Questions about equivalents of audio/video and digital/analog.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Torturing definitions and standards doesn't win you any arguments.

Actually, it does.

If the question is what does a term mean, then the
*only* way to win an argument is with a standard
definition.

People who claim that they have a definition which is
better, but can't cite *anything* that gives a different
definition, are not winners. They may have loud mouths
and may do a lot of chest thumping, but nobody with half
a brain is going to believe them...

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

On 8/22/07 9:23 PM, in article [email protected], "Floyd L.

(snip)


I thought I mentioned that I have no further interest in your useless posts.

Why are you continuing to respond then? Obviously you
do have an interest. Not a rational one perhaps, but...

If I didn't then I apologize for you having wasted your time.

Accepted. And any time you wish to carry on another
discussion, on a more appropriate adult level, we can
determine if you mean that or not.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Floyd just can't grasp the idea that a specialist knows

I do grasp very well the fact that you have somewhat
limited exposure to the entire range of this topic. And
having clearly been out classed technically, you have
nothing left but to fabricate gratuitous insults.

more and more about less and less until as an expert he
knows almost everything about nearly nothing. There may
be a corner somewhere where his technical claims are
absolutely correct, but I know few who have any desire
to go there. And those few know it's only a small part
of what's interesting.

You still haven't been able to demonstrate that anyone
anywhere with any credibility agrees with your claims
that the standard definitions are not correct. They are,
but yours aren't.

 

[Bob Myers]

Actually, you don't need faith any more, according to God's website:
http://www.godchannel.com

Hmmm...well, that site certainly should clear up ONE
major theological question that has been plaguing
mankind for years. It would appear that God is using a
Mac.

Bob M.

 

[Arny Krueger]

It isn't "telephone system thinking", it's Information
Theory. That applies to a great deal more than high
fidelity audio.

If you were as well-informed as you seem to think Floyd, you'd know that
information theory crosses a lot of inter-disciplinary lines, and its
application and terminology changes as well. Yes, it is all the same, but
the words and shadings of meanings change.

People who don't know the background theory aren't going
to do well in explaining it with experience only with
high fidelity audio.

Clearly not my problem. But, what you seem to know about high fidelity
audio, particuarly digital audio as it applies to high fidelity audio, seems
to leave a lot to be desired.

I guess all the giggling by the regulars is not coming through with the
posts? ;-)

 

[Arny Krueger]

Actually, it does.

Thanks for finally admitting that you are guilty of torturing the
definitions.

 

[Arny Krueger]

How about guys who don't know anything about the theory
of something trying to use their empirical observations
to explain how it works, without ever having read up on
any of the available research.

If irony killed! ;-)

 

[Philip Martel]

So your fingers are analog, because there are 10 of them?

But your hands are digital, because you have only two...

They have ten digits...

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

If you were as well-informed as you seem to think Floyd, you'd know that
information theory crosses a lot of inter-disciplinary lines, and its
application and terminology changes as well. Yes, it is all the same, but
the words and shadings of meanings change.


Clearly not my problem. But, what you seem to know about high fidelity
audio, particuarly digital audio as it applies to high fidelity audio, seems
to leave a lot to be desired.

I guess all the giggling by the regulars is not coming through with the
posts? ;-)

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid. The absolute silence
on that point is extremely indicative.

Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
it, a lack of sufficient background.

A couple two or three fools giggling isn't nearly the
same as the number of people who read this thread and
howl with laughter because they do understand what you
don't.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Thanks for finally admitting that you are guilty of torturing the
definitions.

Thank you for admitting that you've lost every argument you've
entered in this thread.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

If irony killed! ;-)

You wouldn't be here.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

They have ten digits...

Your *fingers* number ten, your hands number two.

Analog fingers... digital hands.

Or maybe that definition isn't going to fly, eh?

 

[Al in Dallas]

Torturing definitions and standards doesn't win you any arguments.

Coming up with silly, idiosyncratic definitions for commonly used
technical terms seems to do nothing but sow confusion. You and Don
appear to be uneducated dabblers who have gotten yourselves confused.

 

[Al in Dallas]

Not true. Theory predicts the scope pattern that various kinds of signals
will produce.



Yeah, sure.


As a rule, I can. Been doing it for about half a century, more or less.

Yep, you sound like a lab tech who doesn't understand the theory but
has learned to look for certain artifacts on a scope.

You've picked a situation where *everything* including no data at all looks
like sine waves. What you see on a modem line is not the actual data, you
see that data modulating sine waves.


So what?

Yep, you don't understand.

[snip repeated instances of failing to get it]

 

[isw]

Hmmm...well, that site certainly should clear up ONE
major theological question that has been plaguing
mankind for years. It would appear that God is using a
Mac.

And all the poor sods in Hell's back office are required to use Windows;
makes sense to me...

Isaac

 

[ASAAR]

I do grasp very well the fact that you have somewhat
limited exposure to the entire range of this topic. And
having clearly been out classed technically, you have
nothing left but to fabricate gratuitous insults.

What everyone grasps that's read your messages for several years
in r.p.d. are several things. That you live to argue, and even when
clearly wrong, will use tortured logic, fabrications and insults to
avoid conceding the obvious. And when both sides engage in swapping
insults *you* will be the one that whines about it, as in the above,
which unsurprisingly precedes the whine with nothing but insults.
And if you've earned and deserve the insults, are they really
gratuitous?

 

[ASAAR]

That is being as ass.

What did you expect.

If you don't understand the technology, cease the
pretentions of being an expert. You seem to be clueless
about standard terms of the industry, how is anyone
supposed to carry on a conversation with someone like
that?

Yes indeed! Agreed, agreed. Kinda reminds me of a quite
pretentious ass in r.p.d. that rather than use the "standard term"
of the industry, chooses to avoid writing "lens" when he can use the
affected term "lense". You wouldn't happen to know who that is now,
would you, Floyd? He's also an individual that makes it exceedingly
difficult to carry on a civil conversation. Sound familiar?

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

What everyone grasps that's read your messages for several years
in r.p.d. are several things. That you live to argue, and even when
clearly wrong, will use tortured logic, fabrications and insults to
avoid conceding the obvious. And when both sides engage in swapping
insults *you* will be the one that whines about it, as in the above,
which unsurprisingly precedes the whine with nothing but insults.
And if you've earned and deserve the insults, are they really
gratuitous?

So lacking any technical knowledge at all, you offer exactly 0
contribution. You have nothing at all except gratuitous insults.

It does indicate exactly how credible *you* are.

 

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Yes indeed! Agreed, agreed. Kinda reminds me of a quite
pretentious ass in r.p.d. that rather than use the "standard term"
of the industry, chooses to avoid writing "lens" when he can use the
affected term "lense". You wouldn't happen to know who that is now,
would you, Floyd? He's also an individual that makes it exceedingly
difficult to carry on a civil conversation. Sound familiar?

Spelling flames are just exceedingly lame. Especially
when you are wrong. And if you don't see why variations
in spelling are not significant, while variation in the
definition of terms is a fatal flaw in any discussion,
one has no doubt about just how credible *anything* you
say could possibly be. Or ever has been in this newsgroup.

 

[Arny Krueger]

So when will any of you be able to cite credible support
for your claims that the standard definitions of analog
and digital signals/data are not valid.

Straw man argument noted and dismissed.

Clearly your problem *is*, no matter how often you deny
it, a lack of sufficient background.

Sufficient background for what?

BTW thanks again for publicly admitting that you were intentially torturing
the standard definitions you cited.

A couple two or three fools giggling isn't nearly the
same as the number of people who read this thread and
howl with laughter because they do understand what you
don't.

Please don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back. The sprain will
last longer than any possible other benefit that you might receive.