MQA is Vaporware

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Paul

 

I think you're leaving out the significant volume of disingenuous posts that Scoggins left here.  Most of Scoggins' MQA posts (and there's very little here outside of that) were disingenuous trolling with a wispy thin veneer of polite advocacy.  He was trolling.  Might not look that way to someone not familiar with his forum tactics, but it was straight up trolling.  When asked to back up claims he made that alleged to address some of the critical technical shortcomings of MQA, he would always eventually retreat to copied/pasted MQA marketing material.

 

A troll that's on a first name basis with Mike Jbara is still a troll.

I think this should be the last post on the matter, so beautifully summed up. Mazel Tov.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, realhifi said:

To each his own I guess. 

 

So you disagree?  Noise floor isn't a factor here?

[realhifi]

It is to some I’m sure. To others it may not be a significant factor. 

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Paul

 

I think you're leaving out the significant volume of disingenuous posts that Scoggins left here.  Most of Scoggins' MQA posts (and there's very little here outside of that) were disingenuous trolling with a wispy thin veneer of polite advocacy.  He was trolling.  Might not look that way to someone not familiar with his forum tactics, but it was straight up trolling.  When asked to back up claims he made that alleged to address some of the critical technical shortcomings of MQA, he would always eventually retreat to copied/pasted MQA marketing material.

 

A troll that's on a first name basis with Mike Jbara is still a troll.

 

Is that the same as the numerous personal attacks directed towards him by the middle school clan? 

 

There are are numerous heated and/or passionate reply’s to him that were not personal attacks, but rather disagreed with his ideas. That’s cool, sometimes even quite funny. Sometimes the exasperation comes through clearly too, which is also cool I think.

 

Not at all the same as what got him banned, or the dozens of provocative remarks aimed at him personally.

 

For example, your post could, in no possible way, be considered a personal attack. You are merely describing his behavior and making a viable conclusion as to what it means. That’s good and valuable conversation. Much different from what the middle school clan throws out. 

[Jud]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Hi Paul

 

I think you're leaving out the significant volume of disingenuous posts that Scoggins left here.  Most of Scoggins' MQA posts (and there's very little here outside of that) were disingenuous trolling with a wispy thin veneer of polite advocacy.  He was trolling.  Might not look that way to someone not familiar with his forum tactics, but it was straight up trolling.  When asked to back up claims he made that alleged to address some of the critical technical shortcomings of MQA, he would always eventually retreat to copied/pasted MQA marketing material.

 

A troll that's on a first name basis with Mike Jbara is still a troll.

 

Though I disagree with you as to the exact reason for the disingenuousness (I think it may have been an inability to admit he and those who informed him could have been wrong, rather than trolling), I absolutely agree that he wasn't "straight" when dealing with people here.

 

In fact he was one of the very few people on my ignore list before he was banned, precisely because he intentionally twisted what I'd said more than once, and I don't have time to waste on folks like that.

[Paul R]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Organized, no way.

 

Folks gleefully "piling on," yep.

 

But it seems to me provocation works both ways.  I think most of us noted how Lee kept making the very same claims repeatedly, after he'd been provided understandable technical explanations as to why those claims couldn't be correct, and even where those claims obviously contradicted each other.  I don't wonder that many people felt called upon to make sure those repetitions didn't go uncorrected, and even to question the motivations behind such continual repetition of what was essentially MQA marketing material.

 

We will have to disagree about the organized part then.  The rest, sure.

 

Not saying the blame for his blowup  should be shifted to others, but the bad behavior of the middle school clan was certainly one of the reasons.

 

I think, accomplished  in concert via the mechanism of gang think. But that is just my opinion of course., I could be wrong, even if I do not think so.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, Paul R said:

There are are numerous heated and/or passionate reply’s to him that were not personal attacks, but rather disagreed with his ideas.

 

That's the thing Paul.  These were never "his ideas".  Like in other audio forums, Scoggins promotes brands where he has successfully established some relationship with the company's principles (i.e., he calls them by first name).  Scoggins arrived here to "help" Mike Jbara, not provide any kind of consumer advocacy.

 

I'm not trying to justify any kind of mob mentality.  But I think you have a bit of a "rose colored" view of Scoggins' motives.

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

That's the thing Paul.  These were never "his ideas".  Like in other audio forums, Scoggins promotes brands where he has successfully established some relationship with the company's principles (i.e., he calls them by first name).  Scoggins arrived here to "help" Mike Jbara, not provide any kind of consumer advocacy.

 

I'm not trying to justify any kind of mob mentality.  But I think you have a bit of a "rose colored" view of Scoggins' motives.

 

Oh no, I agree his motives were suspect, but that they were never proved is evident because he was not banned for those motives. 

 

I disagree quite strongly with the tactics used to remove him is all. 

 

[Tintinabulum]

32 minutes ago, Jud said:

Notably, those who say criticism of MQA is unfair never seem to have "numbers attached."

People who say criticism is unfair would be adopting an unreasonable position to start with. Nothing wrong with criticism! I'm not that person. No graphs needed for my points.

[Jud]

3 minutes ago, Paul R said:

I think  in concert via the mechanism of gang think.

 

We want to be careful about throwing around terms like "conspiracy," "organized," and "in concert." This risks creating the totally unmerited impression that criticism of MQA is the result of a planned campaign rather than solid technical work.  Do you really want people looking at the thread to gain the impression you said MQA wouldn't save streaming companies money because Chris or mansr told you to, and you agreed to lie for them?

 

Let's be cautious with such loaded words, particularly when the folks with a planned campaign are those marketing MQA, and they are trying to impugn the credibility of people doing a solid technical examination of MQA's claims.

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Oh no, I agree his motives were suspect, but that they were never proved is evident because he was not banned for those motives. 

 

I disagree quite strongly with the tactics used to remove him is all.

 

Having witnessed his relentless shilling in various audio forums for over a decade, I'll take what I can get.  His trolling should be considered a hostile act IMHO.

[kumakuma]

4 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Oh no, I agree his motives were suspect, but that they were never proved is evident because he was not banned for those motives. 

 

I disagree quite strongly with the tactics used to remove him is all. 

 

 

Lee was given more than ample opportunity to prove that he was here to contribute in a positive way to this forum. As far as I'm concerned, he should have been shown to the door months ago.

[kumakuma]

6 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Having witnessed his relentless shilling in various audio forums for over a decade, I'll take what I can get.  His trolling should be considered a hostile act IMHO.

 

I agree. And what others call "group think" and a "conspiracy" is simply the self-correcting nature of the Internet, clearing infection from the body. 

[Paul R]

5 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

We want to be careful about throwing around terms like "conspiracy," "organized," and "in concert." This risks creating the totally unmerited impression that criticism of MQA is the result of a planned campaign rather than solid technical work.  Do you really want people looking at the thread to gain the impression you said MQA wouldn't save streaming companies money because Chris or mansr told you to, and you agreed to lie for them?

 

Let's be cautious with such loaded words, particularly when the folks with a planned campaign are those marketing MQA, and they are trying to impugn the credibility of people doing a solid technical examination of MQA's claims.

 

Honestly, I think it already too late to avoid that impression, and addressing it openly and with honesty is the only way I can see that offers any hope of not masking the very credible, important, and damning facts presented here. 

 

Damage control may may be the only option left open, especially since the middle school clan (I like that term 😁 ) refuses to stop and grow up. 

 

[Paul R]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I agree. And what others call "group think" and a "conspiracy" is simply the self-correcting nature of the Internet, clearing infection from the body. 

 

I can certainly see your points, and your opinion and thinking has merit, as does the similar thinking and opinions of others. 

 

But to use your analogy, when that cleansing mechanism gets out of control, cancer then ravages the body. Sometimes incurably. 

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

I can certainly see your points, and your opinion and thinking has merit, as does the similar thinking and opinions of others. 

 

But to use your analogy, when that cleansing mechanism gets out of control, cancer then ravages the body. Sometimes incurably. 

I see your point but...I see your point but...I see your point but....rinse, repeat?

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, Ishmael Slapowitz said:

If you are going to lie, be disingenuous, "intellectually dishonest" as one poster put it a few pages back, obfuscate, and take

an anti-consumer position, you had better bring a Kotex for your tuchus. We all learned this the first year the internet was widely available. Unless you are a tone deaf shlemiel.😄

 

Just curious, what year are you referring to? I learned that lesson when the Morris Worm zapped me. 

 

Oh oh by the way, your post should be reported as a personal attack, despite the false little smiley.

[Ishmael Slapowitz]

Just now, Paul R said:

 

Just curious, what year are you referring to? I learned that lesson when the Morris Worm zapped me. 

Ok, that is funny.😎

[mansr]

Fine, I confess. I have discussed MQA in private with a few other people. Charley Hansen and Doug Schneider, for instance.

[kumakuma]

Just now, Paul R said:

But to use your analogy, when that cleansing mechanism gets out of control, cancer then ravages the body. Sometimes incurably. 

 

I'm not particularly worried about this. If things were out of control, we would see others being treated in the same way.

 

Unless MQA sends another shill, I guessing things here will soon return to the usual subjectivist vs objectivist bickering. 

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Honestly, I think it already too late to avoid that impression, and addressing it openly and with honesty is the only way I can see that offers any hope of not masking the very credible, important, and damning facts presented here. 

 

Damage control may may be the only option left open, especially since the middle school clan (I like that term 😁 ) refuses to stop and grow up. 

 

 

I like words. I like them given their proper meanings. "Conspiracy" and "organized" have quite different meanings than a bunch of folks seeing a post they like and happily saying "me too!"  

 

Criticize the latter all you like. Confusing it with the former is IMO sloppy at best.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, Paul R said:

 

Just curious, what year are you referring to? I learned that lesson when the Morris Worm zapped me. 

 

Hey, me too!  Who knew Sendmail would give you a root shell if you just asked politely? 🙂

[Rt66indierock]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Fine, I confess. I have discussed MQA in private with a few other people. Charley Hansen and Doug Schneider, for instance.

 

And I confess I discussed MQA with my late friend Charley Hansen too.

[Paul R]

1 minute ago, Jud said:

 

I like words. I like them given their proper meanings. "Conspiracy" and "organized" have quite different meanings than a bunch of folks seeing a post they like and happily saying "me too!"  

 

Criticize the latter all you like. Confusing it with the former is IMO sloppy at best.

 

Well, is a flash mob “organized?” If you agree that it is, then the actions here were also organized. If not, then not. 

 

I do do not think it is a stretch to call the actions here organized, but perhaps “orchestrated” would be more accurate and agreeable?

[kumakuma]

10 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

Well, is a flash mob “organized?” If you agree that it is, then the actions here were also organized. If not, then not. 

 

I do do not think it is a stretch to call the actions here organized, but perhaps “orchestrated” would be more accurate and agreeable?

 

Not following the logic. As far as I understand, flash mobs are definitely organized and planned in advance by the participants.

 

https://www.wikihow.com/Organize-a-Flash-Mob