You Know What Really Grinds My Gears....The Sequel!

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by nixon45

I am sure it has been covered here already but...

People who drag their feet with every step they take RGMG.

Is it really that hard to lift your feet an extra 1/4" when you walk?

Not only is it extremely annoying, but it is also a sign to other people that you have just given up on life.

The given up on life is a bit much but I have had my girlfriend point out my feet dragging everytime I'm wearing my flipflops in summer. More of a habit than anything.

[nixon45]

I can give flip flops some leniency since they aren't anchored or held at the heel. Besides when it is nice enough out for me to be around people wearing flip flops, then I am certainly not as irritable!

[DuffMan]

flip flops gmg's at work, just wait in 2 months all of the womens will be wearing them.
flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap

as they walk by your office, to go get something from the printer.

They should be banned from work places. not women, just flip flops.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap

I enjoyed your visual representation of the doppler effect.



I also agree with you, it's very annoying.

[sun]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

flip flops gmg's at work, just wait in 2 months all of the womens will be wearing them.
flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap

as they walk by your office, to go get something from the printer.

They should be banned from work places. not women, just flip flops.

Maybe they should be called flap flaps.

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

flip flops gmg's at work, just wait in 2 months all of the womens will be wearing them.
flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap

as they walk by your office, to go get something from the printer.

They should be banned from work places. not women, just flip flops.

Wow I thought my office was casual, but no one would ever wear flip flops to work here.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Podcasts!! It GMGs that no one, NO ONE, has mentioned PODCASTS!!! PODCASTS!!!

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GreatWhiteEbola

Podcasts!!

Why?

That's a strange one. They can be easily avoided.

[puckluck2]

The look some dbag gave the cashier when I asked for four bags at NO Frills. He had his 2 environment friendly bags in his hand like he just single handily cured cancer. I guess his V8 Dodge Durango doesn't harm the environment but my 4 bags that I will re-use as garbage bags make me Hitler.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Why?

That's a strange one. They can be easily avoided.

I should have said; it grinds my gears that no one has mentioned podcasts as a superior form of entertainment...PODCASTS!!

[JonDuke]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

flip flops gmg's at work, just wait in 2 months all of the womens will be wearing them.
flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap flap

as they walk by your office, to go get something from the printer.

They should be banned from work places. not women, just flip flops.

Just show them this:

Spoiler!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Sliver is that you???

You can not say that something like a radio station(s) is ojectively better.

Sorry you can't.

It is a subjective opinion.

Its objective (and i intentionaly used that word with hopes of channeling my inner silver). The reason it is objective is that you take two identical playlists put one on the regular radio and one on satilite radio everyone would listen to satilite radio.

No comercials is objectively better than comercials.

More selection over content is objectively better than less selection over content.

Now once you ask the question is satilite radio worth the cost over regular radio that is a subjective opinion.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by strombad

But we're talking about a whole product here. Subjectively, one might be better than the other, objectively, no, it isn't.

You can't say "Well would you listen to commercial free radio if you didn't have to pay" because it's not what Satellite radio is. It's commercial free because you pay for it, so if you don't pay for it, you get commercials.

The music is the same. Station by station the only difference is how they make bank. You either shell out your own money or you listen to commercials. Everything else is the same. As I said earlier, the only measurable difference between the two is selection. That's it.

Neither is better, they, like most things, each have advantages and disadvantages. I get that some people need to justify how they spend their money to everyone by qualifying their purchase over other options, but it's just not how everything works. Not everything is necessarily better than something else. Sometimes things are just different. Objectively, that's often all things are.

I think we are aguing semantics now. When I compare to things I compare the feature set, determine which is the better product, then evaluate the value proposition for the better product. I think it is two separate issues: Which is better and which has more value. You appear to evaluate all at once which is fine as well.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by GGG

Its objective (and i intentionaly used that word with hopes of channeling my inner silver). The reason it is objective is that you take two identical playlists put one on the regular radio and one on satilite radio everyone would listen to satilite radio.



No comercials is objectively better than comercials.



More selection over content is objectively better than less selection over content.



Now once you ask the question is satilite radio worth the cost over regular radio that is a subjective opinion.

But that's not how it works. You can't take the pay portion out of it and still speak to satellite radio. It's imbedded as part of it.

The question is(and it is only THIS question:
Is commercial free radio with more channels at a monthly fee objectively better than free radio with commercials and a smaller selection?

That's it, you can't take out one element and still say you're comparing them equally. If you're taking out the financial part of the equation, you should also take out the commercial-free and higher selection part of the equation.

Plus, you've got it backwards. If you put two identical playlists on Satellite and FM, everyone would listen to FM. Why? Because it's the exact same thing for FREE.


You know what, it GMG that people don't understand the objective value of things or how to compare them properly. You can't just change the makeup of something and say "Well everyone would like it if it didn't have this one thing!" A. You're no longer comparing the actual product, and B. Your still only considering subjective value. Just enjoy your stupid radio like a normal human being.

What's wrong with me? I'm debating radio on the Internet. What kind of backwards world is this?

[bc-chris]

uggghhhh.... i thought all the radio talk was finally over

[calf]

Originally Posted by GGG

Now once you ask the question is satilite radio worth the cost over regular radio that is a subjective opinion.

Paying no money is objectively better than paying some money.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by bc-chris

uggghhhh.... i thought all the radio talk was finally over

There is now only radio talk. The world of radioless talk you once knew is gone forever.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by GGG

Its objective (and i intentionaly used that word with hopes of channeling my inner silver). The reason it is objective is that you take two identical playlists put one on the regular radio and one on satilite radio everyone would listen to satilite radio.

No comercials is objectively better than comercials.

More selection over content is objectively better than less selection over content.

Now once you ask the question is satilite radio worth the cost over regular radio that is a subjective opinion.

It really isn't fair to only compare the differences in which satellite has the advantage. If those other advantages terrestrial radio has do not matter to you; it is still a subjective comparison.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by strombad

But that's not how it works. You can't take the pay portion out of it and still speak to satellite radio. It's imbedded as part of it.

The question is(and it is only THIS question:
Is commercial free radio with more channels at a monthly fee objectively better than free radio with commercials and a smaller selection?

That's it, you can't take out one element and still say you're comparing them equally. If you're taking out the financial part of the equation, you should also take out the commercial-free and higher selection part of the equation.

Plus, you've got it backwards. If you put two identical playlists on Satellite and FM, everyone would listen to FM. Why? Because it's the exact same thing for FREE.


You know what, it GMG that people don't understand the objective value of things or how to compare them properly. You can't just change the makeup of something and say "Well everyone would like it if it didn't have this one thing!" A. You're no longer comparing the actual product, and B. Your still only considering subjective value. Just enjoy your stupid radio like a normal human being.

What's wrong with me? I'm debating radio on the Internet. What kind of backwards world is this?

To your question, the answer is No but in no post did I state that, my statement always qualified that I was not comparing price.

So Like I said we are arguing semantics. Do you evaluate the value proposition of something as part of evaluating which is better or do you compare which is better first and than asign a value to it. Is which is better and which has more value two separate things or is it the same thing?

Maybe its work related that I assess things like this but when we buy a product one group evaluates whether it meets spec and the other group evaluates comercial terms. So you go through and determine which is better or meets spec first then you assign a value to the differences to make the products equal and then you buy the cheaper one. But the key thing here is that the comparison of which is better is done in a price free enviroment first.

So I disagree that you can't compare which thing is better by ignoring price. The whole purpose of ignoring price is so that you can make an objective as comparison as possible. Price does funny things to the human brain. It is emotional, we see 9.99 as cheaper than $10 and change buying habits based on a penny when it is near round numbers.

Anyway I have derailed this thread enough

[strombad]

Whether you think it works that way or not, you're still comparing the two subjectively. We're not arguing semantics, you're arguing based on subjectivity and calling it objectivity.

If you can't get 100% of rationale people to agree on it being better, it's not objective, it's subjective. Good luck with that.

Mozzarella is objectively stretchier than Cheddar, but is subjectively better.

Objectivity concerns itself only with indisputable facts. Not with opinions, feelings, or popularity. Objectivity just is or isn't. There is no middle ground. Even the notion of "better or worse" means you are likely comparing something on a subjective level.