bi-wiring

[markw]

I have neither the time nor interest to deal with all your strawdogs. I’ll simply make a few comments.

What straw dogs? Oh, now I see… When you argue as subject other than that which was brought up, it’s all well and good. When someone confronts you with on this, suddenly it’s a “straw dog”. Great debating tactic, Phil. Ain’t workin’ here, though. When confronted with facts, act haughty and try to claim the high road… but only after dumping over everyone else.

I didn’t ask you to stop telling lawyer jokes. If you want to sound boorish or have a great need to demonstrate to the world you know how to buy books on amazon.com, be my guest. .

Thanks, I gots a million of them. As I can see from our dealings here, some are based on true facts.

I don’t attack the concept of DBTs. I attack people who cite test results that are based on faulty protocol and statistical analysis, and don the mantle of “science” in the process. Personally, I find that an abomination of true science.

Bull. You use DBT as much, or even more, that those you claim fall back on it. Look at post 4 in this thread. Who brought up DBT? Certainly not me.

But, I notice that subjectivists those who arrive at their conclusions without any testing whatsoever fall beneath your radar.

BTW, Phil, what did you make of that post at Audioholics. One would think a thank you would be in order here. Or did it not meet your needs?

I also attack the absolutist, unqualified advice (which is almost always couched as an implied unqualified claim that all cables of similar gauge and length sound the same) that is given newcomers here. My position and reason for my attacks on that have been well documented.

.

Yet you, yourself have no problem issuing it yourself. Look at the first paragraph in your initial post in this thread. Talk about the patented Pctower pre-emptive strike! Again, see the last sentence in above paragraph, wher esubjectivists seem immune from your attacks.

I don’t bother attacking subjectivists here. You and the rest of the grossly one-sided gang here do a great job of that. I do the attacking where it’s needed and where I don’t have the comfort of simply preaching to the choir. Just check out my posts at Prophead. I don’t need to cower behind the shield of anonymity nor do I need the protection of the wolfpack.

I don’t see myself as part of a wolfpack. I speak my own opinions regardless of whomever else agrees or disagrees. The fact thatyou see me as part of a pack simply points to ypir own paranoia, not to mention a budding messiah complex, which seems to be growing to the point as to rival that of JR.

The fact that you think that any valid conclusions could be drawn from an amateurish single-blind (or double blind) test simply demonstrates how little you really know about the subject. Participation in such a test is nothing more than an opportunity to make the mistake of reaching a conclusion based on an anecdotal experience.

Well, Phil., didn’t you arrive at your own conclusions without even examining them? At least I did question my abilities and preformed single blind tests before offering my results to others. How did you keep your human fralities in check? O, right, you’re above human fallings. You don’t need to question anything. Talk about a messiah complex…

The reliability of DBT audio tests and the proper protocol and statistical analysis to be applied is an extremely complicated subject that has received almost no scholarly attention from anyone (beyond Dr. Toole’s work with speakers). Yet people like you perpetuate the myth that there have been a number of meaningful or properly conducted tests done on such things as cables.

Yeah, bla bla bla. When you even try a simple single blind test I’ll consider your arguments here. As it now stands you are a walking example of hubris maximus. Spouting rhetoric out of both ends simultaneously. Output of either is totally indistinguishable from the other and 100% interchangeable.

Just because you claim to believe in science and the scientific method doesn’t mean, as you seem to believe, that you have applied it properly or that you are relying on the work of others who have and are therefore immune from criticism for the conclusions that you have drawn. This is a very simple fact that you and some others on this board simply are incapable of grasping. Just because I attack your specific flawed use of science doesn’t mean I’m anti-science. To the contrary, I’m the one who is insisting on strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

…and I’m the one saying to listen for yourself.. but question and verify the results. Funny, isn’t it? Who’se on first now?

The tired old stories of people being fooled into believing they heard differences that really didn’t exist has been dissected from so many different angles, anyone would be a fool to draw any general conclusions from those stories.

Take two responses twice daily and call me in the morning.

As for actions, I'll stand by mine any day of the week. That's why I make a point of identifying who I am. I have little respect for cowards such as you who talk big, but refuse to asume personal responsibility for a single word you disseminate via the internet.

My grandson, who was several months old, found a new media for artful expression in his diaper. When we found this out, he had created what, in his eyes, was a masterpiece and was smiling proudly at us.

Oh yeah, one more thing. Your comment about my attacking all of the objectivists here at one time or another. When it comes to a true "objectivist" there is not a single person on this board, including you, that could hold a candle to Steve Eddy. He is scrupulous in his intelectual honesty. Not only have I never attacked him, Risch and his gang of thugs have often accused me of simply being his lapdog. When it comes to someone like Steve, whose powerful intellect, knowledge, experience, consistency, desire to seek the truth wherever that search may lead, and (above all in my book) scrupulous intellecual honesty, I would consider it an honor to be labeled as his lapdog. Not only do I have enormous respect for him, it is people like him who genuinely make me feel humble and insignificant.

I’m not Steve Eddy. I’m merely a guy who, as per advice, tried something for himself. Isn’t that what everyone wants? It would seem that the only results you would be interested in are those that benefit your case. I suggest you re-read those hallowed words by Carl Sagan you like to drag out when it suits you.

Since you apparently have the need to substitute labels for thought (an affliction you seem to share with Jon Risch), perhaps "lapdog for Steve" is a label you would consider trying to pin on me.

Well, I’d say you’ve got your head in someone’s lap. From the way it’s facing, what you are doing, though, is subject to debate.

TTFN. See ya around.