Jim Lesurf wrote:
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



This is your idea of an excellent example of what people claim turning
out to be wrong? Looks like you are picking and chosing your anecdotes
once again. No thank you.


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

How so?



Read and enjoy. :-)

Read what? I don't have those articles with me. I read them a long time
ago. What do you think they represent?

Scott

Eeyore wrote:
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.

As are you. Wallow away.

Scott

Jim Lesurf wrote:
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. :-)

Don't be ridiculous -
"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" and
"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"
is completely incompatible with "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." (which was the one and only time I used the word lie
- in the negative)

Avoiding the main points I've been making throughout this thread as
usual and focussing on the irrelevent. I know what you are going to say
in advance -
a) Its taken out of context
b) it isn't what I said
c) it's a straw man

you could almost put this to music, I've heard it so often.

On 2006-09-26, 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.

I sort of agree but a technique I use when I think "****" about any
particular article is to deliberately refrain from repying for a while
and often I either let it go completely or revise the tone of my reply.

--
John Phillips

I sort of agree but a technique I use when I think "****" about any
particular article is to deliberately refrain from repying for a while
and often I either let it go completely or revise the tone of my reply.
JP

So YOU'RE the guy in that poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling. I always
wondered who it was! Andy

On 2006-09-27, Andy Evans wrote:
I sort of agree but a technique I use when I think "****" about any
particular article is to deliberately refrain from repying for a while
and often I either let it go completely or revise the tone of my reply.
JP

So YOU'RE the guy in that poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling. I always
wondered who it was! Andy

Kipling? You may be disappointed that coming from a technical R&D
background by profession I'm more like the one who keeps the "six honest
serving men" [1].

[1] "I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."

--
John Phillips

"I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who."

John - thanks for that! Very nice indeed - I didn't know it! Andy