Talk but not walk?
Hi Guys
This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
thanks, be polite
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
theaudiotweak, "All examples of resonance transfer of shear waves from one surface in contact with another material and shape."Could, for this purpose and in some theoretical ("talking") sense, a fluid be considered "surface"? I mean, does what you are proposing have to be two hard mediums or any of them could be fluid? It may seem off-topic, but it is not in the longer run. |
Michael Green, With some delay, I looked at that thread on Tuneland that was mentioned by jf47t and I am glad I did. It shows your perspective for some of the things and I could agree with some of them. More places to actually listen in is a big missing piece in whole story and, unfortunately, you have not been successful at promoting it (according to your writing). Too bad. Instead of that, we are now left with reading reviews and buying equipment (tuning blocks are also equipment for this purpose) we have never heard properly or maybe even seen outside of the computer monitor. I wish you succeeded. You did put a definition of an audiophile and elaborated on some of those aspects, but missed to emphasize the difference between "audiophile" and her/his related field (audiophilia?) and HEA (High End Audio). It does read as if audiophiles are somehow lower class than those leaning towards HEA. What would be a definition of HEA? No, I am not trying to "troll" you. It seems that difference is significant in your view, while I thought those would be at least overlapping, if not mostly synonyms. Regardless of what HEA is, mention of the "cult" in this thread had nothing to do with HEA itself. It was clearly referring to participants’ views of Tuneland forum style. Nothing about music reproduction. Nothing at all. Nothing even about audiophiles or HEA. Just the view of the Tuneland dynamics. Right or wrong. It is great that you posted all those pictures. Finally. I know, someone will ask for addresses, etc. but for less picky it was great. It brought some idea of what is being done. Well, it also answers the question why there is no wider acceptance of it. No matter how good it sounds, it looks practically unlivable with. Some may do it, but most will have to pass just on the basis of that. Not everyone is retired (surprise!!!) and some have children or pets who are not compatible with that kind of equipment. Their loss, we could say. Would putting some inert material around those exposed electrical parts be really detrimental to the sound? If you could work on that, it would broaden the reach. I will skip commenting on many of the sentences from the post at around 3 am (June 18). I am only afraid that prof, when he comes back from his vacation, may have a heart attack. Which brings me to another piece. You state... The trolls on that forum even went as far as to warn readers not to come check out TuneLand …….So why is it they didn’t want readers to visit here? The answer to that one is simple. They don’t want people to come here, because here is where we "walk" the hobby.where I happen to be the only one who recommended that Audiogon crowd does not go to Tuneland and forums stay separated and therefore I am the "troll" referenced in your post. You did pick some of my words, changed them a bit, omitted my explanation, and presented your adjusted opinion as firm truth. Had you not done all of that, you could have put me as a spiritual co-author of your sentence in which you explain why two forums are better left separated... I don’t want to be as personally involved or bring that bad karma over to the pages of TuneLand from any place that might be wanting to sow bad seeds.I will give you a credit, but you should remember where you read it first and decide if following "troll’s" thoughts makes one a "troll". Speaking of "trolls", you use that word to an extent that dilutes anything you are trying to convey. It is not the case "if you repeat it enough, it will become the truth". It sticks out like a sore thumb and appears like desperate whining. Don’t do it. By the way, I am not sure if a person can "troll" her/himself, but according to description of "troll" you provided on Tuneland, you would have qualified on this thread on more than one occasion. It is easy to do it, the definition is too broad. Goodnight and Happy Trolling everyone! |
theaudiotweak, I suspect I understand your points, but am at the same time, for my own exercise, broadening it and considering different media borders (for lack of better definition, wherever different density material meets) and what would and could happen there and how the transmission would change. Again, probably off-topic at this point, but most of the things on this thread are not related anyway. And I mean, thanks. Regardless of if you will be 50 years from now proven right or wrong. |
Michael Green, There is a picture of four men on Tuneland (this latest thread you have there) in which a taller one has sunglasses and one wears a vest. I am mentioning it just to identify the picture. Are those guys anyone we know from this thread? Just trying to put a picture together with words. Also, there is a picture or two on which electronic equipment with silver faceplates, looks like an amplifier and maybe a CD player (resembles Audio Research design, but not clear from the picture) seems to have all the covers in place. Is that correct? Pictures are a little blurry and items relatively far. Other equipment seems to have covers removed. Is there any story behind it? Why did you decide to leave these particular covers on? Or did I see it incorrectly, which is about 50% likely? |
In case anyone is interested, the article that jf47t referenced regarding my question about people on one picture brings some unique view I had never expected to see anywhere. It is the first time that word "bureaucracy" appears as something positive what we should be grateful for. It may not help the sound, but dead ears do not hear so it may be a fair trade off. As Michael indicated when I interviewed him regarding the studio designs, significant barriers to new ways of thinking are encountered when one comes up against the bureaucracy. In this case, state fire codes prohibited using the kind of wood materials for the walls and floors of the studio that were originally intended. |
Michael Green, There are a few pictures in that 2006 article that jf47t referenced. One of the pictures shows the ceiling vent opening close to one of the devices you had placed (it says "The Steinway with microphones and PZCs" under the picture although I think it is not related to the picture itself). What do you do about it? Wouldn’t the air coming from the vent forcefully throw all the preconceived theories away? All the ideas and drawings would be wiped out as irrelevant in this case. Is there any secret to managing that? I might have missed it in the article, but was that set-up and your involvement just for that particular recording or was that studio arranged by you for the longer run? https://positive-feedback.com/Issue23/green.htm |
"He could actually feel the keys get lighter or heavier to strike as I was tuning."????? I can only say that his fingers are much more sensitive than mine. I cannot say that I did a full Michael Green attack on my room, but I did move a few pillows, a chair, and a few more reflective items around. I guess I need new, more sensitive, fingers. Hey, I just "walked". I did not get far, though. |
prof, Michael Green is right, unless we all really do it we do not know how it is. How do you think it would be if everyone on this thread started "walking"? If each person participating actually did a few things from the tuning textbook. I suspect that the magic would do some moyamoya trick and all of a sudden we would all be credible after just a few moments. No more "trolls", only "walkers". If there is a wonderful difference, we report it. If there is no difference, we report it. If most of the people say there was no difference, well, it was not them who asked people to :"walk". Whoooosh, no more tuning argument. Or, if everybody hears improvement, tuning becomes "the thing". For all the fairness, and avoidance of any conflict of interest, equipment used should not be Michael Green brand, but anything else. It really should not be that hard. Some wood, a screwdriver, electronics with expired warranties (so not to make it void), and a couple of hours. Really, why are we not doing it? |
Unfortunately, none of the people from the picture on Tuneland and that article that jf47t shared seems to be associated with SUNY-Oneonta anymore. That limits my original idea to stop by and walk the walk where brave once walked. I would really like to hear what it is all about although I would do it without disassembling anyone’s expensive equipment or waking up the whole fire station. |
prof, "...if you don’t fall in line or dare annoy him with difficult questions."In reality, none of the questions here have been that difficult. Some have been practically unanswerable, but that was also not difficult to figure out. "...rhetorical device MG uses to maintain the self-aggrandizing status as The Supreme Walker."It certainly does not appear this would be the case. If anything, based on majority of responses, it seems that the overall effect was quite the opposite. Silly part is that it could have been easy to make this thread a nice promotional vehicle for one’s ideas, if only treaded carefully. |
prof, Although two people participated it may not be a double-blinded study, but it has as much weight as anything on this thread. I declare the possibility that piano keys change hardness with changing acoustics of the room, incorrect and likely a placebo effect. I suspect that some level of hypnosis was involved in that original finding. In 2018, it is not true. Done. |
One more step in this famous "walking" business. NAD C-350 amplifier in a like-new condition (at least visually and, from what I can remember, acoustically). Screwdriver. A few screws. Magical "freeing of the signal" by taking the cover off. Stayed the same except for the questionable looks of otherwise also not the prettiest industrial design piece. True, I skipped cutting the plug off and sticking wires in the outlet, but I did "walk", maybe "crawled". Try it yourself. It was easy. Make sure you keep the screws. You will need them. |
"Nice post, glupson, and eerily reminiscent of prof’s posts when he attempts to dismiss claims based on his results which so often are negative."My post, in fact, was not overly focused on dismissing claims based on my results. At least it was not my intent. A sentence, or two, with my conclusion. I leave it open for anyone to do their part and come up with their conclusions. My post was focused on dismissing the "trolling:" way my "walking" was described. Basically, if you say that everyone out there is a "troll", do not act like a "troll". Maybe, some day someone will explain what it is about the orange electrical outlet. Happy trolling everyone. Enjoy your Sunday. |
Michael Green, Regarding your post on Tuneland that jf47t mentioned above. First, the pictures you are referring to and that I was supposed to follow appear to be posted hours after I had posted my findings. Of course, I did not expect you would have guessed what amplifier I had available and then prepare me in advance. Nice try, but not quite aligned with clock and logic. Second, if taking the cover off is important, as it seems to be in almost all of your pictures and has been discussed even on this thread ad nauseam, the effect on the sound should exist. Smaller than if everything you recommended was done, but it should be there. It is not there. Loud and clear, it does not exist. Now if Glupson (the poster) was doing this for real he would post pictures of his whole system so we could "see" him doing instead of just giving this brief "I tried it troll".It may come as a surprise to you and jf47t, who ridiculed my statement that Internet forums are words and therefore "talking", but I am not aware of any pictures posted on this or any other thread on Audiogon. From what I know, you and I have posted same number of pictures here. Besides, anyone can post a picture of anything and be done with it. It really does not prove much. Assuming that pictures of that NAD C-350 you posted are taken by you, you certainly know that taking the cover off is not a complicated achievement, That is why I did it. In reality, it could have taken me more time to register for any forum than what it took to "disassemble" the amplifier. It was really easy and pictures still would have not shown you what I heard. Except for having an excuse to call me a "troll", I am not sure why you would doubt I tried to do it. Most of the people here have done a number of things in their lives and lying to an unknown person in a faraway location about taking a few screws off of some old amplifier does not seem like something they would be desperate to do. Remember, for most of us here this is not a promotional vehicle. We have different careers and no biased investment in tuning/tweaking/music reproduction. I would go as far as to claim that almost all of us would wake up with no fear about our future if tuning/tweaking somehow got banned overnight. I hope it will not, but you surely understand the point. As you mentioned in one of your recent posts on Tuneland, in fact you whined, you found yourself wondering why people were questioning if you did something in your past. They ended up being "trolls" or whatever word(s) you chose at that moment for questioning that. Well, you just questioned if I had done even simpler and much more believable and achievable thing. I will not call you a "troll" but just so you know. You asked people to walk the walk, whatever that vague statement means, and I did the best anyone with leftover common sense and a few spare minutes could. Given your approach to demeaning people and defending your, so far, irreproducible results, I am afraid that after I did everything like in the pictures you showed, you could say that I am a "troll" because I did not go to Bora Bora as it works the best there. "More like a very tiny baby step and obviously the hints of trolling to the sarcastic side, but that’s ok."More like "walking", small step or not, with plain and simple report of the result. If anyone is still reading this thread, you may notice that I have adopted Michael Green’s way of thinking to some important extent. That is why I recommend that anyone does some of the cheap things from the tuning repertoire. Most of you may have some equivalent of my NAD C-350 laying around. Take the cover off, do not cut the plug (it is ridiculous idea, no matter how well it would sound), and let us know what you heard. Only then you could say you "walked" for the purpose of this thread. And "troll"? Not you anymore. Someone else. |
Michael Green, I just noticed that you expressed interest in my whole system that was used for "walking" with NAD C-350 amplifier. I cannot provide pictures, mostly for practical Internet reasons and not for any secrecy. It consisted of... SONY HAP-Z1ES, playing different kinds of music, including Hindu Love Gods. From Mahler to Kraftwerk and whatever else. Mostly at 16/44/1 AIFF and some DSD 2.8. Interconnects, probably stock with some old equipment, but possibly also Radio Shack. Definitely nothing expensive. NAD C-350 amplifier, bought maybe in 2001 or 2002, played a lot before, but not touched in 4 years. Monster Cable speaker cable, about two meter each. Bought in 1994 for about $30 for a spool that supplied enough for a few people's systems and I still have a lot more. In short, cheap stuff. Finished with some cheap banana plugs, not soldered, from the Internet. Revel Performa F208 speakers, brown, a few months old. Screwdriver from the local hardware store, bought for ABS module change. Salamander 5-shelf audio rack picked from the curbside garbage (furniture equivalent of a vintage Sherwood receiver). Tuned/tweaked with "Banner red" spray paint, different and inconsistent number of layers, some thinning now. Screws as tight as they could be by hand. Red leather sofa as a sitting position. Floor is bamboo and has a rug covering a large, maybe 80 percent, surface in between the rack and the sofa. White piano to the side (keys moving as they always have). It says Steinway on it (mentioning as it seems to be one of the key words with your tuning). It does need tuning, the regular way. Walls mostly uncovered, parallel, with many corners and openings, including the ceiling. No ventilation opening of the Oneonta studio kind forcing air in the room. Windows closed, at the time of "walking" covered with the soft (cloth) side of the blinds. Picture would have been quicker, but would not tell the story. Now, if you could answer a few questions, too. |
"It’s because there are too many things that can go wrong with any test, many of which are behind the control of the intrepid tester."Absolutely. 100 %. Beyond doubt. That is why it is not wise to ask people to "walk". When they start "walking", who is to tell whose results are valid and whose invalid? As far as I am concerned, mine are. And I "walked". And was "trolled" for doing it. |
jf47t, I did a major inexplicably silly "walk" that was more like a run. It may not seem to you, but you are hardly "walking" in my view, too. It is all just talk, and it is fine. I do not mind being "trolled" although the only definition of it I know is from people’s reactions on this thread. I learned than anything can be "trolling" to a sensitive soul. EDIT: Line of "walking" seems to be a moving target. Bora Bora is the next frontier? |
jf47t, Major inexplicably silly walk was a reference to something most of the people would find a waste of time, silly, and "walk" in what I thought may be the terms of original post. Not passing anything to anyone. Not even saying I invented something I did not. You really should not care what I, or anyone else, thinks about your hobby. You should continue enjoying it. However, you should also continue doing so without belittling other people who may have a question or two or a thought and observation or two about it. Considering what others have to say may open new avenues to your enjoyment. Freeing them. Kind of like cutting plastic ties. All of a sudden, the world becomes a bigger stage. For now, you are enjoying like a little constrained NAD C-350. Great little amplifier that could... |
jf47t, "Anyone who worked for someone else for only nine months and was let go then 20 years later appears on their old bosses thread on an audio forum making the statements you have chills me to the bone."I do not want to participate in this two-century-spanning saga about who hired whom, but you are surely right about the above. Who would not be chilled to the bone? If someone worked for me for only nine months some twenty years ago and then came back with such energy and force, I would apologize for stepping on their toes too hard the first time we met. |
"let’s set up a lab and test these claims together in real time for everyone to witness".Oh, my, bold rarely equals wise. Heroes are those who were lucky not to be harmed in their rush. I stand by my statement that Tuneland and this thread should stay separated. We are back to empirical testing lab from some weeks ago? Let me try again, what other testing would it be in this case? And how do we design the lab? Who is "everyone to witness"? Let's not forget that results should be reproducible by others. Back to my NAD amplifier, whoever wants to believe it, thank you. Those who do not want to believe I did it, our lives will continue regardless. I "walked" anyway. It was really not worth much. Not exactly a walk across the Waterloo field, more like a stroll to the corner grocery store. I did claim that I heard no difference. It was a claim and it is as firm as they get. No softer than Michael Green's claims that taking covers off does make a difference. Therefore, it is the truth and that is it. Because I say so. prof, Asking for measurements opens another can of worms. Some people believe that everything can be expressed in numbers (measurements of some sort) while the others think it is not necessary. Remainder has no opinion, cannot care less, and are on the sidelines. I still think that Michael Green's biggest mistake was to try to come up with explanations of things instead of simply claiming that whatever he does seems to improve the sound and stopping at that. I took a little break from here, the weather got nicer and I dedicated myself to observing real masters of their art doing their art (soccer championship) instead of arguing about the meaning of word "claim". Thanks for participating in that instead of me. I would have never guessed that such a simple word could become a stumbling block. In the meantime, I sent an e-mail to NAD hoping to reach some engineer. I know it will probably not be anyone who had anything to do with NAD C-350 amplifier, but maybe they have some opinion on removing the cover. I am curious what is their view of the sonic benefits of it. I will report back once they answer. |
jf47t, In your post, you wrote 16 lines of your own (one more was my quote and one was link to Tuneland). You placed word "troll" (or "trolling") seven times in those sixteen lines. If nothing else, it is not a good writing style. It also is not a good one to gain any credibility. There is something called "word salad" and that post comes close. You may be also spending too much time around Michael Green. Distinguish your jf47t from Michael Green somehow. For example, change the writing style. People do it all the time. Any ghostwriter would tell you it is possible. |
All of those could be true under many circumstances. That is why I have stated from the beginning it is not wise to ask people to ":walk" while entirely dismissing their interest in theoretical part. At the same time, all of the above points may be true for any reviewer. Michael Green, audio magazines, me, anyone. Nobody should have the right to say she/he is better than the other one. My approach in such an even situation is that I will trust my ears more than someone’s who has significant investment in the problem. I may be wrong, but so may others. My case, point by point. 1. Actual disassembling of the amplifier was so simple that it left no room for error. Cover off and out of the room (I actually did that on purpose). 2. I used the fist around the screwdriver. Otherwise, I am not the best for the finest fine motor work, but this required nothing of that kind. 3. The whole point is that even the lousiest system can reveal differences. That is why tweaking is done, I think, and old Sherwood receivers and similar items used. Mine is nothing spectacular, but it works in general. It shows differences when a piece is changed. 4. Everything seemed to be working as expected. No hum, buzz, nothing unusual. 5. I doubt that, although it is of course possible. I hear all the frequencies with a small dip in acuity at 14000 or 15000 Hz (I forgot which one it was about two months ago) and have no hair over the ears. 6. That one is hard to measure, but I, in fact, wanted to hear the difference. If anything, I was more biased towards confirming than rejecting the hypothesis. Aside of that, there was another pair of ears (much younger and completely unbiased, practically not even being aware of this thread) that also could not hear any difference. I have left that fact out until now to be one to one level comparison. 7. The day was beautiful. Points 8 and 9 are impossible to evaluate for an ordinary person. Tuneland experts and me included. We have to assume that those were equal at the time of testing. Next stop Bora Bora. Everything sounds better when the floor is of volcanic origin. Much better than maple. |
Ric Shultz’s results, whoever he is, have nothing to do with mine. Mine are correct. I may be a lone wolf on this topic here, but so are Michael Green and Ric Shulz (again, not to offend a person, but I do not think we ever met) in the grand scheme of things. Their results are, based on my observation, questionable at best. I say so and it is the fact. Anybody who disputes my results, do what original post suggested. Take the cover off and you will have your own results. Then believe them, not some authority of religious importance. |
"...you have read some of TuneLand where it has been documented that there is a difference published all the way back to at least 2004 and even further back on other forums at least to the mid 90’s. And even further documented in HEA magazine reviews back to the early 90’s."Most recent evidence, published last week, has disputed long-standing beliefs. It was conducted by an unbiased expert with no financial disclosures/connection with audio tweaking industry. More research is needed to establish clear goals and standards for some of the terms used. I believe that room tuning may be a better shot for advancing the business. Taking the cover off does not seem to work. "I would encourage you once again to read the OP."I will although I already did it enough times to actually do what original post asked us to do. I did my "walking". Regretfully, results are unfavorable for the original poster. It happens. Such moments, as hard of a landing as they may be, advance the overall knowledge of the whole community. And that is worth enough. Unless you have a certain interest in keeping status quo. |
jf47t, "glupson your not going to be able to go back and rewrite the script here it’s now documented. Not only is it documented here there is now a thread on TuneLand that has and will continue to add to the facts."As I said before, feel free to use any of my words to improve your website. I am not going back or rewriting that statement. Now, use your judgement what is considered "improving" and what is considered "trolling". As audiotweak mentioned not so long ago, "glupson your not going to be able..." should be "glupson, you are (or you can put you’re, if you insist weakening the statement) not going to be able...". In this case "you are" or "you’re", not "your". "Your" is about possession in some way, something associated with me. It seems that you should, in fact, care what others have to say. It would make you a better writer, at least. Do not dismiss us. EDIT: I have not been to Tuneland in a couple of days, but last time I was there, my quotes were misinterpreted, cut, tweaked, and then presented as my opinions. It was wrong, by the way. Wrong in meaning and wrong in the way it was conducted. So, as far as I can see, being quoted on Tuneland may not be in line with actual statements made. Also, who was first, video game or you? I admit that I like the name. Any news about orange electrical outlet, wires in it, covers on those Audio Research-resembling equipment, and ways to tame the ventilation in the studio? |
jf47t, I am not attempting to be sarcastic. I, and I am not the only one, see room for improvement. https://www.unlv.edu/english/academic-programs/mfa-creative-writing Also, BIOL 613 https://catalog.unlv.edu/content.php?catoid=20&navoid=3709 EDIT: This one may be a better start. Course description (Course 1101, English 1) seems like a perfect match. http://www.caslv.org/sandy-ridge-hs-course-summaries/ EDIT 2: It is The Match. Electives include... Fine Art Creative Writing Jazz Band Music Production Debate and Speech 1 & 2 Graphics/Website Design and last, but not least... Introduction to Photoshop |
Positive results can be as deceptive as negative ones. That is why test evaluations almost always include false-positive "discussion", better to say calculation. Here, we are talking about matters of small differences and not clear black and white or on/off. Reviewer that hears the results may also be biased or his methods may be significantly flawed. That does not even take into account hallucinations that may be more common in certain people. All of those may be obstacles. That is why we are discussing it on an more-or-less anonymous and free-access Internet forum. Neither of our experiments and claims would have passed the first step (acceptance to be considered for review and possible publishing) at any publication worth anything. That is where writers have their theses used for mopping the floor. It has been very nice and polite approach here. Both of our claims, Michael Green's and mine, are as valid as they get. The problem is that his are supposed to somehow be considered more valid with no real difference in our methods and mine are supposed to be "trolling". I asked a couple of times about Michael Green's pictures that someone had said are twenty-five years old. On those pictures, he has fairly long hair. If it ever goes over the ears, impact on the sound is probably much bigger than of the sun activity on that day. Just that difference between our hairstyles may make my findings more reliable. Speaking of the activity, I am not sure how to interpret this, but someone may find out if this is the cause for that server failure... https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-flares |
uberwaltz, Welcome back. Stop from time to time, you need a constant in your life, too. It is actually fun here. Like a James Bond movie. You know it makes no sense, you know how it will end and what will happen along the way, but there is some comfort in that. And the characters are as shady as anywhere else. |
I am surely no peer for this topic of capacitors. I also have no idea when the topic got switched. I do know that most of the equipment comes covered and that it is designed by people who actually think about it, and not just participate in Internet forums. Sort of, walkers made it. Michael Green's findings are as believable as any out there, mine included. They are his perception at that moment, easily added by a bias or two. Mine are my perception at that moment, minus hair over the ears and a bias or two. In short, mine are more valid. That is how it goes. |
Who is trying to be funny here? There is actually about 7 000 000 000 people on Earth who never think of capacitors while discussing an entirely different topic. I came to this thread knowing nothing about the Internet lingo of "trolls". Along the way, I learned that the surest way to be the "troll" is to use word "troll" often. Happy trolling. |
