Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article . com,
Andy Evans wrote:
Who are you to re-interpret his position and then claim he's lying ?
Graham


I'm a psychologist - like it or not, my job is to interpret what
people say or do.

And yet on more than one occasion you have attributed to me things I
neither said nor meant. Those reading recent postings may have seen a
number of exampless where I point out where you do this.


This is the typical out for passive aggressive behavior. When people are
called on it they typically say it was the other person's
misinterpretation.

Please read the examples I have given where Andy misrepresents what I said.
Note that he never actually quoted me saying what he asserted.

I have. I stand by my claim.



Have a look back through this thread. If you find some examples where you
feel that I have said that Andy misinterpreted me, but I am wrong, please
quote one or two, giving the details of the postings so that I and others
can examine them in context.

I did a little looking and found a few of your claims of
misinterpretation to be vague. So maybe you could provide some direct
quotes yorself where you feel you have said something specific and Andy
has made some gross miinterpretation

I appreciate that this can be quite difficult, though, as Andy does not
follow the usual usenet conventions regarding quoting and responding,
hence what he posts has often lost its context.

Please also see below...



I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't strike me as
the sort of person who would deliberately lie. I said his attitide
was hypocritical. You can't pretend to be the good guy and then turn
on people without expecting some comeback.

But I can hope that you might read and understand what I wrote, and
deal with that - rather than other ideas which you invent and
attribute to me but which I did not say, nor mean.


You either accept that you're being critical and deal with the
consequences or you do the whole nice guy thing and treat people
with grace and acceptance. I don't fall for all this faux ingenue
stuff of "I'm only asking for scentific proof, and I really don't
see what all the fuss is about".

Therein perhaps lays the key to the problem you have in not
understanding what I write. :-)

I read it. I don't see any misinterpretations on Andy's part that you
specifically cite. I see claims of misinterpretation with no specifics.




Do you find that a lot of people have this problem with what you write
;-) Ever consider the possibility that at least some the fault is yours?


Yes, it is certainly possible that some people do not understand what I
write. Indeed, this is why I may respond when someone posts something
that is based upon not having understood what was talking about.

I see some signs of this, for example, in what Andy says about some
of what I have written. However I have not seen any sign that "a lot"
of people have difficulty understanding what I have been writing. I
don't know how many people are reading this thread, nor what those
who have said nothing actually think one way or the other.

Perhaps if you were more specific and direct the people having these
problems will get over them.





Let me invite everyone reading this thread to respond to the following
questions:


Do people think that what I have been saying is unclear and that I am
at fault for this? (No need for Andy or porky to answer this as their
views already seem apparent, but I'd be interested in what others may
say.)

As as specific example: Do people not see the distinction I make between
'evidence' and 'proof'?

I have no idea if anyone else *is* actually reading this thread to this
point, but it would be interesting to see what comments people might make.
It would not surprise me, though, to find that most people lost interest
ages ago and there are only two or three people still reading this. :-)



Let me also ask you, porky: Did you notice that, having read Andy's
comments, I then pointed out that - for example - I was talking about
evidence, not proof? Was that statement on my part unclear or difficult
to understand? Is the distinction I make between them unclear?

It struck me as painfully small in the big picture. kind of like this.
Person A says "You are hitting me with a purple hammer and it hurts."
Person B says. "No I'm not! The hammer is magenta."



The purpose of my writing such responses is to correct misunderstandings.
It is a common human experience that misunderstandings will arise, but
the mechanism we have to deal with this is the feedback of pointing out
the mistake, as I have been doing.

Fortunately, I have found that most of my students over the years, and most
of those who have commented on what I have had published, seem to follow
most of what I have written/said.[1] It may be significant that most
students I teach are in physics and engineering, so already have a
background knowledge of the thinks I write about. But I can see that I
may well write things here which are unclear to some readers. No idea
if they are "a lot" or a large fraction of those reading, but my
impression over the years is that most of the people I discuss things
with seem to follow what I am saying OK.


I still see you approach as passive aggressive. Again I suggest you
simply be more direct and specific in the future.




[1] Of course, this does not necessarily mean they always agree with
me. :-)



BTW I have also never asked for "proof". That is not at all the same
thing as evidence. Do you not understand the distinction? But once
again it shows an example of you inventing something and using using
quotation marks to make it seem as if it was something I said or meant.


I think you missunderstood what he meant by those quotation marks. What
comes around goes around. Don't you agree?

No idea what you mean, I'm afraid. Perhaps you can quote what he said that
you are referring to, and explain more specifically.

You already made the quote. The issue is the *meaning* of the quotation
marks. While they are chiefly used to represent exact words used they
are often used to represent one's take on another's POV. That was my
interpretation of Andy's use of quotation marks in that particular
example. maybe Andy can tell us what he meant.

Scott

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

The issue is the *meaning* of the quotation marks. While they are
chiefly used to represent exact words used they are often used to
represent one's take on another's POV. That was my interpretation of
Andy's use of quotation marks in that particular
example. maybe Andy can tell us what he meant.

Hello Scott - your analysis of common usage is quite correct, and I do
both. I make a point of leaving some credit to the imagination of
others, and you seem to pick this up without difficulty. I do the same
with a number of things, e.g. irony. I may deliberately say the
opposite of something, or wilfully exaggerate. I do expect people of
reasonable intuition to pick up on these things, and for the same
reason I never use smileys. Something is funny or it isn't - it's up to
the reader to do a little intuitive work. I'm against the brain
becoming an extinct organ!

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

What you then do is invoke
"others" (your exact word above, so let's not have any stuff about
being misrepresented) and collectively accuse the person of
communicating in a way that is not "worth taking seriously" (your
exact words).

Careful on that thin ice, Andy. His exact words were...

---------------------------------------
Just as it is up to others to decide if the claim is worth taking seriously
or not.
---------------------------------------

The thing being taken seriously or not is the claim, and not the claimant's
way of communicating it (or anything else).


If you don't think that telling people they're not
worth taking seriously is being dismissive, ...

Not the people, the *claim*.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

How does this sound to you -
a) dismissive
b) friendly

Bifurcation fallacy.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

wrote:

I read it. I don't see any misinterpretations on Andy's part that you
specifically cite. I see claims of misinterpretation with no
specifics.

See my post of a few minutes ago, elsewhere in this thread, in which I point
out that Andy makes two misinterpretations of Jim's words (in as many
sentences).


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

If you don't think that telling people they're not
worth taking seriously is being dismissive, ...

Not the people, the *claim*.

So in your opinion
a) Bill Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Has nothing to do with
b) Bill Clinton can not be taken seriously.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Not the people, the *claim*.

So in your opinion
a) Bill Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Has nothing to do with
b) Bill Clinton can not be taken seriously.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Jim said that a claim may or may not be taken seriously. In the space of two
sentences, you took that to refer to the way that a person communicates, and
to people themselves. What part of "claim" means "the way a person
comminicates", or "people"?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article . com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:


I have simply seen too many cases where what people claim turns out to
be wrong.


Really? Wrong in what way? How do you know they were wrong?

Here is an excellent example:

The Great Cable Test - Part 1 Hi Fi News 30-41 44(7) July 1999

The Great Cable Test - Part 2 Hi Fi News 32-41 44(8) August 1999

The Great Cable Test - Part 3 Hi Fi News 40-53 44(9) September 1999

BTW The contents of the above also neatly illustrate the distinction
between 'evidence' and 'proof', and why this can be important.

Read and enjoy. :-)


Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article , Wally
wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:

What you then do is invoke "others" (your exact word above, so let's
not have any stuff about being misrepresented) and collectively accuse
the person of communicating in a way that is not "worth taking
seriously" (your exact words).

Careful on that thin ice, Andy. His exact words were...

--------------------------------------- Just as it is up to others to
decide if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.
---------------------------------------

The thing being taken seriously or not is the claim, and not the
claimant's way of communicating it (or anything else).

Indeed.


If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking
seriously is being dismissive, ...

Not the people, the *claim*.

Indeed.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

So in your opinion
a) Bill Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Has nothing to do with
b) Bill Clinton can not be taken seriously.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Well, if you're asking me to do your thinking for you, it means that "a
person's claim cannot be taken seriously" and "a person cannot be taken
seriously" are not mutually exclusive. I didn't say they were identical
- you fabricated that - I said that there was overlap between the two.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:
So in your opinion
a) Bill Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex with that woman..."

Has nothing to do with
b) Bill Clinton can not be taken seriously.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Well, if you're asking me to do your thinking for you, it means that
"a person's claim cannot be taken seriously" and "a person cannot be
taken seriously" are not mutually exclusive. I didn't say they were
identical - you fabricated that - I said that there was overlap
between the two.

If you're going to spout in the context of avoiding misrepresentation and
using exact words...

-----------------------------------------
What you then do is invoke "others" (your exact
word above, so let's not have any stuff about being misrepresented) and
collectively accuse the person of communicating in a way that is not
"worth taking seriously" (your exact words). If you don't think that
telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive,
then I come back to saying you're in denial.
-----------------------------------------

....I think it is, to say the least, disingenious of you suggest that your
vaguness (some X are Y) is acceptable. If linguistic precision is the game,
then play accordingly.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
I eat my peas with honey, I've done it all my life.
It makes the peas taste funny, but it keeps them on the knife.
(Spike Milligan)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

In article , Wally
wrote:
Andy Evans wrote:

Not the people, the *claim*.

So in your opinion a) Bill Clinton's claim that "I did not have sex
with that woman..."

Has nothing to do with b) Bill Clinton can not be taken seriously.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

Jim said that a claim may or may not be taken seriously. In the space of
two sentences, you took that to refer to the way that a person
communicates, and to people themselves. What part of "claim" means "the
way a person comminicates", or "people"?

Andy's attempt at an analogy is an interesting one, but may say rather more
about his thought processes than mine. I would have said that the following
is a closer analogy as an internet exchange:

A: "It is raining"

B: Looks out of his window and can't see any sign of rain. "Interesting. It
doesn't seem to be raining here. Where are you, and why do you say it is
raining?"

A:"How dare you doubt my word and make a sly attack on my personal
integrity. You hypocrit... etc, etc"

Of course, that attempt at an analogy may be as bad as Andy's... :-) It is
a weak method of argument unless used with great care as it can easily
mislead or confuse.

Although at least in my example A did not presume that B was lying, nor
'guilty' of anything they might feel ashamed to admit for fear that it
would ruin their reputation.

I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give some
evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to imply
they are a liar or worse. His 'analogy' seems to take for granted that the
statement questioned must be a foul and deliberate lie.

The actual point I have repeatedly made is that to assess a claim, I would
like to know the details/evidence on which it is based. In scientific,
engineering, or academic circles this isn't normally taken as an accusation
directed against the individual. Instead it is taken as the basis for
normal progress.

I appreciate that this isn't always necessary. Depends on the case.
But the absence may mean that we can't always tell if what was stated is
reliable, particularly in cases that seem not to agree with our own
experience, or which don't have an apparent explanation in terms of
physics, etc.

The pity is that is may well be raining where 'A' is, and perhaps even
where 'B' is if he checked more carefully, or waited a short time. But A's
reaction isn't likely to help anyone.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

....I think it is, to say the least, disingenious of you suggest that
your
vaguness (some X are Y) is acceptable.

If it is in fact the case that some X are Y then how is this
disingenuous?

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:
...I think it is, to say the least, disingenious of you suggest that
your
vaguness (some X are Y) is acceptable.

If it is in fact the case that some X are Y then how is this
disingenuous?

I can't be bothred with this crap.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

If it is in fact the case that some X are Y then how is this
disingenuous?

I can't be bothred with this crap.

Well, it was you who singled out the trivial parts instead of the main
points I was making, so don't blame me if it's crap. Andy

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

I can't be bothred with this crap.

Well, it was you who singled out the trivial parts instead of the main
points I was making, so don't blame me if it's crap. Andy

Seems to me that you spend too much time applying your own spin to what he
says. So far as I can see, he qualifies his ass to hell and back and is one
of the most precise writers here. You, however, seem to think that your
interpretation of what he says is more accurate than what he claims he says.
Asserting the veracity of your opinion on the basis of an appeal to your own
authority is monumentally arrogant.

From here, most of what you have to say about him sounds like paranoid
nonsense. You paint him as the bad *******, but you argue your case
illogically. You 'acquiesce' to avoidance of misrepresentation - and then
misrepresent in the same ****ing sentence! And again - with a different
misrepresentation - in the sentence that immediately follows! You engage in
debate, but seem unable to distinguish between 'argument' and 'arguer'.

Do you expect to be taken seriously?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Call me a saint, call me a sinner - just don't call me... late for
dinner.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

You, however, seem to think that your interpretation of what he says is
more accurate than what he claims he says.

Once again this is just a smokescreen - both you and Jim seem to take
the view that as long as it is accurately reported anything you say is
true. Apart from being as arrogant as the things you wish to attribute
to me, this attitude avoids dealing with the real issues of WHY people
including but not limited to myself find it annoying to be bombarded
with dismissive posts asking for scientific evidence (what this is
shifts as the wind blows) in response to perfectly anodine accounts of
comparative listening experiences. This is a NEWSGROUP not a bloody
scientific forum, and on all the other audio newsgroups I use,
comparative listening experiences are greeted with THANKS that people
have taken the time to illustrate their own findings.

Unless you want to deal with this, please don't waste my time with
petty semantics.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

Once again this is just a smokescreen - both you and Jim seem to take
the view that as long as it is accurately reported anything you say is
true.

What are you talking about? As long as *what* is accurately reported, and
anything *who*says? Just what, exactly, are you attributing to me?


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
Things are always clearer in the cold, post-upload light.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about what I wrote above and you and Jim are systematically
avoiding dealing with it. Until you do, my view is that you are both in
denial. You don't even admit that people get annoyed, even though a
number of posts from members of this newsgroup make that clear. Your
attitude seems to be that as long as people don't specifically supply
you with scientific evidence for their remarks, then what they say
can't be taken seriously, and that's their problem not yours.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

I'm talking about what I wrote above and you and Jim are
systematically avoiding dealing with it.

You're fantasising.


Until you do, my view is
that you are both in denial.

In denial of WHAT? What are you on about?


You don't even admit that people get
annoyed,

Eh?? I haven't denied that people get annoyed. I haven't even COMMENTED on
the subject of people getting annoyed!


even though a number of posts from members of this newsgroup
make that clear.

Make what clear? Quote the ****ing things!


Your attitude seems to be that as long as people
don't specifically supply you with scientific evidence for their
remarks, then what they say can't be taken seriously, and that's
their problem not yours.

Oh, get a *grip*! If you would bother to READ what I actually write around
here, you'd know that...

I don't give a **** about accuracy.

I don't give a **** about what anybody else does with their system.

I never tell people that what I've done with mine is something that they
should do with theirs.

I think comparison of minutiae like so-called cable differences is a
complete waste of ****ing time - speakers, room, temperature, how well fed,
etc, are all more significant in my book. I can't be arsed with either the
'accuracy is all' crowd, or the golden-eared 'sounds better on sight'
self-bull****ters.

I don't do valves. I don't do vinyl. I fully support the approach that Keith
(and others, yourself included, probably) takes.


You're attributing **** to me that isn't ****ing true. I know exactly what
"annoyed" means. Not only do you argue like a ****ing idiot, you take every
rebuttal of what you say as some sort of personal slight - you are incapable
of distinguishing between the arguement and the arguer. You do what you
denigrate others for.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
If it ain't broke, fix it until it is.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Wally" wrote


snip scrapping


Oh, get a *grip*! If you would bother to READ what I actually write around
here, you'd know that...

I don't give a **** about accuracy.


:-)



I don't give a **** about what anybody else does with their system.


:-)


I never tell people that what I've done with mine is something that they
should do with theirs.


:-)


I think comparison of minutiae like so-called cable differences is a
complete waste of ****ing time - speakers, room, temperature, how well
fed,
etc, are all more significant in my book. I can't be arsed with either the
'accuracy is all' crowd, or the golden-eared 'sounds better on sight'
self-bull****ters.



:-)


I don't do valves. I don't do vinyl.


Oh!

OK, nobody's *perfect*.....

:-)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

Oh!
OK, nobody's *perfect*.....
:-)

Glad to see you admit it! ;-)

I do still have the Maplin 5-20 kit that I built a few years ago (p-p EL34,
20wpc), but I can't be arsed finding a new valve to replace the duff one.
I'm awash with Cyri as it is (six in total, plus a knackered one for
spares), plus there's a Mk1 Arcam Alpha kicking about, and the bedroom radio
is currently a Sansui receiver (only using the reciever bit, into a Cyrus
1). I have to say, I did like the 5-20, but it lacked power.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Your attitude seems to be that as long as people
don't specifically supply you with scientific evidence for their
remarks, then what they say can't be taken seriously, and that's
their problem not yours.

I was using "your" in the plural because you appeared to be defending
Jim's point of view. If you are not, then this doesn't apply and I
withdraw it. I don't know what your attitudes are because I don't
remember any of your posts. Andy

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

Oh!
OK, nobody's *perfect*.....
:-)

Glad to see you admit it! ;-)

I do still have the Maplin 5-20 kit that I built a few years ago (p-p
EL34,
20wpc), but I can't be arsed finding a new valve to replace the duff one.


What one is duff? I've got a load of spares (not EL34s though) and could put
one in the post to you, if I've got it...???


I'm awash with Cyri as it is (six in total, plus a knackered one for
spares),


Looks like you've got a bad case of the Cyrus Virus...!! ;-)


plus there's a Mk1 Arcam Alpha kicking about, and the bedroom radio
is currently a Sansui receiver (only using the reciever bit, into a Cyrus
1). I have to say, I did like the 5-20, but it lacked power.


Sure, you gotta hang the right speakers off valve amps to get the right
results!!

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

What one is duff? I've got a load of spares (not EL34s though) and
could put one in the post to you, if I've got it...???

One of the EF86s started going noisy a couple of years ago.


Looks like you've got a bad case of the Cyrus Virus...!! ;-)

I was thinking of getting the Behringer A500s, which can be had for little
more than the going-rate price of a Cyrus 2 on eBay. I went to eBay for a
look at current prices and, while I was there, found a dutch auction for
several, which I got for a rather good price. So, that's three 50-watters on
the main system, one 25-watter in the bedroom, a 25 in the
workshop/lab/studio/plaroom, and a 3rd 25 waiting to become the amp for the
rear speakers (whenever I can be arsed to get around to it).


plus there's a Mk1 Arcam Alpha kicking about, and the bedroom radio
is currently a Sansui receiver (only using the reciever bit, into a
Cyrus 1). I have to say, I did like the 5-20, but it lacked power.

Sure, you gotta hang the right speakers off valve amps to get the
right results!!

I would say so. It did okay for general listening, but just didn't have the
oomph to pull solid dynamics out of the bag. That was into Kef
Concerto-based home-brews.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:

I was using "your" in the plural because you appeared to be defending
Jim's point of view.

I wasn't defending a point of view. I was criticising the nature of your
response to something that Jim said.


If you are not, then this doesn't apply and I
withdraw it. I don't know what your attitudes are because I don't
remember any of your posts.

Then you are in no position to judge whether my view is aligned towards that
of anyone else.


--
Wally
www.wally.myby.co.uk
You're unique - just like everybody else.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

What one is duff? I've got a load of spares (not EL34s though) and
could put one in the post to you, if I've got it...???

One of the EF86s started going noisy a couple of years ago.



Sorry Wally! No can do - closest I got are ECF82s... (Mullards yet....!! ;-)

Easy enough to get though?? Give Jim Fish a buzz:

http://www.flashbacksales.co.uk/wils...es/wvindex.htm




Looks like you've got a bad case of the Cyrus Virus...!! ;-)

I was thinking of getting the Behringer A500s, which can be had for little
more than the going-rate price of a Cyrus 2 on eBay. I went to eBay for a
look at current prices and, while I was there, found a dutch auction for
several, which I got for a rather good price. So, that's three 50-watters
on
the main system, one 25-watter in the bedroom, a 25 in the
workshop/lab/studio/plaroom, and a 3rd 25 waiting to become the amp for
the
rear speakers (whenever I can be arsed to get around to it).


:-)



plus there's a Mk1 Arcam Alpha kicking about, and the bedroom radio
is currently a Sansui receiver (only using the reciever bit, into a
Cyrus 1). I have to say, I did like the 5-20, but it lacked power.

Sure, you gotta hang the right speakers off valve amps to get the
right results!!

I would say so. It did okay for general listening, but just didn't have
the
oomph to pull solid dynamics out of the bag. That was into Kef
Concerto-based home-brews.


OK. I'm not into 'trouser-flapping' these days (you don't that much air from
horns) but I do like a nice slapped face!! :-)

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

The actual point I have repeatedly made is that to assess a claim, I
would
like to know the details/evidence on which it is based. In scientific,
engineering, or academic circles this isn't normally taken as an
accusation
directed against the individual.

Ha! How many acrimonious letters between individuals run on and on in
academic publications - I don't know what it's like in your neck of the
woods but in mine the protagonists talk as if they would willingly kill
each other. The history of science, as you should well know, is
peppered with famous personal conflicts. I think the above is naive to
say the least. I could say that trying to eliminate emotion in human
behaviour and communication is going to give you a pretty robotic view
of what actually happens between individuals.

Anyway, I repeat:
a) this is a recreational newsgroup
b) the overwhelming way of posting information in home and DIY audio is
describing comparative listening tests, subjective though these are.
Posters who give information are routinely thanked for doing so, not
met with "alas this is simply faith based" etc etc
c) if you ask for evidence you should do so with good grace, and accept
that in most cases it simply won't be forthcoming, which you don't.
Your tendency is to be dismissive towards the person/lack of evidence
(you chose since you seem to treat this as a binary)

You can't see or won't accept the above so it really is pointless to
continue this. I'm not going to waste my time plodding through sematics
when nobody is dealing with the main point here.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give
some
evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to
imply
they are a liar or worse
I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give
some
evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to
imply
they are a liar or worse. His 'analogy' seems to take for granted that
the
statement questioned must be a foul and deliberate lie.
JLS

Oh, do get a grip Jim. I have said quite clearly (exact quote)

"I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't
strike me as the sort of person who would deliberately lie."

You witter on endlessly about being misrepresented and then come out
with the above. You're as bad as anyone, except you don't see it or
admit it.

Also for the record I never said that not taking what a person said
seriously was the same as not taking a person seriously. What I did say
was that in practice you might find an appreciable overlap due to the
fact that when people make serious statements they may well be offended
when people don't take such statements seriously. I'm not saying that
what they say should not be challenged if we are talking pure science
(not audio) but one would expect an emotional reaction (large or small)
in many cases.
As noted elsewhere, and as you should well know, the history of science
is peppered with famous and acrimonious personal conflicts based
entirely on differences of opinion (and this applies to academic
circles, if you read ongoing duals-by-letter in academic publications).

What I actually said was the following, which is perfectly in accord
with the above:

**I cannot take you
seriously**
or **I cannot take that seriously**

"I thought of exactly that theoretical distinction and pondered it for
a
while, but in practice I don't think it makes much difference. "What
you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent. "

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Also for the record I never said that not taking what a person said
seriously was the same as not taking a person seriously. What I did say
was that in practice you might find an appreciable overlap due to the
fact that when people make serious statements they may well be offended
when people don't take such statements seriously. I'm not saying that
what they say should not be challenged if we are talking pure science

**I cannot take you
seriously**
or **I cannot take that seriously**

"I thought of exactly that theoretical distinction and pondered it for
a while, but in practice I don't think it makes much difference. "What
you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent. "

It occurred to me after writing this that I was making the assumption
that people would be familiar with the basics of the Fundamental
Attribution Error (thinking like a psychologist here............), but
this might not be the case. So in brief:

"In attribution theory, the fundamental attribution error (also known
as correspondence bias or overattribution effect and frequently
confused with the actor-observer bias) is the tendency for people to
over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for
behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power
of situational influences on the same behavior. In other words, people
tend to have a default assumption that what a person does is based more
on what "kind" of person he or she is, rather than the social and
environmental forces at work on that person. This default assumption
leads to people sometimes making erroneous explanations for behavior.
The term was coined by Lee Ross some years after the now-classic
experiment by Edward E. Jones and Victor Harris. Ross argued in a
popular paper that the fundamental attribution error forms the
conceptual bedrock for the field of social psychology."

I encounter this regularly in my work, so when I said" "What
you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent " I was assuming that there would frequently be a confusion
between the two in practice, as above.
I apologise for expecting you to know this, since it's not your field,
but it does make it clear why I made the point.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...

"What you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as
a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent " I was assuming that there would frequently be a confusion
between the two in practice, as above.
I apologise for expecting you to know this, since it's not your field,
but it does make it clear why I made the point.

Andy,
Good parenting guides/child psychologists recommend that, when disciplining
a child you never say "you are being naughty", you say "your behavior is
naughty", the concept being to concentrate on the behavior, not the child.
In this instance with Jim I think you are saying Jim is being naughty when
you shouldn't be.

As adults can't we concentrate on the supporting information or lack of
supporting information provided rather then the person providing the
information. I think we should have the ability to differentiate between a
comment made about something the person has said and a comment about the
person otherwise we get into situations where comments are taken too
personally and we can very readily, but incorrectly take offence. It's
something that seems to happen all too often on these newsgroups.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy Evans wrote:
I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give
some
evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to
imply
they are a liar or worse
I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give
some
evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to
imply
they are a liar or worse. His 'analogy' seems to take for granted that
the
statement questioned must be a foul and deliberate lie.
JLS

Oh, do get a grip Jim. I have said quite clearly (exact quote)

"I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't
strike me as the sort of person who would deliberately lie."

You witter on endlessly about being misrepresented and then come out
with the above. You're as bad as anyone, except you don't see it or
admit it.

Also for the record I never said that not taking what a person said
seriously was the same as not taking a person seriously. What I did say
was that in practice you might find an appreciable overlap due to the
fact that when people make serious statements they may well be offended
when people don't take such statements seriously. I'm not saying that
what they say should not be challenged if we are talking pure science
(not audio) but one would expect an emotional reaction (large or small)
in many cases.
As noted elsewhere, and as you should well know, the history of science
is peppered with famous and acrimonious personal conflicts based
entirely on differences of opinion (and this applies to academic
circles, if you read ongoing duals-by-letter in academic publications).


Perhaps this 'bond' is unique to JL's experience. Mine is that academic
conferences split into at least three camps. Most of the time it's quite
cordial. Things usually hot up in the evening bar sessions :-)

Rob

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Andy,
Good parenting guides/child psychologists recommend that, when
disciplining
a child you never say "you are being naughty", you say "your behavior
is
naughty", the concept being to concentrate on the behavior, not the
child.
In this instance with Jim I think you are saying Jim is being naughty
when
you shouldn't be.

Hi there - no, I'm saying Jim seems to be oblivious to the actual
effects on people of saying "what you say can't be taken seriously"

As adults can't we concentrate on the supporting information or lack of

supporting information provided rather then the person providing the
information. I think we should have the ability to differentiate
between a
comment made about something the person has said and a comment about
the
person otherwise we get into situations where comments are taken too
personally and we can very readily, but incorrectly take offence. It's
something that seems to happen all too often on these newsgroups.

Yes absolutely - in an ideal world all the above should be possible. My
point is that it tends not to happen in practice, and that's human
nature. It doesn't just happen all too often on these newsgroups, it
happens all too often in real life so if we're being realistic we have
to factor it in. I previously said that ignoring this was naive, but
maybe I should say misinformed instead. You can't argue in a vacuum,
you argue with people and all their attendant emotions.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

.....academic conferences split into at least three camps. Most of the
time it's quite cordial. Things usually hot up in the evening bar
sessions :-)

Yes, conferences are usually not the worst offenders - a change of
scenery lifts the morale, especially when the conferences are in nice
places abroad. I was thinking more of written exchanges. I remember an
ongoing feud between two colleagues in The Lancet which lasted about 2
years and ended up with one party emigrating to Australia! I think
meeting face to face tempers the emotions more than sitting down at a
computer keyboard where you can't actually see the party involved.

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

On 2006-09-25, Andy Evans wrote:
Anyway, I repeat:
a) this is a recreational newsgroup

A perfectly good use for the group, but "recreation" doesn't appear
in the group's charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.audio.html).

The key paragraph seems to be:

"uk.rec.audio is an unmoderated newsgroup. It is primarily a forum
for discussion of hi-fi equipment available in the UK, a place for
independant reviews and opinions on hi-fi, and an advice centre
for those bitten by the upgrade bug. It may include discussions on
what hi-fi is trying to do (accurately reproduce music? a 'live'
acoustic?) and its development. It is also a site for the private
sale and exchange of used hi-fi components. "

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

It's an "occupational hazard" in newsgroups that no-one can really control
the way a thread goes. Things often go off at an unexpected tangent.

There might, at times, be recourse in the charter's:

"Lengthy flames on:

* LP/CD differences/superiority,
* specific manufacturers,
* valve/tranny superiority ,
* the relevance of lab measurements

will be frowned upon."

But I don't know who should do the frowning, nor do I know the point at
which such a flame qualifies as "lengthy".

--
John Phillips

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-25, Andy Evans wrote:
Anyway, I repeat:
a) this is a recreational newsgroup

A perfectly good use for the group, but "recreation" doesn't appear
in the group's charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.audio.html).

The key paragraph seems to be:

"uk.rec.audio is an unmoderated newsgroup. It is primarily a forum
for discussion of hi-fi equipment available in the UK, a place for
independant reviews and opinions on hi-fi, and an advice centre
for those bitten by the upgrade bug. It may include discussions on
what hi-fi is trying to do (accurately reproduce music? a 'live'
acoustic?) and its development. It is also a site for the private
sale and exchange of used hi-fi components. "

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.


The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...



It's an "occupational hazard" in newsgroups that no-one can really control
the way a thread goes. Things often go off at an unexpected tangent.

They do? Can't say I'd noticed....??

:-)


There might, at times, be recourse in the charter's:

"Lengthy flames on:

* LP/CD differences/superiority,
* specific manufacturers,
* valve/tranny superiority ,
* the relevance of lab measurements

will be frowned upon."


Din't leave a whole lot worth bothering with, does it? :-)



But I don't know who should do the frowning, nor do I know the point at
which such a flame qualifies as "lengthy".


Arny does the frowning (all the time) - which is a bit rich, seein's he
ain't even of these shores....

LOL!

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-09-25, Andy Evans wrote:
Anyway, I repeat:
a) this is a recreational newsgroup

A perfectly good use for the group, but "recreation" doesn't appear
in the group's charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.audio.html).

It does however appear in the group's name !

UK
Recreational
Audio

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Keith G wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...

You'd have to ask yourself long and hard why that might be.

To anyone interested I'd recommend a trip to rec.audio.pro for a pro's view.

Graham

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...

You'd have to ask yourself long and hard why that might be.

A lot of second tier pros whop need to pick fights with hobbyists to
feel better about being second tier?


Scott

Apogee mini dac or Benchmark DAC1
 

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:
"John Phillips" wrote

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...

You'd have to ask yourself long and hard why that might be.

A lot of second tier pros whop need to pick fights with hobbyists to
feel better about being second tier?

Why ?

Graham