A simple-to-use sound file writer
Alf P. Steinbach
alfps at start.no
Fri Jan 15 13:56:32 CET 2010
* Steve Holden:
> Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
>> * Ben Finney:
>>> "Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps at start.no> writes:
>>>> You did lie, that's established. In addition as I recall in the same
>>>> post you went on about my motivations for doing the Terrible Deed that
>>>> you invented.
>>> None of that matches my (largely disinterested) observations. This is
>>> pure fantasy, as best I can tell.
>> It's decidedly not kind of you to try to re-open those issues.
>> Anybody can have a bad day and write something that's untrue or actively
>> misleading, whatever.
>> When it's been dealt with, and it has, it should not be reiterated.
>>> I've tried in private to talk you out of this persecution fantasy;
>>> others have tried in public. It all seems to be in vain.
>> It's quite normal for people to use ad hominem arguments, especially
>> when they have chosen an indefensible position; that's why the technique
>> has a name.
>> There's no persecution involved in that.
>> And people are not necessarily bad even when they do that from time to
>> time, as you do here: it's human.
>>> You've now passed my twit threshold, so welcome to my kill file.
>> Cheers & hth.,
>> - Alf
> How you can possibly hope that helps anyone except you I can't possibly
> imagine. It seems that any request to question your own behavior, any
> remark about how it might usefully change, is taken to be an ad homime,
> As my wife (who has a colorful Scottish turn of phrase) might say, if
> you were chocolate you would eat yourself.
> Please, get over this obsession with being "right".
You have (so far) refused to outright admit that you were wrong here, going to
the extreme half-way measure of using the word "wring" or something, perhaps
hoping that I'd interpret it one way and most everyone else another way.
I do respond to articles which are technically wrong, especially follow-ups to
my own articles, as your (at least initial) POV was in this thread: wrong.
That's not an obsession, nor is it a desire to be right, it's the *usual* Usenet
culture: one is expected to respond and to correct technical issues, and to not
collect social points at the expense of technical correctness.
And since it's you who brings this up again, and since earlier you wrote ...
"I herebe retract anything I have said about you that you consider
innuendo. Feel free to remind me what that was."
... I now feel free to remind you about some of it.
Instead of saying OK or thanks or whatever normal for a simple explanation, you
pretended that my explanation was some kind of thesis from me and "this is
merely hand-waving. It looks appealing, but there's no rigor there".
And with our last discussion before this one fresh in mind I told you that that
was bullshit, using just that single word. But to expand on that: the
insinuation that the explanation was some kind of thesis from me was bullshit,
that it was merely "hand-waiving" was bullshit (while informal it was an exact
algorithm, and later in this thread I posted Python code implementing it), and
that it had "no rigor" was bullshit since it was an exact algorithm; moreover it
was a *trivial* algorithm, and as demonstrated, it works.
In short, the insinuation that I was some kind of crank posting a thesis that
lacked "rigor" and was "hand-waiving" was utter bullshit: it was a trivial and
exact algorithm, an explanation in response to your own question, and it
In response to someone else you then posted this:
Grant Edwards wrote:
> > On 2010-01-14, Alf P. Steinbach <alfps at start.no> wrote:
>> >> After all, it's the basis of digital representation of sound!
> > Huh? I've only studied basic DSP, but I've never heard/seen
> > that as the basis of digital represention of sound. I've also
> > never seen that representation used anywhere. Can you provide
> > any references?
Of course he can't. And it isn't the basis of analog quantization. And I
suspect Alf has never hear of Shannon's theorem.
But don't listen to me, apparently I'm full of it.
* The "of course he can't [provide a reference]"
is the same insinuation you made earlier repeated, that what I posted was
drivel, when it was a trivial and exact algorithm, one that does work.
* "Isn't the basis of analog quantization"
makes the reader believe I'd written that nonsense "basis of analog
quantization". I did not write such nonsense but readers get the impression that
I did. The quote above shows what I wrote instead of the words you put in my mouth.
* "And I suspect Alf has never hear of Shannon's theorem."
is solely about me, an insinuation about my education or competence.
* "But don't listen to me, apparently I'm full of it."
gives the reader the impression that I've written earlier that you're "full of it".
I haven't ever written that.
And /nothing/ in that posting was about any technical issue, each and every of
the four sentences just an ad hominem attack.
I very seldom do ad hominem (it has happened, yes, I'm human too). But this is
the second or third time you've responded to me with that last sentence, and it
implies that I've written that about you, that I'd earlier done unto you what
you were doing to me. I haven't, although in my follow-up, annoyed by all this
stuff from you, I then agreed with your self-evaluation, for which I apologize.
Cheers & hth.,
More information about the Python-list