-4
$\begingroup$

Peter K. has removed this message

I do not think that datageist answer is the answer. By just saying that you can convolvolve simpler in the fourier domain, you do not explain why do you need the convolution in the first place. When you have impulse response, you need convolve to get the response. Pointing at Fourier domain does not explain you why you need to convolve. Might be he wanted to say that phylosophy is useless rambling?

In comments to his answer, https://dsp.stackexchange.com/a/9753/4701, datageist fails to defend his answer. Is it a feature of democratic society that truth is considered offensive and not acceptible? What is offensive in my message? IMO, it is offensive is opposite. When you ban the truth and call offensive things that are not offensive, this is what is offensive.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see that many people were offended by this question. It means that I just do not understand datageist's answer. Ok, you understand it. Don't forget to upvote datageist's answer then. $\endgroup$ – Val Jun 27 '13 at 20:12
5
$\begingroup$

The removed paragraph was not about answering the question. It was directed at another answer, and should have been made as a comment to that answer.

Your post was flagged by another user (not me; not datageist) as offensive. I took action to keep it on-topic and not denigrating another user.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see denigration or much to cause offense in Val's statement above and I fully agree with his main point that datageist's answer is not an answer to the OP's question even though the OP has accepted it with fulsome praise. However, the multiple other comments that Val has left on datageist's answer are quite adequate to convey this notion, and the additional comment that has been deleted could just as well have been deleted on the grounds that it is superfluous. Perhaps it would be best to close the main question as a duplicate of previously asked questions (cf. pichenette's comment). $\endgroup$ – Dilip Sarwate Jun 27 '13 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ @DilipSarwate: There is a difference between denigration and causing offense. I agree that I did not think it was offensive (which is why I went to the trouble of stating not me, not datageist). However, I do believe that the statement I do not think that datageist answer is the answer. is the very definition of denigration on a Q&A site like any of the *.SE domains. $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Jun 28 '13 at 15:54
  • $\begingroup$ If there is an incorrect answer on a SE site, is there any word that could be used to say so without denigrating the person who posted the incorrect answer? Is there a difference between denigrating an answer and denigrating the user who posted the answer? A moderator (now an ex-moderator) once said "If an answer is incorrect or misleading, downvote it and explain in strong terms, your reasoning for the downvote and why it is inaccurate." I believe that Val's comments fall in this category. (continued) $\endgroup$ – Dilip Sarwate Jun 28 '13 at 16:45
  • $\begingroup$ (Continuation) Boiled down to basics, a current moderator posts an answer that says "Convolution is required because people multiply Fourier transforms" which to my mind (and Val's, presumably) is certainly incorrect and misleading. That this answer has received 3 upvotes and been accepted by the OP is indeed remarkable. Feel free to delete this comment as denigrating the person who posted the answer or the OP or the readership of dsp.SE. $\endgroup$ – Dilip Sarwate Jun 28 '13 at 16:50
  • $\begingroup$ @DilipSarwate: I cannot disagree with you more on your last comment. It seems to me that the selected answer really does answer the second question in the title: what is the philosophy behind convolution?. I agree that Val's answer is better as a more direct exposition, but that does not invalidate the other answer. $\endgroup$ – Peter K. Jun 28 '13 at 18:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .