OK, I tried hydrogen audio. It didn't go too well.

[Audio_ELF]

Fortunately for me, Karen is also a wonderful woman. It would be - annoying - to have to learn to be gay if she was a man! Of course, I meant that with humor, but on second thought, she would be worth it. (Grin)

Though then *HE* would be worth it not she! Get your pronouns sorted!

[tne]

It would be - annoying - to have to learn to be gay if she was a man!

 

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

 

 

Paul, I know that you were joking but I could not resist using the line from a Seinfeld episode.

[thesurfingalien]

It's called LOVE ! Select the right partner, and you also have your best friend through thick and thin.

Companion animals are fine, but it's not the same, and they don't live as long as humans.

 

The advantage of a pet (dogs in my case) is that their love is unconditional... They also do not talk to divorce-lawyers...

[sandyk]

The advantage of a pet (dogs in my case) is that their love is unconditional... They also do not talk to divorce-lawyers...

 

Hi Peter

Unfortunately, I can relate to that. In my case, a desexed 11 yo black female cat gives me unconditional love. She was so tiny when my son brought her home after her mother abandoned her, that we had to feed her milk with an eye dropper for a couple of weeks.

Kind Regards

Alex

[Audio_ELF]

They also do not talk to divorce-lawyers...

Not sure ... mine lays with her paws on the RSPCA adverts if she thinks I haven't given her enough food!

[Paul R]

Though then *HE* would be worth it not she! Get your pronouns sorted!

 

Yes Ser!

[Paul R]

Not that there's anything wrong with that....

 

 

Paul, I know that you were joking but I could not resist using the line from a Seinfeld episode.

 

(grin) Though I don't play for that team, love is so precious, I think no matter where you find it, one should treasure it. I can not conceive of a God (any God) thinking differently either. YMMV!

 

As as an aside, isn't it amazing here how people don't fight over the really important things, but sharpen their swords at the mere mention of Shannon-Nyquist? Goes to show what an extraordinary group of folks gather here!

[alfe]

(grin)As as an aside, isn't it amazing here how people don't fight over the really important things, but sharpen their swords at the mere mention of Shannon-Nyquist? Goes to show what an extraordinary group of folks gather here!

 

Because they can't sharpen their swords at home,they know who is the boss.¨-)

[sandyk]

Because they can't sharpen their swords at home,they know who is the boss.¨-)

 

 

A sharp tongue is mightier than a sword ?

 

Perhaps that's why George never married ? (grin)

[gmgraves]

A sharp tongue is mightier than a sword ?

 

Perhaps that's why George never married ? (grin)

 

It's one reason! I like the W. C. Fields adage: "Women are like elephants to me. They're interesting look at (and ride*), but I wouldn't want to own one!"

 

* I added the "to ride"

[spdif-usb]

I am about to give birth to an elephant. Its trunk already is coming out.

[wgscott]

And perhaps it doesn't. You certainly have no way to tell. Anything that you could say about me (or anyone else, here, actually) would be just pointless and baseless conjecture on your part.

 

Sorry. I just happen to find your sexism at least as revolting as your racism.

[gmgraves]

Sorry. I just happen to find your sexism at least as revolting as your racism.

 

 

Wait a minute, where do you get the idea that I'm a racist? I'll guarantee you that I'm no more of a racist than you are, and probably a lot less so. As to being a sexist, I am not that either! I'm a misogamist, not a misogynist! My comment about my use for women is merely meant as a humorous reflection of my physical need for women, which is a normal biological response. While I agree that my lack of an emotional need for permanent female companionship, while unusual, It is certainly not all that rare. Does that mean that I don't like women or that I don't enjoy their company? It does not. What I have no use for is the institution of matrimony, the label of husband applied to me, or the dubious joys of domesticity and child rearing.

 

Perhaps your above attitude is what I meant when I said that "Anything that you could say about me (or anyone else, here, actually) would be just pointless and baseless conjecture on your part."

 

And guess what? I was right!

 

People like you who make snap judgements about things and persons you know nothing about is to me at least as revolting as the monikers that you have rushed to hang on me.

[beanbag]

I think its immature to be commenting on each other personally.

[wgscott]

I think its immature to be commenting on each other personally.

 

Who cares what you think?

[gmgraves]

Who cares what you think?

 

 

I care, for one. I suspect that anyone here who is not a complete jerk cares what beanbag thinks.

[Paul R]

Who cares what you think?

 

A good, if socially in-urbane, question!

[Snowmonkey]

I suspect that anyone here who is not a complete jerk cares what beanbag thinks.

Beautifully executed modus tollens with half pike.

[wgscott]

I care, for one. I suspect that anyone here who is not a complete jerk cares what beanbag thinks.

 

Oh, so you don't either? At least we agree on something.

[gmgraves]

Oh, so you don't either? At least we agree on something.

 

 

But I just said that I did. And I'm still waiting for an apology from you for calling me a racist. Hanging that moniker on someone in print when you have no evidence of the truth of it is libelous, not to mention not very nice.

[wgscott]

I am sorry. However, some of your previous postings from a few months ago aren't inspiring in that regard.

[gmgraves]

I am sorry. However, some of your previous postings from a few months ago aren't inspiring in that regard.

 

 

I'm sorry too, but I have never made a racist statement ANYWHERE! You have either misinterpreted my intent or you have me confused with somebody else. If you want to go find what statement or statements that I have made that you find racist, and post them here, I'll be glad to explain where you are wrong. I'd look for them myself, but since I have no way of telling what you would consider racist, I don't think I'd find anything.

[Sam Lord]

I stumbled onto the last page of this thread and worried that our prescious petty squabbles would be abandoned.

 

Alas we are delivered, there is hope for inhumanity.

[sullis02]

Agreed, tolerance is important. Another factor is that some forums/sites have an official philosophy that limits expression only to comments that are consistent with the dogma.

 

Like, say, peer-reviewed scientific journals? They don't publish *everything*, do they? You write for Stereophile. You're a white hat there, but really, how many pro-DBT articles have they run lately?

 

Granted, HA isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal or even a for-profit magazine. But the domain expertise at HA can be high (whoever said here that they 'don't know the maths' is wrong). I came to audio forums from Usenet, so I know what a free for all is like. (And I know what good moderation -- rec.audio.high-end -- is like too).

 

Is it wrong to have standards? I, personally, and as a scientist with some understanding of what cognitive bias is and why experimental method exists, *do not care* what someone's sighted, subjective impression of DAC #1 vs DAC#2 is. It's nice to have a forum where that noise is filtered out.

[wgscott]

Kal and I are both scientists. I've published numerous times in the top journals (like Science, Nature and Cell) and have served on numerous federal grant review panels. I am well aware of what scientific peer review is. It has absolutely nothing to do with, nor anything in common with, the posturing of self-annointed experts on the internet imposing imaginary standards. Thankfully.