 
|
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 |
70.46.7.90
In Reply to: Well, the Posting Rules at the Asylum are a good place to start. posted by Pat D on March 29, 2007 at 17:15:01:
Pat,Try having some fun will you? It must be horrible waiting to be able to disagree with something I post. I cannot believe how obsessed you are with everything I say. I've noticed no matter what I say, you'll disagree with it. Here's an excellent example. Back on March 9th you responded to my of: "There are measurements that correlate to everything we hear in audio components be it amps, wires, etc. However the typical measurements used today in audio don’t correlate with what we hear."
You Pat first responded with: "The trouble is that most rationalists accept that as well. jj said the same thing, for example. So there is nothing peculiar to subjectivists here." So first you agreed and stated Real JJ agreed with it and said that most rationalists accept that as well.
Yet now you claim: "KlausR is right. He is much more knowledgeable than I am, so if what he and I say seem to conflict, it much safer to follow him." So now you support Klaus's diagreement with the statement!
So you first support Real JJ's belief that most rationalists accept my statement as being correct AND yet you also support Klaus's objection to my statement! Talk about being 2-faced and having no real postion on the issue! You are truly an audio politician Pat. Now you know why I call you that. You have no real postion you believe, you just disagree with everything I say and find some authority fiqure to back up your disagreement.
You and POLLYinFLA a certainly two of a kind. Both of you are obsessed with everything I say. Even when I leave you two alone you start up more communicatiions with me. Sadly it's you two who are obsessed, not me... Hey isn't that another thing I said you do, but you denied? Putting your traits on others? What a sad, bitter man. Get a real stereo and perhaps you'll finally enjoy this hobby.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Follow Ups:
Do you have anything to say about:-typical magazine results (i.e., THD) vs. ones better suited to evaluate audiblity (i.e., a distortion graph and weighting)? NO.
--measuring one thing doesn't indicate another thing nor indicate the whole? NO
--attributing a characteristic belonging to a whole to a part? NO.
--technical measurements vs. preference? NO.
--name calling? NO.
When you stop worrying about vague generalities such as those you mention you might learn something. You will have to get more specific before you can show there is a contradiction. What are "typical measurements" as opposed to "today's accepted audio measurements?" It seems we'll never find out from you. So you haven't shown any contradiction because you haven't shown the same thing is affirmed and denied.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,You have NOTHING of value to offer me. I suppose you might actually believe your post was "thoughtful" but what I see is:
1) You agree and disagree with the same statement I make depending on how you feel at that particular time. As you apparently have no firm postion on the subject, how can I trust you mean anything you say? You'll probably contradict yourself like you just did, previously.
2) You berate me and claim I'm obessed with you an POLLYinFLA. So I decide to leave you two alone to show you I'm not obsessed, but then you two start posting to me! It seems quite clear that it's you two who are the obsessed ones.
3) You place your defective traits on me by claiming I'm obessed with you and Polly when the reality is now plain to see that it's you & Polly that are obssesed with me and what I believe, not the other way around.
You offer NOTHING of value to me. I've found through past communications with you to be a waste of my time. I'm attempting to have serious discussion but you just want to disagree and criticise everything and anything I say. I've decided my best course of action will be to just let you go on your merry way. I honestly won't miss your audio politics one iota. Now I expect act in the typical Pat D-Cake manner, make sure you have the last word and then please do us both a favor and make like nature and hide...
thetubeguy1954
You still haven't addressed anything in my carefully thought out post above.TG54
"I'm attempting to have serious discussion but you just want to disagree and criticise everything and anything I say."That that is an exaggeration, Tubey. But disagreements, criticism and misunderstandings happen in serious discussions, Tubey! Sorry you don't understand that.
You have wanted to know how to facilate discussions on this forums. I have suggested that the Rules are a good place to *start*. Here are a couple of quotes.
"No flames, personal attacks or contentious off-topic comments: The idea is to make this a pleasant environment to discuss audio, not a schoolyard, or name-calling and rock-throwing festival."
"Allow for the possibility of misunderstandings, and be patient if someone asks for an explanation of what seems to be obvious."
BTW, you can't take vague statements using differing terminology and show they are contradictory. In particular, you have to give some specific content to vague adjectives like "typical" or "accepted." When I do so and discuss a particular measurement you yourself bring up, you object and complain that I "criticise" or even "disagree" with you!
I have spent a great deal of thought and effort into explaining to you how to pose more meaningful questions and make more meaningful statements. But you don't seem to learn.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D,I don't consider your post to be well thought out. Personally I think you give yourself way to much credit! After reading many of your posts over these last couple of years I've come to consider you to be a parrot. It seems to me that you don't really have a belief system of your own, instead you simply take on the beliefs of the most prominent or intelligent (in your opinion) objectivist who's posting in PHP. Before it was Real JJ and now it appears to be Klaus who dictates what your beliefs are. It doesn't take a lot of thought to parrot the beliefs of others Pat.
As far as your comment is concerned, I most certainly understand that disagreements, criticism and misunderstandings happen in serious discussions, Pat D-Cake! I'm sorry you feel the need to lower yourself and make statements that aren't true in order to make your postion appear stronger than it is. Truely this is just your method of berating me which you claim you don't do! I've noticed you like to berate me like this, but I guess we all have our faults.
The problem with attempting to try and intelligently talk with you, is you have no real opinions of your own, instead you parrot the objectivist that you believe is making the most intelligent arguement at that time, even if that means contradicting something you said just a few days earlier. That's precisely why you agreed then later disagreed with the statement I made. You can attempt to obscure the truth by claiming you simply have had more time to think about my formulation. The truth is in the end you just first parroted Real JJ and now you're parroting Klaus. That sure takes a lot of thinking huh, Pat D-Cake? On 3/09/07 you called on Real JJ as your backup and used what he said, then 21 days later on 3/30/07 you called on Klaus as your backup and used what he said. I guess this is why you and POLLYinFLA get along so well. You both act like birdbrains.
An excellent example of your childish behavior is to criticise my behavior when you act the same way! For Example you stated: "No flames, personal attacks or contentious off-topic comments: The idea is to make this a pleasant environment to discuss audio, not a schoolyard, or name-calling and rock-throwing festival." But then call me tubey. My name is thetubeguy1954, not tubey! Tubey is no less name calling on your part than Pat D-Cake is on mine. But I guess in that warped parrot-mind you feel it's ok for you to call me names, but not ok when I do the same to you, huh? Or you berate me by claiming I don't understand that disagreements, criticism and misunderstandings happen in serious discussions. Pat D-Cake you are a hypocrite at it's finest!
Now if you're too thick to understand that today's accepted measurements are the ones that are typically being used, then that's all the proof I need to realize I simply cannot have an intelligent conversation with you. You're just a waste of my time. Or do you honestly believe today's accepted audio measurements are the ones that are typically not used? Can you imagine that? One scientist looks at another and says "These are today's accepted audio measurements, but typically we don't use them! Typically we use other non-accepted measurements!" Are you really that uneducated? You attempt to seem intelligent with your word semantics but all you do is illuminate to everyone here that your true goal is just obfuscate the topics raised.
The funniest thing about you is how obsessed you are with me and then attempt to convince everyone I'm obsessed with you. You simply cannot refrain from responding to my posts, or having the last word everytime I post. The ONLY baggage I carry is having to deal with a moron like you, even when I'm attempting to raise a topic from a neutral postion, by calling both objectivists & subjectivists unrational or irrational as you prefer. Pat D-Cake you, POLLYinFLA, Clifff and a few others are precisely the irrational objectivists that keep this forum from being what it could be. To me you're a joke with absolutely NOTHING of value to offer anyone here who attempts to have an intelligent conversation. If you're NOT obsessed with me why are you unable to ignore my posts?
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Quit whining. I don't much mind that you make up your own nickname for me which is vaguely pejorative. I think anyone around can see it just represents your angry spleen. Tubey, on the other hand, is simply a diminutive, which implies nothing pejorative.TG54
"to raise a topic from a neutral postion, by calling both objectivists & subjectivists unrational or irrational as you prefer."Ummm . . . engaging in such name-calling does not conduce to reasonable discussion. Besides, such prejoratives not only don't solve anything, they raise all sort of questions as to just what you mean and how to identify those belonging to each category and you fail to specify. Moreover, it's simply argumentem ad hominem and fail to provide any way of answering any audio questions.
TG54
"Or do you honestly believe today's accepted audio measurements are the ones that are typically not used? Can you imagine that? One scientist looks at another and says "These are today's accepted audio measurements, but typically we don't use them! Typically we use other non-accepted measurements!" "Actually, I have asked for a list of examples of what you think "today's accepted audio measurements" are, at least some examples. I expect sensible scientists would do the same before they attempted to evaluate them. It seems you take this vague, undefined set of words to be meaningful. I've just been hoping you would get down to specifics as discussion went on, a natural enough expectation. Since you have consistently failed to do so, I've asked you to provide examples, to tell us what you mean instead of just giving us a tautology, but so far you haven't mentioned anything but THD, which I did comment on.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts."----Sherlock Holmes in The Second Stain.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,I believe even you're intelligent enough to realize whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it! Take the nickname Wop used for Italians for instance. All it stands for is ( W ith O ut P apers) yet to my father who was born in Sicily it's extremely offensive, to me it's not. See Pat D-Cake? Same word yet one person considers it a bad nickname while another person doesn't consider it a bad nickname.
So you cannot decide Tubey is a good nickname and Pat D-Cake is a bad one, sorry. That said you can call me Tubey or whatever else you like. I'm not so easily offended or angered as you and POLLYinFLA like to insinuate. I'm only attempting to show you, you cannot or at least should not complain about something, you yourself do.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I pointed out that you engaged in name-calling, using terms like "irrational objectivists," "irrational subjectivists," and "lunatic fringe objectivists." I have pointed out that engaging in such name calling is not conducive to rational conversation about facilating discussion.My wife laughed when I told her you compared this to be called "tubey," which is simply a diminutive of your moniker.
For a long time, you have called me by a childish nickname, but I have not complained about it. After all, it is counterproductive because everyone can easily see that you are venting your spleen. You are the one who has complained about being called "tubey," but when you call me by a nickname, you thereby give permission for me to call you by a nickname, and "tubey" is quite inocuous. It's like using a given name.
TG54
"I believe even you're intelligent enough to realize whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it!"Who says? To leave this solely up to the judgment of the recipient doesn't work: it's a defective principle. Some people are too sensitive and it's open to abuse. For example, an acquaintance politely complimented a colleague on her dress and she filed a sexual harrassment complaint. He was told to attend a sensitivity session. On the other hand, Your father had a good reason to be offended. Colored people have a good reason for objecting to being called the N-word.
In analogous matter, you feel your are insulted by the statement that you think you can hear differences between your different interconnects and speaker cables but have not proved you can. Now, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's true that you have not proved you can.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat D-Cake,As usual when you cannot outright when a debate with me you resort to twisting reality into your warped view of it. I guess I should expect it by now. So let's look through you're twisting of the truth into what you want it to be, shall we?
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: I pointed out that you engaged in name-calling, using terms like "irrational objectivists," "irrational subjectivists," and "lunatic fringe objectivists." I have pointed out that engaging in such name calling is not conducive to rational conversation about facilating discussion.TG1954: Just calling it like I see it Pat D-Cake IMHO you're a completely irrational, lunatic-fringe objectivist who cannot think for himself and simply follows what & who you believe is the most intelligently posting objectivist at any given time. It used to be Real JJ, now it appears to be Klaus. Now you can whine about that all you want to but that's my honest opinion of you, period! To me you try to come off as this highly intelligent philosopher and great debater. But the nature of your posts illustrates perfectly you usually resort obfuscation in an effort to obscure the truth, and then hijack the thread to a path you want the arguement to take. This is precisely the type of thing a lunatic-fringe, irrational objectivist would do! This should be the motto for you, Polly and those who cling to your misguided beliefs: "If you can't dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullshit."
==================================================================
Pat D-Cake: My wife laughed when I told her you compared this to be called "tubey," which is simply a diminutive of your moniker.TG1954: Pat D-Cake do you honestly think I gave a rat's ass what your wife thinks? Did you know that a nickname is a short, clever, cute, derogatory or otherwise substitute name for a person or thing's real name. A nickname is sometimes considered desirable, symbolising a form of acceptance, but can often be a form of ridicule. "Pat D-Cake" is simply a augmentative of your moniker too! Does your wife pick out your audio equipment and hears night & day differences in her deaf ear as well? I suppose now you can go home and tell your wife that big, mean subjectivist called me lunatic-fringe, irrational objectivist! My wife and I also laugh about you and your lame attempts at always being correct and desperately needing to have the last word too. So what does that mean?
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: For a long time, you have called me by a childish nickname, but I have not complained about it. After all, it is counterproductive because everyone can easily see that you are venting your spleen.TG1954: Yeah and you're two-faced and talk out your ass, now what? For a long time you've questioned my intelligence, criticed my grammer etc. One is no worse than the other. I call you by childish names because you act like a child. If you continue to act like a child that's how I'll continue to treat you. You're obsessed with me and the need to comment about almost everything I post. You then take your obsession and try to say it's me who's obsessed, when it's clearly YOU & POLLY who are obsessed with me. Besides this you constantly twist the truth, and do almost everything except act like a rational man. I simply have no respect for you or your opinions. Notice how I treat Tom Danley and Jneutron? They're both objectivists who disagree with me, but they act like adults not children, like you and polly do. Hence I don't call them names and communicate intelligently with them. Anything you get you deserve Pat D-Cake. You want different results? Act differently, but I think you're as incapable of acting differently as you're incapable from refraining to have the last word all the time!
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: You are the one who has complained about being called "tubey," but when you call me by a nickname, you thereby give permission for me to call you by a nickname, and "tubey" is quite inocuous. It's like using a given name.TG1954: GOD you're so lame. Don't you the difference between complaining and talking about a topic, do you? I specifically stated: "That said you can call me Tubey or whatever else you like. I'm not so easily offended or angered as you and POLLYinFLA like to insinuate. I'm only attempting to show you, you cannot or at least should not complain about something, you yourself do." That's not complaining, what you do is whining and complaining. What I did was explain my POV on a different topic you raised within a thread and then told you do what you will. Now go home and cry to your wife about that too!
==================================================================
TG1954 - "I believe even you're intelligent enough to realize whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it!"Pat D-Cake Who says? To leave this solely up to the judgment of the recipient doesn't work: it's a defective principle. Some people are too sensitive and it's open to abuse.
TG1954 - Who says? I and just about every other rational, intelligent person. It's your judgement that's defective, not my statement. Try walking into a group of African-Americans and shout out the N-word. Now when they get angry tell them they're too senstive! Yet they commonly use that same word amongst themselves. So it should be readily apparent that whether a nickname is good or bad is not up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it! Or take the previous example I gave you and go into a Little Italy and shout out WOP! Then tell them they're too sensitive too. As I told you before All it stands for is (Without Papers) yet to my father who was born in Sicily it's extremely offensive, to me it's not. Besides who are you to determine who's being too sensitive and who isn't?
===================================================================
Pat D-Cake: For example, an acquaintance politely complimented a colleague on her dress and she filed a sexual harrassment complaint. He was told to attend a sensitivity session. On the other hand, Your father had a good reason to be offended. Colored people have a good reason for objecting to being called the N-word.TG1954: Once again who the hell is Pat D-Cake to decide who is and isn't too sensitive? The very fact that you're acquaintance had to take a sensitivity class shows most rational, intelligent people agree with my statement. Even you agree that my father had a good reason to be offended. Why isn't my father being too sensitive when I or some of his older brothers aren't offended? Or what about african-americans ("colored people" is actually quite offensive to most african-americans these days Pat D-Cake) Why do believe they have a good reason for objecting to being called the N-word, especially when they use it quite a bit of the time themselves? Obviously it cannot be just the N-word itself that's offensive to them, otherwise african-americans would be offened when other african-americans used the N-word. Why aren't they just being too sensitive? So you see this illustrates my point that it is NOT up to the person creating the nickname, but that decision lies with the person receiving it to deteremine if it's good or bad.
=================================================================
Pat D-Cake: In analogous matter, you feel your are insulted by the statement that you think you can hear differences between your different interconnects and speaker cables but have not proved you can. Now, I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's true that you have not proved you can.TG1954: Pat D-Cake you're so desperate to appear correct at all costs you're now comparing apples to oranges. This analogy isn't appropriate. Name calling and disagreeing with someone's opinion are completely seperate and different issues! This comes from a man who claims he knows how to intelligent debate/discuss/argue a POV? It's just not even worth addressing it's such an assinine anology.
I will address this though: I did originally find it insulting that you wouldn't accept my word. In my mind that's no different than insinuating I'm lying. That's said I've since learned you're one of the quite vocal, minority of irrational, lunatic-fringe objectivists here at PHP. Up till then I'd never actually met anyone who held such distorted views like you do and then defended them so vehemently. Add to that your obsession with almost everything I say, your need to always be correct (even when you're wrong) and your inability to refrain from having the last word, and now what I once found insulting I now find to be laughable.
I know you want and need to believe that I cannot nor have I proven I can hear differences between your different interconnects and speaker cables. You have to believe that or else you'd be admitting that you deliberately prevent your system from sounding it's best by using that 16 AWG Canadian Tire Corporation Speaker Wire, about 19 feet for the left channel. 12 AWG Angstrom cable , about 23 feet for the right channel, various interconnects, some freebies, some from Radio Shack or Walmart. I've proven more than once I can detect differences in wires, I'm sorry you feel differently, but that's your loss as evidenced by what you use for wires. It's true that I have proved I can and NOTHING you say will change that fact!
I can see that once again we've reached the point where you'll continue on desperately needing to be correct and striving to have the last word. When you get like this there's no possible way to have an intelligent conversation with you. You're next move after this is to start continually twisting the truth and then move on to outright ly#*@, which you'll once again deny doing, but which has been proven more than once to be true. So I'm going to stop wasting my time on this subject with you. As I've stated numerous times you have absolutely NOTHING of value to offer me. So go ahead, have the last word, thump your chest like an ape and feel like you've won the arguement, but at the very least don't lie to yourself. Simply realize you've won nothing, but have succeeded in wearing me down. Talking with you is no different than talking to a head of cabbage. To continue is a waste of my time I have better things to do than repeat the same thing over & over again to you....
Pat D-Cake, Pat D-Cake faker man,
Create an excuse as fast as you can.
Roll it, pat it, mark it with a B (for Bullsh!t)
Post on PHP for Polly and thee.Bye, bye either make like nature & hide or go waste someone else's time.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
with harassment cases, get back to me. The person making a harassment complaint does not get to judge their own case. They must prove it to an authorized third party and it takes rather more than just to say they were offended. The claim must be reasonable.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
