prof
thecarpathian,
As you can see Geoff’s attempt to critique that portion of my post (mentioning "credentials") is the usual attempt to avoid the actual substance of the point made. He just ignores the point that an engineer wouldn’t typically evade answering pertinent engineering questions about his own claims. In fact, I can not remember - ever, in an online discussion or elsewhere - an engineer or someone with expert credentials in some audio field so deliberately evading pertinent questions. Usually they are only too happy to explain more and make their case.
Whether I’m an engineer or not - and I’m not - has nothing to do with my observation about MG avoiding questions, so of course I wasn’t making it some "let’s compare credentials" statement. MG may have the best credentials I’ve ever seen and that would be irrelevant to the fact he was evading questions. So Geoff is as usual snapping at air - there was zero of pertinence to the substance of my post.
Michael Green used very move in the book to avoid answering my posts.
When he asked me to tell him about the different sound between two capacitors - it was an obvious attempt to distract from answering my questions about the evidence for his claims concerning capacitors and tie wraps. Anyone paying attention could easily infer what his motivation was: "I’m going to bring up two very specific capacitors, and it will show that prof hasn’t experience with those capacitors, therefore it will leave the impression that prof hasn’t the experience I, Michael Green, have, which will leave the impression prof has no leg on which to stand in being a skeptic on these issues. It will show prof is ’talking but not walking."
The post utterly wreaked of that obvious motivation.
But I didn’t give him an answer that would warrant that conclusion at all.
I haven’t played with those capacitors so I wouldn’t be making a claim either way - whether or how they sound different and in what applications. So I have no burden of proof. But if Michael claims they sound different, I would like to see on what evidence he is making the claim.
As there is NOTHING Michael could actually impugn about my stance in that reply, he could not - as with every other post of mine - honestly interact with it to find fault.
So instead he simply thanked me for answering. Did he ever explain the reason for the question? (I asked...but he wouldn’t say...spelling it out would spell out too vividly the fallacy and evasive tactic he was using).
But by just thanking me for my answer, he would leave in the air the impression - for anyone impressionable enough - that he’d just made a point.
As I said; a textbook intellectually dishonest interaction.
But it does seem that a number of people noticed, and didn’t fall for it.
Like I said: MG may have some truly helpful, interesting and efficacious techniques to share. It’s just a shame to cloud it with this type of behaviour and I hope future interactions are more positive.
Whereas with Geoff...well...he’s the forum equivalent of the neighbourhood dog who barks at everyone who passes by. You get used to the noise...”
Maybe tis best to file that whole jibber jabber under Whatever. A whole lotta nuthin’. A nothing burger as it were. 🍔
|
Whoa! Hey, more name calling. You don’t get it. Your posts are excellent examples of pretzel 🥨 logic of the kind used by pseudo skeptics. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.
|
Tiniest bit of integrity? See, that’s what I am referring to. That’s a personal attack. That’s a pseudo skeptics ploy to try and save face when called a pseudo skeptic. It’s similar to one of your first posts, calling Michael a jerk in so many words. Those are fake arguments. They are not (rpt not) arguments a real skeptic uses. Do you want me to draw you a picture?
|
Anton Chigurh: And you know what's going to happen now. You should admit your situation. There would be more dignity in it.
Carson Wells: You go to hell.
Anton Chigurh: [Chuckles] Alright. Let me ask you something. If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
Carson Wells: Do you have any idea how crazy you are?
Anton Chigurh: You mean the nature of this conversation?
Carson Wells: I mean the nature of you.
🤡
|
Help! What the heck is a dog-in-a-bone?
|
Hi, all. Here’s the cut and paste of the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Enjoy.
“What is “debunkery?” Essentially it is the attempt to debunk (invalidate) new fields of discovery by substituting scientistic rhetoric for scientific inquiry.
While informed skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method, professional debunkers — often called “kneejerk skeptics” — tend to be skeptics in name only, and to speak with little or no authority on the subject matter of which they are so passionately skeptical. At best, debunkers will occasionally expose other people’s errors; but for the most part they purvey their own brand of pseudoscience, fall prey to their own superstition and gullibility, and contribute little to the actual advancement of knowledge. As such, they well and truly represent the Right Wing of science.
To throw this reprobate behavior into bold — if somewhat comic — relief, I have composed a useful “how-to” guide for aspiring debunkers. This manual includes special sections devoted to debunking extraterrestrial intelligence, alternative healing methods, astrology and “free energy.” I spotlight these fields not because I necessarily support all related claims, but because they are among the most aggressively and thoughtlessly debunked subjects in the whole of modern history.
Many of the debunking strategies laid bare here have been adapted nearly verbatim from the classic works of history’s most remarkable debunkers. Though they often cross the threshold of absurdity under their own steam, I confess I have nudged a few across it myself for the sake of making a point.
As for the rest, their fallacious reasoning, fanatical bigotry, twisted logic and sheer goofiness will sound frustratingly familiar to those who have dared explore beneath oceans of denial and disingenuousness, and have attempted in good faith to report their observations.”
|
Gloopson,
Whatever. Slow day at Target? ⭕️
|
In, on, what’s the difference, gloopson? |
gloopson, do you have any idea how crazy you are? Am I allowed to say that?
|
tubegruber
Are you trying to educate or pacify your obvious boredom? No need to mention names you know who you are. Your barrage of supercillious commentary on this and a multitude of threads is benign enough except when you attack people in a needless way other than a subtle "humorous" voice of your hostility or is it that even? You are a very strange individual but a part of what makes the world go around I suppose. I just never get the point of your nonsense but try I have, maybe a bit too obtuse for your intellect?
>>>>Yes, maybe a bit too obtuse for my intellect. 🤓 Let’s just leave it at that. Subtle “humorous” voice of my hostility? I don’t think there’s anything subtle about it. More like on the open side. 😛
|
kosst_amojan
If the wevsite had been updated you wouldn't have posted a link full of Flash content that hasn't been supported by Android since 4.0.3. Fire you're web lackey.
>>>>>>I’m sure we’re all very excited by that.
|
But how would you know, sunshine? You don’t have any. 😢
|
Obviously he has better things to do, unlike yourself, dog breath. You are actually one of the Fakes he was referring to.
|
I gotta admit, prof, you talk a good game.
🙄 |
grannyring wrote,
”I grow weary of the long and repetitive argumentative posts from folks who really just need to move on as they will never enjoy this thread.....However, why continue to derail the thread and waste our precious time as some of us would like to expand our knowledge here. Constantly trying to put a negative spin on someone’s motive and methods is just not what these threads are meant for.”
>>>>>Eggs Ackly! And we have a name for them. Pseudo skeptics. It’s been that way since audio forums were invented. Leave it or live with it. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, walks like a duck, it’s a duck! 🦆 You don’t even have to look up the definition on Wikipedia.
Pop quiz!
Is time real or simply a construct of man? If there were no clocks and watches would time still exist?
|
glupson
I understand experience and that everything we do is experience, or we can call it empirical, in some way. That could be stretched to some philosophical level and I am fine with that for those who enjoy contemplating in that direction.
I was not arguing about the meaning of experimenting, I do think it has practical use even if, at times, it may seem to be for placebo effect only. My focus was on words used ("empirical testing lab") which seem, to say the least, redundant. I am not trying to nitpick on semantics. It is just that I am trying to figure out why those words were used. Could a "testing lab" be anything else but empirical?
I am really asking and not trying to speak from a position of superiority which will expose others as incompetent (that seems to happen a lot in this thread, by the way). It is that, over time, I learned that sometimes words get plugged into some statement which then seems to get credibility from just having that "fancy" word or description in it. That lead me to thinking about empirical, theoretical, and what would a "theoretical testing lab" look like in this case. "Empirical" would have some electronic equipment, a chair, whatever else placed on the walls, etc., but what about theoretical? Does anyone have an answer? I cannot come up with one although I have been trying for some time.
It is not about differences in two major opinions about the topic of this thread. I somehow picked two things along the way and they both included well-known words that sound somewhat "sophisticated" (not the best word to describe them but I cannot come up with the better one) which I could not properly put in the context of what is discussed. Both times, I have tried to learn and broaden my horizons.
>>>>I suspect you’re over thinking it. Empirical implies either listening tests or some sort of measurements - or both in some cases. No reason to get wrapped around the axel with all the philosophy.
|
glupson
geoffkait,
I do not think I am overthinking it. In fact, I barely give it a thought. My question is due to the repeated statements including "empirical testing" that nobody questioned. It became the basic postulate while, to my current understanding that I am eager to expand if someone gives me an explanation, it is just three words meant to make it seem legitimate and serious. Both sides accepted it while they might have not needed it. That part is relevant to the debate of this thread. My real personal intention is to learn more about the matter that involves "empirical testing lab" so I can be aware of different approaches with no sway to either of the two sides of this thread (that battle is lost for both, in my belief). Just claiming that something is "empirical" is not that hard to come up with. Of course it is. What else would it be? Now, think about using the word "lab" there. That is a pretty heavy stuff. It is a nightmare to set up a lab. And here, I saw it thrown around as if it is my living room which was not that complicated to set up. But using "lab" and "empirical" in one sentence insinuates something really strong. At the same time, it implies the existence of a "theoretical testing lab" which is my interest as I have never ran across one. I gave up on figuring out if tuning works, if people walk or talk, but am hoping to learn something here.
>>>>>>>Methinks you’re getting hung up on words, on semantics. Empirical, testing and lab mean different things to different people. Test system, test protocol, test plan, test evaluation, test results - those terms mean different things to different people. Nobody ever agrees what constitutes a “scientific” test or a proper after the testing has been finished. It all has to be agreed a priori to have any meaning or validity. You seem to be under the impression this is some sort of peer review forum.
Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?
All that aside, as I’ve cautioned before a single audio test has no meaning if the test results are negative, no matter how careful and thorough the test may have been.
Pop quiz: which freezes faster, cold water or warm water?
|
amg56
@jf47t This give more light into the workings of MG "The HiFi Whisperer". It must have taken many, many hours to develop an ear for various materials.
>>>>>Gosh, ya think?
|
glupson
geoffkait,
Theoretical testing lab? Huh? What do you think this is, Los Alamos? NIST? Harvard? A theoretical testing lab can be anyone’s listening room. Or someone’s basement. Hel-loo?
I think this is just a forum for people wasting some time on, if you really want to know what I think. At the same time, if we start talking about things and calling them something, I believe we should know what we are talking about. Otherwise, it just becomes blah-blah-am-I-smart-blah-blah and continues an argument that maybe never should have been.
I am not hung up on semantics at all, just on calling things their names instead of writing "scientific" poetry. For now, I do not find your description of a "theoretical testing lab" fully finished. I was under impression that someone’s listening room would be more of an "empirical testing lab", if the person wanted to glorify it.
There are many big words thrown around this thread and some of them are of questionable origin, to say the least. I have no intention in disputing someone’s tuning/tweaking results and what she/he hears or does not hear, but others are arguing about it. The whole thread started with "empirical testing" as an important event and I just wondered what is a "non-empirical testing". Maybe two camps that are arguing around here are not talking about same things, at all.
>>>>Have it your way. You want something to be something other than what is. Haven’t you ever heard of fluffing? You don’t have to have a real lab with people in white smocks running around with white socks and calculators. Are you so removed that you never heard of Herbies Audio Lab? Or Jena Labs? Or Marigo Audio Labs. Those examples as fate would have it are essentially one man operations. I could call my company Machina Dynamica Labs. Capish? A lab, even an “empirical lab” or theoretical physics lab” is whatever you want it to be, whatever works for you. I suspect this discussion, if I can be so bold, is kind of a mind game for you. Which is kind of what MG was getting at in his OP. You know, with the fakes and everything.
|
amg56, you do realize you can edit your post? You have up to 30 minutes to edit. The next best thing is you can delete your errant post and start all over. |
Quick interrupt! There has never been a single audiophile tweak that was ever proved to be a fake or a hoax. Of course it all depends. Some pills make you bigger, some pills make you small, the ones that mother gives you don’t do anything at all. Much of the confusion over tweaks and backlash and oddball results actually stem from operator error. I’m not hot doggin ya! 🌭 |
prof
glupson: “It seems that for every thing that gets mentioned as a tweak/tuning there are two sides. One claims it is non-sense and cannot be true noticeable difference and the other side claims that the difference is noticeable.”
That’s actually the false dichotomy that I’ve been at pains to reject.
As I keep arguing here, one doesn’t have to take a single side "it makes an audible difference/it doesn’t make an audible difference" position.
One can simply take the position "I don’t know if there is an audible difference, so let’s discuss the reasons and evidence for why there might be an audible difference, or not."
Being a long time audio-nut myself, and always liking the idea of further enhancing the sound of my system, I’m very attracted to the idea of "tweaking" my system. So it’s not something I reject on some weird a priori grounds - in my more tweaky moments I WANT things to make a difference. But I also realize this is also when I’m most likely to fool myself that there is a difference.
>>>I suggest things are not so simple. Audiophiles oft exhibit what is commonly referred to as knee jerk reactions to both Tweaks and Tuning. So before anyone gets his bowels in an uproar wouldn’t it be great if we defined what the heck all the rumpus is about? You know, before going on the offensive? What is a tweak? What is Tuning? I pretty sure many audiophiles have a lot of pre-conceived ideas. Do they overlap? Are they competitors? What’s the difference? Is it mostly coupling vs decoupling? Or vibration control? Does Tuning address RFI? Magnetism? Directionality of wire! Other physics, you know, like quantum physics? Are the universes of Tweaks and Tuning bounded or unbounded? Are they different universes?
I submit, gentle readers, the wonderful world of tweaks is not really what most audiophiles think it is. For one thing it’s bigger than what most people think it is. Much bigger.
|
glupson
geoffkait,
Anyone can call her/his company whatever they want and it means only that it is that company’s name. However, this empirical testing in this thread was not a name for the company but something that opponents were accused of not doing and therefore their opinion being less worthy. Fakers, talkers, whatever they ended up being. Your explanation consists of correct words applied to an entirely unrelated thing.
>>>>Huh? What are you talking about? The opponents were accused of not doing because they don’t do. They talk, but don’t do. That’s as plain as the nose on your face. In fact, you appear to be the poster boy for talk, not do. Your continuing semantic arguments are do do. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.
|
jf47t
“Today I learned the difference between tweaking and tuning. I’m not sure if Michael would agree with this as he gives latitude for tweaks mods and component swapping but what I’ve been hearing is a different hobby. MG has asked me not to mention the brands of the high end system we have setup as our competing 2nd system but he says that it’s important for me to see how far high end can go with tweaking vs what a tunable system can do. That’s a classy approach to not pick on specific brands. He doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s business while he is convince the hobby is taking a big turn. Tonight we’ve been doing some interesting comparisons. Both systems have been setup fairly by Michael. I’ll call one the tunable system and the other the HEA system.”
>>>>>>>That sounds like a Strawman waiting to happen. 😬 What it appears you really need is a Tweaking Guru tweaking the HEA system with the Tuning Guru tuning the other system. I’m not sure the two systems should even be in the same house.
There is what we call the Hierarchy of Sound, not to sound too high fallutin’. The Hierarchy of sound embraces the concept that a modestly priced tweaked (or tuned) system can sound considerably better than a more expensive system that hasn’t been tweaked or tuned. Make sense?
Furthermore people seem to be under the impression tweaking involves a limited set of commonly used thingamabobs, rubber dampers or cones, for example. With that notion firmly planted in one’s head the “tweaked system” is bound to fail. Obviously there’s a right way and a wrong way to do things. And there are way too many variables to try to put Tweaking, the art of tweaking, in a nice convenient little box. That’s a self fulfilling prophecy. But Tweaking is not that easily defined - or accomplished. It’s not just a simole case of coupling vs decoupling. Tweaking is just a word. You guys might be under the impression that Tweaking is a planet. But Tweaking is not a planet, it’s not even solar system or a galaxy. It’s a Universe.
So, gentle readers, I hate to prejudge things but it appears the Great Tuning vs Tweaking Shoot-out is just a contrivance, a marketing ploy, preordained to “prove” the superiority of Tuning.
Besides, surely Tuning and Tweaking aren’t mutually exclusive, or are they? Is it US vs THEM? 😳 |
I suspect folks might be mistaking persistence and Gila monster like perseverance for anger and rage. One thing I admire about Michael having interfaced with him more than the average bear, hand to hand combat, MG, May and Peter and me, every day for two years, is he will not walk away from an argument. He’s like an animal! 😬 If anyone else can’t stand the heat of serious debate or is a little bit timid they should probably stay out of the kitchen. Let’s get cookin’! 👨🏻🍳
|
Look it up? Oh, my gosh! See, that’s the problem. There is no real definition of Tweaking. Even advanced audiophiles disagree what Tweaking entails. That’s what I was trying to say. People think they kind of know what it means. But you won’t find the real definition in Wikipedia. Not for audiophiles. What you will find on the internet and Wikipedia is a lot of anti audiophile and tweakaphobe diatribes warning people about fringe tweaks, woo and snake oil. Like the guy the tells the private detective in Chinatown, “You may think you know what’s going on but, believe me, you don’t.” That’s what I meant by Strawman. You’re trying to compare Tuning to something you’re obviously not particularly adept at or even knowledgeable about. Strawman is a logical fallacy.
|
amg56
@geoffkait Hey Geoff, will your quantum teleportation thingy fix my keyboard?
>>>>I heard through the grapevine the Teleportation Tweak will improve the reception of smartphones. And I’m not hot doggin ya. 🌭 The way I figure it that should be worth a Nobel all by itself, forget about audio.
|
mapman
Crazy threads like this surely must scare some curious newcomers away. Too bad.
>>>>The Peanut Gallery checks in. The Euro-nator is back.
|
Sounds to me like some of the combatants, especially the more vociferous ones, are pretty satisfied with the status quo, in a self congratulatory kind of way. 🙄 One can’t help wondering why they’re here still demanding answers. If you’ll pardon me for saying so they don’t seem to fit into the definition of audiophiles desperate or at least striving for better sound. For some folks like your friend and humble scribe there is no stopping place. There is no audio Nirvana. You need look no further than the fuse threads and the new Graphene contact enhancer thread to get a glimpse of the future. Well, maybe not your future, but the future for more uh, active audiophiles. 😬
|
amg56
Not to be combative but I suspect you might have misread my statement. I said there is no audio Nirvana. By that I mean there is no Absolute Sound. This concept of No Absolute Sound is closely linked to the concept of the Audio Hierarchy I described somewhere the other day.
Made the scene
Week to week
Day to day
Hour to hour
The gate is straight
Deep and wide
Break on through to the other side
Break on through to the other side
|
prof wrote,
“Does anyone else here think it unreasonable to ask a Michael Green devotee how the Tuneland forum would react to a post with the character of the one Michael made here?
I doubt it.
Is anyone here, at this point, surprised that a Michael Green devotee evaded, evaded and evaded again answering this reasonable question?
I doubt it.”
>>>>I don’t see what you’re getting all worked up about. I thought the fellow (Jay) from Tuneland did an excellent job explaining how Tuning works. Where’s the beef? 🍔 This is just another scene straight out of 12 Angry Men.
|
It’s a thread about everything. You can now return to your Barco Lounger. 😴
|
So, gentle readers, what’s the take away from this thread so far?
1. Don’t use audio forums to promote your products unless you’re willing to put up with all the drama.
2. Be sure to answer all demands for explanations of claims even if you haven’t made any claims. Otherwise you will pay dearly.
3. Be prepared to stick around 24/7 to answer questions. They can get very impatient.
4. Disregard the disengenuous and loaded questions.
5. Always be prepared for snide comments from the Peanut Gallery. They will trivialize every topic and ask incessantly, why can’t we just enjoy the music? They will Dog you like a pack of snarling poodles. 🐩 🐩 🐩
6. Be prepared to answer a variety of questions on almost any topic from quantum physics to black holes to why we can’t all be happy and content and stop worrying so much.
🤡
|
If a 🐸 had wings he wouldn’t bump his 🍑 so much.
An ordinary man has no means of deliverance. - old audiophile saw |
@amg56
As the bumper sticker on the back of the 18 wheeler 🚛 lumbering up the narrow winding mountain road read, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you. 😀
|
amg56
@geoffkait
A presumption not necessarily true.
I may be in front of your 18 wheeler. Don’t presume that there are people on this thread that are not way ahead, but on their own path.
The mistake on this thread was exactly your presumption made by MG the OP. There are plenty of Audiophiles well ahead on the "road". MG’s opinion of what path may lead he and followers to his Audio Nirvana may not suit other Audiophile’s for whatever reason and that is just fine.
The most important thing is to ENJOY your path....
>>>>An audiophile is judged by his words. Obviously I cannot be there to hear your system. As much as I dislike judging where people It’s been my experience that a great many people, even those of high age and long experience, are quite oblivious to ANY path and uncertain where they ARE or where they are GOING.
I’m going to go out on a limb and I hate to judge before all the facts are in but I’m guessing you probably fall into that category. You know, just judging by what you write. Your words. I suspect you’ve probably been following the wrong.....you know.
🐑 🐑 🐑
You said, “The most important thing is to ENJOY your path.” I say ignorance is BLISS.
|
glupson
I would add to geoffkait’s list...
7. Someone may read your website. Have a good understanding of it.
8. Things are trivial indeed. It is all just about electronic reproduction of music.
9. Always remember that it is good to have someone ahead of you, no matter how slow he may be. He will clear the road for you and you can learn from his mistakes so you do not go the same way.
geoffkait,
What road was that 18-wheeler on?
>>>>There is no road. There is no path. There is no Audio Nirvana. Didn’t you get my memo? In order to evaluate WHERE you ARE in the overall context of things one must know HOW he got there and HOW to get WHERE he wants to go. Therein lies the Big Secret. The unspeakable. Things are only trivial if you aren’t a real audiophile. Obviously things are trivial to the guy under the bridge. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
|
glupson
geoffkait,
I am confused. There is no road, there is no path?
>>>>Eggs ackly! No path. No road. No Nirvana. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Geoffkait: “As the bumper sticker on the back of the 18 wheeler 🚛 lumbering up the narrow winding mountain road read, I may be slow but I’m ahead of you.”
From your explanation, it is a bliss not to be a true audiophile, whatever that "true audiophile" means. What I meant that it is trivial indeed was that passions get inflamed out of proportion. This thread read as a life-or-death topic and not as some hobby.
>>>>Now I think you’re getting it. Being a “true audiophile” is not all peaches 🍑 and cream 🐄. As the sign in offices of days gone by used to say, “If you’re not going crazy you don’t understand the situation.” Contentment is for cows. 🐄 Happiness is for clowns. 🤡 True audiophiles know what “true audiophile” means. Follow?
|
glupson
geoffkait,
You are really getting confusing.
These two are your statements. Both of them.
“...lumbering up the narrow winding mountain road read..."
"Eggs ackly! No path. No road. No Nirvana. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news."
Which one should I consider correct statement? The one in which the road exists or the one claiming that the road does not exist? They are contradictory.
>>>>Life itself is often contradictory, grasshopper.
I am sure that true audiophiles know what "true audiophile" means. The problem is that nobody else knows it. A secret club for those who think very highly.
>>>>Eggs ackley. It’s a secret club, grasshopper. Now you’re getting smart.
|
glupson
jf47t,
"All the instruments were now feeding off of each other with equal presence."
I am totally inexperienced in this jargon. Is there a way you could explain to someone not adept at that lingo what this sentence really means? Also, did I understand it correctly that on your second listen the flute was not heard anymore? Seems like a karaoke machine of some sort.
Stalker alert! Obviously a disengenuous stalker of the cheap innocent loaded question variety. And just as cheap innuendo. 🤡
|
amg56
@geoffkait Don’t insult me with your pseudo intelligence. You have no idea who i am or what my system is. Your presumption is way off the mark. I choose not to grandiose myself with blather that you carry on with.
>>>>You’re right, I don’t know you and I don’t know what your system sounds like. I already said as much. Call it an educated guess. Besides, how do you know I’m way off the mark? You have no idea where I’m coming from.
There aren’t too many audiophiles who doubt their system is all that. - old audiophile axiom |
glupson
geoffkait,
Making contradictory statements renders either of those statements potentially incorrect and therefore not worth considering in any discussion. What life is contradictory to means nothing in this case, if that statement itself is even true.
It would be helpful to know how true audiophiles define themselves.
I am not sure what grasshoppers you are referring to.
>>>>I suggest filing this whole exchange under strange and mildly irritating but whatever. I’ll write this off as another case of someone taking MGs OP comments just a little too personally. 😬
|
glupson
geoffkait,
Since I posted my last response to you, I noticed that you changed your previous post to include MG's OP. You are right, I took them seriously and I abide by them. He started with "This isn't meant to start the fight" and I have been successfully avoiding any fight here. He also ended his original post with "be polite" which I am also following to all eight letters.
>>>>I was actually referring to his admonition to those who only talk the talk when I said you probably took it personally. 😬
I do not call people crazy, cows, clowns, grasshoppers, stalkers, or anything else that freely flows in this thread. I try to stay within the topic discussed, even if it is not always related to the original post.
>>>>Well, aren’t you special?
|
You sure can talk. I’m still thinking about the question. 🙄
|
audiopoint
amg56 admitted he did his four years of time and earned a degree in engineering so it’s in his blood to seek out more detailed information. To the best of my knowledge he and gkait are the only persons posted on this thread that have earned their authentic ‘goatskins’. If there are more, please let us know more on your background. There are also those here claiming to hold that distinctive title in education but obviously do not.
>>>>Sorry to be the one to disabuse you of your belief but the last time I looked traffic engineering is not real engineering. It might sound like it, I’ll give you that. You’ll have to ask him what degree you need for “traffic engineering.” My degree is Aerospace Engineering with mathematics a specialty. I had the most credits ever accumulated for an undergraduate at Virginia. Ever. Now, if he studied dynamic programming as I have then maybe I will say that is real engineering.
|
Speaking for myself and keeping it succinct so as not to interfere too much there isn’t much I wouldn’t do to get better sound. In fact, I would hang chicken bones all around if it made the sound better. Is that wrong?
|
You really enjoyed our conversations over the years? Are you a masochist? 🙄
I always said you got your ideas from MG. OK, now it’s your turn. 😬
|
nkonor
Will you place your order for “Total Contact” now? Try it and report back?
>>>>>If your question is adressed to me, which I think it is, I am the proud owner of the Graphene stuff. Have been for some time. Do you really think I would have overlooked or ignored it? 😳
|
Oh, brother! Spare me the lecture on “traffic engineering.” The traffic flow is heaviest during rush hour so you program the traffic lights stay green longer in the direction of the main flow. Or build new roads and or wider roads. Big deal. Problem solved! It’s not rocket science. 🚀
|
Gloopson, again a simple case of reading comprehension. I said road widening or traffic lights. It’s not rocket science. 🚀 |
