Online trolls are 'everyday sadists'

[PopPop]

You reap what you sow. Your success at making people better informed is most often based on your skill in delivering the message. Most people won't be convinced of anything if you simply load them with facts that prove you are correct. It's always better to ask the questions that will make the other person come to the same conclusion that you did.

[Paul R]

Very good point indeed, and absolutely true. That is another argument for something like expanding the CA academy and addressing all these subjects in a FAQ or something. A lot of that is already there I think, though perhaps a bit out of date.

 

-Palu

 

The "think of the newbie" argument cuts both ways. If Joe hears that copying or downloading a lossless digital file degrades it, md5sums can't detect audible changes, and if Joe thinks he needs to re-rip 10,000 CDs because he ripped to ALAC and has since been convinced wav is better and he can't get there just by converting the pre-ripped lossless files to a new lossless format, are you really doing Joe a favor by not allowing such claims to be challenged?

[Daudio]

instead of staying on subject, Dennis put in a thinly disguised attempt to put forward his agenda. What exactly that agenda may be, is hard to tell. But I do get the impression Dennis would be quite happy if everyone on this site turned into an obedient little soldier and fell in line agreeing with him. The constant repetition of such utter tripe is meant to condition people to accept it over time. To desensitize people.

 

Yes, it is the ubiquity and repetition of his posts that I find most disturbing. I worry that those not exposed to the previous back-and forth on the sub-obj. arguments might be taken in with those one-sided posts, as so many people are tired of posting the same counter arguments over, and over, and over, again. Reminds me of the old Soviet 'Big Red Lie' (and current US versions of same), in that constant repetition is a major factor in spreading the propaganda.

 

On a personal note, I am bored to death with his long rambling, sometimes non-nonsensical, posts: soapboxing, conjectures as evidence, demands for others to supply data, typos that destroy readability, pushing his extreme objective agenda, mockery and disdain, etc. And yet his posts are in almost every thread I care to follow, in multiples, often disturbing the flow of the thread, and provoking counter responses, as well as sometimes a bunch of me-toos.

 

Perhaps, if he would just back off on the volume of words (which he has already said a thousand times), I would not be so much in favor of giving him a 'time-out' from CA

 

Note: I am trying not to criticize his ideas (through I often disagree), but his methods of delivery, the quantity, and repetition; behavioral issues.

 

 

Honestly, I find that kind of behavior rather appalling in anyone, but it is double so when someone with brains is doing it. However, it is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior, and what I think about it is just my opinion. I am probably an outlier with this.

 

Agreed. And, Hell No, you are not alone, just put it into words better then anyone I can remember so far...

[esldude]

My parody was intended to be a parody of both views. Yes I tend toward one view more than the other. And I put what I think has some truth in both views.

[christopher3393]

Do you really not distinguish between making fun of an idea and making fun of a person?

 

I don't think you always do.

[tne]

One idea that I have entertained, flippantly and completely counter to my anarchic tendencies as described in earlier posts in this thread, is for everyone to have a monthly post quota (and word quota), say ten posts, three thousand words per month max. In this way people would be compelled to be concise and post primarily when they have something insightful and relevant to say.

 

For me this would be no problem, as I have so many other things to do (in the real life category) that I can only check in here a few times per week, mainly just to read and with too little time to organise a pithy, insightful contribution. Others appear to have a lot more (maybe too much) free time to engage in this.

 

No I am not serious in this proposal and know that it would not be popular, however it may be useful if more people adopted this as a model of their posting behaviour here.

 

- Thomas

[thesurfingalien]

I did not say Dennis' position was extreme. I said that I did not like that he attempts to make those who do not agree with him into extremists or outliers when in fact that is not the case at all. The poll numbers indicate many others reside in neither camp and few on the extremes.

 

Hi 4est,

 

I alologize; I misread what you wrote. However, I hardly think that Dennis thinks in terms of extremists or outliers.

[PopPop]

My parody was intended to be a parody of both views. Yes I tend toward one view more than the other. And I put what I think has some truth in both views.

 

That's a hoot, "I feel strongly both ways." I'm sorry Dennis, I just couldn't resist , you have a lot to say but that just made me chuckle. I just came home from a night out and my wife had to drive. Do you see where I'm going here? At this moment the whole situation seems to be a bit juvenile. If everybody on this forum spent as much time trying to understand each others point of view as they do trying to promote their own, it would make for an easier read.

 

Carry on.

[wgscott]

My parody was intended to be a parody of both views. Yes I tend toward one view more than the other. And I put what I think has some truth in both views.

 

I thought it was very creative, insightful and humorous. It is one of the finest posts I have ever read here.

[wgscott]

I just came home from a night out and my wife had to drive. ... it would make for an easier read.

 

Carry on.

 

It would also make an easier read if you let her type for you too.

 

<--- winkie of absolution

[Daudio]

I thought it was very creative, insightful and humorous. It is one of the finest posts I have ever read here.

 

So many times I wonder if you are putting us on, or just out of your gourd ???

[mayhem13]

One idea that I have entertained, flippantly and completely counter to my anarchic tendencies as described in earlier posts in this thread, is for everyone to have a monthly post quota (and word quota), say ten posts, three thousand words per month max. In this way people would be compelled to be concise and post primarily when they have something insightful and relevant to say.

 

For me this would be no problem, as I have so many other things to do (in the real life category) that I can only check in here a few times per week, mainly just to read and with too little time to organise a pithy, insightful contribution. Others appear to have a lot more (maybe too much) free time to engage in this.

 

No I am not serious in this proposal and know that it would not be popular, however it may be useful if more people adopted this as a model of their posting behaviour here.

 

- Thomas

 

Quotas.......more moderation,......expulsion of those who do not conform......?

 

Does anybody even have a remote clue of what they're proposing?

[PopPop]

It would also make an easier read if you let her type for you too.

 

<--- winkie of absolution

 

No doubt about that, he-he

 

So many times I wonder if you are putting us on, or just out of your gourd ???

 

Choose which ever gives you the most peace

[souptin]

Quotas.......more moderation,......expulsion of those who do not conform......?

 

Does anybody even have a remote clue of what they're proposing?

 

Stepford HiFi, presumably.

[esldude]

Forrest has a point - instead of staying on subject, Dennis put in a thinly disguised attempt to put forward his agenda. What exactly that agenda may be, is hard to tell. But I do get the impression Dennis would be quite happy if everyone on this site turned into an obedient little soldier and fell in line agreeing with him. The constant repetition of such utter tripe is meant to condition people to accept it over time. To desensitize people.

 

Honestly, I find that kind of behavior rather appalling in anyone, but it is double so when someone with brains is doing it. However, it is well within the bounds of acceptable behavior, and what I think about it is just my opinion. I am probably an outlier with this.

 

-Paul

 

Putting forward an agenda or just having a relatively consistent opinion?

 

If you read my post previous to the parody post, it should be clear I not only don't want everyone to fall in line and agree with me, but consider it valuable that such is not the case. I do have my own opinion as to what kind of approach makes sense to share insight among ourselves, but also know you won't get complete unanimity on the matter.

 

If anything, whatever effect my posting might have (and having an effect isn't the primary reason I post), rather than desensitizing people it would be just the reverse. To sensitize them to certain worthwhile things. No different than someone saying, "hey, look I tried these different ethernet cables and they sound different".

[esldude]

Mayhem is just being contrary - he knows that nobody here can or would forcibly eject him from more than a thread or too. The same goes for Dennis or almost anyone here who claims they are objective in nature. They are not objective of course, but they might have slept in a Holiday Inn Express in the past month or so...

 

-Paul

 

I don't claim to be totally objective. Don't know if any humans can be. I am pretty sure Mayhem doesn't think that of himself either. But attempting to be objective while knowing how misplaced subjectivity leads you astray is more a case of aspiring to something. One aspires to something that is beneficial or good or helpful. Aspiring to be objective certainly fits with that idea. Something looked upon objectively can be a big plus in a hobby like CA.

[esldude]

So it seems one for the points of controversy is what a member's intentions are when starting a thread.....that there might...or might not be a hidden or underlying agenda. Left to discovery, members here on the opposite end of the thread starter's position are almost surely going to formulate a conclusion. I submit the question then how do we avoid such for drawn conclusions? I could submit that when a member starts a thread that he/she feels might be controversial, a brief explanation of what the purpose of the thread might be can go a long way towards cooling the climate before I'll spirited replies begin. Members who wish to express a viewpoint will, and those unfamiliar with the topic being discussed remain free to observe or ask questions on points that might require clarification. Those members who feel the topic is too controversial for their liking, can.....and should just avoid the topic all together. Many of us have done this in real world situations such as discussions on politics or religion in the work place. Anyone who partakes in those IMO certainly is asking for trouble! Lol

 

Good idea. But a few of my threads which apparently annoyed many here just by their presence had such an explanation. That I didn't wish to be controversial or contentious and wanted the thread kept inside certain bounds. I can't say how successful that was. Not as successful as I wished, but perhaps more successful than without the explanation in the original post to those threads. And the reaction to that, the mention a few dozen times that such threads have no place on CA by some members has me wondering. I think that was part of what prompted wgscott to start the recent poll of his.

 

I had in mind a poll in recent days I would like to do. And it involves a situation I think worthy of discussion. But it appears I will be trying to desensitize and push forward more of my 'agenda' in the minds of some here. People like you Mayhem and myself must be awfully devious people to push our agenda this way. Asking questions and holding opinions not all like.

[PopPop]

I don't claim to be totally objective. Don't know if any humans can be. I am pretty sure Mayhem doesn't think that of himself either. But attempting to be objective while knowing how misplaced subjectivity leads you astray is more a case of aspiring to something. One aspires to something that is beneficial or good or helpful. Aspiring to be objective certainly fits with that idea. Something looked upon objectively can be a big plus in a hobby like CA.

 

I understand, but just try to remember that not all subjectivity leads us astray, some of it is valid but just hasn't been confirmed by objective standards. I admire your aspirations but don't get over invested in the notion that you are going to save every one from themselves, you may come off a bit imperious.

[wgscott]

Here's an idea: Let everyone "moderate" their own threads that they start. The blogs already have this option.

[esldude]

 

 

If you want an honest example, I think Dennis sometimes skirts the edge of this behavior - look at his provocative thread titles and the number of them. Since I believe he does this without malice, I'll live with it. He has brains and ofttimes shares his thinking. I do not view Dennis as an audiophile authority either, so I at least, would automatically cut him plenty of slack.

 

Indeed, I rather like Dennis, for all that I do not agree with his thinking or conclusions. (shrug) So what? Nobody elected me God and demanded I bring the heathen to heal. Wouldn't want the job even if they did.

 

 

-Paul

 

Well thank you for the complimentary comments Paul.

 

The threads you refer to as provocative were only intended to be provactive of good discussion and uncovering things I might not have seen. And to point to one way I thought the subjects could be usefully explored. I did try to couch them so as to remain more civil though it didn't work out that way.

 

I am glad you don't consider me an authority (did not think anyone did) nor am I trying to be one. Lots of people constantly answer to some question, "listen for your self and let your ears decide". In other words, find out for yourself. Now not surprisingly I think that approach has some flaws. However, if I promote anything it is another version of find out for yourself. Or maybe figure out for yourself what is really the case. I draw upon other people's work, my own experience, and aspire to rational approaches. But plenty of recurring ideas about audio can be investigated for oneself in ways that aren't simply, "trust your ears". For one of the things I found out for myself, was your ears can and will trick you if you let them.

[tne]

Quotas.......more moderation,......expulsion of those who do not conform......?

 

Does anybody even have a remote clue of what they're proposing?

 

Settle down, bruv, and read the post again and my earlier ones on this thread. You will see I am not really proposing this at all. Just recommending (somewhat elliptically perhaps) self-moderation. Like reading a post and editing it before blowing off steam.

[PopPop]

@wgscott: Done well, that would solve a lot of problems but it would put certain responsibility on the OP. In time the most credible contributors would rise to the top.

[esldude]

You reap what you sow. Your success at making people better informed is most often based on your skill in delivering the message. Most people won't be convinced of anything if you simply load them with facts that prove you are correct. It's always better to ask the questions that will make the other person come to the same conclusion that you did.

 

 

I think this is very wise. On the other hand, the threads I started that seemed to be the most annoying to others were all questions. Instead of coming to conclusions, some disputed the question, some said the question did not need asking, some said it did not need answering. The bottom line to that was those threads were unsuccessful at informing anyone.

[esldude]

Quotas.......more moderation,......expulsion of those who do not conform......?

 

Does anybody even have a remote clue of what they're proposing?

 

 

Well, gives me an idea. Maybe I will start my own group of forums. We have the asylum. Maybe there is a niche for the audiophile gulag. What do you think?

[sandyk]

In time the most credible contributors would rise to the top.

 

Or the most prolific thread starters ? Swamp the forum with your own threads, and "moderate" any dissenting replies.

Just check who starts the most threads , including polls .