Jump to content
IGNORED

JVS Cheerleads an MQA CD..Sis Boom Bah!


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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?

 

 

 

Link to comment
9 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.

And by civility, he actually means non-dissent.

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

 

"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?

 

 

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"???

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, christopher3393 said:

 

"he is a compensated liar."

 

As I explained, his relationship to the industry, the exposure he gets for his own business, even the compensation his ego gets from being a "respected" and significant industry voice is compensation enough.  Does it matter if he is directly compensated with money?  Again, those other things are MORE valuable than the going market rate to bribe him directly.

 

Besides, it's a reasonable assumption based on his behavior, what we know about this Audiophiledom culture and industry, etc.

 

What is "slanderous" about all this???

Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math!

Link to comment
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.

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...