Last message on previous page:
all he's done his entire argument is change basic assumptions and standards to fit his point.

none of it is factual. and when i prove it and state thats what he does it he flames me


"must be some derivative of Stockholm Syndrome, you are a hostage to your own rantings. "

doesnt address ANYTHING i said. all it did was attempt to attack my evidence and my addressing of the issue at hand.

as i said

Fuck off and Die.

I think transfering this argument to the world of CD players shows he's FOS.

He won't answer the question, but if he did, he'd either look like an idiot or be proven wrong. He won't answer it. He most likely will respond to this post instead.

Answer this first, what has your question got to do with the topic?

Read back, I did answer your post. I said that comments from you were without merit, lacked a cohesive argument and should be ignored.

M_S

Don't worry about him, we are right, he's the only one in the corner in denial.

It's simple but he can't comprehend it: The track is gapless, the Ipod is not gapless. The Ipod was never gapless. It can play a gapless file, but it doesn't have the balls to actually do it.

M_S, you don't understand, it's a workaround, it's not the real thing. Gapless Playback is the process of (hear this) multiple tracks streaming into each other creating connectivity. The joining of files isn't any feature on the ipod, every player can do it. You are basically saying that every player is "gapless". Not the case, the ipod in itself, is not gapless.

And the answer is the 1980's Original CD, ignorant record companies completely crush dynamics within a track. The Remaster would be very dull.

I think transfering this argument to the world of CD players shows he's FOS.

He won't answer the question, but if he did, he'd either look like an idiot or be proven wrong. He won't answer it. He most likely will respond to this post instead.

Answer this first, what has your question got to do with the topic?

Read back, I did answer your post. I said that comments from you were without merit, lacked a cohesive argument and should be ignored.

M_S


What'd I say. he'd never answer the question, but he'd respond to my post to mpasternak.

What basic "assumptions" and "standards" have I changed?

I said you flip flop (and gave proof) and now you come back with none?

Everything I put forth is factual (proven by your own posts), in what way are my posts not? Again, this is opinion w/o supporting fact.

In what way did I "flame" you? I presented your own comments with a dose of perspective added. You were "flamed" by your own thoughts.

Read back, I addressed everything you said, it just seems that you forget that which you do not like (hence, my stockholm comment).

You are your own worst enemy.

M_S

p.s. I always look forward to more profanity from you

i've not bothered responding to him.

the lack of intelligence is outstanding. you can't argue with someone like this because they'll change the facts to suit himself.

he goes on to flame someone and then when you call him a flamer or a troll he'll say "i never flamed anyone"

he did it two posts after flaming me.

i've made a report to the mod team. i recommend everyone doing the same.. pick one of his posts and click "report" button thats found on the bottom left.

I think transfering this argument to the world of CD players shows he's FOS.

He won't answer the question, but if he did, he'd either look like an idiot or be proven wrong. He won't answer it. He most likely will respond to this post instead.

Answer this first, what has your question got to do with the topic?

Read back, I did answer your post. I said that comments from you were without merit, lacked a cohesive argument and should be ignored.

M_S

Just like I said, you'd avoid answering a direct question, but comment on my response to mpasternak. You're a predictable troll.

I'll give you another shot....go back, read the question and answer it. It wont' take you but a few seconds to answer. Of course, if you're a troll as most of us believe, you wont' answer it.

My point was already agreed, You didn't get that from the reading?

I conceeded the point others tried to make (the manner in which the point was made was my only contention), what about that purveys the inability to comprehend?

Yet another that lacks the ability to read and process thought.

M_S

He didn't answer my question directly either, he's a liar. And that question is very easy for somebody into audio engineering because of its controversy among music. He won't answer, if he does, he probably googled for an answer or is not going to answer it directly.

Great! Report the only guy NOT using profanity.

If that's the only way you can make your point, so be it.

M_S

He's just a troll. I gave him one more shot to answer the question, but he'll claim it doens't apply or he doesn't understand how it applies. I'm not sure which is worse, a troll that claims he doesn't understand the applicability of the question or a person so lacking in critical thinking that he or she actually doesn't understand.

He's just a troll. I gave him one more shot to answer the question, but he'll claim it doens't apply or he doesn't understand how it applies. I'm not sure which is worse, a troll that claims he doesn't understand the applicability of the question or a person so lacking in critical thinking that he or she actually doesn't understand.

Your logic is dizzying. You fail to make a point and think that asking a question that YOU claimed the only two possible outcomes of answering are looking like and idiot or being wrong. Interesting way to make a point.

M_S

Yeah, very typical. In the beginning with the gapless argument, it was retarded. He's the only one saying that the ipod is gapless, it's not even close.

M_S, want evidence?

http://www.pretentiousname.com/mp3players/

Read that, you can see that your lovely ipod HAS A GAP!

That's a gap on the 1g and 2g. At the footnote at the bottom, 3g and 4g reduced the time but it's still there. It's going to be there in the 5g. Apple does not do gapless.

your failure to understand a concept isn't due to someone elses dizzying logic. if everyone else here seems to understand it. maybe you should consider that you are to inept

There's no point. I asked him a simple question 2 or 3 times, and he won't answer it. He's a classic troll. But give him credit, he kept it going for 3 days.

Right back to square one. You didn't read all the posts, did you?

Why argue a point that has been conceded, are you masochistic?

M_S

Yeah, I know. There was never any hope for M_S. He will remain a troller and still won't get what gapless playback means.

You are doing it again. Reading what I type and making up your own meanings. What concept do I not understand? I have, repeatedly, conceded the point that the iPod will not join tracks on it's own w/o firmware modification (I assume that's what you are getting at). How can you not understand that? That is what these "personal" attacks are about. Your failure to "personally" read something and not turn it into what you think it should mean rather than what is actually written.

You do it over and over and over and...

M_S

Yes I am, I love to see you bleed.

Not my fault if someone doesn't know what gapless playback on a DAP means. You claim you have credentials but you don't show them through your character or knowledge. Looks like someone wasted 4 years of their life .

Anyways, I have read the posts, your points aren't valid. Gapless playback is with multiple files, why should I be forced to join files, eh? Why should I be forced when there is a possible function for many DAPs alike named gapless? You don't get it, do you?