Sarcasm is a good way of countering arrogance.
D'Appolito is the man I deeply respect and who's books and articles I read and I am not siting with him because he supports my opinion. It's the other way around. I pretty much take his opinion for granted. As I've said before, my limited measurements confirm it and so be it. I am not here to change your opinion or prove the fact. It's you who says: “And please don’t accost me with testimony about your personal measurements that prove me wrong. “, and where you are correct or incorrect, I find it arrogant. If I had a 100 drivers, enough time and care to prove or disprove this theory, I'd probably do it but I don't and simply measuring 2 or 4 drivers will not prove or disprove anything.
You don’t like a firmly asserted position, so you dismiss it as arrogant. You don’t like someone who bluntly states facts. That’s arrogant. You don’t like that. You counter this perceived arrogance with belittling sarcasm, using terms like “Mr. Expert” and “Professor,” because you don’t want to actually deal with cited references of widely accepted investigation on this matter because it doesn’t support your position.
So you’ll have to forgive my uncaring attitude towards the affront to your sensibilities that my unfortunate arrogance constitutes for you when you resort to name calling in your very first response to my post. And my favorite nugget in your last reply: “I am not here to change your opinion.”
I seem to hear this “that’s just your opinion” a lot these days from people who refuse to acknowledge facts. The widespread use of this tactic must be due to an education system that is failing to equip our populace with basic critical thinking skills.
As one of the most pompous, arrogant pseudo-intellectuals of our time was fond of saying: Let this be an opportunity for your education. A clearly stated position that is supported by factual references is usually called a factual argument. Not an opinion. An opinion is an articulated statement of preference.
Still not clear? Here, I’ll give you some examples.
Opinion: “I don’t think rehashing the loudspeaker break-in myth is useful.”
Fact: “Loudspeaker drivers reach their baseline TS parameters within seconds of signal application.”
How’s that for arrogance?
Finally, you refer to the loudspeaker break-in myth as a “theory” and indicate that you don’t have time and don’t care to prove or disprove it. Good news! It’s already been settled. Authorities on this issue like Pierce and Dunlavy (and there are many more) have tested thousands of drivers and complete loudspeakers over many years and have conducted formal, controlled studies, the findings of which are available to anyone. So no one is holding his breath waiting for you to prove or disprove anything. But hey, you are welcome to your
opinion!
