John Westlake outlines REALITY to the 'deaf daftees'...!

[Ali Tait]

I'll comment that I like your avatar!

[Daniel Quinn]

Stanley , you seem to want to pick an argument with me and i'm more than happy to do so as it what i do for a living and ive been of work for 7 days and i'm missing it . However , there is an old lawyer trick which is if you dont understand your opponents arguement then just spout your own agenda at the judge in the hope he is baffled by it . This is exactly what you have done and i aint going to argue with what you think i said .

i could engage in a textual analysis of what you said , but at the end of every paragraph all i could say was ehhhh????. You ascribe to me beliefs and opinions i do not express , one of which is borderline defamatory

where deos your nonesense about bush midi's come from ?
Your opinion on hifi progression is an opinion not a fact , saying something is a fact does not make it a fact . your arguement is tautological .
where have you got this dark ages agenda from ?
the agenda you ascribe to me is nonesense and insulting , thanks a lot
your use of the adjective "attack" is unjustified , at worst its a mild criticism.
your accusation that i deride fellow members is nonsense and again insulting .

perhaps after a hard day making excellent hifi you were tired and the complexity of my argument passed you buy, so just for you i will summarise .my post was an attempt to highlight a logical inconsistency in the subjectivist arguement in that it simultaneously fails to deal with the logical conclusion of its antecedents and at the same time seeks to rely upon elements of objectivity . I'm sorry but the Machiavellian somewhat dishonest motives you ascribe to me are in your head not in my text.

[Marco]

And what of my reply to you, Dennis?

Regarding Stan's response, yes it was a little 'full on', but come off it, your post (which was rather lacking in tact) was quite clearly designed to provoke a reaction, so don't complain when a reaction is precisely what you got! I was surprised that you got off as lightly as you did from others, which was that they didn't react at all...

Unfortunately, the condescending tone of your reply to Stan is liable to provoke a response of a similar tone from him... [Note to Stan: I'd be obliged if you didn't rise to it].

Marco.

[bobbasrah]

.... I was surprised that you got off as lightly as you did from others, which was that they didn't react at all....

Do you concede it is possible that nobody else interpreted it "obliquely", read objectively in other words, hence the lack of reaction ?

Joe - It took several re-examinations of that avatar to get what you were seeing. A dragon with a hump...

[synsei]

When is the interval, I require popcorn and a fizzy beverage?

[Marco]

Do you concede it is possible that nobody else interpreted it "obliquely", read objectively in other words, hence the lack of reaction ?

Indeed - or they were too busy enjoying music and couldn't be arsed responding!

Marco.

[Joe]

Arguments between die-hard objectivists and die-hard subjectivists are bound to be circular, as with arguments between atheists and believers; they have diametrically opposed views, contradictory starting points, and no common ground. What's more, each distorts the position of the other, so that subjectvists are portrayed as gullible purchasers of 'foo', and objectivists as cold-hearted, cloth-eared wielders of slide-rules.

Essentially, subjectivists are expressing personal preferences, which, as we know, there is no arguing with. The problem is that when they use words like 'transparent', 'accurate' and 'faithful to the original recording' they raise the hackles of those with a more scientific take on things, who want to know how such terms are being defined, and how they can be measured. Then the subjectivists quote great wodges of half-understood stuff from Wikipedia etc to 'prove' that science can't explain everything, and so the sorry saga continues.

There are three solutions; for subjectivists to stick to phrases like 'I like the sound of ...' or 'I prefer X to Y ..' and avoid words like 'accurate' and 'transparent', for mods to pounce on circular discussions as soon as they emerge, or for everyone to agree to differ, and not worry about other peoples' errors.

[bobbasrah]

The Obkectivist National Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

If Objectivists and Subjectivists really do exist which presumably they do if for no other reason but to prove existence of their opposites, what are the other 99% called? DontCareListeningToThe Musicists?

[Marco]

An interesting point, Bob!

Marco.

[Daniel Quinn]

marco , im not complaining .

there are many legitimate criticisms Stanleyb could of made-

irrelevant emphermera , pompous , simplification of certain arguments for the sake of a point , confusing :amongst others .

he did not do this , instead his post was nonesense . i simply pointed this out for one reason only he played me not the argument .

and from your reply to my initial post , it is abundantly clear my point was made and so i see no point in raking over past posts . I have no desire to win arguements ,merely to make a point.