In article .com,
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.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what you are talking about. :-)

You gave an 'analogy' sic involving Clinton. That was the context of what
I wrote. The implication was in your attempt at an analogy and apply it
to what we had been discussing.

Once again, you have snipped the context and misunderstood/misrepresented
what I wrote, and are objecting to your own straw man inventions.


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).

I note that the above refers to "differences of opinion".

I have (repeatedly) explained that my interest was in evidence. Your
comment is about opinions. It's that straw man again...


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

In article , Rob
wrote:


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 :-)

I've certainly taken part in some 'enthusiastic' arguments at bars at
various conferences and in physics depts. However these have always been
congenial, and those involved understood what they were talking about,
hence did not take arguments out context or think that questioning a
comment and asking for the evidence for a claim was casting any doubts
about the person who made it.

They also involved people who clearly understood the distinctions such as
that between 'evidence' and 'proof', and who took as basic that claims
should be assessed on evidence, not opinion.

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

On 2006-09-25, Keith G wrote:

"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...

This is completely wrong. You possibly failed to look at the hierarchy
charter for uk.rec (see http://www.usenet.org.uk/hierarchy.html#uk.rec)
where we find:

"This hierarchy covers activities which people do mainly for the
purpose of recreation. Nevertheless, discussion may be expected
at all levels of expertise, both professional and amateur, and may
include both utilitarian and recreational aspects of the subject. It
is not always helpful to set up separate groups for these aspects and
thus the placement of many topics within this category may be seen
(especially with hindsight) as being somewhat arbitrary."

1. Note "mainly ... recreation" which is not exclusive.

2. Note the expected level of discussion "all levels ... professional
and amateur ...".

The group charter takes no contrary position.

A level of discussion that some may regard as professional is both
allowed by charter and explicitly expected. If people don't want to
join in a discussion that others do enjoy they can refrain.

--
John Phillips

On 2006-09-26, Eeyore wrote:


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 !

But go and look at the uk.rec hierarchy charter.

--
John Phillips

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-09-26, Eeyore wrote:
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 !

But go and look at the uk.rec hierarchy charter.

I read your post and entirely concur.

Graham

Andy Evans wrote:

A level of discussion that some may regard as professional is both
allowed by charter and explicitly expected. If people don't want to
join in a discussion that others do enjoy they can refrain.

This may be true in theory but doesn't work in practice, as we all
know. There are just as many "professionals" criticising "amateurs" as
vica versa, in fact mutual distrust and interaction seems to be the
mainstay of the group.

You're entirely welcome to wallow in your unprofessional myths for sure.

Graham

A level of discussion that some may regard as professional is both
allowed by charter and explicitly expected. If people don't want to
join in a discussion that others do enjoy they can refrain.

This may be true in theory but doesn't work in practice, as we all
know. There are just as many "professionals" criticising "amateurs" as
vica versa, in fact mutual distrust and interaction seems to be the
mainstay of the group.

You're entirely welcome to wallow in your unprofessional myths for
sure. Graham

Whereas you wallow in professional myths? Do tell me what it's like!

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-25, Keith G wrote:

"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...

This is completely wrong. You possibly failed to look at the hierarchy
charter for uk.rec (see http://www.usenet.org.uk/hierarchy.html#uk.rec)


Yep, you are not entirely wrong in your assumption....



A level of discussion that some may regard as professional is both
allowed by charter and explicitly expected. If people don't want to
join in a discussion that others do enjoy they can refrain.


OK, put me down a having been misled by the existence of groups like
rec.audio.pro and rec.audio.high-end, where (stupidly, perhaps) I thought
the 'pros' and 'high-enders' might have congregated?? Pros in what I thought
was a hobbyist group has always struck me as a little like gynecologists
jumping on the bus that's headed for the local knocking shop (??), but if
this not a hobbyist group, then I'd better reconsider my own position - if I
found myself in the company of (most) 'professionals' in real life I'd run
off in the opposite direction....!!

Eeyore wrote:
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 ?

Why what?



Scott