Outlaw Audio home shop products hideout news support about
Page 36 of 45 < 1 2 34 35 36 37 38 44 45 >
Topic Options
#6372 - 12/12/06 03:47 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
sluggo Offline
Desperado

Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 361
Loc: Plano, TX
Yeah, you're Ghandi with a sack of doorknobs. Or perhaps you're just an angry Toby Radloff with a keyboard.

Either way, there's nothing in your messages that doesn't boil down to just how great you think you are, and what a service you think you're doing for the world. In that, at least, you are a debating tool.

Let's put it this way: either in the realm of scientific phenomena, or that of psychological phenomena, betwixt which lies your coveted "beltism," there exists a common thread related to the existence of either.

First, the phenomenon must be observable. Once that is established, the observer creates an hypothesis regarding the existence of said phenomenon, usually drawing a relationship to that which is known. Next, the phenomena can be used to predict the results of subsequent observations, or interactions of the phenomena with other known elements. Lastly, the hypothesis is tested in a way that can easily identify if it is incorrect, by multiple independent parties. And, of course, they do one other thing - they document their findings.

I'm sure you know this, delius. It's the scientific method. And believe it or not, the finest minds in our world (which I'm sure you consider equals) use this to disprove hypotheses to great success the world over. It works for any observable phenomena.

For all of your rhetoric here about the validity of your supposed findings, you have yet to show even a single instance where these hypotheses have been tested by independent sources, or even documented in an objective manner. All you've offered is circuitous reasoning why these methods don't suit your precious, exotic phenomena, and therefore any disproving done with them cannot be trusted.

One of the things Carl Sagan had said in his life that struck me was this:
Quote:
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
A lot of people have made very good arguements in opposition to you, delius, whether or not you actually acknowledge it. But of course you won't; you simply keep on saying the same things over and over again, and ignore what doesn't suit you.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead - we're the ones who ignore the facts. Which, of course, so far amount to taking your word for it, in between fits of provocative name-calling.

Let me put it to you succinctly: enlighten us as to the belt hypotheses, and the testing he's done (or you've done) to validate them, and then have these tests run by multiple independent experimenters to the same conclusions, and I'll buy into beltism. I'll even buy the damned cream.
_________________________
--Greg

Top
#6373 - 12/13/06 10:02 AM Re: Clever Little Clocks
garcianc2003 Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 07/23/06
Posts: 274
Loc: Washington, DC
I read this in the news recently:

"Consumer Alert: Beware of Programs Posing as Humans.

The Daemon-Enhanced LittleClock Information Upload System (DELIUS), is a web bot designed to pose as a human and randomly generate automated responses designed to analyze the susceptibility of forum participants' to procure useless acoustic products.
The program is designed to generate increasingly long strings of data inversely proportional to sales of products. This part of the testing is designed to identify the outlier participants who are likely to buy a product even after being beaten over the head with it.
Once those users make a purchase, they are called randomly by phone with a prerecorded message asking them to shoot themselves and report if they hear any noise. The lack of responses is then used as statistical evidence to make the claim that these products are effective in totally eliminating all noise from the environment and the known universe.

Law enforcement personnel are calling this the first salvo in a war between machines and humans. Police organizations are pouring over old suicide scene photographs to determine just how long this has been going on.
"So far we have found lots of clocks in pictures" said commissioner Gordon, who added "The introduction of cream was particularly clever as it ensures that the fingerprints of the victim overwhelm all other evidence at the scene, effectively forcing the incident to be ruled a suicide."

Top
#6374 - 12/13/06 06:33 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Cisco Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 46
Loc: Eatontown, New Jersey
They definitely need to work on the fuzzy logic coding of (DELIUS).

Quote:
Even I don't know all those ways our perception of sound changes, but I have done enough experiments to know that it can change in very mysterious ways, beyond our consciousness.
This computer program is spouting data that is purporting changes that our outside consciousness. They could probably re-write that line of code a little bit to have it say writeln('increase consciousness or expand consciousness beyond their current limits.');

With a little tweaking and a voice synthesizer this program would probably be very effective with telemarketing calls.

Let me know where I can download this poorly written program.
_________________________
"Oh, Pancho!"

Top
#6375 - 12/15/06 04:18 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
delius Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally posted by sluggo:
[QB] Yeah, you're Ghandi with a sack of doorknobs.
Or Mother Theresa with an impressive set of brass knuckles, if you prefer.

Quote:
Or perhaps you're just an angry Toby Radloff with a keyboard.
Terry Wholoff? Terry Whatloff? Who's that, the guy who stole your boyfriend? Sorry fanboy, I had nothing to do with that. And I'm not angry. You are.

Quote:
Either way, there's nothing in your messages that doesn't boil down to just how great you think you are, and what a service you think you're doing for the world.
How would you know? You've admitted to being too stupid to read my messages through. I am helping open-minded audiophiles improve their sound, if they so desire. And what service do you think you're doing for the world with these inane, disposable, half-witted responses of yours, troll?

Quote:
Let's put it this way: either in the realm of scientific phenomena, or that of psychological phenomena, betwixt which lies your coveted "beltism," there exists a common thread related to the existence of either.
Beltism lies not "betwixt", it is in the realm of scientific phenomena. As much as the universe is.

Quote:
First, the phenomenon must be observable. Once that is established,
That was established 25 years ago, dork. Get your facts straight, before you pretend to talk about things you know nothing about. Like audio.

Quote:
the observer creates an hypothesis regarding the existence of said phenomenon, usually drawing a relationship to that which is known.
That was also done. Get your facts straight.

Quote:
Next, the phenomena can be used to predict the results of subsequent observations, or interactions of the phenomena with other known elements.
That was also done. That's how the hypotheses was formed, dork-o.

Quote:
Lastly, the hypothesis is tested in a way that can easily identify if it is incorrect, by multiple independent parties. And, of course, they do one other thing - they document their findings.
And so too was that done, as I have already explained in my messages. You know... the ones you admitted to being too retarded to read and understand?

Quote:
I'm sure you know this, delius. It's the scientific method.
I'm well acquainted with the "scientific method". I'm also well acquainted with the SRR, which obviously, you who would hide behind scientific principles you don't fully understand, are not.

Quote:
And believe it or not, the finest minds in our world (which I'm sure you consider equals) use this to disprove hypotheses to great success the world over. It works for any observable phenomena.
Show me one post of mine where I claimed to be a genius, equal to the finest minds in our world. Just ONE, dorky. That's all I'm asking for. Try supporting your endless BS with something other than more BS, for once in your life. Since my time here, I have shown and proved repeatedly, how you and the other trailer park boys dont know your asses from your elbows, and have no qualms about presenting your ignorance of alternative audio as fact. You're obviously stupidly confusing your collective lack of intelligence and factual knowledge with me claiming to be a genius; but there's actually a difference there that went over your head.

Quote:
For all of your rhetoric here about the validity of your supposed findings, you have yet to show even a single instance where these hypotheses have been tested by independent sources, or even documented in an objective manner.
False. You even launched an ad hominem attack against my objective 3rd party evidence, which makes you a liar here, by definition.

Now on the contrary.... here's a fact that seems to have you and the rest of the redneck audiophiles scared out of your wits, since you have ignored it 60 times over: You have yet to show a single instance where you (or any other flaming troll on this group) provide factual, verifiable, 3rd party evidence that proves the claims you and your redneck buddies here made about PWB and Machina Dynamica being "frauds", making "fraudulent products", and also HFSG and GoodSound being scammers, trolls and shills.

And no Slugfest, "lack of evidence" on the part of the manufacturers, the members of Outlaw forum, or your inability to find evidence, does not prove your point about the products being invalid. That's also the scientific method speaking, the rule you like to beat your hairy chest about.

Quote:
All you've offered is circuitous reasoning why these methods don't suit your precious, exotic phenomena, and therefore any disproving done with them cannot be trusted.
According to the JAES, evidence which I have already knocked you upside the head with I don't know how many times, the much-controversied ABX methodology you refer to, can't be relied on to prove differences in pick up cartridges, cd players, amps, or sometimes, even speakers. I think that even the rest of your sheep brethren would hardly call those devices "precious exotic phenomena", my little ankle-biting troll.

If because of lack of confidence, listening skill or wrong-headed ideologies you are not able to prove audio phenomena to yourself by simply listening to the product, then whether the item creates an audible change or not, is a moot point to you. Everyone's mileage varies.


Quote:
One of the things Carl Sagan had said in his life that struck me was this:
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
Nor can I recall the last time someone like you (a rigid, closed-minded fool with stubborn views) said that on an INTERNET AUDIO DISCUSSION GROUP, Sluggy. On the contrary, I've been arguing with the same sort of ignorant pig-headed imbeciles as you on audio discussion groups for over 10 years now. And guess what? They're still at it, still haven't changed their tune, despite me and a thousand other guys throwing all kinds of evidence in their face that they are WRONG. You'll DIE believing you're right, when you were dead wrong about me and everything you said about everything I said.

But as our mutual friend Sagan points out, the reason you and others here won't change, is because it's too PAINFUL to change. If you were receptive to change, you wouldn't be arguing with me so long and so loud. You'd have shutted your fat trap up by now, visited the links I posted, and tried the hypotheses out yourself. Instead, you posted a message falsely claiming that I claimed to be a producer of audio products, and dowright STUPIDLY claiming that I was selling audio products on these sites. Had you actually visited the sites you warned people about you screaming idiot, you'd have seen that there are no audio products for sell on them. Nor have you supplied a shred of evidence to prove your claim that I sell audio products myself.

And you wonder why I call you and your homies "stupid" all the time?


Quote:
A lot of people have made very good arguements in opposition to you, delius, whether or not you actually acknowledge it.
First of all, you and most others here haven't even MADE arguments against me. All of you wanna-be gunslingerse have proven to be either too stupid or too chickenshit to do so, even after I came on here and basically slapped every one of you lily-livered chickenfarts in the face with a white glove. I made no hesitation in taking ALL OF YOU on single-handedly, and boldly CHALLENGED each and every one of you to take me on. And all that almost every one of you could do in response, is write your usual, predictable, dumb little mockery quips. On top of that, you don't even display a hint of a refined sense of humour, in your derisive attacks. To whit: your stupid little crack about me still living in my mother's basement. SO f***king original, that mock attack was, that I actually pitied you. And quickly filed you under "R" for "Retard".

The sheer length of my posts show that I have acknowledged every single argumetn against me. However, the rare person that attempted to debate me, such as when you finally borrowed a set of balls from someone after biting my ankles for so long, and tried to debate me, chickened out right after my reply. You actually ran away, hid under a porch or something, and never attempted to continue that debate, despite your continuing practice of writing derisive messages to or about me. So I dare say, but a proper debate never got going among the herd of like-minded ignorant sheep here, and not for my lack of interest. And DON'T make your usual excuses about why that is, I'm not buying. As such, I have yet to see anything resembling a "good argument" in opposition to me. All I've heard in opposition is "where are the double blind tests?! Show us the objective third party verified double blind tests!!"


Quote:
But of course you won't; you simply keep on saying the same things over and over again, and ignore what doesn't suit you.
Right! Don't make me LAUGH, Sluggy! Considering that in this thread of several hundred messages, you and others here have not presented a SINGLE SHRED of evidence to support your claim that HFSG, GoodSound, Kaitt, and Belt are frauds and scammers, as well as anything else I've seen you claim, you're not one to talk about not acknowledging opposition against your claims. You just keep on saying the same things over and over, hypocrite.

Quote:
- we're the ones who ignore the facts.
I can agree with you there.

Quote:
Which, of course, so far amount to taking your word for it, in between fits of provocative name-calling.
What "provocative name-calling"?.... Me calling you "stupid" is not name-calling, it's now a proven -fact-. Which you prove yourself in many ways in every message of yours. Besides that, you were one of the first who started personal attacks against me here, so don't cry about it now, fanboy.

Quote:
Let me put it to you succinctly: enlighten us as to the belt hypotheses,
Done that already.

Quote:
and the testing he's done (or you've done) to validate them,
Done that already.

Quote:
and then have these tests run by multiple independent experimenters to the same conclusions,
Done that already.

Try getting a six year old to read my messages, which are too long for your fragile brain to handle, without getting a migraine. But DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT tell me that I did not write about which I already have. And don't ask me to repeat things that are already in my messages. If you're too stupid to read the messages in the first place, then it follows that you're dumb to understand what they say.

Quote:
and I'll buy into beltism. I'll even buy the damned cream.
First of all, I doubt you even have enough money to run the electricity that powers your computer. Which is why I believe you're probably typing this from the library. Second of all, I dont care whether you buy "damned cream" or holy cream, it doesn't affect me or my bottom line. Third of all, I also don't care wether you "buy into Beltism", nor do I care whether you or anyone believes what I say about it being valid. It's not my job in life to make fools believe what they are too foolish to believe, or find out for themselves.

I have given everyone here a means to find out for yourselves whether you have truly acted like risible, ignorant brain-dead fools for all of these months in condemning alternative audio products you're too stupid to understand, or whether you were right all along. Whether you choose to use those tools (the websites I posted, for the perpetually slow...), is your prerogative. And if you do, whether you hear differences or not, doesn't prove a damn thing either. It only proves you can't hear the differences. But it also proves, in a limited sort of way... whether THAT aspect of Beltism, as exemplified on my site, is within the parameters of your hearing ability.

One last thing about Kaitt: Geoff Kaitt is a rocket scientist. He knows a HELL of a lot more about science and audio, than anyone I have seen here. To equate yourselves with his knowledge of science would be to make a joke of yourselves. He's also a Beltist and is very knowledgable about the validity of Belt products. By making foolish statements like "all Belt products are fraudulent and so is Geoff Kaitt", you're claiming superior knowledge to him. And let's be clear about that: I mean you are all claiming this superior knowledge from sitting on your fat asses for years on end, chewing cud on an audio group (pretending your all audio experts). Without of course offering the world even a quantum particle of evidence proving Kaitt and all is a fraud. Whereas unlike most of you from what it appears, he has actually graduated from high school, and actually worked for NASA on interplanetary space travel. And actually heard Belt products, which is more than I can say for --anyone else here--. Apart from myself, of course. I rest my case.

Top
#6376 - 12/15/06 08:43 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Lonster Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 07/18/05
Posts: 72
Loc: Eureka CA.
To all concerned,
It appears that Delius is bent on fulfilling her own prophecy.
Her last post is so filled with personal attacks and name calling that I, for one, have had enough.
I publicly ask that she be instructed to cease and desist with the flaming, or be banned from the forum.
Thank You,
Lonster
_________________________
Lonny
Vintage Audio and Vintage Bikes, both SOUND great!
QpS

Top
#6377 - 12/15/06 10:46 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Laventura Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 05/21/06
Posts: 195
Loc: Montréal,PQ
blah!blah!blah!
when not stroking batteries...stroking Goeff Kaitt...
some rocket scientist technology...

when I contacted him he definitely behaved like a guy with something to hide rather than a proud genuine businessman selling good products...
Delius maybe you could give him a few PR pointers...you obviously know your stuff....

Do CLCs make you bitch all over the internet ?
or is it from all that freezing, lubing and stroking ?
_________________________
Outlaw 1070-Mirage M-290(main)+MCC(center)+Omnisat Micro(sides) nanosat(back)+ +PS12-90(sub)-Technics SL-5 turtable+Cambridge Audio 540P-HTPC - SamsungDTB-H260F HDTV tuner - Optoma HD 20 +100' Draper screen -lots of spaghetti and toys

Top
#6378 - 12/15/06 11:10 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Jason J Offline
Desperado

Registered: 09/02/02
Posts: 615
Loc: Northern Garden State
Quote:
The more of our devices that are applied to objects, the greater will be the beneficial effect.

We believe that throughout millions of years of evolution..

The 'better' sound has been there, in the room, all the time - WE (human beings) have just not been able to perceive it.
The first quote should tell you that the person making the statement is trying to take your money. As in, the more you spend on their products, the better the result.

The second and third quote show exactly why no one on this forum, or any other for that matter, can show any evidence why Belt products do or do not work. The first states a belief. People are certainly entitled, and constitutionally protected, to their own beliefs. It doesn't mean, however, that these beliefs are based on factual information. It also doesn't give anybody the right to tell somebody why their belief system is better than anyone elses or that their belief is the one truth.

The second quote is a perception of a physical occurence. Let's go to Webster's Online for the definition of a perception:

"1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a capacity for comprehension"

The way you and I percieve an event can differ greatly dependent on any number of outside factors. You can't prove a perception. Also, what is "better" sound? Even the author of the paper that the quote comes from puts the word better in quotations. Why? It's probably because they can't prove what exactly is better.

Delius,

Should I post what website I got the quotes from?

Top
#6379 - 12/16/06 08:27 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
delius Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 12/05/06
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally posted by Jason J:
[QB] [QUOTE]The more of our devices that are applied to objects, the greater will be the beneficial effect.

We believe that throughout millions of years of evolution..

The 'better' sound has been there, in the room, all the time - WE (human beings) have just not been able to perceive it.
Quote:
The first quote should tell you that the person making the statement is trying to take your money. As in, the more you spend on their products, the better the result.
Hell Junior. Aren't you the little boy who said you had had enough of this thread? And weren't going to post in here again, no matter how many jujubes they give you? You should have kept your promise. Each time you post, you have an uncanny habit of making yourself look even dumber than the previous time you decided to share your thinking skills with the world.

Take your claim above. You're insinuating the company is trying to rip people off. Now think very hard Junior, about why a company exists in the first place. Is it to....

a) Take up land space and crush the weeds?
b) Make soup taste like gasoline?
c) Make money?

The correct answer is: (c). Which explains why everyone from Sony to Microsoft to the barber you got that nasty haircut from is "trying to take your money". Welcome to Western capitalist society, Rusky Joe. And congratulations on finally being courageous enough to crawl out from the cave you've been living all your life. On this side of the cave, we use paper stuff to obtain other stuff. Including other paper stuff, yes.

Now don't even let me CATCH you trying to imply this company is ripping people off, because I will personally tear you a new one, Jason Junior. If you want to spread your ignorance around, confine it to the other boys in your schoolyard. Back to school for you Jr...

"When a company creates a product of this nature that works, then as if by some miracle, it becomes true that when you use multiple samples of that product, the improvement increases by as many times". That's if the products work in the first place, of course. And of course, no twerp here ever proved they didn't. Therefore, no one here has the right to claim, imply, insinuate or assert that they don't. Same for ANY audio product, including "Outlaw" audio products.

Furthermore, that company that you claim is "trying to take your money", offer a 30 day money back guarantee on ALL their products, if you are not satisfied. Tell me Jr., do ALL audio companies that rip you off offer such guarantees? Does Sony or Krell offer 30 day money back guarantees on all their audio products? Does Outlaw? Do you offer guarantees on your blind ignorance? Or are unfounded lies about audio companies that threaten and scare you, all you have to offer us?


Quote:
The second and third quote show exactly why no one on this forum, or any other for that matter, can show any evidence why Belt products do or do not work.
First of all, let's see YOU show evidence that no one on any other forum can show evidence of why Belt products work. Second of all, let's see YOU provide evidence of the claims of fraudulence made on this forum against HFSG, Goodsound, PWB and Geoff Kait. No one else has had the integrity or the balls dare I say it, to do so. Will YOU be the first, Jr? Why don't you shock me, why don't you, and be the first on this forum to come up with something that looks like evidence to support the claims being made here on Outlaw?

The second and third quote can be proven, and I have posted two websites here that allow people to do just that. Stop lying, Jr., and stop making false, irresponsible, and inflammatory charges that you fail to substantiate every single time. You're a sheep trying to pull the wool over the eyes of other sheep! If that ain't the definition of ironic....


Quote:
The first states a belief. People are certainly entitled, and constitutionally protected, to their own beliefs.
Not on Outlaw, they're not. Well not according to Lonster, anyway!

Quote:
It doesn't mean, however, that these beliefs are based on factual information.
Thanks for admitting your beliefs aren't based on factual information. We might make an honest person of you yet.


Quote:
It also doesn't give anybody the right to tell somebody why their belief system is better than anyone elses or that their belief is the one truth.
Tell that to all those here who have been trying to do just that in this thread for so long.

Quote:
The way you and I percieve an event can differ greatly dependent on any number of outside factors. You can't prove a perception.
Yes, you can, Junior. But what keeps flying past your pointy head, is the fact that you can't prove ANYTHING to ANYONE, or EVERYTHING to EVERYONE. You can't even prove differences in speakers to everyone. What are you so damn concerned about other people being able to prove things to other people anyway? Why is that your business? If you don't want to prove something to yourself, fine, stay ignorant your life through. But leave others to prove it to themselves. Don't discourage others from wanting to prove things to themselves, because some people do actually want to learn more about audio. No one has an account to render to you.

Quote:
Also, what is "better" sound? Even the author of the paper that the quote comes from puts the word better in quotations. Why? It's probably because they can't prove what exactly is better.
See above about how you can't prove ANYTHING to ANYONE, or EVERYTHING to EVERYONE. Some day, even you sheep will need to learn to prove things to yourselves, and stop worrying about whether it is proven to others. To answer your question another way, "good sound" is something you won't ever need to worry about. You'll never have it.


Quote:
Delius,

Should I post what website I got the quotes from?
No don't bother, I'll do so:

www.belt.demon.co.uk

What you should post is what website you got your formal education from, particularly where you acquired your cognitive skills. Whatever it is, I would demand a refund, if I were you.

Top
#6380 - 12/16/06 09:27 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
garcianc2003 Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 07/23/06
Posts: 274
Loc: Washington, DC
I love this thread. You guys are very creative. It makes stuff sound so real. Heck, you went as far as creating realistic-looking web sites and everything!
I truly enjoy engaging in the banter. Some of you are hilarious. I am just running out of ideas.
Well, enough for now. I have to go off and rub vaseline on my speaker wires and put avocado slices under my amplifier.

Top
#6381 - 12/16/06 10:33 PM Re: Clever Little Clocks
Laventura Offline
Gunslinger

Registered: 05/21/06
Posts: 195
Loc: Montréal,PQ
vaseline is good...but olive oil having a more natural, ''in tune'' molecular structure, when applied generously on your lugs and nuts will really do the trick wink
Don't knock it 'til you try it...
_________________________
Outlaw 1070-Mirage M-290(main)+MCC(center)+Omnisat Micro(sides) nanosat(back)+ +PS12-90(sub)-Technics SL-5 turtable+Cambridge Audio 540P-HTPC - SamsungDTB-H260F HDTV tuner - Optoma HD 20 +100' Draper screen -lots of spaghetti and toys

Top
Page 36 of 45 < 1 2 34 35 36 37 38 44 45 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 130 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Hedoboy, naowro, BeBop, workarounder, robpar
8705 Registered Users
Top Posters (30 Days)
Forum Stats
8,705 Registered Members
88 Forums
11,326 Topics
98,691 Posts

Most users ever online: 476 @ 12/28/22 08:54 PM