|
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 1478
Location: Michigan | careful guitar online betting is an illegal thing to do on someones website and could get the owners of the site in some trouble .
if the moderators find out you are trying to make $ bets $ on their website that might get you kicked off it for good and we wouldn't want to see something like that happen to you. GWB |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2013
Posts: 79
| guitarwannabee
From a legal standpoint, this would be a gentlemans wager and since OFC is not an agent and not directly participating in the exchange nor accepting any part of the assets exchanged, they are not liable. Think of how many golf wagers occur on a daily basis, does that make the country clubs criminally liable? I'm sure you're not so obtuse that you don't see the distinction between this interaction and an online casino.
fait le bon temps rouler
Edited by gmaslin 2013-09-13 2:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2006
Posts: 1478
Location: Michigan | i think that a bet on a golf course with a few friends verses advertising to the 10,000 ofcer's and everybody on the w.w.w. might be a bit different but i am not a lawyer so you're right i don't know.
either way my point was missed. GWB |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | Think of all the money this troll could make if, as he claims, he has THREE USA Ovations! If those $300 Celebrities sound just as good, why doesn't he Ebay his USA O's and then take all the money and go buy a Celeb? I mean, heck he could buy six or eight Celebs with the money he would make! |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | either way my point was missed. GWB
Now it wasn't.... I got it!  
*********************
edit for time and clarity 
Edited by Old Man Arthur 2013-09-13 3:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | It actually was something we considered, especially since travel is a possibility.
States handle it differently. Some states, you can bet however much you want on whatever you want so long as its not a game of chance and there's an element of 'skill' involved. This test would be the definition of 'skill'.
It's entirely possible, though, that if we got a serious taker in some bible-belt state that had hysterical laws in regards to this sort of thing and make it some kind of crime, it would require doing it someplace else.
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | dvd - 2013-09-13 1:51 PM
Your blind test may work fine to help eliminate confirmation bias, but we'd need to go double-blind to eliminate your biases.
May need to go have another talk with that ditch digger...
My biases cannot influence the results, since the control groups, the testing criteria are fully quantifiable. This is not a confirmation test, it's an inversion test. There is no way to project bias to influence the results, since they're purely mathematical.
33 Control A
33 Control B
34 Control C
If we brought in a Chimpanzee who was trained to hit a button labeled 1, 2 or 3- that corresponded with the guitars being tested- every time a testing cue was actuated (strum a chord, the chimp gets a grape after he hits one of the three buttons), that Chimpanzee would be expected to get in the neighborhood of 30% correct without even knowing what a guitar was, just that grapes taste really good and when he hits a button after a noise, he gets one.
Edited by Guitar 2013-09-13 3:28 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | CanterburyStrings - 2013-09-13 3:14 PM
Think of all the money this troll could make if, as he claims, he has THREE USA Ovations!
Where did I claim I have THREE USA Ovations?
Is it because I said this?
my #'s 1, 2 and 3 are all Ovations
... and in yet another spectacular failure of reading comprehension you read that as I own THREE USA OVATIONS!!!
Sometimes, I wonder why the chemicals under the sink have instructions on the side, warning people not to drink them. I've always wondered just who it is they're talking to when they feel the need to say "Don't drink this Pine Cleaner".
The more and more I participate in this thread, the more and more I'm starting to see why they do that.
Edited by Guitar 2013-09-13 3:43 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | Guitar - 2013-09-13 4:26 PM
Also, just to head off any hysterics, it's worth noting that I'm a huge Ovie fan, my #'s 1, 2 and 3 are all Ovations and I endure withering mocking from my other fingerstyle friends because of it.
The only reason I think I got 'hostility' from a few folks is because they either failed to comprehend what I had written or were shocked that someone was able to articulate a cogent and insightful opinion without first having spent a decade on this forum drinking kool-aid.
We're all Ovation fans here, for christs sake we're a dwindling breed, lets not fight when no fighting is required.
Where did you say you had THREE Ovations? Right here. Getting a bit confused? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | CanterburyStrings - 2013-09-13 3:42 PM
Getting a bit confused?
Yeah. We already established that. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 1889
Location: Central Massachusetts | Guitar - 2013-09-13 4:21 PM
My biases cannot influence the results [...]
If you -- as the person who "determines the criteria" and "determines the instruments" -- can't see any way to influence the results, then perhaps you're just another liberal arts shovel jockey like me. Do I really need to provide examples of how you can skew the results?
You've established a hypothesis, but you haven't demonstrated that your "experiment" adequately addresses both subject and experimenter bias. I take that back, you haven't even established a hypothesis that would stand up to any level of peer review.
I had somebody read that to me off of a fortune cookie, I think. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | You know, I think this clown must be a ringer from the Taylor forum. Or maybe it works for Guitar Center. It could even be a factory worker from overseas who is tired of building inferior guitars.
But I'd put my money on the Taylor forum. Who was that "Doctor" over there who kept trashing Ovations a few years ago? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2006
Posts: 10777
Location: Keepin' It Weird in Portland, OR | You've established a hypothesis, but you haven't demonstrated that your "experiment" adequately addresses both subject and experimenter bias. I take that back, you haven't even established a hypothesis that would stand up to any level of peer review.
I had somebody read that to me off of a fortune cookie, I think.
Been watching the Big Bang Theory?
Edited by Old Man Arthur 2013-09-13 3:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 1889
Location: Central Massachusetts | arthurseery - 2013-09-13 4:46 PM
Been watching the Big Bang Theory?
Art, I would, but I can't figure out how to turn on this TV thingie. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2008
Posts: 2683
Location: Hot Springs, S.D. | So you're saying you only own imported Ovations? That would explain a lot. You're so jealous of the better instruments that you have to trash them. One of those guys who, instead of making himself bigger, tries to make everyone else smaller. Here's what you need to do - get yourself a decent guitar, and for God's sake, take some lessons. If you practice really hard, maybe someday you'll be able to play it.
Sorry guys. I know I'm feeding the troll, but I'm between lessons right now and it's so amusing. I should treat this clown like any other scammer or telemarketer and just "click", but... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | dvd - 2013-09-13 3:45 PM
I had somebody read that to me off of a fortune cookie, I think.
Must have since the minor part that isn't just gibberish is completely incorrect.
Don't lose track of that shovel...
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | CanterburyStrings -
has THREE USA Ovations!
CanterburyStrings -
had THREE Ovations?
CanterburyStrings -
only own imported Ovations?
Swingandamiss... Strike Three. You've officially proven yourself to be demonstrably stupid.
Perhaps you might want to stop embarrassing yourself and spend a little more time in the batting cages.
Edited by Guitar 2013-09-13 4:23 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 1889
Location: Central Massachusetts | Guitar - 2013-09-13 4:54 PM
dvd - 2013-09-13 3:45 PM
I had somebody read that to me off of a fortune cookie, I think.
Must have since the minor part that isn't just gibberish is completely incorrect.
Don't lose track of that shovel...
Which part are you refuting? Your response is non-responsive. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | dvd - 2013-09-13 4:03 PM
Which part are you refuting? Your response is non-responsive.
It was a non-response. I apologize for that. I shouldn't lower myself to the level of the people I've been mocking for the past two pages for doing exactly that. I'm just tiring of having this conversation with '"this particular group" and at least you're making an effort to address substance instead of the tardfarm above who's just howling "troll" and creating hysterical mental constructs about how I'm some sort of interloper from another forum.
Anyway, this
You've established a hypothesis, but you haven't demonstrated that your "experiment" adequately addresses both subject and experimenter bias. I take that back, you haven't even established a hypothesis that would stand up to any level of peer review.
Is incorrect. First off, 'peer review' is no problem here. If you don't understand that, then this conversation is inherently over your head.
Secondly, in a similar vein, I haven't 'established' any hypothesis. My position is inherently contra to existing hypothesis/narrative. I am the one challenging the hypothesis, not establishing it. It's time for the people who affirm (X) to demonstrate (X) under valid controls...
Ahh, but that's always the hang-up with believers. What constitutes "valid controls"?
I propose the same methodologically standard testing rigor that put a man on the moon or that scientists everywhere use to demonstrate efficacy of medicines... They then predictably say it somehow 'invalid'. One can't help but laugh.
Also, please explain just how I can infuse bias into an experiment that is controlled entirely by a subject responding to three static criteria? There are some incredibly weird examples I can theoretically conceive of (in the realm of serious, magician-like fakery) , but I'd like to hear your thoughts of just where the 'weakness' is.
Edited by Guitar 2013-09-13 4:26 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
December 2003
Posts: 1889
Location: Central Massachusetts | Nobody else has established a hypothesis here. Just you. You are the one saying that "you cannot hear the difference between an import and a US ovation". Sorry, that's YOUR hypothesis, dude. You need to flush it out by defining who "who" is... the general population, guitar players, Ovation guitar players, Ovation Fan Club Members, Ovation Fan Club Members who have played more than 10 guitars, Ovation Fan Club Members who have built more than 10 guitars? You need to define that. Completely changes the hypothesis.
As the "experimenter" and the one who chooses the instruments, you can choose/manipulate the instruments to enforce your bias. Like Al said, you can play 20 imports and find one that sounds especially nice. They are definitely out there. Any of us can find a USA-made O that sounds like crap. You can put dead strings on the USA O's and bright fresh strings on the imports. You can come up with any number of ways to compare apples and oranges. Whoever plays the instruments can intentionally, or unintentionally, bias the results via their playing style. I'll stop here, but you get my drift.
Anyway, good luck with your wager, and thank you for responding more appropriately. Honestly, if you had spent more time interacting here and building up some trust, your wager would have been more well received. (See MusicMishka's blind tests, for example.) However, you chose to come in here like a bull in a china shop and talk down to people that you don't even know. And then you act surprised/superior when people are responding to you accordingly. Telling us that you are going to post the results to your website don't help your credibility, they just enforce that you have something to prove.
As for me, I can definitely hear the difference between my favorite USA wood-top O that I paid $500 for over my old import that I paid $300 for. If that makes me a cork sniffer, so be it. I'm not interested in proving or disproving anything.
Go play your guitar!
Thanks |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City | dvd - 2013-09-13 4:29 PM
Nobody else has established a hypothesis here. Just you. You are the one saying that "you cannot hear the difference between an import and a US ovation".
Well, we probably don't need to discuss this much further since in your very first sentence, you basically say the onus is on me to prove what does not exist. That's called asking someone to 'prove a negative' and it's not how logic works.
Someone affirms something. In this case, that there's a very credible and demonstrable tonal difference between imports and US made instruments.
Someone points out it isn't true.
The realm of infinite possibility precludes him from proving what is not, however those in the affirmative position should be able to prove what is.
So far, in the guitar world, the 'proof' has amounted to anecdotal confirmation bias nonsense- people insisting that they've heard the angels. So we go the blind test to establish efficacy and suddenly, all things fall silent, or the believers start whinging and shouting TROLL! TROLL! HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE OUR BELIEFS! JUST GO AWAY TROLL! TROLL! TROLL!
Its pathetic.
The position you're taking amounts to desperate flailing, typing words in the hope that the simplest, most standard way to clarify such questions might be made hazy. For this peanut gallery, it just may work. For anyone with a brain, it would get chuckled off, stage left. The only people who 'struggle' with just how to answer this question seem to be the ones who are dug into believing one particular side of it and are a bit desperate to ensure their particular belief system isn't objectively scrutinized.
If you want to keep on believing in Santa, go ahead. There are people who agree. NORAD even has an annual "Santa Tracker".
But lets end on something we agree on.
Playing guitar is a helluva lot more fun than having this conversation 
Edited by Guitar 2013-09-13 4:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2005
Posts: 4044
Location: Utah | Guitar - 2013-09-13 4:10 PM
Also, please explain just how I can infuse bias into an experiment that is controlled entirely by a subject responding to three static criteria? There are some incredibly weird examples I can theoretically conceive of (in the realm of serious, magician-like fakery) , but I'd like to hear your thoughts of just where the 'weakness' is.
Before we talk about bias, we'd have to talk about what precisely is the "USA" sound we are supposed to "ear". As I've said, my ears are hammered by I sure as heck can tell apart many different models from within the Ovation/Adamas family. I can sure as heck tell a good Martin from a good Ovation, they just sound different.
But 3 guitars which I have never heard? With identical strings? Factory standard setups? (As a corksniffer I am aware that a good setup improves intonation). Have they all been played a lot, and recently, so they are fully opened up? How about humidification? Are they all equally and within reasonable tolerances adequately humidified?
Funny, you wouldn't do a test with Bobbo and his guitars. But you mock us for questioning if you provided the guitars? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2005
Posts: 4044
Location: Utah | Guitar - 2013-09-13 4:10 PM
Secondly, in a similar vein, I haven't 'established' any hypothesis. My position is inherently contra to existing hypothesis/narrative. I am the one challenging the hypothesis, not establishing it. It's time for the people who affirm (X) to demonstrate (X) under valid controls...
Uh, actually you started the flow of hypotheses with this post:
Guitar - 2013-09-11 9:09 PM
In the year 2013, a $299 instrument often has no appreciable, practical difference from it's $3000 counterpart
So, my position is inherently contra to your existing hypothesis/narrative. I am the one challenging your hypothesis, not establishing it. It is time for you, who affirms there is no appreciable, practical difference between a $299 instrument and a $3000 instrument, to demonstrate it, under valid controls..... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2009
Posts: 4535
Location: Flahdaw | Guitar - 2013-09-13 2:39 PM
There does come a point where a large group of stupid believers just starts making an *** of itself.
Sometimes it's just one.... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
July 2011
Posts: 69
Location: Da Windy City |
Funny, you wouldn't do a test with Bobbo and his guitars. But you mock us for questioning if you provided the guitars?
Because I never claimed that people can't familiarize themselves with polyphonic differences that exist between instruments after decades of use. The implication of my position is that one cannot 'hear' a random US guitar from a random non US guitar to any degree of repeatability, which is a pretty meaningful observation given their disparity in cost and the number of people who insist they can.
Believers shrieked.
Test proposed.
Nonsense ensued.
FlySig - 2013-09-13 5:05 PM
It is time for you, who affirms there is no appreciable, practical difference...
See the word "no" in that sentence?
That's the whole 'prove a negative' thing. My position is inherently contra, not affirmative.
I like conversing, debating, but I really don't have patience for elaborate discussions with people who continually demonstrate a need for a refresher course on 7th grade logic. It just gets tiring after a while. You're in the middle of a conversation about stuff that you apparently just completely do not even begin understand (which has been a theme in this thread...) I thought we had a legitimate conversational player in DVD but my hopes were dashed.
Edited by Guitar 2013-09-13 5:24 PM
|
|
| |
so sad
Members Forums -> General Posting
