|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: I have already addressed the double standard posted by Analog Scott on December 13, 2006 at 20:32:43:
Hello Analog Scott,What Pat D is doing now is another classic example of his audio politics in action. Allow me to reveal what's happening. I've seen Pat do these things so many times now I can almost know what he'll say next sometimes. In this case I had explained this to Pat previously:
As I stated previously you (Pat D) never actually win a debate or prove your point, but rather you mis-direct and twist what's been actually said to fit what you believe. Menwhile you're accusing others of doing the very same things! So someone who behaves like you do is guilty of playing "audio politics!" So there's your explinantion.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26251.htmlYet after reading that Pat uses one of his many audio politic tricks. In this case it's to ignore completely what your opponent has written, then pretend they never answered your question and ask it again! Which is exactly what Pat D did when he said: You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/26254.htmlHowever just a brief look at the numbers assigned to the posts reveals this is just another example of Pat's playing the "dirty" audio politician in his debating tactics. My explinantion of audio politics is # 26251 and Pat D's twisting of the truth when he claims You still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. Is # 26254 three posts after I already explained what audio politics is!
Analog Scott I liked your response to Pat D's post called "Short questionnaire." You asked Pat What exactly didn't (he) understand about it? Please be specific. Did (he) read what (you) said about it? But unfortunately Pat is attempting to use the same tactic he did with me, i.e. ignore completely what your opponent has written, then pretend they never answered your question and ask it again!
When Pat untruthfully claimed I (thetubeguy1954) still haven't told us what "audio politics" is. I responded by telling Pat (It's) With some embarrassment I feel it necessary to inform you (Pat) I most certainly did! But unfortunately it was obviously over your head or you would have understood that I had done so. Sorry about that, I truly am. I explained it as simply as I can. Perhaps you could print out what I wrote and have your wife or co-worker explain in to you?
After watching Pat D in action for some time now I've become aware of some of Pat's many audio politic tactics that he frequently uses. This will include combinations of these things below:
1) Claim to be misquoted
2) Claim to be quoted out of context
3) Claim to be misunderstood
4) Claim to be attacked, deceived or tricked etc
5) Claim your opponent doesn't think logically (which he uses to enforce 1-4 above)
6) Switch the actual topic being debated to what he wants to debate
7) Blame others of doing the things he does
8) Make untrue claims like I've already proven that, when he hasn't
Pat will usually follow one of four basic methods operation (or some combination of them):a) Blame others, Claim being misunderstood, deceived or tricked if unable to outright deny something & then switch the topic.
b) Place his attributes on his opponents, start whining and claiming he's either being quoted out of context, misquoted, misunderstood or attacked and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
c) When these don't work as planned for Pat, he'll just ignores what his opponent said and either insult them or alternatively Pat will ask a question that's already been answered, while claiming it's never been answered and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
d) Finally if none of those work Pat will simply claim the opponents can't think logically and start blaming them of creating strawman arguements and then switch from the actual topic being discussed.
If you'll re-read any of the posts where Pat has debated an opponent you'll see that he does some combination of A through D above consistently everytime. In fact he's down to D with you now, because his other tactics failed. It's getting so that I can read Pat D like a book!
Thetubeguy1954
It is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows. - Epictetus
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Analog Scott This Is Just More Pat D Audio Politics In Action. - thetubeguy1954 07:20:51 12/14/06 (7)
- Man! You'll do anything to avoid proving your audio claims! - Pat D 12:17:37 12/14/06 (6)
- It's Impossibel Prove Them To An Audio Politican Like You Pat - thetubeguy1954 06:58:10 12/15/06 (5)
- See what I mean? TG54 continues to not prove his claims! (nt) - Pat D 07:42:37 12/15/06 (4)
- See what I mean? Pat D-Cake Continues To Audio Politician !(nt) - thetubeguy1954 08:56:02 12/15/06 (3)
- If only someone could explain what "audio politician" means . . . - Pat D 13:25:09 12/15/06 (2)
- I gave you Bunburyist above - kerr 13:53:30 12/15/06 (1)
- Re: I gave you Bunburyist above - Pat D 15:42:41 12/15/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
