sharke

nyogisanz
 
Indeed Sharke, that's the reason why I said hire "if not the best at least nearing the best programmers who are also musician" not a "decent programmers who are musician" because these two sets of programmers are totally a galaxy apart in my humble opinion ;)
Now I am not saying that all current sonar programmers are lame but I think they just lack the necessary boost to steep up their game.
 
Imagine a new Tascam Sonar , as stable as Pro Tools and cooler than Ableton and Cubase combined that has (for guitarist) a slash button that can provide a slash licks or (for EDM) a skrillex, Diplo, Tiesto button as well. And for the noobs like me (a chord track and Intelligent Composing Assistant ala Cubase 7). I wonder why my mouth is drooling already ;)

A)I think you'll probably find that what separates development on things like Pro Tools as compared to Sonar is the available budget, which is bound to be a lot larger with Pro Tools and other software that has a large market share than Sonar. In fact all things considered, I think the Bakers have done a pretty amazing job. I started out with Pro Tools and found it to be a lot less stable than my experience with Sonar, in fact I ended up having to host VSTi's in Reaper and ReWire them into Pro Tools because I was getting so many crashes. Add to this the many extremely cool features that Sonar has and I can quite honestly say it's a superior program with far more bang for its buck. 
 
C) What are these Skrillex/Tiesto buttons you envision? Mark my words, if the Bakers were ever to incorporate such a button into Sonar then I would skip all upgrades until such time as they removed it 
 
As for Intelligent Composing Assistants and the like, well of course there are a plethora of cool features that could theoretically be added to any DAW that didn't have them. But the reality is that no DAW has every single feature that everyone could possibly want. You just have to pick the one that offers you the most of what you want out of a DAW. B)If any Intelligent Composing Assistant is more important to you than the other features that Sonar offers, then I guess choose Cubase. 

Reply to point A
Well don't you think the underlined statement of yours now begs the question why do you think Pro Tools as what you have said, has grown to have the bigger market shares viz-a-viz profit hence able them to say as what you subliminally implied, hire the best programmers. Isn't it because of their known stability and quality? Now if your answer is yes, well I think to further discuss the matter would be moot and academic already. Nonetheless I wont bar you from stating the otherwise as what you have said and I quote, "you first started with pro tools and pro tools seem to be this and that ....." However, I think what you seems to have over-looked is the fact that yes, granting for the sake of argument, pro tools was once like that, but somehow (no matter how we deny this fact) Pro Tools was able to steep up their game hence now the industries standards. Common Sharke, you cant be the thing to beat for nothing right?
And this is precisely my point for my post. Yes the bakers have done pretty job but hey "pretty" is subjective and what "pretty" to you may not be pretty to others. And toying on this point further, the problem here is what if the pretty as far as you are concerned aren't shared by others. This, in this case, surely the loosing party wouldn't be you but cakewalk. Indeed if you love the company, you love the software, the more you have to require them to tighten their grounds. Otherwise, loose more market shares. I'm sure you are also visiting other threads and usually the common complains of "used to be" cakewalk fanatics like us are the same thing most of the guys here are saying. In fact I can imagine them perhaps they were once like me, or you, whose so loyal and devoted to cakewalk. But they have come to their breaking point. Indeed, I have nothing wrong with cakewalk, I just want them to steep up their game because if pro tools was able to do it, the more they can, considering they have better idea of what a DAW should be (best example is the floating boxes that you can transfer to other monitors and the pro channels).
 
I believe Pro tools did also start with few software programmers and everything. But I think what departs them from what I see as far as the bakers are concerned, are pro tools commitment to their product. Although its just me but cakewalks ditching of X2a and as attested by many howling members in the forum about a bug from old old version of sonars becoming a zombie to a newer version are (although its just me) tell tale signs of something in cakewalk as compared to pro tools tenacity to stay in 32 bit until such time they can create something as stable as most of their 32 bit flat form in 64bit flat form. Yes we may argue, the 64bit of pro tools has also its shares of its imperfection but the mere fact that in spite of it, a lot of established studios, musicians etc are trusting this product means only one thing, it is stable.
 
Reply to point B
Assuming for the sake of argument the Intelligent Chord Assistant is really important to me as admittedly and I am not embarrassed to admit that I don't have proper music education, does it already justify the point of going to Cubase? Well unless otherwise you speak in behalf of the bakers and that you can categorically state the fact for them that they are all clueless as far as how Cubase did it and there is no way for them to be able to figure out how to create similar apps in sonar, well I think that's the only time I might consider for if that is the case, that can be very much revealing as far as the status of the company.
 
I assume, I regret If I am wrong, that this statement of yours was made on the presumption that I have lost my confidence in the bakers. Well if you have to read and understand my post, I even stated there that I still have high hopes blah blah for cakewalk. Indeed this is precisely the reason for this request because I know they can make a better one. But on the other hand, it appears to me though that its you who are loosing faith on cakewalk because assuming for the sake of argument you have faith in them, then why shoo away a noob like me to another DAW just for one aspect, well in fact you know the bakers can do a much better one.
 
Reply to Point C
Correct me If I am wrong Sharke but are you an FBI or work for the secret service for it seems to me humor is not part of your dictionary. What's so wrong with stating the infamous "Talent" button in another way. Nevertheless if to you and to others these may not seem appealing or humorous as it somehow decreases your mojo, well my apology. Indeed I am pretty much aware that with a seasoned musician like you, to use such things would be insulting. In fact Im pretty sure this is also the reason why to you my simple request of having an Intelligent Composing Assistant is some sort of gibberish. But hey, market strategy wise, how many seasoned musicians are there only in the world as compared to those noobs like me who would so really appreciate such buttons if ever (in fact even a seasoned pro tool users want this as well in pro tools http://www.protoolerblog.com/2012/11/15/what-pro-tools-could-learn-from-cubase-7/). Think about the possibility.
 
To end, pls don't consider this reply as some sort of getting personal. I don't have plans of getting personal into someone whom I know one of these days, I would be asking for an advice into more technical details as far as this soft ware is concerned. Indeed I understand your point Sharke and I know we all love Sonar. I just regret that we are coming from a different vantage. In your case, a more liberal and some sort of consenting ,and in my case, sort of conservative and unconsenting but still understanding manner. Nevertheless, I think our common goal is just the same, to make sonar become the thing to beat in the modern music making scene. Hence with this, Id like to close this thing between us as far as this thread only ;) Peace!

nyogisanz

sharke

nyogisanz
 
Indeed Sharke, that's the reason why I said hire "if not the best at least nearing the best programmers who are also musician" not a "decent programmers who are musician" because these two sets of programmers are totally a galaxy apart in my humble opinion ;)
Now I am not saying that all current sonar programmers are lame but I think they just lack the necessary boost to steep up their game.
 
Imagine a new Tascam Sonar , as stable as Pro Tools and cooler than Ableton and Cubase combined that has (for guitarist) a slash button that can provide a slash licks or (for EDM) a skrillex, Diplo, Tiesto button as well. And for the noobs like me (a chord track and Intelligent Composing Assistant ala Cubase 7). I wonder why my mouth is drooling already ;)

A)I think you'll probably find that what separates development on things like Pro Tools as compared to Sonar is the available budget, which is bound to be a lot larger with Pro Tools and other software that has a large market share than Sonar. In fact all things considered, I think the Bakers have done a pretty amazing job. I started out with Pro Tools and found it to be a lot less stable than my experience with Sonar, in fact I ended up having to host VSTi's in Reaper and ReWire them into Pro Tools because I was getting so many crashes. Add to this the many extremely cool features that Sonar has and I can quite honestly say it's a superior program with far more bang for its buck. 
 
C) What are these Skrillex/Tiesto buttons you envision? Mark my words, if the Bakers were ever to incorporate such a button into Sonar then I would skip all upgrades until such time as they removed it 
 
As for Intelligent Composing Assistants and the like, well of course there are a plethora of cool features that could theoretically be added to any DAW that didn't have them. But the reality is that no DAW has every single feature that everyone could possibly want. You just have to pick the one that offers you the most of what you want out of a DAW. B)If any Intelligent Composing Assistant is more important to you than the other features that Sonar offers, then I guess choose Cubase. 

Reply to point A
Well don't you think the underlined statement of yours now begs the question why do you think Pro Tools as what you have said, has grown to have the bigger market shares viz-a-viz profit hence able them to say as what you subliminally implied, hire the best programmers. Isn't it because of their known stability and quality? Now if your answer is yes, well I think to further discuss the matter would be moot and academic already. Nonetheless I wont bar you from stating the otherwise as what you have said and I quote, "you first started with pro tools and pro tools seem to be this and that ....." However, I think what you seems to have over-looked is the fact that yes, granting for the sake of argument, pro tools was once like that, but somehow (no matter how we deny this fact) Pro Tools was able to steep up their game hence now the industries standards. Common Sharke, you cant be the thing to beat for nothing right?
And this is precisely my point for my post. Yes the bakers have done pretty job but hey "pretty" is subjective and what "pretty" to you may not be pretty to others. And toying on this point further, the problem here is what if the pretty as far as you are concerned aren't shared by others. This, in this case, surely the loosing party wouldn't be you but cakewalk. Indeed if you love the company, you love the software, the more you have to require them to tighten their grounds. Otherwise, loose more market shares. I'm sure you are also visiting other threads and usually the common complains of "used to be" cakewalk fanatics like us are the same thing most of the guys here are saying. In fact I can imagine them perhaps they were once like me, or you, whose so loyal and devoted to cakewalk. But they have come to their breaking point. Indeed, I have nothing wrong with cakewalk, I just want them to steep up their game because if pro tools was able to do it, the more they can, considering they have better idea of what a DAW should be (best example is the floating boxes that you can transfer to other monitors and the pro channels).
 
I believe Pro tools did also start with few software programmers and everything. But I think what departs them from what I see as far as the bakers are concerned, are pro tools commitment to their product. Although its just me but cakewalks ditching of X2a and as attested by many howling members in the forum about a bug from old old version of sonars becoming a zombie to a newer version are (although its just me) tell tale signs of something in cakewalk as compared to pro tools tenacity to stay in 32 bit until such time they can create something as stable as most of their 32 bit flat form in 64bit flat form. Yes we may argue, the 64bit of pro tools has also its shares of its imperfection but the mere fact that in spite of it, a lot of established studios, musicians etc are trusting this product means only one thing, it is stable.
 
Reply to point B
Assuming for the sake of argument the Intelligent Chord Assistant is really important to me as admittedly and I am not embarrassed to admit that I don't have proper music education, does it already justify the point of going to Cubase? Well unless otherwise you speak in behalf of the bakers and that you can categorically state the fact for them that they are all clueless as far as how Cubase did it and there is no way for them to be able to figure out how to create similar apps in sonar, well I think that's the only time I might consider for if that is the case, that can be very much revealing as far as the status of the company.
 
I assume, I regret If I am wrong, that this statement of yours was made on the presumption that I have lost my confidence in the bakers. Well if you have to read and understand my post, I even stated there that I still have high hopes blah blah for cakewalk. Indeed this is precisely the reason for this request because I know they can make a better one. But on the other hand, it appears to me though that its you who are loosing faith on cakewalk because assuming for the sake of argument you have faith in them, then why shoo away a noob like me to another DAW just for one aspect, well in fact you know the bakers can do a much better one.
 
Reply to Point C
Correct me If I am wrong Sharke but are you an FBI or work for the secret service for it seems to me humor is not part of your dictionary. What's so wrong with stating the infamous "Talent" button in another way. Nevertheless if to you and to others these may not seem appealing or humorous as it somehow decreases your mojo, well my apology. Indeed I am pretty much aware that with a seasoned musician like you, to use such things would be insulting. In fact Im pretty sure this is also the reason why to you my simple request of having an Intelligent Composing Assistant is some sort of gibberish. But hey, market strategy wise, how many seasoned musicians are there only in the world as compared to those noobs like me who would so really appreciate such buttons if ever (in fact even a seasoned pro tool users want this as well in pro tools http://www.protoolerblog.com/2012/11/15/what-pro-tools-could-learn-from-cubase-7/). Think about the possibility.
 
To end, pls don't consider this reply as some sort of getting personal. I don't have plans of getting personal into someone whom I know one of these days, I would be asking for an advice into more technical details as far as this soft ware is concerned. Indeed I understand your point Sharke and I know we all love Sonar. I just regret that we are coming from a different vantage. In your case, a more liberal and some sort of consenting ,and in my case, sort of conservative and unconsenting but still understanding manner. Nevertheless, I think our common goal is just the same, to make sonar become the thing to beat in the modern music making scene. Hence with this, Id like to close this thing between us as far as this thread only ;) Peace!

 
I'm sorry, but I started reading this post and had to give up.  You'll need to format your posts better, and learn to use punctuation.

nyogisanz
 
Reply to point A
Well don't you think the underlined statement of yours now begs the question why do you think Pro Tools as what you have said, has grown to have the bigger market shares viz-a-viz profit hence able them to say as what you subliminally implied, hire the best programmers. Isn't it because of their known stability and quality? Now if your answer is yes, well I think to further discuss the matter would be moot and academic already. Nonetheless I wont bar you from stating the otherwise as what you have said and I quote, "you first started with pro tools and pro tools seem to be this and that ....." However, I think what you seems to have over-looked is the fact that yes, granting for the sake of argument, pro tools was once like that, but somehow (no matter how we deny this fact) Pro Tools was able to steep up their game hence now the industries standards. Common Sharke, you cant be the thing to beat for nothing right?
And this is precisely my point for my post. Yes the bakers have done pretty job but hey "pretty" is subjective and what "pretty" to you may not be pretty to others. And toying on this point further, the problem here is what if the pretty as far as you are concerned aren't shared by others. This, in this case, surely the loosing party wouldn't be you but cakewalk. Indeed if you love the company, you love the software, the more you have to require them to tighten their grounds. Otherwise, loose more market shares. I'm sure you are also visiting other threads and usually the common complains of "used to be" cakewalk fanatics like us are the same thing most of the guys here are saying. In fact I can imagine them perhaps they were once like me, or you, whose so loyal and devoted to cakewalk. But they have come to their breaking point. Indeed, I have nothing wrong with cakewalk, I just want them to steep up their game because if pro tools was able to do it, the more they can, considering they have better idea of what a DAW should be (best example is the floating boxes that you can transfer to other monitors and the pro channels).
 
I believe Pro tools did also start with few software programmers and everything. But I think what departs them from what I see as far as the bakers are concerned, are pro tools commitment to their product. Although its just me but cakewalks ditching of X2a and as attested by many howling members in the forum about a bug from old old version of sonars becoming a zombie to a newer version are (although its just me) tell tale signs of something in cakewalk as compared to pro tools tenacity to stay in 32 bit until such time they can create something as stable as most of their 32 bit flat form in 64bit flat form. Yes we may argue, the 64bit of pro tools has also its shares of its imperfection but the mere fact that in spite of it, a lot of established studios, musicians etc are trusting this product means only one thing, it is stable.
 

 
pro tools gained their market share by simply beating everybody to the punch and more importantly tying their software to the hardware.  Not by having superior programming Pro tools software for much of it's history has been so-so.  In the 90's there were several software companies that had software that ran circles around Pro Tools, but none could marry the analog world to the digital world as well as Digidesign did. Being first to be successful on a wide scale gives one an inherent advantage.  I'm sure all of us have used a product of some form that was superior to the market leader while realizing that the market leader is so firmly entrenched that it is a continual uphill struggle. Pro Tools is just getting around to having a 64-bit DAW...because they were able to rest on their laurals long enough to take their time. It's market leader privilege. There are many aspects of Pro Tools that are downright clunky but users tend to stick with what they know.  i suspect if you sat a beginner who never used a DAW down in front of Pro Tool and Sonar, he might actually be able to get more out of Sonar.  In any case, it's not the pro tools software that is so stable, it is the infrastructure of a facility that uses Pro Tools that provides the stability.  On this board, wgere you find users with bigger budget studios that use Sonar, you will find they have more stability.  At a previous job we had a pro tools station but it was horribly unstable...and it was our fault.  We had a great computer but small deviations cost us.  Avid is very adamant about their specs...much more so than Cakewalk.  Avid does not try to be inclusive.  Call their support and tell them you are having trouble with stability on that laptop you bought at bestbuy and you are going to get laughed right off the phonecall.  Pro tools made a  commitment to hardware and it paid off to put them in the position they are in now.  I honestly would say Ableton or Melodybne are much better examples of innovative programming than Pro tools.

BTW..not really bashing pro tools. But I think arguing that Pro Tools gained it's position via better programming than others is like claiming the Heat won the NBA championship due to superior coaching.  I would counter that AVid's position as leader created a world more condusive to Pro Tools being stable and not the opposite.  Hardware and plugins are made to work stable with Pro Tools where as standards like VST are designed to conform to a standard that works with multiple programs with vastly different code from one an other.

musicman100

CakeAlexS
The iconic thing is, it was created in Photoshop...

it was IRONIC, also 
 
considering, for, one a meteor is composed of iron ore
 
and the other obvious entendre

Excellent, a double entendre turned into a treble!

nyogisanz:
 
1. Subscribe to MI Sales Trak.
2. Plot the monthly statistics for Pro Tools' market share and dollar share.
3. Get back to us.
 
Unfortunately I cannot provide those stats, as the material in MIST is copyrighted and all reproduction for the benefit of non-subscribers is strictly forbidden.
 
Now, I am not one to bash Pro Tools; I've used it on a lot of sessions. The people who started Digidesign were genius-level people who came up with the ideal solution for replacing a 2" 24-track recorder, and made it easy to use. So, plenty of credit there. But in the present, Digi is fighting the same battle everyone else has to fight: changing technology and shifting markets. Don't discount the huge effect Apple's price cut on Logic had, or the fact that hardware solutions have been supplanted by native solutions for most applications. Pro Tools isn't going to go away any time soon, but like all other companies, they will need to learn to adapt or die. And for high-tech companies, the time allowed to adapt gets increasingly shorter.

jb101

nyogisanz

sharke

nyogisanz
 
Indeed Sharke, that's the reason why I said hire "if not the best at least nearing the best programmers who are also musician" not a "decent programmers who are musician" because these two sets of programmers are totally a galaxy apart in my humble opinion ;)
Now I am not saying that all current sonar programmers are lame but I think they just lack the necessary boost to steep up their game.
 
Imagine a new Tascam Sonar , as stable as Pro Tools and cooler than Ableton and Cubase combined that has (for guitarist) a slash button that can provide a slash licks or (for EDM) a skrillex, Diplo, Tiesto button as well. And for the noobs like me (a chord track and Intelligent Composing Assistant ala Cubase 7). I wonder why my mouth is drooling already ;)

A)I think you'll probably find that what separates development on things like Pro Tools as compared to Sonar is the available budget, which is bound to be a lot larger with Pro Tools and other software that has a large market share than Sonar. In fact all things considered, I think the Bakers have done a pretty amazing job. I started out with Pro Tools and found it to be a lot less stable than my experience with Sonar, in fact I ended up having to host VSTi's in Reaper and ReWire them into Pro Tools because I was getting so many crashes. Add to this the many extremely cool features that Sonar has and I can quite honestly say it's a superior program with far more bang for its buck. 
 
C) What are these Skrillex/Tiesto buttons you envision? Mark my words, if the Bakers were ever to incorporate such a button into Sonar then I would skip all upgrades until such time as they removed it 
 
As for Intelligent Composing Assistants and the like, well of course there are a plethora of cool features that could theoretically be added to any DAW that didn't have them. But the reality is that no DAW has every single feature that everyone could possibly want. You just have to pick the one that offers you the most of what you want out of a DAW. B)If any Intelligent Composing Assistant is more important to you than the other features that Sonar offers, then I guess choose Cubase. 

Reply to point A
Well don't you think the underlined statement of yours now begs the question why do you think Pro Tools as what you have said, has grown to have the bigger market shares viz-a-viz profit hence able them to say as what you subliminally implied, hire the best programmers. Isn't it because of their known stability and quality? Now if your answer is yes, well I think to further discuss the matter would be moot and academic already. Nonetheless I wont bar you from stating the otherwise as what you have said and I quote, "you first started with pro tools and pro tools seem to be this and that ....." However, I think what you seems to have over-looked is the fact that yes, granting for the sake of argument, pro tools was once like that, but somehow (no matter how we deny this fact) Pro Tools was able to steep up their game hence now the industries standards. Common Sharke, you cant be the thing to beat for nothing right?
And this is precisely my point for my post. Yes the bakers have done pretty job but hey "pretty" is subjective and what "pretty" to you may not be pretty to others. And toying on this point further, the problem here is what if the pretty as far as you are concerned aren't shared by others. This, in this case, surely the loosing party wouldn't be you but cakewalk. Indeed if you love the company, you love the software, the more you have to require them to tighten their grounds. Otherwise, loose more market shares. I'm sure you are also visiting other threads and usually the common complains of "used to be" cakewalk fanatics like us are the same thing most of the guys here are saying. In fact I can imagine them perhaps they were once like me, or you, whose so loyal and devoted to cakewalk. But they have come to their breaking point. Indeed, I have nothing wrong with cakewalk, I just want them to steep up their game because if pro tools was able to do it, the more they can, considering they have better idea of what a DAW should be (best example is the floating boxes that you can transfer to other monitors and the pro channels).
 
I believe Pro tools did also start with few software programmers and everything. But I think what departs them from what I see as far as the bakers are concerned, are pro tools commitment to their product. Although its just me but cakewalks ditching of X2a and as attested by many howling members in the forum about a bug from old old version of sonars becoming a zombie to a newer version are (although its just me) tell tale signs of something in cakewalk as compared to pro tools tenacity to stay in 32 bit until such time they can create something as stable as most of their 32 bit flat form in 64bit flat form. Yes we may argue, the 64bit of pro tools has also its shares of its imperfection but the mere fact that in spite of it, a lot of established studios, musicians etc are trusting this product means only one thing, it is stable.
 
Reply to point B
Assuming for the sake of argument the Intelligent Chord Assistant is really important to me as admittedly and I am not embarrassed to admit that I don't have proper music education, does it already justify the point of going to Cubase? Well unless otherwise you speak in behalf of the bakers and that you can categorically state the fact for them that they are all clueless as far as how Cubase did it and there is no way for them to be able to figure out how to create similar apps in sonar, well I think that's the only time I might consider for if that is the case, that can be very much revealing as far as the status of the company.
 
I assume, I regret If I am wrong, that this statement of yours was made on the presumption that I have lost my confidence in the bakers. Well if you have to read and understand my post, I even stated there that I still have high hopes blah blah for cakewalk. Indeed this is precisely the reason for this request because I know they can make a better one. But on the other hand, it appears to me though that its you who are loosing faith on cakewalk because assuming for the sake of argument you have faith in them, then why shoo away a noob like me to another DAW just for one aspect, well in fact you know the bakers can do a much better one.
 
Reply to Point C
Correct me If I am wrong Sharke but are you an FBI or work for the secret service for it seems to me humor is not part of your dictionary. What's so wrong with stating the infamous "Talent" button in another way. Nevertheless if to you and to others these may not seem appealing or humorous as it somehow decreases your mojo, well my apology. Indeed I am pretty much aware that with a seasoned musician like you, to use such things would be insulting. In fact Im pretty sure this is also the reason why to you my simple request of having an Intelligent Composing Assistant is some sort of gibberish. But hey, market strategy wise, how many seasoned musicians are there only in the world as compared to those noobs like me who would so really appreciate such buttons if ever (in fact even a seasoned pro tool users want this as well in pro tools http://www.protoolerblog.com/2012/11/15/what-pro-tools-could-learn-from-cubase-7/). Think about the possibility.
 
To end, pls don't consider this reply as some sort of getting personal. I don't have plans of getting personal into someone whom I know one of these days, I would be asking for an advice into more technical details as far as this soft ware is concerned. Indeed I understand your point Sharke and I know we all love Sonar. I just regret that we are coming from a different vantage. In your case, a more liberal and some sort of consenting ,and in my case, sort of conservative and unconsenting but still understanding manner. Nevertheless, I think our common goal is just the same, to make sonar become the thing to beat in the modern music making scene. Hence with this, Id like to close this thing between us as far as this thread only ;) Peace!

 
I'm sorry, but I started reading this post and had to give up.  You'll need to format your posts better, and learn to use punctuation.

I'm sorry I am no English Major. I am only a porn star. Nevertheless what I do know is never rebut an argument by how it is constructed otherwise the rebuttal all together becomes null and void by committing the fallacy of adhomo and Red herring. Here is my source
 

R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution answered 3 years ago
Red herring. Attacking grammar is a side-issue unrelated to the actual issue being discussed (or argued).

It could also be considered an ad hominem, or attack against the person, depending on whether she intends grammar to be a bad reflection on the person making the argument.

Red herrings and ad hominems are typically used by people who either have poor analytical skills (i.e. they don't really know how to properly attack an argument), or by people attacking an argument that is otherwise sound (i.e. she can't argue the point on merits).
Source(s):http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/sk...
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...
 
http://answers.yahoo.com/...=20110108101036AA9zRws

> Unfortunately I cannot provide those stats, as the material in MIST is copyrighted and all reproduction for the benefit of non-subscribers is strictly forbidden.
 
WIKILEAKS.

nyogisanz

I'm sorry I am no English Major. I am only a porn star. Nevertheless what I do know is never rebut an argument by how it is constructed otherwise the rebuttal all together becomes null and void by committing the fallacy of adhomo and Red herring. Here is my source
 

R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution answered 3 years ago

Red herring. Attacking grammar is a side-issue unrelated to the actual issue being discussed (or argued).

It could also be considered an ad hominem, or attack against the person, depending on whether she intends grammar to be a bad reflection on the person making the argument.

Red herrings and ad hominems are typically used by people who either have poor analytical skills (i.e. they don't really know how to properly attack an argument), or by people attacking an argument that is otherwise sound (i.e. she can't argue the point on merits).

 

Source(s):

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/sk...
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e...

http://answers.yahoo.com/...=20110108101036AA9zRws

Slight flaw in your argument - I WASN'T  TRYING TO REBUT YOUR ARGUMENT, I JUST COULDN'T READ IT.
 
Not only illegible, but now illogical.  Your whole post is a non sequitur.  I have no idea what your argument in that post was, so why attack it?  I might have agreed with it.
 
A little knowledge, and access to Wikipedia, is a dangerous thing..
 
Try looking up "sophistry" while you're at it.  I have no time for this puerile drivel, good bye.

I will resist from commenting... I will I will....