Jump to content
IGNORED

My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.  🙂

 

Here comes from you the labels and pejorative descriptors again- "influencers," "purge," "irrational thought."  Must be hard when anyone that disagrees with your world view is "irrationaI."  At least it has been a while, though, since you accused someone being a "sock puppet" (something you persisted with with me for ages), a "shill," or an "astroturfer," whatever the heck that is.  This, to me, is exactly the type of tone and behavior that makes a forum suck.

 

You remain to me the most effective internet-forum jouster I have encountered.  It is highly developed!  Makes me nervous about responding to you as I never participated in the old "wild west internet." :)

 

You simply enjoyed your chosen "influencers," the "rational," who picked up their marbles and went home (and I wish they hadn't really).

 

Bill

 

 

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

This has nothing to do with rational or irrational thought, and everything to do with rational and irrational behavior. If you can't parse that then I'm truly sorry for you and perhaps, as CC might say, you need to move on and find your fulfillment elsewhere.

 

IMO CC was being entirely diplomatic when he said mansr's contributions would be missed, because as long as I've been around here I haven't seen him contribute one single thing beyond one liner snark and naysaying. Pretty easy to rack up 13,000 posts when that's one's m.o. My prediction is the "objectivists" thread is going to be a very lonely place, because more often than not they have their rigid, marked in stone stance, but very little to back it up  - i.e. prove without a doubt why ethernet cables absolutely couldn't make a difference in sound, vs always haranguing those who hear a difference to prove why they do. Repeated, empty phrases about 'science' and 'measurements' is just another flip side of subjectivism if you ask me. Maybe it comes down to obstinance vs curiosity. I'll always choose the side of curiosity - it's what I try and teach my children. 

Amen!

 

Also, doesn't anyone remember Chris describing the members as the most impressive collection on the fora as he defended them against outside "influencer" attackers?  Rocket scientists, engineering pioneers, etc?  He was being sincere!

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

"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.

 

Lord help us.  It never ends.

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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!

 

I wasn't supporting Lavorgna.  Heck, you thought I was Lavorgna and were part of a grand inquisition about it!

 

What bothered me was the name-calling and abuse from behind an anonymous screen name.  To call another man a coward (not necessarily by you or to him, but several others) is just unfathomable to me.

 

I will concede victory to you now.  I am beginning to feel too feisty and don't want to go down that road again.

 

I hope you find happiness in your future pursuits,

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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.

 

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.

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

I think that you are being just a wee bit unfair. When people with a real engineering or scientific background state something akin to “Ethernet cables can’t possibly make a sonic difference”, all that they are saying is that after looking at what kind of signals these cables carry, and given the parameters of those signals and that cable, they don’t see any way that said cable could affect the way that a DAC sounds down-stream of that cable. Here’s the problem. I have a master’s degree in electronic engineering. I think I understand how cables work, what their drawbacks and strengths are and how digital audio works. I can see nothing in Ether cable, in digital audio encoding, or in the way DACs Interpret the signals they receive to explain such a phenomenon. This tells me that Ethernet cables (or USB cables for that matter) simply CAN’T alter the sound of the digital signal passing through them, BUT, THEY CLEARLY DO! Why? I haven’t a clue. So just as you can’t tell me why it should alter the sound, all I and those like me can do is tell you why it SHOULDN’T affect the sound.

 

"Shouldn't," backed by sound supporting engineering reasons, is great.  Let people soak it in, learn and benefit from your expertise, then leave it up to them.  Some will be educated and convinced!  "Can't possibly," "irrational," "impossible," "you are delusional," "silly" isn't edifying and is a turn-off (not that you have used all of those).

 

You have previously extended your above comments about digital links to analog cables re. no difference.  I believe (?think) there are equally educated engineers that would disagree.  It feels ok to me that I use a generic USB cable, balanced Canare star-quad interconnects, and Kimber speaker cables.  I believe I hear a difference with the latter.  I don't think I am delusional, but if I am I am still happy :).  So what?

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

Responding to Mr. Cogley above re. confirmation bias:

 

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.

 

OTOH hand, to say "I am concerned that the science suggests that in this you may have been subjected to confirmation bias" then leaving it at that seems acceptable even outside the "objectivist quarantine" :).  It is collegial, non-threatening/belittling, and maybe they will eventually come around.  If not.......oh well.

 

Your last sentence is perfectly stated in my opinion.

 

Man I am posting a lot!  Sorry!

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

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)_/¯

 

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. :)

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So civility is the opposite of "keeping it real"?

 

Maybe, I'm not sure, to tell you the truth.  Is it emotional intelligence as alluded to elsewhere?  Perhaps.  Is it simply kindness and understanding?

 

I am watching a BBC show, Doc Martin, with my wife.  Dude is brilliant, excellent in diagnosis and treatment, but clearly a bit, ummmm, autism spectrum.  Before an open cholecystectomy the pt asks if she really needs it.  He replies matter-of-factly that of course she does, otherwise she is at risk of ascending cholangitis, perforation, and death.  While he is factually correct, the delivery is probably not appreciated by most- you might be fine with it :).  He was certainly keeping it real!  I am faced constantly by having to read others' perceptions, fears, anxieties, openness and having to adjust my delivery.

 

People are so, so different.

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, 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. 

 

His last question seemed genuine and I am not even sure I like the dude! (kidding, we have historically jousted). :)

 

I am still hopeful of finding common ground.  Let's give it a try?

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Ok, I'm leaving for now.  When you re-instate Scoggins, can I come back for just one "I told you so"?  🙂

 

Darn, that isn't the direction I was hoping for.  Best wishes to you.

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Jud said:

You keep doing that, guys, and I may have to leave from sheer embarrassment. No more of that stuff! (And grateful thanks to @AudioDoctor, sincerely, for laughing at the idea!))

 

Ever humble and a gentleman :)

 

OK, I'll stop.  But I have always liked and respected your posts.

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, AudioDoctor said:

I am so confused right now...  I am clearly missing something that everyone else knows here.

 

Don't worry too much, I am in that boat with you.... :)

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

To gmgraves:

 

I am sorry I misrepresented your thoughts/statements.  I was under the impression that you had written that properly-engineered/terminated analog cables had no difference in sound.  My understanding of your thinking was inadequately nuanced.

 

I agree re. cables.  I keep it simple and cringe at the exorbitant prices of many.

 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

Link to comment

Great! Thanks for your understanding. 
 

Bill

Labels assigned by CA members: "Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," "ML fanboi or employee," "Alabama Trump supporter with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car," sycophant

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



×
×
  • Create New...