 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.133
In Reply to: Re: I agree with you in part. posted by thetubeguy1954 on December 12, 2006 at 14:17:35:
You exposed the very audio politics you claim are in play. Hence you showed it wasn't about science or objectivity but about a hypocritical aproach of an objectivist defending his *beliefs* about audio. Anyone who reads it has been done a favor. Thank you
Follow Ups:
Aside from Tom making a question into an assertion, and taking a statement from the section called "System Strengths," in a system containing a large subwoofer, you guys will have to explain about "audio politics." And don't let Tom play innocent.How does catching me in a careless statement among numerous postings do anything of the following:
1) show DBT methodology is unreliable?
2) show that you, Tom, and others can actually detect the sonice differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things?
3) show that the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?You have thus far failed to come up with anything like a correct statement of my alleged "beliefs" about audio, and I imagine you won't be able to explain what "audio politics" is, either.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat this is a PERFECT example of you playing Audio Politician. As I stated previously you never actually win a debate or prove your point, but rather you mis-direct and twist what's been actually said to fit what you believe. Menwhile you're accusing others of doing the very same things! So someone who behaves like you do is guilty of playing "audio politics!" So there's your explinantion.Another example of your "audio politics" is the catch 22 you set up about the audibilty of wires. Everytime you debate anyone about the typical music lovers audio system, which will be an intelligently put together audiophile system, you, Pat D don't believe there'll be audible differences in wires. Yet because it's been proven "scientifically" (or so I assume, because you always want science to verify what's heard) that 20 or 30 ft wires can audibly be different, you'll now claim this proves you doesn't believe all wires sound the same. That allows you to ride both sides of the fence, which is what politicians do Pat. In all actuality you believe an intelligently put together system won't have audible differences in wires, which is essentially ALL audio systems or 99.99999999999999999999999999% of what we'll be debating about here in Prop Head Forum all the time! So when a proponent or subjectivist states that you believe all wires sound the same you'll pull the obscure 20-30ft wires can sound audibly different trick out of your hat. This in turn allows you to play a little Catch-22 game while debating the proponents of audible differences in wires. i.e. in an intelligently put together audiophile system wires are inaudible, still it's been proven that 20 or 30 ft wires can audibly be different so see I don't believe ALL wires sound the same, yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system which is essentially all systems, wires are inaudible, still it's been proven that 20 or 30 ft wires can audibly be different so see I don't believe ALL wires sound the same, yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system which is essentially all systems, wires are inaudible, etc. As I've said before you're a most clever audio politician.
You're even playing audio politican here. Why? Because Analog Scott and I were talking about you and how it's impossible to actually debate you because you use "double-standards" as Analog Scott said and play "audio-politics" as I said. Your being an audio politicain is displayed when you responded by changing the topic being discussed into:
How does catching me in a careless statement among numerous postings do anything of the following:
1) show DBT methodology is unreliable?
2) show that you, Tom, and others can actually detect the sonice differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things?
3) show that the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?This is a classic example of you first mis-directing and then twisting the topic to be what you want to talk about. Neither Analog Scott nor I claimed that what you did had anything to do with the 3 questions you asked. What Analog Scott and I were actually discussing was the futility of debating one such as yourself who uses "double-standards" and plays "audio-politics." So now Pat please tell us how raising the 3 questions you did in any way, shape or form addresses the topic Analog Scott and I were discussing! It doesn't and you know it doesn't.
What it proves is you play audio politician. What you're doing now is exactly the same thing you did when you got caught attacking your own opinion of your speakers. Just like that time you're now attempting to redirect the entire issue Analog Scott and I were discussing. The issue is no longer about the double-standards & audio politics of Pat D. Oh no, now the issue is about how Pat wants to know, How does catching him in a careless statement among numerous postings do anything of the following: 1) show DBT methodology is unreliable? 2) show that you, Tom, and others can actually detect the sonice differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things? 3) show that the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?
It's just one more fine example of Pat D's audio politics in action via mis-directing and twisting what's been actually said to fit what you believe or in this case actually want to talk about. Face Pat it appears others are finally catching on to your tactics. Heck even bjh told you Enough BS ... consider yourself ignored. I think kerr summed you up pretty well when he said "When I demand something and no one drops it at my feet (most of the time), I go find it myself. You prefer to wait until someone drops it at your feet, all the while demanding someone do so." That's you in a nutshell Pat. You're always demanding, never giving, assuming without ever asking a question and when people don't respond to your demands you act as if their unable or incompetent with comments like Can't understand the issues, eh? or something else derogatory like that. It seems that people are finally seeing you for who you really are.
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
However, you and Analog Scott are devoting a great deal of time attacking me. This does nothing to further audio discussions on such things as"1) is DBT methodology is unreliable?
2)can you and others can actually detect the sonic differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things?
3) can the golden ears can hear what they claim they do?Logic has never been your strong point. You seem totally unable to grasp the concept of suspension of judgment. You guys propose some universal negative propositions which you maintain I somehow must hold. When I prove that I don't hold them, you whine, and then make up some other propositions which you think I have to hold (which in fact I don't have to hold). None of which has anything to do with proving you can hear what you claim to be able to.
You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is.
Neither have you shown I have a double standard of proof.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,
I feel sorry for you, I really do. Analog Scott & I were simply discussing why attempting to debate with you intelligently is a lesson in futility and you somehow you twist that into being attacked? Pat you are way to paranoid. No one is out to get you. We simply don't wish to waste our time attempting to discuss/debate with people who use double-standards or play audio politics. You turned what was a harmless post into one that's starting to get personal because YOU brought it down that path.Now as far as your comment of: You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. With some embarrassment I feel it necessary to inform you I most certainly did! But unfortunately it was obviously over your head or you would have understood that I had done so. Sorry about that, I truly am. I explained it as simply as I can. Perhaps you could print out what I wrote and have your wife or co-worker explain in to you?
Now you are absolutely 100% correct when you said what Analog Scott and I were discussing doesn't have anything to do with furthering audio discussions on such things as: 1) is DBT methodology is unreliable? 2)can you and others can actually detect the sonic differences between interconnects, 10 foot speaker wires, and numerous other things? 3) can the golden ears can hear what they claim they do? But then again as I've told once and now for a second time, why would it when the topic of our discussion was the futility of attempting to have a technical debate with you intelligently due to your use of double standards and playing audio politics.
In fact these comments of yours is just another fine example of Pat D's audio politics at work. You're behaving exactly like when you got caught attacking your own opinion of your speakers. Blame others, Switch the topic & Claim being misunderstood or tricked if unable to outright deny something. That's similair to what you're doing here once again.
First: Take the limelight off yourself by switching the blame to someone else. In this case you start with the tactic of attributing to others your short comings i.e, Logic has never been your (Pat D's) strong point.
Second: Now switch the actual topic being discussed (why attempting to debate with you intelligently is a lesson in futility)to what you want to talk about instead: You guys propose some universal negative propositions which you maintain I somehow must hold. GOD Pat this is getting old it really is. You're always whining about be misquoted, quoted out of context, being misunderstood, attacked, deceived or tricked etc., oh poor Pat. So many people don't understand him...
Third: You make claims that just aren't true, i.e. "When I prove that I don't hold them." You certainly haven't proven that to my or most likely bjh or Analog Scotts satisfaction.
Forth: Return to placing your attributes on others, you whine. Pat if anyone is whinning here it's you about being attacked & misunderstood.
Fifth: Return back to switching the actual topic (why attempting to debate with you intelligently is a lesson in futility) to: None of which has anything to do with proving you can hear what you claim to be able to.
Seems like people are finally seeing you for who you really are. You're constantly placing your attributes on others, switching from the actual topic being discussed, whining and claiming to be either quoted out of context, misquoted, misunderstood or attacked. Finally when none of those work for you, you just ignore what the poster said and insult them.
Now as there's nothing more constructive to be said about this topic and IMHO it will only digress further & further (just like when I attempted discussing my opinion of your and my speakers with you) this will be my final post on the matter. Now Pat I'll leave you to have the last word which you so desperately crave and always seem to have.
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
1) What does the term "audio politics" mean?2) What are the "double standards" you guys allege I employ?
N.B. I am hardly responsible for opinions which you and Analog Scott make up and attribute to me.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
What exactly didn't you understand about it? Please be specific. Did you read what I said about it?
Hello Analog Scott,What Pat D is doing now is another classic example of his audio politics in action. Allow me to reveal what's happening. I've seen Pat do these things so many times now I can almost know what he'll say next sometimes. In this case I had explained this to Pat previously:
As I stated previously you (Pat D) never actually win a debate or prove your point, but rather you mis-direct and twist what's been actually said to fit what you believe. Menwhile you're accusing others of doing the very same things! So someone who behaves like you do is guilty of playing "audio politics!" So there's your explinantion.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26251.htmlYet after reading that Pat uses one of his many audio politic tricks. In this case it's to ignore completely what your opponent has written, then pretend they never answered your question and ask it again! Which is exactly what Pat D did when he said: You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26254.htmlHowever just a brief look at the numbers assigned to the posts reveals this is just another example of Pat's playing the "dirty" audio politician in his debating tactics. My explinantion of audio politics is # 26251 and Pat D's twisting of the truth when he claims You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. Is # 26254 three posts after I already explained what audio politics is!
Analog Scott I liked your response to Pat D's post called "Short questionnaire." You asked Pat What exactly didn't (he) understand about it? Please be specific. Did (he) read what (you) said about it? But unfortunately Pat is attempting to use the same tactic he did with me, i.e. ignore completely what your opponent has written, then pretend they never answered your question and ask it again!
When Pat untruthfully claimed I (thetubeguy1954) still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. I responded by telling Pat (It's) With some embarrassment I feel it necessary to inform you (Pat) I most certainly did! But unfortunately it was obviously over your head or you would have understood that I had done so. Sorry about that, I truly am. I explained it as simply as I can. Perhaps you could print out what I wrote and have your wife or co-worker explain in to you?
After watching Pat D in action for some time now I've become aware of some of Pat's many audio politic tactics that he frequently uses. This will include combinations of these things below:
1) Claim to be misquoted
2) Claim to be quoted out of context
3) Claim to be misunderstood
4) Claim to be attacked, deceived or tricked etc
5) Claim your opponent doesn't think logically (which he uses to enforce 1-4 above)
6) Switch the actual topic being debated to what he wants to debate
7) Blame others of doing the things he does
8) Make untrue claims like I've already proven that, when he hasn't
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) When these don't work as planned for Pat, he'll just ignores what his opponent said and either insult them or alternatively Pat will ask a question that's already been answered, while claiming it's never been answered and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
d) Finally if none of those work Pat will simply claim the opponents can't think logically and start blaming them of creating strawman arguements and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
If you'll re-read any of the posts where Pat has debated an opponent you'll see that he does some combination of A through D above consistently everytime. In fact he's down to D with you now, because his other tactics failed. It's getting so that I can read Pat D like a book!
Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
My, you do go on and on!
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Pat,The reason for Analog Scott's and my posts were to explain to each other and anyone else who reads them why it's impossible to prove our POV with an Audio Politician like yourself. Why? Because you have so many audio politic tactics that you frequently use that are employed deliberately to prevent the furthering of the issue being discussed and to obscure the topic as much as possible.
Like I've said many time now, you're always: 1) Claiming to be misquoted, 2) Claiming to be quoted out of context, 3) Claiming to be misunderstood, 4) Claiming to be attacked, deceived or tricked etc. 5) Claiming your opponent doesn't think logically (which you use to enforce numbers 1-4) 6) Switching the actual topic being debated to what you wants to debate, 7) Blaming others of doing the things you do or 8) Making untrue claims like you've already proven something when you hasn't!
Pat you usually follow one of four basic methods operation (or some combination of them) which is to: a) Blame others, claim being misunderstood, deceived or tricked if you're unable to outright deny something & then switch the topic, b) Place your attributes on your opponents, start whining and claim you're either being quoted out of context, misquoted, misunderstood or attacked and then switch from the actual topic being discussed, c) When these don't work as planned for you Pat, you'll just ignores what your opponent said and either insult them or alternatively you'll ask them a question they've already been answered and claim it's never been answered. Then you switch from the actual topic being discussed, d) Finally if none of those work for you Pat, you'll simply claim the opponents can't think logically, then start blaming them of creating strawman arguements and as usual then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
Pat if you'll re-read any of the posts where you have debated an opponent you'll see some combination of A through D above employed consistently everytime. So what I did was prove via a detailed explinantion why it's impossible to prove our POVs with an Audio Politician like yourself! That was the purpose of our posts and we succeeded in what we set out to do. Even now you are behaving like I've described the typical Pat D does. Hence you're attampting to turn the topic of our posts (which is the audio polictic games you play) into something you wish to speak of instead, i.e. talking about me!
Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
N
It's not a standard term with a recognized meaning. TG54 refuse to actually provide a definition of audio politics and what it's all about.Audio politics means ____________________________________
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I'll try to tackle Audio Politician later! :)
You could do a search for the term instead of simply making a silly definition for an important technical word.[If you do, you'll see I'm just joking.]
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
As I have pointed out many times, one cannot prove the null hypothesis in statistics. I am not responsible for some contrary impression you and tubeguy have formed about my opinions, simply because you want me to believe something else. You have made up a straw man. One cannot absolutely prove the null hypothesis in statistics. Period.Now, if you have something relevant to say, say it. Meanwhile, it remains that human perception overdetects differences and is unreliable for detecting small differences. That's just the way we're built.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
nt
I know, that's not quite fair, but you didn't specify. The devil made me do it!
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
try to keep up
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
You just can't deal with it
You failed to meet your burden of proof.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
please find one false statement I have made about you and prove it is false
Where's your evidence I hold the opinions you set out in the post linked below?
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
try again
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
But you needed an explination. so sad
nt
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
I suspect you have a lot of goofy ideas. thanks for admitting you lack the smarts to negotiate a simple spelling error.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
