|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.37.227.139
In Reply to: Another orange vs apple talk again !! posted by cheap-Jack on May 1, 2007 at 11:40:02:
Both of my posts had a single message. In the second post I repeated the message several times and explained it as carefully as is reasonable here. Just one message. No mixed fruit. Do you know what that message is? Can you state it in a single sentence? ('Balanced is better than SE' is *NOT* the message.)Frankly, I find it a tedious waste of my time that I should have to defend myself this way. For that matter, it's a tedious waste of time for everyone that reads this thread this far.
You seem to invest a tremendous amount of effort attempting to discredit me, all with the final goal of proving that you were right all along. Your usual tactic (might be unintentional) is to wander off-point listing uncountable irrelevant facts 'quoted' from unreferenced technical papers, then finally claim that I am talking apples and oranges; that you were talking about something else all along. I've been talking about only one thing and I've stuck carefully to that. If you see a fruit salad in front of you it's because you made it yourself.
I have a dream: one day you'll read one of my posts and respond with something like "OK, I see what you mean..." I don't know if you are incapable of it (perhaps literally incapable of understanding) or simply unwilling as a matter of pride. Perhaps both. But I do not expect my dream to ever come true.
Follow Ups:
Hi.Sorry, too bad if it sounded I intended to discredit you? Give me one decent reason why I would want to play games as such.
I only want to point out you, like any readers here, should play rule of posting - in topic. It was YOU who jumped in the discussion with something else, technically irrelevant. Not ME who sticks its nose into your business with something out-of-topic.
So who seems to be making "a tremenous effort attempting to discredit" whom? You or me?
Surely you have read what Kurt just posted - up-to-the-point reply to the original poster's question re shielding or not while clarifying the balanced signal system which you tried so hard to explain?
While I seem to have owned you some kind words of appreciation on you efforts you've made to explain your points, be it right or wrong regardless, I am very happy to share with my balanced signal transfer knowledge with you in a SEPERATE thread.
NO hard feeling please.
Jack, I apologize if I was too personal. I'd rather avoid being personal if possible, but I have to be honest and say that you make it very, very difficult.As for your charge that my discussion was off topic, I find that bewildering. If it's true that you have not been trying to misdirect the jury, then it must also be true that you simply do not see the relevance of what I was saying. That is unfortunate for you.
It pains me to have to explain myself (again, still): you suggested that unshielded twisted pair works "big time" with single ended circuits. I brought balanced/differential circuits into the discussion to explain that these circuits are where twisted pairs are intended to be used, that this is where the tremendous benefit of noise suppression is found (without shielding.) It is necessary to understand how that benefit is realized in balanced/differential systems to understand why it is not realized in single ended systems.
The fact that you may be incapable of seeing the relevance is unfortunate for you, and ultimately unfortunate for the rest of us too. I'll try to avoid saying anything more personal about you, though it is very, very tempting.
'he twists and turns like a twisty turny thing' Rowan Atkinson in Blackadder the 3rd . Applies to your little 'fruitbowl' outbursts , do a search on the archive and you'll see that you use this as an arguement continually . There is a very easy way out of this , a real man with real knowledge would :Just admit they're wrong !!!!!
ps I could easily discredit you with using the phrase 'up to the point' . It is very poor gramatical use of the English language if you could pardon my poor spelling . I would have thought that a degree educated expert (which you often claim to be) could do better
.
read the thread pal . no twisting ot turning , finger-pointing or fruit please . You agreed with Kurt S who accepted he had made a mistake , therefore your attack on Dave C was unfounded . So 'be up to the point' and admit your mistake , only a 100lb weakling hung like a chinese mouse wouldn't
Hi.Be my guest, your no-name coward!!
Your stinky way of positng reads pretty similar to that shitty German character who just rampaged Propeller Head Plaza out of the blue.
What moniker you wanted to change tomorrow? You German coward!!!
All the time I was talking about unbalanced signal transfer. I agreed to Kurt's statement on balanced signal transfer needs a CT as Kurt responded to Dave Cigna.
Read the textbooks about balanced signal transfer before you ever wanted to comment. Empty talks bring you nowhere.
I never mentioned differential but Dave did.
c-J
PS: Would the Bored please watch out for this insane character here.
c-J, are you in China?
To be honest with you , your behaviour is quite disturbing and rather odd . My post was only pointing out your own inadequacies with a spot of humorThe above post starts off with a bit of name calling , followed by swearing , then accusations , then another relating to my location (which is not Germany) . Then an insult . Then a threat . You got the wrong person , sort the facts out then sort your life out . I think you owe me an apology
Thanks !!!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: