Chris's Objective/Subjective moat seems one-sided

[daverich4]

To me, the comments section of Austinpop's review of the EtherRegen comes across as a "Front of the Web Site" version of his "Massively Improve" thread. That is, a one sided viewpoint on a topic with no disagreement allowed. That's fine, Chris wants people to be able to be able to discuss a topic without disagreement. But I noticed that when I took a look at the Objective-Fi discussion of the review we have @Sandyk, @Superdad, @Vortecjr and others rooting around in their discussion. Does the wall between the Subjective and Objective audiophiles only go one way? To be clear, I'm not commenting on the content of the review and the massive (see what I did there?) amount of time it took to put it together, just the way the firewall seems to be working. Or for me, not working. I don't have the electronics background to be able to always follow along with the technical parts of a discussion. I appreciate it when forum members who are knowledgeable in those areas can point/counterpoint on a given topic. I found the discussion on Objective-Fi with the back and forth interesting and informative and the comments on the article itself, once you accept that "everything matters", boring. I hope that doesn't continue forever. My two cents.

[daverich4]

1 hour ago, Norton said:

I guess the OP of a thread in the “objective” section can be granted moderator rights to remove off topic content just like any other, but judging by your observation (I haven’t checked myself) they haven’t seen the need to so far, while the discussion hadn’t got so heated as to merit an intervention from CC.

 

Judging by the number of occasions that threads on this site get referenced, it looks like Chris has, in effect, just contracted out “objectivist” participation in AS threads to ASR.

I think your analysis is pretty spot on. The back and forth in the objective discussion seems to be measured and to me is way more interesting than the lack of any kind of discussion in the comments section of the article. Hopefully, the disappearance of the members whose idea of a conversation was to “body slam” the person they disagreed with will allow the discussions to be a little less vanilla than they appear to be headed for now. 

[daverich4]

14 hours ago, sandyk said:

Please show me what is inappropriate or technically incorrect in this statement I made, 

 

 Both Alex C and Vortecjr posted additional technical information too, which is necessary in order to have a balanced technical discussion.

 

I never suggested that what you posted was wrong, just pointed out that you were allowed to post a counter argument in an objective thread. And yes, @SuperDad and @Vortecjr did contribute to a BALANCED discussion in an Objective thread, something that is not allowed in a Subjective thread such as the comments section of Austinpops article. 

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Anyone is free to disagree in the comments. If you’ve tried an ER and don’t like it, feel free to express yourself. 
 

 

Nobody own objective information. The individuals you mention aren’t prohibited from offering objective information. 
 

 

 

Excellent. The new sub-forum is a great place for you. Comments that you found informative were hard to come by without the new rules in place. You’d have had to weed through several pages of fighting per comment. 

I apparently didn’t express myself clearly in my initial post as you (and @sandyk) completely missed the point I was trying to make. No reason for me to pursue clarification, it was just my 2 cents. 

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

And I don't recall the OP of this thread saying anything useful in the Vaporware thread. 

I’m confused. What does whether I contributed to your thread or not have to do with this thread?

[daverich4]

12 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

 Please reread your OP pay attention toward the end of it.

If you don’t have anything to contribute to my thread I would appreciate it if you would stay out of it. Thanks. 

[daverich4]

17 hours ago, Rt66indierock said:

Chris based on my interactions with daverich4 I doubt he sincerely wants to hear from the technical side especially people like me who believe in both listening and measuring.

I start a thread based on my belief that the technical people on this site are getting the short end of things and your analysis of that is that I don’t care about the technical side? Wow.

 

[daverich4]

How about if we get this thread back on topic and move the nostalgic comments to their own thread? Thanks. 

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

It certainly appears to be working well , as there have been no posts there for 2 1/2 days

And that’s your idea of it working well? I wonder if Chris agrees with you.

[daverich4]

20 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

My remark ,although meant to be  tongue in cheek,was posted to stimulate a little thought about the reasons for it's original existence, and the need for it now, when the forum, (with a few exceptions) has become far more tolerant of the viewpoints of others.

 We shouldn't have needed it in the first place , especially when those that demanded it most have shown that they didn't really want it by migrating to A.S.R. and attempting to recruit members for that forum !

 I think that you will find that even members such as Tom (Kumakuma) are likely to agree with me here too about the need for this sub forum.

You seem to have a little bit of a selective memory considering the number of time Chris has had to reprimand you for your posts.