Hey Mark. Are A/B tests worthless?

[pctower]

Actually, I didn't bring up the subject of DBT's. You did. If you reread that thread again, you'll notice that my next didn't bring up DBTs either. n fact, as was pointed out several times later in that thread, you were the one constantly bringing up DBT's.

The thread was initiated on bi-wiring and all either of our posts did was to tell the poor guy that there were several schools of thought on that matter. Immediately after my post, you started in with me on the DBT issue.

In fact, in every one of your subsequent posts, even with the lawyer jokes as the focus, you always went back to the DBT issue? Why?

Now, had you chosen to get back to the issues at hand, (bi-wiring, sources of info, etc...) perhaps that ugly brouhaha might not have ensued.

But no, you always came back to DBT's.

And now you want to start a thread on them?

In all honesty and not to be insulting, I really think you have issues with DBT's. Can't a discussion evolve without DBT's? It seems that if nobody else brings it up, you do.

I make no bones about having an issue with the claims that are made here based on supposedly valid or reliable tests that have been run in the past.

However, I note that you have totally ducked my request that you document your accusation that I am "wont" to change the subject. Simply expanding the scope of your accusation as you just did in your most recent post doesn't constitute documentation. It simply constitutes expanding the scope of your unsubstantiated allegation.

[markw]

I make no bones about having an issue with the claims that are made here based on supposedly valid or reliable tests that have been run in the past.

However, I note that you have totally ducked my request that you document your accusation that I am "wont" to change the subject. Simply expanding the scope of your accusation as you just did in your most recent post doesn't constitute documentation. It simply constitutes expanding the scope of your unsubstantiated allegation.

Well, I see you’re back to playing games again by you denying your own actions. Phil, if you would even bother to re-read that last long thread on bi-wiring, you will plainly see where you were the one to constantly keep dragging up DBT’s, again and again.

Here's the kicker, guy. The thread was about bi-wiring, not DBT's. Who constantly tried to force the focus back to DBT's? Not I.

It's like you are one trick pony. All you want to do is argue DBT's, no matter what the subject at hand. And, in some fashion or another, you will try to bend the subject to your liking. ...and you wonder why I accuse you of acting like a liar, er... lawyer.

Now, if your own words are not "substantiation" enough for you, then I guess it’s a lost cause trying to carry on a meaningful discssion with you. So much for a meaningful discussion, eh?

Oh well, I guess it’s back to lawyer jokes.

An attorney was cross-examining a coroner.

The attorney asks, "before you signed the death certificate, did you take the man's pulse?" The coroner says, "No."

The lawyer then asks, "Did you listen for a heartbeat?" "No" says the coroner.

"Did you check for breathing?" Again, the coroner says, "No."

"So," the lawyer continues, "when you signed the death certificate, you had not taken any of the usual steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?"

The coroner, now tired of the browbeating, says, "Well, let me put it this way. The man's smashed brain was sitting in a police labeled jar on my desk, but for all I know, he could have been out there practicing law somewhere."

TTFN. If I hear any new ones, I'll let ya know.

[WmAx]

So much for a meaningful discussion, eh? Oh well, I guess it’s back to lawyer jokes.

I believe that pctower uses this forum primarily as practice for his debating skills. Most of the tactics I have noticed being employed by Phil can be found on how-to-debate lessons published online. I have read these tactics in the past. Seems to me that their main point is to not settle anything, but instead cause more confusion and to strike during this confusion. Does this sound familiar?

-Chris

[pctower]

I believe that pctower uses this forum primarily as practice for his debating skills. Most of the tactics I have noticed being employed by Phil can be found on how-to-debate lessons published online. I have read these tactics in the past. Seems to me that their main point is to not settle anything, but instead cause more confusion and to strike during this confusion. Does this sound familiar?

-Chris

If I had to depend on the debating skills I employ on this board to earn a living, I'd starve to death. This is pre-school in comparison to the league I play in.

[Monstrous Mike]

However, I note that you have totally ducked my request that you document your accusation that I am "wont" to change the subject. Simply expanding the scope of your accusation as you just did in your most recent post doesn't constitute documentation. It simply constitutes expanding the scope of your unsubstantiated allegation.

Isn't this just the expansion of an unsubstantiated segment constituting the lead in skit as documented on Saturday Night Live you recently tried to duck?

[pctower]

Isn't this just the expansion of an unsubstantiated segment constituting the lead in skit as documented on Saturday Night Live you recently tried to duck?

Pardon me if I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

[Monstrous Mike]

Pardon me if I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

I was simply replying to your own baffling post in kind as shown below.

However, I note that you have totally ducked my request that you document your accusation that I am "wont" to change the subject. Simply expanding the scope of your accusation as you just did in your most recent post doesn't constitute documentation. It simply constitutes expanding the scope of your unsubstantiated allegation.

Hopefully, I got a chuckle out of the lurkers.

[markw]

Actually I think he's a pompus ass who likes to hear himself talk whether he knows what he's talking about or not. come to think about it, that's probably why you are so infatuated by him.

Why are you continuly asking me to comment on someone eles's opinon? This post has no bearing on anything I have ever said or implied.

Still looking to build that straw man, eh? If so, then sorry, I don't play that game. You'll just have to continue playing with yourself.

TTFN unless you want some more lawyer jokes.

[jneutron]

Actually I think he's a pompus ass who likes to hear himself talk whether he knows what he's talking about or not. come to think about it, that's probably why you are so infatuated by him.

Hmmm...

I'm still trying to find a post of Phil's that warrants your abusive statements..so far, I come up empty.

I'm also surprised that Chris has deemed your foul and vindictive language as appropriate for this forum.

I had hoped you would embrace the olive branch extended to you.. obviously, you have no desire for that.

Are you here for any reason other than trashing Phil?

John

[markw]

I'll try to explain in as best I can, but if that's not good enough, well.

Hmmm...

I'm still trying to find a post of Phil's that warrants your abusive statements..so far, I come up empty.

Well, it kinda started out in the bi wire thread and went down hill from there when it was hijacked into a DBT based issue. I don't like people consistently putting words in my mouth and this seems to be a popular debating tactic for some.

I'm also surprised that Chris has deemed your foul and vindictive language as appropriate for this forum.

Who knows what they think? Personally, I only respond in kind.

I had hoped you would embrace the olive branch extended to you.. obviously, you have no desire for that.

You call this an olive branch? Sorry, I don't like getting whipped with an olive branch. Why not ask me if I stopped beating my wife, yes or no? From the confrontational tone of Phil's post it's pretty obvious to me that it's simply another excuse to start a debate about something I had no interest in debating.

Are you here for any reason other than trashing Phil?

John

Good question. Actually, I participate quite freely in most of the other forums. In fact, although they won't admit it, many of the views I express on them run quite parallel with others on this board whose views on cables I don't quite embrace. Imagine that.

Now, on the other hand, I don't see Phil participating on any other forum except here. And, his participation here seems intended more to disrail any seemingly well intentioned disccussion. His pre-emptive strike against any anti biwire information gleaned here in his first paragraph his first post in the bi-wire thread should pretty much make that clear.

Again, I'm sorry if you can't see what I'm saying, but I gotta be me.

I'm willing to live and let live, but this thread was, IMNSHO, started to simply start another debate about something I've never disputed. If it wasn't confrontational, then what is?