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M
"Post-It" note pads.
Gruvmyster
>The number one flame artist in this newsgroup is probably Middius,
>followed by his minions.
I might agree if obvious flames are all that counts.
Gruvmyster
> since we then would know that
>you don't post all those flames merely because you are a twerp who isn't
>capable of providing logical responses to Arny's notes in the first
>place.
And you were doing so well...
Gruvmyster
>-- Well, I had thought that most of us had agreed to work toward achieving a "kinder, gentler"
>newsgroup. I see I was wrong, at least with respect to the Zipster.
Perhaps you will soon see the sense in rec.audio.moderated.
> you ought to be THANKFUL to them for furthering substantive
>discourse on the NG, rather than trying to curse them and ridicule them
> and put them down. --
As I said earlier, Jim, it most certainly takes two to dance. Are you
thankful for me pointing this out?
> you ought to be GRATEFUL for the privilege of having knowledgeable
>experts like Arny, Tom, and Stewart on the board. You certainly ought to complement them and
>support them on their efforts to post informative, substantive information and their
>willingness to share their experience and knowledge with the rest of us. - But you don't seem
>to be very thankful at all, Zip. - In fact, you actually seem to resent having knowledgeable
>audiophiles on the NG.
Jim, did you ever wonder why when teaching the sciences there are lab
exercises? Surely we know the outcome of the exercise before the test
even starts, right? Sometimes the professor may see mistakes in the
setup of the exercise, and may not say anything! Why do you suppose
this would be?
Answer this question truthfully, and you may understand why SOME here
have a problem with SOME of the experts.
Think about it.
James M. Cate
Gruvmyster wrote:
> "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
>
> >-- Well, I had thought that most of us had agreed to work toward achieving a "kinder, gentler"
> >newsgroup. I see I was wrong, at least with respect to the Zipster.
>
> Perhaps you will soon see the sense in rec.audio.moderated.
_____________________________________-I am looking forward to the implementation of the new
rec.audio.moderated NG. If we didn't permit the flames that Zip and Middius put out constantly, you
wouldn't see me and the other objectivists posting "flames responding to flames." I don't have any
problem getting my notes accepted there, and I don't anticipate problems on the new RAM NG.
> > you ought to be THANKFUL to them for furthering substantive
> >discourse on the NG, rather than trying to curse them and ridicule them
> > and put them down. --
>
> As I said earlier, Jim, it most certainly takes two to dance. Are you
> thankful for me pointing this out? Yes, but your observation is rather obvious, Doug. And you are
> failing to note that, for the most part, it's the subjectivists who keep starting the flame wars
> and who keep diverting the discussions from audio to personalities.. -- Sounds petty and
> simplistic, but its a major factor in the problems we have on this NG. I personally think that
> you will see far fewer notes from Middius and the like, and therefore, many more notes from Arny,
> Nousaine, et al. under the new rules. It's going to be a major watershed when we can get on the
> newsgroup and not only begin, but also continue some substantive audio discussions, without being
> ridiculed or flamed by Middius et al..
> > you ought to be GRATEFUL for the privilege of having knowledgeable
> >experts like Arny, Tom, and Stewart on the board. You certainly ought to complement them and
> >support them on their efforts to post informative, substantive information and their
> >willingness to share their experience and knowledge with the rest of us. - But you don't seem
> >to be very thankful at all, Zip. - In fact, you actually seem to resent having knowledgeable
> >audiophiles on the NG.
>
> Jim, did you ever wonder why when teaching the sciences there are lab
> exercises? Surely we know the outcome of the exercise before the test
> even starts, right? Sometimes the professor may see mistakes in the
> setup of the exercise, and may not say anything! Why do you suppose
> this would be?
>
> Answer this question truthfully, and you may understand why SOME here
> have a problem with SOME of the experts.
> ________________________________________
I'm all in favor of everyone conducting good, scientifically based experiments. And good science
WILL take into account the placebo effects which result from knowing which component is operating
at any given time. - That's why labs have to run blind and double blind tests on new
pharmaceuticals before they get FDA approval.
As for why chemistry profs might not tell the student they were doing the experiment wrong, in my
laboratory courses, they did insist that we do it right, and told us when we were doing it wrong,
during the course. -- Then, during our examinations, they made us run blind tests (identification
of "unknowns", i.e., elements that were not identified to us in advance) as a test of our progress
during the semester. In other words, we were trained to do it right, and then tested with blind
tests to see if we had learned what we were taught during the semester. The reason we were given
blind tests is that they simulated the experiences we would face in real life, in the workplace
where, again, we wouldn't be given the answers in advance.
--- I suspect that this answer is not the answer you were looking for. But it is a truthful answer.
JimCate
>
>
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
> Interesting historical account, Zip. So the jews are the founders of western civilization? -
> What about the Greeks, the Romans, the Minoans, and the Egyptians, for gosh sakes.
They came after Israel and the 12 tribes. Judaism is over 5000 years
old, dummy! Our written Hebrew history is more than twice as old as
those other cultures.
> Incidentally, Zip, I think you also ought to be THANKFUL
> to all of us for contributing MORE THAN TWO BILLION DOLLARS
> a year in taxes to keep your fellow countrymen going, with
> both military and non-military support.
My countrymen live in the United States, ya moron. I am Jewish. I am
not Israeli. I am an American. I served for 7 years in the United
States Navy & reserves. Are you so stupid that you can't figure out the
difference between a Jew and an Israeli?
BTW, Catie, I am also sure that if you had your way, we'd give the state
of Israel nothing at all!
> Year after year after year, and far more than we give to any other country.
You are saying the US gives more in foreign aid to Israel than any other
foreign country? In which century did this occur?
Zip
George M. Middius
mental chaos that inhabits Queenie Catie's "mind."
>> you ought to be GRATEFUL for the privilege of having knowledgeable
>>experts like Arny, Tom, and Stewart on the board. You certainly ought to complement them and
>>support them on their efforts to post informative, substantive information and their
>>willingness to share their experience and knowledge with the rest of us.
Just out of curiosity, Queenie, in what field do you
consider those three stooges of sameness to be
"experts"?
>Jim, did you ever wonder why when teaching the sciences there are lab
>exercises? Surely we know the outcome of the exercise before the test
>even starts, right? Sometimes the professor may see mistakes in the
>setup of the exercise, and may not say anything! Why do you suppose
>this would be?
If you don't mind, Doug, I would like to anticipate a
few possible thoughts that might be likely to pop into
Queenie's head.
1. The professor is obviously a sadist and would take
pleasure in seeing a student burn his arms off.
2. The experiment is so foolproof that the same result
always ensues regardless of the procedure used.
3. I didn't go to college, so I don't have to answer.
4. The professor is an expert, so everything he says
and does is perfectly true and accurate and totally
beyond your comprehension, let alone subject to your
criticism.
5. Arnii, please help me. I'm confused and filled with
stupidity again.
>Answer this question truthfully, and you may understand why SOME here
>have a problem with SOME of the experts.
In answer to your earlier question about the true
identity of "Guy Molinari," I think "Guy" is obviously
a creation of Queenie Catie. They sound so much alike
it can't be a coincidence.
TorResist
>The number one flame artist in this newsgroup is probably Middius,
>followed by his minions.
The reason why Middius' Minions (Hey! Catchy! I LIKE it! How about a rock group
called 'Middius and His Filet Minions'?) are "flame artists" as you put it, is
best expressed by Walter Kirn of New York Magazine, who said:
"The time for fighting stupidity with intelligence (seldom an effective
strategy anyway) is over. Now it's time to pour on the contempt."
tor
Mikeylikst
>Cate, my people were fighting against devine right and for religious and
>personal freedom when your acestors were chcuking spears out of caves in
>France and Germany. Go read what Pesach or Hannukah are about, Cate.
>You are an idiot.
Actually, you're both goofy if you think any of theses historic events confers
anything upon yourselves. You are what you choose to be, not what your
ancestors did.
Mike McKelvy
No one ever went broke
underestimating the taste
of the American public.
http://members.aol.com/RLSpeakers/RLSindex.html
Mikeylikst
>I am also sure that if you had your way, we'd give the state
>of Israel nothing at all!
I think it;s a crime to give aid to any country that doesn't treat all of it's
residents equally under the law.
George M. Middius
primacy of Evolutionism.
>Actually, you're both goofy if you think any of theses
>historic events confers anything upon yourselves. You
>are what you choose to be, not what your ancestors did.
Thoses ancestors of your'n done come down out of the
trees, hyuh?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
>
> >From: "Steve Zipser
>
> >I am also sure that if you had your way, we'd give the state
> >of Israel nothing at all!
>
> I think it;s a crime to give aid to any country that doesn't treat all of it's
> residents equally under the law.
Ya mean like Californicate?
Jay B. Haider
<z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>You are saying the US gives more in foreign aid to Israel than any other
>foreign country?
Yep. Whoever said it (Cate?) was right.
>In which century did this occur?
>Zip
The 20th. Since something like 1949. Second is Egypt, sort of an
ongoing bribe first issued by Carter for Camp David in (I think) 1978
for not disturbing the sleeping patterns of IAF pilots and sacrificing
his own army on the Sinai again. For a while (like when the Afghanis
were busy destroying the morale of the Evil Empire for America)
Pakistan was #3 on "the list", but Bush stopped aid to Pakistan
completely because Pakistan wouldn't unilaterally drop some weapons
programme -- something having to do with missiles, I think -- while
India and Israel were under no such restrictions. (Interestingly, PM
Nawaz Sharif's response then was to legalise hard-currency trading for
AFAIK the first time ever in Pakistan. This enlightened move lead to
*more* hard currency in Pakistan after the cessation of aid than
before. However, unfortunately it seems that all of this extra money
wasn't enough to buy Mr Sharif a clue, because the first thing he did
after he answered the neo-Fascist BJP's wanton nuclear provocation was
to suspend hard currency trading in Pakistan. But as usual when I
write about this stuff, I digress....)
. I believe (but may be wrong) that the Russian Federation is
currently holding the #3 slot.
You wanna citation? Try these:
"Currently aid to Israel accounts for 25% of the U.S. foreign aid
budget (FY1996)." http://www.flinet.com/~politics/aipac/foraidtp.html
"Most Americans are not aware how much of their tax revenue our
government sends to Israel. For the fiscal year ending in September
30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion
falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from
agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information
Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include
loan guarantees and annual compound interest totaling $3.122 billion
the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include
the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim
when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim
approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This
ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)
"When grant, loans, interest and tax deductions are added together for
the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, our special relationship
with Israel cost U.S. taxpayers over $10 billion.
"Since 1949 the U.S. has given Israel a total of $83.205 billion. The
interest costs borne by U.S. tax payers on behalf of Israel are
$49.937 billion, thus making the total amount of aid given to Israel
since 1949 $133.132 billion. This may mean that U.S. government has
given more federal aid to the average Israeli citizen in a given year
than it has given to the average American citizen."
http://www.salam.org/palestine/usaidto.html
My thoughts? It's sad that the US props up such a barbaric country
with basically no strategic value except to extremist religious nuts
of all three major religions. And it's sad that Ben Gurion's Israel,
like the other two countries founded on high moral principles in the
20th century -- the other two being Jinnah's Pakistan and Nkrumah's
Ghana -- has fallen so far from the ideals of her founders.
Jay B. Haider
Freie Universitaet Berlin
"Science, like Nature, must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation.
Given the same state of integrity,
It will surely serve us well" -Neil Peart
Jay B. Haider
>I think it;s a crime to give aid to any country that doesn't treat all of it's
>residents equally under the law.
Why? America doesn't. For a while, legal resident aliens couldn't
receive government benefits. (Now, I'm not exactly in favour of many
of the benefits they were forbidden from receiving, but that's an
entirely different debate...) Although Mr Clinton did eventually
overturn that law, voting isn't the only discriminatory act of the US
government towards its green-card holders.
However, I agree with you that Israel's four-tiered
race/religion-based legal code is inexcusable. (Jews of European
origin come first, then Palestinian Jews, then Gentiles, then anyone
the IDF or Mossad don't like.)
Mikeylikst
>The KroopagandaVore reasserts his belief in the
>primacy of Evolutionism.
>
Not really, more like asserting that we are what we CHOOSE to be, and that it
doesn't matter if your great-great-grand daddy saved the continent he lived on,
if you don't place a high value on productive work and treating your fellow
humans with the same respect you would like, you are still going to be a
schmuck.
>>Actually, you're both goofy if you think any of theses
>>historic events confers anything upon yourselves. You
>>are what you choose to be, not what your ancestors did.
>
>Thoses ancestors of your'n done come down out of the
>trees, hyuh?
>
>George M. Middius
Nope Scotland, Ireland, England, and Holland. I only know this because I was
told and because somebody in my family bothered to find out. It's a complete
non-issue.
Mikeylikst
>Mikeylikst wrote:
>>
>> >From: "Steve Zipser
>>
>> >I am also sure that if you had your way, we'd give the state
>> >of Israel nothing at all!
>>
>> I think it;s a crime to give aid to any country that doesn't treat all of
>it's
>> residents equally under the law.
>
>Ya mean like Californicate?
I know of no laws in California that single out a specific group, for any kind
of special treatment.
Mikeylikst
>mikey...@aol.com (Mikeylikst) wrote:
>
>>I think it;s a crime to give aid to any country that doesn't treat all of
>it's
>>residents equally under the law.
> Why? America doesn't. For a while, legal resident aliens couldn't
>receive government benefits.
The argument for that, as I remember had to do with the fact, that legal aliens
have sponsors that are supposed to be financially responsible for them. Hardly
a law with any gross violation of human rights. I believe many other countries
deny govenment handouts to non-citizens.
>(Now, I'm not exactly in favour of many
>of the benefits they were forbidden from receiving, but that's an
>entirely different debate...)
> However, I agree with you that Israel's four-tiered
>race/religion-based legal code is inexcusable. (Jews of European
>origin come first, then Palestinian Jews, then Gentiles, then anyone
>the IDF or Mossad don't like.)
>
>
>Jay B. Haider
>Freie Universitaet Berlin
Greg Pavlov
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) (z...@sunshinestereo.com) wrote:
:
: You are saying the US gives more in foreign aid to Israel than any other
: Zip
:
For half of the 20th.
greg pavlov
[not affiliated with Canisius College]
Stewart Pinkerton
>Cate, my people were fighting against devine right and for religious and
>personal freedom when your acestors were chcuking spears out of caves in
>France and Germany.
Really? I thought you were calling *on* divine intervention to kill
every first-born child of Egypt, just because Pharoh was being mean to
you...............
Not defending religious intolerance, just pointing out that you ain't
*really* God's chosen people, y'know. This kind of mythology is nearly
as bad as thinking that silver cables sound better.................
>> Although the actual event (the storming of
>> the Bastille) was rather anticlimactic in that most of the prisoners had been removed,
>> the MEANING of this event to all of us, of all races and heritages and religions,
>> should not be underestimated. -- It was truly the victory heard round the world, and it
>> marked the end of the monarchies and the beginning of individual rights, e.g., liberte,
>> fraternite, egalite, etc.
>
>And I suppose it gave closeminded, intyolerant assholes the right to
>call some one a NY Jew when they disagree.
Indeed it did - freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the American
Constitution, no? It also gave certain closeminded intolerant assholes
the right to *be* NY Jews without fear or favour..........
Try being an arrogant loudmouthed NY Jew in Serbia and see how far it
gets you.
>> -- Incidentally, Steve, these lessons regarding great
>> historical events are provided to you FREE OF CHARGE, for your edification. More
>> specifically, no European or American country would have supported the establishment of
>> the Israeli State after W.W.II if it had not been for the advances achieved as a result
>> of the enlightenment movement, followed by the US and French revolutions.
>
>Getthefuckouttahereyoudonothaveanyideaaboutwhatyouspeak.
>Ifitwasn'tforJewathere'dbenoJesusand
>wearethefoundersofwesterncivilization - baptistscamemuchlater.
Most folks would suggest that Western civilisation would have
developed much faster if Herod had been more thorough......
This message comes to you on the day of Christian kindness and love,
gloriously marked by the burning to death of three Irish children for
the heinous crime of being the wrong kind of Christian.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
Stewart Pinkerton
>Gruvmyster again tries to penetrate the maelstrom of
>mental chaos that inhabits Queenie Catie's "mind."
>
>>> you ought to be GRATEFUL for the privilege of having knowledgeable
>>>experts like Arny, Tom, and Stewart on the board. You certainly ought to complement them and
>>>support them on their efforts to post informative, substantive information and their
>>>willingness to share their experience and knowledge with the rest of us.
>
>Just out of curiosity, Queenie, in what field do you
>consider those three stooges of sameness to be
>"experts"?
Excuse me? When was I ever a 'stooge of sameness'? I have spent vast
amounts of time and too much money money trying to improve the sound
of my music reproduction system. The difference is that I like to be
sure that it's the *sound* that has changed, not just my perception.
OTOH, Doug has a point in that you do not *contribute* to the group in
any audio sense, merely acting as the court jester.
Stewart Pinkerton
>James M. Cate wrote:
>
>> Interesting historical account, Zip. So the jews are the founders of western civilization? -
>> What about the Greeks, the Romans, the Minoans, and the Egyptians, for gosh sakes.
>
>They came after Israel and the 12 tribes. Judaism is over 5000 years
>old, dummy! Our written Hebrew history is more than twice as old as
>those other cultures.
And for at least 2,000 of those years, they were a bunch of nomadic
shepherds with no contact with the rest of the world. This develops
civilisation, how? Incidentally, your written history is no older than
that of the Egyptians *at best*, and writing was in fact invented by
the Sumerians of Uruk in Mesopotamia around 3,200 B.C.
There were around half a dozen thriving civilisations with
well-developed legal and commercial systems living in thousand year
old cities in the near east before Moses was born, about 1200 B.C.
Prior to Moses birth, you couldn't claim that the twelve tribes were
any kind of civilsation, they were simply twelve tribes of nomadic
shepherds. What this has to do with Western civilisation is beyond me.
Note that at the time of Moses, the Phoenicians were arising as a
great trading nation, increasing communication among the
*long-established* civilisations scattered around the Mediterranean.
This trading empire, not a few mystical shepherds, is the true source
of Western civilisation.
Stewart Pinkerton
>>From: "Steve Zipser
>
>>Mikeylikst wrote:
>>>
>>> >From: "Steve Zipser
>>>
>>> >I am also sure that if you had your way, we'd give the state
>>> >of Israel nothing at all!
>>>
>>> I think it;s a crime to give aid to any country that doesn't treat all of
>>it's
>>> residents equally under the law.
>>
>>Ya mean like Californicate?
>
>I know of no laws in California that single out a specific group, for any kind
>of special treatment.
What about women?
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Try including the BILLIONS we have spent for bases in Japan, Korea and
Taiwan into the equation. Try putting in the favored nation and tax
credits that PRC and Russia get, and Israel is WAY DOWN on the list.
Get real!
Zip
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)
Since you prove to be both stupid and obstinate, none of those other
cultures have survived. Modern Greece has nothing in common with
ancienct Greece, ditto the Romans and Italy, and the Phoenecians are
nowhere to be found. Modern Egypt is closer to what they were 5000
years ago - but the religion abd culture are different. Our religion is
relatively unchanged - and survives in spite of folks like you and
Cate. At least Cate doesn't wear a skirt.
Zip
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
>
> "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> writes:
>
> >James M. Cate wrote:
> >
> >> Interesting historical account, Zip. So the jews are the founders of western civilization? -
> >> What about the Greeks, the Romans, the Minoans, and the Egyptians, for gosh sakes.
> >
> >They came after Israel and the 12 tribes. Judaism is over 5000 years
> >old, dummy! Our written Hebrew history is more than twice as old as
> >those other cultures.
>
> And for at least 2,000 of those years, they were a bunch of nomadic
> shepherds with no contact with the rest of the world. This develops
> civilisation, how? Incidentally, your written history is no older than
> that of the Egyptians *at best*, and writing was in fact invented by
> the Sumerians of Uruk in Mesopotamia around 3,200 B.C.
>
> There were around half a dozen thriving civilisations with
> well-developed legal and commercial systems living in thousand year
> old cities in the near east before Moses was born, about 1200 B.C.
> Prior to Moses birth, you couldn't claim that the twelve tribes were
> any kind of civilsation, they were simply twelve tribes of nomadic
> shepherds. What this has to do with Western civilisation is beyond me.
>
> Note that at the time of Moses, the Phoenicians were arising as a
> great trading nation, increasing communication among the
> *long-established* civilisations scattered around the Mediterranean.
> This trading empire, not a few mystical shepherds, is the true source
> of Western civilisation.
>
> --
>
> Stewart Pinkerton | Music is art, audio is engineering
--
George M. Middius
>>>>experts like Arny, Tom, and Stewart
I asked:
>>Just out of curiosity, Queenie, in what field do you
>>consider those three stooges of sameness to be "experts"?
Stewart Pinkerton said:
>Excuse me? When was I ever a 'stooge of sameness'?
Every time you get up on your ABXism soapbox and
bleat about the importance of participating in the
perverse blinding rituals. Which you have done
many, many times.
>I have spent vast
>amounts of time and too much money money trying to improve the sound
>of my music reproduction system.
You have also posted that in 1995, I think it was,
the scales fell from your eyes and you realized
that the high-end business is a shell game, and
you were being fleeced like a bonnie Scottish
sheep.
>The difference is that I like to be
>sure that it's the *sound* that has changed, not just my perception.
Good for you. If that isn't a back-door advocacy
of the perverted M&M lifestyle, then you're as big
a hypocrite as the Hugely Grisly One itself.
>OTOH, Doug has a point in that you do not *contribute* to the group in
>any audio sense, merely acting as the court jester.
[sniff] Are you trying to hurt my feelings? Try
again. Didn't work. :-)
FYI, Stewart, my contribution is lauded and valued
by scores, possibly hundreds, of bystanders. I
have in my hand -- er, on my hard disk -- a huge
pile of grateful e-mail messages. The gist of them
is "Great post! Very funny!" or "Thank you for
putting those 'borgs in their place." or "Keep up
the good work on behalf of the normals."
Obtaining valuable information is not the only
reason humans read this newsgroups. A lot of them
also tune in to find out how to distinguish useful
info from propaganda. As a Resistance Commander,
my task is to expose the propaganda, lies, and
self-serving hypocrisy of the Krooborg and its
Metronic Tribe of Sameness. Many, many humans find
this contribution more valuable than discussions
of "SOTA frequency responses" and dissections of
the operating principles of line-level wire
conductors.
Live with it, Stewart The Same.
George M. Middius
Remove "jiffy" to reply
__________________________________________
The Krooborg Speaks
Problem: Humans enjoying music on their stereos.
Solution: Torture them with ABX boxes.
__________________________________________
George M. Middius
>Stewart:
>At least Cate doesn't wear a skirt.
Um, Steve, what do you think "Queen" means? :-)
Greg Pavlov
: Taiwan into the equation. ....
:
Those bases there and in other locations throughout the
world are there because the US needs and wants them. An
increasing problem for the US in the future is going to
be how to make up for bases that it is asked to remove.
Peter Corey
Jay B. Haider wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:14:04 -0400, "Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)"
> <z...@sunshinestereo.com> wrote:
>
> >You are saying the US gives more in foreign aid to Israel than any other
> >foreign country?
>
> Yep. Whoever said it (Cate?) was right.
>
> >In which century did this occur?
> >Zip
>
> Jay B. Haider
> Freie Universitaet Berlin
> "Science, like Nature, must also be tamed
> With a view towards its preservation.
> Given the same state of integrity,
> It will surely serve us well" -Neil Peart
You've certainly done your homework , Jay
Congratulations !
The above was worthy of framing .
^ __
0 || --
Reply to :
pc...@bellevue.org
FAX: 1-2BU TNM YSHU
James M. Cate
Gruvmyster wrote:
> "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
>
> >-- Well, I had thought that most of us had agreed to work toward achieving a "kinder, gentler"
> >newsgroup. I see I was wrong, at least with respect to the Zipster.
>
> Perhaps you will soon see the sense in rec.audio.moderated.
> >
I'm looking forward to it with great anticipation.
> Jim, did you ever wonder why when teaching the sciences there are lab
> exercises? Surely we know the outcome of the exercise before the test
> even starts, right? Sometimes the professor may see mistakes in the
> setup of the exercise, and may not say anything! Why do you suppose
> this would be?
>
> Answer this question truthfully, and you may understand why SOME here
> have a problem with SOME of the experts.
> _______________________
Doug, In further response to your question about the use of laboratory exercises when
teaching the sciences, I thought I would also mention my physics labs, which actually are more
relevant to audio than the chemistry labs. In the physics labs, we were given various pieces of
test equipment, such as volt/amp meters, oscilloscopes, magnets, power supplies, etc., and taught
to set up and use the equipment for testing and evaluating various circuits. In answer to your
question as to why we had the labs in the first place, I think that a major reason was that they
wanted us to have hands-on experience in setting up the equipment, making proper electrical
connections, and using it, etc. In other words, they wanted us to know how to use such test
equipment in "real world environments" for running tests on various electrical components,
evaluating circuits, etc. No. - They didn't let us go through extensive experiments without
correcting us and telling us how to get the tests set up correctly.- They wanted us to get it right
in the first place. -- But the result was that we learned the basics and gained practical insight
in the nuts and bolts of setting up and testing a variety of electrical circuits.
The point of all this is that the professors thought it was important for us to learn the basic
laws and nuts and bolts of physics and circuitry so that we would have SOME LOGICAL BASIS for
testing and evaluating and modifying such systems in the future. -- From this background, I would
certainly conclude that, since we are talking about audio systems which operate in accordance with
the laws of physics, circuitry, acoustics, etc., it's probably better for someone to know
something about audio and circuitry and the related physics, and testing procedures, along with
statistical sampling and probability, before he comes on this newsgroup and starts popping his
mouth off about things that
he really doesn't know anything about. Expecially when he refuses to participate in blind,
level-matched tests which would tell us what he really hears. - One thing I learned from those
labs, Doug, was that it didn't make a bit of difference what my "feelings" or "opinions" or
"experiences" were re a given system. -- It was going to perform just the same whether I "felt
like" it would, or believed it would, or whether I liked it or not, or whether the "total
experience" was different, or whether my lab partner and I differed in our opinions, etc.
As previously suggested, we ought to be THANKFUL for the privilege of having men on this
newsgroup such as Arny, Nousaine, and Stewar and otherst, who DO know what they are talking about.
JimCate
Mikeylikst
>my contribution is lauded and valued
>by scores, possibly hundreds, of bystanders. I
>have in my hand -- er, on my hard disk -- a huge
>pile of grateful e-mail messages.
>The gist of them
>is "Great post! Very funny!" or "Thank you for
>putting those 'borgs in their place." or "Keep up
>the good work on behalf of the normals."
>
>
>Obtaining valuable information is not the only
>reason humans read this newsgroups. A lot of them
>also tune in to find out how to distinguish useful
>info from propaganda.
Which would mean they would avoid you like the plague, since you only post
lies, and propaganda.
>As a Resistance Commander,
>my task is to expose the propaganda, lies, and
>self-serving hypocrisy of the Krooborg and its
>Metronic Tribe of Sameness. Many, many humans find
>this contribution more valuable than discussions
>of "SOTA frequency responses" and dissections of
>the operating principles of line-level wire
>conductors.
>
>Live with it, Stewart The Same
Those would be the ones getting fleeced by guys like Singh, the Snake Oil King.
Mikeylikst
>mikey...@aol.com (Mikeylikst) writes:
>
>>>From: "Steve Zipser
>>
>>>Mikeylikst wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >From: "Steve Zipser
>>>>
>>>> >I am also sure that if you had your way, we'd give the state
>>>> >of Israel nothing at all!
>>>>
>>>> I think it;s a crime to give aid to any country that doesn't treat all of
>>>it's
>>>> residents equally under the law.
>>>
>>>Ya mean like Californicate?
>>
>>I know of no laws in California that single out a specific group, for any
>kind
>>of special treatment.
>
>What about women?
>
>
You know the old saying: Can't live with them, and you can't keep them in a
shed out back.
I suppose you are speaking of sexual harassment, or something of that nature?
The stated purpose of such laws is make women equal, which of course is
nonsense.
Equal means equal, not more favored, until the law decides they are equal. Of
course then when and if the law changes it will be discriminatory to treat them
equally, as was the case with the California Equal Rights Amendment.
James M. Cate
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo) wrote:
> James M. Cate wrote:
>
> > Interesting historical account, Zip. So the jews are the founders of western civilization? -
> > What about the Greeks, the Romans, the Minoans, and the Egyptians, for gosh sakes.
>
> They came after Israel and the 12 tribes. Judaism is over 5000 years
> old, dummy! Our written Hebrew history is more than twice as old as
> those other cultures.
_______________________________-Yes, Zip, Judaism is pretty old, all right. But I don't see any
suggestion or development of representative government, elections, or recognition of and respect
for individual rights, in the Jewish traditions and writings. In fact, it's only in recent times
that they permitted elections, etc. -- Why did they only implement these ideas in the past few
decades, Zip, when they had over 5,000 years to work on it??
> > Incidentally, Zip, I think you also ought to be THANKFUL
> > to all of us for contributing MORE THAN TWO BILLION DOLLARS
> > a year in taxes to keep your fellow countrymen going, with
> > both military and non-military support.
>
> My countrymen live in the United States, ya moron. I am Jewish. I am
> not Israeli. I am an American. I served for 7 years in the United
> States Navy & reserves. Are you so stupid that you can't figure out the
> difference between a Jew and an Israeli?
> BTW, Catie, I am also sure that if you had your way, we'd give the state
> of Israel nothing at all!
________________________-First, I specifically said that I favored continuing the full amount of
aid. -- As usual, what I say is totally ignored by you when it detract from your distorted,
biased, propagandist account of my position.
Second, your note related to and discussed the Jewish nation and it's heritage at some length.
My note was a follow-up to your comments on that subject.
Year after year after year, and far more than we give to any other country.
> You are saying the US gives more in foreign aid to Israel than any other
> foreign country? In which century did this occur?
> Zip
> --_______________________
Yes, Steve, that's exactly what I am saying. - You got it! - They have received far more aid in
the past 50 years than any other country,year after year after year. -- But I was somewhat off on
the amount. -- The amount of direct and indirect aid is now OVER $5,000,000,000 per year!!!!
The interesting thing is that you, and others, apparently don't even know about it . -- The
reason you don't know about it is that, because of the lobbyists, it is quite politically
incorrect to complain about it, or to even write about it or publicize it! -- As evidence, YOU
didn't even know about it before I told you. -- Nevertheless, you still rise to the occasion by
accusing me of wanting to cut it back!- Despite the fact that I specifically said that I didn't
favor cutting it back. - You are something else, Zip!
Steve, you ought to re-read my original notes about the contributions of the French to our
independence and our government. Though you may consider it diddly squat, if it were not for
their monetary, military, and naval contributions, we wouldn't have won the war of independence,
and you might not be enjoying all this freedom of speech and religion, and the benefits of the
French Enlightenment scholars whose writings ended up in the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution. -- You might still be wandering around the hills and pastures of the Mideast herding
sheep and selling sheep's horns and flutes on the side. (Sunshine Flutes and Sheep Horns, Inc.,
perhaps). For your information, Bastille Day is the 14th. -- I have already put up our French flag
in celebration of this great historical event.
JimCate
George M. Middius
on Jay-Borg Haider.
>You've certainly done your homework , Jay
>Congratulations ! The above was worthy of framing .
If you're nice, Peter !, Jay-Borg's father will
buy you an ambassadorship too. Wouldn't that be
special? ;-)
Peter Corey
Not you again George !
James M. Cate
Arny Krüger wrote:
> Marc Blank wrote in message <35A16077...@eidetic.com>...
> >Arny Krüger wrote:
> >
> >> >Several months ago, Marc stopped posting flames. More recently, I
> >> >have.
> >>
> >> Letsee, can we allow that the words "Shit" and "Liar" are symptomatic of
> >> flames? I get three hits for Blanc on Deja news on "Shit" for just the
> past
> >> week. Three more for "liar". I've looked at the posts and stand by DN's
> >> count. They were flames.
> >>
> >___________________
Arny,
It's obvious that these yahoos are doing their best to bait you and flame
you and drag you down to their level. And they won't stop their yapping until we
move to a moderated format, in my opinion. Then, however, when their flame wars
are put to a stop, everyone will be reading substantive discussions from you,
Tom, and some of the others ABOUT AUDIO TOPICS and everyone will be wondering
what happened to Middius, Powell, et al.
Meanwhile, it's pretty obvious that they have nothing substantive to
contribute concerning audio topics, and they are obviously trying to put down
you and everyone else who wants to discuss objective, audio issues
JimCate.
I suggest that
Gruvmyster
>Gruvmyster wrote:
>
>> "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
>> Jim, did you ever wonder why when teaching the sciences there are lab
>> exercises? Surely we know the outcome of the exercise before the test
>> even starts, right? Sometimes the professor may see mistakes in the
>> setup of the exercise, and may not say anything! Why do you suppose
>> this would be?
>> Answer this question truthfully, and you may understand why SOME here
>> have a problem with SOME of the experts.
>As for why chemistry profs might not tell the student they were doing the experiment wrong, in my
>laboratory courses, they did insist that we do it right, and told us when we were doing it wrong,
>during the course. -- Then, during our examinations, they made us run blind tests (identification
>of "unknowns", i.e., elements that were not identified to us in advance) as a test of our progress
>during the semester. In other words, we were trained to do it right, and then tested with blind
>tests to see if we had learned what we were taught during the semester. The reason we were given
>blind tests is that they simulated the experiences we would face in real life, in the workplace
>where, again, we wouldn't be given the answers in advance.
>I suspect that this answer is not the answer you were looking for. But it is a truthful answer.
Fair enough. No, it wasn't the answer I was looking for, but that's
fine.
The answer I was looking for is so you can learn by doing it yourself.
That's the best way to learn, IMO. It seems many professors and
instructors agree with that.
Even if some people on r.a.o have done everything, and know
everything, (even though I know this is impossible) about audio,
allowing the latitude to experiment and learn on their own without
condescension is, IMO, a better way to go.
Yes, there are people here who would choose not to listen to "reason".
They will always exist. I have a friend who has Black Diamond Racing
Cones under his CD transport. He says the NUMBER of the cone (they
apparently have several sizes) makes a sonic difference. He uses
expensive cables. He incessantly tweaks his system.
Whether or not I believe it makes no difference to him. I've told him
I personally do not buy into it. His response? "I didn't think it
would, either, but man does it ever!"
What have I to gain by continuing, and attempting to shatter his
belief? Some shallow moral victory knowing I speak the thrVth? Nah,
it's not worth it. I'd just lose the friendship of a guy I enjoy, and
find interesting in other areas. What has anyone to gain here, except
the same thing? I've voiced my opinion, it was rejected by him, it's
time to move on. They will either learn on their own, and validate my
belief, or they won't.
BTW, who cares?:-)
Doug
--
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The
literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."
-Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M
"Post-It" note pads.
Gruvmyster
> The point of all this is that the professors thought it was important for us to learn the basic
>laws and nuts and bolts of physics and circuitry so that we would have SOME LOGICAL BASIS for
>testing and evaluating and modifying such systems in the future. -- From this background, I would
>certainly conclude that, since we are talking about audio systems which operate in accordance with
>the laws of physics, circuitry, acoustics, etc., it's probably better for someone to know
>something about audio and circuitry and the related physics, and testing procedures, along with
>statistical sampling and probability, before he comes on this newsgroup and starts popping his
>mouth off about things that
>he really doesn't know anything about. Expecially when he refuses to participate in blind,
>level-matched tests which would tell us what he really hears.
Well, let's just agree to disagree here. I think anybody should be
able to participate on an opinion forum. If someone where offering
technical advice that could kill, like not draining the filter caps in
a tube amps before working on it, they should get thrashed, and would
probably be better off not posting. If they think $300 brass pointy
things make their CDs sound better, who cares?
From the sound of this, you may have preferred the first RFD that had
a separate engineering group.
> As previously suggested, we ought to be THANKFUL for the privilege of having men on this
>newsgroup such as Arny, Nousaine, and Stewar and otherst, who DO know what they are talking about.
You have a right to this opinion. IMO, it should be phrased thus:
"I am certainly thankful that Arny, Tom, and Stewart post. I think
they uisually know what they are talking about." IMO, all of them have
posted mistakes. I know of no r.a.o regular that hasn't, myself
included.
There are others here who may disagree. Who cares?:-)
Mikeylikst
>"James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
>
>>Gruvmyster wrote:
>>
>>> "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
>
Nobody here can stop them. Condecension, is sometimes in the eye of the
beholder, in any case I'd rather have a snoty right answer, than an
ill-informed polite one.
This isn't a lab, and some of the experimenting recomended herer can cost some
serious cash. When there are people who have a wealth of hard evidence, and
expierience to draw from, I'd rather they not be hounded and risk having them
no longer participate. I think in Arny's case it will be hard to get rid of
him, since his psyche is apparently capable of dealing with the more vicious
flamers.
In the case of some of the others, they could all just decide tho say "the Hell
with it" someday and this would be a far less informative NG.
>Yes, there are people here who would choose not to listen to "reason".
>They will always exist. I have a friend who has Black Diamond Racing
>Cones under his CD transport. He says the NUMBER of the cone (they
>apparently have several sizes) makes a sonic difference.
>He uses
>expensive cables. He incessantly tweaks his system.
>Whether or not I believe it makes no difference to him. I've told him
>I personally do not buy into it. His response? "I didn't think it
>would, either, but man does it ever!"
>What have I to gain by continuing, and attempting to shatter his
>belief? Some shallow moral victory knowing I speak the thrVth? Nah,
>it's not worth it. I'd just lose the friendship of a guy I enjoy, and
>find interesting in other areas. What has anyone to gain here, except
>the same thing? I've voiced my opinion, it was rejected by him, it's
>time to move on.
>They will either learn on their own, and validate my
>belief, or they won't.
>
>BTW, who cares?:-)
>
>Doug
You seem to, at least on this NG. So do some others, the point is we should be
able to discuss it with out rthe likes of Briggs and Middius' constant screeds.
As regards personalities of persons posting here, I feel the same way about it
as I do about Entertainers. If I like their work, fine, I don't care if they
suck Freon to get high and sleep with sheep. I don't feel they owe me anything
except my money's worth at the box office. Likewise with info on audio, if I
ask a question, and I get an informed and reliable answer, I could care less if
the person gives it
wrapped in condecending tones. Fuck, it's a free answer, why should I bitch?
If I'm getting an opinion from someone who doesn't know what they are talking
about, save for his personal anecdote, and i can get one from a bona fide
expert, with an ego, so what? Why should the real expert be castigated,
slandered, ridiculed, etc., etc.
This seems to suggest to me that the ones doing the slander, etc., are the ones
with the real ego problem.
As to belief and audio, that's easy, you can believe what you want, but if your
going to spend money on it, you ought to be as sure as you can, that your
information is accurate. Does that mean you ought not to buy something that
has the same functions and performance of a Best Buy purchase, but cost like a
high end salon purchase? Not if it's what you want. I just like to know what
the performance costs, not the packaging. Hell if I was rich I might spend for
looks as well as performance, but since I'm not, hte performance is what I
want.
I'd rather know, than believe.
Mikeylikst
>"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The
>literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."
> -Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M
>"Post-It" note pads.
I can't recall if it was in the book or the TV documentary about the book In
Search of Excellence, but my recollection is that the adhesive for post-it's
was accidental. They were in fact looking for the exact opposite type of
adhesive.
Brian L. McCarty
> Try including the BILLIONS we have spent for bases in Japan, Korea
> list. Get real!
You must be kidding!
The jews in Israel have move American tax dollars in support than ANY other
country in the world. Fact.
And then they send other jews in (Jonathan Pollard) to spy on us! What's THAT
all about??
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
>
>Only two tools are necessary to disassemble a computer: A philips-head
>screwdriver and the floor. Almost everything comes apart with screws, but
>once in a while you have to get tough and use the floor tool.
>
> -- from an article by Bob Parks, Wired 7/97
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
Jay B. Haider
M. Middius) wrote:
>If you're nice, Peter !, Jay-Borg's father will
>buy you an ambassadorship too. Wouldn't that be
>special? ;-)
Hey, no fair! I want an ambassadorship first! I'd even settle for a
mere consulate of my own!
8o)
Greg Pavlov
Brian L. McCarty (opera...@worldjazz.com) wrote:
:
: And then they send other jews in (Jonathan Pollard) to spy
: on us! What's THAT all about??
It's spying, something that every country with the
means to do so practices on as many other countries
as it can (the U.S., unfortunately, has the means
but seems to have lost the skills).
Brian L. McCarty
> It's spying, something that every country with the means to do
> so practices on as many other countries as it can (the
> U.S., unfortunately, has the means but seems to have lost the skills).
Yeah, but why send our hard-earned dough to countries that turn around and
give us a shiv in the back?
Guy Molinari
<jim...@ix.netcom> wrote:
>
>
>George M. Middius wrote:
>
>> Jeff Adams continues his futile quest to discover
>> the long-dead humanity he believes to be buried
>> with the Hugely Grisly Krooborg.
>>
>> >>>I honestly wasn't aware of the
>> >>>periods where you had stopped.
>>
>> >>I think that even Middius figured out when they both took place.
>>
>> >Really? George, could you please give me the dates?
>>
>> Well, there was the time the Krooturd had to check
>> into a hospital for some implant-replacement
>> surgery. Upon its return, it averred that it had
>> gone hiking in the woods or some such. Lasted
>> about 5 days.
>>
>> Then, earlier this year, the Vile One got booted
>> off of Concentric because, apparently, they
>> discovered just what sort of creature to whom they
>> had granted Internet access. For reasons unknown,
>> this hiccup resulted in RAO enjoying a two-week
>> vacation from His Metronic Filthfulness.
>>
>> George M. Middius
>> Remove "jiffy" to reply
>
>________________________________
>
>MORE cutsey remarks, George? - By the way, when was the last time you
>actually responded to one of Arny's notes by actually discussing an
>audio-related issue in a substantive way, without trying to distract
>everyone with your usual flames and personal attacks?
Mr Carte,--
Iam glad you brought this up because I to, have been tying to find an
audio-realated post from Midduis. A search through Dejar news seems to
reveale nothing from Middius of any interest or, relating to audio in
general ; I think its clear what his pupose on this newsgourp is --
causing falmes. He even admits this. :-(
GM
>When did you
>actually step up to the bar and discuss what Arny was saying about a
>particular component, testing procedure, etc.? - it would seem to me
>that you ought to limit your flames and personal attacks to about 25
>percent of your responses to the objectivists. -- That way, we would pay
>more attention BOTH to your substantive notes (the 75 percent) as well
>as your flames (the remaining 25 percent), since we then would know that
>you don't post all those flames merely because you are a twerp who isn't
>capable of providing logical responses to Arny's notes in the first
>place.
>JimCate
>
>
Stewart Pinkerton
>You might still be wandering around the hills and pastures of the Mideast herding
>sheep and selling sheep's horns and flutes on the side. (Sunshine Flutes and Sheep Horns, Inc.,
>perhaps).
Really and truly laughing and coughing at my keyboard! A classic! :-)
Stewart Pinkerton
>> As previously suggested, we ought to be THANKFUL for the privilege of having men on this
>>newsgroup such as Arny, Nousaine, and Stewar and otherst, who DO know what they are talking about.
>
>You have a right to this opinion. IMO, it should be phrased thus:
>
>"I am certainly thankful that Arny, Tom, and Stewart post. I think
>they uisually know what they are talking about." IMO, all of them have
>posted mistakes. I know of no r.a.o regular that hasn't, myself
>included.
>
>There are others here who may disagree. Who cares?:-)
*I* sure as heck post mistakes. Three in a row this weekend! :-(
Joe Duffy
Stewart Pinkerton <a...@borealis.com > wrote:
>"Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo)" <z...@sunshinestereo.com> writes:
>
>>personal freedom when your acestors were chcuking spears out of caves in
>>France and Germany.
>
>Really? I thought you were calling *on* divine intervention to kill
>every first-born child of Egypt, just because Pharoh was being mean to
>you...............
>
>Not defending religious intolerance, just pointing out that you ain't
>*really* God's chosen people, y'know. This kind of mythology is nearly
>as bad as thinking that silver cables sound better.................
>
>
>>> Although the actual event (the storming of
>>> the Bastille) was rather anticlimactic in that most of the prisoners had been removed,
>>> the MEANING of this event to all of us, of all races and heritages and religions,
>>> should not be underestimated. -- It was truly the victory heard round the world, and it
>>> marked the end of the monarchies and the beginning of individual rights, e.g., liberte,
>>> fraternite, egalite, etc.
>>
>>And I suppose it gave closeminded, intyolerant assholes the right to
>>call some one a NY Jew when they disagree.
>
>Indeed it did - freedom of speech is a cornerstone of the American
>Constitution, no? It also gave certain closeminded intolerant assholes
>the right to *be* NY Jews without fear or favour..........
>
>Try being an arrogant loudmouthed NY Jew in Serbia and see how far it
>gets you.
>
>
>>> -- Incidentally, Steve, these lessons regarding great
>>> historical events are provided to you FREE OF CHARGE, for your edification. More
>>> specifically, no European or American country would have supported the establishment of
>>> the Israeli State after W.W.II if it had not been for the advances achieved as a result
>>> of the enlightenment movement, followed by the US and French revolutions.
>>
>>Getthefuckouttahereyoudonothaveanyideaaboutwhatyouspeak.
>>Ifitwasn'tforJewathere'dbenoJesusand
>>wearethefoundersofwesterncivilization - baptistscamemuchlater.
>
>Most folks would suggest that Western civilisation would have
>developed much faster if Herod had been more thorough......
a bit rude, eh?
>
>This message comes to you on the day of Christian kindness and love,
>gloriously marked by the burning to death of three Irish children for
>the heinous crime of being the wrong kind of Christian.
>
>
>
calling Orangemen Christian is liking calling
the KKK a philanthropic organization.
joe
Marc Blank
> Marc,
> If you were totally honest you would have to admit that Arny, as well as most
> of the other objectivists on this board, TRY to participate substantively, and TRY
> to stay out of the flame wars, in most cases.
This is total and utter bullshit. Arny is the CAUSE of most of the flame wars. Notice
that NOBODY flames his posts that include real responses to questions.
> -- And it's this very fact that really
> sets off guys like yourself and Middius.
You are as full of shit as Arny. What pisses me off is that Arny is an asshole and that
he attacks everyone and anyone that comes in his way.
> -- When the subjectivists see a string of
> reasoned, audio-oriented notes, they seem to become completely unglued, and
> immediately jump in to stir up the pot with their flames, personal insults, cutesy
> "humor," etc., and thereby distract the attention of the group from the substance of
> the discussion.
You are a comic, no?
> - Apparently guys like Middius watch the group every day so as to
> catch any such discussions at an early stage and nip them in the bud before anyone
> has a chance to learn anything from them. (It's sort of like the egocentric boors
> who think that, if they can shout down people who disagree with them so that no one
> hears what they are saying, then they have won the argument.)
> I think that, instead of ridiculing and attacking contributors like Arny, Stew,
> Nousaine, et al., you ought to apologize for the discourtesy they have received from
> certain contributors to this NG and express your appreciation for their willingness
> to participate. It's quite an honor, actually, for us to have men of their
> credentials and professional standing as contributors to this NG.
> JimCate
You have missed your calling in stand-up comedy - the part where you use the word
"honor" particularly got me on the floor laughing.
Arny is a total prick. Nousaine is a preachy dogmatist. I have no problem with Stew,
although I disagree with many of his posts. Now how do you figure that, Mr.
Smarty-pants?
- Marc
James M. Cate
Gruvmyster wrote:
> "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
>
> > The point of all this is that the professors thought it was important for us to learn the basic
> >laws and nuts and bolts of physics and circuitry so that we would have SOME LOGICAL BASIS for
> >testing and evaluating and modifying such systems in the future. -- From this background, I would
> >certainly conclude that, since we are talking about audio systems which operate in accordance with
> >the laws of physics, circuitry, acoustics, etc., it's probably better for someone to know
> >something about audio and circuitry and the related physics, and testing procedures, along with
> >statistical sampling and probability, before he comes on this newsgroup and starts popping his
> >mouth off about things that
> >he really doesn't know anything about. Expecially when he refuses to participate in blind,
> >level-matched tests which would tell us what he really hears.
>
> Well, let's just agree to disagree here. I think anybody should be
> able to participate on an opinion forum. If someone where offering
> technical advice that could kill, like not draining the filter caps in
> a tube amps before working on it, they should get thrashed, and would
> probably be better off not posting. If they think $300 brass pointy
> things make their CDs sound better, who cares?
________________________________________
I would agree with your conclusions if it were not for the fact that (1) we are talking about
components which cost many hundreds or thousands of dollars, and (2) when anecdotal evidence about the
obvious differences between cables, CD players, amps, etc., are submitted to blind, level matched
testing procedures, the spectacular differences often strangely disappear. -- In other words, when we
are talking about differences which may or may not be audible, but are assured by contributors or
dealers who can "clearly hear the differences", yet can't hear the differences when the levels are
matched and they don't know which component is operating, then I think we need to insist on demanding
that the believers in such "improved, high end" components offer substantive evidence of those
differences. Note that I am not saying that there aren't differences, but I am saying that most of us
want to spend our money on differences that make audible differences, and want to know which is which.--
I would disagree with your position that, if someone wants to spend money on components that don't
do the job or don't make an audible difference, that's his business, and it doesn't hurt the rest of us.
That simply isn't true, in my opinion, because when the "true believers" keep spending thousands of
dollars on components that "don't make a difference", that tends to keep such manufacturers going, and
results in more advertising of such components and more sales of equipment which doesn't make a
difference, which TENDS TO REDUCE THE MONEY WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE FOR COMPONENTS WHICH DO
MAKE A DIFFERENCE. In other words, if the truth about what is and what is not truly an advance in the
audio field is not available to the consumer, then the usual advantages of a free market economy are
lost. -- Developers of components which provide real improvements in the art are not rewarded with sales
commensurate with their innovations and contributions, since few consumers can tell which components
really provide significant improvements, or improvements which are reasonably related to the costs of
the goods. -- Thus, such a situation tends to result in the discouraging of technical improvements and
price competition which would otherwise occur for the consumers' benefit in a free market.
This is why I tend to think that the contributions of men like Nousaine, Arny, Stewert, et al,
should be encouraged, and why I think that guys like Middius have, for the most part, a negative,
deleterious, cheapening influence on this NG.
JimCate
Norm Strong
In a previous article, opera...@worldjazz.com (Brian L. McCarty) says:
>In article <6occrh$b...@niktow.canisius.edu>, pav...@niktow.canisius.edu (Greg
>Pavlov) writes:
>> It's spying, something that every country with the means to do
>> so practices on as many other countries as it can (the
>> U.S., unfortunately, has the means but seems to have lost the skills).
>
>
>Yeah, but why send our hard-earned dough to countries that turn around and
>give us a shiv in the back?
There are a lot of newsgroups that devote themselves to international
affairs. This is not one of them.
--
Norm Strong (no...@scn.org)
2528 3lst S. Seattle WA 98l44
Gruvmyster
>>From: dhau...@mail.idt.net (Gruvmyster)
>>"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The
>>literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."
>> -Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M
>>"Post-It" note pads.
>I can't recall if it was in the book or the TV documentary about the book In
>Search of Excellence, but my recollection is that the adhesive for post-it's
>was accidental. They were in fact looking for the exact opposite type of
>adhesive.
I'm not sure if you're correct or not (I thought I heard something
similar myself), but I didn't make this quote up.
Is it possible an engineer is revising history?:-)
Doug
--
Anonymous
>
> "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
> >and substantive. Obviously, when they are subject to the constant barrage of personal
> >attacks and flames they get on this board, they can't always stick to an objective
> >discussion.
>
> In reality, if EITHER group wanted to, they can avoid the flames by
> ignoring the other person. It certainly takes two to tango.
But only one to lead the dance...............................
Gruvmyster
Gruvmyster
>Gruvmyster wrote:
>> Well, let's just agree to disagree here. I think anybody should be
>> able to participate on an opinion forum. If someone where offering
>> technical advice that could kill, like not draining the filter caps in
>> a tube amps before working on it, they should get thrashed, and would
>> probably be better off not posting. If they think $300 brass pointy
>> things make their CDs sound better, who cares?
> I would agree with your conclusions if it were not for the fact that (1) we are talking about
>components which cost many hundreds or thousands of dollars, and (2) when anecdotal evidence about the
>obvious differences between cables, CD players, amps, etc., are submitted to blind, level matched
>testing procedures, the spectacular differences often strangely disappear.
And I would agree with your conclusions if not for the fact that (1)
as Bob Myers noted recently, nobody's mind will be changed regarding
this, and (2) it's not our money to begin with.
> -- In other words, when we
>are talking about differences which may or may not be audible, but are assured by contributors or
>dealers who can "clearly hear the differences", yet can't hear the differences when the levels are
>matched and they don't know which component is operating, then I think we need to insist on demanding
>that the believers in such "improved, high end" components offer substantive evidence of those
>differences.
As has been happening for the last year, with virtually nobody on
either end visibly shifting their position. What has happened, I think
partially as a result of the constant hammering on BOTH sides, is
polarization.
>Note that I am not saying that there aren't differences, but I am saying that most of us
>want to spend our money on differences that make audible differences, and want to know which is which.
I have no problem with your wanting to do DBTs. I have never said
anything to the contrary. Insisting others must is something I cannot
agree with.
> I would disagree with your position that, if someone wants to spend money on components that don't
>do the job or don't make an audible difference, that's his business, and it doesn't hurt the rest of us.
>That simply isn't true, in my opinion, because when the "true believers" keep spending thousands of
>dollars on components that "don't make a difference", that tends to keep such manufacturers going, and
>results in more advertising of such components and more sales of equipment which doesn't make a
>difference, which TENDS TO REDUCE THE MONEY WHICH WOULD OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE FOR COMPONENTS WHICH DO
>MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
And I disagree with your premise, Jim. Sony, Matsushita, the phone
company, etc. are the ones that truly advance the SOTA in audio. The
little boutique companies (as nearly all high-end companies are) very
seldom, if ever, engineer major breakthroughs.
> In other words, if the truth about what is and what is not truly an advance in the
>audio field is not available to the consumer, then the usual advantages of a free market economy are
>lost. -- Developers of components which provide real improvements in the art are not rewarded with sales
>commensurate with their innovations and contributions, since few consumers can tell which components
>really provide significant improvements, or improvements which are reasonably related to the costs of
>the goods. -- Thus, such a situation tends to result in the discouraging of technical improvements and
>price competition which would otherwise occur for the consumers' benefit in a free market.
Let's talk about real sonic differences: LPs vs. CDs, tubes vs. SS,
speakers, rooms, but not the scant few who buy megabuck amps,
top-dollar cables, $15,000 CD transports, etc., because the dollars
spent are relatively VERY small. You are arguing the smallest
companies are affecting the largest, which flies in the face of common
sense. Wouldn't you agree the opposite is generally true?
> This is why I tend to think that the contributions of men like Nousaine, Arny, Stewert, et al,
>should be encouraged, and why I think that guys like Middius have, for the most part, a negative,
>deleterious, cheapening influence on this NG.
They have every right to post here. One of the three you mention went
round and round with me about LP values recently; ask him who was
right. (Hint: a lowly, nonscientific moderate subjective.)
These guys are not gods, and do not claim they are. They are very
knowledgeable on some topics, that cannot be denied, but to raise
their opinions as beyond question is very, very wrong, IMO. Nobody's
is.
I wish for a lower noise ratio as well...
Mikeylikst
>nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) said:
>
>>Gruvmyster wrote:
>>>
>>> "James M. Cate" <jim...@ix.netcom> said:
>>> > My point was that Gene and Tom and Arny TRY to keep the dissuasions
>audio-related
>>> >and substantive. Obviously, when they are subject to the constant barrage
>of personal
>>> >attacks and flames they get on this board, they can't always stick to an
>objective
>>> >discussion.
>>>
>>> In reality, if EITHER group wanted to, they can avoid the flames by
>>> ignoring the other person. It certainly takes two to tango.
>>
>>But only one to lead the dance...............................
>
>Would you rather follow, Mr. Anonymous, Sir?
>
>Go away.
>
>Doug
At least if you are the flamee you can claim some moral highground over the
flamer.
Mikeylikst
>mikey...@aol.com (Mikeylikst) said:
>
>>>From: dhau...@mail.idt.net (Gruvmyster)
>
>>>"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The
>>>literature was full of examples that said you can't do this."
>>> -Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M
>>>"Post-It" note pads.
>
>>I can't recall if it was in the book or the TV documentary about the book In
>>Search of Excellence, but my recollection is that the adhesive for post-it's
>>was accidental. They were in fact looking for the exact opposite type of
>>adhesive.
>
>I'm not sure if you're correct or not (I thought I heard something
>similar myself), but I didn't make this quote up.
>
>Is it possible an engineer is revising history?:-)
>
>Doug
>--
I did not imply that you made it up, I would think that the possibility of
revisionism is likely.
Mikeylikst
>This is total and utter bullshit. Arny is the CAUSE of most of the flame
>wars. Notice
>that NOBODY flames his posts that include real responses to questions.
>
>
>What pisses me off is that Arny is an asshole and that
>he attacks everyone and anyone that comes in his way.
Funny, he's never attacked me, even when we have disagreed.
>Arny is a total prick. Nousaine is a preachy dogmatist. I have no problem
>with Stew,
>although I disagree with many of his posts. Now how do you figure that, Mr.
>Smarty-pants?
>
>
Arny is someone with a vast array of knowledge at this disposal that he shares
here. It's the truth of his knowledge that set this whole mess off way back
when. Some people can't handle the truth. In no wayhas he ever earned the
kind of abuse you and some others heap on him.
Likewise Nousaine, has many years of research that shows things that some high
end types, and sales people don't care to have known. You are free to
disagree, but it's only audio, not life and death.
Better to prove somebody wrong, than just hurl profanities.
TorResist
>wars. Notice
>that NOBODY flames his posts that include real responses to questions.
>You are as full of shit as Arny. What pisses me off is that Arny is an
>asshole and that
>he attacks everyone and anyone that comes in his way.
>
All true.Little Arny-boy is a nasty sadist who enjoys hurting people. His RAO
behavior is the only raison-d'etre of an otherwise utterly failed life.
Recently, this sick little bastard attacked a woman here--Yes! A woman actually
posted something here!---with NO provocation on her part. A fellow I correspond
with 'spoke' with this same woman via e-mail and she told him she just didn't
get it; she even agrees with Arny from time to time. (She's an audio hobbyist
who builds from scratch) She unsubsrcibed to RAO BECAUSE of this nasty litte
Kruger-Swine.
Kruger reminds me most of a noisy little chihuahua who is tethered to fence a
post, and who barks and snarls at every single passerby, in hopes that he'll
scare people into not noticing what a little runt he is.But we don't scare that
easily. We noticed anyway.
Whatsamattah Arny-boy? Just cause you can't have sex anymore means that you
have 'fuck' women verbally? You are a swine.
tor
hea...@ix.netcom.com
> Steve, If they compared the CD's or cables by comparing them with levels matched to the
> same level, within .1 dB, and without knowing which was operating at any given time, then Arny
> and Tom and Gene, as well as myself, would congratulate them on their integrity and their
> willingness to share meaningful information on the NG.
....or accuse them of LYING, which is exactly the way it's gone in the
past.
But you know, and I know, that this
> isn't what they are talking about. Right, Steve? And if Arny or Tom provide correction to
> such propaganda and insight about testing procedures which happens to contradict your buddies
> anecdotal "comparative tests," you ought to be THANKFUL to them for furthering substantive
> discourse on the NG, rather than trying to curse them and ridicule them and put them down.
Oh gosh, yes-- THANK them for their ridicule and put-downs!!
> Well, Zip, they certainly provide more substance and information and class to the NG than you
> and your buddies. Again, you ought to be GRATEFUL for the privilege of having knowledgeable
> experts like Arny, Tom, and Stewart on the board. You certainly ought to complement them and
> support them on their efforts to post informative, substantive information and their
> willingness to share their experience and knowledge with the rest of us. - But you don't seem
> to be very thankful at all, Zip. - In fact, you actually seem to resent having knowledgeable
> audiophiles on the NG.
Why aren't you grateful and thankful when the Jehovah's Witnesses show
up at your door, Jim? You oughta be-- their knowledge and experience are
yours for the accepting! Next time they show up, get down or your knees
and beg them for a Watchtower, and pledge your support in their efforts
to save mankind. You will do this-- won't you? ;-)™
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
>
> mikey...@aol.com (Mikeylikst) writes:
> >I know of no laws in California that single out a specific group, for any kind
> >of special treatment.
>
> What about women?
Our womens *is* special!
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
> Kruger reminds me most of a noisy little chihuahua who is tethered to fence a
> post, and who barks and snarls at every single passerby, in hopes that he'll
> scare people into not noticing what a little runt he is.
I know what you mean. And when you approach purposefully, he runs away.
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
>
> >From: Marc Blank
>
> >This is total and utter bullshit. Arny is the CAUSE of most of the flame
> >wars. Notice
> >that NOBODY flames his posts that include real responses to questions.
> >
> >
>
> >he attacks everyone and anyone that comes in his way.
>
He's certainly not so stupid as to publicly whip his lapdog.
>
> >Arny is a total prick. Nousaine is a preachy dogmatist. I have no problem
> >with Stew,
> >although I disagree with many of his posts. Now how do you figure that, Mr.
> >Smarty-pants?
> >
> >
>
> Arny is someone with a vast array of knowledge at this disposal that he shares
> here. It's the truth of his knowledge that set this whole mess off way back
> when. Some people can't handle the truth. In no wayhas he ever earned the
> kind of abuse you and some others heap on him.
All false. Are you not really as big a believer in truth as you claim to
be (he asked rhetorically)?
Brian
hea...@ix.netcom.com
> Mr Carte,--
>
> Iam glad you brought this up because I to, have been tying to find an
> audio-realated post from Midduis. A search through Dejar news seems to
> reveale nothing from Middius of any interest or, relating to audio in
> general ; I think its clear what his pupose on this newsgourp is --
> causing falmes. He even admits this. :-(
Maybe you should look at *Deja* News instead, then-- where you'll find
many examples of audio posts from George. Or is it just *easier* to keep
lying about it?
Brian