Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About joelha

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I believe my comments on this site are generally nicer than the kinds of comments I've called out as the reason for my article. I don't know the other people and so couldn't possibly compare myself to them . . . nor can you. Joel
  2. For this forum, my examples of vitriol would include "dishonest", "lying", "shill" and other terms that discredit an individual or company. Joel
  3. If that's my honest experience, how does that destroy my credibility? Joel
  4. Yes, in the context of an audio hobby, subjectivism is o.k. and innocuous. I never said objectivists have to accept subjectivism. I want them to allow subjectivist posts without the vitriol. Once again, I was explaining why I think the vitriol exists. Honestly, if you want to read the article in the way you are, I can't stop you. But I'm going to try to not to comment further to your posts as you refuse to accept my understanding of my own article. Joel
  5. My belief is my belief. If some people aren't persuaded, I'll live with it. I won't change that belief because some won't accept it. But I'll take a calm respectful tone to persuade people vs. some of the other types of comments I've read on this site. And no, we don't agree that the people I don't agree in audio are the most rude. I disagree with people on all kinds of audio topics. But if you're asking if I've experienced objectivists to be ruder than subjectivists, yes I have. Joel
  6. crenca, From what you've written, it's hard to believe you're commenting on my article. I'm not asking objectivists to agree that subjectivism is true or the arbiter of disputes. Where do I make either of those points? You want to make a grandiose point based on arguments I haven't made. In my previous post to you, I've said what my article has said. There's no need to repeat those points here. Joel
  7. That's an impressive misread of my article, crenca. I'm asking for "radical" civility and I offer a theory as to why we don't get it. Joel
  8. At your request, Ralf11, I scanned it. Strong? Yes. Over the top. I don't think so. But let me ask you the question that I can't seem to get a good answer to . . . why so much intensity from some objectivists if I say you hear something an objectivist doesn't believe I should be able to hear? Why not something like: "Here are the reasons I don't think you could be hearing what you say you do, but if you're enjoying yourself, that's great."? And then just let it go. Why so much acrimony over me saying what I think I hear regardless of whether someone else thinks that experience is possible? Joel
  9. Very kind words, especially considering the source, Ted. I hope you're doing well. Any chance you'll be at AXPONA? Be good and thanks for all the invaluable help you've offered me and countless others over the years. Joel
  10. You're right. But the term was "offense". Please tell me, of the paragraph you quoted, what you consider offensive. Joel
  11. I found it, Bill. Thanks. And I think you're conflating "disagree" with "offense". And if you're really offended by that comment, I'm not sure how ideas (not personal insults) can be offered on this site without risking your being offended by them. Joel
  12. I'm afraid of nothing on this forum. Apparently, you get offended when you're confronted with a calm, rational article you disagree with. If you think there's parity between that and calling specific people dishonest, then our view of reality is very different. Joel
  13. All I get is a link back to the article. Sorry, but I still don't see it. Joel
  14. Sorry, I'm missing the point. If you want to take me up on my challenge, please do and show me the specific text you're referring to. Joel
  • Create New...