Printable View
Thanks.
I also respect the wisdom that comes from practice.
And especially those practitioners who can articulate what works for them and why.
* what context?
* what use of means and why?
* what possible limitations and variations?
That's also scholarship though it doesn't depend on the standard processes of peer review etc.
I came across this post by a personal referral....as this thread is about me, then Ill have a few words and leave it at that if I may
The problem stolar, is that some people are just know it alls.:2tsup:
The topic at hand was a new guitar builder was asking for choices of wood for an electric guitar... this then digressed in open discussion no arguments between builders wood suppliers and general guitar enthusiasts for 13 pages, you came on the seen at page 13 not to offer views but to commet on my post, you then contined on this for 2 pages, now as I am a commercial luthier and woodwind instrument repairer (that means I build and repair guitars violins saxes flutes for a living) then I have a right to my views,and so does everyone else, :~,
The issues I had, was.. you asked a simple enough question directed at me and no one else, you did not contibute to the thread, I politley answered, from there you became critical and nit picked my responses, you did not contribute to the conversation you used it as an opportunity to self promote your internet obtained knowledge, you started lecturing me about elctro magnetic fields terminologys etc, Since I spent 13 years working with electr magnetic fields I would like to think I know what Im talking about, your history on electro magnetic fields is??, Then you contined with fundamentals of electricity and so forth. I answered you responses with the correct technical references only to have you continue nit picking and sayiing Im wrong, after a while it gets a bit tedious, and was in no way beneficial to the thread at hand....It would be beneficial if you contributed to the thread rather than try to personally attack someones opinion or responses...Out of curiosity what is it that you do for a living
When I said "to prevent the destruction of the thread", which was very interesting reading lots of views and ideas from everyone...I said "Im out", you then continued to say via private email Im wrong. To this end on the first reply back to you I courtously gave some info that is technical and gave the known references, Example snells law. You then followed up saying to me via private email, yes you seem to be correct but snells law refers to this and not that, I told you, you were a know it all and to go away, You still couldnt let something go even after the responder via pm said there not interested and again you followed up via pm on a full 3 paragraph defintion on how snells law works, dude 24 hrs earlier you had never even heard of it, then your an expert on it and lecturing me about it and saying im constantly wrong..:doh:
Then you have the audacity to start a thread about this topic and seek approval from your peers and say you like to pull people up on dodgy science.:~, are you serious.
Some advice if I may " as one of your peers "
Contribute to threads, dont use them to enforce your views
Dont try to big note yourself, some humillity goes a long long way
Use you own knowledge on the facts.... dont read a post on the net and suddenly act as if its your own
and if by pm they say go away, dont follow it up again with well your wrong blah blah blah
And lastly dont then try to justify your actions thoughts process's when you really tick that person off, by starting another thread about that thread
Seriously live life, Be well:D:D. lifes to short to get caught up in this rubbish
Let me assure you that this thread is not about you. I have to admit that your unrelenting misuse of technical terms, misinterpretation of natural phenomena and apparent misunderstanding of the laws of physics may have contributed, and acted as a catalyst for me to start this thread. But let me assure you again, you are not alone on the internet and this thread is not about youQuote:
Originally Posted by simso
Once again in case it was not clear in the previous paragraph, this thread is not about you, it is about me.
I am not sure if you are flattering yourself or recognising yourself as a subject of a cautionary tale.
Ain’t that the truth !Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
At this stage I am not sure if you are misinterpreting on purpose or that is your genuine recollection. Here is what really happened (not hard to verify, just look up the thread):Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Any comments that I made about your statements were tongue in cheek and marked as such. At no point did I make fun of you, mocked you personally, questioned your character or your craft or suggested that your opinions are less valid or talk about your bad spelling. I did say that you failed to provide any evidence that your opinion is more valid.
I started by asking a question about the basis of your position in the debate. You yourself stated:so I simply asked if you came to your conclusion scientifically or was it a result of a casual observation. ( Let me also say that i am sure Isac would be very pleased to hear that you agree with him :rolleyes:)Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
There was never any doubt about your right to views and opinions, and i never said or implied otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
BTW, I am curious, you have not missed one opportunity to point out that you are luthier, why do you feel the need to repeat this? And if I may quote you once again from the same thread:Who am I to argue :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
the question was about your statement, one that you repeated number of times, simple question about the basis for the statement, quite relevant to the thread IMHOQuote:
Originally Posted by simso
I can see how you can take this personally but it was not about you, it was simply about a lot of incorrect information and confused terminology. I kept it to the point and about specific subjects. I believe that this was relevant for the discussion. If you write something on a public forum, you should expect to be challenged and tested and you should be able to defend what you wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
At no point did I publicly attack your person or attacked your opinion. I challenged correctness of your technical statements. You, on the other hand, continue to attach my person. You provided no actual support for the challenged statements. When you did try, you actually continued with incorrect information. What you do or did for living makes little difference in support of incorrect and misleading technical information that you supplied.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
If you have to know, I am an electrical engineer. Long time ago my parents spent good money for me to learn all this and remember it correctly. To satisfy your curiosity about my current employment, I currently manage a professional services practice. Both my training and current empolyment are largelly irrelevant for the correctness of my statements. Natural phenomena that were "discussed" and the laws of physics explainig them are videlly known and documented. Available for ready lookup, on the internet if you are so inclined or on your local library if you prefer books.
I am not sure why do you think that I never heard about the Snell’s law. Sorry to burst your bubble but Snell’s law is a high school physics, nothing very esoteric. Anyone, who ever wondered about how a rainbow occurs, knows about it. Although, you did rattle off the formula that describes the Snell’s law (you did misspell theta as pheta though), you do not seem to fully understand the natural phenomenon that it describes.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Once again, if you write something on the public forum, you should expect to be challenged and not take it personally.
Mhh, i am actually seeking opinions on my moral dilemma but will take approvals if they come.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
If you are referring to the Aussie wood for electric guitars, i have hardly offered any opinions there, mostly technical facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Have you thought about using the same advice yourself?
Are you talking about yourself or me ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
I am still at the loss how did you come up with that one, was that the most offensive thing you could think of? Is that where your “knowledge” comes from?Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
That was a PM. Why did you make it public? (this is a rhetorical question, i am not really asking for your response)Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
I am a big boy and do not need approval or justifications for the things I do. I am too old and too grumpy for that. Again, get hold of yourself, this thread is not about you. If i wanted to be nasty and abusive i could have done so in the original thread, you provided a lot of material for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
So why are you responding to this then ??? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by simso
Is it like i said before that i would like to have the last word but you will not let me?
You contributed a lot of irrelevant, incorrect or incorrectly stated information to the thread and thrown in a lot of technical terms for a good measure, many used incorrectly. I did not pull you up on all of them, just selected few, I will take this opportunity to list more:
# Solid body electric guitar manufacturing did not start 85 years ago, it started in the 1950’s. (1948 if you really want to be specific). Earlier electric guitars were acoustic guitars with a pickup and therefore irrelevant for the subject at hand.
# Leo Fender never manufactured guitars in Mexico, I think that happened after Leo Fender was long gone from the Fender company.
# A process of generating a current with a changing magnetic field in not called inductive reactance. Inductive reactance is not a process, it is a reactive component of electric resistance.
# What is “induced electromagnetic current” ? Did you maybe mean to refer to ”magnetically induced electrical current”
# When you say something like “electromagnetic field is a magnetic field created by the movement of electricity” i only assume that you wanted to say “magnetic field can be generated by electric current and the charge present in the current will contribute an electrical field”.
# Electricity does not move. Electrical current is movement of electrical charge.
# Electromagnetic field is not just a magnetic field, it is a linked occurrence of an electric and a magnetic fields.
# Guitar string does not vibrate in an “electromagnetic field” ? ( not one that is relevant to the operation of the electric guitar anyway) Guitar string vibrates in a magnetic field of a permanent magnet in a PU.
# What relevance does collapsing and expanding magnetic field have on the operation of a PU?
# Guitar neck will “allow flexing of the tension of the strings and in turn can vary the ability of the string to vibrate“ ?!?!?!?! What does that mean? That the neck will allow the pitch of a string to change and this will be picked up by a PU?
# And then there is the crowning example of a dog’s breakfast of randomly thrown words that may mean something in different order or in a proper sentence: “the angle the sound is introduced into the material can vary greatly the speed it travels through it, its noted as compressional sound / shear wave sound and plate, these are all dependant on the angles that the sound is induced into the material alsp on the material itself” this is the twaddle of the year in my book!
As i told you in a PM, a speed of wave DOES NOT vary with the angle of entry. A speed of a wave through any material is constant for any given frequency. Different frequencies can have different speeds of propagation. This particular property of water for visible light is responsible for the before mentioned rainbow. For some materials and some waves, a speed of a wave does not vary with frequency.
As I said dude, some people are just know it alls:2tsup:. But you would already know that,
Attempting any relevant conversation with yourself clealry is a waste of time, Enjoy living in your world where you are always correct (In your opinion)
Someone seems to have way too much time on their hands.
How about this post is closed :oo:
Either that or change the title of the thread to "two dogs who won't let go of a bone".Quote:
Originally Posted by AUSSIE
Do you think tea is better that coffee or coffee is better than tea? :think:Quote:
Originally Posted by
perhaps "good manners, bad manners and twaddle"Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
Cliff, our posts can't be of topic (and moderated) as they are under the "twaddle part" :D , so I think that coffee is better in the first instance followed by a glass of port or two or three is the coffee doesn't help. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
Peter.
The problem seems to be getting to have the last word. The solution then is obvious.
Both parties should put up a post at exactly the same time. All posts have a date and time stamp so its a simple matter of organising it so both parties press the submit button at exactly the same time.
I suggest this becomes the subject of a prolonged argument over multiple threads and PM's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturdee
Well, as one of the more pedantic and argumentative (he said with only a touch of understatement) posters on this forum, and indeed the Internet, even I think that carrying the debate over into a new thread is probably going a bit far.
Assuming that the original poster is genuine in his desire to debate this moral principle, I would say that the Internet is chock full of misinformation and it would be a naive person who took any of it at face value without at least some scepticism, and you should certainly always check the facts before spending money or putting your life or property at risk.
However I suspect that this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to take the moral high ground in a debate. I should know, I've used the tactic often myself. It rarely works though :D
WoofQuote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
Now thats just silly....Coffee of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Rogers
Okay topic...
I dont know about everyone else, but sometimes you will be walking along the street and theres a fly that buzz's around your face, no matter what you do, you push it away, swing your arms at it and so forth, but no matter what... it keeps hanging around.. In the end you squash the fly.
For me this is how this situation is. Comments were made in a first thread, I brushed it aside a few times, then it came at me from another direction a few times " private messaging", i brushed it aside again, then it comes again via a brand new thread just about it. Seriusly Im at the point were no longer willing to brush it aside But SQUAT it.
Now Ive had my morning coffee (not tea), and am ready to reply to topic at hand and not the individual.
Hence let the debate begin.
Stolar, so the thread doesnt become to big, Im happy to reply to one misconception you say Im incorrect and misleading, pick one that you believe that you are 100 percent correct on and I am wrong on. Then we can have a civil debate.
I look forward to discussing that topic with you and your views and how they differ from mine
Psst
"Word":cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
2 people here have something in common
Did you know that?
Both joined in August 2005 :oo::oo::oo:
OH- but live on opposite sides of Australia
Or revive the old discussion of pancakes, just as relevant as this argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwigeo
Peter.