Oops! Been gone a while ...
Well Andre, the idea that I'm a hypocrite is one interpretation, but not
the only one that fits the facts. It is true that I think Henry is right
on this one, and yes, I know he was involved with the magnequest
gangsters, but I honestly have no idea how much, or if he was involved
in anything truly rotten. However, I do know that (1) Henry gave a
logical post on the triode feedback issue, and (2) you responded by
saying he was an asshole, not with a logical response. Regardless of
what someone may or may not have done, the right thing to do now is give
an honest response to the issue being addressed, not attack the guy
personally. Henry raised some legitimate points about my post, and I am
going to admit it when I think someone is right, period.
But really, Andre, do you honestly believe, after seeing my posts, that
I play politics and throw out truth whenever it happens to be convenient
for me?? I doubt it, which is not a good thing. But if you really do,
then I am going to conclude that either it is hard for you to judge
someone's character over the interent, or you occasionally play politics
yourself. Hopefully it's the former.
Phil
Andre Jute wrote:
Phil wrote:
Henry Pasternack wrote:
"Phil" wrote in message ...
You, Andre, I will answer. Patrick can go **** himself, since he's determined to answer my technical discussion of a subject with
mindless insults and unsupported criticisms.
I politely but firmly demand that you do not respond to or repost standerous
statements made about me. If you have any question about this, please
contact me in person so we can discuss.
-Henry
That's fair enough. I felt uncomfortable about responding to this
anyway, as I see no point to (1) bringing up ancient history, (2)
including you in it, since I was never aware of your involvement in
anything evil, and (3) using the technique of "cutting your opponent to
shreds" given the apparent honesty and intelligence of your responses. I
wasn't exactly sure what to do about it, mind you, but your suggestion
seems like the right thing to do.
Phil
Absolutely amazing. Let's take Phil's hypocrisy step by step:
That's fair enough. I felt uncomfortable about responding to this
anyway,
But you don't feel uncomfortable condemning me by implication and name,
because my name is mentioned above? You're a hypocrite, Phil.
And you don't feel uncomfortable condemning Patrick, an innocent third
party, by implication and name, because *his* name is also mentioned
above? You're a hypocrite, Phil.
as I see no point to (1) bringing up ancient history,
I see. The fact that Henry Pasternack consistently, for several years
on end, committed vicious and immoral acts, and approved publicly of
such acts committed by his associates in the Magnequest Scum, are
irrelevant while Pasternack agrees with you, eh Phil? You're a
hypocrite, Phil.
(2)
including you in it, since I was never aware of your involvement in
anything evil,
The evidence of Pasternack's vicious immorality and consistent lies on
professional matters for personal reasons was clear on the newsgroups,
still stands on the newsgroups, are referred to by me in enough detail
to check them on the Google archive and the Harvard Sound List archive,
and you, Phil, have deliberately chosen not to look, to blind yourself
to the fact that Pasternack lies on professional matters. You're a
hypocrite, Phil.
and (3) using the technique of "cutting your opponent to
shreds" given the apparent honesty and intelligence of your responses.
English translation: Phil says, "The only people who are sincere,
honest and intelligent are those who agree with me." You're a
hypocrite, Phil.
The phrase "cutting your opponent to shreds" is itself a dishonest
polemical device. Of course honest people will cut a dishonest, vicious
piece of scum like Pasternack to shreds. You're not only a hypocrite,
Phil, you are dishonest in argument, as we saw in your abuse of
Patrick, and again in this post of yours. Crows of a dishonest feather
flock together. You belong with Pasternack.
I
wasn't exactly sure what to do about it, mind you, but your suggestion
seems like the right thing to do.
English translation: Phil says, "I, Phil, see electronics as a
popularity contest. If Pasternack agrees with me he is always right,
regardless of his history of lying on electronics, regardless of his
proven history of making electronic statements in furtherance of his
personal vendettas."
Below my signature is the evidence of Pasternack's professional
unreliabity and personal viciousness that you refuse to consider. That
is only a sample, of course; a hundred times that much lies in the
archives.
You're a hypocrite, Phil, and you're dishonest. I had hopes for you.
Too bad. Flick.
Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review
Phil wrote:
Patrick Turner wrote:
Try reading a few more books about triodes rather than seeking
some
NFB de-bunking premise from Henry.
With all due respsect to Henry, he ain't the world's authority on
vacuum tube theory.
He could be the devil himself, but that's irrelevant, along with his
knowledge, when it comes to the quality of his arguments on this
matter.
You don't "disprove" a theory by saying the author is stupid or
evil.
You ignore the characteristics of the author altogether, and focus
on
the accuracy, or lack thereof, of the theory itself. Reasoning 101.
Unless of course the party in question has a track record of
deliberately lying. In the case of Henry Pasternack, often referred to
RAT as Pompass Plodnick, Google archives show a long history of
Pasternack lying on professional and other matters for the sake of
"winning" some argument, and of Pasternack committing other
unscientific and immoral acts, for which his only excuse is, once the
further lies are stripped away, in Pasternack's own words, "my zeal to
flame Andre".
In this particular case Pasternack came here hoping to have a big fight
with me but I merely patronized him a little and sent him on his way
with a flea in his ear; he was stuck with Patrick. Because Pasternack
came for me first, and because of his history of lying on professional
matters for personal gratification, and because Pasternack's first
post
on the subject (to Chris Hornbeck) was ambiguous, we don't actually
know whether he really believes what he says now, or whether his
hatred
of me has once more painted him into another corner which he will now
try to justify with a berm of math.
Those new to RAT who wish to see earlier examples of Pasternack lying
on professional matters for personal gratification should look up the
case where Pasternack told a newbie not to listen to me when I advised
a primary impedance on his output transformer 2*Rp or higher;
Pasternack told him instead to choose an output impedance equal to
the
plate resistance. Read that again. Pasternack surely knew that the
primary impedance should be twice or more the plate resistance but he
lied about it to a newbie "in my zeal to flame Andre". There are
hundreds of further posts in Pasternack which tried to justify his Zo
=
Rp stance but eventually John Byrns nailed Pasternack's hide to wall.
Other examples are plentiful, and I have already in this thread given
references to a URL that proves Pasternack's contempt for the
scientific method.
Furthermore, Pasternack in the throes of his hatred will commit totally
immoral acts. He ran with Michael LaFever's Magnequest Scum, who
flooded the single driver conference with graphic homosexual
pornography sent in my name in an effort to drive me out; they were
not
there before I came, they were not there after I left. Some of that
was
traced to Pasternack's server.
Even worse is the case of the two little girls of an Italian engineer
who built one of my designs. He accused Pasternack of sending graphic
homosexual filth to his computer, where his two little girls saw it.
He
didn't even know who Pasternack was when he traced the filth to
Pasternack. Pasternack's Magnequest Scum associate Bob Chernofsky said
on the Joenet (there's an archieve at Harvard if you want to look it
up; search for Sound List) that Pasternack did it because he was bored
with not being able to get at me directly.
Do you really want to hold this scumbag Pasternack up to us as an
impartial fount of engineering wisdom?
Get real, Phil. We know better, and it is up to newbies like you to
inform themselves before they goof up dumb opinions.
Andre Jute
Stop bleating. Please, please, please give me the Silence of the
Lambs.
PS Do I need to explain that we shall know by your response to my sharp
remarks how steady your judgement is?