 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: Not only is Global Warming not true, industry is not responsible ! posted by Bambi B on June 16, 2006 at 13:49:05:
...Dr. David Stodolsky, publishing in peer-reviewed IEEE Transactions on Audio, found incorrect polarity more audible than 11.5% IM distortion. Dr. Stanley Lipshitz, in the peer-reviewed JAES, found polarity audible to the 99% confidence level.These are measured numbers.
Your fallacious assertions about polarity are as wrong as the rest of your argument on global warming. Not only that, you have descended into ineffective invective: "Clark, you're doing a good deed to try and save oil company profits." You can do better than that, c'mon! Leave the emotional stuff behind; that's for liberals.
clark
Follow Ups:
retain a shred of respect for you. A small one but--- what the heck--- I'm a Christian.
tinear,Well done ! I assume you're joking, as the reference to being a "small Christian" - gives away the comedy, but if not, should you have something to say to me, I would prefer you speak for yourself. I think Clark has enough self-respect and intelligence to respond- if he cares to at all- and does not need a discount apologist jumping in from out of nowhere.
But, surely you're funnin', because suggesting that Clark can't make a sufficient reply for himself, you do him the greater disrespect- it does however, make me suddenly feel I'm much luckier in my friends than poor Clark.
I am further perplexed by your comment, "retain a shred of respect for Clark"- I can't imagine- what makes you think there is only a "shred" remaining? Should you be serious, I think I could say I respect Clark far more than do you.
Tinear, I'm quite sure you're making a prank, but if not, this is not a gentlemanly thing to pull on our friend Clark, who we couldn't do without around here- look at this thread - 120 and counting must be one of the longest threads ever on Films, especially that had almost nothing to do with Films!
Joking aside, I hereby apologize fully to Clark as my comments were overreaction and disproportionate as to degree. It's just I was dissappointed that Clark seemed dismissive of Gore's love song to the Earth, "An Inconvenient Truth" - as Clark is a commentator on technologies, I would have liked to see him- if he's starting a thread on the topic on Films"- look into the content and merits of the film and further do so, with the the open and thouroughness he demands of others evaluating techmolgogies he advocates. This is where I was unfair as to degree with Clark, as I felt his avoidance of my comments were further dismissed by a diversion to "absolute polarity" but I must still insist I did not engage in any "invective" against him. I did prod Clark by jokingly renaming "absolute polarity" "obtuse polarity" and for that I apologise again- this was just heedless word-play. Of all the things Clark avocates, as a long-time Helmholz fan, I am especially open to psycho-acoustic effects of that nature- a lot of people say they hear it, and it does have a measurable, physical component- the polarity of the waveform and it's components can be either correct or inverted.
I'm afraid with the educated clocks and smart rocks, because I'm not convinced by the mysterious explanations of their effects- the personally subjective terminology- ("darker, more detailed, natural") is more akin in my view, to a subjective "poll", and since the effects are either unquantifiable or the makers obscure them proprietarily, I'm more skeptical and would have to try them while looking the makers in the eye. I understand the makers of these devices of "subtle" technology can not fully reveal what's going on as they might be sending business to diy or competitors, but I have a need to know what's happening- physically, and/or psychologically/perceptually.
And Clark, I was completely barmy and overblown to suggest that Clark was being critically hypocritical by starting a movie thread possibly without having seen the film. I was disspointed, but would rather restate this- if posting on "Films", I'd much more enjoy your considered insights and direct discussion of the movie you bring to our attention- than one line- and a link that strikes me as a not especially balanced view. But, you're busy, and I understand you may have done this more casually, and I and others took it too seriously.
But, again, I'm completely open to these devices, again, a lot of poeple make claims of dramatic effects in reproduced sound, and as almost none of my friends let me convince them that imaging is a real effect- I just want to shake them them by the shoulders it's so obvious to me. Would I could've taken my 300 closest friends to hear Ray Kimber's "IsoMike". -But we have to admit that the majority of people do not listen to sound analytically- they may like or dislike it, but they may not search for components and evaluate their aesthetic effect and technological origins. And yes, I do have components that can accomplish a rather strong imaging.
Finally, with Clark I just got off onto an inappropriate strict analytical and semantic fit- it's been fuckin' 100+ for three days- and the other thing is that people from cold climates suffer at over 80 F - as we automatically wear three-piece suits all the time where ever we are. But, finally this morning, it's cool and my overheated brain has cooled down. I hope Clark can write this one off as an abberation. I used poor judgment and word choice.
I'm just unfortunate I was born 3/4 Dutch and people from countries with centuries of poor weather -like the Irish, Scandanavians,and Russians, would rather sit around and forever tell stories, argue, and prod our friends, while the English quarter likes polite conversation. Sorry, Clark, I would dearly love to retract any kind of personal comment. Can I blame Global Warming? I should have never swayed from my prinicple not to make personal coments or inferrence.
As to Global warming itself, I'll post on "Outside" where I feel it's more appropriate, and I'll be somewhat serious. As a child of the oil industry myself- I think I'll surprise you.
-By the way, tinear, that you can publicly admit that you’re “small” does you honour, many men do not have your courage. Thanks for posting !
-Hell, there I go again, and it's only 86..
Cheers,Bambi B
clarkjohnsen,You are again diverting the discussion at hand. The issue here is that you began a thread that intends to criticize Gore's movie about Global warming, by linking to an article that intends to refute the content, but so completely avoid actually discussing the movie, you use the merest excuse to divert attention and return to the polarity issue.
In this sequence, you're forgetting to apply your proclaimed principle of trying to understand technologies and experiences with an open mind before making a judgment. I agree with this completely, but do you feel you've applied your principle to "An Inconvenient Truth"? Have you seen this movie? The unfortunate appearance in this instance is that apply your principle only when it complies to your prejudice. And your comments come off as prejudice when you don;t explain your comments but instead change tthe subject.
And, I believe you are being more than a bit oversensitive to suggest that I engage in "invective", as I can't find a word in my post that is personally abusive in any way. I find this comment insulting, given my long history on this site of long-winded, poorly typed, and rambling care to attempt to calm hurt feelings and defuse personal squabbling. That you confuse gentle sarcasm with invective demonstrates ego-centrism, intense defensiveness, and lack of confidence.
Further, your statement to me, "Your fallacious assertions about polarity are as wrong as the rest of your argument on global warming" is obtuse and slightly psychotic. I never made any statement concerning "absolute polarity"- or even mentioned the actual term, as I suspected that mentioning it would set you off in a diversion- just the way it did anyway.. [see P.S. below].
As for "fallacious assertions" on global warming, what is "fallacious"? [See P.P.S. below] If you were not so desperate to defend your own position and bring in the completely unrelated topic of polarity, you might notice the body of my post is mainly that those who support the oil industry hire those proven sysmpatheitc to an intended conclusion and convince the weaker-minded among the public to deny global warming while liberals point to studies that support it and raise the alarm. I am not even really commenting directly on global warming, except in the title: "Not only is global warming not true,industry is not responsible". My focus in this forum is to try and focus on considering the content and merit of movies- not political statement or arguing science that you automatically gainsay anyway.
Not to be patronising, but in the past several years, Ive had great respect for your taste in music and recordings and I agree with many of you're comments on reproduced sound, but I suggest that you undermine your overall credibility as a critic to criticise a movie which you've not mentioned actually seeing- nor even really address directly at all. Further, by denying the facts, methods, and conclusions of the analyses of a highly complex global atmospheric system only by casual association, and by returning to absolute polarity, is a signal of a rather strong ego-centrism and associated "selectiveness" as to the facts you will accept. This kind of thread does not have to become a refferendum on your opinions and critical methods, but like the polarity thread elsewhere, you seem to want to force it to become so, when there is anything resembling disagreement.
This suggest to me, and apparently others here, that this particular thread in Film Asylum is not informed or balanced criticism, but a casual political diatribe without responsible critical foundation.
You can do better than that, c'mon! Leave the closed minded, anti-intellectual stuff behind; that's for FOX News.
Cheers,
Bambi B
P.S. By the way, I have never experimented with absolute polarity and, therefore have no criticism of it. In fact, I'm rather inclined to believe it's a perceivable effect and would like to try it, but it is still a subjective effect and not meaningfully "measurable"- except as to the proportion of people that believe they hear it. Making scientific claims for it are, in reality, more like subjective opinion polls and are not strict science. On your basis of evidence and statisitcs, I believe, by similar meothod can make a "scientific" proof that 95% of poeple can't hear "imaging" from reproduced sound- none of my non-audiophile fiends can hear it.
PPS: I've has several conversations on the subject with a director of atmospheric sciences for NASA, and have read quite a bit about it on each side of the argument, but unlike you- who seem to believe you have all the facts you need, am not willing to comment on any deep level. While, there are a pile of facts at hand that cause me deep concern, I don't feel confident in my understanding of the vastly complex modelling used for prediction. But, the measurements and effects of reduced ice cap, glaciers, the opening of sea passages to northern Russia never before navigable, suggest something serious is happening and I'm with our liberal friends on this one and believe we should err on the side of caution. You may find 99% can hear a polarity effct, but I'm 99% sure that when a piece of ice the size of Connecticut and one mile thick breaks off Antarctica, we had better pay more attention to that than automatically taking the side of industry fearful of blame.
You are again diverting the discussion at hand.-- I believe *you* first mentioned "polarity".
The issue here is that you began a thread that intends to criticize Gore's movie about Global warming, by linking to an article that intends to refute the content, but so completely avoid actually discussing the movie, you use the merest excuse to divert attention and return to the polarity issue.
-- I repeat...
In this sequence, you're forgetting to apply your proclaimed principle of trying to understand technologies and experiences with an open mind before making a judgment. I agree with this completely, but do you feel you've applied your principle to "An Inconvenient Truth"? Have you seen this movie?
-- No. And you couldn't pay me to go. I, and many, have frequently posted others' comments on things I (we) haven't seen (yet).
The unfortunate appearance in this instance is that apply your principle only when it complies to your prejudice. And your comments come off as prejudice when you don;t explain your comments but instead change tthe subject.
-- I repeat...
And, I believe you are being more than a bit oversensitive to suggest that I engage in "invective", as I can't find a word in my post that is personally abusive in any way.
-- Your remark that I am helping to sustain oil company profits, was intended to be delightful?
I find this comment insulting, given my long history on this site of long-winded, poorly typed, and rambling care to attempt to calm hurt feelings and defuse personal squabbling. That you confuse gentle sarcasm with invective demonstrates ego-centrism, intense defensiveness, and lack of confidence.
I said, "ineffective" invective. Meaning, it was way weak!
Further, your statement to me, "Your fallacious assertions about polarity are as wrong as the rest of your argument on global warming" is obtuse and slightly psychotic.
-- And truthful.
I never made any statement concerning "absolute polarity"- or even mentioned the actual term, as I suspected that mentioning it would set you off in a diversion- just the way it did anyway.. [see P.S. below].
-- Like I wrote, I interpreted "obtuse polarity" to be what it was.
Gotta go!
clark
.
September 3, 1864Dear Dr. Crichton,***
Actually, my friend of late, though done only reluctanctly [sic], and only from strictist necessity, I rather enjoyed it.
Thank you for asking.
Regards,Billy [signed]
Major General William Tecumseh Sherman
c/o General Post Office
Peachblossom, Georgia***This was written to Dr. Nicholas Carter Crichton, who was Sherman's personal surgeon and friend
s
clarkjohnsen,Exactly, we see the young "Bambi" frail and innocent, sensitive, kind and curious- this instead of butchin' it up, winning at Rugby and running around beating others- so naturally many of the uninformed assume Bambi is a "female" deer. I had a cat that was big, sleepy, and fluffy, but tough as hell (an "Alpha-Puff" I called him) and everyone before correction always call him "she". Meanwhile, my female tabby, a lean and mean tiger-striped Sheena of the Jungle- but the sweetie of sweeeties is, "What's His name?"
So, yes "Bambi" is the perfect child- though orphaned and without appropriate role-models- a "latchkey" deer- if that, a disadvataged doe.
But, Bambi is all American and when the need, motivation, and opportunity arises, even the disadvantged Bambi- without benefit of affirmative action of any kind, pulls himself up by his hoof straps and is there on the job with horns on- Super Stag and running the show from now on Buster !
The Bambi story was repeated by Disney- in fact I suppose there are actually numerous treatments of a Disney youngin of dubious meangingful future who rises through adversity to the top, but in "The Lion King", the path is not the Bambistic Jeffersonian non-urban meritocracy, but rather the easiest- actualy automatic- path of just his saying his name out loud- and makes sure everyone agress he's the former ruler's son and heir- justification for the Rights of the Succession. Plus Akimbo is a charming rascal, excellent small-talker, willing to speak peraonally with his lessers, and blond/brunette- of just the sort that Should rule. It's an especially American story.
Young "Akimbo" -like brand names I can't remember these artificial ethnic names- is a lazy slacker, living off of submissive bunnies, moles, and Thompson's Gazelles, but later allows himself to be convinced- by a pig- to pull his finger out! And what a great future monarch and role model for every young child that intends to become King! Prince Charles is, even as we speak, running this dangerous gauntlet towards Kingship.
So, noblesse oblige and golf clubs in paw, Akimbo gets up does an important job of surpressing some kind of gang terrorism, and takes his rightful place on the Throne of Akimboland- and that instead of the evil black, dark brown, and Asian-looking Jackals headed by sinister Jeremy Irons.
Perhaps Eisner thought he was doing "Hamlet", but the American Hamlet actually runs in and gets the job done- none of that non-productive Danish existential angst. Cut to shot of the magnificent King of the Serrangeti shown from below, head proud- triumphant, mane blowing in the wind, a big banner "Objective Attained" high on a tree.
Yes, I see Bambi was depicted as the "Alpha-Puff" of his forest- sensitive but not a pussycat on the windowsill- but holding his strength back for the important work of telling others "in the woods" what to do. With "Bambi", Disney was designing the ideal American child.
Cheers,
Bambi B
s
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
