kumakuma Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: The Goldwater rule - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule 27 psychiatrists and psychologists recently decided to ignore this rule to write this book: Sometimes it's like someone took a knife, baby Edgy and dull and cut a six inch valley Through the middle of my skull Link to comment
Popular Post wgscott Posted October 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2017 Abu Ghraib, brought to you, in part, by The American Psychological Association opus101 and mcgillroy 1 1 Link to comment
fas42 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 1 hour ago, mansr said: I made a mistake once. I thought I'd made mistake, but it turned out that I hadn't. Ummm ... I thought I'd made (a) mistake ... Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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' Bill Brown 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Popular Post Bill Brown Posted October 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2017 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. Audiophile Neuroscience, Teresa, mav52 and 2 others 2 2 1 Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant Link to comment
Popular Post Audiophile Neuroscience Posted October 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2017 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 MikeyFresh, Teresa, mav52 and 5 others 5 2 1 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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
Speed Racer Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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
Popular Post Audiophile Neuroscience Posted October 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2017 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.) MikeyFresh and Teresa 2 Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
Popular Post christopher3393 Posted October 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2017 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. rando, 4est, MikeyFresh and 4 others 5 2 Link to comment
elcorso Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 2 hours ago, kumakuma said: 27 psychiatrists and psychologists recently decided to ignore this rule to write this book: Dear Kuma, And who told you that all psychiatrists and psychologists are mentally healthy? It could be difficult to find 27 sane ...! 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 Please note that this is by no means a political comment, it is not my country nor my president. Best, Roch Link to comment
Popular Post wgscott Posted October 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2017 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: mansr, opus101 and sarvsa 3 Link to comment
TubeLover Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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. I 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
Audiophile Neuroscience Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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". Sound Minds Mind Sound Link to comment
sandyk Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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
Don Hills Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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. wgscott 1 "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
Don Hills Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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
sandyk Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 Just now, Don Hills said: Two assumptions: That Roch is male, and that Roch's spouse was female. They are not assumptions. Melvin 1 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
Don Hills Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 37 minutes ago, sandyk said: They are not assumptions. Evidence please. "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
4est Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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
Popular Post mansr Posted October 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted October 13, 2017 8 hours ago, fas42 said: Ummm ... I thought I'd made (a) mistake ... How ironic. Bloody phone keyboards. lucretius and fas42 1 1 Link to comment
rando Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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
wgscott Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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
Samuel T Cogley Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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. Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted October 13, 2017 Share Posted October 13, 2017 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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now