Quote:
Originally posted by gonk:
[QB] I've hung around this thread as of late primarily because I dislike the obnoxious, insulting, and arrogant attitude presented by delius - joyously declaring anyone around him to be idiots because we don't believe in various scientifically baseless principles.
Ah yes.... the prerequisite excuse for posting in this thread. Join Jason, Sluggo, and all the rest who stated they've had enough of me kicking their asses.... but somehow, can't seem to find a way to stay out of my way, and out of this thread. If you dislike my posts, wouldn't it be logical for you to -not- hang around this thread? Oh, but I forget.... you and your mates don't have any grasp of "logic". Well I'm sorry to do this, but I'm gonna have to slap you upside your head with "logic" anyway....

Logical observation #1: You have no basis to complain like a whining schoolgirl about me having an "obnoxious, insulting and arrogant attitude", when you and your gang of IM's have been displaying an obnoxious, arrogant and insulting attitude for several hundred messages now, in this thread. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Logical observation #2: At what point did I declare anyone to be stupid because they don't believe in "various scientifically baseless principles"? You can call me an "obnoxious, insulting, arrogant prick" all you want Gonko, but I don't appreciate you making false statements about me. Number one, the principles are not "scientifically baseless", number two, I've called you idiots for what I believe should be "obvious reasons" for most non-idiots, and that's apparent at least somewhere in nearly every response I've received. It includes your idiotic philosophy that you are on the side of science, while you decry and announce as "fraud" observations based on scientific principles you have never researched, know nothing about, tests you've never repeated, and have been unable to refute. Which is about as unscientific as one can get.

Quote:
I recognized the trend some time ago: a love of arguing with and insulting strangers on the internet, using things that cannot be proven or disproven as the foundation for the arguments.
Again, you're trying to define me, and you got it wrong. Not very scientific, to "pretend" you know my motivations, or anyone else's here, for that matter, and state it as fact. But then again, you "pretend" you know about alternative audio, when you've never seen anything in your life but conventional audio. Perhaps you think downloading a couple of mp3's makes you an "expert" now?

I also recognized a trend, but unlike you, I'm not pretending I'm Kreskin, and I can get into the mind of anyone I see on a web discussion forum. I'm speaking more of a social trend. A necessity for people to remain rigid in their thinking, resistant to any new ideas, because it scares them to give up the known for the unknown.... The real "arrogance" comes from people like this, people like you. Who claim to "know" that which they don't know anything about, because guess what? It doesn't fit with what they already think they know! Brilliant minds, all of you....

Quote:
We have Belt's premises that can't be disproven because they can't be traditionally proven in the first place.
LOTS of things can't be proven in the first place, you mindless idiot. I mentioned the origin of existence in an earlier post. I didn't see anyone brave enough to refute me on that one, including you, including various loudmouthed cretins like R. Mackey, Laventura and Loopy, and including Jason, the brilliant debater whom I wrote that post to. So I have to assume no one can, and thus everyone is in agreement on that. Now if anyone is not in agreement, then please explain what scientists can't... namely, how the f**k do we exist? If you are in agreement Gonko, that the origins of existence are currently not and perhaps can never be known, then you have no argument to make here. Instead, you've learned something about "science", which you've made it clear to me you really don't know anything about, despite all of your carping about how important it is to believe in what you consider "science". Why don't you show up at a science conference one day soon, and step up to the podium, and tell all the scientists in the room that empirical evidence doesn't mean sh*t. Tell them not to bother talking about anything that hasn't been peer reviewed in the NEJM.

Belt's premises can be proven or disproven the way any audio product or technique can: by listening. "Listening" is actually good enough for about 99% of audio consumers, who purchase audio products just that way. Believe me, I've had idiots just like you Gonko, who've argued against me for weeks, prove it for themselves when they tried the products or techniques. And some never did. NOTHING in audio, or life, can be proven to everyone's satisfaction.

Quote:
There was even a cursory mention of orgone energy that produced another vehement objection toward my lack of faith, a tangential discussion that fits the mold very nicely.
True, it did fit the mold very nicely. That "mold", is your continual ignorant arguments based on either no sign of a verifiable fact anywhere near you, or some little crumb of what you think passes for a "fact" these days. Such as your link to a page in the skeptic's dictionary that according to you and your lazy ass research on Orgone energy, scientifically dismisses everything the psychologist & researcher Wilhelm Reich built his life toward. With your stupid, mindless reference to the history of the Reich affair, arguing that the FDA somehow "proved" Orgone energy doesn't exist (and it can be argued by extension, "Chi", which millions of Chinese have believed in for centuries), you've proven once again that you have no CLUE as to what you're talking about.

Yet you hail yourself as the intellectual authority on this forum. It isn't about your lack of "faith" in Orgone energy, as the reason why I've made an example of you, in exposing your profound ignorance time and again. It's about your lack of PROOF that Wilhelm Reich was chasing windmills all his life. The reason I argue with you so much, is beacuse you're so damn stupid, that you really insult my intelligence. I mean the fact that you would talk to me like you're an expert on Orgone energy, to where you can claim it has no real merit to anyone, when you probably didn't even know who or what the hell Reich was until I mentioned his name to you a few days ago, is very insulting. Problem is, your brethren here share your same ignorant, insulting attitude about science and facts. You people have absolutely NO respect for either. Ever just consider being honest with people and admitting you just simply don't know what the f*k you're talking about, and learn to shut your yap when you need to? You don't see me talking about "Outlaw audio", which I know nothing about, do you? Clearly, you could learn a lot about audio from me, or others, if you did learn to shut your yap once in a while, and open your mind, as well as your ears.


Quote:
The result is a catch-22: if you try to carry on a calm, reasonable discussion (like bestbang4thebuck has attempted to do) then you get called childish names and told that you are stupid, and if you argue (be it with sarcasm, carefully thought-out logic, or snide comments) you get the same result.
It's not that complicated. If you come at me with an "attitude", like you're really clever and know better than me, when it's obvious you aren't and you don't, you're gonna called out. That's me being honest, which is more than I can say for you, given how many times you lie about me in a single post of yours. Your pal "bang4abuck" had a nasty, disrespectful attitude. We can see evidence of this by the fact that I corrected him once, telling him my name was spelled "Delius". Yet when he sat down to debate me, he purposely misspelled my name as "Delious" at the start of his debate, even emphasizing it in bold type. That set the tone for our discussions, and so I treated him with the same lack of respect he accorded me.

I haven't seen any traces or hints of traces of "carefully thought-out logic" on this board, from anyone. So I don't know WHAT the hell you're referring to here. In fact the reason I have been able to refute each and every single argument against me or AA that anyone made here, is because there are no displays of "careful thought" or logic. You may think highly of yourselves, but trust me, by my standards, you are all weak debaters. That doesn't mean we can't enjoy a debate, for those few here who can actually come up with something other than the usual mockery and derision you find on these forums when someone brings up the subject of AA.

If you keep ALL traces of attitude out of your responses, and you ensure that your words to me are respectful of both me and my knowledge of AA, that they do not include your continual personal presumptions about me and my motivations, then you will see that I am perfectly capable of carrying on a calm, reasonable discussion about alternative audio. I've carried on hundreds of them. However, if you try to respond to me with your usual sarcasm and snide comments, then I will play by the rules set by the group, and as we've seen, I'm also much better at sarcasm and snide remarks than anyone here could hope to be.


Quote:
Funny that you mention that site... You've asked (and asked, and asked), so about a week ago
There you again, writing things about me that aren't true. And you wonder why I have an attitude, like you do? Show me where I asked you to visit that site. Go on. Are you ever gonna even try to back up what you say? I don't recall ever asking anyone to visit those sites, let alone "asking and asking and asking". Me mentioning that no one has, is not the same as "asking".

Quote:
I burned those MP3 files to a CD-R and tossed them in my DVD player (since I lacked any headphones and didn't think that cheap PC speakers are a good test of anything, I figured my main system would be a reasonable test). [QUOTE]

What kind of person who calls himself an audiophile doesn't own a pair of headphones?!

[QUOTE]Last weekend, I gave those files a few listens while my wife and daughter both napped. The two versions of Jingle Bells were a handy test, particularly when I repeated the first ten seconds using both tracks, but I gave all six files some attention. At the most, there was perhaps a slightly higher volume level on the "full metal jacket" version of Jingle Bells, but no more than a decibel - aside from that, the two were effectively indistinguishable. I scratched my head a bit and decided to give it the ol' college try: I burned all six files to an audio CD and tried again. My 981HD passed the PCM audio to my 990, which was set to upsample mode. The results were the same.
Who asked you to burn the files to a CD? Didn't I already mention my concern on that site, that the files had been compressed and processed to such a degree, that I wasn't sure if people would still be able to hear the differences that I could on my system? That should you give you a clue that a fair test would be to not process the damn things any further! Instead, we see you putting the files through digital processors, upsamplers, burning software, CD writers, and listening to it on a CD player! Duh! I'm certainly not shocked after all that, that you were unable to easily discern differences. You're supposed to have headphones and leave the mp3's intact, and that's how one should attempt to assess these files.

Quote:
Bottom line: I tried the MP3 files. I found no appreciable difference in the files.
I think the "bottom bottom line" is, you did. I suspect that, like many who don't have any real listening training, you don't know how to make qualitative assessments of musical differences, because you don't have a clue as to what to really listen for. So you listen for "obvious things", like changes in bass/mid/treble/volume. And you found what you thought was a change in volume, in "fullmetaljacket". But being more familiar with these things than you, I have reason to believe that what you heard was not a change in volume, but a difference in "clarity", for one. Due to the higher resolution of the FMJ ver. of Jingle Bells, the xylophone in the piece rings with greater clarity, (and the soundstage is larger) which you perceive as an increase in volume. Next time, you should remove the potatoes from your ears and listen more carefully. Because for one thing, what you described is impossible. Unless you care to explain how applying photos and labels to a cd burner will increase the volume of the recording? Other than that, the exact same conditions applied under both recordings.


Quote:
I continue to find no reason to give any merit to HiFiSoundGuy/GoodSound's shallow attempts at trying to sell Machina Dynamica products here in this forum, or to the value of devices like the Clever Little Clock. The catch-22? The fact that I believe these things even after listening to MP3 files that were manipulated with Belt techniques will not lessen delius's rude and insulting posts.
Damn straight it won't, because for one thing, the fact that you and your allies never lessened YOUR rude and insulting posts toward HifiSoundGuy/GoodSound, despite making blatantly false and irresponsibly libelous statements about them and the products they advocated, which no one was ever able to provide any facts for. For another, who said my rudeness is based on whether someone tries my mp3 files? I don't recall saying that?

Next problem I have with you: Your accusation that HFSG/GoodSound made attempts to sell Machina Dynamica's products here. Keep making unfounded accusations like that, and that's not going to lessen my rudeness with you either, btw. As with all the rest here, you provide no factual evidence to make such egregious claims.... which is the problem I had with you nasty ignorant twits to begin with. If you claim to be civil, responsible and sociable people, then you don't go around making stupid accusations of shilling against anyone who advocates products or companies that you happen to have an irrational hatred for. That makes discussion of audio impossible on an audio forum, fool. It means that everyone who advocates Outlaw products, or those of any other company, is trying to sell those products. God forbid the next that comes here and says "Hey guys, I really like this Thorens turntable I bought!". Oh... here comes a gang of ignorant twits all jumping on him, and accusing him of trying to sell Thorens turntables on "their" forum!

And the last problem I have with you: Your inane and ridiculously stupid claim that because you made a really half-assed attempt to listen to a couple of mp3 files, it means you have proven that Belt theories don't work, and I should now accept the fact that you have proven this, and join all you sheep in your crusade of mindless ignorance. What the hell do you think that proves anyway? You still haven't tried a single Belt or Machina Dynamica product, you haven't even downloaded the l-shapes, which means you haven't even tried any of the techniques! Of course, to Outlaw members, you being the first to even listen to the mp3's and preach to the flock that they don't work, means you're now the God of Authority On All That Is Belt, and can claim to be an "expert" on alternative audio. And you wonder nevertheless, why I keep calling you ignorant morons? LOL!