JVS Cheerleads an MQA CD..Sis Boom Bah!

[christopher3393]

11 minutes ago, NOMBEDES said:

 

 

Crap.  I thought it was March 17th.  My error.  I wonder when the second CD will be released?   

 

completely forgivable as that is St. Patrick's Day  

[christopher3393]

20 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

I play hard

 

did you mean play hardball?

 

play hardball: to act or work aggressively, competitively, or ruthlessly, as in business or politics.

 

seems you post like this habitually. Why? It's a hobby forum.

[christopher3393]

3 minutes ago, Spacehound said:

This is what I posted. And meant

 

"Here mostly it's people not being  ignorant  of science"

 

So yes. you did misunderstand.

 

Just wondering if English is a second language for you? No problem. But sometimes your grammar and usage are problematic. This makes communication more difficult. People often make errors here because of hurrying. Perhaps if you would consider slowing down just a little it could improve the quality of your communication. Perhaps your breakneck pace is undermining your coherence at times?

[christopher3393]

I was wondering how long it would take for this to come up. Seems to have no bearing on the topic. Ad hominem. Another episode of Mean Girls here at CA?

[christopher3393]

21 hours ago, crenca said:

I also noticed that Christopher3393 is playing the role of civility police again.  Snitch is the technical descriptor...

 

For the record, I did not report these posts to the moderator but simply posted my own response.

 

I can find zero evidence that "snitch" is a technical descriptor. Informant is, but I don't see how this fits, particularly since the only informing I did was by public posting.

 

"Playing the role of civility police"  is quite loaded, clearly negative.

 

I would prefer to address this by PM, but you've made it quite public, so here is, in part, your reply:

Crenca, you did not show me the minimal respect of questioning the contents of my post that you are responding to.

 

I think you are fully capable of examining your own conscience and discerning the intent in your heart when you, for example, post about ML. You have never, to my knowledge, expressed that your history of interaction with ML would lead you to ask what role your own posts to him had in the near inevitable events that followed. That the sole responsibility is MLs is, imo,  simply not a viable response. So I'd like to suggest to you that some of your posts, and some of your overall tactics here, strike me as irresponsible.

 

I also find some of your remarks uncharitable toward the person you are criticizing while finding excuses to justify this behavior that I don't think would stand up to any real, careful, scrutiny.

 

Synonyms for uncharitable that, imo, may apply at times to some of your posts and to select posts of a few others here: mean, mean-spirited, unkind, selfish, self-centered, inconsiderate, thoughtless, insensitive, unfriendly, unsympathetic, hard-hearted, uncaring, unfeeling, ungenerous, ungracious, unfair.

 

Rather than being an overly aggressive pc "snowflake" misportrayal, I think I have been very patient and moderate in my exchanges with you generally, and have tried to reason with you numerous times. My patience is being tried at this point.

 

I would hope we could get past this. But I don't think it will be easy.

[christopher3393]

3 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

I understood your point, and I would say IN MY OPINION he is a compensated liar.

 

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm wondering how well-founded you believe this opinion is and specifically why? How high is your confidence in the accuracy of this opinion?

 

I'm also wondering how other members would evaluate the degree of credibility this opinion has and why? That is, if anyone would care to respond.

[christopher3393]

30 minutes ago, Brinkman Ship said:

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm wondering how you feel about the topic of thread?

 

Anything you post that has nothing to do with the topic, will BE IGNORED.

 

 

Yes you are the OP. I have responded to a statement that you made and politely requested further clarification and qualification of that statement, and invited others to respond. 

 

As to ignoring, there is an "ignore"option here.

 

I will continue to raise questions that are relevant and appropriate to the best of my understanding. We may disagree on what questions are relevant and appropriate. It is my understanding that on this forum, these things can be discussed. Perhaps Chris Connaker can weigh in on this.

 

I do have a follow-up question related to your post, but it might be a bit sensitive, so I'd like to take a little more time to time to formulate it carefully.

 

 

[christopher3393]

32 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Ooo,oooo pick me pick me!! 

 

Seriously,  Bob Ludwig has been an early "supporter", is featured in MQA adds, videos, social media site promotions, etc.

 

I have no way of knowing if he is directly compensated.  I do know that the culture of this industry very very often "cross pollinates" as it were - so and so "respected" individual says this about this piece of gear, this technique, this recording.

 

All this adds up to me of a reasonable assumption of some kind of quid pro quo.  Even if it is not direct monetary exchange, it is at the very least exposure for both parties and gives the trade publications and web sites (including this one) something to talk about.  This sort of $free$ exposure is often accounted to be very worthwhile.  Also, in the relatively small market/community of Audiophiledom this sort of stuff seems to be part of many successful ventures and individuals.

 

I rate my confidence in the "accuracy of this opinion" high.  I believe it in essence to be not only correct, but all rather obvious to all but the most casual observers.  If a detail here or there is incorrect, it does not change the larger picture significantly.

 

"MQA has been targeting the weakest players in our world, the audiophiles.  And they’re targeting those most dependent on pimping new tech, the audiophile press. "  Brian Lucey, Fair Hedon interview 11/17

 

 

 

Thanks for weighing in. If you don't mind I may follow up on your post with a few questions tomorrow.

[christopher3393]

34 minutes ago, Indydan said:

 

 

 

LOL. Just for the record, if this is reported, it won't be by me.

[christopher3393]

2 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I I might have to report it then...

 

I mean to do such a thing, it's not very nice...

 

??

 

...even in a cyber barroom?  

[christopher3393]

17 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Do not engage.  He has contributed zero substance to the topic of this thread and only posts to trip you up into committing a ban-able offense.  Best to just ignore.

 

Facts, please: show me one instance from this forum where I have attempted to  trip someone up that resulted in banning. Hasn’t happened. This is gossip.

 

What percentage of posts in this thread are substantial? How do you define substantial? I am nearly certain that we disagree on this.

 

Is there an unwritten rule that one is not allowed to comment on questionable remarks in a thread unless one has provided what you consider to be substantial contributions to the thread?  Is this part of your forum etiquette ?  Make that explicit and include other rules of thumb that you consider to be good (or even required!) protocol. 

 

Haven't you suggested elsewhere that etiquette is often just a ruse to silence speech and  mask intolerance?

 

Sorry for the OT, but this member has persisted in accusing me of bad behavior that even the moderator has clearly and firmly denied or disagreed with several times.

[christopher3393]

17 hours ago, Brinkman Ship said:

You have "sensitive" questions that will "take time to formulate" (LOL!!!!)...please. Either ask legitimate questions about the topic at hand or don't post.

 

Alright, then. I see you included and even italicized "IN MY OPINION" to your slanderous remark about Bob Ludwig, who is not here to defend himself. Is this merely a legal way of insuring that you (and CA by extention) can wrap first amendment protection around you? Is it merely to avoid being banned? Doesn't this still leave an ethical dilemma?

 

More generally, regarding some of the remarks against MQA on this forum doesn't this quote apply to some extent?

 

"Persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander." If not that, then at the very least, malicious gossip?

 

 

 

[christopher3393]

8 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

For me, the crux is simply this:  For reasons I neither understand, nor care to understand, you present yourself as some kind of "deputized" civility patrol for the forum.  Based on my interactions with you, you seem to be stubbornly unaware of your pomposity.  If you want to start another civility thread, by all means do so.  But because you have demonstrated to me that you only post in these types of threads to service your own dogmatic fixation with civility, there is zero to be gained by any back and forth.  I'm sure almost everyone on the forum would agree that it's excruciatingly banal.

 

In other words, have a nice day. 

 

As you have often said to me, you have again ducked the question. VERY convenient. And you are so often so very critical of those who don't respond to your demands to answer YOUR questions. I could provide ample textual evidence for this. Isn't this hypocritical. Take a dose of your own medicine.

 

"I'm sure almost everyone on the forum would agree that it's excruciatingly banal."  Can you really speak for the forum?

 

You continue to respond to fair, reasonable challenges with insults. How is that good faith? It is not good faith and you do not provide the minimum respect that every person here deserves.

[christopher3393]

11 minutes ago, mansr said:

And by civility, he actually means non-dissent.

 

 Trolling? Piling on? Can you support that statement?

[christopher3393]

Yeah, I get this: 

The Angry Beaver Club. Not playing this game.

 

[christopher3393]

10 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Wait a minute, wait a minute  - how is pointing out Bob L's explicit, public relationship with MQA - that is his explicit affirmation of their goals  - "slander"???

 

"he is a compensated liar." It is not factual.

 

Also please note in this thread firedog's post regarding how fast and loose accusations of lying have become. This , imo, is ethically questionable.

 

I see so much moral repugnance and moral outraged expressed toward others. I see very little introspection and moderation when it comes to a few who make frequent remarks that border on sensationalist.

 

[christopher3393]

4 minutes ago, MikeyFresh said:

7 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

That @Brinkman Ship owes you a detailed breakdown of why he has this opinion is preposterous.

 

 

How on earth can this be interpreted as demanding?

 

19 hours ago, christopher3393 said:

Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm wondering how well-founded you believe this opinion is and specifically why? How high is your confidence in the accuracy of this opinion?

 

I'm also wondering how other members would evaluate the degree of credibility this opinion has and why? That is, if anyone would care to respond.

 

You are reading tone into the questions. It is an invitation to qualify an opinion. Standard practice from my perspective.