Villastrangiato,
If you really have trouble positioning the mic for impedance test, I will understand why no impedance data are presented.
I've seen the same thing happen over here.
If you really have trouble positioning the mic for impedance test, I will understand why no impedance data are presented.
I've seen the same thing happen over here.
Am all for it, John. But when a guy 'fixes' wikipedia to agree with HIS views, I ususally call that dishonest and fraud. YMMV.
If this was my forum, he'd be banned.
jd
Not anymore.
"Borat" got banned for sock puppetting a couple of days before this thread was started. 🙄
Has anyone thought about how we can distinguish a highschool kid from a real experts in a forum like this? I must say that much of Villastrangiato's thought's are quite similar to mine when I was that age. Hmm, I do wonder what I would have done if we had the net back then.
It might be worth reporting to Wikipedia- fortunately, one can't do that here.
I'm still trying to figure out why anyone is paying attention. No experimental evidence, NONE. No detailed model, NONE. No correlation of his ideas to experimental results, NONE. With all due respect to John, cutting and pasting snippets quote-mined from Wikipedia is not technical argument, it's trolling.
Feeding trolls does no good. When Courtney/Charles/whomever comes back with actual data or a model that makes specific verifiable or falsifiable predictions, he'll be worth responding to. Until then, I strongly suggest that he be ignored.
Umm.... Sy, I think you may find yourself obliged to edit your post to protect the identity of the guilty.
I noticed a few posts being either deleted or modded earlier when names were mentioned.
seems to take his identity crisis quite seriously. 
I noticed a few posts being either deleted or modded earlier when names were mentioned.
seems to take his identity crisis quite seriously.
Would that this were true of intellectual honesty.
Isn't Wikipedia just a jumble of contributions from people like you and I? It was my understanding that anyone can add to it. Maybe accurate, maybe not - I've seen some questionable "fact" there.
I had to laugh myself when this was pointed out. He went searching for some data to back up his assertion and saw that the Wikipedia entry was incomplete / flawed so he fixed it.
It's derision and name calling that I object to. Cutting and pasting snippets from different sources doesn't make him a troll - he seems to genuinely believe in what he is saying and is trying to prove it and get some support (apparently).
It's one thing to present ones views. But to come across saying some 27 years (if I remember correctly) of experience, and no data or reports to show it? What does this mean? Engineering administration?
Last edited:
My viewpoint:
You can't control how a person is, you can control your own actions though. If you object to his style of communicating, you should have an issue with "lowering" yourself to his (perceived) level.
In audiophilia there is no difference, everyone is an expert - just ask them. In the real world one looks at credentials. I know how disgusting that sunds to you, but it is the reality.
That's what I think too. My last few post were intended for people to think about the situation. Certainly there are lots of people that really have done lots of work, and have the information to show for it. Until a person contributes some of his own working results that supports his views, I find it humorous to get into any further arguments either about the person, or over the viewpoints presented. So, might as well just look at the entertainment side of the discussion since it keeps popping up.
I'm not against credentials, I just sometimes find it humorous to see companies pay for it and to drive the company into a crisis. My wife has a higher degree than I, and I'm proud of it. It only took her a few months to prepare for the exam, got the degree (saved a lot of money) in less time than normal students, and graduated first place in the class.
I'm not against credentials, I just sometimes find it humorous to see companies pay for it and to drive the company into a crisis. My wife has a higher degree than I, and I'm proud of it. It only took her a few months to prepare for the exam, got the degree (saved a lot of money) in less time than normal students, and graduated first place in the class.
Last edited:
One can also look at a person's ability (or lack thereof) to present a well reasoned argument that makes sense.
Ah, but you see a good arguer can make almost an side of the case. Its not that hard. If you don' look at past positions and beliefs, and integrity, you have no idea what the persons real beliefs are. Soogsc is right here, a high school student can make a good case. It's called debating.
I love this discussion because it points out how hard it is to find reliable information in audio. Everyone is an expert, everyones opinion is equally valid, it's complete chaos with the reader completely baffled about what's real and what's not. I'm not reliable because I make a lot of typos. Thats the state of afairs.
Last edited:
Unintended irony. 😀
(disclaimer: I have exactly zero formal engineering training or credentials. So I have to rely on evidence to make my arguments)
Yes, but when someone is unable to make a good case...?
For example, the OP says his theory is based on Natkaniec's paper. However there is a huge difference between what he says Natkaniec wrote and what Natkaniec actually wrote.
That suggests either deliberate misrepresentation or gross misunderstanding, neither of which possibilities add much credibility.
Dividing his time between criticizing Augsberger and King's work and claiming that their work supports his theory doesn't help either.
Nor does switching position on a certain point half-way and thereby contradicting himself.
Then (as you pointed out earlier) there's the arguments based on vague arm-waving and the use of "big" words without any apparent understanding of their meaning.
etc etc etc
While he claims to have extensive experience in electrical engineering, acoustical engineering and quantum physics, he displays a lack of understanding of fairly basic physics.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I don't see this one winning a high-school debate.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.