In Reply to: I think the vocal objectivists want a double standard posted by Analog Scott on December 10, 2006 at 13:47:19:
Analog Scott,Give up you cannot win an arguement with Pat D. Not because he actual wins the debate or proves his point, but rather because he mis-directs, twists what you actually say to fit what he believes etc. while accusing you of doing the very same things!
Take for example where Pat D asked you "Just what are those "beliefs?" Please specify." One of your four responses was
"All cables sounding the same" to which Pat responded some cables do sound different under some circumstances. Now that comment from Pat would almost lead you to believe Pat actually believes that cables do indeed sound different, wouldn't it? However what Pat really means is that 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the time the differences in cables are inaudible. But being the audio Politician he is he won't come out and say that. In fact the closest I've ever seen Pat D honestly state his beliefs on wires is in this post where he's replying to regmac:http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26124.html
In this post Pat D states: As I've been saying, we can't say cables make no difference under any circumstances since audible differences have been proven under some circumstances--only as you say, those circumstances aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system. Which is exactly what I've been saying.
See how clever Pat D is? Debate Pat on wires and he'll make statements that lead you to believe he doesn't believe wires are audibly different. Call him on this and he'll demand proof where he ever said all wires sound the same. Yet he actually believes the circumstances where wires could sound different aren't likely in an intelligently put together audiophile system. Which is essentially all wires we would be speaking about!
So it's catch 22. Everytime you talk about the typical music lovers audio system, which will be an intelligently put together audiophile system Pat D won't believe there'll be audible differences in wires. Yet because it's been proven "scientifically" I guess that 20 or 30 ft wires cab audibly be different, Pat will claim he doesn't believe all wires wound the same. Yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system wires are inaudible, still it's been proven that 20 or 30 ft wires cab audibly be different, yet in an intelligently put together audiophile system wires are inaudible etc. A most clever audio politician, huh?
Keep enjoying the music -- Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Analog Scott Give Up Pat D Is An Audio Politician - thetubeguy1954 14:14:32 12/11/06 (36)
- Why didn't you quote the last line of my post? - Pat D 03:14:05 12/12/06 (2)
- Re: Why didn't you quote the last line of my post? - thetubeguy1954 05:47:37 12/12/06 (1)
- Re: Why didn't you quote the last line of my post? - Pat D 05:56:07 12/12/06 (0)
- I agree with you in part. - Analog Scott 17:38:08 12/11/06 (32)
- Re: I agree with you in part. - thetubeguy1954 14:17:35 12/12/06 (30)
- But you did win. - Analog Scott 14:26:58 12/12/06 (29)
- And what is this "audio politics?" - Pat D 16:37:50 12/12/06 (28)
- This Is A PERFECT Example Of "Audio Politics?" - thetubeguy1954 07:19:49 12/13/06 (27)
- Dear me! I thought this was an audio discussion forum devoted to technical matters. - Pat D 07:51:38 12/13/06 (26)
- Another Audio Politican Post (Analog Scott Read This) - thetubeguy1954 12:49:37 12/13/06 (25)
- Short questionnaire - Pat D 13:21:25 12/13/06 (24)
- I have already addressed the double standard - Analog Scott 20:32:43 12/13/06 (23)
- Analog Scott This Is Just More Pat D Audio Politics In Action. - thetubeguy1954 07:20:51 12/14/06 (7)
- Man! You'll do anything to avoid proving your audio claims! - Pat D 12:17:37 12/14/06 (6)
- It's Impossibel Prove Them To An Audio Politican Like You Pat - thetubeguy1954 06:58:10 12/15/06 (5)
- See what I mean? TG54 continues to not prove his claims! (nt) - Pat D 07:42:37 12/15/06 (4)
- See what I mean? Pat D-Cake Continues To Audio Politician !(nt) - thetubeguy1954 08:56:02 12/15/06 (3)
- If only someone could explain what "audio politician" means . . . - Pat D 13:25:09 12/15/06 (2)
- I gave you Bunburyist above - kerr 13:53:30 12/15/06 (1)
- Re: I gave you Bunburyist above - Pat D 15:42:41 12/15/06 (0)
- No, you haven't. You just made up a straw man 'belief' for me.. - Pat D 06:10:35 12/14/06 (14)
- Yes I have. nt - Analog Scott 00:08:07 12/16/06 (13)
- I'm glad to see you finally admit it. - Pat D 11:12:14 12/16/06 (12)
- That I have addressed any relevant questions about your double standards? I admitted that a long time ago - Analog Scott 19:07:05 12/16/06 (11)
- I have no obligation to defend positions I don't hold. (nt) - Pat D 21:01:12 12/16/06 (10)
- You do hold them though. - Analog Scott 12:03:00 12/17/06 (9)
- "can't deal " with what, my son? I certainly can deal with your false statements about me. - Pat D 18:31:54 12/17/06 (8)
- Such as? - Analog Scott 21:42:26 12/17/06 (7)
- You make a lot of false statement about what my opinions are but provide no evidence. See link. - Pat D 20:37:55 12/18/06 (3)
- Failure to support your ridiculous alegations noted a second time.. - Analog Scott 20:43:45 12/18/06 (2)
- Is "alegation" a sort of energy drink? (nt) - Pat D 20:57:19 12/18/06 (1)
- No just a spelling error. something anyone with any smarts would see - Analog Scott 21:32:32 12/18/06 (0)
- Failure to support your false alegations against me is duly noted. nt - Analog Scott 09:37:12 12/18/06 (2)
- I thought "alegation" was a kind of sports drink. (nt) - Pat D 20:42:38 12/18/06 (1)
- That makes sense givn what you think about audio and fair conversations. - Analog Scott 21:34:21 12/18/06 (0)
- So, you guys want to make up opinions and attribute them to me. - Pat D 02:37:38 12/12/06 (0)