… @reddog1 From the Wikipedia article “Ad hominem”:
" Ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the person’), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for ‘argument to the person’), refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is “A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong”.
Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward.
Valid ad hominem arguments occur in informal logic, where the person making the argument relies on arguments from authority such as testimony, expertise, or a selective presentation of information supporting the position they are advocating. In this case, counter-arguments may be made that the target is dishonest, lacks the claimed expertise, or has a conflict of interest. Another type of valid ad hominem argument generally only encountered in specialized philosophical usage refers to the dialectical strategy of using the target’s own beliefs and arguments against them, while not agreeing with the validity of those beliefs and arguments."
In a series of five studies, Oppenheimer systematically examined the complexity of the vocabulary used in various passages (including job applications, academic essays and translations of Descartes). He then asked people to read the samples and rate the intelligence of the person who allegedly wrote them. The simpler language resulted in significantly higher ratings of intelligence, showing that the unnecessary use of complex language sent out a bad impression.
@reddog1 … From the Wikipedia article “Straw man”:
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula “so what you’re saying is … ?”, converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[citation needed]
A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] A common form of setting up such a straw man is by use of the notorious formula “so what you’re saying is … ?”, converting the argument to be challenged into an obviously absurd distortion. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., “stand up a straw man”) and the subsequent refutation of that false argument (“knock down a straw man”) instead of the opponent’s proposition.[2][3] Straw man arguments have been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly regarding highly charged emotional subjects.[citation needed]
Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom may also be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons throw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittlebalanced on top.[4][5]
@reddog1 … So what exactly are you adding to the discussion regarding the audibility of noise induced jitter in the auditioning of digital-audio files on any given amalgamation of system components and any given electro-mechanical environment in which these auditions are made and the subjectiveness of subsequent assessments and interpretations made by either a “passive” listener or a critically “active” listener…?
I was born and raised in Friesland (Friesland - Wikipedia). And us Frisians (Frisians - Wikipedia) are quite known for our sobriety. I prefer direct and straight to the point answers, just like any other Dutch.
Agoldnear. I fear your walls of texts only act backwards. Your copy/pasting of theories might make you look intelligent and smart. But it doesn’t.
I prefer to rely on my own experiences. And my experience tells me there is no difference between normal cables, or those crafted by Elven smiths in an enchanted glade under the moonlight. The same thing is true for internal and external storage.
… @sandsOfArrakis … I completely understand this is your experience and do not argue with your subjective opinion. My subjective experience is different in these regards, based on my uniquely personal system configuration and approach to the auditioning of digital-audio file playback.
… @reddog1@sandsOfArrakis … And so it goes the same for those, living in the myopia of hubristic arrogance of subjective certainty, as a product of their asymmetrical insight illusions.
Add something of substance to the discussion and prove the basis of your opinions and certainties…
I use insights from the experts providing hard scientific evidence, that is far from “theoretical” to corroborate my experiences… It is you, that is in denial of reality. You may not experience these things, and I understand this to be fact. There are a myriad of reasons why you may not be able to experience these jitter related anomalies in the auditioning of digital-audio playback on your systems and with your individual listening skills. But this is not because the factors of influence do not exist in the contextual reality.
… Apparently, you have nothing to bring to the discussion, other than Ad hominem attacks and Strawman arguments… Stand-off or I’ll flag your harassment.
