Where's ESLdude?

[wgscott]

Putting aside all pretexts and personalities, the purpose of a site like this one, or the New York Times, for that matter, is to sell an audience/readership to advertisers.

 

If you have a subset of New York Times readership pointing out (as I and many others did) that James LeMoyne fabricated much of his "reporting" on Central America in the late 1980s (as he did), it creates a problem for the NYT.

 

Similarly, if you have a cohort of individuals here who raise rational objections to some of the products marketed, it creates a difficult problem.

[Jud]

Putting aside all pretexts and personalities, the purpose of a site like this one, or the New York Times, for that matter, is to sell an audience/readership to advertisers.

 

If you have a subset of New York Times readership pointing out (as I and many others did) that James LeMoyne fabricated much of his "reporting" on Central America in the late 1980s (as he did), it creates a problem for the NYT.

 

Similarly, if you have a cohort of individuals here who raise rational objections to some of the products marketed, it creates a difficult problem.

 

Or who raise objections they firmly believe to be rational, even without a degree in audio engineering. Recall that Michael Behe is a professor of biochemistry at a prestigious university. That field certainly has some relationship to, though is not the same as, evolutionary biology. If you were doing an evolutionary biology blog, how would you feel about constant "rational" objections to topics in evolutionary biology being raised by Behe or by others based on his publications?

 

If only those with the requisite educational, factual and theoretical background in audio engineering put forward objections to things that "smelled like" BS here, I doubt Chris or anyone else would object. I for one appreciate when I'm corrected by those with superior audio and/or engineering knowledge ( in my case such folks are not difficult to find).

 

It seems to me there is a great eagerness to put forward opinions as either the only possible rational conclusion (by those of an "objectivist" bent), or as something that cannot possibly be the result of predisposition or of any of the other numerous ways one's ears might be fooled (by those of a "subjectivist" bent). I'm personally of the opinion that a little more humility would help all but the very tiny fraction of us who actually do have the requisite audio engineering knowledge and experience (I think I can count those on the fingers of one hand, two at most). I.e., recognize the simple fact you could be wrong, and it will help keep you from being discourteously emphatic in telling someone else he or she is full of crap.

 

On a slightly different note: There is a tendency in all forums for the topics that require the least knowledge to get the highest response rates. This phenomenon is sometimes known as "bikeshedding," after a post by Poul-Henning Kamp of the FreeBSD Project. In that post, Kamp noted that if one is discussing the inner workings of a nuclear plant, those who aren't versed in the relevant facts feel uncomfortable voicing an opinion. However, if one is discussing what color to paint the bike shed, then everyone feels entitled to jump in. So we should not be surprised that the less apparently complex the topic (e.g., "just cables," or "increasing our enjoyment of this wonderful hobby"), the more discussion takes place with the less restriction by facts, and thus the greater the chance things will grow heated.

[mayhem13]

A good summation of the relevant issues and posts....BUT......whether you ment to avoid the topic posted previous, the 'goals' of the forum are in fact to develop an advertising clinetele to support the costs of the forum and maybe even turn a profit. While I recognize the premise and completely understand how difficult this might be for Chris, it doesn't shed any new light on the apparent 'double standard' that might exist here. Whether a member is subjective or objective should not determine how posts of poor taste or foul language are handled. I for one, have never forwarded such posts to Chris' attention as I can certainly take what I can dish out. Sure....I was a bit aggressive with Paul, which resulted in my suspension but certainly I wasn't 'alone' with back and forth insults. It's very difficult to convey accurately in writing what you wish to convey. Had these conversations translated to actual face to face discussions, there IMO would have been lots of laughing and joking with two 'men' respecting each others opinions.....and pride.

 

You've always come across as very 'middle of the road' to me Jud and I wish that I could approach these discussions the way you do with same decorum and respect for opinion regardless if you agree or not. I'm just not built that way....but doesn't mean I'm not learning!

[Paul R]

A good summation of the relevant issues and posts....BUT......whether you ment to avoid the topic posted previous, the 'goals' of the forum are in fact to develop an advertising clinetele to support the costs of the forum and maybe even turn a profit. While I recognize the premise and completely understand how difficult this might be for Chris, it doesn't shed any new light on the apparent 'double standard' that might exist here. Whether a member is subjective or objective should not determine how posts of poor taste or foul language are handled. I for one, have never forwarded such posts to Chris' attention as I can certainly take what I can dish out. Sure....I was a bit aggressive with Paul, which resulted in my suspension but certainly I wasn't 'alone' with back and forth insults.[/Quote]

 

Just for the record, I had nothing to do with that and would have objected had I been asked. Which I wasn't.

 

Some folks jumped to an incorrect conclusion based upon incomplete and incorrect information that I was behind that, or in some way engineered that. Flat out untrue. In fact, I have until this moment not even expressed my view about it publically. Not that they matter, I do not make the rules here, and I do try to abide by them.

 

My fields touch upon audio, but since I am not willing to dedicate the time and effort necessary to become proficient in hi end audio design, I just go for what I like. I listen to opinions of people who seem to have similar likes and dslikes, and to people who have experience based opinions.

 

I don't agree with the aims and intentions of some folks, but that is more a personal thing. I also don't tend to agree when someone starts preaching their point of view and refuses to allow room for dissent. There is a great quote around here somewhere about the wannabe scientists on the gasbag forum. Hysterically funny, and so spot on accurate it is spooky.

 

It's very difficult to convey accurately in writing what you wish to convey. Had these conversations translated to actual face to face discussions, there IMO would have been lots of laughing and joking with two 'men' respecting each others opinions.....and pride.

 

You've always come across as very 'middle of the road' to me Jud and I wish that I could approach these discussions the way you do with same decorum and respect for opinion regardless if you agree or not. I'm just not built that way....but doesn't mean I'm not learning!

 

That I really agree with, except - Jud? Middle of the road? You are not from PA are you? Jud may be middle of the road,, but I expect he is more than tough enough to leave roadkill behind should the occasion merit it.

 

I appreciate his fairess and balance though. If anyone ever manages to really tick him off, I am selling tickets. (grin)

[Jud]

I appreciate his fairness and balance though.

 

That's me, fair and balanced. Me and Fox News.

[Paul R]

That's me, fair and balanced. Me and Fox News.

 

Naw... I meant it as a compliment and an admirable personality trait. Wish I was more like that.

 

Fox news on the other hand, is fairly balanced on the edge.