My response (quoting such as Julian Vereker's letter) was because of Scott's sentence:-
>>> "It is easy enough to find measurable differences in different cables." <<<

Julian's letter to Hi Fi News merely showed that it is NOT easy enough !!! Whatever measuring technique was used by Naim, they ACTUALLY TRIED to measure something and stated that they tried - without success. Whereas Scott, on the other hand, and yes, I am making a presumption here that he Scott, has not tried to do such measurements of different cables, stated "It is easy enough" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, yes, I think we would ALL agree that Naim, as technical people, knew what they were doing and tried to check as many things as they could practically do. And, yes again, we are all aware that 'group think' can cause things to be missed, even amongst technical people.

But, at some time common sense must come in (meaning a time to accept something - some knowledge/experience - from someone - with knowledge/experience - at least as guidelines to work with) or else discussions become only demands for "proof", "where is your proof", "show us your proof" or question after question after question !!

Yes, we ALL agree that asking questions is valid. But, there are questions and there are questions and there are ways of asking questions which can further discussions or which can bring discussions to an abrupt halt. The usual example of this last one is the question "When did you stop beating your wife ?" THAT question is asked for a purpose and the purpose is NOT to find out when a person stopped beating their wife !!!!!

Another factor to be considered is that, for some people, asking constant questions constantly provides them with an excuse NOT to think. They can appear to be genuinely curious, genuinely interested, with one question after another, asking for 'proof' about this, 'proof' about that, and, then once given 'proof' they don't NEED to think for themselves, do they, so they are then 'let off the hook' from having to struggle to think for themselves ?

Another example of a person having carried out 'measurements' (this time on passive capacitors) and found no measurable differences, although the differences in the sound were described as 'significant' was :-

From Martin Colloms :-
On passive capacitors.
>>> All of the capacitors tested were used well within their ratings. Their internal design, foils and electrolyte chemistry were different, however...... The engineers involved were astonished to find that the capacitor differences were highly significant, determining between 20% and 30% of the overall performance of the amplifier...... No measurable differences were observed for the complete amplifier using any of these capacitors. <<<

If I remember, WTL, you yourself have had experience of passive components affecting the sound. Surely, at some time, you would be prepared to take under serious consideration Martin's results even though you did not know the FULL test procedures they used ??? Or, if not, how long would YOU continue to ask the question >>> "What did they actually measure? can you cite the list of identical measurements?" <<<

My experience of other engineers is similar to my own in that I, for one, can accept Julian's experience (of hearing something change the sound which they could not measure) AND Martin's experience (of hearing passive components change the sound which they could not measure) because their's is just confirmation of our own experiences !!

Another thing I said to Scott was :-

>>> "If ANY differences in the audio signal had actually been 'measured', then those measurements would, surely, have been shouted from the rooftops !!!" <<<

to which he replied :-

>>> "I don't know about that. It is easy enough to find measurable differences in different cables. I don't hear any shouting about that fact." <<<

I would say again. If such as Julian Vereker was prepared to PUBLICLY describe how they had attempted to measure differences in cables they were using and could NOT, then I am quite sure that they would have been even more willing to publicly describe if the opposite had happened i.e that they had measurement PROOF of why they chose one cable in preference to another !!!!!! What I simplistically refer to as 'shouting it from the rooftops'.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Scotty, you have only one ability - to copy/paste "bullshit" and tag on personal attacks. You show no skills to prove you can research any topic even when it is handed to you on a platter. You do not understand mechanisms or triggers, acted on or responded to. Nor do you understand actual authorities when they are presented to you. You have no comprehension of evidence, nor effective discourse and you have no demonstrable ability to grapple with logic which would be perfectly clear to a two year old.

Given your decided lack of talents at any of this, why don't you put your bulldog on the forum? From what we've seen of your unique and utter dishonesty coupled to your consistent lack of civility - not to mention you are a complete fraud - in anything audio I'm sure she/he could do a much better job at this than you've managed.

Quote:
Look, he threatened to kick my ass and I threatened to kick his ass.

What "his" do you refer to here, please. Be specific, and use externally verifiable evidence.

Quote:
If such as Julian Vereker was prepared to PUBLICLY describe how they had attempted to measure differences in cables they were using and could NOT,

How may we test, verify, repeat, and potentially falsify this claim?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, he threatened to kick my ass and I threatened to kick his ass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What "his" do you refer to here, please. Be specific, and use externally verifiable evidence.

If you were any kind of real skeptic (as opposed to a troll, albeit a relatively pleasant one ) you would already know the answer to your own question.

Quote:
What "his" do you refer to here, please. Be specific, and use externally verifiable evidence.

Sssommmmmeooonnnne's beeeinnnng sssstaaalllked!

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, he threatened to kick my ass and I threatened to kick his ass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What "his" do you refer to here, please. Be specific, and use externally verifiable evidence.

If you were any kind of real skeptic (as opposed to a troll, albeit a relatively pleasant one ) you would already know the answer to your own question.

Surprise, surprise.

J_J, page 53

Quote:
Don't know a thing about this bunch, but in fact in previous forums (rec.audio.high-end/opinion) some of the truly nutcase audiophiliacs did in fact take to calling, threatening and then hanging up, calling up bosses, sending mail to corporate attourneys, the board of directors, and the like. They read much at the time like some of the crackpots here, with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, claims of "monopolizing the internet", bow wow woof woof.

They can get pretty creepy when their completely crackpotoid conclusions are questioned.

From J_J

Quote:
What "his" do you refer to here, please. Be specific, and use externally verifiable evidence.

I would not hesitate to believe Geof's claim after seeing J_Js above post (from page 53), providing NO evidence as usual, and his continued personal attacks on everyone on this forum.

J_J please provide evidence to back up your personal attacks, see his post quoted above, and please be specific. Oh, that's right, you cannot back it up. No wonder you produce no evidence but demand others do. The old double standard.

I would not be too concerned since J_J infers/insults(?) 4 national organizations, that the IEEE, Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS) are not "real mainstream science" (see previous posts.).

Since he also thinks 16/44 in a cd player is perfect, then DVD, SACD etc are a waste. So Sony and other big name research manufacturers are also wrong in their knowledge of audio perception, and in higher resolution.
I think we can see under the facade J_J portrays by his ridiculous attitudes and tatics addressed above. Very difficult to trust someone in this frame of mind.

Quote:

I think we can see under the facade J_J portrays by his ridiculous attitudes and tatics addressed above. Very difficult to trust someone in this frame of mind.

Once again, we see Sasaudio lying outright about a situation.

It is time for sasaudio to stop lying about what the IEEE, etc, have said, and simply abandon this stalking and harrassment.

It is time for sasaudio to publically admit that I have been exactly, absolutely correct in all particulars, and that his claims otherwise are knowingly and willfully false.

Quote:

Quote:

I think we can see under the facade J_J portrays by his ridiculous attitudes and tatics addressed above. Very difficult to trust someone in this frame of mind.

Once again, we see Sasaudio lying outright about a situation.

It is time for sasaudio to stop lying about what the IEEE, etc, have said, and simply abandon this stalking and harrassment.

It is time for sasaudio to publically admit that I have been exactly, absolutely correct in all particulars, and that his claims otherwise are knowingly and willfully false.

More sidestepping and smoke and mirrors. Where is the evidence backing your ridiculous claims on page 53. We all see you cannot provide such.

Where is your evidence I lied on anything. Again all talk but no evidence. Yet he demands evidence of others.

Why don't you provide evidence supporting your claim that I lied about what IEEE stated. Big talk but no evidence, yet again. (So just how accurate is J_Js resume considering he thinks the IEEE and other national organizations are not "real mainstream science".)

As one can see, J_J is all theatrics, and I wonder how many hot air balloons he has blown up in his lifetime.

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, he threatened to kick my ass and I threatened to kick his ass.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What "his" do you refer to here, please. Be specific, and use externally verifiable evidence.

If you were any kind of real skeptic (as opposed to a troll, albeit a relatively pleasant one ) you would already know the answer to your own question.

So, in other words, you're unwilling to state your position, let alone document it.

Yes, yes, we understand.

Quote:
Why don't you provide evidence supporting your claim that I lied about what IEEE stated.

You already provided evidence by quoting the web site, and showing that in fact my work improved the quality of music delivery.

As to your other false claims, it's you who needs to provide that I am the one going "against the mainstream" when in fact I am the very definition of the mainstream, in fact the "liberal" end of the mainstream.

We can also bring up your dishonesty in claiming that I let "flawed papers through" when I said that I don't necessarily agree with every paper I approve for publication.

Then there's your complete mistake regarding time resolution in PCM, your tin-foil hat claims about the AES, your failure to enlarge those claims to the IEEE, ASA, etc, all of whom have corporate memberships, and all of whom, if you were in the least honest, factual, or ethical, you would insist have the same (imagined) problem that you fanatsize about the AES having, etc.

In your world, it seems that improvement is bad, professional stature is bad, IEEE field awards mean the recipient is a bad person, IEEE and AES fellowships ditto, and that you have a personal fixation on attacking those who do, in fact, represent the mainstream.

"So, in other words, you're unwilling to state your position, let alone document it."

Huh? State my position? Now, you're just being silly. Gee, I've never seen a peer review of an ass kicking contest before.

"Yes, yes, we understand."

No, I'm quite sure you don't.

Quote:

Quote:
Why don't you provide evidence supporting your claim that I lied about what IEEE stated.

You already provided evidence by quoting the web site, and showing that in fact my work improved the quality of music delivery.

Interesting since IEEE stated your work lowered bit rate by up to 10 times without substantial degradation, as stated earlier in this string. So where is your IEEE evidence backing your claim. As usual you seem to have a real problem with honesty J_J, and have continually sidestepped providing evidence, which you demand of all others.

Quote:
As to your other false claims, it's you who needs to provide that I am the one going "against the mainstream" when in fact I am the very definition of the mainstream, in fact the "liberal" end of the mainstream.

Changing positions yet again. So now you are the definition of "mainstream science" instead of "real mainstream science". So you agree there is a difference between the 4 national organizations "real mainstream science" and you. Afterall, you disagree with them. Way to go, continue to differentiate between you and the 4 national "real mainstream" organizations. So how can you be the "definition" when you disagree with them/everyone.

Quote:
Then there's your complete mistake regarding time resolution in PCM, your tin-foil hat claims about the AES, your failure to enlarge those claims to the IEEE, ASA, etc, all of whom have corporate memberships, and all of whom, if you were in the least honest, factual, or ethical, you would insist have the same (imagined) problem that you fanatsize about the AES having, etc.

In your world, it seems that improvement is bad, professional stature is bad, IEEE field awards mean the recipient is a bad person, IEEE and AES fellowships ditto, and that you have a personal fixation on attacking those who do, in fact, represent the mainstream.

Except as we saw above, you have a problem telling the truth, which everyone sees. Answers also appear above. You disagreed with the 3 national organizations, peers, anonymous referees, and Dr. Kunchur (whom I agreed with), and IEEE statements. And we know they are "real mainstream", so you obviously have major problems, that of not knowing what you are doing.

Again where is your evidence proving you improved music when IEEE stated you degraded the music although not substantially.

The world is watching you J_J/James D. Johnston/Woodenville. Keep demonstrating why no one should believe a word you state. By the way, where is your evidence you demand of others?

Quote:
By the way, where is your evidence you demand of others?

My evidence is in the public record.

You have no evidence, stalker.

Quote:
"So, in other words, you're unwilling to state your position, let alone document it."

Huh? State my position? Now, you're just being silly.

Yep, you won't tell us WHO you claim threatened to kick your butt or whatever, and you won't direct us to the original source of the quote.

In other words, you are willing to insinuate all sorts of things, but you're not willing to actually cut to the chase and show us what you insinuate.

Yeah, I think we do surely understand.

Quote:

Quote:
By the way, where is your evidence you demand of others?

My evidence is in the public record.

You have no evidence, stalker.

Smoke and mirrors again J_J. Can't produce the evidence, but he demands it from others.

Misleading the public with misleading comments. Since you don't produce any evidence, you insinuate I do not as well. Unfortunately all one has to do is check strings to see I do provide evidence while you sidestep presenting evidence, just like you have been doing in this string.

Oh, and I see you sidestepped the rest of my post, let alone present evidence, yet again. Yes, we get it J_J. Trying to bluff your way through doing the two step shuffle and backstep.

And here is J_Js reply to Geof, which is actually appropriate to J_J. The ending is slightly different.

In other words, you are willing to insinuate all sorts of things, but you're not willing to actually show us any evidence J_J.

Yeah, I think we do surely understand.

"Yep, you won't tell us WHO you claim threatened to kick your butt or whatever, and you won't direct us to the original source of the quote.
In other words, you are willing to insinuate all sorts of things, but you're not willing to actually cut to the chase and show us what you insinuate.
Yeah, I think we do surely understand."

And I think I'm beginning to understand you have some sort of fixation on butts. Just can't imagine why anyone would care about the who's, the where's or the why's of an ass kicking contest.

"You won't cut to the chase and show us what you insinuate" - Now, that's hilarious! Bravo!!

Quote:
"You won't cut to the chase and show us what you insinuate" - Now, that's hilarious! Bravo!!

Wow, lookie here. No substance, no evidence, nothing to offer but more evasion.

"Wow, lookie here. No substance, no evidence, nothing to offer but more evasion."

Au contraire, I have provided evidence of what I said occurred. You simply ignore the evidence. Seriously, going beyond your silly demands for evidence in the ass kicking matter, isn't the real issue here WHY YOU continue to defend Randi's tactics of baiting and stalking and lying?

Quote:
You simply ignore the evidence.

Evidence is testable and verifiable. Where is this evidence?

Quote:

In other words, you are willing to insinuate all sorts of things, but you're not willing to actually show us any evidence J_J.

First, I'm not the one making the claims. You are the one responsible for proving your absurd claims.

Second, I have repeatedly pointed you to a variety of evidence. You have failed to read and comprehend it. I have no idea if you even read most of it. Did you actually go buy Morrison's book, for instance?

How about your claims about the "mainstream"? You do realize that folks who get fellowships in organizations are generally quite in the mainstream of things, don't you? They are, in fact, generally the one who established the mainstream. Somehow you seem to keep avoiding that simple fact, and at the same time keep defaming the AES for having corporate members, while not castigating the IEEE or ASA for the same thing. Gosh, why is that? What are you afraid of? How come you won't take on all of the organizations who have this or that kind of corporate sponsorship? Hey, you've taken on this crusade, how come you won't apply it across the board, now?

You are inconsistant, you routinely misrepresent the situation, you change your objections at a whim, attempt to redirect discussions when you are technically outpointed, and then try to accuse the other individual of "changing the subject" after you changed it, and you make claims for which you have been repeatedly handed contrary evidence, to the extent that your repeated false claims can no longer be represented either as ignorance or as negligence.

Quote:

Quote:

In other words, you are willing to insinuate all sorts of things, but you're not willing to actually show us any evidence J_J.

First, I'm not the one making the claims. You are the one responsible for proving your absurd claims.

Oh really J_J/James.

Quote:
Don't know a thing about this bunch, but in fact in previous forums (rec.audio.high-end/opinion) some of the truly nutcase audiophiliacs did in fact take to calling, threatening and then hanging up, calling up bosses, sending mail to corporate attourneys, the board of directors, and the like. They read much at the time like some of the crackpots here, with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, claims of "monopolizing the internet", bow wow woof woof.

They can get pretty creepy when their completely crackpotoid conclusions are questioned.

No idea if this bunch behaves or acts out yet, though. I'd sorta vote for "acts out" given the level of sociopathic behavior I see here.

As one can see J_J presents no evidence while he demands everyone else to do so.

Next, anyone who has read my posts has seen my quotes from various sources throughout the strings. So lie number 1 for J_J. Read strings "Interesting Papers" and "Ask Dr. Kunchur..." for an abundance of evidence. Where is your evidence proving your attacks in the above quoted post. Don't play the double standard James.

Quote:
Second, I have repeatedly pointed you to a variety of evidence. You have failed to read and comprehend it. I have no idea if you even read most of it. Did you actually go buy Morrison's book, for instance?

The only evidence you have provided is the same small list of whole books, a couple of times, which anyone can obtain from a book list, and a couple of equations. But that leaves J_J with a large problem as demonstrated by Dr. Kunchur, several national organizations, PhD peers, anonymous referees etc. In fact, if your books and equations were mainstream, well known, then these 3 national mainstream organizations, Dr. Kunchur himself, peers at various universities he contacted, anonymous referees, University of Illinois, Stanford, would have known "your" equations. Most had 5 whole years to check.
Interesting that no one else in mainstream science, at those universities etc, knows about "your books" , just you. Of course they know the books, but they agreed with Dr. Kunchur, which you oppose. Interesting...

Quote:
How about your claims about the "mainstream"? You do realize that folks who get fellowships in organizations are generally quite in the mainstream of things, don't you? They are, in fact, generally the one who established the mainstream.

And those national organizations, peers, anonymous referees etc sided with Dr. Kunchur didn't they. They had 5 years to check.

Quote:
Somehow you seem to keep avoiding that simple fact, and at the same time keep defaming the AES for having corporate members, while not castigating the IEEE or ASA for the same thing. Gosh, why is that?

I addressed the issue more than once James. Remember or are you conviently forgetting. And compare the list of financial sponsors for IEEE etc to AES. You conveniently left that out as well. By the way, you also conveniently neglected to give a definition of conflict of interest which I presented several times.

Quote:
How come you won't take on all of the organizations who have this or that kind of corporate sponsorship? Hey, you've taken on this crusade, how come you won't apply it across the board, now?

Check above. I did respond more than once.

Quote:
You are inconsistant, you routinely misrepresent the situation, you change your objections at a whim, attempt to redirect discussions when you are technically outpointed, and then try to accuse the other individual of "changing the subject" after you changed it, and you make claims for which you have been repeatedly handed contrary evidence, to the extent that your repeated false claims can no longer be represented either as ignorance or as negligence.

Interesting, but of course not true. Once again where is your evidence. None. And mainstream science, national organizations, Dr. Kunchur etc and I agree, so I have real mainstream science supporting me.

Once again we can see J_J making false accusations, misleading the public by leaving out critical information, and just outright stating the opposite of the truth.

I suggest you don't make personal attacks, or any attacks you cannot back up.

"Evidence is testable and verifiable. Where is this evidence?"

Blah, blah, blah...

The evidence is abuntantly clear. Obviously you'd rather shift the focus away from explaining why you defend some ex-Vegas magician who made a career of chasing down dowsers and ghost hunters. The James Randi Education Foundation. Even the name is a joke.

Quote:
None. And mainstream science, national organizations, Dr. Kunchur etc and I agree, so I have real mainstream science supporting me.

I see the crazy tree is blooming overtime again.

Oh, and U of I, sure. You did just happen to pick a school where I know a couple of the more noted faculty in the subjects of both DSP and Psychoacoustics. One of whom I worked with for 20 some years. Nice try there, bub. You know, U of I Champaign-Urbana, where I'm giving a talk on this very subject next month, subject to airline schedules.

That's rich.

Just rich.

Man, oh man, the crazy tree really is blooming today.

Quote:
The evidence is abuntantly clear.

Except for the fact that you're not citing it, and not pointing to it, which is to say that there is nothing available to be 'abundantly clear'.

Quote:

Obviously you'd rather shift the focus away from explaining why you defend some ex-Vegas magician who made a career of chasing down dowsers and ghost hunters.

Don't lie about what I'm doing. I haven't defended anyone, all I've done is asked for evidence of your assertion. Evidence, which, I note, is still not forthcoming.

Quote:

The James Randi Education Foundation. Even the name is a joke.

I guess you just owe us more evidence for that. I mean, in some fashions, I'm tempted to agree with you, but I want to see your case and your evidence, and you simply won't help me out here. You'd rather accuse me of defending something, when all I've done is asked for evidence.

And I still see none.

"I mean, in some fashion, I'm tempted to agree with you, but I want to see your case and your evidence, and you simply won't help me out here."

In some fashion you're tempted to agree with me? What does that mean? Agree with what?

I would have thought you're perfectly capable of finding the discussion of the baiting and invitation to the ass kicking contest during the Amazing Galapagos Adventure contained in Randi's Swift Report of Nov 30, 2007, the relevant portions of which I already quoted. The Swift Report even names names. Ooooooo!! So, the evidence is right in front of your nose. Where's the beef? You're the big skeptic. Apparently you'd rather play these silly Randi type games. "Did he really bend the spoon, did he not bend the spoon?"

Sidebar: The person who threatened to kick my ass during the email exchange and who submitted the emails to Randi for publication is the apparently same person who ratted me out to Ripoff.com on Nov. 24, 2007. These little scamps can be SO vindictive. Ripoff.com is a phoney baloney commercial webite that allows any anonymous person to submit "claims of fraud" against any company. Randi would undoubtedly approve of such tactics.

Quote:

Quote:
None. And mainstream science, national organizations, Dr. Kunchur etc and I agree, so I have real mainstream science supporting me.

I see the crazy tree is blooming overtime again.

Oh, and U of I, sure. You did just happen to pick a school where I know a couple of the more noted faculty in the subjects of both DSP and Psychoacoustics. One of whom I worked with for 20 some years. Nice try there, bub. You know, U of I Champaign-Urbana, where I'm giving a talk on this very subject next month, subject to airline schedules.

That's rich.

Just rich.

Man, oh man, the crazy tree really is blooming today.

Attempting to divert the topic while hyping yourself again James. I also see you are still performing the two step shuffle and sidestepping my post, and not presenting any evidence to substantiate your weird claims quoted below.

Quote:
Don't know a thing about this bunch, but in fact in previous forums (rec.audio.high-end/opinion) some of the truly nutcase audiophiliacs did in fact take to calling, threatening and then hanging up, calling up bosses, sending mail to corporate attourneys, the board of directors, and the like. They read much at the time like some of the crackpots here, with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, claims of "monopolizing the internet", bow wow woof woof.

They can get pretty creepy when their completely crackpotoid conclusions are questioned.

No idea if this bunch behaves or acts out yet, though. I'd sorta vote for "acts out" given the level of sociopathic behavior I see here.

Not surprising he dodges any responses and provides no evidence since he has been caught faking, using deception, over and over. Yet he still demands evidence from others while not providing his own.

By the way, are we suppose to be impressed since any magician can speak at a university. And I think there are more than two Electrical Engineer instructors at the U of I. What subject is your presentation, is it pertainate to this discussion. We only have your word and you have been shown to be untrustworthy to say the least.
(To the public) Also interesting is that James has not provided any previous specific university presentations with their accompanying topics to this forum. Why suddenly present this particular one, since the others are obviously not important. (He could simply be covering computer programming or digital filters, or the work place, which really doesn't mean alot. But hype he will.)

Oh, and remember, three national organizations, different university peers, anonymous referees sided with Dr. Kunchur, not J_J. This gives us a tip as to what material J_J will not be addressing to the audience.

So continue to hype away and make exaggerated claims, oh, and present evidence.

PssssT, jimmy, your wannabe BFFF scottyboy has made innumerable nutjob claims without any evidence whatsoever.

None! Nada! Zip!!!

And he isn't even discussing audio any longer.

He just keeps making more nutcase remarks and ad hominems and leaving out anything other than his perfunctory copy/paste "bullshit" without even reading what has been provided to him on a platter - while, naturally, being dishonest about what he has "peeked" at.

Why, even bood-ha! is guilty of the same crimes against humanity.

Now, I realize you are just as intellectually lazy in this matter as scotty - if a link were provided, you would ignore it - and damned near as dishonest - and you would lie about ignoring it - and possibly just as much of a fraud - you would claim it is someone else's repsonsiblility to click and read the link for you - and you are sitting on a panel with someone you actually described as a nutcase but ...

Why haven't you called on scotty or bood-ha! to provide what you demand from all others?

Why haven't you denounced the nutcase on the panel?

Consistency in your obvious inconsistencies is your most lasting impression, jimmy.

You are watering the crazy tree with your own one sided pissing match.

Uh-oh. Someone in S'phileland is "lying" again. Not "actual" lying, but "lying" lying. aka "Imagined lying". So without delay, here is James "Woodenville" Jhonston, defender of truth, justice and the senile drama queen way, to fight the oppressors of misinformation. Those "dastardly" evil-doers, who point out his insane hypocrisies, his inconsistencies, his -consistent- lack of evidence, his endless logical fallacy loops, his mad ramblings, his perpetual evasions and diversionary tactics, and illustrate why, along with his good buddy Arny Krueger, James "Woodenville" Johnston has developed a 15+ year reputation as one of the biggest net kooks the audio forums have ever seen.

The key to understanding "Crazy James Johnston" and his "Crazy James Johnston rants" is that the world revolves around him, he is a certified expert in moaning and wailing (so DON'T try to claim you are superior to him), whatever rules he applies to you doesn't apply to HIM, his woefully uninformed opinions are worth more than gold, if he doesn't like your response to him then you are a "stalker" stalking him and stop stalking him you crazy stalking stalker guy, and finally, of course, the loudest crybaby in the room gets the most attention. Also, he can get pretty creepy when his completely crackpotoid conclusions are questioned, but you'll learn that quickly enough. So without further delay (for real this time), here is crazy hairy rant from James, no. 52,346:

Quote:
Once again, we see Sasaudio lying outright about a situation.

It is time for sasaudio to stop lying about what the IEEE, etc, have said, and simply abandon this stalking and harrassment.

It is time for sasaudio to publically admit that I have been exactly, absolutely correct in all particulars, and that his claims otherwise are knowingly and willfully false.

LOL! So I see that even YOU don't take yourself seriously. No kidding no one but Scott takes you seriously, around here! Isn't it time you let the little feller in on the joke, James? I estimate you've produced enough hot air on this site alone (never mind the other audiophile forums you have trolled in your illustrious trolling career), to heat the world's industrial parks.

I did say "whatever rules he applies to you doesn't apply to him", right? Well, we've seen a solid week of THAT from Crazy James, on just this one issue alone: Whether Geoff Kaitt truly was or was not threatened with an "ass whooping" by a Randihead. (And YES, before you ask, to master troll James, this somehow has EVERYTHING to do with audio and the topic of this thread). n.b. James will not be satisfied with anything less than a peer-reviewed triple blind ABXYZ test of the ass-whooping threat. And when he demands this of Geoff and refers to himself in the plural making the demand, or "us", as in "we" want proof of your ass-whooping threat", he can only be referring to Scott, or the various voices in his head egging him on to pursue his daily self-parody. Which some speculate are one and the same.....

James "Woodenville" Jhonston wrote:

Quote:
Evidence is testable and verifiable. Where is this evidence?

Quote:
Wow, lookie here. No substance, no evidence, nothing to offer but more evasion.

Quote:
"You won't cut to the chase and show us what you insinuate"

Quote:
Yep, you won't tell us WHO you claim threatened to kick your butt or whatever, and you won't direct us to the original source of the quote.

Quote:
In other words, you are willing to insinuate all sorts of things, but you're not willing to actually cut to the chase and show us what you insinuate.

Quote:
Yeah, I think we do surely understand.

Quote:
My evidence is in the public record.

Quote:
You have no evidence, stalker.

Quote:
So, in other words, you're unwilling to state your position, let alone document it.

Yes, yes, we understand.

Quote:
Be specific, and use externally verifiable evidence.

How may we test, verify, repeat, and potentially falsify this claim?

Aha! But what does this prove, other than he repeats his crazy demands beyond the point of nauseum? Well the problem with the above is, Crazy James Jhonston ALSO wrote the below:

Quote:
Don't know a thing about this bunch, but in fact in previous forums (rec.audio.high-end/opinion) some of the truly nutcase audiophiliacs did in fact take to calling, threatening and then hanging up, calling up bosses, sending mail to corporate attourneys, the board of directors, and the like. They read much at the time like some of the crackpots here, with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, claims of "monopolizing the internet", bow wow woof woof.

They can get pretty creepy when their completely crackpotoid conclusions are questioned.

...but James "YER ALL CRAZY TREES SO I DONT GOTTA PROOVE NUTHIN'!!!" Johnston has never provided evidence of such threats against HIM when asked, and Geoff's evidence is also "in the public record". So Crazy James is an insane hypocrite; what else is new?! Thus we can conclude from all this evidence that any "demand of evidence" rant from James Jhonston can and should be officially ignored. Unless you're just humouring the old fella for your own entertainment. By which you'd be lavishing on him the attention he always craves, but note that's probably not the help he needs.

Quote:
Sidebar: The person who threatened to kick my ass during the email exchange and who submitted the emails to Randi for publication is the apparently same person who ratted me out to Ripoff.com on Nov. 24, 2007.

This person is? Can you provide links?

Quote:
What subject is your presentation, is it pertainate to this discussion.

I already said it was. I'm not sure if they are willing to invite outsiders. Would you like me to ask them? Are you willing to drive 95 miles to have your illict false accusations shattered?

Quote:

We only have your word

Then you are in as good a shape as a human being can be.

Quote:

and you have been shown to be untrustworthy to say the least.

You are a defaming liar.

Quote:
You are a defaming liar.

Sorry but if you check back 5-10 pages, let alone elsewhere, you have already accepted that award many times. I don't accept hand me downs James.

Since it has already been established, condemned by your own previous words (check a few pages back) that you are not mainstream science I seriously doubt that you will present pertinent information of value. I also don't think being caught multiple times posting false and misleading information counts as trustworthy James.

Quote:
Sidebar: The person who threatened to kick my ass during the email exchange and who submitted the emails to Randi for publication is the apparently same person who ratted me out to Ripoff.com on Nov. 24, 2007. These little scamps can be SO vindictive. Ripoff.com is a phoney baloney commercial webite that allows any anonymous person to submit "claims of fraud" against any company. Randi would undoubtedly approve of such tactics.

Unlike the increasingly annoying James and Scott-bots, I actually CAN follow a link without begging to be led by the nose to the evidence. So I won't claim, as they do, that no evidence exists if one is too lazy or incompetent to find it. This, despite the fact that the link, "ripoff.com", no longer exists.

And this is what I found.... The site Geoff referred to (hereto unknown to me) indeed allows anonymous reports to be filed against companies "purported" to be ripping off customers. This is, of course, a double-edged sword. Because it allows idiots like this to rant off against legitimate, honest companies:

Quote:
"Knowing full well that they are a total fraud, I've been baiting the company's creator with emails. ".

Ok, I can think of three problems right off the bat with this. One, is that the report was filed by the single-named "Paul", from Bozoman Montana. Who would no doubt complain about partially anonymous testimonials, but doesn't feel to sign his full name to his ripoff testimonial. But the second problem is, **it isn't a testimonial at all**. The so-called "ripoff report" is simply the public publishing of an alleged exchange of emails between two other people, neither of which include the mysterious "Paul". One is, like the James of rec.audio.opinion (aka "the OTHER Vegas act"), a James Randi apologist. The other is the "CEO" of MD; alleged recipient of the ass-kicking threat.

The third problem with that quote from "Matt Schaffner", an alleged internet bully who threatens audio manufacturers to impromptu karate matches on boats in the middle of the ocean, and a certified imbecile, is the he "knew full well" that "they are a total fraud". How did he "know" this? Like Randi, James, Scott, and all other pathological skeptics "know" everything they "know". Because they can't and more importantly, ***won't***, see any evidence to counter their immutable prejudices.

I went through the entire complaint looking for evidence against MD, at least enough to warrant filing a "ripoff" report to the site. There was not a SHRED. It started with stating the company is running a "major silly scam" on "na've audio fans"... which is okay as a BASIS for a complaint. But as for EVIDENCE that this is so? The only EVIDENCE presented, was a LACK of evidence, that satisfied the complainants. Matt asked for evidence of the mechanism used for some of the company's products, the "CEO of MD" pointed to detailed explanations on his site; but that was simply dismissed and ignored, without any explanation why; other than the implication that he couldn't understand any of it enough to argue against it. James Randi's expert critique of MD's white papers is entirely this: "This is just blather, with no science factor at all, only buzz-words and fakery". This, my friends, is known as the "Bullshit Offense". The equivalent of our Scott sticking his fingers in his ear and crying "bullshit! bullshit! bullshit!" to everything he doesn't understand, that's been explained, in lieu of an intelligent, informed argument against it. Unwittingly displaying evidence of his ignorance of science and inability to even begin to properly critique the white papers, Matt wrote:

Quote:
"I'm curious as to what exactly is changed on a CD to enhance its sound, as a CD contains data in the form of a dye. Do you change the dye somehow?"

Which is what I would also call a "Scottism". It's where someone pretends to be an expert on a given subject they are arguing their ignorant beliefs in, but when it's revealed they don't know the difference between how a CD and a CD-R works, it becomes evident they are simply experts at surfing Wikipedia and faking their way through a debate, hoping no one will notice they don't even have a base knowledge of the subject they're pretending to be experts on. Matt's ignorance of science is further revealed by his mocking of so-called "artificial atoms" (aka quantum dots); where he sarcastically criticizes the use of "fake" atoms, by saying "name brand atoms are so expensive". These two jackasses, "Matt Schaffner" and "James Randi", would be funny if their story wasn't one that I see repeated by nearly ALL self-professed "skeptics" on the internet. Who would not even begin to know how to consider claims with objectivity, if you put a gun to their head.

Matt then closes his complaint (which Paul files with the ripoff complaint site) with the alleged mechanism for the IC:

Quote:
"The active ingredient in the Card as for the Chip is actually artificial atoms! Pretty innovative for an audio product, wouldn't you say?"

Yes, I would say its pretty innovative. Apparently, some people have something against innovation in science. Because see, he has only to repeat the mechanism to "prove" his case against MD. Lack of evidence is evidence enough! In another time, it would have been this being said by their great-grandfathers:

Quote:
"Germs? He thinks there are invisible "germs" all around us?! And these tiny invisible "germs" are strong enough to kill people?! Har! Pretty fanciful imagination, wouldn't you all say?! Where are these so-called "germs", show them to me!"

Which, in total, proves one thing: some people have their head so far up their backside, they can't even evolve after 500 years.

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.

Quote:

I seriously doubt that you will present pertinent information of value.

So then, you are unwilling to actually test your own accusations, then?

Should I not bother to have Mark invite you? Answer directly and clearly. Do you want me to see if they'll invite you. YES or NO.

Speak up, lad, speak up.

Your actions here will speak directly to your ethics.

No one forced you to make your comments James. You did that of your own accord. Secondly you accuse me of not providing evidence, yet I provided two quotes from you, yourself, evidence, unless you provided false, inaccurate information to the public. First I present a previous post with quotes from James, and compare to James' 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 seems to have an affinity for misleading you. He 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 quoted J_J in my above quoted post twice, but James claims I did not provide evidence in his response post. Then he attacks me again and demands an apology for his attack and calls me unethical.
So my statement stands James.

"This, despite the fact that the link, "ripoff.com", no longer exists."

Unfortunately the company still exists. The actual website for Ripoff Report is:

http://www.ripoffreport.com/

"Read this in case you're thinking of suing Ripoff Report" just might be my favorite topic on the main page.

Quote:
In short, the CDA provides that when a user writes and posts material on a website such as Ripoff Report, the site itself cannot, in most cases, be held legally responsible for the posted material ...

2. Ripoff Report''s Policy: Why We NEVER Remove Reports
As is our policy, we never remove reports even when they are claimed to contain defamatory statements, and even if the original author requests it.

Well, there's a blow for truth. Even if it's a proven lie, it will not be removed.

And we all know how hard some people work at finding the truth of the matter.

Quote:

Why should I bother as previously noted above. Does Mark know you have been caught habitually misleading the public with false statements.

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:
"Read this in case you're thinking of suing Ripoff Report" just might be my favorite topic on the main page.

I know nothing of "ripoff report". Furthermore, I'm not interested. Please cite links to the publically available evidence that JREF threatened you with physical violence.

Thank you for your hasty and precise compliance.

"I know nothing of "ripoff report". Furthermore, I'm not interested. Please cite links to the publically available evidence that JREF threatened you with physical violence."

I never said JREF threatened me. Are you on drugs?

Quote:

Quote:

Why should I bother as previously noted above. Does Mark know you have been caught habitually misleading the public with false statements.

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.

--------

Who cares if you note something. Anyway, viewers, here is what J_J again conveniently bypassed; not surprising since it does not flatter him but rather exposes him for ethical misconduct, for falsification and misleading statements.

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 seems to have an affinity for misleading you. He 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.

Quote:

Quote:
I seriously doubt that you will present pertinent information of value.

So then, you are unwilling to actually test your own accusations, then?

Don't need to check as you have already condemned yourself earlier and in other strings and the evidence has already been presented as previously noted in this post.

Quote:
Should I not bother to have Mark invite you? Answer directly and clearly. Do you want me to see if they'll invite you. YES or NO.

Why should I bother as previously noted above. Does Mark know you have been caught habitually misleading the public with false statements.

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.

I realize you are attempting to dig yourself out of a pit that is up to your neck. Too bad you did not count the cost to your reputation before joining here and attacking everyone. But then you have not shown good judgement so far concerning your ethical conduct.

Quote:
"I know nothing of "ripoff report". Furthermore, I'm not interested. Please cite links to the publically available evidence that JREF threatened you with physical violence."

I never said JREF threatened me. Are you on drugs?

What is "kick your ass", then? Could you be more specific?

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.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know nothing of "ripoff report". Furthermore, I'm not interested. Please cite links to the publically available evidence that JREF threatened you with physical violence."

I never said JREF threatened me. Are you on drugs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is "kick your ass", then? Could you be more specific?"

I hereby consider this matter closed. Time to move on.

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.

-------

Are you now confessing the statements you made were false, no. So now I am accused of not providing evidence when I quote your own comments. You the viewer are seeing how J_J/James D. Johnston/Woodenville's really works vs his facade.

Anyway, viewers, here is what J_J again conveniently bypassed exposing him for ethical misconduct, for falsification and misleading statements.

Quote:
Steve

Quote:

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

JJ:)
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 while condemning 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 false information isn't he.

Quote:

Quote:
I seriously doubt that you will present pertinent information of value.

So then, you are unwilling to actually test your own accusations, then?

Don't need to check as you have already condemned yourself earlier and in other strings and the evidence has already been presented as previously noted in this post.

Quote:
Should I not bother to have Mark invite you? Answer directly and clearly. Do you want me to see if they'll invite you. YES or NO.

Why should I bother as previously noted above. Does Mark know you have been caught habitually misleading the public with false statements.

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.

I realize you are attempting to dig yourself out of a pit that is up to your neck. Too bad you did not count the cost to your reputation before joining here and attacking everyone. But then you have not shown good judgement so far concerning your ethical conduct.

As one can see J_Js own statements have come back to hang him.

Quote:

Quote:
What subject is your presentation, is it pertainate to this discussion.

I already said it was. I'm not sure if they are willing to invite outsiders. Would you like me to ask them? Are you willing to drive 95 miles to have your illict false accusations shattered?
....

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

Quote:
Please cite links to the publically available evidence that JREF threatened you with physical violence.

Thank you for your hasty and precise compliance.

LOL. The J-Bot strikes again. It's the death of a thousand toothpick pricks. I think you missed your calling, James. Hacking out payment due notices for a credit agency, on an old Underwood.

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).

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I know nothing of "ripoff report". Furthermore, I'm not interested. Please cite links to the publically available evidence that JREF threatened you with physical violence."

I never said JREF threatened me. Are you on drugs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is "kick your ass", then? Could you be more specific?"

I hereby consider this matter closed. Time to move on.

Sorry, no, exactly what DID you mean with your opening post on this subject.

Quote:
(defamation removed)

Retract your defamation promptly.