Quote:
Hence, all in all, either Buddha or sas seem to have caught him out on a hypocrisy: Ethan was talking smack about a competitor when he decries such a thing.

I have no idea which (if any) of the people involved are competitors of whomever.

I simply find it ridiculous that when you accuse somebody of something, then you're astonished to find out they are peeved at you.

For all this talk of "rhetoric", that seems just a touch devoid of basic understanding of human psychology.

Quote:

Quote:

My point on "objective" vs. "subjective" is already stated in the bit about memory and cognition above.

It's telling that nobody but Ethan even bothered to respond, I think.

Boo Boo, are we under-replying to your pearls?

Are you sure you have the right thread?

So, why don't you meander back on up and read some of the actual discussion about the actual subject, as opposed to all of this degenerate name-calling.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

My point on "objective" vs. "subjective" is already stated in the bit about memory and cognition above.

It's telling that nobody but Ethan even bothered to respond, I think.

Boo Boo, are we under-replying to your pearls?

Are you sure you have the right thread?

So, why don't you meander back on up and read some of the actual discussion about the actual subject, as opposed to all of this degenerate name-calling.

I have been following this thread, I don't recall any degenerate name calling I've done, but I'd be happy to start!

I also meandered back up and fail to see any significant pontificating, or even cut and paste for that matter, that you have done about memory and cognition on this thread.

I still have a hunch you think you are on the "Comb Filtering thread."

So, why don't you meander back on up and read some of the actual discussion about the actual subject, as opposed to all of this degenerate name-calling and make sure you're in the right place, beeyatch!

Quote:

Quote:
Hence, all in all, either Buddha or sas seem to have caught him out on a hypocrisy: Ethan was talking smack about a competitor when he decries such a thing.

I have no idea which (if any) of the people involved are competitors of whomever.

I simply find it ridiculous that when you accuse somebody of something, then you're astonished to find out they are peeved at you.

For all this talk of "rhetoric", that seems just a touch devoid of basic understanding of human psychology.

Hey J_J, ethan was attacking a competitor Synergistic Research, which both Selfdivider and I flatly stated and explained on page 10 before you posted your response on the bottom of page 10. So you knew what Ethan was doing buddy. The fact is you are attempting to bail out Ethan Winer who was attempting to scam the audience yet again, as well as misrepresent me yet again.

Quote:
Well, I'd just like to say, though, this hen-pecking among you, jj, whoever else, was pretty hysterical in its hand-wringing bombast for a while but is getting pretty annoying now. Can we just move on?

Amen to that sentiment, Selfdivider.

New forum rule: before they hit the "Submit" button, posters have to read their proposed message aloud to themselves in the mirror. If they still feel their words are not immoderate, they can go ahead and post.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
So you knew what Ethan was doing buddy. The fact is you are attempting to bail out Ethan Winer who was attempting to scam the audience yet again, as well as misrepresent me yet again.

Really?

The fact remains, I STILL have no idea who competes with who, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT I DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY. Is this clear? After your silly conspiracy theories about the AES regarding corporate members, I'm tempted to send you a tinfoil hat.

Beyond a vague idea that Ethan sells room treatment, I have absolutely no idea of the competition issues. That's the fact. I design my own, rather than buy anyone else's. I get to do that because I know how. As far as I know, Ethan does not sell the raw materials I want. I have no idea if the other person does or not, I know exactly nothing about them, and your words DO NOT COUNT.

Now unless you have some evidence to the contrary THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR ANYTHING (We can all see that your paranoia about the AES, endorsements, etc are entirely unreasonable, so I simply don't trust a word you type.), well, too bad for you.

If you have some web sites to cite, etc, I might consider your case, but knowing your egregious misconduct directed at me, I frankly put zero value on your own words. You'll just have to live with that.

The funniest part of this all is where you claim, indirectly, to read minds when you tell me " So you knew what Ethan was doing buddy."

Allow me to make a suggestion, don't quit your day job for a job as a mind-reader. Your mind-reading fails completely.

Quote:

Amen to that sentiment, Selfdivider.

New forum rule: before they hit the "Submit" button, posters have to read their proposed message aloud to themselves in the mirror. If they still feel their words are not immoderate, they can go ahead and post.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

For the record, I read what I just wrote to sasaudio. I even toned it down.

I think, frankly, that I am being far, far too kind and polite to this obviously abusive individual who has in the past week or so espoused completely bizzare conspiracy theories regarding the AES and corporate membership, my presumed relationship to Ethan (I think I've met Ethan once, but I'm not frankly sure, and as you know I've met a LOT of people in the audio industry), and raised a whole army of invisible experts (none of whom he can name) to the defense of his imaginary indignity.

I think I'm being far, far too kind.

Quote:
Really?

The fact remains, I STILL have no idea who competes with who, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT I DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD YOU SAY. Is this clear? After your silly conspiracy theories about the AES regarding corporate members, I'm tempted to send you a tinfoil hat.

Beyond a vague idea that Ethan sells room treatment, I have absolutely no idea of the competition issues. That's the fact. I design my own, rather than buy anyone else's. I get to do that because I know how. As far as I know, Ethan does not sell the raw materials I want. I have no idea if the other person does or not, I know exactly nothing about them, and your words DO NOT COUNT.

Now unless you have some evidence to the contrary THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR ANYTHING (We can all see that your paranoia about the AES, endorsements, etc are entirely unreasonable, so I simply don't trust a word you type.), well, too bad for you.

If you have some web sites to cite, etc, I might consider your case, but knowing your egregious misconduct directed at me, I frankly put zero value on your own words. You'll just have to live with that.

The funniest part of this all is where you claim, indirectly, to read minds when you tell me " So you knew what Ethan was doing buddy."

Allow me to make a suggestion, don't quit your day job for a job as a mind-reader. Your mind-reading fails completely.

Quote:
For the record, I read what I just wrote to sasaudio. I even toned it down.

Gee. I'd hate to have seen the original draft. Remember what I said about trying to avoid a nervous breakdown, jj? If you actually did read this screaming banshee diatribe to yourself in front of a mirror and thought it was not just an acceptable contribution to advance the discussion, but ' far, far too kind and polite' even, then I submit that maybe in your case, you're just not qualified to judge your own posts. Have them read aloud by someone more reasonable, and 'stable', let's say. Not posting is an option too, you know. Don't feel you have to constantly be at your computer and on this forum, around the clock, either posting or waiting for a response. Don't worry. We'll all agree to take a break while you're gone, so that you don't miss anything. 'Kay? Thank you for your understanding.

Quote:
Well, I'd just like to say, though, this hen-pecking among you, jj, whoever else, was pretty hysterical in its hand-wringing bombast for a while but is getting pretty annoying now. Can we just move on? It's dragged on too long and it'll take just one person to step up and be the bigger man. What say y'all?

I hope what you suggest comes true, and soon. It's wasting my time (and I assume everyone else's time) reading through this flame war. I've gone to skimming the posts and if it's mostly arguing the same points over and over, I skip it and go on to the next.

Quote:

Quote:
Well, I'd just like to say, though, this hen-pecking among you, jj, whoever else, was pretty hysterical in its hand-wringing bombast for a while but is getting pretty annoying now. Can we just move on? It's dragged on too long and it'll take just one person to step up and be the bigger man. What say y'all?

I hope what you suggest comes true, and soon. It's wasting my time (and I assume everyone else's time) reading through this flame war. I've gone to skimming the posts and if it's mostly arguing the same points over and over, I skip it and go on to the next.

We learned one thing, that J_J is providing cover/defense for Ethan's attack on a competitor. That speaks volumes as to why J_J is on this forum.

Quote:
sas, come on. It's getting old, drop it.

Fine, the first comments started on page 10 and you commented. Second, the fact that J_J is covering is new and revealing information, unless you already knew that.

If everyone now knows, no need to post further.

Quote:
You just wait, Ethan. Ted Denney said he'd come back here with some objective data and kick your butt.

How long do we have to wait before concluding he's full of it?

Quote:
Ethan, check out Paul Messenger's show reoprt in the June issue. What if he could repeatedly identify whether or not these items were present? Then what?

Link?

--Ethan

Quote:
it would seem beyond doubt that the products target the room acoustics market

Sure, but the defining difference is that my company's products work, and tiny bowls do not work. It's that simple. If the bowls did work, Ted would have shown some evidence. So your beef is really with him, not me.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
You just wait, Ethan. Ted Denney said he'd come back here with some objective data and kick your butt.

How long do we have to wait before concluding he's full of it?

Quote:
Ethan, check out Paul Messenger's show reoprt in the June issue. What if he could repeatedly identify whether or not these items were present? Then what?

Link?

--Ethan

It's in the June Stereophile - made up of pressed wood pulp with ink placed on it.

You haven't read it?

Look in the London show coverage. Front half of the issue.

The smart thing to do is something like imagining that you are standing in front of the person..and they are blind. meaning, they can't see the physical inflection-which is critical and all those physical interactions in person to person contact are lost on the net...and thus the minor emphasis that we put in messages can be grossly misinterpreted and always will be.

Although I don't exempt myself from failing to observe that consideration. Part of human nature.

In essence, I try to remember that when I read what may feel like an over-the-top post by someone else. At that point, I tend to find myself being less reactive and more sympathetic. Hopefully the next post I submit can then help tone down the stress in the given situation.

If the person replying fails to notice, then I sometimes turn the cannon back on and fire away at will....

Actually, Ethan the tiny bowls DO work. Ted is simply smart enough to not deliver a damn thing to those who might steal the understandings and work them to getting further down the road than he is right now. I know that Ted is a VERY smart guy as he realized the bowl trick early on and adopted it immediately. His other technologies are nothing to sneeze at either and illustrate a deep knowledge of the fundamentals. Remember, I'm talking very favorably about a competitor. Ted is no dummy!

He's protecting the proprietary IP from theft and expansion, so he can take it there himself-as opposed to his competitors doing so.

It's full bore-head on 1,000,000% basic good business sense, and he very likely doesn't give a single good god damn what the hell you feel on the subject.

That you cannot see it is good..but the ranting to those who don't understand..is not good.

However, he cannot afford to clear that up for you. It is a REALLY important point in the given science that few understand and I'm not going to reveal how they work, why they work, etc- either. As just like Ted, I can do something with the information. I'm sure that there many who 'get it' within the industry and they are not stupid enough to open their mouths, either.

There will, sadly.. be some who do NOT understand it and will devise applications that are just simply -way off. We all know this by looking on the net at eBay and the like when some design made in the west ends up in the east,and visa-versa. The 'copier' mis-applies the technology.

Give it another generational time period of product development to happen, and I'm sure that there will be utilization of the fundamental aspects of them (the bowls) in other applications that will emerge in the marketplace.

Then at that point, you may or may not 'get it', as you will have multiple examples of plots on a line as opposed to the current single example.

Quote:

Quote:
it would seem beyond doubt that the products target the room acoustics market

Sure, but the defining difference is that my company's products work, and tiny bowls do not work. It's that simple. If the bowls did work, Ted would have shown some evidence. So your beef is really with him, not me.

--Ethan

In determining whether or not one is or is not a competitor for market share that simply is not the case.

So, it's an occupational hazard!

You can either provide things like data and bask in the 'evidence' but risk product theft; or, you can risk having your product called bullshit while protecting your proprietary product.

Fair enough.

Then, Ethan has every right to call it bullshit unless proven otherwise.

Everybody wins!

Quote:

Quote:
sas, come on. It's getting old, drop it.

Fine, the first comments started on page 10 and you commented. Second, the fact that J_J is covering is new and revealing information, unless you already knew that.

If everyone now knows, no need to post further.

You need some new tinfoil for your hat. Do you have ANYTHING to say to any of the subjects here? Yes or no?

Bear in mind that I have no idea what these "little bowls" are, for instance.

Quote:
Second of all, way to bolster your credibility with 'my stuff works and his stuff sucks' rationale. Are you kidding? That kind of logic doesn't even work with my 4 year old daughter, man. Furthermore, that kind of talk categorically falls under attacking a competitor. It seems that the only way you're distinguishing SR as non-competitor is purely by saying your products work and the other guys' stuff don't. I've read accounts by knowledgeable listeners/critics who have heard differences, using SR products. I've also heard some accounts by other listeners who say YOUR products do not work. In the end, it's all subjective (ahem ), including your opinion. Your opinion, quite frankly, shouldn't even be admitted as reliable source or fact, especially because you target the same market as SR and the element of bias is high, almost given.

Stop trashing other company's products as a party of interest, Ethan. That's pretty low-class, if not unethical.

Well said, SD. As much as I dislike the slippery slope of adding rules, I think there should at least be a "fair play rule" that says a merchant who is a member of this forum, should not be allowed to attack the business of a direct competitor who is a member of this forum; particularly stupid unfounded accusations against the competitor, as we've seen from Ethan (especially when the competitor is not present to defend himself or his company). And both of these companies who produce products of the same category, have representatives who are members of this forum. Alternatively, at least a rule that establishes that both direct competitors are allowed to attack each other's business, without fail.

Bear in mind that I have no idea what these "little bowls" are, for instance.

They're resonators. Speaking of bowls, anyone ever try bowls of ice water out in front of the speakers?

Quote:
They're resonators.

I see, of what size? What absorbtion internal to the resonator? What admittance at what frequency?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Quote:

Quote:
They're resonators.

I see, of what size? What absorbtion internal to the resonator? What admittance at what frequency?

Enquiring minds want to know.

It's a trade secret.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/acousticsystem/resonators.html

a picture's worth 1000 words

These are the first little bowl resonantors, of about 6 years ago, not to be confused with the newer bowls discussed on this thread.

Quote:

It's a trade secret.

Righty-O, there, mate.

Quote:
... not to be confused with the newer bowls discussed on this thread.

Or your average toilet bowl. We were having them replaced throughout the house. Plumber unpacked all the new ones in the media room, stereo happened to be playing. OMG!!!

RG

Quote:

Quote:
They're resonators.

I see, of what size? What absorbtion internal to the resonator? What admittance at what frequency?

Enquiring minds want to know.

All fair questions but what is also fair is to acknowledge that the effectiveness of the products is independent of any answers given or not given.

Quote:
All fair questions but what is also fair is to acknowledge that the effectiveness of the products is independent of any answers given or not given.

But hardly of what the answers would reveal, of course.

The first rule of acoustics is: Don't put energy into the space unless you want it there.

That's also the second, and third rules.

The fourth is "it's easier to put in energy than take it out". This varies slightly for concert halls.

So, absent some means to reflect and/or absorb...

How this applies to any one product, I'm not saying, since I don't even know OF the product that appears to be under discussion here.

Some more reasons why they couldn't possibly work:

1. They are too damn small. Each bowl is 17 mm in diameter.

2. They are not in the signal path.

3. They would ring and everyone knows ringing is bad.

4. They are made of exotic materials (silver, platinum, gold). This is obviously done only for effect. Like gold CDs and silver cables.

5. Did I mention they are too damn small?

I smoked a few.

System sounded better!

Quote:
The greatest debate since the Cartesian mind-body split:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/fragilesouls/fragilesouls.html

I expect molotov cocktails.

Let

I don't disagree that blind tests can be valid, however they can be much like testing the skills or capacity of a speed runner multiple times in a row. Only the first test will be valid. The follow through repeats will not be so accurate. Like a pro runner or bike rider, the quality of the listener's skills will only become apparent over the long term listening, in the correct circumstances.

Therefore, a single testing regimen aimed at leveling the testing across the board, ..tests..I might add..that are created with no real knowledge of the level of skill the given listener might have, and no real knowledge of the absolute limit of capacity in humans* but the large number of subjectivist audiophiles DO understand that capacity.

It IS a very well known fact that the general objectvist in audio has, for the most part, limited skills with respect to understanding claimed differences in the sonic presentation of various equipment, whereas the subjectivist originally had a greater amount of this skill..and possibly trained themselves to a higher level than they possessed originally. They also taught themselves how to do it their way, which is long term sighted listening. It is well known that the subjectivist can be and usually is more emotionally aware than the given general objectivist. This means they are more 'aware' of the capacity and desire of the baser parts of the mind to control and run roughshod over the logical conscious mind.

The objectivist camp fails to understand that they are engaging in the use of the reptilian autonomic part of the human mind in their logical musings. The idea of science creating facts is the big mistake, as science is not for that use and anyone who tries to do so should be bitch slapped into their grave and out of the scientific world.

The problem stems from the point that the same function in the mind that creates stoic (to the grave) disbelief is the same component that creates religion, dogma, and the components (tenants) of such that the pundit or armchair scientist uses to live and exist by. Essentially, there are idiots everywhere, and they are in both camps. Even the idea of labeling it as two separate camps is offensive, at the base level. This is due to the consideration that the base problem in this creation of dogma and rote repetition as a 'eternal fact' is part and parcel of the reptilian autonomous component of the brain creeping in with it's unconscious behaviour and attempting to control the logical function-and doing it in a way that the brain's owner is completely unaware of the action, as they live with the dam reptile on a second to second basis..and have done so, since birth. Even spelling mistakes are part of that system, ie a pattern recognition issue. (heh heh)

Unless one becomes aware of the reptilian autonomic control of the deep formation of thought (the voice in the head we all have ---and the rumblings that precede it) and literally fights, questions and is consciously aware of it every damn second, of ever day, permanently, for the rest of their life!!!...unless they work in total awareness..they will be an autonomic idiot to some degree..for the rest of their life. 349 university degrees in one life is NO exception to that rule, and might (and usually does)make it worse. The 'intelligent person' might be an even bigger autonomic ass than the emotionally aware person who never made it through high school.

Understanding the point that -ALL- conscious thought, originates and literally branches out from the core components of the mind that are powerfully and soundly anchored in the reptilian autonomic part of the mind and literally control the very idea of logic and thought formation is KEY to stabilizing the mind against the absolute and continuous assault by the reptilian part of the mind on the conscious state. Even when you sleep -it is at it, 1000% of the time. Figure it out, people.

Objectivists that fail to deal with this fundamental point about the formation of logic in their minds will succumb to the reptile, and very tellingly-always do, in the end.

Why?

The very idea of learning is rooted in the concept and execution of concept with respects to the child inside reaching out and learning via a preset system. A system that is predicated upon and built upon the core (always extant and always working) reptilian system being in DEEP control of that function. Once again, that is an AUTONOMIC Function. It is a core function and was executed in extreme and rote repetition as a very small child. Ie, the function that controls breathing, fear, pain, lust, etc... also controls formation of thought and logic. Thus, it engaged in creation of permanent channels of unconscious patterning -as that small child you were -began on it's path to becoming an 'adult'.

Once again, being conscious of this on a second to second basis, permanently, for the rest of your breathing life is critical to getting past the autonomic animal inside.

Until you do that - you are just another talking monkey among billions of other talking monkeys. And you will always get knotted up in these entirely bullshit monkey battles.

*The objectivist camp is rife with people who do NOT believe people can hear differences in cables, for example- a VERY basic consideration for designing and implementing correct blind and/or objective tests.

Quote:
Let

Quote:
I don't disagree that blind tests can be valid, however they can be much like testing the skills or capacity of a speed runner multiple times in a row. Only the first test will be valid.

The evidence from actual tests proves otherwise, so I would suggest that you examine your assumptions.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't disagree that blind tests can be valid, however they can be much like testing the skills or capacity of a speed runner multiple times in a row. Only the first test will be valid.

The evidence from actual tests proves otherwise, so I would suggest that you examine your assumptions.

I agree that he was making a rather bold assumption but the point he was raising was one of listener fatigue. perhaps you could give us some insight into that issue. Is it a factor IYE? At what point does it become an issue? Does it vary depending on the test? If so how? When i have done my home brewed blind comparisons I have tried to "pace" myself so to speak. I will often repeat my comparisons several times over a week or two. I rarely let the listening sessions go past an hour.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't disagree that blind tests can be valid, however they can be much like testing the skills or capacity of a speed runner multiple times in a row. Only the first test will be valid.

The evidence from actual tests proves otherwise, so I would suggest that you examine your assumptions.

Even a fish can organize rocks. Let's see if you can move up the ladder a step or two.

Quote:

I agree that he was making a rather bold assumption but the point he was raising was one of listener fatigue. perhaps you could give us some insight into that issue. Is it a factor IYE?

Goodness, yes, it's a factor.

Quote:

At what point does it become an issue?

That depends on the test (wait, you just asked about that)

Quote:

Does it vary depending on the test? If so how? When i have done my home brewed blind comparisons I have tried to "pace" myself so to speak. I will often repeat my comparisons several times over a week or two. I rarely let the listening sessions go past an hour.

I'd suggest 10 minutes maximum without a rest break if you're working on extremely fine distinctions.

Some people go to 20 minutes, but I've found that dl's and every other sort of result go to (*(* in a handbasket after about 10-20 minutes for even the most practiced and trained listener.

Now, note, if you're sitting there listening, and THEN you start to take the test, unless we're talking excessive levels (DO NOT DO THAT!!!) the timing starts from when you start doing formal testing.

It is work. You can't just do it all day without a break and get any meaningful results.

Quote:
Look in the London show coverage. Front half of the issue.

I already gave that issue to my partner, who lives an hour away. But let's analyze this logically:

We all understand and accept that resonances in a playback system are a detriment. When JA tests loudspeakers he places an accelerometer on the cabinet specifically to identify resonances. Likewise, room resonances in the form of modal ringing and flutter echo are understood as damaging by every professional acoustician in the world. So it's a given that adding resonance intentionally can only damage reproduction. If you do not agree with this, please just stop reading and don't reply either because there's no basis for further discussion.

Still here? Great! So we have a device called a "resonator" that claims to improve room acoustics by adding resonances on purpose. It may be possible that even small devices like Ted's magic bowls could add some audible effect, especially if the music contains the same frequency as the resonance, and has a section that plays that frequency and suddenly stops. That is, the exciting frequency will stop but the resonance lingers and is no longer masked. So I can see how it's remotely possible that the effect of Ted's bowls are potentially audible, albeit at a very low level in just the right circumstances.

You could get a similar effect by laying a 1/4 size POS made-in-China plywood violin on a table nearby.

All in all, I'd say it's a good thing for Ted that his bowls are that small. Otherwise, the damage done by their being in a room would be more noticeable.

In the grand scheme of things I have to conclude they work 99% on placebo effect, and 1% on their resonances being very slightly audible. And even then only maybe. But they are still not acoustic treatment!

Acoustic treatment aims to improve the sound, not make it worse by adding new artifacts.

--Ethan

Quote:
Ted is simply smart enough to not deliver a damn thing to those who might steal the understandings and work them to getting further down the road than he is right now.

LOL. Ken, you are in the wrong business. You should be a lobbyist for the strip-mining industry.

--Ethan

j_j wrote

Quote:

Beyond a vague idea that Ethan sells room treatment, I have absolutely no idea of the competition issues. That's the fact. I design my own, rather than buy anyone else's. I get to do that because I know how. As far as I know, Ethan does not sell the raw materials I want. I have no idea if the other person does or not, I know exactly nothing about them, and your words DO NOT COUNT.

I don't recall having heard of 'Synergistic Research' until this thread, so I visited their website to see what the fuss was about. Best laugh of the day so far. I doubt you'd find their products of any value except comedic.
His competitor isn't Ethan, it's woo-woo merchants like Geoff Kait (Machina Dynamica) or the Belts.

http://www.synergisticresearch.com/

The 'bass station' is a tiny bowl on a J-shaped block of wood, mounted on spikes, that is claimed to tame room bass response. The whole thing is about the size of CD.

As long as credulous 'audiophiles' of a certain stripe keep claiming 'you need to hear this before you judge' preposterous products like Mr. Denney's 'Acoustic ART', they'll always be at the wrong end of pointing'n'laughing, and at the 'stuck' end of scams.

Quote:
As long as credulous 'audiophiles' of a certain stripe keep claiming 'you need to hear this before you judge' preposterous products like Mr. Denney's 'Acoustic ART', they'll always be at the wrong end of pointing'n'laughing,

Do you understand that this is why so many think you are a dick? It's all about pointing and laughing rights with you.

Scott, all you're telling me is that my standards for deciding whose opinions of me matter, are higher than yours. Certainly in the weird world of audio opinions, I'll shoot for quality over quantity. It's not how many think good or ill of you -- 'so many' people believe so much nonsense, after all. It's *who*. Is your 'so many' list populated by anyone I should care about?

Quote:
Scott, all you're telling me is that my standards for deciding whose opinions of me matter, are higher than yours. Certainly in the weird world of audio opinions, I'll shoot for quality over quantity. It's not how many think good or ill of you -- 'so many' people believe so much nonsense, after all. It's *who*. Is you 'so many' list populated by anyone I should care about?

krabapple, the point is you add nothing positive, interesting, or worthwhile to this forum. All you do is talk shit about other people. As far as this matter is concerned, there's nothing else to discuss. Please stop.

Sorry, but it's simply not true that 'all I do is talk shit about others on these forums', Mr. Meijas. I even provided examples to the contrary (and allow me to add the post I just made). If people with an axe to grind take a line or paragraph of my 'shit talking' out of a longer post of substance, as Michigan J. Forg did with my examples, that is not evidence that's 'all I do'.

Notice I'm being called a 'dick' by Scott. So please stop singling *me* out for opprobrium, thanks. Spread the moderation around a little.

Quote:
Notice I'm being called a 'dick' by Scott. So please stop singling *me* out for opprobrium, thanks.

Scott was wrong. He committed a great disservice to dicks of all persuasions.

Quote:
Sorry, but it's simply not true that 'all I do is talk shit about others on these forums', Mr. Meijas. I even provided examples to the contrary (and allow me to add the post I just made). If people with an axe to grind take a line or paragraph of my 'shit talking' out of a longer post of substance, as Michigan J. Forg did with my examples, that is not evidence that's 'all I do'.

Notice I'm being called a 'dick' by Scott. So please stop singling *me* out for opprobrium, thanks. Spread the moderation around a little.

I didn't exactly call you a dick. Reread my post carefully. In fact I suspect you are a pretty OK guy. But I think it is fair to say that many others think much less of you. I was simply pointing to your words as an indicator of why you are not so well loved here and on other forums. That being your desire to point and laugh with some sense of authority. Which is basically the same as talking shit about others and adding nothing positive. If your goal is to earn "pointing and laughing" rights you will rub folks the worng way on a regular basis. That was my point.