205.188.116.141
In Reply to: RE: "Someone trying to get some real work done might get annoyed by this " posted by Ugly on May 12, 2008 at 14:10:22
>>>"So called objectivists scream bias when they don't like what other audiophiles are saying but do little or nothing to actually check on their own biases.">>>
>> This is the problem. Why would anyone refer to someone who is not being objective as an objectivist?>>
because it is a widely understood term for a particular belief system in audio.
>> Answer: no one in their right mind would do that.>>
So says you. What, you have decided to embark upon a crusade to change basic understood jargon? And anyone who doesn't go along is crazy or stupid? That's just pathetic.
>> What does it say about those who continue to insist on trying?>>
That, unlike you, they are not trying to play Humpty Dumpty and actually want to be understood.
>> Some people around here seem to continuously lump people who aren't being objective into the group called objectivists which is inapropriate and a mistake on the part of the ones using the term incorrectly.>>
Jeez you don't even understand the jargon and you are trying to change it. I don't lump people into the objectivist group because they are being unobjective. That is ridiculous. It is based on a certain aproach to audio. I don't believe they are all being unobjective.
>> This is seemingly going on solely for the purpose that they can then complain about the non objectivity of objectivists. I think you fit this mold nicely Scott.>>
Then clearly you don't understand the content of my posts.
>> You and tube guy seem to try and give the group which could rightfully be considered objective a bad name by forcing others who clearly do not fit the description under the same umbrella.>>
What a bunch of crap. please cite one quote in context in which I attempt to do so.
>> This doesn't work out since rational people realize that objectivity is something to be strived for while attempting work in scientific fields and at the same time those who are not actually achieving true objectivity are clearly not to be labelled objectivists as you two seem to continue trying to do.>>
Dude, get a clue. It's a well established term in audio that demarks a particular aproach to audio. you don't like it? Too bad. You blame me? That's idiotic.
>> If this was an honest mistake that was corrected when it has been pointed out then no harm no foul. However once this is pointed out over and over and the perptrators coninuously are making the same "error", well this is when the question of credibility is raised.>>
It's not an error. Just because you don't understand it don't make it wrong.
Funny thing, you were so out of left field with this rage against commonly used jargon I actually thought you were arguing against my assertion about the misuse of bias controlled tests and the obvious double standard.
Follow Ups: