Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2020 While I completely agree, I suspect this ship has already sailed. Look at all the polite posts made by the polite people celebrating (politely, of course) the conquest of those rude rational thinkers! CC took the gloves off completely, so this thread is an exercise in utter futility IMHO. CC believes without reservation that the "true believers" should never be made to feel uncomfortable or have to justify their irrational beliefs. I don't think there's anything else to be said. And let's not beat around the bush, True Believers spend way more money than rational thinkers. Despite CC's protestations, having a forum that never challenges irrational thought will be a draw to the True Believers, and that's clearly where the money is. All that's left is for Quint to pop in and declare that Chris made the right decision, and Scoggins will be suddenly unbanned and all will be forgiven. I wouldn't be surprised if Chris actually apologizes. This is the new day that has dawned here. Let them sing "ding, dong, the witch is dead" to their heart's content. It's not the witch that died, but they'll never believe that. Best to just boycott the forum completely I think. semente, audiobomber, Confused and 8 others 4 1 6 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jud said: Just wondering what the proper terminology is when asking audiophiles to justify their beliefs. "Stand and deliver!"? I must say I'm a little surprised to see you trolling. You know exactly what I mean. But here's an example, "MQA is great because Bob Stuart is smarter than you". sandyk 1 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, firedog said: Writing posts that make you sound like a "true believer" in conspiracy theories and the type of thinking behind them isn't a very convincing argument for your position. I think you have completely misread Chris and his motives. I suggest that to back up your assertions you should setup some surveillance equipment at Chris' house so you can see him sitting around his cauldron with Scoggins and Quint, cooking up some evil potions that induce irrational thought in every audiophile who drinks a cup. Be sure to post the video on YouTube or at ASR so we can see it. I promise to apologize to you for this post as soon as you do so. To me, this forum used to be a place where the traditional audiophile "influencers" had no power. And that, more than anything else, made it a place I looked forward to visiting. This purge marks the end of that era. With the restrictions on irrational thought now lifted, the forum will be fertile ground for the traditional influencers. Tell you what: When Scoggins becomes a regular poster here again, I'll be happy to give you the opportunity to apologize. 🙂 sandyk 1 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, christopher3393 said: Can you say something about why this matters so much to you? Do you honestly think you are being objective? It has been literally years since you addressed me directly in this forum. I'm quite skeptical of your intentions now. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, charlesphoto said: This has nothing to do with rational or irrational thought, and everything to do with rational and irrational behavior. I think we just have different definitions of what that behavior might be. "please don't let anyone make be feel stupid" is a pretty irrational thought IMHO. "please purge the forum of everyone who makes me feel stupid" crosses the line to behavior. YMMV, of course. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said: Here comes from you the labels and pejorative descriptors again- "influencers," I remember meeting you when you came to support Lavorgna after he was banned. I also remember you used your work experience with mentally disabled people to offer armchair diagnoses of forum members. Good times! Please, can we please get some of that wisdom in this thread? It's just what's needed! Iving 1 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, Iving said: I like that you say "IMHO" in capital letters. It's an acronym? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, christopher3393 said: I think CC was very, very tolerant for years. But it has taken its toll over time. IMO, recent changes were more about trying to avoid anything like a purge. He did and does not want to lose the members that have left, but a moderator must insist on some good faith effort to cooperate. And that is at the very least. You have been waiting for this day for some time. Enjoy it. Heck, revel in your complete victory over those rude people you detest so very much. You won! Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Allan F said: You really need to give your head a shake if you actually believe that Jud is trolling. Coming from one so adamant in supporting the unfettered right to "challenge", it strikes me as the epitome of hypocrisy. I'm pretty sure you have been nothing but antagonistic towards me since my very first post here. With due respect, your opinion is meaningless to me. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, Bill Brown said: What bothered me was the name-calling and abuse from behind an anonymous screen name. To call another man a coward (not necessarily him, but several others) is just unfathomable to me. You might be mixed up and this was an extremely awkward attempt to call me a coward (anonymous screen name?). Show me where I called someone a coward, please. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Allan F said: The inclusion of "with due respect" is another clear example of hypocrisy. Be that as it may, I couldn't care less what you think of my opinions. While written in reply, my posts are intended for a wider audience. Indeed. At least you can't now accuse someone of publicly preening lest you be called a hypocrite. 🙂 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, Archimago said: Hmmm guys, to be honest I don't like the change either and think CC's incorrect; we'll leave that for another discussion... However, is it possible to make the "Objective-Fi" forum become actually the most popular of the forums on here? Hello Archimago The "Objective-Fi" sub-forum is a quarantine zone, just as the Sound Science sub-forum is at Head-Fi. Now that CC has made the linkage between rational thought and incivility, "Objective-Fi" will always be known as the place the "mean" people hang out. esldude, lucretius and The Computer Audiophile 2 1 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Allan F said: When rude, unwanted, condescending interference in threads is accepted as "rational thought", this forum will really be in trouble. too late Oh, I guess it's not rude when you do it? lucretius 1 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said: Absolutely not. I don't consider you a coward. No awkward attempts from me. I try to speak plainly. I would only call someone a coward under the most extreme circumstances. It would always be to their face, and I would be prepared to defend myself from an (in my mind) expected response attempting to demonstrate otherwise. I am not sure if you saw my clarifying edit, sorry for the the perceived implication. I don't believe you have used that word before and wanted to make sure that was understood, but is was certainly bandied about too readily (I hate to say, but must) by the usual suspects. I appreciate your response. And don't spend another second clutching pearls about "the usual suspects". They're gone. Oh, and why do you always go to fisticuffs? : Quote It would always be to their face, and I would be prepared to defend myself from an (in my mind) expected response attempting to demonstrate otherwise. Bill Brown 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Allan F said: IMO, George, you are being far to kind to those people, and I suggest that you are attributing an undeserved favourable interpretation of their posts. Unlike you, who is prepared to accept the existence of these differences although you are unable to offer an explanation for them, they tend to adopt a very different approach. Not only do they insist that there can there be no such sonic differences, but they also maintain that there is, in fact, no sonic difference. Moreover, they tend to ridicule anyone who suggests that there is, and opine that the person is deluding themself. I can't speak for "they" (heck, I don't even know who "they" are). Now forgive me if your post was "meant for a wider audience" and you're not really participating in the thread. I wouldn't want to embarrass you. 🙂 For me, anyone who is in this hobby and utterly rejects the notion of confirmation bias or the merits of blind testing is somewhere on the irrational scale. Where exactly isn't really the issue. But there is a sort of stubbornness with some when it comes to accepting the existence of confirmation bias. I'm not saying that's you, but you've never struck me as a paragon of rational thought. Perhaps I misjudged? "cables sound different and I don't know why" isn't as eye popping to me as, "I can't explain why I believe what I believe, I just do". lucretius and pkane2001 2 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bill Brown said: Someone completely rejecting the notion of confirmation bias isn't a convincing demonstration of self-awareness or scientific knowledge. You and I and many others know it. I just wouldn't use the names or belittle. There is simply nothing to be gained by bashing your head against something that for many is an intuitively obvious human feature. I asked a question a while back when the civility dust up was in full swing and CC's inbox was overflowing with complaints of incivility. The question was sincere and in no way meant to "stir the pot". That question: "Is it rude to call irrational thought "irrational thought"'? The answer from a majority of the forum was "yes!". I'm still honestly flummoxed by that. I guess being civil is politely lying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ vmartell22 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, Allan F said: Whether I strike you as "a paragon of rational thought" or not is of no importance to me. I have appeared before judges who have expressed similar reservations, only for them to be told by a court of appeal that my submissions were perfectly rational. Dude, I've appeared before panels of Star Fleet admirals. Forgive me if I'm not impressed 🙂 Jeff_N, lucretius and pkane2001 3 Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bill Brown said: This post by you, I think, summarizes the whole deal behind all of this stuff. Yes, I suspect it is generally perceived as rude. I would probably take it, consider it/reflect, then either accept it or discard it, hopefully without umbrage as you didn't call me a name, you addressed my thought. In the realm of hard science colleagues can speak to each other that way. This place is a mixture. Many don't like to feel they are being called irrational/their opinions completely discredited and (perhaps unfortunately) accommodations have to be made to keep things civil (sorry, I know you hate that word as used here historically). How about: "I am concerned, based on my knowledge of the available science, that I can't find a rational explanation for what you are describing?" Heck, my wife thinks many of my decisions are irrational, and maybe they are. But her opinion doesn't always define to me what is or isn't rational. And we still get along. So civility is the opposite of "keeping it real"? Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, The Computer Audiophile said: @Samuel T Cogley are you really trying to be an audio martyr? If you want to leave, just leave rather than being so disruptive I have to ban you. This thread is disruptive? Man, that bar sure has lowered since the weekend. When the civility dust up happened, I did exactly what you asked. I stopped all snarky comments. I contributed to the Polestar effort. I helped random people in the help thread. I know you are aware of these things. And I just kept quiet hoping others would too and your purge would not be necessary. So hopefully you understand my disappointment when I was rewarded with the purge. Link to comment
Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Share Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, The Computer Audiophile said: I understand your disappointment, but I believe it's directed at the wrong person(s). Those who elected to not follow the rules are gone. Please voice your displeasure toward them for acting the way they did. Ok, I'm leaving for now. When you re-instate Scoggins, can I come back for just one "I told you so"? 🙂 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2020 Just now, The Computer Audiophile said: OK, no worries. But what do I win if I don't reinstate him? For how long? I don't know Chris, he's Quint's boss now, it's just not a good look for the forum to have such an audiophile luminary banned. 🙂 I'm going to reply to Jud, then I'm out. Thank you! The Computer Audiophile, Jud and mourip 1 2 Link to comment
Popular Post Samuel T Cogley Posted February 19, 2020 Author Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jud said: Hi Sam. I wasn't trolling at all. Jud, I've always appreciated your kindness and relentless attempts to find "middle ground". But, with due respect, I see you more as a fixture here than as a dynamic poster. What I mean is that I can usually predict what you post before you post it. You've said the same thing many, many, many times here. Keep in mind now that all the miscreants have been purged, your posts will begin to look more snarky. You're next Jud! 😄 lucretius and pkane2001 1 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts