Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Suppressors
Suppressor that don’t break ya
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="QuietTexan" data-source="post: 2384048" data-attributes="member: 116181"><p>Dude, walk with me for a second here - I think what you're not getting is that I'm objecting to the rampant generalizations you made in your statements. Let's look at this one in particular:</p><p></p><p>You're making a declaration that isn't supported by your own cited source. The source you cited didn't review Banish at all. Banish literally isn't on the list of reviews you used to support your statement that Banish isn't as good as other cans. Even if I conceded TBAC's rating of 5 out of 18 by Pew as being meaningfully convincing then half your argument is still entirely unsupported. That makes it a bad argument. </p><p></p><p>I pulled up your source, looked at their data, and came to the conclusion based on his presentation his own data that it's pretty irrelevant to meaningful discussion because it ignores significant factors that are common to suppressor applications. The score is apparently agnostic of any considerations other than sound, and he rates very obviously different applications on the same scale. I get what he's trying to do in synthesizing a uniform metric that applies to super versus subsonic, pistol versus rifle, bolt versus direct impingement, but the scale and relativity of intermixing the results on the list looks bogus to me, even if you can sort it. I'm not "salty" for disagreeing with his interpretations - his composite score isn't an authority you can appeal to counterbalance my own interpretation of the data or my dismissal of his factor weightings.</p><p></p><p>I'm sorry that I'm not taking your arguments as seriously as you want me to, I'll admit I'm being dismissive because what I'm reading amounts to you jumping in, saying "y'all are wrong", making a poor cite that doesn't even support your statement, and then listing out generalizations and opinions like they're facts. All over something so highly subjective that it borderline defies quantification.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="QuietTexan, post: 2384048, member: 116181"] Dude, walk with me for a second here - I think what you're not getting is that I'm objecting to the rampant generalizations you made in your statements. Let's look at this one in particular: You're making a declaration that isn't supported by your own cited source. The source you cited didn't review Banish at all. Banish literally isn't on the list of reviews you used to support your statement that Banish isn't as good as other cans. Even if I conceded TBAC's rating of 5 out of 18 by Pew as being meaningfully convincing then half your argument is still entirely unsupported. That makes it a bad argument. I pulled up your source, looked at their data, and came to the conclusion based on his presentation his own data that it's pretty irrelevant to meaningful discussion because it ignores significant factors that are common to suppressor applications. The score is apparently agnostic of any considerations other than sound, and he rates very obviously different applications on the same scale. I get what he's trying to do in synthesizing a uniform metric that applies to super versus subsonic, pistol versus rifle, bolt versus direct impingement, but the scale and relativity of intermixing the results on the list looks bogus to me, even if you can sort it. I'm not "salty" for disagreeing with his interpretations - his composite score isn't an authority you can appeal to counterbalance my own interpretation of the data or my dismissal of his factor weightings. I'm sorry that I'm not taking your arguments as seriously as you want me to, I'll admit I'm being dismissive because what I'm reading amounts to you jumping in, saying "y'all are wrong", making a poor cite that doesn't even support your statement, and then listing out generalizations and opinions like they're facts. All over something so highly subjective that it borderline defies quantification. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Suppressors
Suppressor that don’t break ya
Top