[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
76.95.68.13
In Reply to: RE: I'd love to stick around... posted by jpvs on July 05, 2008 at 10:23:28
>>> "You would love stick around to be insulted? To each his own.">>>
>> Your various comments in the PHP forum last night were below your normal level of discourse. Rather than outlining your position and supporting it, you chose to cast to the internet a series of posts that contained nothing more than variations on "you're an idiot".>>
All true. I felt they were the appropriate responses to the posts I was responding to.
>> Needless to say, such a point of argument contained no eloquence nor thought-provoking nature.>>
The "eloquence" may have been lost on you but those particular posts were not intended to be points of argument. There was no point left to argue. i responding to personal insults with personal insults. I do this always with the slight hope that there would be some recognition on the part of the other poster that slinging mud back and forth does nothing to further any meaningful discussion about audio. Funny thing that you would see this in AJs posts regardless of the obvious level of venom contained in them and yet miss that about my posts.
>> Rather, it implied that at the time and apparently at this time as well, you were unwilling to engage in actual discussion and just fell into the most base of emotional discourse, calling someone else stupid for not agreeing with you.>>
No it is not implied nor is it true. i am more than happy to engage in an actual discussion about my listening comparisons between the Rockport and the Forsell and my opinions about their transparency on paper based on objective standards. If you wish to have a meaningful discusion about that feel free to engage me in that discussion.
>> So, I chose to answer your post, rarely I'll admit as I prefer discussion rather than just trading insults and so I try to avoid responding to your posts unless you've made a good point, and being in a good mood felt like being a little playful and so sarcastically referenced your above insults to Don T.>>
Is this about your alleged desire to be insulted? I still find that odd. But if that is what you are into...
>>> "Oh I see. You were picking and choosing to suit your predetermined conclusion. That does seem to be very typical of objectivists when they are talking about anything "empirical" like empirical evidence. Um... you found certain parts of the definition of empirical to be amusing? OK.....">>>
>> Now THAT is an interesting assertion.>>
One based on a great deal of observation of objectivists.
>> Speaking of "picking and choosing to suit (my) predetermined conclusion", you somehow managed to completely gloss over these inflammatory statements from carcass93:>>
You have managed to gloss over just about all of AJs inflammatory statements. What is your point? I was responding to *your* post.
>> "Our cheap-deaf-dumb-agressive "objectivists" would be surprised by the following, no doubt"
Looking at this statement, one quickly sees that there are only cheap shots, vast insulting generalities (ie, 'those who don't agree with me are deaf, dumb, etc)>>
Yes it is all the above and obviously done tongue in cheek. Again, i note that AJ has posted far more venomous assertions than this and yet you give him a free ride based on the idea that it is parody. Did it ever dawn on you that such parody is not a one way thing?
>> and contains a point of hypocrisy (ie, those who disagree are aggressive, but somehow this insulting post in the lone asylum for scientific discussion does not qualify).>>
Again I think you are missing the parody. You seemed to have missed it in my posts to Don T.
>> Yet, you completely step past those very poor argumental points, don't try to check them or call them into question as you would anyone not sharing your views on audio.>>
Of course not I didn't take them seriously. I didn't take your response seriously either. I took it as an attept at cleverness. I fear now that you took my post seriously. How unfortunate.
>> Instead, you try to find a non-existent conflict within the definition I took the time to transcribe on it somehow having origins in medical terminology.>>
No. I took a jab at your jab on the samw semantic level. sorry you didn't get it.I thought it would be pretty obvious. Do I have to explain it to you that I never for one moment thought you really were accusing subjectivists of being MDs?
>> These behaviours on your part imply that it is you, on the other hand, who is choosing to suit your predetermined conclusion that you and those you agree with are automatically correct and that those who disagree are working from a point of bias.>>
No it doesn't any more than your failure to address any and all of AJs venomous posts shows that about you. dude you sem to think you can wrestle in a mud pit and walk away with clean clothes. Gie this righteous nonsense a rest. You are every bit as guilty of any of us in the mud slinging.
>> To which, I strongly recommend you seek out my post the other day that contained several good quotes (admittedly imo) regarding naive realism and the bias blind spot as it relates to individual perspectives in disagreement and perceptions of the bias-less nature of one's own group affiliation.>>
I've read what you have to say. sorry I am not as impressed with you as your are with yourself.
>> As for the parts of the definition I found amusing, I refer you again to carcass93's post, in particular the last assertion (being made without grounds). There the original poster stated unequivocably that "objectivists" (I use quotation marks here as it is being used as a derogatory label as opposed to an identification of any actual ideal affiliation) did not know the definition of the word "empirical" yet his quoting of the stripped down Webster's definition (which I as I previously noted is intended for casual use and not intended to provide evidence in any manner of etymological dispute as is the Oxford's primary role) in conjunction with that statement imply that he, as opposed to "objectivists" was in possession of such knowledge of the definition. In this attempt to further insult the intelligence and knowledge of anyone who he does not agree with, he made the gaff of using a definition as evidence that when further looked into actually undermined his posiiton. When I provided the Oxford defintion (how I do love that dictionary), I simply found some pleasure in identifying those components that worked contrary to carcass93's position. It is an intellectual pleasure akin to that which drives debate in academia to find evidence counter to the insulting claims being made by someone certain in their position yet not appreciating that their views are made emotionally, not intellectually. Come now, surely you've had this pleasure in your past academic experience and in your career.>>
DUDE! it was a jab at your jab. Move on.
>> "Where did I make that assertion? You seem to be imagining things."
That assertion was made in the very title of your post. You may be "imagining" something else, but you wrote: "so you think subjectivists are MDs." An assertion not supported by anything I had written in my post other than a part of the definition that implied medical origins for the term. You may wish to reread the half-thought you typed up before casting further aspersions against my comments. >>
The definitions you posted made those references and I was making fun of the absurdity of taking those definitions in their propper context. yeah I get that you were taking parts of the definition out of context to make a joke. That was the jist of my joke back at you. But when jokes have to be explained they lose their funny.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]