ilovefuzz.com

Right, that's not what I wrote. I said that using that method of debate was good for winning arguments with troglodytes, not that people who did it were such. I don't think people on ILF are assholes, and I don't think they're morons. I'm also not trying to 'win' anything, other than explain my point. Relax, mate, no one's attacking you.

But, yes, you did misread what I wrote:
"I should point out, though, that it is a great way to discover whether or not people have any understanding of rhetoric and the finer points of dialectics, in that this strategy is usually enough to "win" an argument in a more conventional setting (i.e. with troglodytes) and will reliably get results with the aforementioned troglodytes even though it's nothing more than a scenic detour away from the discussion."

With all this talk of rhetoric this thread needs to continue in a manner in which I will eventually be able to call someone a sophist. I've never had call to do so and I really wanna. Such a great word. Could we also fit in some doggerel banter (another great word I just wanted to type).

You can call me a sophist if you want.

Eivind August wrote: They fucked with Tom and Brian, so I won't buy from them. It's really that easy.

Exactly.

I just wanted to to say thanks to everyone for joining in on this discussion. It has truly been hilarious. I have the day off today and have been enjoying it greatly thus far. I got up at 6:30 and enjoyed a good tug and some scrambled eggs, Brussels sprouts, and tea. Played guitar for a few hours on and off , surfed the internet, and read this thread and loved it.

What I particularly enjoy about this forum is that everyone is able to compartmentalize their discussions. What I mean by that is there may be folks with differing opinions in this thread and arguing back and forth but I think all of that will be limited to this topic. I don't see someone taking their anger from this thread and attacking someone in another thread for no reason.

I'm gonna go work out, get the mail, and then eat lunch. I will check back later for more hilariousness and also to keep you up to date on my itinerary for the day.

Onwards and upwards.

Nora

Ugly Nora, if builders are trapped in the cycle of providing pedals for Prymaxe, maybe it's not so simple for them to boycott them and refuse to send them products. It's certainly easier for us to refuse to pay Prymaxe any money. Of course, this will in turn hurt the pedal builders, unless they pull themselves from Prymaxe, so ultimately it boils down to the builders taking charge, not us. So I agree with you.

However, used pedal sales are not inherently destructive. We can see that with the steady stream of creative pedals from companies like Subdecay and EQD, both long time associates of Prymaxe. Despite the fluctuating used market, builders are still doing OK. In the same way digital sharing of music does not inherently harm the musicians—if they know how to adapt and work around the current shift in economics—selling used pedals does not ruin the industry. In fact, it can encourage growth both in the economy as a whole and for the builders principally. If I want to try out a pedal from a builder in Canada or Japan but do not want to pay the high prices that inevitably comes along with it being exported to another country, I can wait until I find a second-hand one local to me and snap it up. That allows me the opportunity to test out gear from a particular company without bearing the brunt of sometimes unnecessary and even harmful expenses. It is also gives the opportunity to that second-hand seller to invest the money I sent him into another product. The used market helps the world turn and has always been there, and hopefully will always be there.

Is that similar to a constant reduction in prices? No. Why? Because people are ignorant to the harm it can bring. People understand the used market, and many do not subscribe to it as a way of dealing, for personal reasons. Prymaxe and ProGuitarShop's almost year-round 15% off is harmful because consumers do not understand it or feel the need to make a distinction or choice regarding it. They see a chunk of the change knocked off and go for it, without thinking. This is what is harmful. It's the ignorance. An ignorant consumer is a happy businessman.

D.o.S. wrote:You can call me a sophist if you want.

Aw thanks D.o.S., you're a real bro. So, *ahem*.

God damn it D.o.S. you fucking sophist! Take your snake oil salesman routine, your reasonably priced gold faux-lexes and incredibly slick hair and get out of my town!

tl;dr ?

ramonovski wrote:tl;dr ?

Prymaxe sucks balls.

No complaints here, I enjoy the 15-20% discount and the fast shipping.

Nora, hold me.

ramonovski wrote:tl;dr ?

Eivind August wrote: They fucked with Tom and Brian, so I won't buy from them. It's really that easy.

Ugly Nora wrote:I got up at 6:30 and enjoyed a good tug in some scrambled eggs, Brussels sprouts, and tea.

The tug in the eggs I get, but sprouts for breakfast? I like 'em don't get me wrong but did you literally have boiled sprouts with it?

Saying that I have had poached egg and broccoli before...

onyxrhino wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:Exactly, and furthermore it's unnecessary for people to have to run down the laundry list of causes that they're for or against, squaring them with the Board Of Ethical Consistency to weigh in on an issue. It's very possible to dislike and deter people from using both Amazon and Prymaxe, but talking about Prymaxe doesn't mean that you have to talk about Amazon, and the company isn't absolved of the fact that they gargle feces because there are other companies out there that also suck. There would never be a successful succinct conversation about anything if this was required criteria.

And, again, that sort of equivocation has, by nature, very little to do with the actual discussion. It can either be a veiled/implied ad hominem ("Well I don't see you talking shit on Amazon!"), an attempt to avoid the nature of the debate entirely ("Why bother picking on Prymaxe when Amazon does it too?), or an ethical strawman, but it doesn't address the actual point of the discussion at all.

I should point out, though, that it is a great way to discover whether or not people have any understanding of rhetoric and the finer points of dialectics, in that this strategy is usually enough to "win" an argument in a more conventional setting (i.e. with troglodytes) and will reliably get results with the aforementioned troglodytes even though it's nothing more than a scenic detour away from the discussion.

Yes. I see. Name-calling is far better strategy for an effective conversation. Good point.

I really have no idea how you came to this conclusion unless you aren't being serious. If anything what you said is close to the opposite of what he said.