Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Propeller Head Plaza

Nope. Here's one of your posts.

74.106.240.93

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]

In Reply to: Wrong. posted by Analog Scott on December 16, 2006 at 16:39:29:

[Here is the post Analog Scott to which I have supplied the link below]
PAT D:
"Just what are those "beliefs?" Please specify."
ANALOG SCOTT:
Amplifiers sounding the same
CD players sounding the same
CD playback perfection
All cables sounding the same
"Tweaks" are snake oil
PAT D:
"Please remember, we are not the ones making claims that differences between various accurate amps are audible, that differences in wires are normally audible."
ANALOG SCOTT:
Indeed you guys are the ones making the assertion that they are not audible.
PAT D:
" Those who do make such claims have the burden of proof."

Really? Why is that? Why do I have any burden of proof about my subjective opinions? No, the objectivists have the burden of proof because they are the ones claiming their position is scientific. Anyone making *that* claim bears a burden of proof. I no more have a burden of proof in regards to my *opinions* about audio than I do with my opinions about what burger joint has the best burgers. I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE MY SUBJECTIVE IMPRESSIONS OF MY AESTHETIC EXPERIENCES ARR SCIENTIFICALLY VALID.Period.
PAT D:
"And if certain things are proven to be audible, what objection do you have to saying so?"
ANALOG SCOTT:
Oh none. Please show me any peer reviewed published scientific research that proves amps sound the same or CD players sound the same or that CD playback is transparent in practice or that all cables sound the same. Please show me the *legitimate* science that supports the objectivists assertions on audibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[End of Analog Scott's post, the link to which is given below.]
MY COMMENTS:
As anyone can see, there is nothing specific enough to identify where Analog Scott thinks he can find the propositions he lists. That is the sort of specificity required, not just a bunch of trumped up allegations. He supplies no references or evidence for them whatsoever, just his pure assertions.

____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26143.html (Open in New Window)

Follow Ups:

Yes and if you read it and understand it you would see that you are wrong - Analog Scott 21:36:34 12/17/06 (21)
plenty of specifics.
- I understand well enough that you make up silly opinions for me. - Pat D 06:27:03 12/18/06 (20)
  Something seems to be bothering you. Tell Unca' Pat all about it and maybe you'll feel better.
  ____________________________________________________________
  "Nature loves to hide."
  ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
  - In reality you make up silly opinions of me and offer no support - Analog Scott 09:30:23 12/18/06 (19)
    just like your silly opinions on audio
    - Come on, tell Unca' Pat what's troubling you! (nt) - Pat D 17:04:04 12/18/06 (18)
      .
      ____________________________________________________________
      "Nature loves to hide."
      ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
      - I have. you still don't get it - Analog Scott 17:08:39 12/18/06 (17)
        
        In Reply to: Come on, tell Unca' Pat what's troubling you! (nt) posted by Pat D on December 18, 2006 at 17:04:04:
        
        probably never will
        
        I get it that you make a lot of allegations about what my opinions are but provide no evidence. - Pat D 18:01:46 12/18/06 (16)
        
        In Reply to: I have. you still don't get it posted by Analog Scott on December 18, 2006 at 17:08:39:
        
        Some might call that the Big Lie technique.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        Where's your evidence for what my opinions are? (Open in New Window)
        
        No you are just making things up about me and providing no evidence to support it - Analog Scott 20:39:58 12/18/06 (15)
        
        In Reply to: I get it that you make a lot of allegations about what my opinions are but provide no evidence. posted by Pat D on December 18, 2006 at 18:01:46:
        
        Just like this post I am responding to.
        
        I gave a link to your false statements about me--where's your support for your false statements? - Pat D 20:46:35 12/18/06 (14)
        
        In Reply to: No you are just making things up about me and providing no evidence to support it posted by Analog Scott on December 18, 2006 at 20:39:58:
        
        Here it is again.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26143.html (Open in New Window)
        
        wrong again - Analog Scott 21:25:12 12/18/06 (13)
        
        In Reply to: I gave a link to your false statements about me--where's your support for your false statements? posted by Pat D on December 18, 2006 at 20:46:35:
        
        No flase statements about you in that post
        
        Please provide evidence your "flase" statements are true. (nt) - Pat D 05:36:43 12/19/06 (12)
        
        In Reply to: wrong again posted by Analog Scott on December 18, 2006 at 21:25:12:
        
        .
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        Please provide evidence my true statements are false. (nt) - Analog Scott 22:32:10 12/19/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Please provide evidence your "flase" statements are true. (nt) posted by Pat D on December 19, 2006 at 05:36:43:
        
        nt
        
        Evidence Of One Of Pat D-Cakes "false" Statements! - thetubeguy1954 09:09:47 12/19/06 (10)
        
        In Reply to: Please provide evidence your "flase" statements are true. (nt) posted by Pat D on December 19, 2006 at 05:36:43:
        
        Pat D-Cake as is so typical of him is falsely claiming (lying?) that he didn't make a certain claim, thus he had no obligation whatever to defend it.
        However unfortunately for Pat he forgot how well I document what he says! So I responded to Pat by telling him you most certainly did make those claims! In fact in your post to regmac you (Pat D) said: "As I've been saying, we can't say cables make no difference under any circumstances since audible differences have been proven under some circumstances--only as you say, those circumstances aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system. those circumstances aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system Which is exactly what I've (Pat D) been saying."
        If Pat D-Cake will falsely claim he hasn't made a statement once how can we believe him anytime he makes this same claim? Truth is we cannot, for this is just one of Pats many dirty tricks when debating. I hate to have to keep putting this list up, but as long as Pat continually denies the truth, the truth will need to be shown...
        Some of Pat D's many, many dirty tactics include:
        1) Claim he's being misquoted
        2) Claim he's being quoted out of context
        3) Claim he's misunderstood
        4) Claim he's being attacked, deceived or tricked etc
        5) Claim his opponent doesn't think logically
        6) Claim he's never said something despite proof he did
        (Pat's logic is if you didn't quote him word-for-word he didn't say what you wrote! But if you do quote him word-for-word he'll claim either 1, 2, 3 or 4 above. Either way Pat has a way out.)
        7) Switch the actual topic to what he wants to debate
        8) Blame others of doing the things he does
        9) Make untrue claims
        10)Ignore the questions he's asked
        Pat will usually follow one of four basic methods operation (or some combination of them):
        a) Blame others, Claim being misunderstood, deceived or tricked if unable to outright deny something & then switch the topic.
        b) Place his attributes on his opponents, start whining and claiming he's either being quoted out of context, misquoted, misunderstood or attacked and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
        c) Just ignore what his opponent said and either 1) insults them, 2) ask a question that's already been answered, while claiming it's never been answered and then 3) switch from the actual topic being discussed.
        d) Claim the opponents can't think logically and/or start blaming them of creating strawman arguements or claim they've proven nothing and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
        
        Thetubeguy1954
        It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
        
        Where's the false statement? Evidence please. (nt) - Pat D 09:42:31 12/19/06 (9)
        
        In Reply to: Evidence Of One Of Pat D-Cakes "false" Statements! posted by thetubeguy1954 on December 19, 2006 at 09:09:47:
        
        Where did I deny the statement quoted? Come on, tell us.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        Evidence Of Pat D-Cakes "false" Statements! (Lies?0 - thetubeguy1954 12:52:58 12/19/06 (8)
        
        In Reply to: Where's the false statement? Evidence please. (nt) posted by Pat D on December 19, 2006 at 09:42:31:
        
        Pat,
        As I've stated before you LIE so much you cannot remember fiction from reality. What really surprises me is you already asked me this and I already proved it. But so everyone can see what a liar you are I'll prove it again.
        I stated: "Pat what you need to do is provide detailed, documented proof that these beliefs of yours i.e. people cannot hear differences in either a) wires in an intelligently designed audio system or b) between properly designed audio components that are functioning correctly, are scientifically supported."
        To which you untruthfully responded at the link given Since I do not make those claims, I have no obligation whatever to defend them.
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=26303&highlight=obligation+Pat+D&r=&session=
        So I found where you responded to a post I made: In regards to your untrute comment that you do not make those claims, thus you have no obligation whatever to defend them. Pat you most certainly did make those claims! In fact in your post to regmac you said: "As I've been saying, we can't say cables make no difference under any circumstances since audible differences have been proven under some circumstances--only as you say, those circumstances aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system. Which is exactly what I've (Pat D) been saying."
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=26367&highlight=obligation+Pat+D&session=
        So first we have Pat D-Cake lying and claiming: Since I do not make those claims, I have no obligation whatever to defend them. Yet in a post I found we have Pat D-Cake admitting Which is exactly what I've (Pat D) been saying.
        Now of course you're Pat D and lying comes so easy for you, so I'm sure you'll try to lie your way out of this proof as well. Afterall you have your 10 dirty tactics and 4 modes of operation to help you out. So what will it be this time?
        Will you...
        1) Claim he's being misquoted?
        2) Claim he's being quoted out of context?
        3) Claim he's misunderstood?
        4) Claim he's being attacked, deceived or tricked etc?
        5) Claim his opponent doesn't think logically?
        6) Claim his opponent said things they didn't actually say?
        7) Claim he's never said something when proof is available he did
        (Pat's logic is if you didn't quote him word-for-word he didn't say what you wrote! But if you do quote him word-for-word he'll claim either 1, 2, 3 or 4 above. Either way Pat has a way out.)
        8) Switch the actual topic to what he wants to debate
        9) Blame others of doing the things he does
        10) Make untrue claims (lie?)
        11)Ignore the questions he's asked
        Like you did when you LIED and claimed you knew I never listened to your speakers?
        Pat you really need to develop an ounce of integrity and stop telling all these LIES which as so easy to prove you've told.
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        Holy $hit - E-Stat 14:05:39 12/19/06 (7)
        
        In Reply to: Evidence Of Pat D-Cakes "false" Statements! (Lies?0 posted by thetubeguy1954 on December 19, 2006 at 12:52:58:
        
        This thread starts to scroll even at 1280x1024 resolution! Pat reminds us daily that not only does "Nature Like to Hide", but so does he. You can frequently find posts where he says what he doesn't believe, but it is a true rarity to find a post where he states what he does believe. Call him Mr. Teflon. You've got to admit it, that is far easier to do than to take a stand.
        At least SM has posted his manifesto. :)
        rw
        
        Do you understand the concept of suspending judgment when evidence is not available? - Pat D 14:50:13 12/19/06 (6)
        
        In Reply to: Holy $hit posted by E-Stat on December 19, 2006 at 14:05:39:
        
        I don't think so.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        Ah, so that is what you call your non-positions! - E-Stat 15:09:56 12/19/06 (5)
        
        In Reply to: Do you understand the concept of suspending judgment when evidence is not available? posted by Pat D on December 19, 2006 at 14:50:13:
        
        That's great, Pat. :)
        rw
        
        So you agree that I don't assert the null hypothesis! - Pat D 00:15:47 12/20/06 (4)
        
        In Reply to: Ah, so that is what you call your non-positions! posted by E-Stat on December 19, 2006 at 15:09:56:
        
        Well, that's big of you. It's not really a non-position at all, unless you think one must either accept or reject the null hypothesis. But in fact, lacking evidence, it is not necessary to accept either one.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        You continue to illustrate the point most vividly - E-Stat 05:32:11 12/20/06 (3)
        
        In Reply to: So you agree that I don't assert the null hypothesis! posted by Pat D on December 20, 2006 at 00:15:47:
        
        by stating only that which you do not believe.
        rw
        
        Well, that's the issue. TG54 insists that I believe something which I do not. - Pat D 17:20:41 12/20/06 (2)
        
        In Reply to: You continue to illustrate the point most vividly posted by E-Stat on December 20, 2006 at 05:32:11:
        
        I say "some" and he reacts as if I had said "every" or "none."
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
        
        The Issue YOU Deny What You Say - thetubeguy1954 09:30:50 12/21/06 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Well, that's the issue. TG54 insists that I believe something which I do not. posted by Pat D on December 20, 2006 at 17:20:41:
        
        Pat D-Cake,
        This is just another of your many untruths. You pretend because you say "some" sometimes it should count for every statement you make!
        I asked you very specific question about the audibility of wires in an intelligently designed audio system.
        Which in your post to regmac you basically denied when you said: "As I've been saying, we can't say cables make no difference under any circumstances since audible differences have been proven under some circumstances-- only as you say, those circumstances aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system. Which is exactly what I've (Pat D) been saying."
        http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=26367&highlight=obligation+Pat+D&session=
        Trouble with you Pat is you. You want to act like an Objectivist but when called to the carpet for your beliefs it's always I never said this, you misunderstood that, I said some, etc. You might as well stop posting as you hold no actual postion on anything or so you'd have us believe.
        Thetubeguy1954
        
        I say "some" and you somehow understand "every" or "none." - Pat D 18:00:55 12/21/06 (0)
        
        In Reply to: The Issue YOU Deny What You Say posted by thetubeguy1954 on December 21, 2006 at 09:30:50:
        
        In other words, you have clearly misread what I said.
        ____________________________________________________________
        "Nature loves to hide."
        ---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.