Skip to main content
Topic: [TOS #2/5] Re: more 192kHz nonsense? (Read 1993 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from more 192kHz nonsense?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #25
@pelmazo
I have made plenty clear why I have refrained from presenting any arguments in the origins debate so far.

'origins debate'?!  You and your creationist messaging rhetoric: piss off. 


Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #26
There is no origins debate, just a bunch of posturing by the OP.  It's pretty obvious that he's the one who wants to debate.

...and he's welcome to do it, just not in this topic.

Had he had the composure to respectfully disagree with pelmazo's sentiment instead of essentially telling him to STFU things would have been different and I would have happily binned any tangential discussion per TOS #5, but it didn't happen that way.

pelmazo politely explained his position and radorn continues to behave as if there is some debate at play.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #27
@greynol https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115577.msg954307.html#msg954307 ...I'm still waiting.
I thought you didn't answer my questions because you weren't arround, but it seems you do anwer others to baselessly attack my character?

You say there's no origins debate, but I've seen many people throw one-liners to that effect and also this two-paragraph exposition right here:
I am not a biologist, hence you probably wouldn't take a substantial pro evolution argument from me anyway. Not being a specialist, my own opinion in this matter doesn't rest so much on the scientific detail, but on the more fundamental realisation, that postulating a creator doesn't actually explain anything. From a scientific viewpoint, a creator is a useless explanation, because you can explain everything and its opposite with it. It doesn't give you any help in distinguishing wrong from right explanations, nor does it allow any insight into how, when, why, with which tools, and with whose help the creation happened. If the universe around us was the work of a creator, I sure would want to have a look into his workshop, but you know as well as I know, that this is not going to happen. To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, the creationist argument is "not even wrong". It is useless, just as reference to one's ears is useless as evidence in audio science.

Consequently, creationists, just as audiophiles, typically spend their time trying to shoot holes into the established scientific viewpoint, apparently believing that this makes their opinion look better in comparison. But any science is full of holes anyway, otherwise we would be done. There are always cases where a good explanation is still missing, so further work is needed. There's no need for a reminder from the creationist side, or the audiophile side. They should instead focus on demonstrating that their favorite explanation actually holds water, has explanatory power, leads the way to experimental clarification, and hence amounts to useful science.

Do you really think it's fair to say that there isn't a debate going on? And, as much as you insist, it seems that, among the few that have directly intervened in this discussion, the only one who hasn't actually debated origins is me (I'm not counting those that didn't comment in one sense or the other about creation or evolution, of course). If you are so sure that I did debate it, just point to where I supposedly said such a thing.

All I said and reasoned from the beginning was "no baiting". As an answer, I was given a debate that I didn't start (and a rather rude one at that, comprised, in great part of one-liner insults and prejudice) and now I'm somehow being held responsible for. Seriously? While I kept saying that I didn't want to debate origins, I was told repeatedly that creation is nonsense, pseudoscience, "bullshit" and that I was "butthurt", and that I should "piss-off". Yet, somehow, I'm told that I'm the offender here. Come on now!

Now, if you have the time to accuse me of "posturing", you certainly have time to answer the questions that I've repeated at least 3 times now without an answer from you.

EDIT:
Had he had the composure to respectfully disagree with pelmazo's sentiment instead of essentially telling him to STFU things would have been different and I would have happily binned any tangential discussion per TOS #5, but it didn't happen that way.

So, all the blame is on me now? And what would be respectful disagreement in this case?
Since he equated creationism with "bullshit" as part of a comparison, what should I have said, then?
Something like this, perhaps? "well, actually, fellow member pelmazo, I find that it's actually the evolutionists that spew pseudoscience and bullshit, so your comparison is flawed"? That would be TOS #5 and TOS #2 as much as his was TOS #5 and TOS #2. I find that your judgement in what's an offense here is quite biased.
No, my point is that all this taking the piss on creation is unwarranted and off-topic in a forum and thread about audio, and that's what I said from the very beginning, so, please, stop distorting my words.

EDIT2: IN FACT, I've just remembered, that, after replying the first time to pelmazo's initial "bullshit" calling, and my post being removed for TOS #10 (I replied in Spanish assuming he was Spanish too because of his username), I reported his post but no action seems to have been taken. I was thoroughly ignored. But now you say you would have taken care of it? Somehow I find that a little hard to swallow, given the record so far.

error

Reply #28
double posted by error

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #29
Creationism?  That's not just off topic, it doesn't fit with a digital audio resource forum at all.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #30
No matter how much screed he posts I've already provided the answers to his questions, even if he's too dense to get them.

In a science based forum, creationism is bullshit, BTW.  No philosophical wankery is going to change that.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #31
Creationism?  That's not just off topic, it doesn't fit with a digital audio resource forum at all.
Well, I've been saying that all along, but apparently that constitutes supplantation of moderator authority somehow.
Also, I find highgly hypocritical that, while the origins debate is off-topic (to which I agree, if somehow somebody hasn't noticed), apparently, saying that creationism is, and it's proponents say, "bullshit", is not only allowed, but even praised, and those of us (or, it seems, just me?) that find offense in that, are told to shut up and suck it. No action is taken towards those that insult me when I ask for decent treatment, and I'm even told that its all my fault... I guess because I didn't shut up and sucked it.
I ask questions to moderators, trying to find out what the proper way to deal with this is, but instead of answers, I get slandered.
It's all quite surreal.
I'm still waiting for a proper answer that seems will never come.

EDIT: Add more to the collection: "dense" and "philosophical wankery"
And, no, greynol, you haven't answered my questions, and you know it. Don't act like you have because you haven't. No ammount of sidestepping the issue and calling me names is going to change that. Only answering the questions will.
They are 3 simple direct questions. You are a moderator. You are supposed to be able to answer them directly and I would even dare say that you have the responsibility to answer them. If you can't then call on someone above you to do it. Why are you delaying this?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #32
It certainly is possible to suggest that either science or pseudoscience or religion or all of the above are varying degrees of explaining the function of reality within the realm our mortal minds can understand, and that many of them can coexist with each other. This isn't really the place to argue which explanation is better or worse, except that which is more scientific.

Then again, the nearest I feel like positing is that the religious explanations for existence were debated and agreed upon by a great many people who formed factions that agreed on their own explanations, and quite many of those factions try to argue why their explanation and only their explanation is the correct one. Written history only goes back so far, but most of the popular roots have some explanation of how the universe was created by a deity or deities. Science only has the big bang theory, which cannot be proven either, as nobody has a way to see exactly what created our universe, but we've come close to running simulations to try to prove some things, at least I think so. Big bang is the closest science has, and that's apparently not enough to satisfy a lot of people.

Meanwhile, I am ambivalent about the whole concept of a creator, as I don't think it's necessary to believe in a creator for morality to exist, as a fully mortal being with no afterlife should want to value their mortal existence, and want to coexist within the ecosystem around them, and perhaps form bonds with their fellow beings. If only for selfish reasons, they should at least want to value their links to others as a means to continued existence.

If I were to be overly concerned about the existence of a creator, and whether I believed that this really mattered within the scope of mortal existence, the only realm I can see at the moment, then I could also posit that science and the process of evolution could be a means by which an unseeable and undetectable deity could gently manipulate existence for the better. One could even posit that the entire universe is the body of their deity, if they so wished. They still would not be able to directly interact with that deity, or prove its existence beyond the shadow of a doubt. My mortal mind is limited, but I'd think that a careful designer would want its creation to play out mostly unhindered. Stepping in could only hamper progress by taking away choice.

In the realm of Christianity, I have even posited the idea that the beings known as Satan and the demons are even a necessary evil, if you must believe that supernatural beings must exist to whisper the evil choices into your thoughts, or else you would never know them to make your own choice. Their ancient documents teach that their evil lord wanted to lead the world without any free will, and yet their evil lord exists for the sole purpose of giving contrast to what would otherwise be purely a logical "good" choice to make in every situation.

Oh look, I'm debating religion on a forum I administer. Come now, let's stop this, and pretend that it never took place, lest we continue this charade ad nauseam.

For the record, I consider myself a secular humanist, and believe that humans can evolve their own social structures to benefit all, without having to scare each other with the as yet unexplainable as a means of forcing a point. My faith leads me to believe that most if not all organized religions were committee based and developed based on what many great thinkers posited would be the best ways to control the masses, possibly for the greater good, possibly for selfish reasons, I do not know. I tend to think any good social structure that leads to order instead of chaos, with the least measurable losses, and that at least tries to benefit all the people it possibly can, will help the world to prosper. Unfortunately, with so many people polling that science is unimportant in their lives, but at least matters enough to them to get their children to learn it, leads me to believe there may not be as much hope now, but there could be great hope for our future generations to explain the world around them by means other than pseudoscience.

I've been known to use pseudoscience occasionally, but it's usually not religion based, it's more simplified explanations or guesses that actually sound like science.

Do I really sound like I should be carrying this topic on? I've mostly ignored it, except to glance at it. I'd rather see more 192kHz nonsense continue than this debate over religion vs science, as if those two things provably preclude each other.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #33
@kode54
Honestly speaking and, at the risk of being given the boot: You must realize that none of what you just said answers any of my questions.
I also would rather discuss audio than this. I've been saying that from the beginning, but it seems the more I repeat that, the more I get insulted.
Please, even if you don't share my ideas (which isn't the issue at hand), put yourself in my place for a minute.
I take for granted my ideas on origins being called every name in the book when I debate them in a place open to that topic. It's part of the "job".
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that? Even when it wasn't me that brought these into the discussion in the first place? It wasn't me that called someone else's unrelated convictions bullshit in the first place. Doesn't decent treatment account for nothing?
If it had been me that brough creation or evolution or any other unrelated controversial topic into the discussion, then it would have been my fault, but, as much as some pretend to misconstrue the facts to make it appear as if that was the case, the reality is far from it. And it only takes an honest person a quick browse through the thread to see that.
What should I do when even moderators take the liberty to join other users in intulting me while they repeatedly ignore reasonable questions that I make about board policy?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #34
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that?

I tried reading this thread and I am not sure I can follow what you are saying.  Do I understand that you are upset that someone compared belief in audio to belief in creation?  I think you can do two things, either argue that one type of belief is different than the other, or let it go. 

What should I do when even moderators take the liberty to join other users in intulting me while they repeatedly ignore reasonable questions that I make about board policy?

Did anyone actually insult you personally?  Or do you mean that people disagreeing with you was insulting?  If the former, they shouldn't do that, if the latter, you probably shouldn't be insulted just because other people disagree with you.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #35
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that?

I tried reading this thread and I am not sure I can follow what you are saying.  Do I understand that you are upset that someone compared belief in audio to belief in creation?  I think you can do two things, either argue that one type of belief is different than the other, or let it go. 

Someone posted a comment where he stated that Hans' audiophoolery reminded him of creationist argumentation, as a way to illustrate how both are, in his view, "bullshit". Well I certainly agree that audiophoolery is bullshit and demonstrably so. But I don't agree with creation being bullshit, and whatever some may believe, it hasn't and won't be proven to be so. But that's besides the point, because, while many pretend to extend this forum's scientific character as a moral shield against all charges of bigotry, the topic of this forum is audio unless I'm terribly mistaken, and wether the universe and life appeared suddenly in a mature form by an act of creation by a supernatural being or are the result of gradual natural processes, has absolute no bearing on any audio talk, and, since it is TOS #5, even though moderators now bend backwards breaking their own rules as some kind of demonstration, I see no reason why it should be OK to attack either and insult those that hold to them.
I certainly didn't, but others have done so REPEATEDLY.
The problem seems to be that I'm the only one that holds to the unpopular position, and, because of that, nobody gives a damn if I or my ideas are unduly attacked and without provocation from my part.
I believe pelmazo when he says he didn't intend to insult anyone. That's because he is of the popular evolutionist persuasion and thought it nothing to casually throw arround his contempt for the opposing view and it's proponents. Likewise, most people here, including moderators say that's it's OK.
But when I ask a few questions about what things would be OK for me to do, in light of what seems to me a rather biased treatment, I get no answer: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115577.msg954307.html#msg954307
I'm STILL waiting for these to be properly answered, despite of greynols deceptive claims about him already having done so, calling me names while doing that.

Which conveniently brings me to this:
Did anyone actually insult you personally?  Or do you mean that people disagreeing with you was insulting?  If the former, they shouldn't do that, if the latter, you probably shouldn't be insulted just because other people disagree with you.

Judge for yourself:

and has gone so far as to claim he will be victorious (talk about troll baiting!).
Huh? You'll have to point me to that, because I do not remember having said any such thing.

Misrepresenting my statements to present me as a "troll baiter"

'origins debate'?!  You and your creationist messaging rhetoric: piss off. 

Such a display of civism!

[...] just a bunch of posturing by the OP [...]
[...] Had he had the composure to respectfully disagree instead of essentially telling him to STFU [...]

Apparently telling others to not bait makes me a posturer, unable to control myself, and bossing arround like I own the place.
I find rather insulting when they tell lies about me.

[...] I've already provided the answers to his questions, even if he's too dense to get them.[...]

I'm too dense, it seems, to see greynol's invisible answers.

No philosophical wankery is going to change that.

A "philosophy wanker"... so colorful


Quite a few posts have been removed from this thread, including this from Arnold for reasons I might prefer not to know: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115640.msg954231.html#msg954231
He even said he believed creation to be pseudoscience! What are the politics behind this? Was it because he said "I'm a christian"? I don't understand, or maybe I prefer not to understand.
It was removed along with many other comments, most mine, when I reported TOS #2 on this pearl: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115640.msg954280.html#msg954280
Conveniently, many other posts by others defending evolution were allowed to stay here, even when they contained references to my posts that were removed.

EDIT: @greynol
You have said many things about what you think I should do, and, when I ask you about the ambiguities and inconsistencies in your statements, you basically tell me that you have said all you had to say and that I should figure it out myself... This is rather passive-agressive for someone in a position of power, don't you think?
The unambiguous things you have commanded, I haven't yet transgressed.
As for the ambiguous things and the subtext: I'm not stupid, I get exactly what you want from me, and I find it rather unfair. But since you are playing mute, I find it only proper that I also play deaf. You see, it's NOT MY JOB to "take hints" or read into your subtext; these things you seem reluctant to say aloud. I'm not the voice of your mind. You are the one in a position of authority, so be responsible and speak up. If you won't aknowledge your own subtext, don't expect me to do so.
I posed you three questions here: https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,115577.msg954307.html#msg954307 It's high time you answer them and be done with this.

Re: [TOS #2] Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #36
About your delusional self-confidence regarding your ability to argue in favor of creationism in a science-based community, here you go...

I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.

Funny how you were the only one drawing lines in the sand delineating two "camps".  No one else even thought twice about it.





Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #37
Regarding the repeated misuse of the reporting system, radorn's questions have been answered.  If he's waiting for some other response, none will be given.

If radorn or anyone else wishes to start a new topic in order to defend the pseudo-scientific beliefs of creationism you are welcome to it.  In the meantime comparing placebophilia to creationism because they are both faith-based is a non-issue.  If we cannot get past this then this topic will be closed.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #38
About your delusional self-confidence regarding your ability to argue in favor of creationism in a science-based community, here you go...

I could have done just that in this very same thread, and I consider that I have way better arguments for it than your camp does, regardless of what you think.

Funny how you were the only one drawing lines in the sand delineating two "camps".  No one else even thought twice about it.

Why don't you put the whole quote? As a regular user I don't even have access to quote buttons in trashed posts, so just click the link and see.
It's really difficult to follow now that an arbitrary selection of posts in this thread have been graciously "relocated" to the trash bin, but, resuming, I was just replying to the repeated anti-creationism claims others where making, which seemed unfair while I refrained from directly confronting them in respect of TOS #5. I only said that I could be doing the exact same thing they were doing and that I considered I have better arguments than theirs. I can't even say that now without you miscronstruing it as some sort of taunt? Seriously?

That thing you say about me "drawing lines in the sand" doesn't even make sense. There are two camps, aren't there? There's those that believe the naturalist model to be better and those that believe the creation model to be better. Are they one same group now? Because that would be a shocking revelation to many people, including me.
"No one else even thought twice about it."?? are you implying that there is some sort of underground creationist-evolutionist fellowship arround and all that posted are members? Man, call the press right now! Seriously, what in the world are you talking about?

And, by the way, I saw you were calling me a "dumbass" and confirming it with at "yes, it's a personal insult", before you redacted the post. I was going to answer to it, but thought I would rather go to bed and answer tomorrow. Then I refreshed the page and bam, gone! Good move, but not quick enough. I have editted posts myself too, tweaking this an that, but that turn of yours is worth a trophy, my friend. Bravo!

About your mention of some "questions" "about the repeated misuse of the reporting system", I have to say that I don't know what you are talking about. I asked 3 questions, and none of them have any relation to what you say. An despite your continued denial, they remain unanswered, and no reason has been given for this refusal.

Now I'm going to bed. It's really late where I live. See you later.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #39
About your mention of some "questions" "about the repeated misuse of the reporting system", I have to say that I don't know what you are talking about. I asked 3 questions, and none of them have any relation to what you say. An despite your continued denial, they remain unanswered, and no reason has been given for this refusal.
Here you go...
Quote
There's a problem here and the moderator that came refuses to answer simple questions about behavior and adds to the intulting activity. He has shown nothing but bias so far. I'm hoping some other more reasonable mod or admin can intervene.
...or am I misconstruing the obvious again?

You're doing an excellent job of looking like an intellectually challenged donkey all on your own, so I didn't see the need to rub it in.  I'm glad you were able to read the post before I thought better than to put an exclamation mark on the state of your position.  Insisting there are two camps combined with an apparent lack of understanding about scientific method and burden of proof doesn't help you, BTW.

Thread closure is looming.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #40
Well I certainly agree that audiophoolery is bullshit and demonstrably so. But I don't agree with creation being bullshit

Quote
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods beliefs, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

This isn't a believer-audio site, in case you hadn't noticed. So yes, audiophools-Hans-creationist-flat earthers, etc. are all believers...and fair analogies.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #41
I believe pelmazo when he says he didn't intend to insult anyone. That's because he is of the popular evolutionist persuasion and thought it nothing to casually throw arround his contempt for the opposing view and it's proponents.
Just for the record: I am of the "evolutionist persuasion", but I thought I had made clear that the object of my contempt isn't the creationist view, but the way they argue, which they share with audiophiles like Beekhuysen. I do admit, that I have contempt for some of the proponents in both fields, but the reason for that lies in their use of twisted, unsound, and often fraudulent argumentation.

I have no issue with believers who use sound logical reasoning and show an appreciation of not only the facts, but also the actual arguments of the other side.

This stance only got reinforced by a set of videos by creationists, which radorn has sent me in a personal message. They really are a showcase of creationist determination to distort the facts. It is funny to be accused of contempt, when you see how much thinly veiled contempt for science is oozing out of every one of those videos.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #42
This stance only got reinforced by a set of videos by creationists, which radorn has sent me in a personal message.
Which version of the fairy tale? The Judeo-Christian, Hindu, Norse, Aztek, etc one? Let me guess, he dismisses the others in favor of his...LOL
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #43
Which version of the fairy tale?
It was the version of creationism that's dominant in the USA.

But that's actually part of the problem: How directly they jump from the postulate of an undescribed creator, to identifying him with a particular figure from a particular book. There's no sign of a mental pause to justify this giant leap.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #44
I'd rather not discuss Creationism or any other fairy tale believer idiocy. But I'm perfectly fine with using them for audiophool fairy tale believer analogies when discuss audio, because they are so apt...and easily dismissed.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #45
But, here, I didn't even bring them up, but rather, some one else brought them up, unwarrantedly, to use them, in his view, as an illustration of "bullshit" for the purposes of a comparison. Should I just "shut up and suck it" when someone does that?

I tried reading this thread and I am not sure I can follow what you are saying.  Do I understand that you are upset that someone compared belief in audio to belief in creation?  I think you can do two things, either argue that one type of belief is different than the other, or let it go. 

Someone posted a comment where he stated that Hans' audiophoolery reminded him of creationist argumentation, as a way to illustrate how both are, in his view, "bullshit". Well I certainly agree that audiophoolery is bullshit and demonstrably so. But I don't agree with creation being bullshit, and whatever some may believe, it hasn't and won't be proven to be so.

Then you can argue how they are different, or you can let it go.  What else were you expecting? 

But that's besides the point, because, while many pretend to extend this forum's scientific character as a moral shield against all charges of bigotry,

That isn't relevent though.  This is a forum about audio.  If you want to argue about people being bigoted against some random thing, you shouldn't be doing it in this thread.  People will correctly point out that this is off topic, and moderators will correctly remove posts about this.

The problem seems to be that I'm the only one that holds to the unpopular position, and, because of that, nobody gives a damn if I or my ideas are unduly attacked and without provocation from my part.

Lots of ideas in this thread were attacked, some by you.  No one cares because this is a discussion forum and discussing and attacking ideas is the purpose of this thread.  It seems to me you expect special treatment here.  You want the freedom to bash other's ideas, while having your own off limits.  But that isn't how discussion works; you can ask for special treatment but people are just going to point out how ridiculous that would be.

Which conveniently brings me to this:
Did anyone actually insult you personally?  Or do you mean that people disagreeing with you was insulting?  If the former, they shouldn't do that, if the latter, you probably shouldn't be insulted just because other people disagree with you.

Judge for yourself:

I think the answer from those quotes is "no".  People did not insult you, they disagreed with things you said and the way you presented arguments, which is appropriate.   If you find that insulting, then you should probably not be putting yourself in a position where you might meet people who disagree with you.

He even said he believed creation to be pseudoscience!

Creationism is pseudoscience.  It is a religious belief, not a scientific theory.  One cannot scientifically falsify God, that is the whole idea of faith.  This also has nothing to do with anything, and is completely ridiculous in context. 

 
EDIT: @greynol
You have said many things about what you think I should do, and, when I ask you about the ambiguities and inconsistencies in your statements, you basically tell me that you have said all you had to say and that I should figure it out myself... This is rather passive-agressive for someone in a position of power, don't you think?

I'm not greynol, but I'll give you some general advice from skimming this thread.  You are obviously extremely upset and not thinking things through clearly, and to such an extent that it is difficult to even understand you.  If you can't even express yourself, then no one is going to be able to respond to your concerns.  Instead, take a break, think things through, and decide on a civil, comprehensible way to address whatever it is you think needs addressing.


Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #46
[...] videos by creationists [...] radorn has sent me in a personal message
How lovely!
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #47
If you check the thread (unless greynol has already purged the relevant post, I haven't checked), I already told pelmazo I was going to send him those videos. I don't know what's with all the surprise and mockery for that now. You people are acting like little children in a playground. "uuuuuh, he sent him videos, what a dork!" seriously...
As for your opinion on their content... that's your opinion and I don't share it and no millions of people agreeing with you will make it more compelling.

sartoga, greynol and others:
Are you saying that dumbass, butthurt, piss off, and other pearls are the proper way to conduct a conversation now, just because you agree with the opinion of who's using them and disagree with whom they are used against? If that's not bias, then what is it?

greynol: I still think you are BS'ing me with the "questions" issue, but I don't know anymore, perhaps you are so blinded with disgust that you really believe what you are saying. Nevertheless, I asked 3 questions that have so far never been answered, and now you point to the text of one report I sent, which isn't even a question, and pretend like it has some kind of wrong in it. What game are you playing?

Look. You people obviously don't appreciate me or what I have to say and probably won't be starting to do so any time soon.
You have three choices which are wholy in your hands:
1 Either we keep this nonsense, of which I'm getting rather bored of,
2 or you recognize that I have a point with the no-baiting complaint (a particular point which is notoriously and conveniently absent from all of your posting, centered instead in blasting me for being a creationist),
3 or you use the power you have and been threatening to use and purge the posts, the whole thread or even me.

So, yeah... your call.

See you later, or not, or whatever.

Cheers.

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #48
Yawn.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: more 192kHz nonsense?

Reply #49
sartoga, greynol and others:
Are you saying that dumbass, butthurt, piss off, and other pearls are the proper way to conduct a conversation now, just because you agree with the opinion of who's using them and disagree with whom they are used against?

That is not what I said.  I will restate myself since you have misunderstood.  You have chosen to become angry and attack people because they disagree with your opinions while demanding that other people treat you better than you have treated them.  Since this is not persuasive, nor polite, you should expect people to dismiss your position as bullshit, because as you have presented it, it is bullshit.  Either do better or just don't complain when you fail to convince people. 

Nevertheless, I asked 3 questions that have so far never been answered, and now you point to the text of one report I sent, which isn't even a question, and pretend like it has some kind of wrong in it. What game are you playing?

This is not true.  Several people, myself included, answered your questions. 

I am completely serious when I suggested that you take a while to calm down, compose yourself, and think what you mean to say.  What you are doing is not going to work. 

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019