Quote:

Quote:
(defamation removed)

Retract your defamation promptly.

So you are admitting that quoting your own comments is not evidence. Interesting.......... First you post a response, then later you recant the accuracy of your own comments I quoted by stating your comments are not considered as evidence by you. So either you admit posting false information to the public with your previous comments, or you are posting false information now. Which is it James.
As one can see it is hard to pin James/J_J/Woodenville down as he continually changes his positions and now even condemns his own previous statements as not evidence, therefore not accurate. Which brings us to the question of which and how many of your previous statements are actually accurate/evidence.

Quote:
So you are admitting that quoting your own comments is not evidence.

Yet another ludicrously false claim on your part.

Retract all of your defamation immediately.

Quote:

Quote:
So you are admitting that quoting your own comments is not evidence.

Yet another ludicrously false claim on your part.

Retract all of your defamation immediately.

No one forced you to make your comments James, that are now hanging you. You did that of your own accord. Secondly you accuse me of not providing evidence, yet I provided two quotes from you, yourself, evidence. First I present a previous post with quotes from James, and then compare to James' own response in which he states I presented no evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

Since it has already been established, condemned by your own previous words (check a few pages back) that you are not mainstream science.

Once again, you make the same unsubstantiated false statement. The fact remains, my position is directly in the mainstream.

Sorry but your previous words say otherwise, and more than once J_J/Woodenville. You cannot claim you are mainstream science and then condemn three national mainstream organizations, other university peers, at least a dozen anonyomous referees who had 5 years to study and concur with Dr. Kunchur work.

That alone separates you from mainstream science. Audience, check back a few pages for yourselves for James/J_J/Woodenville's own comments.

Quote:
It is time for sasaudio to publically admit that I have been exactly, absolutely correct in all particulars,

and

Quote:
I am the definition of mainstream science.

As one can see, J_J claims to be mainstream science while attacking multiple national mainstream organizations, university peers, anonymous referees etc. J_J is good at misleading, posting information that is found to be false.

Next, James attacks me again.

Quote:
Your actions here will speak directly to your ethics.

On the contrar James. An abundance of evidence has already been presented previously and above. And a real scientist does not habitually mislead the public by providing false information, which is an ethical violation is it not.

Another J_J/James D. Johnston/Woodenvilles response:

Quote:
It is again noted that Sasaudio avoids any actual evidence, and continues to engage in unjustified professional disparagement.

It is time for him to show some ethics and personal responsiblity, to apologize, retract, and cease further uncouth behavior.

As anyone can see, I provided evidence to back me up by quoting J_J in my above quoted post twice, but James falsely claims I did not provide evidence. One can see James changes positions whenever it benefits him. Then J_J/James/Woodenville attacks me again and demands an apology for his attack and calling me unethical. Now he just posts I made a "false claim" when I used his own comments against him.

Quote:
defamation removed

Retract your defamation immediately.

Quote:

Quote:
defamation removed

Retract your defamation immediately.

Looking over your last few posts, I see you cannot refute one single point I presented, let alone provide evidence for support.

For the record here are your previous posts.

Quote:
You lack of ethics and unwillingness to test your false claims is noted.

You have insinuated that no such talk existed, yet you refuse to test your implicit claim.

You react to material evidence by completely unjustified defamation. Maybe I should have Mark call you, or Jont. That would be fun to hear about.

Quote:
It is again noted that Sasaudio avoids any actual evidence, and continues to engage in unjustified professional disparagement.

It is time for him to show some ethics and personal responsiblity, to apologize, retract, and cease further uncouth beh

Quote:
(defamation removed)

Retract your defamation promptly.

Quote:
Steve:

Quote:

So you are admitting that quoting your own comments is not evidence.

J_J)

Quote:
Yet another ludicrously false claim on your part.

Retract all of your defamation immediately.

Quote:
defamation removed

Retract your defamation immediately.

I suggest you stop with the attacks, personal as well, that you cannot back up. It just makes you look bad.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
defamation removed

Retract your defamation immediately.

Looking over your last few posts, I see you cannot refute one single point I presented, let alone provide evidence for support.

For the record here are your previous posts.

Quote:
You lack of ethics and unwillingness to test your false claims is noted.

You have insinuated that no such talk existed, yet you refuse to test your implicit claim.

You react to material evidence by completely unjustified defamation. Maybe I should have Mark call you, or Jont. That would be fun to hear about.

Quote:
It is again noted that Sasaudio avoids any actual evidence, and continues to engage in unjustified professional disparagement.

It is time for him to show some ethics and personal responsiblity, to apologize, retract, and cease further uncouth beh

Quote:
(defamation removed)

Retract your defamation promptly.

Quote:
Steve:

Quote:

So you are admitting that quoting your own comments is not evidence.

J_J)

Quote:
Yet another ludicrously false claim on your part.

Retract all of your defamation immediately.

Quote:
defamation removed

Retract your defamation immediately.

I suggest you stop with the attacks, personal as well, that you cannot back up. It just makes you look bad.

ibid.

Retract. Apologize. Profusely. Sincerely.

Quote:
Retract your defamation promptly.

Quote:
Retract your defamation immediately.

Quote:
Retract all of your defamation immediately.

Quote:
Retract all of your defamation at the speed of light.

Quote:
Go back in time, and then retract all of your defamation of the past, present, and any possible future attempts to defame me.

Quote:
Retract all of your defamation immediately, along with any traces of slander, libel, slurs, smears, disparagement, calumny, villification, vituperation, scandalizing, bad-mouthing or gutter gossip.

Quote:
Retract all of your defamation immediately, and retract your retraction of retracting all of your defamation, in even less time.

Quote:
Retract all of your defamation immediately, and ask everyone you know to retract all of their defamation of me as well.

....For the love of all that is good in this world, would somebody please give Crazy James Johnson a good sharp thwack on the side of the head? I think he's stuck in "Retract your defamation" mode.

Michigan, I find him somewhat amusing. Doesn't he remind you of Dup?

I am laughing my rear off, Steve. In a good, honest way. Oh sure, maybe I'm too easily amused... But watching this copy n' paste ping pong game, when it starts to get this ludicrous, it's hilarious. Anyone who has read this self-parodying lunatic for any length of time here and still takes anything Crazy James Johnson says seriously at this point, seriously needs to have their head examined. (And if they choose not to, please tell them I have a lovely monument in Washington to sell them). But no, James doesn't remind me of DUP. James reminds me of "jj, the curmudgeon". One of the most notorious and relentelessly annoying anti-audiophile trolls ever to invade Usenet's largest audiophile group, "rec.audio.opinion". One who developed this reputation from years of taking abuse, disparagement and derision in that group. As with his partner in crime (Arny), he nevertheless continued to pretend he was any sort of a challenge to the audiophiles he was trying to do battle with there the entire time.

All the members there would laugh their heads off at his characteristically silly indignant rants about how they were "harming his professional reputation". Which is odd, since he always did the most damage to his professional reputation than any one living soul possibly could, with his embarassing debate performances, and the theatrics that would inevitably ensue every time he failed miserably in supporting his arguments, and ignored his opponent's successful rebuttals. I reason that if he still has a job after all of THAT, and I'm not at all sure he does given how much time he spends on this forum, then not regarding whoever is silly enough to have taken him in their employ, I'd say he has nothing to worry about as far as his job is concerned. That is, until such time as they get an internet connection.

Another thing I always found odd about James, is that he was such a glutton for all this punishment of abuse and derision he received from nearly everyone on the group, while at the same time constantly complaining about the contempt, abuse and derision he receives from everyone on the group. You know, like as if he had no choice in life but to stay among a group of people who mock, deride and abuse him daily; and do grevious bodily harm to his precious "reputation". Something he was always squawking about. And always under the mistaken impression that there was someone out there that actually gave a damn. Or would, so long as he cried about it long enough. Perhaps he doesn't have a choice. Some people thrive off of agony and drama, go figure. I think it took him about 15 years on that group, to finally recognize that he does have a choice. He was finally driven off of RAO, and migrated to a place called "The Asylum" (just the kind of place you would think to go for peace and relaxation from the hordes, isn't it?!). Where he had to call himself, get this, "the REAL jj", because someone else had already reserved the name "jj"! Apparently, he believes he has also copyrighted, or trademarked, the name "jj", because he thinks he's the only person in the world who has a legitimate right to call themselves by those initials! What do you expect from someone who used to copyright every post they made to Usenet, and seriously think that any living being or entity would respect his, quote unquote "copyright" warning?!

As you might expect, Asylumers got mighty tired of his annoying holier-than-thou attitude and grating manner. That and the fact that most are audiophiles, and somehow never sweetened to the fact that his whole raison d'etre in the place was to attack high end audiophiles with his ceaseless mid-fi propagandizing campaign. He left the place with the usual theatrics, sparklers and tears, as I seem to recall; eventually finding a place for himself with his own kind: forums that housed the dogmatic pseudoscientific reductionist anti-high end audio cults (aka "lunatic fringe objectivists", as one person put it). Where he could live among perpetual skeptic squawkers who sounded just like him, and believed the same silly pseudoscientific nonsense beliefs. But... remember what I was saying about how some people just can't live without drama and agony?

As for DUP, his LFO cult member, I don't know DUP. DUP was before my time. All I know is that he was annoying as f***. Hmmm. On second thought, you're right. He does remind me of DUP.

"Can you justify your existence then?" --Sartre, Nausea

"We would rather mourn than rejoice the existence of this thread." -Schopenhauer

Quote:

Quote:

Hi James,
as the presentation you are doing is pertinent to this discussion.
Any chance you can share the lecture notes you have put together please?

This way it moves the discussion along with substance (the word seems to come up often), gives us all something to read that potentially expands our knowledge, and importantly could be of use to all readers here - including Stereophile staff.

Cheers
Orbs

Address me in an inoffensive fashion and I'll answer your question.

By the way, I've posted a link (to a variety of decks) on this board repeatedly. I have no evidence, from the traffic there, that a single person from here has bothered to learn. The traffic I hear about is about 90% educationally related and 10% pro. Of course, this is based on some very aggregated statistics that might not actually show traffic related to this site.

But if you bother to take a civil tongue and show something moderately similar to the respect you claim to be due, I'll repeat my instructions on how to find a whole variety of tutorial and and high-level coverage decks that are already availabl, that have been cited repeatedly on this board, and that have been placed on the web for quite some time.

Then again, if you'd actually reviewed all of the discussions here like you insinuate, you'd already know everything you need to know, including, probably, exactly the talk I'd be giving to an audio signal processing group.

I'll give you one hint, spatial hearing is involved. That should disambiguate any possible confusion as to which deck or set of decks might be involved.

Are you near any of the following places, by the way:

Pittsburgh,
Champaign-Urbana,
Detroit,
Ann Arbor (not firmed up yet),
Evanston,
Chicago

If so, ping me privately with your real name, etc, so I can get you an invite.

Of course I will be at the AES, but you can use the schedule there as well as anyone else, I presume. If you're at surround live, well, that as well. I won't make WASPAA this year (mumble, lovely place, great conference, always overscheduled on something for me).

James,
it is rather galling to say my posts are offensive when maybe you should consider some of your very own.

One thing I will say is yes bias is starting to creep into my posts with regards to you, however I think you need to check how much bias is involved with your own decision making process on this board.
This is relevant as the discussion has been about audio bias, however it is fair to say bias is actually an everyday mechanism integrated with all types of decision making.

So for me this is a good time to discuss bias in a way we see it operating and apply a very light model/framework.
From the recent research I have seen with regards to bias (this is a small amount though of what is out there), it seems that it is related to mental heuristics we create and use.
In effect to speed up our decision making, however bias skews this process.
So in our cases we are replacing due diligance/analytical open mind with parameters on each other, which then stops us reading posts or responding in a way that we could call unbiased.
All of us can overcome this, we just need to realise we are using bias with regards to the heuristic process, and use an analytical approach with greater focus on what the factors are we need to process.
In a way a part of debiasing.

Interestingly we can apply the same to audio, the key is to understand what bias mechanism is causing us to take shortcuts on decision making process.
And this stands out with the two very useful "Perfect Speaker" threads on AVSForum that were perfect in showing how those auditioning speakers could analytically identify and report the various parameters/heuristics affecting their enjoyment, and yet ignore these critical factors when deciding they want the speaker.
The result being that if someone following the thread and looking at it from a bias/heuristic/decision making it was easy to see whether the speaker was one they could live with long term or would be replaced within 3-6 months.

I am oversimplifying this but I feel it was worth mentioning as all of us are affected by this whether it is posting on this forum, auditioning audio equipment, to our daily lives and work.
However the crucial point is that it can potentially be overcome, and maybe this is what seperates the few good audio journalists (IMO Stereophile does have some exceptionall staff) from the mass.
So maybe this can be a discussion point.
The following paper is worth a read for those wanting an interesting read on bias (honest guv it is more fun to read than others I posted, trust me hahaha).
Giving Debiasing Away:
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pps/4_4_pdfs/lilienfeld.pdf

Bias aside, James I was actually asking in the interest of the information and not to actually pick an argumental fight with you.
It is just that my perspective more information could be shared by you, and yes I have been reading the forums for awhile (before you were a member and started contributing in your way to these threads).
Anyway thank you for the offer, however I will not be visiting any US companies for a little while (based in UK).

This is why any hard copy lecture notes/etc would be great for those Stereophile members who cannot attend.

Cheers
Orbs

Quote:
"We would rather mourn than rejoice the existence of this thread." -Schopenhauer

LOL

Good application of Arthur's dictum!

Quote:

James I was actually asking in the interest of the information and not to actually pick an argumental fight with you.

Well, we know that statement is not true, since you've chosen to address me in an offensive fashion, don't we?

Quote:

It is just that my perspective more information could be shared by you, and yes I have been reading the forums for awhile (before you were a member and started contributing in your way to these threads).

Then why is it that you don't know where the slide decks are. I've certainly cited the location at least a few times, of course to the usual derision of "not mainstream" and all that other hootin' and hollarin' that you support by your continued derision in calling me a name I prefer not to be called.

Quote:

Anyway thank you for the offer, however I will not be visiting any US companies for a little while (based in UK).

Ah, yes, that middle-class British form over function? Could it be a relic of Victoria stalking us here?

Quote:

This is why any hard copy lecture notes/etc would be great for those Stereophile members who cannot attend.

Which, of course, is why I've posted the url to the site where all of my tutorials and talks, give or take a couple (along with some other decks from other local experts), at least a few times here.

I haven't noticed much uptake, except from the stalker-like true bleevers, though.

Quote:
"Can you justify your existence then?" --Sartre, Nausea

Sum, ergo cogito.

Quote:
Michigan, I find him somewhat amusing. Doesn't he remind you of Dup?

Is "DUP" somebody else you routinely defamed, lied about, and stalked, then?

Quote:

Quote:
Michigan, I find him somewhat amusing. Doesn't he remind you of Dup?

Is "DUP" somebody else you routinely defamed, lied about, and stalked, then?

A little hint James, dup did not understand what 20-20khz -0.1db meant, posting the maximum response frequency was only 20khz. And he posted the same general things over and over and over. Of course just about everyone else on this forum complained and caught dup posting misinformation as well. I just present the evidence. In this case I quoted your own comments J_J, which irks you, being exposed by your own hand.
However, that is your problem and your vicious attacks are unwarranted to say the least.

If I have lied as you claim, you would not need evasion tatics. I have posted a list and I see Michigan has as well, from over the last few of your posts.
Turns out your new attack posted above is again a false accusation.

By the way, give us the date, time, venue, dept handling the session at the U of I visit so we can verify.

For the record, Michigan's list of J_J quotes in previous posts of past 5 pages or so.

"Retract your defamation promptly."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retract your defamation immediately."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retract all of your defamation immediately."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retract all of your defamation at the speed of light."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Go back in time, and then retract all of your defamation of the past, present, and any possible future attempts to defame me."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retract all of your defamation immediately, along with any traces of slander, libel, slurs, smears, disparagement, calumny, villification, vituperation, scandalizing, bad-mouthing or gutter gossip."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retract all of your defamation immediately, and retract your retraction of retracting all of your defamation, in even less time."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Retract all of your defamation immediately, and ask everyone you know to retract all of their defamation of me as well."

Quote:

Quote:
Michigan, I find him somewhat amusing. Doesn't he remind you of Dup?

Is "DUP" somebody else you routinely defamed, lied about, and stalked, then?

I see that you're still very much a confused and unhappy camper, James. Perhaps I can help. Here on the SPhile forums, we ALL routinely defame, lie about and stalk each other. It's "what's for supper", as they say. So if you wish to sup with us, you're perfectly welcome. Have a big ol' smattering of lies and defamation, with a side order of stalking. It's delish. One of my Phile brothers has got a great recipe for libel gravy, if you're interested. If you're still hungry, there might be some SPAM left in the cupboard. However, you seem to prefer living on a steady diet of tears, melodrama, and a daily angst of public humiliation. If this is you, then please understand already that you will not find what you seek in these quarters. You must respect the fact that we are stalkers, liars and defamers here, and stop demanding that we change our beloved ways to suit yours. Thank you and, as always, have a nice cry. (Sorry, that was supposed to read "day".)

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Michigan, I find him somewhat amusing. Doesn't he remind you of Dup?

Is "DUP" somebody else you routinely defamed, lied about, and stalked, then?

I see that you're still very much a confused and unhappy camper, James. Perhaps I can help. Here on the SPhile forums, we ALL routinely defame, lie about and stalk each other. It's "what's for supper", as they say. So if you wish to sup with us, you're perfectly welcome. Have a big ol' smattering of lies and defamation, with a side order of stalking. It's delish. One of my Phile brothers has got a great recipe for libel gravy, if you're interested. If you're still hungry, there might be some SPAM left in the cupboard. However, you seem to prefer living on a steady diet of tears, melodrama, and a daily angst of public humiliation. If this is you, then please understand already that you will not find what you seek in these quarters. You must respect the fact that we are stalkers, liars and defamers here, and stop demanding that we change our beloved ways to suit yours. Thank you and, as always, have a nice cry. (Sorry, that was supposed to read "day".)

Well, once again no response providing the date, time, venue, dept handling the session/contact information at the U of I and other universities. So we cannot verify if he actually has any presentations, which is important. It appears once again his comment is nothing more than a PR campaign, claiming he is mainstream science while he continues to attack three national mainstream organizations plus other PhDs, other manufacturers and researchers such as Sony, and actual inventors of DVD, and SACD etc. J_J continues making strange accusations while dodging requests for information etc.