# Truth is considered offensive and untolerated

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.

• 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. – Val Jun 27 '13 at 20:12

• @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. – Peter K. Jun 28 '13 at 15:54
• @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. – Peter K. Jun 28 '13 at 18:11