mav52 Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: Correct, I've shown it in this thread. Perhaps I'm not following you. Do you continue to keep the trolling by the troll of tone Audio going, it proves nothing. You have made your point in the online documentation that is now resident on this site. Anyone can pick u[p the Tone Audio information, so its a mute point to those that enjoy Computer Audio going forward. Like I noted, you have proven your point about the true personality of the owner of Tone Audio. . I say take the high road and move on to CA topics that impact computer audio. mikicasellas 1 The Truth Is Out There Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, mav52 said: Do you continue to keep the trolling by the troll of tone Audio going, it proves nothing. You have made your point in the online documentation that is now resident on this site. Anyone can pick u[p the Tone Audio information, so its a mute point to those that enjoy Computer Audio going forward. Like I noted, you have proven your point about the true personality of the owner of Tone Audio. . I say take the high road and move on to CA topics that impact computer audio. Understood. Thanks for the honest feedback. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Kyhl Posted July 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 13 hours ago, Fluffytime said: Yeah, I remember when Dorgay used to regularily post on Hoffman's forum. He'd have these kind of meltdowns on at least a weekly basis. I also remember him being caught in out right lies on several occasions. The man has zero credibility. Been lurking here for months and when this issue came up it reminded me of the SH forums TA threads. They guy ended up leaving, not sure if it was voluntarily or not. At first I liked reading his articles. After a while it became clear that he is too self important and I became bored of his behavior, and me! me! me! look at me! writing style. Although not surprising given JD's past behavior, this has been entertaining. The Computer Audiophile and Fluffytime 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post DuckToller Posted July 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 Chris, I have read your initial post and all the pages after. And I would really like to express my greatest respect for you to publish the correspondence. From my experience I can tell, it is not always wise and practical to react in such a manner against bullying and threatening, but in my personal feeling it definitely should always be that way you did it. BRAVO!!! For the ones who have become worried about netiquette, calling it crap or advise for the high road : (pls note: this is not personal for the ones, who advocated the above, I have just cited as examples the last reasons I have noted) These kind of advise only feeds the person, who actively decided to interact socially awkward with bullying and threatening another person. I would assume most people supporting a diplomatic and under the radar solution on the existing problem as the only correct way to respond, are missing the experience (sometime as well the empathy) to be in the focus/the victim of misbehavior like that. I could imagine, some others support the low profile because they may have more often a stake on the other side of these conflicts in real life. Or, it is just uncomfortable for some to get concerned about such issues. IMHO, the silence of the victims are like an applause to the ears of the offender ... so is silencing the victim ... I have met many (honorable?) people who just don't want to look on bullying / threatening / harassment, because it only supplies them with discomfort (mostly in personal relations to people, who are active offenders or close to them), no personal profit and even less honors. This is called having a personal agenda. One that does not dispute the existence of bullying itself, but the right of the victim to speak out loud and clear and to point to the malefactor(s) and the demand for correction. In my opinion: If you are an offender, expect to be treated like one and expect a reaction to your offense. If you did not want to offend, get that straight and clear, you may have a chance to get over that, maybe even more than once. If it is your standard behavior, you might address it for getting professional help to initiate a change, usually that doesn't make you irresponsible for your acts you have already done. Even you have friends defending your position. And even in the Internet. Therefore, Chris, my highest regards for this threat ! Thank you!!! Tom MrMoM, crenca, Hugo9000 and 1 other 1 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Solstice380 Posted July 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 13 hours ago, phototristan said: LOL. I used to work with a guy who bragged that he read that book 3 times. He was a total wanker. It’s not polite to talk about yourself in the third person. opus101, mikicasellas and AudioDoctor 3 https://audiophilestyle.com/profile/21384-solstice380/?tab=field_core_pfield_3 Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Jud said: Then you understood it. Really. Because they're making the point that copyright law is not settled regarding republication of RSS feeds. Right. If you look at the XML namespace definition for “RSS” it is a URI which links to a document describing the RSS specification (there are several versions). In the RSS specification there is the possibility of a copyright value. When an explicit copyright is included in an RSS document, the intention of the copyright holder is clear. When the value is not present, the copyright is not clear. However email clarification would hold a certain weight. The fact that the spec itself provides fro a copyright field would indicate that RSS documents are intended to be at the very least possibly copyrighted. I can’t imagine you’d advise anyone to fight this unless for publicity. Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 4 hours ago, arcman said: I say we start a big protest for Tone Audio magazine for being mean to Chris. Real simple 1. find out the address of main office or owner's home 2. Call these people...yes a big chunk of protesters you see on TV are hired https://crowdsondemand.com/ 3. Pick a date...get permits 4. Print signs that maybe read (or something similar) "stop being mean to me" ... "my feelings got hurt"...."you are going down you big, mean, bully" 5. publish the protest all over the internet LOL..I love this...so silly..... There are too many protests in Portland everyday for this to work. Jud 1 Link to comment
crenca Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, The Computer Audiophile said: Understood. Thanks for the honest feedback. 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. Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Shadders Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 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. Summit 1 Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted July 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, jabbr said: Right. If you look at the XML namespace definition for “RSS” it is a URI which links to a document describing the RSS specification (there are several versions). In the RSS specification there is the possibility of a copyright value. When an explicit copyright is included in an RSS document, the intention of the copyright holder is clear. When the value is not present, the copyright is not clear. However email clarification would hold a certain weight. The fact that the spec itself provides fro a copyright field would indicate that RSS documents are intended to be at the very least possibly copyrighted. I can’t imagine you’d advise anyone to fight this unless for publicity. Would not the copyright issue (let's just assume that ALL RSS documents are inherently copyrighted) be besides the point in that by using RSS you legally intend to syndicate and that by doing so you don't have a legal claim against someone (such as Chris) who utilizes your syndication (in this case, a particular technical implementation - RSS)? The Computer Audiophile and Hugo9000 2 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
crenca Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, Shadders said: 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. 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... Hugo9000 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 I just checked my temperature. I thought something was seriously wrong because I've agreed with @crenca way more than my brain can comprehend :~) Audiophile Neuroscience 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted July 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 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. Summit and 4est 2 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Shadders said: 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. Regards, Shadders. Given that there is zero anonymity involved in this scenario, let's move on. Jud 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
crenca Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said: I just checked my temperature. I thought something was seriously wrong because I've agreed with @crenca way more than my brain can comprehend :~) Uh oh, I better start talking about Audiophile culture again... ? Jud 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post Shadders Posted July 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 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. 4est and Summit 1 1 Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, crenca said: Uh oh, I better start talking about Audiophile culture again... ? "F" You @crenca ? crenca 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
jabbr Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 32 minutes ago, crenca said: Would not the copyright issue (let's just assume that ALL RSS documents are inherently copyrighted) be besides the point in that by using RSS you legally intend to syndicate and that by doing so you don't have a legal claim against someone (such as Chris) who utilizes your syndication (in this case, a particular technical implementation - RSS)? Err no. One could intend to syndicate for individual consumption only. Just because someone provides an RSS does not mean that they intend to allow another site to republish. For example the RSS could include these different examples: <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018, all rights reserved. Not for republication</copyright> or <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. For personal consumption only</copyright> or <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. May be used freely for noncommercial purposes</copyright> Now aside from a copyright notice, where is the "legal intention" of the author described? That's the point. Regarding syndication, do you really think that when a TV show is syndicated, for example, that you can record and then republish it? Custom room treatments for headphone users. Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 13 hours ago, Jud said: I thought folks proposing some ulterior motive were being conspiracy theorists. With these continued ludicrous attacks, one has to wonder. Jud it is no conspiracy. Chris has been and will be attacked openly from parts of the industry and the audio press. I've seen it at shows personally. I tried yesterday. I left a message for the webmaster and talked to Jeff before lunch. Full RSS feed is not a mistake. If Jeff pursues this it will cost some money to get a law firm to write a letter to Chris. And it is an interesting question of whether Computer Audiophile is a public aggregator or not. The Computer Audiophile 1 Link to comment
crenca Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, jabbr said: Err no. One could intend to syndicate for individual consumption only. Just because someone provides an RSS does not mean that they intend to allow another site to republish. For example the RSS could include these different examples: <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018, all rights reserved. Not for republication</copyright> or <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. For personal consumption only</copyright> or <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. May be used freely for noncommercial purposes</copyright> Now aside from a copyright notice, where is the "legal intention" of the author described? That's the point. Behind your argument is that there is a difference between "individual consumption" and "another site" in relation to RSS. I tend toward (you might be able to convince me otherwise) that is a distinction without a difference practically, legally, etc. So Flipbook is not "site", and CA is not simply an app or "portal" for my individual consumption? Does any of this really make a difference to RSS and the determination of intent when a content provider proactively (how else could they do it - besides, say some rogue web employee setting up RSS without permission) enabling an RSS feed. Also, again, copyright is assumed in ALL cases I think... The Computer Audiophile 1 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, jabbr said: Err no. One could intend to syndicate for individual consumption only. Just because someone provides an RSS does not mean that they intend to allow another site to republish. For example the RSS could include these different examples: <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018, all rights reserved. Not for republication</copyright> or <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. For personal consumption only</copyright> or <copyright>(c) John Smith 2018. May be used freely for noncommercial purposes</copyright> Now aside from a copyright notice, where is the "legal intention" of the author described? That's the point. You're getting into the weeds now. What is individual consumption? Read by a person? If you believe individual consumption is not what we are doing here, what's your take on Feedly. A service that charges people to read RSS feeds? Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
The Computer Audiophile Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 3 minutes ago, crenca said: Behind your argument is that there is a difference between "individual consumption" and "another site" in relation to RSS. I tend toward (you might be able to convince me otherwise) that is a distinction without a difference practically, legally, etc. So Flipbook is not "site", and CA is not simply an app or "portal" for my individual consumption? Does any of this really make a difference to RSS and the determination of intent when a content provider proactively (how else could they do it - besides, say some rogue web employee setting up RSS without permission) enabling an RSS feed. Also, again, copyright is assumed in ALL cases I think... The world is going to hell in a hand basket. You took many of the words out of my mouth. Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
crenca Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: I tried yesterday. I left a message for the webmaster and talked to Jeff before lunch. Full RSS feed is not a mistake. So there you have it. Jeff just does not want to syndicate to this site CA, probably because of that time Chris commented how he does not like Superman (Jeff was wearing Superman undies like he always does). Yet, RSS is a free and open syndication method TO ALL. Jeff's only solution is to not use RSS, or use RSS in such a way (through a VPN for example) that restricts it. He does not have a legal leg to stand on as I see it, besides being a bully... Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Popular Post Jud Posted July 17, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 Guys - Judges and attorneys who actually *know the law* haven't come to any settled conclusion, so even if you all agreed we'd have a few guys agreeing on an Internet forum, right? ? The only thing I can think of less gripping than continuing the conversation is a long discussion by "amateur lawyers" about the copyright aspects. ? jtwrace, AudioDoctor, The Computer Audiophile and 2 others 4 1 One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature. Link to comment
Popular Post The Computer Audiophile Posted July 17, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted July 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Jud said: Guys - Judges and attorneys who actually *know the law* haven't come to any settled conclusion, so even if you all agreed we'd have a few guys agreeing on an Internet forum, right? ? The only thing I can think of less gripping than continuing the conversation is a long discussion by "amateur lawyers" about the copyright aspects. ? In the words of David Byrne, "Stop making sense." Jud and maxijazz 1 1 Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems Link to comment
Recommended Posts