|   Too funny for words. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 25, 2003 11:46 AM | | This is like a Gomer Pyle lecture on audio "science." Surely the man isn't really that stupid, but he sure puts on a good act.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/6099.html
Thanks to GDS for sending me the link. Haven't laughed so hard in quite a while.
R.O. |
| re: Too funny for words. | woodman
Sep 25, 2003 1:03 PM | | Evidently Radar, your sense of humor and mine are
b vastly
different. I didn't find this pile of excremental diatribe funny at all ... the word that I think best describes it is: PATHETIC. Not to mention tiresome, boring, uninteresting, and yawn-inducing. I'm just glad that he's not found the time to clutter up THIS particular board lately with his bullshit. I'd just like to find out what he's been smokin' and where I might get my hands on some. Seems that the hallucinogenic properties are second to none! Sheeeeesh.
woodman |
| It's not the excrement. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 25, 2003 3:33 PM | | I can't argue that I don't have a sick sense of humor, but I do need to clarify. The excrement (to use the word you used to describe it) isn't funny, and is, as you point out, too boring to bear. What I saw (and see) as humorous is the Gomer Pyle approach to science, stooped in such deep arrogance. I also find it quite funny that the faithful are too lame to see through such garbage. Frankly, I think laughter is the only possible response to such foolishness.
I don't think one needs to smoke dope to be stupid, but it might help.
I certainly don't need any help. ;-)
On a more serious note, I think we err when we let such things upset us or make us angry. I mostly ignore Web forums, but I've got a few friends here, and when GDS sent me the link, I felt they would like to see it. Hopefully most of them won't find it as irritating as you did, and I apologize for posting something you (apparently) found offensive. That really wasn't my intent at all.
I've actually been quite impressed by the way the situation on the Web has changed over the years. At one time this forum was dominated by the same kind of cult-crazies we now find trying to dominate AA Cable. There are still more than enough troublemakers here, but things have still improved in almost every way. According to the statistics I've seen, Audioholics, ESP, and Audioreview are now generating a lot more traffic than AA, so it would seem that there are still plenty of people around who prefer science to mythology. Personally, I find this indication that the lunatics aren't really in charge, quite comforting. ;-)
R.O. |
| It's not the excrement. | mtrycrafts
Sep 26, 2003 12:07 AM | | b Personally, I find this indication that the lunatics aren't really in charge, quite comforting. ;-)
Never were. Just squeek louder and get more attension. Same as with alternate medicine, or alternate anything. The marketplace is full of it, the marketing is unreal and humans by nature are not skeptical.
Yes, very comical exchanges at AA. Nothing has changed, and don't see anything in the cards as they have nothing to hang their hats on. |
| Never? | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 26, 2003 4:26 PM | | I recall a time when there was little difference between AA and AR. Both were heavily dominated by the same kinds of people (your presence here being the only thing making this site consistently different). Who dominates the audio press? I may simply have gotten too jaded in my old age, but sometimes it certainly looks as if the lunatics are in control.
I agree that the "lunatics" do things to draw attention to themselves, and that this makes them seem more abundant than they actually are, but I seem to remember something about the squeaky wheel getting oiled. I fear that the quiet rational types are loosing ground (and have been for most of my lifetime).
R.O. |
| Never? | mtrycrafts
Sep 26, 2003 5:02 PM | | Oh, there were more of them then, yes, in a small island on the audio boards:) but not in the overall scheme of thinsgs:)
b Who dominates the audio press?
Well, there may be more of them that is more visible :)
b it certainly looks as if the lunatics are in control.
Yes, perception can be unreliable, maybe :)
The quiet ones and the professional ones may be more numerous? The hi end is a small part of the industry, no?
But then I wouldn't know :) |
| You're right. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 26, 2003 9:33 PM | | High-end audio is a very small part of the home entertainment industry, but marketing hype and faithful followers (or should that be "swallowers") aren't limited to the high-end, or even to audio, for that matter. The "crazy" part comes in (IMHO) when believers become zealots. I'm sure you can think of a few examples.
I've worked as an engineer and worked with an assortment of engineers over the years (well over 200 different engineers), and I'm pretty sure they're all a little nuts, in one way or another. Who among us is exempt? (Those who raised their hands are suspect.) ;-)
That said, it's not at all the same kind of crazy we see with many of the self-proclaimed audio engineers/gurus. They really are more like religious leaders than engineers, and the posturing they do can be pretty funny at times. Woodman pointed out that it can also be irritating, and that got me thinking (a nice change). ;-) It has irritated me more than a few times too, and I started wondering why. After all, who really cares what cult leaders or their followers have to say? Most of them are totally harmless. Then it hit me. There are two things that will upset me if I let them. I don't care what anyone wants to think or believe as long as they don't try to shove it down other people's throats. That's extremely irritating, and some of the audio engineer/gurus do it constantly. At least Jehovah's Witnesses believe they're on a mission from God. The engineer/gurus don't have that excuse (but many of them do behave as if they were indeed on a mission from God). The other thing that will upset me is thinking about the reason they're able to gather a following so easily. I'm not real happy about the decline of the educational system in this country, and I always get a little upset when I see the negative effects displayed so flagrantly.
I know absolutely NO
b real
engineers who are zealots. The top men tend to be modest and overly conservative in estimating their own abilities. Those who boast about their abilities invariably turn out to be morons. (Gee, that actually says quite a lot about the audio engineer/guru's, doesn't it?)
R.O. |
| You're right. | Tony_Montana
Sep 26, 2003 9:59 PM | | Hey RADAR
You said:
>I'm not real happy about the decline of the educational system in this country, and I always get a little upset when I see the negative effects displayed so flagrantly.
I don't think education system is to blame here. It is when the [scientific] facts are twisted or blown out of proportion by audio Gurus to satisfy their agenda that we should take notice.
I bet you if you take half of Jon's theories (like cable breakin) to any education institutions, he will be laughed off campus because there is nothing to support it. It is just speculations :) |
| Hi Tony. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 27, 2003 6:39 PM | | People today are very poorly educated, even when they have higher degrees. Specialization is one of the reasons, but the biggest cause is that too many parents no longer take any interest in educating their children. This problem is at least two generations old now. We under-pay teachers, so most of them only do the job because it is their only choice. They rot our kid's brains long before they get to the college level. Then bleeding-heart liberals finish the job (at most schools). Ask a teacher or doctoral candidate what causes the phases of the moon. The most common answer was "the shadow of the earth" when the people asked were selected from a group receiving post-graduate degrees from
b Harvard.
No, if we had an educated populous Capitalism would be quite different. Right now it's a con game, where perceived needs are created and filled, without any regard for real needs. People (on average, as a group) in the US are getting dumber every year, and the dumber they are, the easier if is for people like Jon to find a following. Am I saying that all his (and like) followers are stupid? No, not stupid, just that they lack a proper, well-rounded education. It's an epidemic, with no end in sight.
Is that any clearer? ;-)
R.O. |
| Sadly, so true. | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 9:37 AM | | b Specialization is one of the reasons, but the biggest cause is that too many parents no longer take any interest in educating their children.
My wife and I have been spending a lot of time recently,along with others, in an effort to form an alumni association for the large public high school from which we both graduated. We hope the association will serve as a vehicle for fundraising for scholarships and as a means to promote student mentoring.
The school has changed drastically in the 40 years since we graduated. Back then it was upper middle class and lily white. Now it is an inner-city school with huge problems.
I have learned a lot since I got started on this project, but my biggest surprise so far was when I learned that in a school of more than 2000 students, the total membership of the PTO consists of 7 parents. |
| Hold everything, Radar | Norm Strong
Sep 28, 2003 12:32 PM | | Are you saying that teachers "rot our kid" brains" just to get back at us for underpaying them? Are we underpaying teachers because they "have no choice?" |
| No. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 2:31 PM | | No Norm, that's not at all what I was trying to say. Phil posted a perfect example (just above) of the kind of thing that I'm talking about. I should also probably point out that I am generalizing and talking about averages and/or modes. It is still possible for a person to get a quality education, and there are some very dedicated educators our there working very hard to do the best they can with what they are given. I have a great deal of respect for such people, and I want to make it clear that they're not the people I'm talking about here. They're exceptional, and I'm talking about trends.
I'd never even thought that some teachers might be out to get even, but people can be motivated by all manner of things, and I suspect that if we looked hard enough we might actually find some teachers that are doing just what you suggest. I know some teachers who are in it for the paycheck and job security, but I'd be surprised if any of them had such dark motives.
All sorts of things have contributed to the decline. Phil points out two of them, the changing nature of our society, and the complacency of parents. Parents don't care about the PTA because their patents didn't care about the PTA. Teachers can't teach because their teachers could not teach. It's the kind of problem that snowballs, and it's been snowballing for at least a couple of generations now.
I think the roots can be found in many places, including racism, greed, and apathy, but my original point was simply that marketing is aimed at consumers, and well targeted, and what you see tells you what consumers will believe and buy. It's pretty easy to see how smart they are, as a group, on the whole, by looking at the ads that convince them to buy. Don't just look at audio ads. Look at soap ads, and you see exactly the same thing.
I have nothing but respect for the many who are doing all they can to improve the situation, and certainly hope they have more success in the future than we've had in the past. An undereducated population is a risky proposition when the population governs itself.
R.O. |
| Hi tony | jneutron
Sep 29, 2003 10:54 PM | | ""I don't think education system is to blame here. It is when the [scientific] facts are twisted or blown out of proportion by audio Gurus to satisfy their agenda that we should take notice. ""TM
I personally blame the educational system.
During the summer sunday at mag div, I gave a lecture to 850 laypeople, visitors to the lab who had the unfortunate luck to listen to me...21 groups of 40 or so people..
When I asked them, how many of them had experience in using linear accelerators...all I got was blank stares...not one out of the 850 knew what a TV was, how it worked..I lament the lack of technical education present in today's society.
Nobody knew about the circular accelerators in today's microwave oven magnetrons either..or the fact that the water molecule resonates at 4.7 Ghz...or that neutron beams can only be made by fission or spallation...what's the world coming to??
Why in the world would the public NOT believe those who profess understanding of the technical garbage?
Cheers, John |
| Hi John..... | Tony_Montana
Oct 1, 2003 6:12 PM | | You must have put those 21 groups of 40 or so people thru torture with your lecture <img src="http://audiokarma.org/forums/images/smilies/64714-slap.gif">
To tell you truth, I haven't never heard of linear or circular accelerators, water molecule resonates at 4.7 Ghz, or that neutron beams can only be made by fission or spallation. And I don't think one will if one's major is not Physics or related fields :) |
| Hi John..... | jneutron
Oct 3, 2003 7:46 AM | | Tony: ""To tell you truth, I haven't never heard of linear or circular accelerators, water molecule resonates at 4.7 Ghz, or that neutron beams can only be made by fission or spallation. ""
Come on now...geeze, what's the education system coming to????
My kids wake up in the morning, go downstairs, and watch spongebob squarepants on the linear accelerator..the electron one, the one pointing the beam directly at my kids.. the one with the orthogonal, variable intensity dipole coils, that paint the little light dots that make up the picture....
And, I resonate the water molecule di-hedral (38 degrees, I think) angle, flexing it by nuking it with microwave radiation (non ionizing, of course), so that they ring like a bell (at 4.7 Ghz), increasing the average molecular energy level (I make it hot)....Of course, I use (doesn't everybody) a circular electron accelerator (magnetron) to increase the electron energy as it rotates in a circular orbit within a uniform magnetic field..
And, good God, man!!!! how else would you produce a neutron beam???? They're neutral, ya can't accelerate them, ya can't bend their path, well??? So, ya toss some protons into a pool of mercury, hitting the nucleus of the mercury atoms, smashing them apart (spallation). And, ya uses mercury cause da intensity of da beam would vaporize any other material, and the mercury just fills in the hole the beam made..(ever try to dig a hole in the middle of a lake? dig fast, cause it keeps on fillin in..:-))..
Tony: And I don't think one will if one's major is not Physics or related fields :)
WRONG DUDE!!!! I know 850 people who do!!!! That, and they got to see a hydrogen/oxygen filled balloon (stochiometrically correct ratio, of course) convert to water in about 10 milliseconds, driving their clothes against their body with a rather large shock wave...WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE????
Cheers, John |
| You're right. | mtrycrafts
Sep 27, 2003 9:52 PM | | b but marketing hype and faithful followers (or should that be "swallowers") aren't limited to the high-end, or even to audio, for that matter.
OK, you win:) Absolutely correct, in the marketplace as a whole, the buyer is not skeptical as a whole but very gullible indeed. But, just think of our economy if all the snakes folded. I hate to speculate.
b Who among us is exempt?
:)
b Gee, that actually says quite a lot about the audio engineer/guru's, doesn't it?)
:) :) |
| You think you seen it all?...then check this out :) | Tony_Montana
Sep 26, 2003 9:46 PM | | In this post from Jon, he said that first you have to BELIEVE (postulate) that a cable makes difference before anything is noticed.
The question is why should we have faith first?? If the changes are there and real, it either can be heard or measured and got nothing to do with one's beliefs :)
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/6003.html |
| No, I don't think I've seen it all, by a loooong shot. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 26, 2003 10:11 PM | | b "In this post from Jon, he said that first you have to BELIEVE (postulate) that a cable makes difference before anything is noticed." - TM
Tony, I read the post and I really don't see where Jon said this, but I didn't read the conversation leading up to the post, so it may have been implied. I have to tell you that if he had said it, he'd be right, in most cases. I think by now everyone here realizes that it isn't impossible for cables or wire to make an audible difference. It can happen, to it's not always the result of expectations or other factors unrelated to the DUT. I think everyone also realizes that with modern, well designed equipment, such things simply aren't normally an issue. Since wire and interconnects rarely make an audible difference, most of the reports are the direct result of belief. Without the belief the findings would indeed be quite different. We all know (by now) that guys like Jon are looking in the wire for things that are happening inside their heads. It's like dropping your car keys in a dark alley and then going out to the main street and looking for them there (because the light is so much better there).
I'd have to agree (mostly) with Jon, had he actually said what you claim, but I can't see where he said it.
Did I miss it because I didn't read the entire thread?
(No need to put words into the mouth of a fool. He exposes his ignorance well enough without any help.)
R.O. |
| You don't have to read the whole thread. | Tony_Montana
Sep 26, 2003 10:24 PM | | I think this response from "middleground" to Jon's post explain it better :)
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/6045.html |
| Thanks Tony. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 27, 2003 6:56 PM | | If you look at Jon's response to the post I think you'll see what he's really trying to say. He's not saying that you have to believe to hear the difference. What he is saying (IMHO) is that if one has decided that cables don't make a difference, then there is nothing for them to discuss. He's too thick headed to realize that nobody with an iota of brains has ever claimed that cables or wire or break-in make NO difference. The differences may or may not be in the mental processing of the listener, but nobody denies that people do "hear" a difference. Jon is just too narrow-minded to look past his nose and see what's really going on. It might just be the result of specialization, but I really don't think Jon has the education he claims. Nobody with an engineering degree would approach things the way he does, and real research teaches humility. He obviously lacks humility so it is highly doubtful that he's ever researched anything on his own. He just talks trash and tries to gather a gullible following, and at that he is very good. Just like Johnny Jones, Charles Manson, and others, he doesn't need facts or sanity to gather a following. Look how well Mr. Shickelgroober did. ;-)
Be that as it may, in this case, I agree with Jon. Once you have decided that something doesn't exist then there is nothing to discuss. Break-in and cable sonics DO exist, at least in peoples minds, and there is something causing it. Ignorant sots like Jon (and a few of the regulars here) think that means that they are nuts, if they hear differences that only internal. Believing that firmly enough makes some of the 'ears total lunatics, and only a decent education will save them (and hell will freeze over before they get that, because their ignorance makes them think they already know everything).
R.O. |
| Side Comment | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 9:43 AM | | b It might just be the result of specialization, but I really don't think Jon has the education he claims. Nobody with an engineering degree would approach things the way he does, and real research teaches humility.
This doesn't have anything to do with your main point, but when I read that I thought that I know a number of lawyers who graduated from law school and passed the bar exam, but who in actual practice would seem to have slept through the entire process.
Unfortunately, I don't think education, degrees and certification is always a guaranty of competency. It's just be best way we humans have devised to date to minimize human failings within the professions. |
| Phil, you crack me up. ;-) | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 3:10 PM | | b "I know a number of lawyers who graduated from law school and passed the bar exam, but who in actual practice would seem to have slept through the entire process." - PCT
It's universal. I spent nearly two decades working for an outfit that only made offers to 1% of the people who were called in for job interviews. Getting called for the interview required a higher degree or equivalent experience. Yet even in that environment you run into a few people who make you wonder how the heck they ever got through college. One of the men who worked with and for me over the years had a Ph.D. in Theoretical Mathematics. Prior to going to work at the lab he'd been the Dean of a State College. He was as nice as they come, humble and soft spoken, and it was impossible not to like the guy, but he wasn't at all what his education and work history would lead one to expect. He was a master of the English language, and was a good choice when something needed a thorough proof reading for grammatical errors, but as soon as things got technical he was totally lost. At one point he spent several months working with a junior engineer using highlighters to identify changes in computer listings. We could have gotten some guy off the street to do the job, as all one had to do was compare text and highlight differences, but this guy got the job because it was something he could handle. The man was not useless, as someone has to do the dirty work, but his education and resume was totally misleading.
(And keep in mind, this guy was hand selected, and thought to be one of the best in his field.)
I guess I didn't tie the comment about Jon's education into the other comments very well, and I may not have even thought it through entirely when I wrote the post. Jon was probably a bad choice to use as my example too, but since the regulars here know him so well, and since he's such a perfect example...
Well, anyway, my thinking was that it takes an ignorant populous for an uneducated man to claim to be educated, and get away with it. I probably totally failed to capture that in the post, but I think that's what I was thinking at the time. If people were taught to think a little more critically, those claiming to have superior knowledge or education would not so easily fool them. I could have used anyone who lies about their education as the example, but I picked Jon because he's so well known. ;-)
The thread also started out with a link to one of his "Gomer lectures on physics" posts, so I really don't think the comment was off topic. I think I just failed to put it in its proper place.
Phil, as usual, I agree totally with what you say. A diploma, or even an impressive resume, actually means very little. They mean even less when they are only things people on the Web tell you they have. ;-)
Glad to see you posting again. What's it like to be working for a living again? ;-)
R.O. |
| Phil, you crack me up. ;-) | pctower
Sep 28, 2003 8:28 PM | | RADAR
Thanks for the comments. My remark was not intended at all as a comment on your post. I thought you made your point quite well, as you always do. It just got me thinking about how incompetent we all can be at times, regardless of our education or experience.
In Jons case, I can well understand why you and others are tempted to question his qualifications. I have seen him repeatedly challenged on what seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable grounds and not once have I seen him him attempt to engage in meaningful dialog. He immediately attacks people's motives, while totally sidestepping the issue at hand.
I don't consider that to be professional behavior. By way of analogy, if my life were in the hands of a doctor, I would certainly hope that he had a practice of engaging in constructive dialog with his colleagues in an effort to constantly learn and repeatedly test the validity of his own knowledge.
In the practice of law, I have such a healthy respect for the risks I assume everyday in the decisions I make and actions that I take, that I'm constantly searching out new sources of professional knowledge and subjecting my own knowledge and approaches to peer review as much as possible. I can't understand why any professional would not do that.
As for education, I have great concern for where this nation is headed. I agree very much with you about the level of teacher pay. As a society we have made a loud and resounding decision that there are many, many things that are more important to us than education. There are any number of different categories of people we are willing to compensate far better than our teachers. We constantly complain about the level of education, but seem to feel we can attract quality teachers without paying for that quality.
As for the working for a living, I'm having so much fun I can't believe I actually get paid for what I'm doing. It feels great. Thanks for asking. |
| You think you seen it all?...then check this out :) | mtrycrafts
Sep 27, 2003 9:58 PM | | b The question is why should we have faith first??
Supernatural events need faith to believe them. |
| Interesting. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 28, 2003 1:42 AM | | b "Supernatural events need faith to believe them." - Mtry
Mtry, I think you'll like this one. Your statement is true. It requires no proof, as it is a matter of faith. Does that mean that we have said all there is to say on the topic? Isn't there some process involved that we could investigate? Isn't there some physical link between the faith and the event(s), and some cause-and-effect relationship? I think that means that it will only remain supernatural until we understand the process(es). The truth in your statement seems to be the same truth we find in the statement "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Science doesn't have to stop just because something appears to be mystical. Don't you agree? (I get
b real
curious when something looks "magical.")
R.O. |
| Interesting. | mtrycrafts
Oct 13, 2003 3:17 PM | | b Science doesn't have to stop just because something appears to be mystical. Don't you agree? (I get real curious when something looks "magical.")
Yes, of course but after the investigation, defying the laws of nature, what then?
b The truth in your statement seems to be the same truth we find in the statement "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I wonder who and where that statement came from? I am sure that the technology would not defy the laws of nature, no? |
| |
