Observations and Suggestions

[NorthStar]

Yes, I just got it now. It was accidental.

Right here right now

 

[NorthStar]

Hello Bob,

I have not deleted any post on this thread.

I think I made the purpose of the thread clear in the opening post.

Thank you, then Steve deleted it. He didn't have to; it was educational stats.

And I know how clear you make things, very very clear...with an iron fist.

 

[Derainer]

Hi Folks,

Here in Germany I am very far away from you, and yet I am with you in many thoughts.
I am lucky that I do not understand some sentences between the lines. My English is not good enough for that.
But all in all I am glad to be a member of this forum since almost 10 years, even if I don't write so much.
But I promise improvement.

Glad to be here,
Rainer

 

[NorthStar]

Why is the Central Park Five Netflix mini series, When They See Us, has been locked?
That's very sad because that's important stuff, very.

 

[ack]

I started writing a long and pissy response to the OP, but I decided to take the "long" part out of it, and simply focus on a couple of things:

Please don’t make the juvenile mistake of thinking that you have any objectively correct answer beyond your personal opinion on the matter.

So, for example, if someone states that a resistor is yet another RLC passive component, that would be an opinion, not a fact. Where do you draw the line between opinion and expertise, if there is any?

Almost everything we post should be prefaced, either explicitly or implicitly, with “in my opinion . . .” Because that’s all most of this is: merely our personal subjective opinions.

IMHO, this thread should be killed. And what I think beyond that in my own head I guess will remain in there.

 

[NorthStar]

Here: We are giving advice in form of observation and suggestion by an administration that don't follow their own advice. And that is my observation. I say this in all respect and friendly manner for the best.

The word "juvenile" ... I find it insulting.
And the overall tone is like a direct order from the superior magistrate.

 

[RogerD]

I say this forum is extremely well behaved and has a good amount of freedom,which is a rare commodity now a days. I can handle the bias which sometimes is most prevalent. Sometimes the realization of how good we have it, is not well understood. IMHO don't screw it up.

 

[Ron Resnick]

. . . an administration that don't follow their own advice. . . . .

Please explain in detail and with excerpted examples what you feel I have posted in contravention of the themes of my opening post.

Thank you.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I started writing a long and pissy response to the OP, but I decided to take the "long" part out of it, and simply focus on a couple of things:



So, for example, if someone states that a resistor is yet another RLC passive component, that would be an opinion, not a fact. Where do you draw the line between opinion and expertise, if there is any?



IMHO, this thread should be killed. And what I think beyond that in my own head I guess will remain in there.

As I wrote in the opening post matters of science and engineering generally are matters of objective fact.

 

[Al M.]

As I wrote in the opening post matters of science and engineering generally are matters of objective fact.

Sorry, that is not what you wrote, Ron. You said there is virtually nothing objective in this hobby, and even on matters of science and engineering there is disagreement among scientists and engineers.

 

[PeterA]

Sorry, that is not what you wrote, Ron. You said there is virtually nothing objective in this hobby, and even on matters of science and engineering there is disagreement among scientists and engineers.

Al , you are a scientist, and an observant one. You've often corrected me, and I appreciate it, because you are usually right. If I realize it, I cede the point quickly and am better for it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I started writing a long and pissy response to the OP, but I decided to take the "long" part out of it, and simply focus on a couple of things:



So, for example, if someone states that a resistor is yet another RLC passive component, that would be an opinion, not a fact. Where do you draw the line between opinion and expertise, if there is any?



IMHO, this thread should be killed. And what I think beyond that in my own head I guess will remain in there.

I am glad you did not post a “pissy” response. There is no reason ever to post a pissy response.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Sorry, that is not what you wrote, Ron. You said there is virtually nothing objective in this hobby, and even on matters of science and engineering there is disagreement among scientists and engineers.

Yes, I did. I wrote: “Even science and engineering topics do not always enjoy complete agreement among scientists and engineers.” (bold emphasis added)

Isn’t this a true statement?

“Not always enjoy complete agreement” strikes a very different tone than generally “there is disagreement.”

 

[microstrip]

Sorry, that is not what you wrote, Ron. You said there is virtually nothing objective in this hobby, and even on matters of science and engineering there is disagreement among scientists and engineers.

As I wrote in the opening post matters of science and engineering generally are matters of objective fact.

I wrote a long post on this subject, and decided not to post it, as it seemed to me it could deviate us from your main intentions.

IMHO the use of the "subjective" and "objective" words in the opening post is far from what is current practice in audio matters and can generate a lot of confusion and disagreement.

Telling people that "there is virtually no objective truth in a subjective hobby only refers to individual perception findings and preferences, not to the whole hobby discussion. And your analogy to science debate is not acceptable - scientists debate according to a known method, with rules, even those who study subjective matters such as preference. When they question other people work they do it objectively.

When people tell me that changing power cables increases power by 3 dB I objectively claim it is impossible and ask for objective details - if this ever happened it was surely due to particular abnormal circumstances and they should be clarified. Surely in a polite and friendly way, using IMHO but not YMMV in such case ...

 

[ack]

I am glad you did not post a “pissy” response. There is no reason ever to post a pissy response.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

 

[ack]

Sorry, that is not what you wrote, Ron. You said there is virtually nothing objective in this hobby, and even on matters of science and engineering there is disagreement among scientists and engineers.

That's exactly what Ron wrote, and why I am so pissed off.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Hey, advising everyone how being civil is the aim is bound to sound uncivil to many.

 

[Ron Resnick]

I wrote a long post on this subject, and decided not to post it, as it seemed to me it could deviate us from your main intentions.

IMHO the use of the "subjective" and "objective" words in the opening post is far from what is current practice in audio matters and can generate a lot of confusion and disagreement.

Telling people that "there is virtually no objective truth in a subjective hobby only refers to individual perception findings and preferences, not to the whole hobby discussion. And your analogy to science debate is not acceptable - scientists debate according to a known method, with rules, even those who study subjective matters such as preference. When they question other people work they do it objectively.

When people tell me that changing power cables increases power by 3 dB I objectively claim it is impossible and ask for objective details - if this ever happened it was surely due to particular abnormal circumstances and they should be clarified. Surely in a polite and friendly way, using IMHO but not YMMV in such case ...

I could pick apart my opening post as well if I had nothing better to do. Please don’t try so hard to miss the forest for the trees.

I am confident you understand the points in the opening post. Thank you, Francisco.

 

[Ron Resnick]

That's exactly what Ron wrote, and why I am so pissed off.

Please read Post #73.

 

[Al M.]

Yes, I did. I wrote: “Even science and engineering topics do not always enjoy complete agreement among scientists and engineers.” (bold emphasis added)

Isn’t this a true statement?

“Not always enjoy complete agreement” strikes a very different tone than generally “there is disagreement.”

Ron, no, you did not. You did *not* write in your opening post that science and engineering generally are about objective facts, unlike you later claimed that you had written.

***

In the context of your opening post, which clearly tried to relativize objectivity, the difference in tone between what you said ("not always complete agreement"), and what I said that you said ("disagreement"), is pretty much irrelevant. Yet I apologize for my inaccuracy in representing your words.