Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[Samuel T Cogley]

Everyone: ML is trolling us.  And the fact that this thread even exists means he has succeeded.

 

Please stop feeding the troll!

[Samuel T Cogley]

15 minutes ago, 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 not sure "prophet" is the best word.  In my experience, narcissists collect sycophants.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, Indydan said:

But, when ML would post here, it appeared to me he was playing games and being facetious. It looked like he would avoid answering questions directly, and would try to anger members. Once a member would erupt and lose his cool, ML would then discredit him and state something like, it was impossible to have a rational conversation. It seemed like he would play these games to discredit others, to avoid answering questions and make himself look good and more mature. He is somewhat skilled at these games, but I think some people here saw right through him.

 

This is called trolling, and it has existed on the internet for decades.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 minutes ago, Indydan said:

True, But most trolls are obvious in their behaviour. They do it for the fun they get from disrupting sites, and getting a reaction from people. I don't get the impression ML was doing it for this reason, but more to prove he was right, or to pursue an agenda (for lack of a better term). 

 

Potato, potatoe

[Samuel T Cogley]

11 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

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

 

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.

 

 

As I recall, ML's arrival had to do with him censoring a post on his site that was critical of MQA.  When the post first appeared there, the URL to that post appeared here.  When he deleted the post, he subsequently appeared here to rebut accusations of having nefarious motivations for that deletion.  Those accusations were leveled here.  His presence here was always to show the "true believers" how to wrangle the heretics and nothing more.

 

Since you unearthed an old post that I've never seen until today, I would like the opportunity to speak to it.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

Am I the only one that sees the (either) naivety or deliberate animosity in this?  The author is ascribing some kind of emotional dysfunction to someone who dismisses "joy" as relevant to what is ostensibly a discussion of technology.  I'm aware that there is a music sub-forum  here and I would think that the "joy of listening" would be completely appropriate there.  I postulate that the "joy" this person speaks of is derived from something like blissful ignorance of the psychology behind consumerism.  It's not that I want to take away someone's "joy", but I believe it's appropriate to discuss where precisely that joy might be derived from if the existence of that joy is a primary principle of audiophilia (which appears to be the thesis).  Have I ever enjoyed listening to music?  Of course.  Pretty much daily.  But, IMHO, if that emotional response is the fulcrum from which audiophilia pivots,  there's nothing more to discuss other than how much "joy" everyone has.  And challenging that "joy" will be likely perceived as what the hippies used to call, "harshing someone's mellow".  Is that why we're here?  To be excellent to each other?

 

I happen to believe that "old school" audiophilia (which, I also believe, is what the nostalgic lamentation in the "civility" thread is really about), is predicated upon narcissistic consumerism and sycophancy and that there is a better approach to better sound and enhanced playback enjoyment.  MQA (why this thread ultimately exists) attempts to leverage the "old school" and that's why it's not catching on IMHO.  I fully accept that some will always hearken back the good old days of audiophile print magazines (i.e., no democratization) and see any attempt to question the status quo as some combination of hubris, mean spiritedness, and emotional dysfunction (ML's post on AS that started this thread confirms this).  But that view has always struck me as being rather intellectually lazy.  The marketing and advertising of audiophile gear (and even audiophile media) is completely rooted in consumerism, with all the psychological baggage that comes with it.  I'm just amazed that a significant portion of audiophiles don't want to even be aware of that and bristle at the mere suggestion that their motivations could be manipulated by manufacturers' marketing, advertising, and their allies in social media.  I welcome comments and opposing views.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Maybe dialing down the tribalism a little might be a better idea.

[Samuel T Cogley]

7 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

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.

 

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"?

[Samuel T Cogley]

40 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

To rephrase, ML's inappropriate (and ban worthy) meltdown was precipitated by impolite posts. He didn't just randomly drop fym on the unhappy people here.

 

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

[Samuel T Cogley]

5 minutes ago, opus101 said:

 

Not his fault no, but definitely his responsibility.

Wow.  So the alleged discomfort he felt justified his response?

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Is my post really that hard to understand? Why do you twist and modify the meaning?

 

That's how I read your post.  If I'm wrong, please elaborate.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, opus101 said:

 

I have really no idea what reasoning process could lead to such a conclusion. ML is responsible for the existence of his own 'buttons', his reaction (a word which better describes his behaviour than 'response') when they're pressed isn't in any sense a 'justifiable' one.

 

That's how I perceived the distinction between "fault" and "responsibility".

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, opus101 said:

 

You appear to be wrong in suggesting that @beetlemania is denying ML's responsibility for his reaction(s).

 

What about the distinction between "fault" and "responsibility"?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, opus101 said:

 

Its rather a complex one to go into in detail. The TL;DR is - I take 'fault' as meaning that ML is blameworthy for his reactions. 'Responsibility' though doesn't attribute blame.

 

Ok, so having to endure the hardship of interacting with the "unhappy" people absolves ML of "blame"?

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, opus101 said:

If you'd set out what you understand to mean by this word 'blame' I might have a stab at answering... Alternatively if you argue the word is my own introduction (which I accept) then what you meant by 'fault'.

 

With due respect, you linked the words "fault" and "blameworthy".  Just trying to understand the mindset that is sympathetic to ML because of the alleged hardship he had to endure.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Wow, tiny font.  Copy and paste from a word processor?

 

12 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

• “narcissists collect sycophants”

 

Fixed, and I completely stand by this. 

 

It had to have taken quite a bit of time and effort to assemble that list.

 

It's clear that some attribute some kind of nobility to ML (assuming you're not a sock puppet).  I have seen no evidence of that nobility, but will gladly repent if some evidence exists.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

19 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

I believe "psychophant" was your spelling, I failed to place "(sic)" as I did with the misuse of "their."

 

Nope.

 

And I'm not not convinced you're not a sock puppet of ML.  The subtle machismo in your posts seems familiar.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

21 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

Prior to this thread I knew nothing about Michael Lavorgna or his web site. I went to check it out and found a fantastic feature called "Download of the Week". It's been a source for some music I would never have known about otherwise. Thanks all.

 

Spend an hour on bandcamp and you'll be giving ML "Download of the Week" advice. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

4 hours ago, plissken said:

 

 

Is it me or does his room, even over a cheap camera mic, sound reverberant?

 

To me, the video did nothing other than confirm ML's affluence bona fides.  The whole thing felt kind of crass.  For some in audiophilia, those bona fides are a prerequisite for audiophile credibility.  For others, it has the opposite affect.  No doubt ML wants the adoration of the former, and is contemptuous of the latter.

[Samuel T Cogley]

10 minutes ago, Indydan said:

Preaching from the guy who was banned from CA for telling someone to go fuck his mother. Too funny!

 

https://www.audiostream.com/content/internet-anger-good-audiostream-public-service-announcement

 

 

 

Very interesting that he acknowledges the two most "popular" threads on his site are Ethernet cables and MQA.  Also interesting that he doesn't acknowledge that disingenuousness can be gasoline on flames of polemics, which no doubt are excellent examples of the "anger" that he disingenuously posits.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 hour ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I think it is as other posters have pointed out. Audiostream and Michael Lavorgna are irrelevant.

 

Or more to the point, forums like this are just getting more traffic than Audiostream, and ML's  attempt to create controversy is rather transparent.

 

The post begins with "I asked Bob Stuart...".  It's unmitigated MQA marketing propaganda masquerading as helpful consumer information. It even begins with an MQA marketing graphic of a handsome man wearing headphones with a wondrous smile on his face.  I guess we're supposed to believe he's over the moon for MQA, when in reality he's a headphone model and there's likely no sound coming out of those cans.

[Samuel T Cogley]

18 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Bizarre to me that everyone associated with Stereophile is doubling and tripling down on MQA. And I haven't seen where they've addressed the points raised by Linn or Schitt. Nor has JA addressed the special attention given to his own recordings that birthed his new world.

 

And you won't.  ML, JA, and others (Scoggins comes to mind) are repeating the mantra that the "armchair engineers" or "anonymous comments" (as ML now refers to them) can be safely ignored.  It's either veiled or overt ad hominem which is a really good indication to me that they know they can't win on science or technical fact.

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, realhifi said:

Can’t win what?  

 

I thought about giving you an honest response, but it's clear from your other recent contributions to the thread that your mind is firmly made up and you're just trolling a little.

[Samuel T Cogley]

6 minutes ago, realhifi said:

Nope. You’re wrong. Hoping for actual back and forth. Do you seriously think I’m trolling?  Why?  

 

ML and JA resort to ad hominem by swatting away MQA dissenters with pejoratives like "armchair engineers", etc.  And my 10th grade English teacher taught us that, "when you resort to ad hominem, you're announcing that you've lost the debate".

 

ML trolling audiophile forums with his post today is, to me, a sign that MQA is feeling some of the heat from the legitimate questions about the objective merits of MQA and they're asking their "friends" in the Professional Audiophile Pundit Class to create doubt around the MQA doubt.

[Samuel T Cogley]

1 minute ago, realhifi said:

It’s a “sign” to you eh?  Kind of like speculation don’t you think?

 

The ad hominem was overt.  MQA is losing the battle for the minds of audiophiles IMHO.  And the trends I'm seeing are that it's only going to get worse.  ML has been amping up the MQA drama on his side lately.  It seems too coincidental to me.  You may be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.  To me MQA is downright insidious and I expect its evangelists to do insidious things to keep it afloat.  YMMV, of course.

[Samuel T Cogley]

22 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

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.

 

 

 

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.