Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message ...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Crikey. Is there no end to your talent? Have you 'sat
in' on meetings about ending world poverty too?

Dave, it's sad to see you slowly morphing into a clone
of Arny Kruger.

Two compliments in as many days? What's got into you?

That would be a score, Dave. ;-)

Iain was so unhinged by your response that he was rendered speechless, and
simply sent back a copy of your post.

At this point I think that many of us have figured Iain out. He's all talk,
and no hands-on action.

Iain held some kind of administrative position within the recording
industry that infrequently got his name in the credits sections of a few
albums. But, when it comes to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things sound right, Iain has
never ever been allowed by anybody with brains to even try. And, he's lacked
the curiosity and initiative it would to ever try it on his own. Compared
to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.

When Iain shows pictures of equipment that he owns, you can be sure that
someone else actually did any significant hands-on technical work related to
it. His audio gear most seem to be what the car racing people call "Trailer
Queens". Operating a polishing rag would be my estimate of his actual
hands-on involvement with it.

I would be curious to know if Iain even knows how to solder, and if he does,
whether he's ever used that skills to even do something very basic like fix
a broken mic cable.

I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my ****ter
for a moment and look what I find!

Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!

Tempting to let your Pooch out also to kick his arse a few times (I know
he's been sniffing around - my twinkling numbers tell me when he's about),
but I can't treat myself to too much fun in one day - it wouldn't be right!

LOL!

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my ****ter
for a moment and look what I find!


Scallywag! I like that:-)



Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!


Keith

Arny seems to be labouring under the delusion than owning a few
toy shop mics and a cheap mixer, and wheeling them around on a
wobbly hand-.cart makes him a recording engineer.

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur Wilkinson
and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers of all time,
despite their countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable
or a wobbly hand-cart between them?? :-)

Puzzled of Putney

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers
of all time, despite their countless audio awards, didn't
own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and Arthus Lilley never
owned a mic or a mic cable.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers
of all time, despite their countless audio awards, didn't
own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and Arthus Lilley never
owned a mic or a mic cable.



How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they *didn't* keep them
in?

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive
puffery and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my
****ter for a moment and look what I find!

The prat who thinks this is his own blog talks yet again about who he
killfiles. As if anyone cares.

Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!

You need to look in the mirror, Kitty.

Tempting to let your Pooch out also to kick his arse a few times (I know
he's been sniffing around - my twinkling numbers tell me when he's
about), but I can't treat myself to too much fun in one day - it
wouldn't be right!

Once again who do you think gives a damn about who you decide to read or
not? The size of your ego is unsurpassed...

LOL!

Only ******s of the greatest magnitude use that expression. QED.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within the recording
industry that infrequently got his name in the credits sections of a few
albums. But, when it comes to choosing, cabling and positioning
recording equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things sound
right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody with brains to even
try. And, he's lacked the curiosity and initiative it would to ever try
it on his own. Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.

Impossible to assess if Iain's claims are true or not. There are so many.
But then he knows that. All I do know is when he is caught out - like
over the Tannoy Autograph howler - he just ignores it.

--
*It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in
message
In article
, Arny
Krueger wrote:
Iain held some kind of administrative position within
the recording industry that infrequently got his name in
the credits sections of a few albums. But, when it comes
to choosing, cabling and positioning recording
equipment, listening, and adjusting knobs until things
sound right, Iain has never ever been allowed by anybody
with brains to even try. And, he's lacked the curiosity
and initiative it would to ever try it on his own.
Compared to Iain, Keith is a technical genius.

Impossible to assess if Iain's claims are true or not.
There are so many. But then he knows that. All I do know
is when he is caught out - like over the Tannoy Autograph
howler - he just ignores it.

Agreed. If Iain were a man of truth, then his words could have some
credibility. But, he dissembles way too much.

Frequency Response of the Ear
 

In article , Arny
Krueger


What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Alas, that is also the case with UK courts. There has been a recent case
where Simon Singh (a science writer) wrote that some claims for types of
'alternative medicine' sic were 'bogus' on the scientific basis that
assessing the experimental trials for relevance, reliability, etc, showed
their results didn't support the claims.

A UK judge decided this was a libel. Apparently on the basis that the judge
required Singh to prove that the practitioners *knew* that their claims
were false. This is essentially impossible to do if they insist they
believe what they assert. Virtually impossible to falsify the assertion
when someone says they *do* believe something, no matter how daft the
asserted belief. And of course irrelevant if your real concern is that the
belief in question may be worthless, or dangerous, or money-grabbing
nonsense.

The Judge apparently ignored the normal scientific basis of dealing with
the evidence for/against the actual claim. Seems this is irrelevant so far
as his reading of UK law is concerned. Disregarding the fact that the
claims were being made on the basis of assertions of 'science', but that
the actual science apparently didn't support them.

The Judge also apparently refused leave to appeal. Wonder if he was
assuming that would mean someone else would have to 'prove he knew he was
making an error' as well... :-)

No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere as a
shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be wary of
commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are taken to court
for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases where the claims are
being made by groups and individuals who make their income on the back of
the claims.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html