Previous Next Index Thread
For the record: We're still waiting on the troll to come clean. Since I reappeared on this newsgroup last week and began posting Jammer995's info about the null hypothesis giving the lie to the troll's claims, I have issued four challenges to the troll which he continues to ignore like the dishonest intellectual coward that he is. Instead, he has resorted as usual in his recent posts to lies, unsupported assertions, evasions, distractions, obfuscations, personal attacks, vague blanket denials, etc., etc. To recap, the troll has yet to respond in any meaningful way to the following four challenges: 1. Provide irrefutable evidence to contradict the null hypothesis, citing to generally accepted texts on statistics to counter Jammer995's claim that a failed ABX test (a null result) proves absolutely nothing (and therefore cannot be used to support your wildly biased and subjective claims that they prove something about either audio components or subjectivist claims); 2. Provide SOME evidence (specific references to specific statements on specific posts, if not actual quotations) to support your specious claim that Nousaine "refuted" everything Jammer995 said in his posted debate on AOL between April 16, 1996 and May 18, 1996 (N.B.: If you're going to cite to any post on that forum which occurred after May 18, 1996, then make that clear distinction and provide the complete text of the post and the response); 3. Cite specific legal authority, chapter and verse, with complete legal citations to support your claim that I have violated what you refer to as "Internet copyright law" by quoting in this forum from Jammer995's AOL posts, and provide for all to see your analysis of how any such legal provision applies to my citations to Jammer995; 4. Quote word for word the AOL policy you refer to which you claim I violated in quoting Jammer995, along with your analysis of how such a policy applies to my citations to Jammer995. IN SHORT, THIS IS A FINAL WAKE-UP CALL TO THE TROLL TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP! As stated in an earlier post, in the event it turns out (in my professional opinion) that I have indeed violated some provision of some copyright law which I'm not aware of (but which the troll claims he's aware of) then I will obey that law and contact Jammer995 for his permission to quote him. I WILL WAIT EXACTLY ONE WEEK FROM TODAY BEFORE RESUMING THE JAMMER995 SAGA TO ALLOW THE TROLL MORE THAN ADEQUATE TIME TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIMS. FAILURE OF THE TROLL TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIMS WITHIN THAT MORE THAN GENEROUS WINDOW OF TIME MUST BE TAKEN AS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT THE TROLL IS A COMPULSIVE LIAR AND CANNOT BE BELIEVED ABOUT ANYTHING. As an aside, I find it curious that the troll has taken to referring to me in his posts as "troll Sanders". Come on, troll, can't you do any better than that? I didn't invent the name troll...it had been used by others in this Newsgroup to describe your misconduct long before I got here... I just picked up on it in reference to you in my posts to others, as it fits you to a tee because it describes your behavior of "trolling" the audio newsgroups on the internet for the sole purpose of pouncing on others' posts with your inane and totally fraudulent ABX babble. If you want to call me names, which is your prerogative, can't you at least search deep inside for that small kernel of creativity which has been deadened over the years with your irrational obsession with the Audio Critic's spurious propaganda, to find an original name to call me? Can't you think for yourself on that simplistic level at least? Can't you do any better than that?