[Ian Iveson]

Peter wrote:

OH FER CRISSAKES....

Don't shout at me.

I wasn't attacking Patrick. Neither is it my inclination to
either defend or to attack Andre.

Your point was weak and invalid.

Now you have made a different argument and, for different
reasons, I disagree with that too.

Patrick's site is wholly derivative. Arguably that shows
competence, but it demonstrates no capacity for innovation,
and contains no evidence of imagination or understanding.

If I were to gamble on the probability that either would
come up with an idea that would pass the Turing test, my
money wouldn't be on Patrick. But it wouldn't be much money.

Have you been to Patrick's website?

Once. Finding an innovative design of mine, put there
without consulting me, and nothing else of real merit, I
left in disgust. I have a copy of RDH4 and I can read it for
myself.

Have you seen his designs? Have
you seen his work? Have you seen his adaptations? Have
you made even
the most superficial comparison with Andre's site and
work?

I haven't been to Andre's site, and so far have had no
reason to.

His reconstruction of the venerable Dynaco ST70 alone
shows more
thought, skill and competence than all of Andre's work.

No comment.

Add one more variable: Have you caught Patrick in a single
lie? Ever?

I think he is thoroughly dishonest, and nasty to boot, and
you have no real evidence to the contrary.

At least what you claim to be destructive in Andre's
behaviour is generally off topic. Patrick's regular
devastation of on-topic discussions has been by far the most
destructive force. Received wisdom is the real killer. We
end up with a few proclaimed experts and a gaggle of
arse-licking parasites.

Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Jon Yaeger wrote

True, but writing for myself, and having never seen one
iota of
independently verifiable proof of any one of Andre's
many
claims, I
would also be curious about his having actually sold
anything
electronic to anyone as a commercial venture. The key
here
is
"independently verifiable"... Andre has any number of
pillocks...

Same is true of Patrick Turner.

His defence is that the kind of people who buy his stuff
"wouldn't be seen dead" on this newsgroup.

You'd think that after so many years, at least one
satisfied
customer would speak up for him. After all, he says he
doesn't advertise, and relies on recommendations.

Who knows the truth, about any of us?

Ian


Ian,

If you can't grasp the difference between Andre's pretense
and Turner's
competency, I'm not sure what I can say, except that I'm
sorry.

Pretence and competence are not opposites. You cannot
sensibly subtract one from the other and arrive at a value
for the difference.

My point was reasonable, and originally addressed just one
point made by Peter, without any implied judgement on the
wider issues.

To say that Patrick is competent sounds to me like damning
with faint praise. Fair enough, I might say, if provoked.

Ian

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Ian Iveson at
wrote on 12/18/07 11:44 PM:

Jon Yaeger wrote

True, but writing for myself, and having never seen one
iota of
independently verifiable proof of any one of Andre's
many
claims, I
would also be curious about his having actually sold
anything
electronic to anyone as a commercial venture. The key
here
is
"independently verifiable"... Andre has any number of
pillocks...

Same is true of Patrick Turner.

His defence is that the kind of people who buy his stuff
"wouldn't be seen dead" on this newsgroup.

You'd think that after so many years, at least one
satisfied
customer would speak up for him. After all, he says he
doesn't advertise, and relies on recommendations.

Who knows the truth, about any of us?

Ian


Ian,

If you can't grasp the difference between Andre's pretense
and Turner's
competency, I'm not sure what I can say, except that I'm
sorry.

Pretence and competence are not opposites. You cannot
sensibly subtract one from the other and arrive at a value
for the difference.

*** Pardon my parsing, but why do these qualities NEED to be opposites?
Different isn't the same as opposite and doesn't have to be.

My point was reasonable, and originally addressed just one
point made by Peter, without any implied judgement on the
wider issues.

*** Yes, I certainly agree that there are limits to what we can "know" about
a person from his or her posts. But IMHO, the examples you used could have
been better.

To say that Patrick is competent sounds to me like damning
with faint praise. Fair enough, I might say, if provoked.

*** Perhaps I should have used the word "accomplished." From what I can
tell (my knowledge is admittedly limited) Patrick is a careful craftsman who
does his homework and turns out very good looking product. Too bad it is
not easier to listen to it.

Ian

[Ian Iveson]

Jon asked:

*** Pardon my parsing, but why do these qualities NEED to
be opposites?
Different isn't the same as opposite and doesn't have to
be.


But surely, Acrimonius, you can see the difference between
an elephant and a Brussels sprout?

Certainly, Socrates. An elephant is a large quadruped mammal
with a good memory, whereas a Brussels sprout is a green
vegetable that we have to eat every Christmas even though
they taste horrid and make us fart.

Well, replied Socrates, you have succeeded in eloquently
describing an elephant, and a Brussels sprout. Now I expect
you are about to answer the question: what is the
difference?

I must confess I thought I had done that, said the
crestfallen Acrimonius. What do you mean?

Well, if I were to ask you what is the difference between 5
and 7, would it be sufficient to describe the number 5 and
the number 7?

Of course not, the difference is 2, obtained by subtracting
the one from the other.

So what can you now say about the difference between an
elephant and a Brussels sprout.

But I can't subtract one from the other, admitted the
despairing Acrimonius.

Why not?

Well, they are different things altogether.

But if they were the same, the difference would be zero.

OK, so what is your answer?

That would depend. For a difference to be determined, there
must be opposition between them with respect to one or more
qualities.

Eh?

Well, going back to the numbers, the answer 2 is only
intelligible because there is a point somewhere between 5
and 7, from which each is equally displaced, in opposite
directions.

Er, I think I see. In this case that point would be 6?

Quite so. To put it simply, you must be able to conceive of
a third thing half way between the two.

I see now. I can't imagine anything half way between a
Brussels sprout and an elephant. Consequently it is
impossible to subtract one from the other, and so the
difference must be indeterminate.

Well, not entirely. You could imagine a size half way
between the one size and the other. Also a half-way colour,
perhaps. So you could describe the differences in size and
colour. Perhaps if you could find sufficient qualities
opposed in similar fashion, you could approach a complete
description of the difference.

And where might this dialectic take us, Socrates?

I haven't the foggiest notion, Acrimonius, and to tell you
the truth I don't know if we are making any sense at all.
Time for bed, I would say. Here's a question you might
consider as you doze off: is a difference the kind of thing
you can hear?

Sounds like a tougher question than I might have thought
before this evening, Socrates. Perhaps we can discuss our
dreams tomorrow.

Ian

[Peter Wieck]

On Dec 19, 2:21 am, "Ian Iveson"
wrote:
Stuff Snipped.

Puts me in mind of Xeno's Paradox. That Achilles will never quite
catch the tortoise if the tortoise has even a small head-start. First
Achilles must cover half the distance between himself and the
tortoise, then half-again, then half-again, never quite reaching the
thing.

Against which we have the Crimmens Mack Truck Theory: We give Xeno a
10-yard head-start on a Mack Truck and see if he gets out of the way
in time.

The very short answer to the paradox in any case is that Achilles is
not attempting to reach the tortoise at all, but a point more than
twice the distance beyond him (all tortoises are male for the purposes
of this discussion), so he must therefore pass the tortoise while on
his way there. At which time he changes his mind - but is still past
the tortoise.

So, the difference between a Hippopotamus is that it swims well but
walks badly. The difference between a Brussel Spout and an Elephant is
that I would prefer one on my plate and one in the yard - preferably
someone else's yard - you pick which and where. Distilled sprouts may
bring on pink elephants. Attempting to force mathematical terms on a
such a construct is fallacious - and once the false premise is
accepted leads to interesting conclusions.

As to Andre and Patrick, I would much prefer a competent curmudgeon to
an incompetent liar. The worst that might be written of Patrick is
that he is a curmudgeon. The best that might be written of Andre is
that he is a pretentious liar whose "designs" are both derivative and
incompetent, a neat trick given that they are so derivative. Patrick's
designs may well be derivative - but they have that awful property of
actually working. Andre's designs are the audio equivalent of
perpetual motion machines. They may be innovative, creative and many
other things. But they hardly demonstrate understanding and they don't
work. You pays you money, you takes you chances.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA