Jump to content

My response to "Boycott the sub-forum"


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I'm not saying that's you, but you've never struck me as a paragon of rational thought.

 

Whether I strike you as "a paragon of rational thought" or not is of no importance to me. I have, on occasion, 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. :)

"Relax, it's only hi-fi. There's never been a hi-fi emergency." - Roy Hall

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." - William Bruce Cameron

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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?

 

Actually "the" place to go to for truly open and honest debate? A place where truth and facts about technology and hardware matter more than some bland concept of "respect" that honours members of the Industry just because they say so, and afraid of stepping on toes because someone might feel bad about it and shy to speak up. Courtesy does not mean having to agree with all opinions and there comes a time when one just has to express to another "you're wrong... here's why..." But let's still be courteous.

 

Members could easily look at the topics from other forums and import some of the questions being asked and speak about it candidly. Even if objective-talk and attitudes are ring-fenced into some kind of virtual "underground", we could make that underground a place that even subjectivists know to look at to really get another, potentially more complete discussion...

 

At least the subjective folks who appreciate that maybe it's good to take the "red pill" and come to terms with reality might find this interesting. Heck, we could even respond in the regular forums with a message like "Guys, I have something to say about it... Take the red pill and check out the O-F thread on this.😉

 

Just a thought.

 

 Thanks Archi. This is exactly what 99% of people here would love. I have emails from both obj and sub people saying the exact same thing as you.

 

 

Founder of Audiophile Style

Announcing Polestar | Quick Community Reviews and Ratings

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...