An obvious attempt at amiable discourse is a "conscious effort to undermine [your] credibility on the basis of that statement?" ?whyterabbyt wrote:So are you saying that by saying 'nope there's no one single answer' I somehow disrupted this process, and .jon's erstwhile-unposted benevolence was thus transcended into his conscious effort to undermine my credibility on the basis of that statement?xander wrote: ...this and that...
Really? Didn't catch that Sean -- mainly because I wasn't 'looking' for or didn't 'see' any untoward efforts, conscious or otherwise, to "undermine" your credibilty. We do tend to see what we want to though eh?
I only saw polite attempt to explain a point that you have whittled into an almost neurotic form of pedantism.
That the question implies answers and opinions that are ultimately subjective is obvious, so we move on from there and attempt to refine the original communication -- perhaps because it lacks clarity. We may point this out to the author in an instructive way, with the emphasis on 'instructive' and 'helpful', but we do so to help further the explanation he desires, as ineloquently as he might have first stated it.
The sum of your point is that the question is pointless because the ultimate answer is always subjective. This may be true in a purely semantic sense, but it's rather unfriendly and non-productive to belabouringly (and tiresomely) engineer the conversation so that it results in the author feeling stupid and belittled. Not all of us are as analytically cunning as you -- nor do we feel the need to be so.
Try this: "Well, the answer to your question is, of course, quite obviously in fact, a very subjective one. However, you might try (this and that one) and see if they make you happy. Here are some links."
All up, it is NOT entirely subjective, there are many factors one may consider in choosing an EQ beside it's ability to EQ something. This is implied in the 'context' of the language as we award benefit of the doubt that the author isn't entirely brain-dead. We go from there.
Of course, if you want to pick on the poor bugger's choice of words, that's your prerogative eh?
Then why weren't you the first to ask him thusly?Hmmm, I dont see why. Surely a debate on whats potentially good or useful isnt that easily derailed?
S'funny cos I havent noticed anyone even trying to garner information on the OP's kit, for example, which I would have thought was a logical first step for establishing that same rapport by determining what might be useful to him, given that his CPU, say, might be older and underpowered and incapable of running some of the things people are blithely recommending to him as a 'track EQ'. Which would have been the useful relevance of .jon's obsession with CPU usage, IMO, not just some sort of odd context-free counterargument to my own thoughts...
Cheers,
Your Friendly Alex
