Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

31 minutes ago, firedog said:

Professionals often don't participate at forums or give up after trying  b/c they are hounded by a small number of impolite and ignorant posters who often disparage their motives. Why waste your valuable time at a forum when that is the response?

 

They display extreme intolerance to dissenting viewpoints and if not frankly uncivil behaviour, skirting the edges with sarcastic remarks meant to offend. IMO it is cyber bullying and is almost cult like in its goal to ridicule audiophiles. Ironically they bleat if their unsolicited impoliteness is returned or not "tolerated".

 

Part of the credo is to bastardize the term audiophile to mean delusional individuals that warrant ridicule and they are incessant and zealous in this prime "objective". "Objectivist" may therefore be a fitting title in the context of their prime objective. In reality the term objective has also been bastardized to mean their subjective interpretation of data IMO.

 

Mind you, this website is an *audiophile* website. So it is a little strange that they participate here unless for the prime objective.

 

I am not defending the ML now infamous comment, but it is no surprise that he was set upon. Other professionals have experienced the same fate and left. BD comes to mind. Yeh, I get ML was unliked and that he was considered a trouble making troll by some, which I find a bit rich of the accusers to be honest. His "sin" was to offend the delicate sensibilities of the cult by having the audacity to hear differences in ethernet cables. Perhaps there was more to it. He dared to assert his authority on a matter that the cult has supreme ownership of the truth.

 

Oh . <----- I declare immunity

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

2 minutes ago, esldude said:

 

 

Well, if viewing it from the POV of the cult, not from an audiophile on an audiophile website,, just sayin   <-----Dennis you forgot yours!

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

3 minutes ago, sandyk said:

Because very few other Audio forums will permit this kind of behaviour.

They have no interest in anything Audiophile, so it would appear that they have come here purely to be disruptive and get their "jollies."

 

yes agreed. I also note Dennis changed that troll image to remove context.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

45 minutes ago, esldude said:

Wasn't changed to remove context.  Just decided a change was better.  Didn't know you would respond almost immediately.  Your reply wasn't here when I changed it so it must have occurred while you were replying.  Sorry, no intent to trick anyone that way.  

 

Hmmnnn ... a convienent  excuse...ve audiophiles hav vays to extrct ze truz

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Michael Lavorgna  said:

My Uber driver Noreddine on people complaining about the snow:

"Some people are unhappy but the ground is always happy."

To my way of thinking, audiophiles should be like the ground. Always happy. But some aren't. If you want to see these unhappy people, just visit any hi-fi forum, like Chris Connaker's Computer Audiophile, and you'll see unhappy people on parade.

You may be wondering why and/or how people who are interested in a hobby, whose purpose is enjoyment, can be unhappy.

My answer: I don't know.

Read more at https://www.audiostream.com/content/rmaf-2017-lifes-ball#xmSVdDbzuHSww2t5.99

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

Who are "they"? My paragraph you quoted wasn't referring specifically to ML, but to professionals in the field in general. There have been a few here who stopped participating - not because they were arrogant (in fact the opposite was true), but because members here were.

If I was a successful professional in a field and stated my point of view in a reasonable manner, I probably wouldn't want to return to a forum where my motives are doubted and certain members with much less knowledge than mine insist on arguing points they know a limited amount about. 

 

The "they" are the self appointed cult of anti-audiophiles. "a small number of impolite and ignorant posters who often disparage their motives." Not the professionals that have been driven out for having an opinion that differs to the anti-audiophiles.

I completely agree "There have been a few here who stopped participating - not because they were arrogant (in fact the opposite was true), but because members here were."

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

14 minutes ago, arcman said:

I am unfamiliar with what happened here at CA, however, Audiostream is an excellent site. 

Shhhhh

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

9 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Interesting who the "cult" is from your POV.

 

You have a gift.

 

Try this experiment:  Next time you are at work, ask your fellow physicians which group is more cult-like:  (a) Those who believe a bucket of sand and rocks is a viable grounding device and makes music sound better, or (b) those who laugh at group (a).

 

Bill, no doubt you have greatly contributed to CA over the years.

 

OTOH you also have a "gift" as you put it. Sarcasm aimed at irritating and at times offending, not just harmless humor. I don't think I am alone in this view. You are the head of your "Taliban" of drive-through bombs and other comments framed to belittle IMO. I for one do not see this as tolerant or civil behavior among adult professionals. Since you asked, my "fellow physicians" , IMO, would identify it as bullying cult like behaviour.

 

Yes it is supremely ironic that your "Taliban"  keep on disparaging and ridiculing audiophiles, on a website for computer audiophiles,  and not seem to recognize that some folks, having become pre-conditioned to being attacked in both idea and type (audiophile), want to *defend* themselves. You fail to acknowledge that for the most part audiophiles didn't invite the scrutiny your "Taliban" serves up or the "laughing at a (their) group".

 

Why does it somehow irk you (plural) that someone believes or otherwise goes about their hobby in an innocuous way using buckets of sand or whatever? No, I don't buy the protect them from themselves or righteous claims of cleaning up the industry. You go straight for the throat of the 'victim'. Let them be, having fun and enjoying their hobby.Is that unreasonable? Just my POV.

 

Edit- Shields up, Sulu,  emoticon

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

I apologize for attempting to engage you in a rational discussion. In your absence, I had forgotten just how distastefully disingenuous you can be.

 

Perhaps for the good of the forum we should place each other on our respective ignore lists.

 

G'day.

 

Amazing how you take things. Exactly where or how is "how distastefully disingenuous you can be"?

 

If meaning "your contribution to CA". I meant it *genuinely*, not sarcastically. If something else then i confess I have no idea.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

With or without nuts?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

13 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

A true fruitcake will always have nuts........you should be banned for not knowing this!

Indeed.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

It appears the post below has been modified since my initial reply. Apologies if that is not the case...........

 

(My reply to the unmodified post rejected your "disingenuous" assertion)

 

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

Unlike some others, I have never asked (let alone demanded) that anyone be banned for any activity, let alone expressing an opinion at variance (or in agreement) with accepted audiophile doctrine.  Those that I characterized as Audiophile Taliban do that routinely

 

IIRC I have never demanded anyone to be banned for variance of opinion. As for the "Audiophile Taliban" it would need to be looked at on a case by case basis. I agree variance of opinion shouldn't be grounds for banning

 

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Those that I characterized as Audiophile Taliban do that routinely -- hence the analogy, which I am certain you grasp perfectly well (as evidenced by your remarkably over-the-top deflection-response to it and my harmless and light-hearted suggestion for some water cooler discussion/reality checks with your colleagues).

 

Huh?

 

I get the Taliban analogy just don't think it's even remotely valid.

 

What I didn't get was the "light hearted" nature of your water cooler discussions with colleagues.I believe this qualification was not in the initial post. To be perfectly honest (nothing disingenuous at all) I have nearly always found your replies (to me) laced with some kind of sarcasm or lightly veiled insult.Perhaps more than was intended, but it does make one on guard!

 

I explained my reasons for what I said. I apologize if I offended but the feelings were/are genuine.

 

You have a very quick mind, processing information faster than most. Don't necessarily think that people are up to speed with what you think is light hearted fun.

 

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

Did you by any chance have a previous life as a divorce lawyer?

Light hearted fun or just veiled insult ?

 

 

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

10 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

With due respect, and in the spirit of politeness, I think this is an example of the disingenuous nature that's being discussed.  From what I've read, you present your particular audio/social worldview as something like "normal", and those who fall outside of this myopic definition of "normal" as being unusual, antisocial,  or some other kind of pejorative outlier.   In other words, instead of believing it, you "are it".

 

Notice how you said "people" and not "some people" or "most people"?

 

The example of me opining that Bill has a very quick mind is not disingenuous at all.

 

I think you are overreaching about "people" vs "some people" not keeping up. I "normally" do add the qualification, just an oversight in this example. I agree though it should read some or most.

 

I reject the rest of your analysis about my concept of normalcy and submit it more precisely describes those who appoint themselves guardians of "objective reality"  and ridicule those they deem fall outside those parameters as among other things "delusional," characterizing a symptom of a mental disorder inconsistent with their peer group.

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

In other words, not ML's fault?  Just like Flip Wilson's Geraldine, apparently the devil made him do it.

 

I wouldn't usually respond to this but just continuing on from before: I consider this , *to some degree* disingenuous. The poster has not said it "isn't" ML's fault, he said he was provoked.You didnt just leave it as a genuine question but added wanted to rub it in to suit your POV.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

ML is of course responsible for what he writes and must suffer whatever consequences are deemed appropriate by the owner of the site.

I do think, though, that there is a misunderstanding (likely insurmountable, based on the personalities of his antagonists) of why he would become angry enough to message what he did (not what I would have chosen, btw- if someone insulted me that way I would be more likely to chuckle than react with righteous indignation or feel offended).

In the last few days I have read:

• Comparisons of audiophiles to flat earthers, antivaxxers, adherents to homeopathy, memory water advocates, etc.

• “I am not concerned about hurting their feelings”

• “There’s a benefit to being on the right side of the debate.  You have a higher ground that you get to speak from.”

• People labeled delusional- “If you are ML and you are delusional about Ethernet..”

• “One consequence of saying stupid shit is often, quite likely, ridicule.”

• “And you are 100% correct that their (sic) should be consequences for a professional audio reviewer that just blatantly lies”

• “You, too, would be frustrated if fake nostrums were shilled in your (more important) field”

• “welcome to generation wuss”

• “snowflakes roasting on an open fire”

• “I called him a hack and a coward a while ago but only because I truly believe those things and I can back it up.  Now I have additional proof of his cowardice.”

• “narcissists collect psychophants”

Certainly, many of these statements came after his message, but the attitudes behind them permeated all prior interactions with him.

There are both personal and professional issues, involved.  The latter is incompletely understood, I feel.  It is consistently seen, for example, when JA feels compelled to repeatedly respond to accusations of shilling, pay for play, pandering to advertisers, etc. (typically on AA).  People seem very willing to (anonymously, of course) impugn someone’s professional integrity without the expectation of consequences.

If someone came to my place of business and called me a liar, shill, delusional, a hack (I guess in my case a “quack”), and a coward they had better be prepared to deal with the consequences, especially the last, as they would soon realize that it wasn’t the case (and they wouldn’t be able to rely on anonymity).

There was a time when we were men (sorry Teresa).  And I agree with the “wuss generation” designation, though I think it was misapplied in this case, and prefer Eastwood’s name in print of “pussy generation” (sorry again, Teresa).

In older (perhaps more noble days), the above would have been dual-worthy.  These days we (that frequent these sites, anyway) are perhaps more enlightened and don’t shoot at each other, but the underlying instincts haven’t fully left us.

I should note that I agree with much of what “Neuroscience” has been writing, especially my complete lack of desire to go to medical fora and ridicule those who disagree with me (what’s the point?!).

I considered not frequenting CA anymore (not because of ML's situation), or perhaps just following the more practical threads, but admit it is hard to look away from a car accident.  I will have to figure out how to be more disciplined in this regard.

I will go back to my typical lurking.

Bill

 

Well said, the only thing wrong about this post is that your list of nominated insults is incomplete, you should be banned for this

 

Yes,like you, I still keep returning to the analogy of doctors not joining medical fora and ridiculing members. It does raise interesting questions about motivations.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

 

5 hours ago, crenca said:

Hey, I just found this thread!  I was going to goad Audiophile Neuromancer with a popcorn reference, but Chris's speech had me thinking perhaps I am a better person that that...

 

NAH!  Hey Neuro, where are you?

Chris's speech had me thinking perhaps I am a better person that that...

 

perhaps you just misunderstood him

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

4 hours ago, crenca said:

In any case, you should talk with audiophile neuroscience - he will explain to you that your just complaining about the human condition and that you just have to carry on if you want to learn anything about audio...

 

I think Jabbr (?) pointed out to you, your strong suit is not analytical thinking or reasoning ( I think he said)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

 

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

when I saw the shrink quote, I immediately wondered if there were different standards for engineers

 

nuts and bolts?

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, plissken said:

 

One time I looked at someone and said "I like your shoes" but it came out as "go fuck your mother". Who knew?

 

Possibly a delusion on your part....it came out "you can take my test"

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Speed Racer said:

No self-respecting Psychiatrist or Psychologist should diagnose without having direct interaction with the subject.....

 

I think it was more of a "water cooler discussion" rather than diagnosing a subject. It does cast an interesting light on Bill's recommendation (to have a water cooler discussion with other physicians), just sayin'

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

6 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Well, I can take implied fastidiousness and obsession from Mr Cogley (“had to have taken quite a bit of time to assemble that list”- or maybe I have an eidetic memory), being suspected of being a “sock puppet,” twisting my comments re. nobility, Plissken’s whatever it is, teased as being a fan of westerns and an expert in karate (when honestly, if you did call me a coward I would actually kick your ass if given the opportunity to meet face to face), having my friend called a “high priestess” (somewhat funny, actually, and my new nickname for her), “worrying” (about what?), needing to “learn more,” being suspected of being a psychiatric patient (also fairly amusing), but as a matter of principle I have to draw the line at the impugning of the ethics of a respected colleague.

 

She made a casual, general, somewhat interesting (to me) observation while going for a walk……I should have realized that folks were incapable of processing this and left it out- not really germane to and perhaps detracting from my points, anyway.  My mistake.  She is kind, caring, generous, and patient-centered; any of you would be lucky to have her as a physician except that you would (after she actually diagnosed you) find yourselves in a unit that suddenly and quite shockingly reminded you of “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest,” where all of this puffery over ethernet cables and electrical boxes would suddenly seem VERY unimportant.  Believe me.  With which one of you does she have an established doctor-patient relationship?

 

“Speed Racer’s” post and Chris’ addendum (now I see a reference to Abu Ghraib?!) unfortunately provide a classic example of my main initial point.  Despite our failings as a whole (I will only get disappointed if I pause and ponder the state of modern medicine), many of us still take our professional ethics seriously, and this is a line we do not cross casually, nor suffer those who do.

 

When one of the EE’s provide commentary on the electrical parameters of a piece of equipment/circuit are they “diagnosing,” or are they simply making routine comments based on their field of study?

 

Thank you, Teresa, for your upvote suggesting I didn’t offend.  I really like your approach and wouldn’t want that to be the case.

 

P.S. While my memory is very, very good, it isn’t eidetic.

 

Hi Bill,

I had similar thoughts as expressed in the civility thread. You have to keep in mind that many of these ridiculers are part of this cult mentality I referred to earlier. Their objective is ridicule. It is very *alien* to most if not  all physicians and indeed *anyone* who values tolerance and civility. The twisted supposition that they are somehow the victims in all of this as said previously, speaks to their motivations. Most bullying behaviour comes down to insecurity of one form or another.

David

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

1 hour ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

I think it was more of a "water cooler discussion" rather than diagnosing a subject. It does cast an interesting light on Bill's recommendation (to have a water cooler discussion with other physicians), just sayin'

 

Clarification: "Bill" in that post above as in Bill S (not Bill B) - Bill S  recommended having a water cooler discussion among physicians. The outcome of which Bill B reported.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

26 minutes ago, Speed Racer said:

 

Your passive aggressive words show your insecurity! You are being a self righteous bully right now!

 

identifying bullying does not make you are bully (nor make you passive aggressive). It may make the bully uncomfortable understandably. I was merely offering solace to a colleague who understandably feels upset with the rude responses he has received.Interesting how you interpreted it though.

 

I refer you to the post directly under mine......I consider the description, "highly biased and highly insulting" a form of bullying used to intimidate and may lead to the bullied losing their temper and leaving - desired outcome. (NO, I didnt say ML isn't accountable for his reaction.)

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Quote

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

 

And you have the hypocrisy of calling me disingenuous !  I suspect any calls for banning were over the * behavior* of anti-audiophiles and you are disingenuously  invoking an ideology or variance of opinion as the reason.  How many requests has Chris C got for banning somebody "because their audiophile status is insufficiently zealous and pure"; or even re-framing it in non sarcastic terms, that they are not "audiophiles" ?

 

Quote

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:

 

Good to see I make the 'hit parade' .

 

2 hours ago, wgscott said:

Re christopher3393

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.

Quote

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.)

 

I wouldn't sweat it. You were just having "some harmless and light hearted fun".

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

Instead of saying "Audiophile Taliban" to describe those who would have everyone who disagrees with them banned, I should have used the Lavorgnaism "Happy People" to describe those sanctimonious, dour, churlish and absurdly intolerant individuals.

 

The very definition of tolerance, when in doubt add more insults !

 

Time for me to converse with some happy people.