"Arny Krueger" wrote


I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my ****ter
for a moment and look what I find!

Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!

Tempting to let your Pooch out also to kick his arse a few times (I know
he's been sniffing around - my twinkling numbers tell me when he's about),
but I can't treat myself to too much fun in one day - it wouldn't be right!

LOL!

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote


I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive puffery
and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my ****ter
for a moment and look what I find!


Scallywag! I like that:-)



Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!


Keith

Arny seems to be labouring under the delusion than owning a few
toy shop mics and a cheap mixer, and wheeling them around on a
wobbly hand-.cart makes him a recording engineer.

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur Wilkinson
and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers of all time,
despite their countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable
or a wobbly hand-cart between them?? :-)

Puzzled of Putney

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers
of all time, despite their countless audio awards, didn't
own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and Arthus Lilley never
owned a mic or a mic cable.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest classical engineers
of all time, despite their countless audio awards, didn't
own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and Arthus Lilley never
owned a mic or a mic cable.



How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they *didn't* keep them
in?

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

In article , Arny
Krueger


What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Alas, that is also the case with UK courts. There has been a recent case
where Simon Singh (a science writer) wrote that some claims for types of
'alternative medicine' sic were 'bogus' on the scientific basis that
assessing the experimental trials for relevance, reliability, etc, showed
their results didn't support the claims.

A UK judge decided this was a libel. Apparently on the basis that the judge
required Singh to prove that the practitioners *knew* that their claims
were false. This is essentially impossible to do if they insist they
believe what they assert. Virtually impossible to falsify the assertion
when someone says they *do* believe something, no matter how daft the
asserted belief. And of course irrelevant if your real concern is that the
belief in question may be worthless, or dangerous, or money-grabbing
nonsense.

The Judge apparently ignored the normal scientific basis of dealing with
the evidence for/against the actual claim. Seems this is irrelevant so far
as his reading of UK law is concerned. Disregarding the fact that the
claims were being made on the basis of assertions of 'science', but that
the actual science apparently didn't support them.

The Judge also apparently refused leave to appeal. Wonder if he was
assuming that would mean someone else would have to 'prove he knew he was
making an error' as well... :-)

No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere as a
shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be wary of
commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are taken to court
for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases where the claims are
being made by groups and individuals who make their income on the back of
the claims.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Arny
Krueger


What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.

Alas, that is also the case with UK courts. There has been a recent case
where Simon Singh (a science writer) wrote that some claims for types of
'alternative medicine' sic were 'bogus' on the scientific basis that
assessing the experimental trials for relevance, reliability, etc, showed
their results didn't support the claims.

A UK judge decided this was a libel. Apparently on the basis that the judge
required Singh to prove that the practitioners *knew* that their claims
were false. This is essentially impossible to do if they insist they
believe what they assert. Virtually impossible to falsify the assertion
when someone says they *do* believe something, no matter how daft the
asserted belief. And of course irrelevant if your real concern is that the
belief in question may be worthless, or dangerous, or money-grabbing
nonsense.

The Judge apparently ignored the normal scientific basis of dealing with
the evidence for/against the actual claim. Seems this is irrelevant so far
as his reading of UK law is concerned. Disregarding the fact that the
claims were being made on the basis of assertions of 'science', but that
the actual science apparently didn't support them.

The Judge also apparently refused leave to appeal. Wonder if he was
assuming that would mean someone else would have to 'prove he knew he was
making an error' as well... :-)

No wonder that the UK libel laws are regarded in the US and elsewhere as a
shambles. As a result, other people in the UK are now said to be wary of
commenting on quack or delusional claims in case they are taken to court
for daring to point out twaddle. Particularly in cases where the claims are
being made by groups and individuals who make their income on the back of
the claims.

Slainte,

Jim


Doesn't seem to stop Ben Goldacre (Bad Science fame) - he seems to
pillory on the basis that it would be reasonable to know nonsense. Don't
think he's ever been sued.

Rob

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)

On Thu, 28 May 2009 13:36:12 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
m...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news "Iain Churches" wrote in message

How does one reconcile this with the fact that Arthur
Wilkinson and Arthur Lilley, two of the finest
classical engineers of all time, despite their
countless audio awards, didn't own a mic, a cable

Prove it, Iain. Prove that ArthurWilkinson and and
Arthus Lilley never owned a mic or a mic cable.

How does he do that, Einstein? Show you the cupboard they
*didn't* keep them in?

Iain made the claim, let him prove it.

What neither of you grasp is the concept of a falsifiable claim.


You got that arse uppards, Arnold B Katzenjammer - if the claim is
falsifiable, it's up to you to prove it....

See here (for the whole horse**** exercise):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

??

(Keeps a whole bunch of East Coast college 'professors' in a nice, comfy
job, I suppose...?? :-)


The whole point of falsifiability is that in science nothing is ever
proven correct - it is always the latest best version. For an
assertion to achieve the status of a theory it absolutely must be
falsifiable, although the originator is not necessarily the one who
demonstrates this. Anything that is not falsifiable has no place in
science and is generally only found in religion (you just have to
believe it, ok?).

Iain's assertion is clearly falsifiable, because one would only need
to produce a receipt to either of those chaps for a mic or a cable.
But is there good evidence that they didn't? No idea about that.

d

In article ,
Keith G wrote:
I wouldn't make such a point of this, except for Iain's excessive
puffery and personal attacks.

???

Arny, you are such a hypocritical scallywag - I let you out of my
****ter for a moment and look what I find!

The prat who thinks this is his own blog talks yet again about who he
killfiles. As if anyone cares.

Puffery? Personal attacks? These comments from *you*...??!!

Damn, if ever there was a *blacker* pot/kettle, I've yet to hear of it!

You need to look in the mirror, Kitty.

Tempting to let your Pooch out also to kick his arse a few times (I know
he's been sniffing around - my twinkling numbers tell me when he's
about), but I can't treat myself to too much fun in one day - it
wouldn't be right!

Once again who do you think gives a damn about who you decide to read or
not? The size of your ego is unsurpassed...

LOL!

Only ******s of the greatest magnitude use that expression. QED.

--
*It's o.k. to laugh during sexŒ.Œ.just don't point!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.