Fuzzbass said:
You defined the difference between "never" and "as close to never as you can get without actually being never" as a "gigantic hole in logic", and congratulated yourself for a wonderful semantic victory. I didn't "bail", I simply felt that wasn't worthy of a response.
Are you serious or are you just kidding? I hope the latter.
Show me where I specifically defined that as a gigantic hole in logic. Show me where you didn't see the "s" on the word "holes"?
Is that worthy of a response... or any of the other gigantic holes I mentioned before?
. There are several pretty blatant ones. Maybe you were joking.
And "since I'm back" (whatever that means):
"See ya, this thread's all yours".
Whatever that means.
we've been killing too many threads lately with ridiculous semantic arguments. Let's sum up the stupid argument we've been having in this thread:
1) Electric bass has been recorded unamplified with a microphone at least once, which is a far, far cry from "never".
That is hardly the crux of what's going on in this thread but if you now want to reduce it to that, I understand. It was a side note from one of those other threads.
You were emphatic about how irrelevant the unplugged sound of a bass is and to prove it you brought up the fact that it had never been recorded unamplified.
Then it was you who brought up a percentage of how wrong you were.
Now it's semantics.
2) Roger Sadowsky has an opinion about the way alder and ash Sadowsky basses sound.
Hmmm...
How these are relevant to the topic are way beyond me.
Ask the guy who brought him up... you:
"Originally Posted by Fuzzbass
As part of an earlier argument, you quoted Roger Sadowsky as being absolute on ash vs. alder Sadowskys. Now you're saying you disagree with him. This confirms my point that matters of tone are simply opinion and we're all entitled to disagree, whether we're "experts" or not. Fair enough!"
Yes, I called this weak... because it was ridiculously so.
That was clearly based on you not even trying to understand my position on this. From post #123:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Johnson
"Agreed... we disagree. More often than not they do sound different. Very different".
You: "Actually, I agree with "more often than not". I thought you've been trying to say that ash and alder can always be distinguished. My point all along has been "often but not always".
That was my point all along... yet you're debating with me based on what?
You THOUGHT I said Ash and Alder can always be distinguished. Now why did you think that? Who knows? I never came close to saying it in any of the conversations, in fact I've gone out of my way to make the point that you can't come up with an ABSOLUTE in general on these things... too many variables. Yet somehow you continued to ignore or miss that... until post #123 in this thread. Finally
And how on Earth did you come up with I now disagree with Roger about his experiences? Never mind.
But if you want to take my departure as a sign that you're victorious in whatever it is we're babbling about, then go right ahead, you can have it!
But you're still here
I took it as what it was... you saying you were leaving this thread to me. Maybe the fact that you finally acknowledged you only thought you knew what I'd been saying when you clearly didn't was the impetus.
Seriously, if you find any of this insulting, feel free to ignore it. It's hard to believe you've been going at this this long based on a complete misperception of what I said. This is still all fun and games to me.
