Jeff Dorgay & TONEAudio Declare War on CA

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mikicasellas said:

Sooner or later this Pendej... was going to show up some where with his pathetic and irrational self, had a similar experience with his Nazi attitude a few years ago over facebook when elections were on fire and among all the audiophiles writers that i have on facebook as friends this intolerable disgusting man named Jeff Dorgay went "Cheetos" over me with an agresivo comment that he was going to shut me down for commenting about politics, he is a piece of.... BIG TIME, let him be, people like this guy little by little they go sinking in their own S...t

 

Best regards Chris!!

 

I’m not endorsing your comments, but your experience is one reason why the emails I published need to remain in public view. I don’t subscribe to the right to be forgotten and believe people should have their behavior exposed. 

 

As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness. I believe bullies thrive in darkness. 

[mikicasellas]

Who ever is in his own right, there is no excuse for anybody to deal with a situation in this way, insulting and aggressive is not the way to treat with respect, bottom line he is a disrespectful person and no matter the issue it is not acceptable

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Alex is in Australia.  Like the EU it may have different privacy laws.  

 

AFAIK, both web sites involved here are in the US, tho I heard the analog web site was actually in Portland.

 

This is also tricky. Does it matter where the data is sitting, where the business resides, where the behavior occurred etc...

 

It isn’t that hard to obfuscate one’s server location. We do it :~)

 

The internet is the Wild West. 

[mansr]

7 minutes ago, Allan F said:

Nevertheless, it is still common knowledge and/or advice that when you write an email, you should assume that it will become public. 

Assume it will be seen by your boss, wife, mistress, and drug dealer.

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 It isn’t that hard to obfuscate one’s server location. We do it :~)

Cloudflare?

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, mansr said:

Cloudflare?

Yes. It works wonders to hide the actual location. 

[crenca]

1 hour ago, hopkins said:

I was just shocked by the fact that you would post private emails you had with him.

Anytime someone does the same thing, whining about a vendor and publishing private email conversations, it makes me cringe. 

 

 

Who ARE these guys? Are they all from the planet "Industry Insider"??

 

"I was just shocked & amazed when I grabbed his...."

 

BOOM!

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

8 hours ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, except the problem is that the way Tone Audio's RSS is configured, for anyone with a feed reader or web browser with feed reader capabilities, they are taking away hits from *their own* website. They can solve that problem for themselves *and for everyone else, including Chris*, with one click in the WordPress settings!

 

Wow lots of pages have gone by since last checking in so forgive me if it has already been mentioned.

 

I could be totally wrong here but my impression was JD didn't want to change the settings of his RSS feed but expected no, demanded Chris not to subscribe. If this is true the question is why. It's like he is implying some sort of understanding for example a gentleman's agreement or some other arrangement that compels Chris to comply. He cites that other audio websites have not trespassed into this area.

 

If one assumes that JD understands how RSS works, and it's a pretty good assumption because Chris told him, then his response is bizarre.... Unless there is something else going on, at least in his mind, to expect the Chris would automatically comply. Indeed if he doesn't comply he will sue the pants off him.

 

Now I realise this makes no sense because even if it was a gentleman's agreement I can't imagine it can be grounds to sue . I'm really just trying to explore where this guy's thinking has gone wrong

[Hugo9000]

Well, one could certainly make an argument that it is best to leave the content as is, even if you were inclined to simply delete it.  Leaving it unaltered, there is evidence that it has not been tampered with, and any accusations that you have changed anything, or originally had something up that was infringing, can be met with proof that you have not altered nor edited anything in those threads.  If you take them down, it would be much harder to prove that there never was anything that infringed copyright or syndication rights (granted by the content creator/owner/whatever by his RSS feed settings).

 

This isn't merely in case of any legal action, but perhaps more importantly in the long run, the internet rumor mill.  Even in this short span of time, with proof that your site is merely showing the pushed RSS content exactly, there have been people (on this site, in this very thread) misrepresenting the issue as infringement or stealing content.  Imagine the nonsense going forward if you didn't maintain proof of what has actually been published on your site.

 

(Edited to add:  Not that you need my advice, and also, I imagine you're already well aware of any issues like these that may be relevant.)

[phototristan]

2 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Wow lots of pages have gone by since last checking in so forgive me if it has already been mentioned.

 

I could be totally wrong here but my impression was JD didn't want to change the settings of his RSS feed but expected no, demanded Chris not to subscribe. If this is true the question is why. It's like he is implying some sort of understanding for example a gentleman's agreement or some other arrangement that compels Chris to comply. He cites that other audio websites have not trespassed into this area.

 

If one assumes that JD understands how RSS works, and it's a pretty good assumption because Chris told him, then his response is bizarre.... Unless there is something else going on, at least in his mind, to expect the Chris would automatically comply. Indeed if he doesn't comply he will sue the pants off him.

 

Now I realise this makes no sense because even if it was a gentleman's agreement I can't imagine it can be grounds to sue . I'm really just trying to explore where this guy's thinking has gone wrong

 

Both sites get paid by advertisers. Perhaps there are advertisers who do not want cross -content pollination. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, phototristan said:

 

Both sites get paid by advertisers. Perhaps there are advertisers who do not want cross -content pollination. 

 

Not on my end. I don’t do business with companies who attempt to dictate what we do. 

[Hugo9000]

^ Ah ha!  Now the conspiracy theorists can work MQA into this!    ToneAudio may have one or more MQA-loving advertisers who have proclaimed they want no link of any kind between that site and CA!

[The Computer Audiophile]

Just now, Hugo9000 said:

^ Ah ha!  Now the conspiracy theorists can work MQA into this!    ToneAudio may have one or more MQA-loving advertisers who have proclaimed they want no link of any kind between that site and CA!

Too funny. 

[rickca]

8 minutes ago, Hugo9000 said:

there is evidence that it has not been tampered with

Another opportunity for MQA.  Insults and threats will sound even better when they are deblurred.

[Jud]

24 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Wow lots of pages have gone by since last checking in so forgive me if it has already been mentioned.

 

I could be totally wrong here but my impression was JD didn't want to change the settings of his RSS feed but expected no, demanded Chris not to subscribe. If this is true the question is why. It's like he is implying some sort of understanding for example a gentleman's agreement or some other arrangement that compels Chris to comply. He cites that other audio websites have not trespassed into this area.

 

If one assumes that JD understands how RSS works, and it's a pretty good assumption because Chris told him, then his response is bizarre.... Unless there is something else going on, at least in his mind, to expect the Chris would automatically comply. Indeed if he doesn't comply he will sue the pants off him.

 

Now I realise this makes no sense because even if it was a gentleman's agreement I can't imagine it can be grounds to sue . I'm really just trying to explore where this guy's thinking has gone wrong

 

It seems reasonably simple to me (though of course I could easily be wrong): I think Mr.  Dorgay was surprised to learn how RSS works.  By the time he realized the actual state of affairs, he likely felt he'd gone too far to take it all back.

[joelha]

4 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

It seems reasonably simple to me (though of course I could easily be wrong): I think Mr.  Dorgay was surprised to learn how RSS works.  By the time he realized the actual state of affairs, he likely felt he'd gone too far to take it all back.

 

You might be right, Jud, but it would be very classy on his part to step up and make the apology now.

 

I suspect many of us have been in a situation where we felt too uncomfortable to apologize.

 

I've certainly been there.

 

And it's because the situation is so uncomfortable that an apology now would be very admirable.

 

Joel

[mav52]

1 hour ago, phototristan said:

 

It's not the links that are the problem. CA re-published the article in it's entirety. 

Wrong , BOOM !

[Jud]

10 minutes ago, joelha said:

 

You might be right, Jud, but it would be very classy on his part to step up and make the apology now.

 

I suspect many of us have been in a situation where we felt too uncomfortable to apologize.

 

I've certainly been there.

 

And it's because the situation is so uncomfortable that an apology now would be very admirable.

 

Joel

 

This is what a mensch says.  We'd be better off if more of us had a heart like yours.

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

51 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Alex is in Australia.  Like the EU it may have different privacy laws.  

 

I am not a lawyer so cannot authoritatively speak about the privacy laws in Australia (where I live).

I do know that within the medical profession emails and faxes commonly contain warnings such as ..

 

PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this email transmission is intended for the named recipient only.

It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the named or intended recipient you may not read, copy, distribute or take any other action in reliance on or in respect of the contents of this email. The privilege and confidentiality attached to this email communication is not waived by reason of error in transmission or addressee.   If you have received this email in error, or have reason to believe that you may have received this email in error, please destroy this email and any copies, extracts or summaries. We would also appreciate your advice that you have received this email in error.

 

Medical emails supposedly should be encrypted but few actually do this that I am aware of. Some medical service providers will not communicate at all by email insisting on Faxes. I have no idea why as I cannot see how this is more protected.

 

The issue of making personal emails public is , as I see it, an ethical rather than a legal matter. This might go tips up so to speak if you are broadcasting photos of your naked ex-wife but generally personal e-mails are out on the Internet for everybody to see. Ethically, people expect those private e-mails will remain private. Most people respect this privacy and will not disclose personal information or  hang out their dirty washing in public.

 

Receiving threats via e-mail is however a completely different kettle of fish in my opinion. Whether the threat is received electronically or in the paper mail it is expected it will be used in evidence in a public forum of some sort.

[ShawnC]

9 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

It seems reasonably simple to me (though of course I could easily be wrong): I think Mr.  Dorgay was surprised to learn how RSS works.  By the time he realized the actual state of affairs, he likely felt he'd gone too far to take it all back.

There are websites and apps that are just dedicated to RSS feeds.  Chris just has one dedicated to Audio.  If you have an iphone, there news app is essentially all RSS feeds.  I have all sorts of articles from Stereophile, TAS that appear on my iphone news app.  This whole thing just seems odd, especially those who are defending Mr. Dorgay.  If your a first timer here then you maybe shocked but Chris has always informed the community when inappropriate emails have been made that affect the site or community members, including Chris.  As Chris stated earlier, there are plenty of emails that also stay private that don't directly affect the community as a whole.  I'm still stunned at some of the backlash that Chris has taken.  

 

BTW I enjoy those feeds,  I always go to the main site where it came from, so they benefit from my foot traffic. 

[joelha]

2 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

This is what a mensch says.  We'd be better off if more of us had a heart like yours.

 

That's (characteristically) nice of you, Jud. Consider the mensch compliment returned.

 

Thanks a lot.

Joel

[Jud]

1 hour ago, sandyk said:

 

Then the Law is an Ass !

 Does it also permit dissemination of Mobile Phone Texts ???

 

Entirely aside from the present situation, Alex - Do you think as a matter of policy people who have been threatened, with regard to their businesses or persons, ought to have to worry that they will be subject to legal action if they reveal that to someone else?

[phototristan]

5 minutes ago, mav52 said:

Wrong , BOOM !

 

Actually, right: 

 

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes, CA publishes an exact bit perfect copy of what Tone Audio pushes out

 

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

27 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

It seems reasonably simple to me (though of course I could easily be wrong): I think Mr.  Dorgay was surprised to learn how RSS works.  By the time he realized the actual state of affairs, he likely felt he'd gone too far to take it all back.

 

You are probably right. If so, an extraordinary lapse in judgement not to back down. Speaking for myself as someone never afflicted with such lapses...hahahahahaha

Edit -well not recently, of course!

[The Computer Audiophile]

1 minute ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

well not recently, of course!

 

You sure?

 

:~)