In Reply to: I agree with you in part. posted by Analog Scott on December 11, 2006 at 17:38:08:
Hi Analog Scott,I know you're attempting to expose Pat's double standards. These double standards are what I call being an audio politician. I've attempted to intelligently & civially debate Pat for quite some time now and it's IMHO an impossibility. Not because Pat ever actually out-debates you, but rather because Pat plays audio politics.
No matter what you do you cannot win. For example if quote Pat and provide direct a link to his post from which you pulled the quote, thus allowing the readers to read the words in context. Pat will respond that he's been misquoted or quoted out of context or whatever else Pat can think of to make the quoted words seem damaging to his POV. Yet all anyone needs to do is read his entire post to see he actually wasn't misquoted or quoted out of context.
Or another example of Pat's audio politics is you can quote Pat directly and he'll just claim you're making up opinions and attributing them to him! Sometimes I cannot believe the sheer audacity Pat displays. How anyone can say others are making up opinions and attributing them to him like Pat does when what he's denying is what's been said in his quoted words! Thiss behavior from Pat I find very insulting for he's treating us like we're idiots who cannot read and understand what he's said.
Or perhaps the perfect example would be the time when I quoted Pat's own opinion of his own speakers. I took a quote from Pat directly from Inmate's Systems. When Pat read my post it was quite obvious he didn't realize he was reading his own words, for Pat stated that if this was my opinion of his Paradigm Signature S2's capabilities then I was lying when I claimed I listened them! So in other words Pat read his own quoted words, mistakenly thought it was my opinion, and then claimed that if that was my opinion of his speakers capabilities I couldn't have possibly have ever heard them! When I responded to this accusation from Pat, I pointed out that I was quoting his words about his speakers from Inmate's Systems!
Now here's Pat with his face completely covered in egg. Did Pat apologize and say he made a mistake in attributing his words to me? NO! So how did Pat explain away why he attacked his own opinion on his speakers? How did Pat address this faux pas? Pat employed his audio politics by simply by ignoring what the real issue was, i.e. Pat attacked his own opinion of his speakers.
Pat's next move was to redirect the entire issue. The issue was no longer about the mistake Pat made. Oh no, now the issue was me and how I Pat felt intentionally trying to decieve him! For Pat D said "...but you showed no inkling in the link below that it was a small standmount monitor but accepted the 20 Hz figure without comment. What WAS I to think?" Yet even all these claims by Pat were incorrect for the post Pat criticized I stated quite clearly in the subject line Your EXACT Words Pat So Pat was suppose to think I'm quoting him! Which I made quite clear. Check the link.
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=22779&highlight=trickster+Pat+D&session=
Then to support this path which Pat now took he called me a trickster and explained what the definition of a trickster was. Then he began justifying his mistake and starting blaming me for decieving him. Here's a link to that quite laughable response...
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=22957&highlight=trickster+Pat+D&r=&session=
Now should Pat D claim what I'm saying isn't true I'd recommend you start at this post
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=22758&highlight=trickster+Pat+D&r=&session=Pat calls it "You mean like pretending to be familiar with my speakers when you are not?" and then just read through the entire thread and see how many times I gave Pat a way out, to admit he was wrong. Then watch an audio politican in action...
Thetubeguy1954
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)