Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PT-86 or PT-89 vs PT-88?


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick Denney on February 09, 2004 at 10:10:57:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PT-86 or PT-89 vs PT-88? posted by Jim on February 09, 2004 at 01:02:25:

Well, if this forum was limited to experts, I'd be the first to get the boot.

I have never minded non-expert comments, as long as the poster establishes his qualifications. If I personally know something to be true (i.e., authoritatively, such that it is not my opinion), then I'll state it as fact and back it up if challenged. If I'm reporting a personal observations, I'll start with "It seems to me..." or words to that effect. If I'm posting what others have observed but that I've not personally seen, I'll say "It has been reported here that..." or something appropriate to the source. If I'm guess, I say so. If I base an opinion on design rather than experience, I say "from the design, it seems blah, blah, blah, but I haven't played it to know for sure." It's really quite simple, and I've not noticed anything in your posts that suggests you don't get it.

The whole point of a forum is so that experts and non-experts can have conversations. Not every statement in every conversation is on point, and sometimes those conversations lead in new and interesting directions that nevertheless bore some of those listening. I hope that never changes. I don't spend so much time here in pursuit of mere fact.

And Sean knows better than anybody that the person who starts a thread doesn't own it (unless, of course, it's Sean, heh, heh).

On the other hand, it's appropriate to ask those giving an opinion to explain why. But I thought you'd done that already.

Rick "who has never played the mouthpieces in question, and would have recommended the PT-48 except that Sean excluded that from consideration" Denney


Follow Ups: