Jump to content
IGNORED

Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......


Recommended Posts

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'

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
2 hours ago, kumakuma said:

 

27 psychiatrists and psychologists recently decided to ignore this rule to write this book:

 

 

 

 

Dangerous-Case-cover-image-789x1200.jpg

 

Dear Kuma,

 

And who told you that all psychiatrists and psychologists are mentally healthy?

It could be difficult to find 27 sane ...! O.o

Of this I am very sure, I was married a long time with one and I met many of his friends in the same guild :D

 

Please note that this is by no means a political comment, it is not my country nor my president.

 

Best,

 

Roch

Link to comment
On 10/10/2017 at 10:59 AM, firedog said:

Why do any of you care? If you don't respect him or his opinion, don't go to his site. More page views only help him.

I think ML's site is often informative and helpful. like that he reviews and compares competing components and tells us how they sound different to him. Many sites never do this; I find it useful as it gives me a reference in getting an idea about how items sound relative to one another.

He was rightly banned from this site for abusing the PM mechanism. But it is also true that the nasty posts on various threads were not just initiated by him; some were initiated by others. 

 

Agreed 100%. I also find his site informative and interesting, I think he reviews honestly. I've also communicated with him over the past few years and he has been extremely helpful. And it was his choice to provide valuable input, he owed me nothing.

 

JC

Link to comment
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:

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 9.39.43 PM.png

 

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".

 

Sound Minds Mind Sound

 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, elcorso said:

Of this I am very sure, I was married a long time with one and I met many of his friends in the same guild 

 

Hi Roch

A language problem here. I have corrected it for you.

Kind Regards

Alex

Quote

Of this I am very sure, I was married a long time with one and I met many of her friends in the same guild 

 

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

...

  • “narcissists collect psychophants”

...

 

"Samuel T Cogley" suggested a correction to  “narcissists collect sycophants” but I think your original is more descriptive.

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

Hi Roch

A language problem here. I have corrected it for you.

Kind Regards

Alex

 

 

Two assumptions: That Roch is male, and that Roch's spouse was female. 

"People hear what they see." - Doris Day

The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were.

Link to comment
Just now, Don Hills said:

Two assumptions: That Roch is male, and that Roch's spouse was female. 

 

They are not assumptions.

 

How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

PROFILE UPDATED 13-11-2020

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Don Hills said:

 

Evidence please.

 

Do you really need to debate this or they prove it?

Forrest:

Win10 i9 9900KS/GTX1060 HQPlayer4>Win10 NAA

DSD>Pavel's DSC2.6>Bent Audio TAP>

Parasound JC1>"Naked" Quad ESL63/Tannoy PS350B subs<100Hz

Link to comment

The last day or so has been very informative in here.  FOX News informative.  Lacking any further evidence I have to believe Chris has everyone's best interest at heart by pointing out bluster from a number of people who are otherwise fine and decent individuals.  This was never about singling people out, which in ML's case was the correct response in directing his complaint, so much as group cognizance of the effect on others.  

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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:

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 9.39.43 PM.png

 

 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.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...