Quote:
Originally Posted by theblue1  [bold added]
Or... maybe you just don't know how to make it work for you. Others obviously feel they can make that technology work for themselves and their clients.
_______________________
The 'relativism' you seem predelicted to a attribute to me would, I think, only dictate that I respect your right to hold your own opinion -- not that I respect the opinion itself.
An altogether crucial distinction.
Perhaps, though, we can't expect a self-described 'absolutist' to understand such nuance.
_______________________
BTW... mixing up all those quotes from many people without attribution as you did above might prove a trifle confusing. Since more than a few are from me, a casual reader might be inclined to think they all were -- which is, most certainly not the case.
_______________________
PS... I've been meaning to add -- I do agree wholeheartedly on one point: shameless marketing BS, when one runs into it, is as disreputable as it often is laughable. |
Can't you just ****ing give me an answer about why should anybody choose expensive digital gear that costs **** to make over expensive analog gear that is expensive to make? F*ck....you keep saying this. "For some people this technology works well." How hard is it to answer my question Blue?
You are complaining about shameless marketing bullshit yet you are willing to defend expensive digi gear that is built on that very attribute and that very attribute only!
And
that, my friend, is moral relativism for you because you are talking from a position of hypocrisy. Blame me for being absolute but at least people know what I stand for.
You are just hiding your superficial posts behind 10 cent words and I am sorry to tell you ''dude'' it is not working.
Here...
I could could ''flower it up'' too if I wanted:
The premise that supports your declarative proposition is in a state of incorrectness because you are postulating the pragmatic truth that electronic equipment built on capacitors, resistors, inductors and transistors offers more tangible value to the potential purchaser because the the sum of the cost of the raw material resources that went into producing it is of greater monetary value than that of digital equipment.
You have not met the objective of offering any rebuttal to nullify this pragmatic truth. Instead you resort to attacking the characteristics of the person presenting you the evidence, rather than by addressing the substance of the evidence presented to you.
Your intellectually shallow style over substance and appeal to ridicule arguments however cannot deduce the truth.
And the undisputed fact you are constantly trying to divert attention from on your witch-hunt is that
analog gear offers more tangible value to potential musicians and studio owners than digital because the raw material resources that make the analog product what it is are of greater monetary value that those of digital and software gear. I presented you this bulletproof fact. You are arguing the merits of it.