Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[christopher3393]

42 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

 

Just don't click on HIS site - rando has it right

 

...unless you are a detritivore. Some people thrive on this shit. 

[christopher3393]

8 minutes ago, rando said:

Hectoring and taking turns one by one matching wits seemed to be tactics he embraced.  Gang warfare isn't even fun for the ones stripping flesh or fracturing immobilized bone.

 

some people like watching:

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

18 hours ago, wgscott said:

The "incivility" being objected to of course isn't someone saying GFYM, but rather, the subjectivist snowflakes lamenting the banning of their prophet.

 

Speaking as a snowflaketivist,  the lamentation is over the occasional descent into Dumbland:

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

Here is a quotation from early in the recently revived, and maligned, civility thread. It still rings true to me:

Quote

It is sad that an enthusiast can't put up a post expressing that enthusiasm, without all the self-appointed "experts" and "scientists" chiming, saying the (seemingly pre-scripted) same things they say in other threads, like the talking heads on a TV "news" show.

 

And I'm sure they'll be back here, in this thread, with their "yes, but" responses, saying they agree BUT... (fill in the blah, blah, blah). One thing I never read in any of these folks' posts is a sense of joy regarding listening to music or in using their audio systems. They don't speak of their own *experience* and always react --and I do mean *react*-- when someone else writes of *their* experience. They're always here, ostensibly, to provide "clarity" and "truth" to the rest of us ignorant masses who are so dumb, we just want to share our happiness and our discoveries in music and audio. Only thing is, not one of them seems to recognize just how transparent they are.

 

And now they're choosing which *words* a person should or shouldn't use to describe *their own experience* and *their own feelings*. If anything is AMAZING, I would say that is. Amazingly transparent.

 

It isn't my forum and I don't envy anyone who tried to maintain one in audio. Still, I see this becoming a real problem here at CA and have taken to not participating in threads where these folks are allowed to linger and essentially, pee in the audio pool. Many a time, I visit and all I see is the same old, same old from the same old group of individuals. Then I just leave, thinking "this place used to be fun". (I often wish individuals were "locked" - or "deleted" - rather than threads.)

 

I hope the trend can be reversed. The Internet doesn't need another audio argument fest. It does need an audio forum where folks can freely share *their own* experiences and ideas in an atmosphere of fun and *real* mutual respect, which I'll define partially as simply knowing when to *not* post.

 

https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/13204-civility/?do=findComment&comment=178009

 

Now this is not the whole story. Sometimes the Rashomon Effect seems strong here. Reasonable people can disagree on this and how it applies to the Lavorgna history. But it is a long and antagonistic history with tracks both on Audiostream and here on CA. At least that is how I read it. So unless members step up and recognize some mutual responsibility in creating this situation and this climate, and Michael does the same, I don't see any resolution and I see the problem continuing to fester as it has for so long. We are simply experiencing some of the many possible karmic results of this.

 

[christopher3393]

On 10/11/2017 at 4:03 PM, wgscott said:

 

The Audiophile Taliban has issued its Fatwah.  

 

On 10/10/2017 at 4:31 PM, wgscott said:

Lavorgna's trolling worked perfectly, plain and simple.  He wasn't here to discuss computer audio.  He was here to disrupt, pure and simple.  And he succeeded, even subsequent to the banning .

 

The revival of the WDW "civility" thread is the clearest example of his success:  https://www.computeraudiophile.com/forums/topic/13204-civility/

 

The "incivility" being objected to of course isn't someone saying GFYM, but rather, the subjectivist snowflakes lamenting the banning of their prophet.

 

 

 

I'm wondering if I'd be more offended to be told to go fuck my mother, who was very dear to me and a really fine person, or that my behavior is equivalent to the Taliban. The intolerance of the Taliban often means torture and death for those that civilized people should find tolerable or should even be raised up and praised. Part of tolerance is discerning what behaviors should not be tolerated. In the case under consideration, to find ,not the message, but the way it is communicated, and communicated quite repeatedly, to be behavior that might be outside what should rightfully be tolerated for posting, in this forum, and then to equate it with fanatical following of some utterly manufactured cult-like leader , and then adding insult to injury by accusing me and others of the equivalent of vile violent behavior ? This in my opinion , is what is outside the bounds of what should be tolerated. It merits a reprimand and warning. This is hyperbolic, inflammatory, divisive, and quite ideological in a very nasty way. It should be by a measured. appropriate response from a judicious moderator, and not by further aggravation by my returning with a response in kind.

 

These posts do not indicate the measured proportionate tolerance that they intend to advocate. They are highly biased and highly insulting. And I'm surprised and disappointed that there has not been any public moderation regarding this.

 

[christopher3393]

10 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

I don't think anyone has accused you of anything, one way or the other.

 

What I was trying to object to, with the audiophile Taliban reference, is the refrain we seem to hear fairly often that someone should be banned from the forum, simply because their audiophile status is insufficiently zealous and pure. I was equating it to their religious police ideology.

 

You were the last person I would have wanted to offend by saying this, so I am truly sorry.  But I am genuinely perplexed how you arrived at that interpretation. (I don't recall ever having seen you call for anyone's banishment.)

 

Just to make it  absolutely clear who I think are behaving like intolerant religious police, here is a snapshot of the comment that I ridiculed by calling it a Fatwah, and those who endorsed it:

 

 Gracious of you. Apology accepted and I want to apologize for my hastiness. More later, but just wanted to communicate this. I'm kind of burnt out on this thread at the moment.

[christopher3393]

Some recent comments from Steven Plaskin from the Audiostream "Is MQA DRM" post (with responses from "DH"):

 

Steven Plaskin: I am deeply disturbed by the destructive anger that is being encouraged at another site dedicated to our hobby. Most audiophiles I know couldn’t give two shits about MQA. But the vitriol and devise behavior being propagated displays to me some serious issues that need to be addressed - and they are not audio issues.

Here is a direct quote about what I am referring to:

Lavorgna is a jerk

Make an 'objective' comment you are sneered at as a "mere cloth-eared engineer".
Make two and you're off.

And his lackey, the snake-oil freak Steve Plaskin, is even worse, though at least he is reasonably polite about it.

What normal thinking adult would want to be part of this?

When it was brought up that AudioStream turns out more equipment reviews, the owner of the site questioned AudioStream’s quality of writing. Just compare Chris Connaker’s review of the SOtM sMS-200 with mine. Reach your own conclusions.

There is a true disconnect from reality occurring that in the end, will only hurt our hobby.

 

DH: You are correct. But the context is that ML was banned from CA because of HIS language and behavior there, including the use of profanity related to someone's mother.

 

Steven Plaskin: And this language was sent in a private message. If Chris did not want Michael to post on his site, he could have told Michael in a private message. Chris decided that punishing Michael would further his economic goals. Naturally, I cannot know what Chris is thinking, but his behavior and tolerance of abusive posts suggests what I am referring to.

DH: I'm not defending some of the language used at CA. But some of MLs public posts were also not what I'd expect of a professional.

Chris doesn't allow the private messaging function at his site to be exploited for abuse.

I think that's exactly how it should be. I'm not really sure why you are excusing that kind of behavior.
ML isn't the first to be banned from the site for that type of stuff.

 

Steven Plaskin: This isn’t really about Michael’s “street language”. I think you know what I’m referring to.

 

edit: Michael Lavorgna has just added this: Chris allows abusive, offensive, and ...insulting language directed at people who do this for a living on his site - every day. To my mind, this is not the way a professional moderates a forum.

 

 

[christopher3393]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I call shenanigans.  If you think @The Computer Audiophile is too coddling to rude posters, take it up with him.  I can only conclude that you're escalating your forum civility campaign because what you've done so far hasn't gotten as many people banned as you had hoped.  I get that you're pining for the days of yore at CA, but time marches on.  Maybe I missed the other posts but it seems to me your only contributions to CA of late are protestations of incivility.

 

That back and forth that you so helpfully copied/pasted is nothing more than a desperate attempt from the MQA cabal to dismiss all anti-MQA discussion as rooted in immature, vindictive personal grievance.  And now you're trying to use it as a proxy to facilitate a CA forum witch hunt.  It's a transparent bid to elevate your authority here IMHO.

 

Actually, these comments bothered me and I think they are unfair to Chris and CA overall. I thought it would be good for others here to be aware of them and judge for themselves.

 

You do alot of speculating regarding my motivations. All of your speculation is negative. I think you are getting a little histrionic about this.

 

[christopher3393]

13 hours ago, Tecnik1 said:

you've been a member now for what a month wow.

 

To be accurate, Spacehound only joined on January 31. It just feels like longer because he has posted 364 times in less than 2 weeks. This may be a CA record!  

 

But, hey, who's counting? And after waiting 6 years there must be a lot of back pressure!

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Spacehound said:

It's beginners enthusiasm and it's cold outside. That will wear  off and it will get warmer. I joined because of MQA, so you can add that to Stuart's list of sins. 

 

wait, there's a list of sins?  I might be able to sort out suitable penances!  

 

 

Seriously, though, have you posted any kind of summary as to why MQA bothers you so much? Others have, and there are some good ones, but MQA seems to raise more ire in some than in others who are against. Do you know why you feel so strongly about it? Or is it all in good fun?

[christopher3393]

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ralf

 

https://www.mamapedia.com/article/need-help-with-11-year-old-son-behavior-problems

[christopher3393]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

got a problem muffy?  do you need an emotional support animal?

 

idk, could you loan me your finch?  

 

all in good fun, right ralfie? how does your own medicine taste?

 

 

[christopher3393]

So much for brevity...previously you've suggested you prefer a barroom atmosphere here, which is completely in tune with Urban Dictionary. Now you are chastising me for what? lack of barroom etiquette? 

 

You are also ignoring any wider context, which I'm presupposing. Unfortunately, the crappy search function only gives you a few of the references to Lavorgana/lasagna, which has become tiresome and is pretty juvenile, and has also been challenged by others before.

 

You refer to the report function as "snitching," a function that the CA has stated repeatedly that he relies on, and you and others would love to discourage members from using it.  So i do this instead, but not good enough for you.

 

You likely don't get the "finch" reference. ralf knows what he is doing. "muffy'? please.And he's done this a number of times to a number of people. It's aggravating.

 

To me, your version of CA is comical: "Where high end and high tech meet...in a dive bar, where the owner is the bartender and the bouncer, and occasionally has to go out back or run an errand and says"Hey guys, could you keep an eye on things and give me a shout out if there is any trouble?" To which the regulars reply "You got it. But there won't be anything we can't handle" with a grin. Good luck with that.

 

Some would like derogatory nick names to stick, like lasagna to a pan. But if this was done to them? not so much.

 

I also noticed the the out-of-control spacehound, 1,000 posts in less than thirty days,  now banned twice after multiple warnings, made lots of "unclassy" comments. lots. Did you object, even once? Why? He's on your team.

 

rah, frickin' rah!

 

 

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

11 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Enough of the nonsense. 

 

Anyone heard any good music lately?

 

Man, you are psychic!   (but i'm still hesitant to mention "The Medieval Piper" album in 24/96 posted this morning in album of the evening ---not  trending!)

[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

 

 

[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.

[christopher3393]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

There is a culture in the consumers of that kind of audiophile "authority" content that anyone who challenges those self proclaimed authorities is a troll, troublemaker, or just rude for not displaying the requisite fealty or reverence.

 

Personally, I like the Доверяй, но проверяй approach.

 

 

This claim and similar claims have been made by you many times with very little challenge. I wonder if it is based in an anti-religious bias, reading freethinker perspectives into audiophile journalism? If so, I'd call it eisegesis: " the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text... Eisegesis is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis is the process of drawing out the meaning from a text in accordance with the context and discoverable meaning of its author, eisegesis occurs when a reader imposes his or her interpretation into and onto the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective."

 

This rings true to me, at least to some extent. Seems like there is a fair amount of this going around. Yours just seems to have a particularly freethought character.

 

Either this or they are just simplistic rhetorical jabs.

[christopher3393]

39 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I'm a little disappointed you didn't bother to translate the Russian part.  Perhaps you were distracted by an apparent opportunity to look scholarly.  If it makes you feel any better, that copy/paste is certainly worthy of a retired college professor IMHO. 

 

 So, you're saying I'm right.

[christopher3393]

21 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

the crux of our disagreement is that you are utterly vested in the idea that meritocracy exists and is "pure".

 

missed the target...completely...again. Can I get an eye roll? are you aware that I'm disabled?

 

but enough, here's some fresh meat:

 

https://www.audiostream.com/content/great-dac

 

final quotation:

 

"Remember that the signal reaching your consciousness is as much you as it is the music" Daphne Oram

 

There you have it, the banality of evil!  

 

Time for the hoodies:

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

I'm off to Sedona for a week.

 

? ?

 

https://www.sedonaredrocktours.com/sedona-spiritual-vortexes/