RE: Not responsive..

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Power cord realities and illusions - Don Till 20:00:21 06/17/10 (166)

Wow, this is one of the best and most coherent posts/threads I've seen on AA. - jihad 14:03:22 07/12/10 (0)

There Is a Company that Follows Your Ideals........... - Todd Krieger 00:12:55 06/22/10 (1)

RE: There Is a Company that Follows Your Ideals........... - Don Till 17:48:11 06/24/10 (0)

Get a clue, Don, no one cares what you think is true. nt - Norm 17:43:27 06/19/10 (4)

I care! nt - Dr. Philosophy 13:23:19 06/22/10 (0)

A clue? Geez Norm you care and you care enough to respond! - Don Till 08:53:02 06/20/10 (2)

"I had to think a tiny bit about it in order to come up with a cognitive response. " - robert young 19:38:54 06/20/10 (0)

As I said. nt - Norm 11:50:34 06/20/10 (0)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - tomservo 17:39:55 06/18/10 (144)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - cabelok 00:12:51 10/08/15 (5)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - geoffkait 06:30:50 10/25/15 (4)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - cabelok 12:08:42 10/26/15 (3)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - geoffkait 12:27:24 10/27/15 (2)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - fantja 14:17:40 01/27/16 (0)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - fantja 14:16:54 01/27/16 (0)

RE: Power cord realities and illusions - Todd Krieger 00:38:50 06/22/10 (0)

So - E-Stat 19:15:56 06/18/10 (136)

RE: So - tomservo 20:18:29 06/18/10 (135)

Please describe - E-Stat 20:53:18 06/18/10 (134)

RE: Please describe - tomservo 06:58:17 06/19/10 (133)

Theory is great - E-Stat 07:11:08 06/19/10 (132)

RE: Theory is great - tomservo 09:03:43 06/19/10 (88)

"As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 4 inches of the least capacitive cable " - E-Stat 09:19:12 06/19/10 (87)

RE: "As I recall, the total capacitance was equal to about 4 inches of the least capacitive cable " - tomservo 10:17:01 06/19/10 (86)

Darn Tom...............I thought you were just a regular guy! {smile} ~NT - Cleantimestream 20:05:05 06/22/10 (0)

I will definitely agree - E-Stat 11:21:11 06/19/10 (84)

You're really grasping at straws. - Pat D 16:53:41 06/20/10 (83)

"burden of proof" thing again...... - Sordidman 09:18:27 06/21/10 (54)

RE: "burden of proof" thing again...... - Phelonious Ponk 03:59:20 06/28/10 (44)

Observation cannot be subjective or objective - Sordidman 07:47:05 06/28/10 (43)

RE: Observation cannot be subjective or objective - Phelonious Ponk 17:34:44 06/28/10 (42)

No: accuracy has never been defined - Sordidman 08:39:29 06/29/10 (17)

RE: No: accuracy has never been defined - Phelonious Ponk 10:27:20 06/29/10 (16)

"faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Sordidman 11:17:06 06/29/10 (15)

RE: "faithful" is a terribly subjective, undefined term - Phelonious Ponk 11:37:19 06/29/10 (14)

GAMUT CD players - Sordidman 12:27:07 06/29/10 (13)

RE: GAMUT CD players - Tony Lauck 15:01:15 06/29/10 (4)

Can you define the "standard?" - Sordidman 15:20:30 06/29/10 (3)

RE: Can you define the "standard?" - Tony Lauck 15:28:29 06/29/10 (2)

The GamuT design (at least the CD-1 that I use) - E-Stat 17:33:05 06/29/10 (0)

If you want to listen to 2 discs - Sordidman 15:46:18 06/29/10 (0)

RE: GAMUT CD players - Phelonious Ponk 14:42:27 06/29/10 (7)

Guess you didn't read my post - Sordidman 15:37:53 06/29/10 (6)

Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 16:16:45 06/29/10 (5)

RE: Actually, I did... - Sordidman 17:02:01 06/29/10 (4)

RE: Actually, I did... - Phelonious Ponk 17:44:39 06/29/10 (3)

sadly: vagaries are all we have -t - Sordidman 18:06:01 06/29/10 (2)

Well, they're all you have - NT - Phelonious Ponk 05:08:18 06/30/10 (1)

No correspondance hearing is fallable, and a moving target -t - Sordidman 10:14:20 07/01/10 (0)

"Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 19:05:59 06/28/10 (23)

RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 20:14:04 06/28/10 (22)

RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 06:29:17 06/29/10 (21)

RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 08:02:03 06/29/10 (20)

RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Tony Lauck 08:40:30 06/29/10 (19)

RE: "Accuracy": not simple, alas - Phelonious Ponk 11:02:56 06/29/10 (18)

Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Sordidman 11:21:07 06/29/10 (17)

RE: Sarcasm aside: you're pretty much on target here - Phelonious Ponk 12:11:42 06/29/10 (16)

Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Sordidman 12:33:39 06/29/10 (15)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 14:57:40 06/29/10 (14)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 05:29:09 06/30/10 (13)

Yes, you are right on with that......... -t - Sordidman 10:38:09 06/30/10 (0)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:44:58 06/30/10 (3)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 10:02:20 06/30/10 (2)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 11:59:12 06/30/10 (1)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - kerr 16:33:08 06/30/10 (0)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Tony Lauck 06:20:44 06/30/10 (7)

You said this much better than I did - Sordidman 10:36:59 06/30/10 (0)

Agreed (nt) - kerr 10:03:13 06/30/10 (0)

RE: Until everyone agrees on what an objective value is - Phelonious Ponk 06:39:45 06/30/10 (4)

""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Sordidman 10:47:37 06/30/10 (3)

RE: ""I don't need proof to understand that is nonsense."" - Phelonious Ponk 12:10:24 06/30/10 (2)

You have made a number of interesting posts - Sordidman 08:03:33 07/02/10 (1)

RE: You have made a number of interesting posts - Phelonious Ponk 17:19:04 07/02/10 (0)

Not artistic interpretation, just whether there is an audible difference. - Pat D 11:31:42 06/22/10 (8)

Sorry to hear that you cannot - E-Stat 16:20:39 06/22/10 (3)

No wonder you don't understand science! (nt) - Pat D 18:22:23 06/22/10 (2)

Such a shallow concept of science, as - E-Stat 19:38:29 06/22/10 (1)

You seem to have no scientific strategies. - Pat D 19:24:23 06/23/10 (0)

I can - and you cannot. What test in the world would change that? N/T - carcass93 13:08:46 06/22/10 (2)

Writing again without knowledge, I see. (nt) - Pat D 18:21:03 06/22/10 (1)

"I see" - that's the thing, Patty... you don't. And that, ... - carcass93 09:14:27 06/23/10 (0)

Only ever one way to tell: conduct the test -t - Sordidman 12:32:32 06/22/10 (0)

If you recall - E-Stat 18:30:58 06/20/10 (27)

What is the objective of the test? - Pat D 18:49:54 06/20/10 (26)

Look up the concept "control" - E-Stat 19:08:55 06/20/10 (25)

Not responsive.. - Pat D 19:53:01 06/20/10 (24)

RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 05:10:01 06/21/10 (15)

RE: Not responsive.. - tomservo 08:56:27 06/21/10 (12)

RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:54:36 06/21/10 (8)

Exactly - E-Stat 11:24:34 06/21/10 (7)

RE: Exactly - tomservo 14:25:37 06/21/10 (5)

You have proven that which is already known - E-Stat 14:43:13 06/21/10 (4)

RE: You have proven that which is already known - tomservo 15:26:01 06/21/10 (3)

All of that is pretty cool, but - E-Stat 15:33:22 06/21/10 (2)

RE: All of that is pretty cool, but - tomservo 08:33:01 06/22/10 (1)

What I was interested in - E-Stat 08:39:27 06/22/10 (0)

RE: Exactly - kerr 11:59:54 06/21/10 (0)

The challenge with theory - E-Stat 09:11:34 06/21/10 (2)

RE: The challenge with theory - tomservo 10:08:29 06/21/10 (1)

I've done better! - E-Stat 10:43:13 06/21/10 (0)

RE: Not responsive.. - Pat D 08:33:29 06/21/10 (1)

RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:28:09 06/21/10 (0)

Hmmm - E-Stat 20:20:00 06/20/10 (7)

RE: Hmmm - Pat D 08:38:35 06/21/10 (6)

The relevant point is that both of them rely upon switch boxes -nt - E-Stat 08:48:01 06/21/10 (5)

RE: The relevant point is that both of them rely upon switch boxes -nt - tomservo 09:00:02 06/22/10 (4)

Apparently, I'm just not getting through - E-Stat 09:11:15 06/22/10 (3)

RE: Apparently, I'm just not getting through - kerr 13:21:53 06/22/10 (0)

RE: Apparently, I'm just not getting through - tomservo 11:13:26 06/22/10 (1)

I give up :) -nt - E-Stat 11:29:34 06/22/10 (0)

RE: Theory is great - mls-stl 08:00:16 06/19/10 (42)

RE: Theory is great - tomservo 09:22:33 06/19/10 (1)

"A test without knowledge" - E-Stat 16:07:07 06/19/10 (0)

"That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes." - robert young 08:15:52 06/19/10 (1)

RE: "That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes." - kerr 09:57:59 06/19/10 (0)

"That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes. " - E-Stat 08:02:21 06/19/10 (37)

RE: "That does not mean there are no differences, but the scale certainly changes. " - Tony Lauck 11:15:12 06/19/10 (36)

Disagreed - Phelonious Ponk 05:01:04 06/27/10 (2)

RE: Disagreed - Tony Lauck 06:30:40 06/27/10 (1)

RE: Disagreed - Phelonious Ponk 17:15:16 06/27/10 (0)

Agreed - E-Stat 12:20:33 06/19/10 (32)

RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 12:29:26 06/19/10 (31)

RE: Agreed - Pat D 20:12:40 06/20/10 (24)

RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 07:22:56 06/21/10 (2)

RE: Agreed - Pat D 12:59:12 06/22/10 (1)

RE: Agreed - Tony Lauck 14:32:01 06/22/10 (0)

No editing, Pat - E-Stat 06:37:36 06/21/10 (20)

So now we're talking of a direct feed . . . - Pat D 08:30:33 06/21/10 (19)

Precisely - E-Stat 08:44:56 06/21/10 (18)

RE: Precisely - Pat D 19:47:43 06/23/10 (17)

Have you ever heard of experience? - E-Stat 06:17:13 06/24/10 (16)

You have a peculiarly truncated notion of experience. - Pat D 09:03:12 06/24/10 (15)

Truncated experience? - E-Stat 10:07:32 06/24/10 (14)

RE: Truncated experience? - Pat D 10:57:24 06/24/10 (13)

RE: Truncated experience? - Tony Lauck 13:59:04 06/24/10 (5)

RE: Truncated experience? - Pat D 17:10:51 06/24/10 (4)

RE: Truncated experience? - Tony Lauck 17:37:03 06/24/10 (3)

RE: Truncated experience? - Pat D 18:01:51 06/24/10 (2)

RE: Truncated experience? - Tony Lauck 18:18:20 06/24/10 (1)

The difference of course - E-Stat 18:47:53 06/24/10 (0)

Assumptions, assumptions - E-Stat 12:13:25 06/24/10 (6)

You're making lots of assumptions. - Pat D 16:41:07 06/24/10 (5)

You're just too funny - E-Stat 17:30:11 06/24/10 (4)

RE: You're just too funny - Tony Lauck 18:06:28 06/24/10 (3)

Which ones have you heard... - E-Stat 18:43:21 06/24/10 (2)

RE: Which ones have you heard... - Tony Lauck 19:30:30 06/24/10 (1)

:) - E-Stat 20:38:56 06/24/10 (0)

That begs the obvious question - E-Stat 12:33:43 06/19/10 (5)

Maslow's Hammer? - Tony Lauck 13:34:37 06/19/10 (4)

"Some time ago" - E-Stat 13:50:21 06/19/10 (3)

RE: "Some time ago" - Tony Lauck 14:55:49 06/19/10 (1)

If you recall - E-Stat 16:05:17 06/19/10 (0)

Thanks! - kerr 14:21:26 06/19/10 (0)

Pure nonsense on so many levels - it's not even worth responding to. N/T - carcass93 08:21:22 06/18/10 (0)

We have a winner folks! - E-Stat 07:39:16 06/18/10 (0)

"...some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system" - robert young 04:24:07 06/18/10 (9)

Another point of view... - robert young 13:28:55 06/18/10 (0)

RE: "...some of us actually believe susceptability to external noise signifies a high resolution system" - rick_m 06:40:48 06/18/10 (7)

Not sure you got my point... - robert young 13:23:18 06/18/10 (6)

RE: Not sure you got my point... - rick_m 15:23:36 06/18/10 (5)

I'll try again... - robert young 18:17:59 06/18/10 (4)

RE: I'll try again... - rick_m 06:48:26 06/19/10 (3)

Rick, seriously, it is the logic that is flawed...It isn't about cables, or noise, its about a tortured logic. - robert young 08:01:15 06/19/10 (2)

A perfect example is to notice the evolution - E-Stat 12:30:11 06/19/10 (0)

RE: Rick, seriously, it is the logic that is flawed...It isn't about cables, or noise, its about a tortured logic. - rick_m 12:17:03 06/19/10 (0)

There is a less sinister motive. - rick_m 21:20:25 06/17/10 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 05:10:01 06/21/10 (15)

RE: Not responsive.. - tomservo 08:56:27 06/21/10 (12)

RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:54:36 06/21/10 (8)

Exactly - E-Stat 11:24:34 06/21/10 (7)

RE: Exactly - tomservo 14:25:37 06/21/10 (5)

You have proven that which is already known - E-Stat 14:43:13 06/21/10 (4)

RE: You have proven that which is already known - tomservo 15:26:01 06/21/10 (3)

All of that is pretty cool, but - E-Stat 15:33:22 06/21/10 (2)

RE: All of that is pretty cool, but - tomservo 08:33:01 06/22/10 (1)

What I was interested in - E-Stat 08:39:27 06/22/10 (0)

RE: Exactly - kerr 11:59:54 06/21/10 (0)

The challenge with theory - E-Stat 09:11:34 06/21/10 (2)

RE: The challenge with theory - tomservo 10:08:29 06/21/10 (1)

I've done better! - E-Stat 10:43:13 06/21/10 (0)

RE: Not responsive.. - Pat D 08:33:29 06/21/10 (1)

RE: Not responsive.. - kerr 09:28:09 06/21/10 (0)

Post a Message!