Jump to content
IGNORED

MQA is Vaporware


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

you continue to try and use his anonymity as a means of disagreeing and/or to create the illusion of it being a real point of contention when it is not.

 

As I haven't mentioned Archimago in a long time other than today, in response to another poster's misleading accusation, your use of the word "continue" is plain incorrect.

 

John Atkinson

Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, mansr said:

Verifiable facts are no less true when conveyed by an anonymous messenger.

 

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

I wonder if they demand that the postman personally sign all letters he delivers too. Otherwise, how can they trust anything written inside?

 

Sometimes I think you're smart, and then you write unaccountably really dumb things, like this. Makes me think you really haven't thought through this anonymity thing. And like your earlier comment about knowing the meaning of the saying about throwing rocks at dogs. Who would do that, anyway?

 

Motivations matter. Plus, the need for anonymity itself raises questions. A verified survivor of domestic violence may require such a shield Also, political dissidents. None of that applies here. Anonymous posters here simply want to be shielded from the consequences of their irresponsible online behavior. Many anonymous people here just don't want the inconvenience of having their real identities linked to the opinions they express online. Maybe their employer wouldn't approve; it might even put their jobs at risk. Which, if nothing else, shows how lightly they take these issues, even as they post ugly, rabid things. This disproportionality between their rabid online persona and the meek, cowardly choice is itself is reason for concern. And here I am not speaking of Archimago, who as far as I know has generally been more measured, but of anonymous posters more broadly. It's great to avoid consequences for your irresponsible actions.

 

Are you refusing to go on record stating that Stereophile was not involved in the rumors you irresponsibly repeated here? 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, mansr said:

To do so would be dishonest.

 

There you go--doubling down on spreading rumors. 

 

Here's a great explanation of why so many posters wish to remain anonymous. I say this quite realizing that many here will jump to your defense, simply because they agree with you. If you had posted anonymously, the taint on your character from engaging in such unprincipled behavior would be only online. No one would be able to link the online taint to the real you. But your identity is known, I believe. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Jim Austin said:

 

 

Perfect. 

 

This forum permits potentially defamatory (though safely nonspecific) posts, then the moderator pretends (by implication) that it's those on the other side of the debate who are being "post-factual", all while posing (i.e. at audio shows) as some sort of impartial observer.  

 

When did it become OK to post second-hand (or third-hand), nonspecific allegations that defame a whole category of professionals? At least (in contrast to a great many other MQA critics) mansr doesn't post such pathetic accusations anonymously. At least as far as we know.

 

Show some character. Provide evidence or delete your post. 

 

Jim Austin, Editor

Stereophile

 

 

professionals???

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...