Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[wgscott]

Quote

To my way of thinking, audiophiles should be like the ground.

 

Like an isolated bucket of sand and rocks that does nothing?

[wgscott]

The guy dropped by every few weeks to shed his Bannon-like exo-skelaton and to stir up the animals. I wouldn't shed too many tears.

[wgscott]

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.

 

 

[wgscott]

Thanks, Firedog.  I have that guy on my ignore list, so I didn't see his erudite contribution.  I did go to grad school there a few hundred thousand years ago.

 

I also didn't mean to suggest anything political, but rather that the disruption tactic was similar.  If Lavorgna had come here to discuss some aspect of audio and had gotten caught up in the heat of passionate debate, it would be a lot more forgivable.  

 

I do think that tactic he used is designed to undermine free expression here in the same sort of way as the "alt-right" was far more interested in provoking a disruption in Berkeley than in initiating a dispassionate discussion.  I am not suggesting Lavorgna has any sympathy at all with the "alt-right" or holds any views in common with them.

[wgscott]

24 minutes ago, wdw said:

You guys need to get out more often.  

No big fan of ML but plissken, you and your continual animus, is destroying this site for considered and gentle conversation.  

Why not go somewhere else...pull the wings off of something somewhere else?

 

 

This is exactly the problem.  "Civility" is just an Audiophile Taliban code-word for their intolerance of any dissent.  More subjectivist dishonesty?   

 

  ;-)  <--- note the Winkie of Absolution, before you start calling for Jihad 

[wgscott]

5 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience 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!

 

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).

[wgscott]

10 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. 

 

That's right.  I agree completely.

 

The only thing I would add is that by doing so, he was also trying to discredit this website.  He is by no means stupid; I doubt this was accidental.

 

SankyK/Alex mentioned that we have had HA folks come here to do similar things.  He is absolutely correct, and having been the target of some overzealous and threatening behavior (being the hard-left subjectivist that I am), I have no sympathy.  But the one difference is presumably those trolls aren't the proprietor of a "competing" website.  (I also want to thank Alex for intervening on my behalf.)

[wgscott]

25 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I and complimented my shoes. 

 

 

[wgscott]

1 minute ago, YashN said:

 

 He should have banned you from CA a long time ago.

 

The Audiophile Taliban has issued its Fatwah.  

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

G'day.

[wgscott]

6 minutes ago, beetlemania said:

Seriously?

 

IIRC, this was some of the nonsense that lit ML's fuse. He didn't just go of the rails in a vacuum. I hope you're nearly ready to graduate 4th grade and that Chris is taking notes.

 

Because saying Lasagna is the moral equivalent of being told to go fuck your mother?

[wgscott]

He was here to troll.  Someone took the bait.  As typical of some people who believe in grounding their equipment to buckets of sand, rationality did not prevail, he massively over-reacted, and his cohort are tripping all over themselves to explain away the Adult Day Care outbursts.

[wgscott]

Abu Ghraib, brought to you, in part, by The American Psychological Association

[wgscott]

53 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

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.

 

 

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:

[wgscott]

4 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

They are not assumptions.

 

When I read it, I assumed it was correct, and chastised myself a little bit for having not paid closer attention and for previously assuming by default he was in a heterosexual relationship when he made amusing comments.

 

I take what he wrote at face value, and would be afraid to assume he made a mistake.  I have no idea which is true, but maybe you do.  I find making assumptions about people leads to all kinds of problems.

[wgscott]

41 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

 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.

 

Again, I am very sorry.

 

I should have stuck with the spirit of this delightful thread topic.  

 

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.

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

Roch  is a good online friend of mine, and a typical D.O.M. who loves women , especially the more curvaceous women from Costa Rica and South America.

 

W.T.F. is D.O.M?

[wgscott]

Maybe you could translate that into English when you are feeling a bit less intoxicated.

 

Meanwhile, I wil put you back on my ignore list, and hope you will do me the same courtesy.

 

Best wishes, and most of all, stay Happy!

 

 

[wgscott]

Just now, petaluma said:

Wow I have been away for awhile and just started looking at posts. It seems to me if Mr. Lavorgna runs a competing website he showed up here for a short period of time and got you guys attacking each other like rabid dogs. I'd argue mission accomplished....Color me a conspiracy theorist...

 

I came to the exact same conclusion. (Soft minds run together.)

 

If you need to escape the smoke, you are always welcome to come visit (although it is quite smokey here).  Hope you and yours are ok!

[wgscott]

4 hours ago, petaluma said:

Hey Bill good to hear from you. And thanks for the good wishes and offer. We are doing OK up here except for the incredibly bad air quality. Petaluma luckily has turned out to be the evacuation center of choice based on the fact we have not been hit by the fires. I grew up in LA and the annual ash fall from the hills burning was routine, this is something else.....I saw the other post on Lavorgna had some discussion on bicycles involved. That's always a good trend!

 

Yeah, sometimes it can be a good reality check while we argue endlessly about our multi-thousand dollar toys.

 

[wgscott]

4 minutes ago, mansr said:

But until observed, he will be in a state of superposition, simultaneously happy and unhappy.

 

The Copenhagen Interpretation is due do a subjectivist misunderstanding of probability.

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, realhifi said:

Which generation is that?

 

Three prior to Wuss.

[wgscott]

2 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

I was reading somewhere that Hugh Hefner lost most of his hearing due to excessive use of Viagra. Just letting you know...

 

What?

[wgscott]

8 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

Not jealous at all.  But the young women find it really creepy.

 

He was a pretty serious dirt-bag:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/28/hugh-hefner-pimp-sue-playboy-mansion

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

Kind of surprises me given how many of the rest of you regulars get "controversial" pm's, but I've only gotten a handful from people who had technical questions about headphones and the like.

 

Perhaps it's because I know karate...

 

I used to get a pile of people asking me to help un-fuck their computer after they tried to "optimize" it for playback.  I had to turn PMs off.  I liked the death threats much better.