Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[Shadders]

32 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I have hundreds of emails from other people who hate me for whatever reason. I’d never publish them. This is different. 

Don't worry, we all love you. ?

[Shadders]

Tristan or Tristram is a given name of Welsh origin. It originates from the Brythonic name Drust or Drustanus. It derives from a stem meaning "noise", seen in the modern Welsh noun trwst (plural trystau) and the verb trystio "to clatter"

 

From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_(name)

[Shadders]

Hi,

From the wiki on RSS :

 

"This passing of content is called web syndication. Websites usually use RSS feeds to publish frequently updated information, such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, video. An RSS document (called "feed", "web feed",^[3] or "channel") includes full or summarized text, and metadata, like publishing date and author's name. "

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSS

 

So, the sender either sends the SUMMARY or FULL text. It seems ToneAudio are sending the FULL text.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Hi,

At this point, it is obvious the ToneAudio person does not want you to share his material.

 

I would remove the feed so he gets less clicks to his site, as on here, no one will know about it as the rss feed is missing.

 

It is not worth the ink on the computer screen.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, phototristan said:

 

Actually, incorrect. Intention in a court of law matters. If you publish for example, nude photos of your wife online by accident, and then someone else republishes them on their website. That does not make it right for the other person to keep them up

Do you have any nude photo's of your wife ?

 

If not, do you want to buy some......

 

Da boom, tsschhh.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

When is the last time you responded Kindly to a bully threatening war and a lawsuit, when you felt you were right?

I feel sorry for his wife and their dustbin lids.....

[Shadders]

Just now, Jud said:

 

I don't think any personal insinuations are necessary.  To me, they are innuendo and out the other.

Isn't an innuendo, a Spanish suppository ???

[Shadders]

[Shadders]

5 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

I probably should have just left it with this.

Hi,

No, this type of behaviour happens on other forums. I think it is because people can't see each other face to face.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

What is the difference between and egg and a wank ???

 

You can beat an egg....

 

Da boom, tsschh.

[Shadders]

3 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I appreciate @4estand @mav52position, as well as others who have chimed in with essentially the same opinion.  I would note (not to denigrate them in any way) that is the "civility" argument in slightly different guise.  The "high road", the framing of this exposure of bullying being adolescent or "high school".  Once again the ambiguity and even basic disagreement of what civility (and in this case, maturity) even means is exposed.  Whose civility, which maturity?

 

Also, it appears that the most (all?) of those expressing this opinion are from the subjectivist side of the audio divide.  Probably not because of any inherent reason, other than the computer revolution and forums such as this one are still a bit of a "disruptive" force for some folks.  They tend to have a older or different expectations when it comes to things like the "privacy" of emails, electronic communication of threats, etc.

 

I send my children to the local private RC school, for a mix of academic and social/cultural reasons (i.e. no gangs, they learn to read, etc.) even though we are not Roman Catholic.  One of the issues has been smart-phones & screens, social media, etc.  The majority of the parents are very concerned about the hypothetical school shooter even though the statistics reveal that the chances of your child being harmed at school by a random deranged shooter are up there with them getting hit by a piece of falling space junk.  The two most harmful incidents in our school in the past 5 years was a male teacher (35, married with kids) having a sexual relationship with a 16 year old female, and a suicide of a very recent high school graduate.  Cell phones, social media, texting, and eletronic bullying were intimately involved in both cases.

 

So I have a different perspective than @4est and others.  Sometimes you can "take the high road", and at other times such an instinct would prove positively harmful to those involved.  Electronic communication is 'different', to pick a word - something relatively new and what ever it means, the old rules don't necessarily apply.

Hi,

I disagree that old rules do not apply.

 

In all the progress we have made, we are still human beings, and privacy and decent behaviour is important. This is despite the current culture being to take photographs of oneself and send it anywhere and everywhere, and behave differently behind a keyboard. 

 

All the internet has done is to give greater anonymity to the bully (bullies are of all ages).

 

My take is that the bully has been exposed, let him have his wish, remove the RSS subscription, and do not give the ToneAudio site and the person any publicity. Why waste your time on someone you would never want to be friends with ?

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

8 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Which rules?  I can agree with you rather easily (too easily) that "privacy and decent behavior is important".  But this is in the abstract.  You yourself admit that the internet has changed things - it "give(s) greater anonymity to the bully".  Well that "greater anonymity has consequences - consequences which force you individually (or in my case, as a parent) to adjust my response, tweak the rules, etc.

 

It's not the principles behind the rules that are so much in dispute, as to how to effectively apply those rules in the changed situation of the internet...

Hi,

Essentially - in real life if there is someone down the road you do not get on with, you avoid them.

 

If you would never say a derogatory comment to someone's face, the don't say it on the internet.

 

The old rules helped people get along, and we should adhere to them on the internet - but what is happening, because the internet provides anonymity, people discard the old rules.

 

So in this case, there has been an argument between two parties - seen by all, and maybe it is time to move on.

 

The same rules of behaviour still apply to the internet - but the internet allows people to get away with more due to anonymity - but still following the old rules (walk away, don't interact) still apply. Too many people have dropped the old rules - making the internet a lot more toxic.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Just now, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

Given that there is zero anonymity involved in this scenario, let's move on. 

Hi,

My point is - the argument has happened - continuing the exchange solves nothing, he wants you to stop using his RSS feed, let him have his little win, and why spend energy on someone such as him with his quite disgraceful behaviour.

 

There are 8 billion people on this planet - and not talking to one extra is not going to be disastrous.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

49 minutes ago, crenca said:

"This place" might be like a local pub, but this is a local pub on the internet.  Respectfully, your morals, your version of Civility that you assume should be reflected here and elsewhere, is positively dangerous.  I don't say that lightly, but I believe it to be true.  You appear (and only appear - perhaps not really and we are having a miscommunication) to support the kind of morality and civility that would sweep bullying underneath the "maturity" rug in a false effort to hide the real biker in our midst.  I would not willingly bring my kids to such a pub, even if it had the artificial air of friendly banter and English civility.

Hi,

If people applied the same approach to each other on the internet as they do in real life, the internet would be so much better.

 

I do not see how expecting people to behave with civility and respect to one another is dangerous.

 

If a person i was friends with was rude and abusive on the internet, but nice to peoples faces, then i would see that person in a completely different light. It would say a lot about their character if they think through anonymity that their abuse is acceptable. That is, they do it because they can get away with it. What else would they try to get away with ?

 

I am not sure what you are referring to about the hidden biker. If you are not going to meet the person then it is not an issue. Keep on talking to them.

 

If you are going to meet the person in the flesh, then as with ANY internet friendship - you must always take specific precautions to remain safe.

 

For some reason, people have behaved deplorably on the internet and this has been accepted as normal, just because it is the internet. We should not change the terms of acceptable behaviour because there is a screen and keyboard between people.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

Just now, crenca said:

 

Respectfully the issue is exactly all these  "ifs".  If men were angels we would not need government,  codes of conduct etc.  If men behaved the same way they do in person when they were behind a keyboard the internet would not be different.  However all the evidence supports the fact that men do behave differently behind the keyboard, and thus the rules while having the same principles are in fact different in structure and application.

 

 

Hi,

My point is that when people get behind the keyboard, they get worse, not better, so the hidden biker does not exist.

 

Yes - full of if's, but again, being nice does not cost you anything. If you are naturally rude, then ok - but the internet anonymity has caused people to think they can be rude with no consequences - and the internet is toxic because of it.

 

So, what do we do - teach people to realise that at the other end of the internet is a person, so behave as you would in real life, or let people run amok, and introduce laws to stop abhorrent behaviour ?

 

In the UK - they have introduced laws to tackle toxic behaviour - but those people who do get convicted, do not behave as per the internet persona in real life.

 

So, no need to change the rules of behaviour - just teach people that anonymity does not mean you can behave differently.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said:

Just a reminder of one the ways we deal with certain undesirable content on a golf web site. 

 

Did you know that vitamin D3 is made from the Lanolin oil in sheeps wool.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said:

 

Nope but getting ready for a golf tournament reminded me how much more effective the golf communities are about policing their sites.

 

As I told someone a while ago. "You shoot in the 90's I'm not interested in your opinion." 

Hi,

Sorry, i don't get the sheep reference. Are they to cut the grass ?

And the shoot reference - do you mean handicap ?

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

10 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

As I am fond of saying, no good deed goes unpunished.

 

 

Well, perhaps that's a reason - some sites may not want uncensored comments on their reviews or the equipment being reviewed.

Hi,

On another site recently, the author of an article responded to my post, and wrote a statement as if i had made a comment i never made.

 

I responded, stating i made no such statement (it was obvious from my text), and this response was not allowed to be posted.

 

I think if this was not an open forum, where all courteous statements are allowed, the forum would reduce in traffic, and so would the exposure to advertisers equipment.

 

Censorship will just lead people to believe there is an agenda detrimental to discussion.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Shadders]

1 minute ago, mansr said:

Censorship usually means there is such an agenda.

Some moderators are stupid, so may not have an agenda.

[Shadders]

31 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

People never cease to amaze me. I just received an email from @fnscg. 

 

Does this language and tone sound familiar to anyone?

 

 

"So sad that you’re sitting in front of your computer while the people you disparage are off actually making a living and selling product.  You reply immediately and call me a sock puppet?  No surprise, it’s what you’re doing between your immature rants.

 

All these people you lambast built an industry many know and love.  What are you doing?  Sitting in your crappy little house pissing off people who will write letters to your advertisers, forwarding your posts and emails calling their customers darogatory names.

 

So this is your plan to get ahead and make a living.  Good luck.

 

I’m retired and wealthy.  I have nothing better to do for the rest of the day than to write letters to all the advertisers listed on your site.  Scum needs yo pay.  Time to collect.

 

Have a nice day ASSHOLE."

Hi,

Hifi is very much in decline - here is an article from 2003in the UK The Independent newspaper :

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/so-farewell-then-amp-and-deck-as-buyers-ditch-hi-fi-in-favour-of-dvd-81489.html

 

States : "Over the past couple of years the decline has been really dramatic, and it will slide even further." and "There has also been an explosion in computer-based music servers."

 

Given this article is from 2003, and it is known Hifi is still in decline for the past 15 years - up to what date did "Jeff" & Co.,  build this industry ?

 

Also, his spell checker does not work.

 

Regards,

Shadders.