Trolls

[Priaptor]

Yes, but you have repeatedly made a somewhat outrageous claim, and I think have added that you won't debate it because it is not debatable, being factual rather than interpretive. I don't think even Scalia would agree with you on this point. For example, semantic originalism, which Scalia tried to adhere to, is messy, but he would say it is the best option, I think.

 

Outrageous claim??

 

Really.

 

Again out of context.

[christopher3393]

Outrageous claim??

 

Really.

 

Again out of context.

 

Cryptic. But, nevermind. Off topic.

[The Computer Audiophile]

What are the chances we can bring this thread back around to trolls and some minute relation to audio?

[gmgraves]

History, like audio reviewing, is nothing more than an opinion based on the available facts... It's an interpretation, guided by culture, politics, ethics, economics, almost always biased, hardly ever observational.

 

R

 

Isn't there an old aphorism that says: "The winners on the world stage write the history and the losers have to accept it."?

[Priaptor]

Cryptic. But, nevermind. Off topic.

 

Ah just saw one of your previous posts that could give you that impression. Sorry about that. I could elaborate further but am respecting Chris's wish. Like I said to Jud we could start another thread about these issues. After reading your prior post I understand why you came to the conclusion you did.

[sdolezalek]

I missed that. Sorry about that. I only saw his/her original quote with Chris's thumbs up and all the likes that I was assuming (my mistake) that his point was the accepted truth and how Internet "facts" get perpetuated. I am glad he corrected his comments. .

 

I'm always willing to learn and there have been a number of topics (thankfully mostly audio) where I have learned from your comments.

 

My main point was even though I have no idea who you or many of the other posters here are, I have gotten to know their CA personas. Among the personalities we have each developed here on CA there now exists a certain sense of community, fair play and playful (and sometimes heated) disagreement. Almost by definition, those here whose opinion (on matters audiophile) I respect most are those who have reflected a change in beliefs due to the appearance of new evidence/facts. That tells me that their overall beliefs are more likely to be knowledge based rather than static beliefs.

 

What I don't know, but would be willing to hear data on, was whether in the days of the Framers and Founders, people truly had no idea who was whom under those pseudonyms, or whether they we being used even though "insiders" generally knew who was behind the curtain.

 

More purely to audio and trolls: I rarely trust strong or absolute voices on any subject, such as "cables absolutely cannot make a difference" or "bits are bits," etc. Usually I attribute those either to an attempted oversimplification or to an intentional leaving out of other facts or information, which, if included, would make the original statement far less absolute, i.e. "within the range of human hearing impedence differences between cables of at least minimum diameter should not account for audible differences." When folks add those qualifiers, or indicate there may be other factors at work, their credibility (in my eyes) goes up. In that regard, I would define an audiophile troll as "someone who strongly disagrees with a generally accepted viewpoint without offering an at least somewhat rational basis for the contrary belief."

[Priaptor]

I'm always willing to learn and there have been a number of topics (thankfully mostly audio) where I have learned from your comments.

 

My main point was even though I have no idea who you or many of the other posters here are, I have gotten to know their CA personas. Among the personalities we have each developed here on CA there now exists a certain sense of community, fair play and playful (and sometimes heated) disagreement. Almost by definition, those here whose opinion (on matters audiophile) I respect most are those who have reflected a change in beliefs due to the appearance of new evidence/facts. That tells me that their overall beliefs are more likely to be knowledge based rather than static beliefs.

 

What I don't know, but would be willing to hear data on, was whether in the days of the Framers and Founders, people truly had no idea who was whom under those pseudonyms, or whether they we being used even though "insiders" generally knew who was behind the curtain.

 

More purely to audio and trolls: I rarely trust strong or absolute voices on any subject, such as "cables absolutely cannot make a difference" or "bits are bits," etc. Usually I attribute those either to an attempted oversimplification or to an intentional leaving out of other facts or information, which, if included, would make the original statement far less absolute, i.e. "within the range of human hearing impedence differences between cables of at least minimum diameter should not account for audible differences." When folks add those qualifiers, or indicate there may be other factors at work, their credibility (in my eyes) goes up. In that regard, I would define an audiophile troll as "someone who strongly disagrees with a generally accepted viewpoint without offering an at least somewhat rational basis for the contrary belief."

 

SD,

 

Excellent post and appreciate your perspective. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not sure why the dogma regarding audio, particularly the absolutes and have made that point on several occasions.

 

As to your question regarding the Founders and Framers the easy answer is there were times yes, there times no and there were times when there were so called co-conspirators as well as multiple combinations of the all the variables. One of my favorites of all was when Jefferson (when he was Washington's SOS) and Madison were bashing Washington anonymously (as a Federalist as well as personally) and the Federalists in the press and Washington was clueless as to the perpetrator doing the trashing even though Jefferson was one of his closest advisers. It wasn't always easy to see your enemies back then and not as simple as one might think and other times pretty simple. Remember that Madison wrote Washington's first inaugural address as well as the rules for how POTUS would interact with Congress. You can only imagine Washington's dismay when he found out that these two were his enemies.

 

In any case it is fascinating stuff to read about.

[Paul R]

That almost sounds like you've seen the light and have come over to the objectivist side with me.

 

I suspect I was what you think of as an "objectivist" (though I disagree with that label) when you were still in diapers. Or at least, short pants...

[Sal1950]

I suspect I was what you think of as an "objectivist" (though I disagree with that label) when you were still in diapers. Or at least, short pants...

I believe you would find yourself in error with that statement.

Unless your in your 80s

[Paul R]

I believe you would find yourself in error with that statement.

Unless your in your 80s

 

Closer than I would like, I am afraid. Well, perhaps while you were a pimply teenager then. (Grin)

 

In any case, the labels objectivist and subjectivist are powerfully misleading, and serve more to pigeonhole people than to understand them or their point of view.

 

A real "objectivist"'viewpoint rarely includes the word "impossible" - though it does lead to some very animated discussions!

 

I think the terms are used more as insults, particuarly in the audiophile world, than as useful lables. They originated as a marketing device, which should be a strong clue.

 

And they serve as very useful troll bait to those so inclined to use them that way. Often when presented as some outlandish claim that cannot be immediately refuted. When challenged, the troll will often claim persecution as well.

 

It puts any normal person, with limited time for our hobby, at a distinct disadvantage. It takes far more time and effort than people are willing to spend to refute the troll, and so he or she gains a form of notoriety. I suspect that would be what they wanted all along. Reminds me of adolesencts in the "I Want Attention!" stage. You know, the stage where they want instant recognition but are not willing to work for it yet?

 

Sort of a form of "If you can not dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit" type of thing perhaps. (?)

[17629v2]

I believe you would find yourself in error with that statement.

Unless your in your 80s

 

Too much information. We don't need to know anything about your diapers. Speak of it no more.

[Sal1950]

Too much information. We don't need to know anything about your diapers. Speak of it no more.

Did you soil yourself again?

[christopher3393]

The existential troll:

 

[Paul R]

Deleted because picture needed to be licensed. -Paul

Stereophile V39#8 Advert.pdf

[17629v2]

Did you soil yourself again?

 

Yes, but not from your post. And no, I'm not posting pics no matter how many times you ask.

[Don Hills]

Too much information. We don't need to know anything about your diapers. Speak of it no more.

 

A deeper significance of diapers is that you need them at both ends of your life.

[christopher3393]

A deeper significance of diapers is that you need them at both ends of your life.

 

That depends.

[Sal1950]

That depends.

How witty! LOL

[Paul R]

That depends.

 

Oh dear puns -- a dreaded disease!

 

I think it is time for your nappy now...

 

-Paul

[sdolezalek]

Seven of the last 10 posts in this thread seem to have degraded down to the trolling level. Are you all trying to prove that you too have the dreaded troll disease?

 

Question on "troll etiquette:" does adding a smiley face to an otherwise "trolling" post make it ok?

[Priaptor]

Seven of the last 10 posts in this thread seem to have degraded down to the trolling level. Are you all trying to prove that you too have the dreaded troll disease?

 

Question on "troll etiquette:" does adding a smiley face to an otherwise "trolling" post make it ok?

 

I knew I liked you.

 

I have to agree that many contentious threads on CA are started and continued it seems for trolling.

[wgscott]

Question on "troll etiquette:" does adding a smiley face to an otherwise "trolling" post make it ok?

 

No.

 

You have to use the winkie of absolution. ;-)

[Paul R]

Seven of the last 10 posts in this thread seem to have degraded down to the trolling level. Are you all trying to prove that you too have the dreaded troll disease?

 

Question on "troll etiquette:" does adding a smiley face to an otherwise "trolling" post make it ok?

 

(grin) I see your point. However, I am not at all convinced it is "trolling" when people have a little bit of fun, especially when it lightens the mood when the subject is relatively difficult and certainly depressing. One thing that does separate it is when the people involved are not attempting to undercut, embarrass, or otherwise diminish the other people, but are essentially, trying to win a smile.

 

Trolling on the other hand, never seems to take into account the worth and valuable contributions of the other parties, but instead is focused like a laser on gaining the troll some advantage - real or imagined.

 

Besides which, punning is quite contagious... it allows one to be quite droll about the goal of rolling the not so droll troll.

 

-Paul

[sdolezalek]

No.

 

You have to use the winkie of absolution. ;-)

 

Oh you ignorant #&@$!!!

 

 

I think I'm getting the hang of it...

[christopher3393]

OK, back to serious face. I'll repost this article:We’re the reason we can’t have nice things on the internet — Quartz which is by the author of this book:https://www.amazon.com/This-Cant-Have-Nice-Things/dp/0262529874/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1472158981&sr=1-1&keywords=why+we+can%27t+have+nice+things I'm reading it now.

 

here's a new book that emphasizes the legal aspect (haven't read it, but good reviews): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674659902/ref=rdr_ext_tmb

 

Here's a list of over 100 troll types, some of which I found interesting: https://www.ipredator.co/troll/

 

One of the problems with this issue is finding terminology that people use in common. The word "troll" has become something of a catch-all. It would be interesting, perhaps, for people to specify what they mean by trolling, how it applies here, and what types tend to show up on audio forums. Just from the above, I can say that what I thought was relatively innocent humor may have been taken to be trolling, unless that was half-in-jest but missing the trademark winkie of absolution (which can be easily misused).