Why "accuracy"?
 

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:46:19 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.


The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 8:24 am, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:

The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.

So don't. Maintain your own, enjoy what you enjoy and let the devil
take the hindermost. I have quite a number of strongly held opinions
none of which I require to be held or even entertained by others. And
I quite enjoy a full-and-free-exchange-of-ideas with no expectations
whatsoever of converting anyone. Nor do I expect to be converted. At
that level, things remain in good fun and even get a bit serious. But
there is no blood on the floor afterwards nor bridges burnt. Good LORD
would a vanilla world be utterly boring. Or even one entirely butter-
pecan.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 6, 8:24 am, Laurence Payne NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com
wrote:

The trouble is, magic power cables just DON'T do anything. And the
pricing shouts "Scam!" to a market that WANTS to be scammed. It
makes it difficult to take further opinions seriously from a believer.

So don't.

So Peter, don't start tossing gratuitous rocks on people who want to share
and comment on opinions.

Maintain your own, enjoy what you enjoy and let the devil
take the hindermost.

You ain't doing that Peter, so why should I listen to your advice in that
regard?

I have quite a number of strongly held opinions
none of which I require to be held or even entertained by others.

That's your business, Peter. But trying to force others into your code of
silence is not reasonble.

And
I quite enjoy a full-and-free-exchange-of-ideas with no expectations
whatsoever of converting anyone. Nor do I expect to be converted. At
that level, things remain in good fun and even get a bit serious. But
there is no blood on the floor afterwards nor bridges burnt.

You have burned your bridge with me Peter, so why should I listen to your
advice in that regard?

Good LORD
would a vanilla world be utterly boring. Or even one entirely butter-
pecan.

So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 8:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

God Help You Arnie! For ENTIRELY Missing The Point....

Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
and vice-versa. This happens most especially when the one camp
*demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
other necessarily-wrong beliefs. That would be you. Though that
condition is certainly not limited to you.

As I suggested earlier: you are as arrogant as Mr. Jute and about as
credible for it. Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 9:36 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?

For the sake of absolute clarity, as I perceive you, you are not
"flavor tasting" but rather demanding that all accept your singular
flavor. That you mostly interact with those similarly afflicted does
not change the primary condition.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 8:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of
what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established
fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest
and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your
business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present
the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here
would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively
easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably
because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've
vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

God Help You Arnie! For ENTIRELY Missing The Point....

Nope, I know gratuitous personal attacks when I see them.

Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
and vice-versa.

Straw man argument.

This happens most especially when the one camp
*demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
other necessarily-wrong beliefs.

You mean like Krakow did.

That would be you.

That would be your parania speaking, Peter. Remember, you cast the first
stone here.

Though that condition is certainly not limited to you.

So did an engineer scare your mother while you were pregnant, Peter? ;-)

As I suggested earlier: you are as arrogant as Mr. Jute and about as
credible for it.

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
them out and destory them.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 9:36 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

So why attack people who are doing some flavor tasting?

For the sake of absolute clarity, as I perceive you, you are not
"flavor tasting" but rather demanding that all accept your singular
flavor.

The very idea that a demand can be credibly presented on a Usenet newsgroup
is ludicrous enough to justify complete dismissal of such comments as are
made by anybody who would be so silly as to suggest that it could be true.

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 9:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
them out and destory them.

No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.

As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be? That is the problem
with closely held beliefs and those who hold them. The "facts" are
filtered, acquired, massaged, altered to fit the peculiar need.
Bluntly, I hold all *opinions* other than mine as equally important to
their holder as mine might be to me. I have my array of facts another
has their array. In a debate between us, we *may* influence others or
each other to further investigation by arranging said facts most
prettily so as to dazzle. But merely to accept an opinion without
independent research and verification makes the listener/viewer not
much more than a sheep... with all the respect attributable thereto.
And damn me if I choose to perceive others as sheep to be converted to
my way of thinking... as comfortable a thought as that might be.

It was not P.T. Barnum that said it, but the sentiment still rings
true (and very seldom fully quoted): There's a sucker (sheep) born
every minute... and two to take 'em.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 9:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to
seek
them out and destory them.

No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.

As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be?

The fact would be the widely-accepted Information Theory.

The fantasy would be the stated notion that medium V delivers more
information then medium C, when Information Theory says the reverse.

That is the problem with closely held beliefs and those who hold them.

I'm used to this sort of rhetoric being thrown up in the face of widely
accepted technology and art, plus minus a 2pid or two, and a Krooborg or
three.

The "facts" are
filtered, acquired, massaged, altered to fit the peculiar need.

That happens. If you can rationally argue that in this specific case, be my
guest.

Bluntly, I hold all *opinions* other than mine as equally important to
their holder as mine might be to me.

So where's the beef?

I have my array of facts another has their array.

Trouble is, not all facts are reliable facts.

In a debate between us, we *may* influence others or
each other to further investigation by arranging said facts most
prettily so as to dazzle.

Or rationally convince, YMMV.

But merely to accept an opinion without
independent research and verification makes the listener/viewer not
much more than a sheep... with all the respect attributable thereto.

Which applies to this situation how?

And damn me if I choose to perceive others as sheep to be converted to
my way of thinking... as comfortable a thought as that might be.

Which applies to this sitaution how?

It was not P.T. Barnum that said it, but the sentiment still rings
true (and very seldom fully quoted): There's a sucker (sheep) born
every minute... and two to take 'em.

Seems like you're trying to gather a few suckers with these irrelevant
accusations, Peter.