In Reply to: Peter...please read a little more slowly... posted by jneutron on May 4, 2004 at 10:47:24:
John:Here's my summary of the points in JR's original post. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, simply summarizing:
1) AH Misses the point
2) Title is debunking DA, but article is about DF. They are different, therefore article is incorrect
3) This is typical of AH
4) Nobody has claimed that DF has an effect on cable sonics, so there is nothing to debunk.
5) Only factor examined was amplitude loss. Picking one factor typically indicates a narrow, “blinders-on†view
6) AH shows that 12ga PVC has non-linear capacitance. Explanation by AH is flawed.
7) Reference to earlier AH errors in component video article
8) Other examples of AH errors according to JR
9) AH has shown that they will do anything to prove that cable sonics do not exist. When corrected, they edit with no reference to the mistakes.All on-topic, and related to the thread. To make it easier, I have highlighted the ONE point you quoted.
You said:
"Hmmm.I've seen that link...where was that?...Oh yah, I saw it in the article you are trashing...you make it look like you are presenting new facts here"
I WILL correct my earlier statement in one respect: you didn't "argue", you simply dismissed. You picked one point out of the post, a point that was only peripheral to the essence of the post, and then you made it appear irrelevant.
Then you jumped straight to:
"You're statements here are unwanted and unwelcome..If you have some actual facts to provide...do so..but do not waste my time and the time of others spouting typical bullshit vindictive attitude".
Nothing to do with the points raised, nothing to do with the TECHNICAL distinction between DA and DF. Nothing about the other 8 points. No comment about whether you believe the criticism of AH is accurate or inaccurate. No defense of the TECHNICAL accuracy of the AH article. If something Jon said about AH was incorrect, you should be able to point it out.
IN FACT, YOU DIDN'T REFUTE A SINGLE THING JON SAID. YOU SIMPLY ATTACKED WITH THE SAME BULLSHIT VINDICTIVE ATTITUDE YOU WON'T TOLERATE.
As to my defense of Jon: I have said nothing to defend him. Perhaps you confuse the absence of attack with support. Perhaps you feel that if I take exception to your behavior, it must be because I suport JR (as opposed to thinking you're being a jerk)
If you think that your "Now,Now" post was an example of taking the high road, you're a very sorry human being.
IMO, taking the high road would mean addressing the technical issues raised, and the correctness questions, and leaving out all the personality bullshit.
Try it.
Peter
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Let's take this one step a time (slow enough for ya?) - Commuteman 13:20:21 05/04/04 (7)
- So some one else noticed too? - Jon Risch 21:21:54 05/05/04 (1)
- I puzzled for a while.. - jneutron 08:07:26 05/06/04 (0)
- Hooooo baby...dissed big time....:-) - jneutron 14:04:18 05/04/04 (4)
- logistical question before I try to answer anything else - Commuteman 15:12:43 05/04/04 (3)
- Re: logistical question before I try to answer anything else - jneutron 06:08:30 05/05/04 (2)
- Ahhhhh...... - Commuteman 14:44:59 05/05/04 (1)
- Re: Ahhhhh...... - jneutron 05:58:31 05/06/04 (0)