Jump to content
IGNORED

My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"


Recommended Posts

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.  🙂

Link to comment
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
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!

Link to comment
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
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
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
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
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.

 

 

Link to comment
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)_/¯

Link to comment
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
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
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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...