Should blind testing discussion be banned on CA? POLL

[RealAudio]

Aaaaah.....interesting example using the subjective experience of wine tasting.

 

And correct me but...isn't it exactly what happened where the fancy pants abilities to distinguish premium wine were exposed for nonsensical posturing?

 

Actually the study was that if you told a group a wine was more expensive they would judge it better than the same wine if they were told it was less expensive. Their perceptions were backed up by FMRI scans.

[Superdad]

I'll be blunt with you guys (I am always honest, thus it would be redundant use that word, so blunt is what comes to mind):

 

I don't really care if some people don't want to believe in audible differences among anything not fully measurable and documented with DBTs. But I find it insulting when I am attacked or called names for reporting on things I reliably and repeatably hear in my own system in A/B/A comparisons. I'm 52 and have been at this since I was 12. I've helped develop some of the most musically moving and realistic sounding amplification components in the world (widely praised, even if never heard with the most transparent speakers or properly done full system), and I am skilled in judging subtle differences in passive and active parts and acoustic environments. (I have also been to many live acoustic concerts over the years, spent time in recording studios, have numerous musician friends, and current hear my son in his high school concert band at least twice per month.) And in the last couple of years I've become very attuned to variations in digital filters, s/w players, and multiple aspects of computer audio optimization.

 

[Yes, I am fortunate to have a wife that makes good money so I can earn an extremely modest income from what is essentially a part time pursuit in the field I am passionate about (the rest of my time is shuttling our teen boys around, cooking meals, and dealing with all the house and finance stuff so my wife can relax when she comes home mid-evening after a long commute). Pushing a commercial agenda is not my primary reason for participating on CA, though some of my products and projects with John Swenson are rather relevant, and I share those and the excitement about it naturally but gingerly. If my motives were profit, I would stop wasting hours posting here, finish and launch a web site, and go promote over on Head-Fi where there is real traffic and money. But I like the people here, I like learning, I like sharing, and I like improving my own system.]

 

Anyway, the "blunt" point I wanted to make is that I find it ludicrous and offensive when someone claims I can't hear what I hear and am deluding myself and others by reporting on what I do hear. I did not build this room and advance my system (and the internals of the components that comprise it) over the decades to the "holy crap that sounds real" stage it's at by fooling myself in the 1,000s of A/B/A comparisons I have made--alone and with others.

 

As much as skeptics don't want to believe it, scores of physical things make a difference, and while individual elements may be subtle to some, the cumulative results are anything but. Film capacitors, resistor composition, transistor types, power supplies, wire geometry and metallurgy, house wiring, tonearm VTA/VTF varied by minuscule amounts, wall rigidity, cryogenic treatment, computer interfaces, software players and OS optimization, and digital filter types, impulse response, and slopes--every stinkin' one of those and many more all make audible and sometimes measurable differences, and they all add up big time.

 

So if blind ABX testing is what floats your boat and is what your mind requires to believe that any of the above variables make audible differences, then have at it. Me? I'll continue refining my system based on first-hand audible discrimination between single-variable comparisons driven by both solid engineering research (thanks John!) and curiosity piqued by anecdotal reporting of people around the world. Even I had a lab with $500K of measurement gear and the knowledge to use it, I don't think I could find enough meaningful correlations between measurements and SQ (on some things yes) to make the time investment worthwhile, and those would still not be a substitute for auditioning the element. 95% of engineers/owners of high-end audio firms--including those with the test equipment and know-how--still use listening to confirm and guide their designs.

And what possible use would a DBT be for me if I hear the difference and too few others can? Do you real think I'd then say, yeah, all this must just be in my head?

 

Good grief, another hour wasted. Sorry buy I must make a promise to myself (for the sake of work) and vow to quit this thread.

Bye!

--Alex C.

[Superdad]

Listen Alex, I get it....really I do. The mystique of tweeking is held in the highest of reverence for you and the success of your business. It's really a niche' market and shrinking quickly. Anything you and others who share your position can do is certainly a worthwhile effort. Noble work certainly recognized by our host who permits you to tag your signature with a link to your company.

 

Really Anthony?

[esldude]

Oh, btw, just some recent material I came across which gives some insight into this - it's from a textbook "Sensory Evaluation Techniques", the educational standard in the field of sensory science. & it's about what's called in academia, "duo-trio balanced reference mode test" which I believe ABX testing falls into this category. Anyway, what it has to say at the bottom of Page 73 is this:

 

6.4.3.

Select, train & instruct the subjects as described under section 6.3.3. As a general rule, the minimum is 16 subjects, but for less than 28, the beta error is high. Discrimination is much improved if 32, 40, or a larger number [of subjects] can be employed."

 

[beta error is a statistical error in testing when it is concluded that something is negative when it is actually positive. Beta error is often referred to as "false negative".]

 

I am not sure that means what you think it means.

 

Simplified example:

 

I get 7 of 10 correct. Not significant so it gets a negative result.

 

I get 70 of 100 correct that is more than 99% confidence the result is not random and would be called a positive.

 

Just part of statistitics. You need somewhere around 30-32 to fill out a normal distribution pretty well. I actually never liked using as few as 16 though it is done. In the sense of my above example it would generate too many false negatives, and false positives.

 

I also don't really like to accept 95% or 2 sigma results. You get much better concrete results that won't disappear upon retrial if you stick with at least 3 sigma or 99.7% confidence levels. I then of course get accused of moving goalposts or trying to make the acceptance level too stringent. I actually like to know results will repeat without too much worry. I am not odd in this opinion and quite a few are calling for it in medical studies, and for use in social sciences.

[Jud]

Noble work certainly recognized by our host who permits you to tag your signature with a link to your company.

 

I believe Chris actually requires showing company affiliation to inform other forum members of a commenter's commercial connections. Yes, Alex and others are permitted to do that in the form of a link for the convenience of anyone interested in following up.

[Daudio]

Dave, does he own an explanation, he after all "owns" this business. Or as the saying goes "he is the master of his domain...."

 

Well, yes, he owns the domain name, he pays for the hosting, he configures the forum software, he write reviews (good ones !). Sometimes he posts in the forum, less for a while now as he jets around the world and lives the high life.

 

But, we, the membership, the CA Community contribute the majority of the content, which is the true value of the site, in the eyes of Google and the advertisers !

 

But, of course the fine print 'taketh away':

 

CA Terms of Service:

...

3. Copyright

Copyright to all Content on the site is either owned by Audiophile Style, LLC or is licensed to Audiophile Style, LLC.

...

5. User Content

... By posting User Content on this site, you hereby grant Audiophile Style, LLC an unrestricted, transferable and sub-licensable, irrevocable, royalty-free, world-wide, and perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, make derivative works of, and otherwise use the User Content.

 

So even through we create and supply the bulk of the content that makes computeraudiophile.com valuable, we have no legal rights whatsoever. That I can see. BUT we do have a big stake in this site. Our contributions are not 'free', in the sense that they are the products of our valuable knowledge, and the work of our typing fingers. You know, some people actualy get paid for what we do for free !

 

I'm not looking to get paid, only to point out that every CA member has a stake in it, and as an aggregate the entire CA membership/community has a greater stake in the site and content, then the cheap-ass, boilerplate, TOS acknowledges.

 

I'm, for one, am not happy with the 'benevolent dictator' style of running things here. Paternalism wears thin after a while, IMO. I would like to see a more equal sharing of influence on the sites issues between the community and the owner (where is he ?).

[esldude]

I'll be blunt with you guys (I am always honest, thus it would be redundant use that word, so blunt is what comes to mind):

 

I don't really care if some people don't want to believe in audible differences among anything not fully measurable and documented with DBTs. But I find it insulting when I am attacked or called names for reporting on things I reliably and repeatably hear in my own system in A/B/A comparisons. I'm 52 and have been at this since I was 12. I've helped develop some of the most musically moving and realistic sounding amplification components in the world (widely praised, even if never heard with the most transparent speakers or properly done full system), and I am skilled in judging subtle differences in passive and active parts and acoustic environments. (I have also been to many live acoustic concerts over the years, spent time in recording studios, have numerous musician friends, and current hear my son in his high school concert band at least twice per month.) And in the last couple of years I've become very attuned to variations in digital filters, s/w players, and multiple aspects of computer audio optimization.

 

[Yes, I am fortunate to have a wife that makes good money so I can earn an extremely modest income from what is essentially a part time pursuit in the field I am passionate about (the rest of my time is shuttling our teen boys around, cooking meals, and dealing with all the house and finance stuff so my wife can relax when she comes home mid-evening after a long commute). Pushing a commercial agenda is not my primary reason for participating on CA, though some of my products and projects with John Swenson are rather relevant, and I share those and the excitement about it naturally but gingerly. If my motives were profit, I would stop wasting hours posting here, finish and launch a web site, and go promote over on Head-Fi where there is real traffic and money. But I like the people here, I like learning, I like sharing, and I like improving my own system.]

 

Anyway, the "blunt" point I wanted to make is that I find it ludicrous and offensive when someone claims I can't hear what I hear and am deluding myself and others by reporting on what I do hear. I did not build this room and advance my system (and the internals of the components that comprise it) over the decades to the "holy crap that sounds real" stage it's at by fooling myself in the 1,000s of A/B/A comparisons I have made--alone and with others.

 

As much as skeptics don't want to believe it, scores of physical things make a difference, and while individual elements may be subtle to some, the cumulative results are anything but. Film capacitors, resistor composition, transistor types, power supplies, wire geometry and metallurgy, house wiring, tonearm VTA/VTF varied by minuscule amounts, wall rigidity, cryogenic treatment, computer interfaces, software players and OS optimization, and digital filter types, impulse response, and slopes--every stinkin' one of those and many more all make audible and sometimes measurable differences, and they all add up big time.

 

So if blind ABX testing is what floats your boat and is what your mind requires to believe that any of the above variables make audible differences, then have at it. Me? I'll continue refining my system based on first-hand audible discrimination between single-variable comparisons driven by both solid engineering research (thanks John!) and curiosity piqued by anecdotal reporting of people around the world. Even I had a lab with $500K of measurement gear and the knowledge to use it, I don't think I could find enough meaningful correlations between measurements and SQ (on some things yes) to make the time investment worthwhile, and those would still not be a substitute for auditioning the element. 95% of engineers/owners of high-end audio firms--including those with the test equipment and know-how--still use listening to confirm and guide their designs.

And what possible use would a DBT be for me if I hear the difference and too few others can? Do you real think I'd then say, yeah, all this must just be in my head?

 

Good grief, another hour wasted. Sorry buy I must make a promise to myself (for the sake of work) and vow to quit this thread.

Bye!

--Alex C.

 

I will give a blunt reply.

 

This why there is no point discussing DBT with you or those like you. You have faith in your sighted hearing, and your experience etc. You wouldn't believe the result if a DBT done well in your own system showed you couldn't recognize the difference blind. You find it offensive anyone even insuates such is the case. So you would simply dismiss the test.

 

Such is the impasse. One difficult to overcome. Perhaps impossible for most. Perhaps impossible for 99%. I am not sure what the percentage would be as not many have switched sides after having a few years experience one way or the other.

 

As wgscott asks at times, under what conditions would you accept being wrong? If the answer you have given is the case, then you won't believe the result. Your opinions are not falsifiable in your mind. You find offense at the very suggestion. There is nowhere to go with that. Hence the continual uselessness of discussion. Both ways.

[Daudio]

Noble work certainly recognized by our host who permits you to tag your signature with a link to your company.

 

from: CA Terms of Service:

 

"5. User Content

Our site allows users to post, submit, or display information, messages, suggestions, questions, comments, postings, advertisements, ratings, ideas, techniques, notes, know-how, drawings, concepts, designs, audio visual material, photographs and pictures (including pictures of the user and other representations of the user's name and likeness), digital images, or other content in any form (collectively "User Content")"

 

So why do you have a problem with that allowable activity, other then general spewing of bile ?

 

 

so much for you. next:

 

Poor Dennis, he is locked in a tightly sealed DBT box, and can't get out. We can't seem to help him either. poor lost Dennis

[esldude]

Well, yes, he owns the domain name, he pays for the hosting, he configures the forum software, he write reviews (good ones !). Sometimes he posts in the forum, less for a while now as he jets around the world and lives the high life.

 

But, we, the membership, the CA Community contribute the majority of the content, which is the true value of the site, in the eyes of Google and the advertisers !

 

But, of course the fine print 'taketh away':

 

CA Terms of Service:

...

3. Copyright

Copyright to all Content on the site is either owned by Audiophile Style, LLC or is licensed to Audiophile Style, LLC.

...

5. User Content

... By posting User Content on this site, you hereby grant Audiophile Style, LLC an unrestricted, transferable and sub-licensable, irrevocable, royalty-free, world-wide, and perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, make derivative works of, and otherwise use the User Content.

 

So even through we create and supply the bulk of the content that makes computeraudiophile.com valuable, we have no legal rights whatsoever. That I can see. BUT we do have a big stake in this site. Our contributions are not 'free', in the sense that they are the products of our valuable knowledge, and the work of our typing fingers. You know, some people actualy get paid for what we do for free !

 

I'm not looking to get paid, only to point out that every CA member has a stake in it, and as an aggregate the entire CA membership/community has a greater stake in the site and content, then the cheap-ass, boilerplate, TOS acknowledges.

 

I'm, for one, am not happy with the 'benevolent dictator' style of running things here. Paternalism wears thin after a while, IMO. I would like to see a more equal sharing of influence on the sites issues between the community and the owner (where is he ?).

 

You can simply PM Chris. He has always been approachable and willing to respond in my limited experience with that.

[Jud]

Alex, my friend, it's with a little trepidation I respond, since the thread has gotten you a little (OK, more than a little) exercised.

 

What I'd counsel (easy for me to do so, since I don't have a company/life's work associated with it) is to divorce someone's views on audio from any *intent* to denigrate or insult your personal experience. I think Dennis is quite sincere about exploring the audio world from a particular vantage point, one that he believes will lead to improvements in the products we listen to. You feel that way about your vantage point. Just as you don't think, as you're listening to and evaluating components, "This is great, it'll really stick it to Dennis and all those objective bastards!", I'm sure he doesn't waste his time thinking, as he does blind tests, "This is wonderful, it'll show those idiot subjective fools like Superdad!" You do this stuff and write about it for your own edification and enjoyment, not to screw with anyone else. I believe the same of Dennis.

 

So it does kind of mystify me when one "side" takes what the other is happy about posting for themselves as some sort of personal insult aimed directly at them.

[kumakuma]

CA Terms of Service:

 

5. User Content

Our site allows users to post, submit, or display information, messages, suggestions, questions, comments, postings, advertisements, ratings, ideas, techniques, notes, know-how, drawings, concepts, designs, audio visual material, photographs and pictures (including pictures of the user and other representations of the user's name and likeness), digital images, or other content in any form (collectively "User Content")

 

So why do you have a problem with that allowable activity, other then general spewing of bile ?

 

The TOS also says:

 

Except as specifically authorized, you will not: (i) upload or otherwise post User Content with a commercial purpose, including, but not limited to, offers to sell products or services or attempts to solicit funds or to advertise products or services;

 

For the record though, I am cool with Alex selling his products on CA in the low-key manner in which he does it.

[Allan F]

Alex, my friend, it's with a little trepidation I respond, since the thread has gotten you a little (OK, more than a little) exercised...

 

You are starting to sound a bit like some of the wishy-washy judges I used to appear in front of, who wanted to please everyone but ended up pleasing no one. (a joke, only, in response to the end of your sentence)

[wdw]

Typo

[petaluma]

Well, yes, he owns the domain name, he pays for the hosting, he configures the forum software, he write reviews (good ones !). Sometimes he posts in the forum, less for a while now as he jets around the world and lives the high life.

 

But, we, the membership, the CA Community contribute the majority of the content, which is the true value of the site, in the eyes of Google and the advertisers !

 

But, of course the fine print 'taketh away':

 

CA Terms of Service:

...

3. Copyright

Copyright to all Content on the site is either owned by Audiophile Style, LLC or is licensed to Audiophile Style, LLC.

...

5. User Content

... By posting User Content on this site, you hereby grant Audiophile Style, LLC an unrestricted, transferable and sub-licensable, irrevocable, royalty-free, world-wide, and perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, make derivative works of, and otherwise use the User Content.

 

So even through we create and supply the bulk of the content that makes computeraudiophile.com valuable, we have no legal rights whatsoever. That I can see. BUT we do have a big stake in this site. Our contributions are not 'free', in the sense that they are the products of our valuable knowledge, and the work of our typing fingers. You know, some people actualy get paid for what we do for free !

 

I'm not looking to get paid, only to point out that every CA member has a stake in it, and as an aggregate the entire CA membership/community has a greater stake in the site and content, then the cheap-ass, boilerplate, TOS acknowledges.

 

I'm, for one, am not happy with the 'benevolent dictator' style of running things here. Paternalism wears thin after a while, IMO. I would like to see a more equal sharing of influence on the sites issues between the community and the owner (where is he ?).

 

Dave, I am with you on most if not all of what you said. I do agree that some form of explanation, or better yet a defined new user guide/probationary period would be a good idea. Chris I'm sure will weigh the pros and cons about his management decisions and the possible impact to his client base and consequently his business based on those decisions

 

In our discussion yesterday, you, Christopher(3393) and I talked about setting up a team to look at drafting a new user guide etc...I would have thought we might have heard more support from other CA users for this but very few if any others stating support, or maybe if they do they feel they will get roped into some work! So at the 20 thousand foot level I think the community, or at least the members watching this thread have spoken. One thing I have seen is when people are passionate about something on this site there is an onslaught of posts supporting or decimating an idea.

 

I'm a newbie so while I would be more than willing to participate on the team to draft something I think it would be more appropriate for a more experienced CA'er to lead the team, if anyone believes an outline for new users would be advantageous.

 

David

[Allan F]

Alright, you amateurs:

 

A lawyer waits all morning for his case to be called while the judge is back in his chambers, drinking coffee. Just before noon, the judge comes out and announces, "Court is adjourned for the rest of the day, come back tomorrow."

The lawyer stands up and complains, "This is really screwed!"

"That's $40 for contempt, $10 a word", says the judge.

The lawyer then starts digging through his wallet. "You don't have pay right now", says the judge.

"It's not that, Judge", the lawyer replies, "I wanted to see if I've got enough money on me for two more words".

[Jud]

You are starting to sound a bit like some of the wishy-washy judges I used to appear in front of, who wanted to please everyone, and ended up pleasing no one. (a joke, only, to address the end of your sentence)

 

Joke or no, to clarify what I'm saying: Unless we are able to deal with differing opinions like reasonable adults - even better, reasonable adults who share a common fascination with music, reproduced well (within the confines of our budgets), and therefore ought to have plenty about which to cheerfully shoot the breeze and kid ourselves and others - then this forum, which has the potential to help us share our enjoyment of our wonderful hobby, won't be very much fun at all. And I wouldn't like to see that, not one damn bit.

 

So it sure would be nice if folks would stop acting like brats, or thinking "He started it!" is an acceptable justification. From 5 year olds, that might wash, but not the folks here.

[esldude]

Ah - I see now what you are truly irritated about. It is that everyone isn't agreeing with you on a subject you see so clearly and plainly.

 

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, like usual. Are you willing to admit that sighted listening tests at least *can be* as valid as DBTs, and that a DBT can and sometimes will return false results? If so, the whole issue just goes away, doesn't it?

 

If you contend that *only* DBTs can be used to judge a piece of equipment, and all results other than DBTs are bogus or "highly suspect" or some other wording that means anecdotal and unacceptable, then I am afraid that a lot of people are not going to agree with you. Regardless of how many times or ways you restate it, or how obvious it seems to you.

 

Yours,

-Paul

 

There is no doubt a DBT can return false results. Repeating them to confirm a result is done for that reason. The very nature of 95% confidence is that some 5% can be wrong due to randomness. There are other things needed to make them good. They can be wrong due to other factors.

 

EDIT to add: now come to think of it, I find most sighed listening comparisons to have two faults. One they blow actual differences out of proportion. The classic minor barely heard (though perhaps musically important) difference being called night and day. Two there is always a certainty expressed. To do much questioning of the sighted listening quickly results all to often in the heated hurt reply that you shouldn't call into question what another person did or didn't hear.

 

So how about some confidence levels on those sighted listening conclusions? 90% sure whatever seems they are always stated as if it is 100% certainty. Equally maybe descriptions of it being 2% better instead of all these night and day important differences.

 

I don't say only DBT's can be used to evaluate equipment. Remember I said it was a last resort usually. Sighted listening can reveal genuine differences. Is it as valid as DBT? Well depends on your purposes and the size of the differences. In my opinion in order of discriminating ability, you have sighted listening, level matched sighted listening A/B comparisons, measurements, and finally if something is too complex or not certain of being audible the test via DBT. Even the DBT can be informal and barely better discrimination or it can meet full ITU recommendations being quite rigorous.

[alfe]

I will give a blunt reply.

 

This why there is no point discussing DBT with you or those like you. You have faith in your sighted hearing, and your experience etc. You wouldn't believe the result if a DBT done well in your own system showed you couldn't recognize the difference blind. You find it offensive anyone even insuates such is the case. So you would simply dismiss the test.

 

Such is the impasse. One difficult to overcome. Perhaps impossible for most. Perhaps impossible for 99%. I am not sure what the percentage would be as not many have switched sides after having a few years experience one way or the other.

 

As wgscott asks at times, under what conditions would you accept being wrong? If the answer you have given is the case, then you won't believe the result. Your opinions are not falsifiable in your mind. You find offense at the very suggestion. There is nowhere to go with that. Hence the continual uselessness of discussion. Both ways.

 

Dennis,

 

You should change your vote

[Superdad]

Alex, my friend, it's with a little trepidation I respond, since the thread has gotten you a little (OK, more than a little) exercised.

 

What I'd counsel (easy for me to do so, since I don't have a company/life's work associated with it) is to divorce someone's views on audio from any *intent* to denigrate or insult your personal experience. I think Dennis is quite sincere about exploring the audio world from a particular vantage point, one that he believes will lead to improvements in the products we listen to. You feel that way about your vantage point. Just as you don't think, as you're listening to and evaluating components, "This is great, it'll really stick it to Dennis and all those objective bastards!", I'm sure he doesn't waste his time thinking, as he does blind tests, "This is wonderful, it'll show those idiot subjective fools like Superdad!" You do this stuff and write about it for your own edification and enjoyment, not to screw with anyone else. I believe the same of Dennis.

 

So it does kind of mystify me when one "side" takes what the other is happy about posting for themselves as some sort of personal insult aimed directly at them.

 

Well you are right as always Jud, thanks. And Dennis has never made a personal attack on me--just my ilk.

I wish I could say the same for others here (though prudence I have already deleted my expletive response to mayhem13).

 

I guess I am just a bit confused about what Dennis and others are after, and wonder why they are in the hobby if they are so afraid to trust their ears. It is not as if I have some sort of special dog hearing, and based on so many anecdotal reports it is hard to fathom why they are still so skeptical.

 

In yesterday's post I used the example of near-universal praise for Miska's Poly-sinc family of filters. Hardly a controversial thing (in that what it does is readily measurable), but Dennis' reply was "I would like to see some more evidence. As this is the kind of thing people report which is marginal and often turns out not to be so."

 

Anyway, I am okay with Dennis having his views and me mine. And I bet we could enjoy a beverage and some good tunes together. But you are right, I need to not take this personally.

 

Best to all,

--Alex C.

[Daudio]

Ait does kind of mystify me when one "side" takes what the other is happy about posting for themselves as some sort of personal insult aimed directly at them.

 

Maybe it is like lawyer jokes to you ?

[petaluma]

So it sure would be nice if folks would stop acting like brats, or thinking "He started it!" is an acceptable justification. From 5 year olds, that might wash, but not the folks here.

 

Jud, +1, are you interested in leading a team to create a new user code of conduct sticky/document/thread????? Might help at least the new folks.

[esldude]

Dennis,

 

You should change your vote

 

I agree. Though I actually don't think you can change a vote once entered.

 

I'll just have to effectively ignore the blind test issue after I am done with the thread and poll I started.

[Superdad]

Sighted listening can reveal genuine differences. Is it as valid as DBT? Well depends on your purposes and the size of the differences. In my opinion in order of discriminating ability, you have sighted listening, level matched sighted listening A/B comparisons, measurements, and finally if something is too complex or not certain of being audible the test via DBT.

 

Well that is VERY different from the impressions you have given to date!

And that certainly leaves room for me, since what I am saying is that my room/system--and ear/brain familiarity with it--is good enough that a large number of the sort of hardware/software changes that others have a tough time accepting, are readily discernible with A/B/A comparisons (sighted or blind I don't care).

 

Maybe, just maybe, we are not so far apart after all Dennis.

[alfe]

Jud, +1, are you interested in leading a team to create a new user code of conduct sticky/document/thread????? Might help at least the new folks.

 

His name is Jud not Jesus:)

I don't think he want to be crucified to save the CA community.

[Allan F]

Joke or no, to clarify what I'm saying: Unless we are able to deal with differing opinions like reasonable adults - even better, reasonable adults who share a common fascination with music, reproduced well (within the confines of our budgets), and therefore ought to have plenty about which to cheerfully shoot the breeze and kid ourselves and others - then this forum, which has the potential to help us share our enjoyment of our wonderful hobby, won't be very much fun at all. And I wouldn't like to see that, not one damn bit.

 

So it sure would be nice if folks would stop acting like brats, or thinking "He started it!" is an acceptable justification. From 5 year olds, that might wash, but not the folks here.

 

While I can't, in principle, disagree with anything that you say, I'm enough of a realist to know that intelligent people with strong opinions are often going to express them in a manner that reflects that, especially when they disagree. I'm sure that you have experienced the same regularly as an attorney. Ironically, in my experience, the civil lawyers were far less civil than the criminal lawyers. However, there is no question that the more egregious conduct can be toned down considerably, if not eliminated.

 

It might do well for us to reflect on the following:

 

"We cannot reason our way out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way."

 

-Aldous Huxley (Island)