Proper scoring for troll postings, per seanadams

[pfarrell]

erland wrote:
> Just to get a reference point, I'm really interested if there are any
> known 10/10 trolls ?
> Or is this like perfect audio quality, an unreachable level which no
> one is ever going to reach ?

I've never seen one in six years. I think its the perfection,
unreachable. Most common trolls seem to get 2/10 or 3/10, some rise to
5/10. The judges are fair, but not generous.

--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[Phil Leigh]

I reckon anyone who mentions Firmware 15 must get 6...

[seanadams]

Just to get a reference point, I'm really interested if there are any known 10/10 trolls ?

The perfect troll, by definition, is perfectly stealthy. Thus it could never be detected so as to receive a rating.

This may seem paradoxical but it is elegantly explained by a sort of warping of the "thread fabric", which occurs as the limit is approached.

[iPhone]

The perfect troll, by definition, is perfectly stealthy. Thus it could never be detected so as to receive a rating.

This may seem paradoxical but it is elegantly explained by a sort of warping of the "thread fabric", which occurs as the limit is approached.

So if I follow this, as the elusive perfect Troll approaches perfection basically nearing something similar to an Event Horizon, as the Troll reaches 9.99/10 we still see him but he has actually disappeared and its really only a past image of him that we still see hence we never actually see the perfect Troll?

Are we still on topic or did the Tread cross over the Event Horizon while I was typing?

[gregklanderman]

> how would i read a mailinglist with slrn?

I'm not sure every newsreader can necessarily read mail, but some do.
I use Gnus, an emacs based newsreader, which also handles email.

If you're motivated, you could probably run a local news server, pipe
the slim mailing list mail into it, and use any newsreader you want.

greg

[Mnyb]

Did anyone remember those fellas that claimed that the SB sounded different if you paused the music and then started it again ?
They got the tread going for 5-6 pages and claimed that they would be back with measurements, but then it just stopped ?

Id just now realized what it was 2 years after the fact, that was good trolling ! Nobody called them out when it was an active tread .

It was in the Audiophile forum, they must have laughed their socks off.

What would that score ?

[Siduhe]

Aha! Found it - who wants to have a go at a non-audiophile forum version?:

You claim that an
( ) audible
( ) measurable
( ) hypothetical

improvement in sound quality can be attained by:
( ) upsampling
( ) non-oversampling
( ) increasing word size
( ) vibration dampening
( ) bi-wiring
( ) replacing the external power supply
( ) using a different lossless format
( ) decompressing on the server
( ) removing bits of metal from skull
( ) using ethernet instead of wireless
( ) inverting phase
( ) reversing “polarity” of resistors
( ) ultra fast recovery rectifiers
( ) installing bigger connectors
( ) installing Black Gate caps
( ) installing ByBee filters
( ) installing hospital-grade AC jacks
( ) defragmenting the hard disk
( ) running older firmware
( ) using exotic materials in cabinet
( ) bronze heatsinks
( ) violin lacquer
( ) $500 power cords
( ) a universally applicable omnidirectional tweeter

Your idea will not work. Specifically, it fails to account for:
( ) the placebo effect
( ) your ears honestly aren't that good
( ) your idea has already been thoroughly disproved
( ) modern DACs upsample anyway
( ) those products are pure snake oil
( ) lossless formats, by definition, are lossless
( ) those measurements are bogus
( ) sound travels much slower than you think
( ) electric signals travel much faster than you think
( ) that's not how binary arithmetic works
( ) that's not how TCP/IP works
( ) the Nyquist theorem
( ) the can't polish a turd theorem
( ) bits are bits

You will try to defend you idea by:
( ) claiming that your ears are “trained”
( ) claiming immunity to psychological/physiological factors that affect everyone else
( ) name-calling
( ) criticizing spelling/grammar

Your subsequent arguments will probably appeal in desperation to such esoterica as:
( ) jitter
( ) EMI
( ) thermal noise
( ) quantum mechanical effects
( ) resonance
( ) existentialism
( ) nihilism
( ) communism
( ) cosmic rays

And you will then change the subject to:
( ) theories are not the same as facts
( ) measurements don't tell everything
( ) not everyone is subject to the placebo effect
( ) blind testing is dumb
( ) you can't prove what I can't hear
( ) science isn't everything

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:
( ) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
( ) trepanation

(c) Sean Adams 2007

[Peter314]

I reckon anyone who mentions Firmware 15 must get 6...

*sigh* 6/10


You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down...

[iPhone]

Rather than engage in this tired discussion, I suggest exploring the following factors which are more likely to improve sound quality in your situation:
( ) room acoustics
( ) source material
( ) type of speakers
( ) speaker placement
( ) crossover points
( ) equalization
( ) Q-tips
( ) psychoanalysis
( ) trepanation

(c) Sean Adams 2007

Exploring Sean's Q-tips tip has been found to be the biggest bang for the buck tweak as far as achieving better sound at the human receiving source!

I am surprised that Sean left the almighty cryogenics treatments off his very through list.

[Mnyb]

A really cool thing is if someone could write a nice bot software that auto responded to to posts with Seans form prefilled.

Searching for key phrases like quantum purifiers, "wav sounds better than flac"