[frozen_mind]

thanks jcorkery!!!
the nomadness.net site is really helpful . .
i have been looking for a site like that for a long time.

 

[jcorkery]

frozen_mind:

I'm glad the info I posted helped you out!

 

[scrypt]

Quote:

quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Not to be unappreciative of the help you've offered... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hmmm. I don't know... Your last post sure seemed pretty unappreciative to me.

If you look beyond questions of sentiment or intention, you'll see this is all a ridiculous misunderstanding.

There is no real answer to the ad hominem criticism quoted above. This is because ad hominem isn't real. Addressing what you presume to have been my mood while posting -- unappreciative, angry, depressed, whimsical, whatever -- can't be constructive no matter what you intend, because you can't know the emotions of another person unless you ask.

Quote:

quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...but it's you who should be giving more evidence of research. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Really? After the condescending and argumentative tone of your last post, I don't think I SHOULD be doing anything! I didn't know I was entering into a debate here. I thought I was just trying to offer some helpful information, but now I'm required to "give more evidence of research"? Maybe I should've listed my qualifications for posting information to this forum and my professional credentials up front...?!

For a person who appears to be losing control by using caps and exclamation points, I think you've made a lot of presumptions about my tone. I haven't been condescending to you; I tried to answer you in kind. If I understand you correctly, you told me to do more research before I asked any further questions. I responded in kind by suggesting that you should reveal your own research so that I could learn from it and also know you were speaking from experience.

Quote:

Well, I was trying to help you out, but apparently you don't want to be helped.

You seem not to have understood what I was saying. You are referring to what you presume to have been my mood -- that I didn't "want to be helped" -- and the depressing part is that I was trying to ask where you got your information. That means I did want your help.

Quote:

I gave you information gathered from firsthand experience

The problem was that you told me what the Nomad would and wouldn't do but gave me no background, didn't even tell me whether you had used one or not, and didn't show me the information on a web page (as most people do here). This left me wondering who I should trust -- my friend, whom I knew owned a Nomad, or you, a person on a BBS who insisted my friend was wrong. Why should that be personal?

Quote:

and I've given you a URL that hosts a forum for hundreds of other NJB users where you can either do a search or post questions.

Yes, and I appreciate that. But you were also telling me the Nomad would do things that other people had said it wouldn't. So again I had to ask: where was the data on which you based your conclusions? I wasn't asking you to justify your authority or credibility. I was asking for a page of facts or specs or something that showed evidence that contradicted what I'd seen already.

Look at it this way. If I understand you, you've been saying the following: "Your friend is wrong. The Nomad does record uncompressed files from an analog source." But anyone can say that and I can't know the basis of such blanket statements. You could be an expert or you could simply be opinionated, I'm not presuming to know which. But in a debate (or in any kind of class on rhetoric), if you're going to say someone's wrong, it's a given that you have to prove your argument. I was looking at it like that. Blanket statements are hurled at us every day. We can't take them on faith.

Quote:

I even suggested that you download the manual, which you say you "scoured," but obviously not in the right places.

I read the entire manual as it appears here (found through searching the Creative site):

http://www.americas.creative.com/sup...asp?centric=55

If there's a difference between your manual and this one, then there's a valid reason for my asking you for more information.

Quote:

quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm not saying your information is wrong necessarily,... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Necessarily? That one word says it all, doesn't it?

No it doesn't "say it all" -- not if you understand the usage as I intended it.

You're a bit off-base reading motives into my words. No reason to try to anticipate my intent when you can just ask me and I'll be glad to tell you myself. This is exactly what I meant:

"I'm not saying you're wrong, but neither am I saying I can rely upon what you say without more data."

Quote:

quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm only pointing out that, until you offer sources -- personal experience or specific web pages on which that info appears -- I can't do anything with it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What I just can't comprehend is this: you obviously have very little knowledge of the NJB, so why would you just automatically assume that I don't know what I'm talking about and continue to believe that your unfounded assumptions are correct?

What I can't comprehend is your making this series of incredible assumptions in the service of suggesting that someone else approach things from a more balanced point of view. Well, that's not true exactly -- I can comprehend it, but I happen to think it's unfair.

1. I never assumed you didn't know what you were talking about. I asked for data because yours wasn't the first word I'd heard on the subject.

2. If I'd really been saying you "didn't know what you were talking about," I'd have insisted my friend was right and you were wrong. All I said was that I needed more info before I could say which one of you was right.

3. My assumptions, as you call them, were taken from other sources than you. If my friend was misinformed, I have to note that he actually owns a Nomad. I had to look at your user profile to find out that you were a Nomad user and -- guess what? -- I looked at that as a point in favor of your research.

4. "Unfounded" is not quite correct. I hadn't said the Nomad is incapable of doing what you say. I'd only said that the data I'd seen (spec sheets, manual, friend, all sources I've given down to the URL) suggested otherwise. Call me anal, call me literal-minded, call me nit-picky or whatever you like. But please don't call me the kind of person who would assume you were ignorant.

Quote:

It seems to me that you're a lot more interested in instigating silly arguments than actually finding out the facts.

Again, you can't know the motives of another poster except where expressed explicitly. I'm telling you directly that I have no interest in provoking you or instigating conflicts with you. My interest was in finding data, period end.

Quote:

I own the product. I know the facts. If you don't want to believe me, that's fine, but maybe you could at least try to appreciate the fact that I went out of my way to try to be helpful to you. Insisting that I support my "claims" with evidence before you'll offer me the least bit of credibility is just plain obnoxious.

But I wasn't refusing to "offer you credibility." Credibility can't be offered; it's inherent on the polite level, like innocence. We're just talking about data here. I was asking for more detail on the subject, not proof of your credibility.

The problem is, you never said "I own the product and here's what I've discovered." I had to look that up for myself. Again: If you hadn't the time, I understand -- you were offering your time without getting paid. But that doesn't mean you can accuse me of destructive motives.

Quote:

For future reference: don't expect to receive many helpful replies when you adopt that type of attitude.

1. For future reference: no one else on this forum has ever had a problem with my questions or my tone. See my conversation on the 770 with Leon to find out how the exchange between us might have gone on a better day.

2. Since each of us has no idea what the other's "attitudes" are, let's confine the point of discussion to words -- mere words.

Quote:

AND, if you intend to be condescending and argumentative, AT LEAST be relatively sure you know what you're talking about!

If I had been condescending and argumentative, that would establish, among other things, that I couldn't explain why I knew what I was talking about rationally. People who get over-emotional (and use all caps, and excessive exclamation points) might know what they're talking about, but no one else can be sure -- not until they calm down and can express their ideas without obstructions.

Sadly, in this particular case you're definitely wrong (sorry to have to say so, but I'm right for the following reason): you can't know that I feel superior or antagonistic toward you unless I tell you so, either directly or in the structure, the argument, of the writing itself. We're limited beings and we can't read each others' minds. I'm telling you now I don't treat people that way.

My intention was never to upset you, nor to give you the impression I thought I was better than you, nor to provoke you. If that is the impression you've gotten, I apologize. But If I'd wanted to do those things, I'd have been more rude: you won't find statements by me that rival in pitch the statements you've made here (in reaction to what you thought were my motives, which I can understand -- it's easy to feel attacked).

Quote:

In the interest of demonstrating how your information-gathering skills just *might* need a bit of honing and how you just *might* want to be a bit more considerate of the help others decide to pass along to you, let me add the following:

Why stoop to condescension here if you disapprove of it so much? you were right before in saying condescension was wrong. You don't need to disprove one of your arguments simply to advance another.

Quote:

Page 27: Creative PlayCenter 2 allows you to manage the contents on your NOMAD Jukebox: q Play MP3 files on the Jukebox. q View and manage the contents of the NOMAD Jukebox. q Upload non-protected MP3 files and other files to the NOMAD Jukebox. q Download the contents (except protected MP3 files) to the computer.

The manual offered on the Creative website is titled the following: Nomad_Jukebox.pdf. I searched that manual for the phrases you've offered here, both manually and via control-F. They don't appear in the downloadable manual on the Creative site. This means you *do* have a different version of the manual -- one of the many reasons that I might ask for more information. How could I, a non-owner of a Nomad, know that the only Jukebox manual on the Creative site was incomplete?

Quote:

Page 30: To transfer files from the Jukebox to your computer: 1. In the My Computer window, open the folder to which you want to copy the file from the Player. 2. Select the file in the Player that you want to copy to your PC’s hard disk (or other destination). 3. Click the Upload button on the NOMAD Jukebox window to copy the file to your PC.

Same deal. This doesn't appear in the manual on the Creative site.

Quote:

quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (I've just looked at your profile and see that you actually own a Nomad. If you yourself have been able to upload files to your CPU via the USB, I'd love to know how.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Again, you seem to automatically assume that I haven't. Why is that? Please see above, starting with "Page 30:". However, the button in my version of PlayCenter actually reads "Transfer", not "Upload". Anything else you'd "love" to know?

This, right here -- this is what I'm talking about. There has been a huge misunderstanding; you've totally misconstrued my tone. I was 100% sincere in saying I'd have loved to know how you could upload to your computer. I never for one moment meant to suggest you were lying about owning a Nomad -- that would have been crazy. My mentioning that you owned a Nomad was an attempt to add a sense of importance to the information I hoped you'd offer, not trivialize it.

This is the problem -- you took my whole post as an attempt to make you look wrong, to attack your credibility. Maybe it was my turning around of your suggestion that I do research that made you take my reply as an attack. If I gave you the impression I was attacking you, I apologize. But I promise you -- that isn't what was meant.

Quote:

Yeah. If you actually read the manual a bit more closely, maybe you would've noticed that this is in reference to the PlayCenter software that is installed on the computer. PlayCenter encodes MP3s; the Jukebox itself does NOT.

Don't you mean if I'd actually had (or, as you'd say, HAD) the rest of the manual to read? Perhaps the part you're quoting is only available if you purchase the Nomad, or look at some at some other site I haven't found yet.

Quote:

What sources are you talking about? The only semi-reliable source you've mentioned is one friend who couldn't seem to get the thing to work. I guess you consider this to be conclusive evidence?

The sources were the specific URLs, quotes from specs, and specific pages in the downloaded manual I'd mentioned.

Quote:

P.S. If you had replied in a friendlier manner, I would've done the same.

I'm going to do my best to offer a bit of innocent advice, which you can ignore or not. I'm speaking as a writer who has spent a lot of time trying to master the niceties of tone (see URL below). You might have considered already the point I'm about to make. If so, please don't take my mentioning it as condescending.
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/books...featuredbook=N

There is a huge difference between what an initial reading tells us is on a page and what is actually there. And when we respond in writing, what we think we're saying always sounds more harsh than what we intend. I purposefully waited a few days to look at your reply and respond -- I didn't want extra elements of tactlessness or harshness to interfere -- and even then, I said things in such a way that you could attribute the worst possible meaning to them. Part of that is my fault. But part of it, the interpretation, is also yours. Better to respond to what you know is on the page -- to the argument itself, to the logic or ideas given -- than the tone or emotion. Sentiment is the least reliable -- the most deceptive -- part of an argument.

Thanks for the help you offered before things got out of hand. I really do appreciate the gesture and wish you no ill will. Perhaps we can be friends (or at least not nemeses) on this board at some future date.

All the best to you,

--Ypt

 

[jcorkery]

scrypt:

I've never considered anyone to be my nemesis, and I'm not the type of person who holds grudges.

If your last post was indeed intended to be an "olive branch," you won't mind me requesting a favor from you. Go back, re-read your last two posts, and try to be objective.

Notice how you inject your professional credentials into the discussion twice even though they have no relevance at all. I think many people would see this type of behavior as a condescending attempt to impress or "pull rank," as if being a "professional" somehow raises you to expert status and places a high burden of proof upon those who offer information or views contrary to yours. Otherwise, why even bring it up? That's how I saw it. Even if this isn't what you intended, surely you can understand how others might see it that way?

Most people consider forums like this one to be places where you can just relax and participate in informal discussions. When people post messages, they're usually not expected to author dissertations and cite references in support of everything they've written. I think it's just common courtesy to not question the credibility of another person's words unless you know for a fact that they're erroneous. If you're simply interested in verifying the information offered because you yourself were unaware of it, challenging the author to produce sufficient evidence and flatly refusing to believe him until he does is just not the proper way to do it, in my opinion.

For example, here's how I probably would've replied if you had been the one stating that the Nomad's USB port was two-way and I had always assumed it was strictly one-way:

"scrypt, I always thought the Nomad's USB port was one-way due to copy protection issues. Even my friend, who owns one, has had absolutely no luck transferring files from the Nomad to his PC. I read the manual several times, but can't seem to find any indication as to how this is accomplished. Can you offer more specifics on where I might find this information? Thanks!"

Instead, your post seemed to have a defiant tone to it, using phrases like:

"...it's you who should be giving more evidence of research."

"You've been making a series of claims about what a Nomad Jukebox will and will not do..."

"Nowhere in the manual does it say..."

"If you can show evidence to the contrary..."

"If you want to insist that the USB is a two-way connection no matter what source I offer..."

Of course, since we weren't face-to-face, there's no way I could possibly know what your true emotions were, but since you're a professional writer, perhaps we can critique how successful you were at conveying those emotions. Do the quotes above seem like they originated from an appreciative person seeking assistance, or from someone trying to start an argument? Do you see the difference between my hypothetical reply and your actual one? Since you're "a writer who has spent a lot of time trying to master the niceties of tone," I'm sure you do.

As far as the manual is concerned, try downloading the "C" version. The Jukebox C is a newer, less accessorized version of the product, so its manual would also be more current than the one printed for the original product release.