Who Designed This Crap? The Great Ipod Scam

[M_S]

M_S

in stating Opinion. there is no fact.

yu can USE fact to endorse your opinion. but you can't say yours or my opinion is fact.

no one is disputing the facts. there IS a problem. there IS a work around.

whether I, or anyone else LIKES the work around is Opinion.

because this is our opinion and my opinion, we have right to say it. you have right to state your opinion elsewise

You (and others) said the iPod would NOT do gapless playback. You did NOT say this was was your opinion. You (and others) let it be taken as fact (how can you argue otherwise unless you qualify it as opinion or at least say "it can, but...").

You are incorrect that "in stating Opinion. there is no fact." If you state opinion and ignore fact what do you have? A worthless opinion which is what started this mess to begin with.

nilepez, your comments do not merit response.

M_S

 

[mpasternak]

you my friend are one mis informed individual. you also show a real lack of intelligence.

you're arguing semantics. not actuality.

when we say that the ipod can not do gapless playback of tracks. it's inherintly understood that 1 track = 1 mp3 file. (if you can find me at least one other person that doesnt at first make this assumption you let me know)

so saying that the ipod can NOT do gapless between mp3 files is true. it can't.

this is the statement everyone was working on. you were the only one to interject stating that it was not true. yes it can play 1 mp3 file gapless if you combine mp3 files.

no one argued this. they argued the reasonability of it

you are a troll. you are purposely finding fault and arguments in anything people say because for some reason you are on a pedastal saying that you're correct. in fact you are not correct based upon the above assumptions. you have no purpose here other than to try and prove everyone else wrong. you are a minority of one. shut up and go away.

we're done on this topic. there's nothing new to be said.

the IPOD can NOT play multiple MP3's gapless with its current firmware

if you can prove that statement incorrect. go for it

 

[M_S]

you my friend are one mis informed individual. you also show a real lack of intelligence.

you're arguing semantics. not actuality.

when we say that the ipod can not do gapless playback of tracks. it's inherintly understood that 1 track = 1 mp3 file. (if you can find me at least one other person that doesnt at first make this assumption you let me know)

so saying that the ipod can NOT do gapless between mp3 files is true. it can't.

this is the statement everyone was working on. you were the only one to interject stating that it was not true. yes it can play 1 mp3 file gapless if you combine mp3 files.

no one argued this. they argued the reasonability of it

you are a troll. you are purposely finding fault and arguments in anything people say because for some reason you are on a pedastal saying that you're correct. in fact you are not correct based upon the above assumptions. you have no purpose here other than to try and prove everyone else wrong. you are a minority of one. shut up and go away.

we're done on this topic. there's nothing new to be said.

the IPOD can NOT play multiple MP3's gapless with its current firmware

if you can prove that statement incorrect. go for it

In one post you completely agree with my argument (as originally posted), then I call you on mistakes you make and you come back 180 and say "no, the way I said it the first time is correct". Simply amazing.

Make up your mind.

M_S

 

[mpasternak]

i have not argued against my own points at all

what are you talkin about.

the ipod as designed has no way of playing multiple MP3's gapless. therefore it is safe to say that if you equate 1 track to equal 1mp3 as is the basic assumption of any mp3 player. than the statement "the ipod can not play tracks gapless".

however if you do what you've done and changed the assumptions around. you say "yes it can". well if you take it to mean that 1 mp3 can equal 10 tracks than yes it can. however to reach this conclusion you must alter the basic understanding and procedures that are set forth in using a DAP.

by default all ripping tools and all downloading of tracks are done based upone the first set of assumptions that 1 mp3 equal 1 track.

if you want to play with semantics and basic assumptions of how things work, you can make anything true. I can make the statement that an Mp3 can play your entire collection gap free if i equate 1 mp3 with every single track i own.

however this is not practical and the best form of operation. when people talk about gapless music playback you have to go with the basic understanding that 1 track is 1 mp3. changing this which you have done just changes the facts to suit your opinion.

 

[M_S]

i have not argued against my own points at all

what are you talkin about.

the ipod as designed has no way of playing multiple MP3's gapless. therefore it is safe to say that if you equate 1 track to equal 1mp3 as is the basic assumption of any mp3 player. than the statement "the ipod can not play tracks gapless".

however if you do what you've done and changed the assumptions around. you say "yes it can". well if you take it to mean that 1 mp3 can equal 10 tracks than yes it can. however to reach this conclusion you must alter the basic understanding and procedures that are set forth in using a DAP.

by default all ripping tools and all downloading of tracks are done based upone the first set of assumptions that 1 mp3 equal 1 track.

if you want to play with semantics and basic assumptions of how things work, you can make anything true. I can make the statement that an Mp3 can play your entire collection gap free if i equate 1 mp3 with every single track i own.

however this is not practical and the best form of operation. when people talk about gapless music playback you have to go with the basic understanding that 1 track is 1 mp3. changing this which you have done just changes the facts to suit your opinion.

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

M_S

 

[mpasternak]

i don't usually resort to this but

you're a fucking idiot.. go die

ok. does ANYONE else have any logical arguments?..


(if we ignore him.. he'll go away)

 

[nilepez]

Still waiting for a reply M_S.

Let's say we were talking about a CD player. Let's assume there's one that always inserts a small gap between each track. Would you be whining about misrepresenting the facts if I'd said it couldn't play back an album without gaps?

Or to be more specific if I'd said, Personally, I think the best reason to avoid the this cd player is its inability to play back albums without inserting pops or gaps between songs, would you claim that they play could play back The Wall without gaps?

Come on M_S. Answer the question.

 

[M_S]

i don't usually resort to this but

you're a fucking idiot.. go die

ok. does ANYONE else have any logical arguments?..


(if we ignore him.. he'll go away)

Why do you always resort to profanity and degrading verbage to make a point?

What, about your posts, did I point out that was not the truth?

Did I lie, defame, or purposefully degrade you on any information you did not post here?

Anytime I make a point about what YOU say, you start with the four letter words. As I said before, this says something about who you truly are inside.

M_S

 

[nilepez]

i don't usually resort to this but

you're a fucking idiot.. go die

ok. does ANYONE else have any logical arguments?..


(if we ignore him.. he'll go away)

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.

 

[mpasternak]

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.

 

[M_S]

i don't usually resort to this but

you're a fucking idiot.. go die

ok. does ANYONE else have any logical arguments?..


(if we ignore him.. he'll go away)

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

 

[ghostface24]

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.

 

[nilepez]

i don't usually resort to this but

you're a fucking idiot.. go die

ok. does ANYONE else have any logical arguments?..


(if we ignore him.. he'll go away)

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.

 

[M_S]

="mpasternak"]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.

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

 

[mpasternak]

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.

 

[nilepez]

i don't usually resort to this but

you're a fucking idiot.. go die

ok. does ANYONE else have any logical arguments?..


(if we ignore him.. he'll go away)

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.

 

[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.

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

 

[ghostface24]

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.

 

[M_S]

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.

Great! Report the only guy NOT using profanity.

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

M_S

 

[nilepez]

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.

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.