Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, skikirkwood said:

 

I agree.  I do think it's highly likely he is a friend of ML.  Why else would someone try to defend the honor of ML on a forum like this? 

 

I am not a friend of ML. I am not sure I would even like him- that’s ok, he might not like me either. Even if I decided he was an ass, unless I had clear evidence of professional misbehavior (not the nonsense you all profess that is a product of bizarre thinking that I can’t quite figure out) I would NEVER say the things said here so casually. 

 

It is fairly clear based on my postings my name, profession, and the state In which I live. 

 

I am am not trying to defend ML’s honor.  I simply am worn out by the pack behavior of anonymous know-it-alls who behave poorly rather than discussing ideas, who seem too ready to ascribe nefarious motives, who shout down those who don’t immediately jump on all the “anti-“ bandwagons, and, I think dishonorably, accuse people of being crooked in their profession.  I think it is pitiful.

[Thouston]

11 hours ago, skikirkwood said:

 

  Probably lives in Alabama and is a big Trump supporter, with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car.

As long as you're stereotyping; you probably live in California, are a snowflake girlyman, think the government should protect and control your life, and have a Hillary sticker on your bicycle. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I am am not trying to defend ML’s honor.  I simply am worn out by the pack behavior of anonymous know-it-alls who behave poorly rather than discussing ideas, who seem too ready to ascribe nefarious motives, who shout down those who don’t immediately jump on all the “anti-“ bandwagons, and, I think dishonorably, accuse people of being crooked in their profession.  I think it is pitiful.

 

The similarity of your and ML's fancy of testosterone-fueled ways to resolve conflict (duels (seriously?), fists in faces, etc.) has been noted.

 

I think Chris should lift ML's ban.  It seems some of the old guard here are really, really upset that it happened and seem to be firmly convinced that ML is some kind of a saint or audio messiah that was simply goaded into doing something rude.

[mansr]

21 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I think Chris should lift ML's ban.

I disagree. He contributed nothing but insults. His presence here served only to distract and derail the discussion.

[botrytis]

I am sorry, his avatar on Audiostream is telling about the person's personality. I do use Taz on some forums, but mostly for the silliness aspect. Using what looks like 'The SCREAMING MAN' syndrome image, just makes me think WTF!!!

[Bill Brown]

“Testosterone fueled,” “saint,” “audio messiah.”  Perhaps the latter is why he has so many “sychophants.”

 

I can always count on you for a grammatically correct, vocabulary-enhanced rapier of a post that stirs the pot and antagonizes with semi-veiled insults. 

 

You up should probably get back to monitoring all of the MQA threads to make sure no one strays from the party line. 

 

“Has been noted.”  I hope so, otherwise your reading comprehension would be suspect. And?

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

“Testosterone fueled,” “saint,” “audio messiah.”  Perhaps the latter is why he has so many “sychophants.”

 

I can always count on you for a grammatically correct, vocabulary-enhanced rapier of a post that stirs the pot and antagonizes with semi-veiled insults. 

 

You up should probably get back to monitoring all of the MQA threads to make sure no one strays from the party line. 

 

“Has been noted.”  I hope so, otherwise your reading comprehension would be suspect. And?

 

Your outsized concern for any damage to ML's sterling reputation is at least curious.  That concern seems to be the primary reason you post here.  I guess that's just devotion? 

[Bill Brown]

Nah; I see it happening to lots of people on several fora. Not sure why I chose (and continue to choose) to emerge from lurker status in this particular example.  

[adamdea]

10 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

I am am not trying to defend ML’s honor.  I simply am worn out by the pack behavior of anonymous know-it-alls who behave poorly rather than discussing ideas, w

This is a very peculiar sense of the phrase "worn out". On the contrary the "pack behaviour...etc" appears to have inspired you to frequent and previously unaccustomed posting. 

[Bill Brown]

Maybe I should have used the word “disappointed.”  But it is “wearing.”

[Samuel T Cogley]

30 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Nah; I see it happening to lots of people on several fora. Not sure why I chose (and continue to choose) to emerge from lurker status in this particular example.  

 

So you just chose a cause célèbre at random that happens to be defending ML's reputation?  And you're surprised that people think you're an ML sock puppet?

[Bill Brown]

Sure; that must be it. 

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

The similarity of your and ML's fancy of testosterone-fueled ways to resolve conflict (duels (seriously?), fists in faces, etc.) has been noted.

 

I think Chris should lift ML's ban.  It seems some of the old guard here are really, really upset that it happened and seem to be firmly convinced that ML is some kind of a saint or audio messiah that was simply goaded into doing something rude.

 

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Your outsized concern for any damage to ML's sterling reputation is at least curious.  That concern seems to be the primary reason you post here.  I guess that's just devotion? 

 

14 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So you just chose a cause célèbre at random that happens to be defending ML's reputation?  And you're surprised that people think you're an ML sock puppet?

 

 Sometimes I wonder if you have actually fetishized "Samuel T. Cogley".  Is this a cosplay thing?

 

 

http://taste-of-ipecac.blogspot.com/2007/01/samuel-t-cogley-attorney-idiot.html

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

 

 Sometimes I wonder if you have actually fetishized "Samuel T. Cogley".  Is this a cosplay thing?

 

 

http://taste-of-ipecac.blogspot.com/2007/01/samuel-t-cogley-attorney-idiot.html

 

 

 

You should stick with the pompous college professor shtick.  It works better for you than the dilettante psychologist thing you're attempting here.

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

 

 Sometimes I wonder if you have actually fetishized "Samuel T. Cogley".  Is this a cosplay thing?

 

 

http://taste-of-ipecac.blogspot.com/2007/01/samuel-t-cogley-attorney-idiot.html

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You should stick with the pompous college professor shtick.  It works better for you than the dilettante psychologist thing you're attempting here.

 

You do have to admit Samual, it was at least better than his last attempt with Ralf11...

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, crenca said:

 

 

You do have to admit Samual, it was at least better than his last attempt with Ralf11...

 

Yes.  I'm flattered that @christopher3393 has taken such a shine to me. 

[crenca]

12 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 

 

 Sometimes I wonder if you have actually fetishized "Samuel T. Cogley".  Is this a cosplay thing?

 

 

http://taste-of-ipecac.blogspot.com/2007/01/samuel-t-cogley-attorney-idiot.html

 

 

 

Oh, by the way @christopher3393, I like that episode and find this whiny blogger silly.  That said, he is right in that is not how court's actually work - but this is Star Trek, the idealized future!

[christopher3393]

8 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You should stick with the pompous college professor shtick.  It works better for you than the dilettante psychologist thing you're attempting here.

 

Lighten up. I was a college professor. I was kidding you about your habit of "cross-examining" members. By fetish, I meant idol, not sexual fetish. Plus I can't recall any other member who suspects sock puppets as often as you do. Sometimes you're relentless. Take a break.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

Lighten up. I was a college professor. I was kidding you about your habit of "cross-examining" members. By fetish, I meant idol, not sexual fetish. Plus I can't recall any other member who suspects sock puppets as often as you do. Sometimes you're relentless. Take a break.

 

You first, professor Monk. 

[crenca]

4 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

You first, professor Monk. 

 

He has really got you there @christopher3393, I mean right in the kisser...

 

Oh, by the way, could you shorten your name for us please?  @christopher3393takes me a half second to type (which is about 1/4 second too long)...

[Rt66indierock]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Nah; I see it happening to lots of people on several fora. Not sure why I chose (and continue to choose) to emerge from lurker status in this particular example.  

 

The thing I find interesting about Michael is what he challenges you on. In my case he seemed to imply that I hadn’t met and talked with Bob Stuart by doubting I had his contact information. His business card is in the credenza behind my desk and we talked twice at the Los Angeles Audio Show.

[mansr]

4 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

The thing I find interesting about Michael is what he challenges you on. In my case he seemed to imply that I hadn’t met and talked with Bob Stuart by doubting I had his contact information. His business card is in the credenza behind my desk and we talked twice at the Los Angeles Audio Show.

As if that has any relevance whatsoever.

[Shadders]

20 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Oh, by the way @christopher3393, I like that episode and find this whiny blogger silly.  That said, he is right in that is not how court's actually work - but this is Star Trek, the idealized future!

Hi,

I think this is correct.

 

If we know the probability of how many Earth type planets are out there, the probability that the others are older, that life was seeded from space (current tests indicate it is possible), that there are probably many civilisations aeons in advance of ours, then the prime directive is probably in operation...... so we probably have an awfully long way to go.

 

A lot of "probably"' 's , i know.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I'm just flattered that so many have spent so much time researching my avatar. 

[Rt66indierock]

5 minutes ago, mansr said:

As if that has any relevance whatsoever.

 

Michael in his MQA and DRM  article said that he had talked with Bob and according to Bob there is no DRM in MQA just authentication.  Then he went on about a conspiracy with MQA and DRM.  I told them there was no conspiracy you just haven't read what I have written and that meeting Bob is not that big a deal.