SWEET JABBERING JESUS ON SPEED! The BBC has an imbecile on staff!

So I’m collecting votes:

Bosda made the greater idiot of himself by:

1/ Evincing brain twisting rage about some never heard-of-them journalist making an error (if that’s what it was) in some inconsequential pissant slow-news-day story on the Beeb .

or

2/ Being wrong and the story in question being right.

Personally, after wavering and umming and aaahing for some time, I’m going for 1/.

Answers on a post card. Winner announced in one week’s time. No correspondence entered into.

And Bosda, I’d try the other side of the bed tomorrow, huh? :wink:

Yah, yah, yah.

Phone me when they actually transcribe a Pre-Edison “recording”, assuming any still exist in a meaningful fashion {not damaged beyond repair, etc.}.
We’ll do lunch.

And I’m still waiting for somebody to show that the alledged Lincoln recording is more than a myth.

Shouldn’t you apologize to meth-heads as well?

Bosda, you’re ducking and diving worse than Osama at an NRA meet.

Your original rant, was not about the non-existence of the Lincoln recording, nor of the difficulty in retrieving the data: it was about the patent date of the phonograph vs the date of Lincoln’s death.

Stand tall and face up to your error.

What does this have to do with anything? The article made clear the completely uncertainty about the existence of such a recording. That ought to be the end of it, but no, apparently you want your news with no speculation, even if it’s made utterly obvious that speculation is all it is.

It’s human interest. Context. Spice. It’s in the fucking “magazine” section of the regional news pages, not the Proceedings of the Conference of Insufferably Pedantic Eejits Who Get Far Too Worked Up Over Absolutely Fuck All. No, it probably won’t happen, but then the article never said that it would. Get over it.

Actually, the article does not reference any technologies that existed Pre-Edison.

Neither does it state in any way that the writer is aware that the true phonograph did not exist during the Civil War.

Nor, and this is important, could a casual reader infer that the true phonograph did not exist during the Lincoln Administration.

Most non- Doper readers would carry away the impression that phonographs did exist during the Lincoln Administration.

Not “Fighting Ignorance”, people.

So your complaint is that if someone doesn’t read carefully, they might end up with a slightly false impression that the article specifically counters and isn’t really important in any case? Well, I can certainly see how that would evoke such sentiments as

Or, not.

And for what it’s worth, the article doesn’t mention Edison at all. It just talks about old, unplayable recordings. Y’know, the sort that you insisted were irrelevant because they pre-date Edison and were, um, unplayable. Not that this matters, of course, because apparently the writer is a bucket of horse cum, and how dare we not recognise this.

The article reports a technique for reproducing sound even from visual representations of the waveform which couldn’t be played back any other way. It reports a rumour that Lincoln may have made such a recording.

Were your misdirected rage a tee shot, Bosda, it would be in the car park. Stop pretending it was even on the fairway.

My lord you are dense.

No one is going to give you that evidence because no one has claimed that the have any…including the author of the story.

You called the women an imbecile for not knowing that it was impossible for Licoln to have been recorded. It turns out it is possible…unlikely but not impossible. (hint: this means you were wrong) And there is a rumour that a recording does exist…which is why she reported there was a rumour. Given that the other article also included it, I’m guessing the information was included at the press conference and she passed it along. Whereas you state that she said we could now hear the voice of Licoln, which if she said, would be wrong…but she didn’t say that. So you’re once again…can you guess?..wrong.

Given that the actually existence of the recording or whether the voice could be retrieved has nothing to do with your OP , would you like to take this one last opportunity to admit your OP was wrong wrong wrong??? It’s really not so terrible. Everyone makes mistakes. Adults aknowedge it when they do. Care to try?

Sigh No I guess if the dozen or so other people who explained why you’re wrong wrong wrong didn’t make an impression, nothing will.

My lord you are dense.

Ah…I didn’t see this post. Now I get it. You’re saying if someone didn’t really read the article and wasn’t all that bright they could get the wrong idea. Like you did.

No wonder you don’t want to admit to that.

But do you LIKE him? :smiley:

Bosda? When you find yourself in a hole, the prudent thing to do is stop digging.

I think he’s trying to get out the other side. By digging harder.

Bosda, give it up, man. You were wrong. The BBC was right. Even if it were the other way 'round, you’d still be stupendously over-reacting to an exceedingly minor error. Except that it’s not the other way around. Nothing in the article is factually incorrect. I don’t usually like to argue from the majority, but you might notice that there’s not a single other person on your side in this thing. And some of the people telling you wrong are smarter than you and me combined, cloned, and combined again. Take a deep breath, admit you were off-base, offer a few apologies, and ask the mods to shut this thread down before this incipent meltdown reaches critical mass.

Gah. “Some of the people telling you that you’re wrong etc.”

Stupid English language.

Given the number of whinges about subscription circulating at the moment (again) I think I’ll just go round and link to this thread.

This is why I love the SDMB - and especially the Pit. Someone comes and rants and, within minutes, not only is he put right and the facts outlined, but then we get a chance for some insight into the characters that populate these boards. Some people say ‘:smack: got it wrong, sorry’ - others ’ :confused: can someone explain?’ - but best of all are those that go 'you’re all :wallys :mad: :mad: ’ and refuse to admit they might be mistaken even when the evidence is what, 12 inches further up the page!

Don’t go changing!

J.