Yes, you've mentioned that before.
It's easy to get the impression that, given your objections to most of the proposals, you might be looking for reasons not to make any changes in the end. For instance, in the recent discussion about loads, it turns out you already have two quality resistor loads.
If that's the case, why not run the continuous tests with those and monitor the temperature? I doubt many of the amplifiers you test will damage the resistors. And if they do get hotter than you'd prefer, you can simply add ventilation.
I'm not using any "debating tactic." I’m trying to phrase my posts carefully to ensure they're as polite as possible while still expressing my opinion, so as not to upset you further, which you already seem to be for some reason. -I guess you can call that a tactic if you really want to..
As for the FTC, it isn’t inherently wrong for both users and manufacturers. That’s just your opinion, and I, for one, think you’re mistaken. And no, this doesn't mean that I think it's perfect.
I have found all of your comments in this thread polite and civil.
At the same time, I can certainly see why
@amirm (not to mention others) would be frustrated and could reasonably refer to your approach as a "debating tactic" even if that is not your intention and you don't see it that way.
Two examples from your most recent comment:
1. You write in response to Amir, "It's easy to get the impression that, given your objections to most of the proposals, you might be looking for reasons not to make any changes in the end." Yet in the comment of Amir's that you wrote this response to, he explicitly states, "
I have repeatedly told you that I have been working on stress tests of amplifiers prior to discussion getting created. And that i recently added my full bandwidth, 'FTC like' power testing" ... "I have and continue to make changes to my testing as I can justify and implement them. The discussion we have been having around dummy load is motivated by me examining options for loads that can handle large amount of power for certain duration."
"I have been working on" - "I recently added" - I have and continue to make changes" - "The discussion we have been having... is motivated by me examining options" - with respect, it is not plausible to read all of those statements of Amir's and respond that it seems like he's "looking for reasons not to make any changes."
For all I know, you might be trying to
retrospectively justify your suspicion that he's not going to make changes - in other words, your intent might have been along the lines of, "Well, okay, now I understand, but in fairness until you made your last comment it did seem like you weren't really considering any changes." But that is most certainly
not what you wrote. So to Amir your comment likely reads like a slap in the face, because your response ignores or dismisses pretty much everything he just wrote.
2. You end your comment by noting that Amir's negative view about 2024 FTC is "just [his] opinion," and that you think he's mistaken.
But throughout this entire thread
you still have not provided any evidence or compelling reasoning for why 2024 FTC
is even a feasible standard to try to implement, let alone a desirable one. And every time anyone has raised an objection to what appears to be an implicit reason you continue to argue in favor of 2024 FTC, you simply respond that they are mistaken about your reason, or you "did not say that" - and then follow up with a vague statement to the effect that "standards are important," which of course is a statement that no one disagrees with and that does not provide any argumentative support for 2024 FTC given that it is too vague and impractical to be implemented in a standardized manner anyway.
Now, I'm fairly confident that if you respond to this comment, much of your response will consist of some version of claiming that I have mischaracterized your view or statements, and/or that you simply disagree. That's your prerogative of course, but in that scenario you would simply be doubling down on the same approach that led Amir to make his comment.