Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)




OK, Arnii and Scottie, I finally get it. DBTs are the disgusting medicine
of consumer audio. Just as cancer drugs are tested on lab rats by medical
researchers, so are DBTs inflicted on DUTs by audio companies. The rats
are deliberately given cancer so the treatments can be tested, and DUTs
are deliberately given very minor alterations so audio engineers can be
chase after auditory phantoms. It's bad medicine and you want us all to
take it.

But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine? We don't
have any audio illnesses that need curing. Or at least not by Normal
standards. 'Borg standards are something else, though. For You folks, the
illness is our simple, unadulterated enjoyment of music. You want to
pollute our enjoyment with "test" rituals. That way, you hope, Normals
will turn into soulless, music-hating drones like you.

I advise you nimrods to hang it up and hustle off to the cemetary. Unless,
of course, you think you still have a chance of "saving" consumer audio.

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 8, 12:56 pm, George M. Middius <cmndr geo...@comcast . net >
wrote:
> OK, Arnii and Scottie, I finally get it. DBTs are the disgusting medicine
> of consumer audio. Just as cancer drugs are tested on lab rats by medical
> researchers, so are DBTs inflicted on DUTs by audio companies. The rats
> are deliberately given cancer so the treatments can be tested, and DUTs
> are deliberately given very minor alterations so audio engineers can be
> chase after auditory phantoms. It's bad medicine and you want us all to
> take it.
>
> But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty medicine?

I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
you as subject. You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
confused.


> We don't
> have any audio illnesses that need curing.

No, but you've the severest case of Arnyitis ever recorded.

ScottW

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

"ScottW" <ScottW48@hotmail . com > wrote in message
news:0238c828-01b3-4e08-95da-7c2212059f5a@z24g2000prf.googlegroups . com
> On May 8, 12:56 pm, George M. Middius
> <cmndr_geo...@comcast . net > wrote:
>> OK, Arnii and Scottie, I finally get it. DBTs are the
>> disgusting medicine of consumer audio. Just as cancer
>> drugs are tested on lab rats by medical researchers, so
>> are DBTs inflicted on DUTs by audio companies. The rats
>> are deliberately given cancer so the treatments can be
>> tested, and DUTs are deliberately given very minor
>> alterations so audio engineers can be chase after
>> auditory phantoms. It's bad medicine and you want us all
>> to take it.
>>
>> But why do You folks care whether we take this nasty
>> medicine?
>
> I don't. I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a
> DBT with you as subject. You remain thoroughly and
> hopelessly
> confused.
>
>
>> We don't
>> have any audio illnesses that need curing.
>
> No, but you've the severest case of Arnyitis ever
> recorded.

Phildo and George over in AAPLS are giving the Middiot a run for his title
of "Gay guy on Usenet most obsessed with Arny".

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:

>
>  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
> you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> confused.
>

Let's expand on that truth.
You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
else but you are completely useless.
Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
WITH you as the subject are also worthless.

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
> >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with
> > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > confused.
>
> Let's expand on that truth.
> You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> else but you are completely useless.

Not at all. If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
he's gotta provide some proof.

> Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
> WITH you as the subject are also worthless.

Hey, you're the one who says Ringdacs are crap :).

ScottW

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On 9 Mai, 16:37, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with=

> > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > confused.
>
> > Let's expand on that truth.
> > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > else but you are completely useless.
>
>  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
> > WITH you as the subject are also worthless.
>
> Hey, you're the one who says Ringdacs are crap :).
>

I never called it crap.
I prefer soemthing else.
And my bias was that it would be preferable.

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)



Flea-brain yaps on.

>> You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
>> else but you are completely useless.

> Not at all. If some BARK BARK BARK! biased reviewer YAP YAP YAPPITY YAP expects me to
> believe his BS WOOFWOOFBARKBARK pontifications and pay GROWL! SNARL! <scratch scratch scratch>
> him for it, he's gotta WALKIES! NOW! provide some YAP YAP!! <piddling on carpet>
> AAAAH! <whimper> proof.

So much for Scottie's training.

>> Now we need to get you to understand that DBT'S
>> WITH you as the subject are also worthless.
>
>Hey, crap :).

Good doggie! Eat this treat.

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT with=

> > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > confused.
>
> > Let's expand on that truth.
> > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > else but you are completely useless.
>
>  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> he's gotta provide some proof.

My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
is about.

Which is to say "not at all".

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 9, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
<artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT wi=
th
> > > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > confused.
>
> > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> >  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
> it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
> is about.
>
> Which is to say "not at all".

Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
that I've read.

ScottW

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 9, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DBT =
with
> > > > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > > confused.
>
> > > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> > >  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
> > it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad
> > is about.
>
> > Which is to say "not at all".
>
>  Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
> of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
> S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
> that I've read.
>


the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
I guess you re including all adults in the US
btw, There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?
Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 10, 10:32 am, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a DB=
T with
> > > > > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > > > confused.
>
> > > > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> > > >  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > > My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe
> > > it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jihad=

> > > is about.
>
> > > Which is to say "not at all".
>
> >  Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
> > of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
> > S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
> > that I've read.
>
> the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
> I guess you re including all adults in the US
> btw,

At least all housholds. Where does one draw the line
between "high end" and the rest of the audio
market? I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
playback systems. How many households
are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
"high end".

>There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
> Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?

Is the market potental everyone who eats? Can marketing
overcome the social stigma of eating bugs?
How about bugs as basic source of protein
like soy?

> Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?

I'm sure they'd like to have Time and Newsweek
ad rates.

ScottW

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On 10 Mai, 13:53, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 10, 10:32 am, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 9, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in a =
DBT with
> > > > > > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > > > > confused.
>
> > > > > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > > > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > > > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> > > > >  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > > > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > > > My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you believe=

> > > > it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest jih=
ad
> > > > is about.
>
> > > > Which is to say "not at all".
>
> > >  Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
> > > of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
> > > S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
> > > that I've read.
>
> > the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
> > I guess you re including all adults in the US
> > btw,
>
>  At least all housholds.  Where does one draw the line
> between "high end" and the rest of the audio
> market?   I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
> It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
> Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
> playback systems. How many households
> are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
> "high end".
>


We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions



> >There is a magazine for people who like bug cuisine.
> > Do you consider that market in the hundreds of millions?
>
> Is the market potental everyone who eats? Can marketing
> overcome the social stigma of eating bugs?
> How about bugs as basic source of protein
> like soy?
>
> > Why isn't that magazine competing with Time and Newsweek?
>
> I'm sure they'd like to have Time and Newsweek
> ad rates.
>

There aren't enough bugeaters in America.

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 10, 12:06 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 13:53, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 10:32 am, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 9, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > > On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest in =
a DBT with
> > > > > > > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > > > > > confused.
>
> > > > > > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > > > > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > > > > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> > > > > >  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believe
> > > > > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > > > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > > > > My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you belie=
ve
> > > > > it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest j=
ihad
> > > > > is about.
>
> > > > > Which is to say "not at all".
>
> > > >  Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
> > > > of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
> > > > S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
> > > > that I've read.
>
> > > the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions..
> > > I guess you re including all adults in the US
> > > btw,
>
> >  At least all housholds.  Where does one draw the line
> > between "high end" and the rest of the audio
> > market?   I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
> > It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
> > Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
> > playback systems. How many households
> > are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
> > "high end".
>
> We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions

I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
unsubstantiated declaration.

ScottW

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On 10 Mai, 15:16, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 10, 12:06 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Mai, 13:53, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 10, 10:32 am, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 9, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > > > On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wro=
te:
>
> > > > > > > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest i=
n a DBT with
> > > > > > > > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > > > > > > confused.
>
> > > > > > > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > > > > > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > > > > > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> > > > > > >  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to believ=
e
> > > > > > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > > > > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > > > > > My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you bel=
ieve
> > > > > > it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your latest=
jihad
> > > > > > is about.
>
> > > > > > Which is to say "not at all".
>
> > > > >  Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
> > > > > of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
> > > > > S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
> > > > > that I've read.
>
> > > > the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of millions.=
.
> > > > I guess you re including all adults in the US
> > > > btw,
>
> > >  At least all housholds.  Where does one draw the line
> > > between "high end" and the rest of the audio
> > > market?   I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
> > > It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
> > > Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
> > > playback systems. How many households
> > > are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
> > > "high end".
>
> > We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions
>
> I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
> unsubstantiated declaration.

It dosesn't require a definition.
It is what it is; it
isn't set in stoen.

Re: Rx for DBTs in hobby magazines ... LOt"S ;-)

On May 10, 4:09 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
> On 10 Mai, 15:16, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 10, 12:06 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 Mai, 13:53, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 10, 10:32 am, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 10 Mai, 13:05, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 9, 3:10 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > > > > <artygu...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> > > > > > > On May 9, 3:37 pm, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 8, 2:53 pm, Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo . com > w=
rote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 8 Mai, 16:01, ScottW <Scott...@hotmail . com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >  I don't.  I wouldn't have the least bit of interest=
in a DBT with
> > > > > > > > > > you as subject.  You remain thoroughly and hopelessly
> > > > > > > > > > confused.
>
> > > > > > > > > Let's expand on that truth.
> > > > > > > > > You fianlly seem to understand that DBT's with anyone
> > > > > > > > > else but you are completely useless.
>
> > > > > > > >  Not at all.  If some biased reviewer expects me to beli=
eve
> > > > > > > > his BS pontifications and pay him for it,
> > > > > > > > he's gotta provide some proof.
>
> > > > > > > My guess is that the reviewer cares about whether or not you b=
elieve
> > > > > > > it about as much as as any of us care about whatever your late=
st jihad
> > > > > > > is about.
>
> > > > > > > Which is to say "not at all".
>
> > > > > >  Which is why they attract just a few 10's of thousands
> > > > > > of paid subscribers in a market of hundreds of millions.
> > > > > > S'phile has very little respect in many of the audio forums
> > > > > > that I've read.
>
> > > > > the market for high end audio is hardly in the hundreds of million=
s..
> > > > > I guess you re including all adults in the US
> > > > > btw,
>
> > > >  At least all housholds.  Where does one draw the line
> > > > between "high end" and the rest of the audio
> > > > market?   I recall the first time I heard a walkman.
> > > > It was quite good at the time. Was it "highend".
> > > > Every houshold I know has quite a few audio
> > > > playback systems. How many households
> > > > are "high end" potential markets is totally dependent on what is
> > > > "high end".
>
> > > We have reduced your previous estimate of hundreds of millions
>
> > I point out a lack of definition and in reply you make an
> > unsubstantiated declaration.
>
> It dosesn't require a definition.

How do you determine the market size for something
undefined?

> It is what it is; it
> isn't set in stoen.

Could you be any more vague?

ScottW