Re: Magic 107 oops, real science

[kyrlidis@athena.mit.edu (Angelos Kyrlidis)]

Disclaimer:
----------
I dodn't normally participate in flame fests, but being afraid of silence 
being misinterpreted as approval, I have to add my opinion.

In article <C4qpw8.7wq@chinet.chi.il.us> jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger) 
writes to Lazlo:
>Oh, I remember now: "I am a Fluke of the Universe, my experiences are 
>meaningless next to the pronouncements of the last few generations of PhD-
>egos, I don't deserve any respect for anything I might say, but should be 
>immediately bashed into silence for the good of all.  Ah, men..."  Was *that* 
>the mantra the great Maharishi assigned?

Say all you want. Just don't try to *impose* your thoughts to others and
flame them when they disagree, alright? How did PhD's come into the discussion
anyway?

[blah blah blah deleted]

>[gratuitous swearing deleted ]
>I assert my freedom and my  rights!
a-ha! Well you better read your own words then, and re-assert others' freedom 
to disagree with you.

In jorn's own words:
>what I want is to *win general agreement* that *what we feel in our
>hearts* as kind and good and healthful and responsible is *real* and
>*counts*, as a general rule.
So your freedom and rights involve winning general agreement?

I junked the above post hoping things would calm down, but then
In article <C4rq1E.72G@chinet.chi.il.us> jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger) 
writes:
>Steve VanDevender
> [attempt at reasoning deleted]
>(Jeez, you sound like a lawyer!  But I appreciate that you're talking 
>content rather than spewing denial!)
Note hostility again.

>Quantum mechanics paints this depressing image of *The Real* in which 
>at the finest level, everything is *probabilities*.  IE, everything is 
>*fog*.  I don't buy that.  That's not in the formulas, that's just the  
>way they're most comfortable projecting their *egos* onto the 
>formulas.
Ah, so science is just an ego-boosting experience... Let me write this 
down. 

>How can we 
>*presume* to know that every electron field isn't exactly a dewdrop on 
>the web of Indra, precisely refracting the whole rest of the universe?
:-)

>I want to distinguish hiss that's added by external means, and hiss 
>that's written by the read-mechanism.  It's the latter that seems 
>inherently 2-way to me, for vinyl and tape, but not for digital.
Didn't Dolby noise reduction take care of that years ago?

>MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR CATHY!
I am sure if KaTe read the previous posts, she would hide away and
never release *anything* in fear of being considered an accomplice.

Sorry Jorn, but I think you have to change your attitude if you want 
to be taken seriously, and think a bit about how the recordings you
are talking about were made, based on what priciples this technology
exists, before you start ranting about ego-driven PhDs and dismiss
all science for an 'empathic' obsession of yours. 

Angelos
	'Interference in the night, thousand miles on either side 
	 Stations fading into the unknown...' - Tom Robinson
--
Angelos Kyrlidis