Jump to content

joelha

Premium
  • Content Count

    1225
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by joelha

  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
  15. Please name s single line or paragraph you find as offensive or even close to being as offensive as if I made a personal negative reference about you. Joel
  16. I absolutely am, Bill. And it's not because their beliefs are "aidacious" pr at variance with mine. I wrote in hopes of trying to explain the behaviors I find offensive. That's it. Honest. Joel
  17. Amazing how you know my intentions better than I do, Bill. My intention has been to try to explain some of the over-the-top behavior on this site and just maybe mitigate that behavior. I'm guessing you know pretty well when to be civil and when not to be. I don't think you need to pose that as a question (rhetorical or not) on this forum. Joel
  18. tmtomh, If every post on this site were as decent and well thought out at as yours, I would have had no reason to write my article. Thanks for that. As to your first point, the reason I didn't discriminate between fidelity and pleasing sound is because that point wasn't central to the larger point I'm making. I completely understand what you're saying however, even if someone claims higher fidelity for a tube amp, I don't have a problem with someone challenging him. The issue is the way these challenges are being made. Too often they're provocative, involve ridicule and insults. I never compared religion and objectivists. I compared religion to objectivists who are inappropriate. That's the whole point of my article. People are focusing on the word "objectivist" and I want them to focus more on how inappropriate the objectivists can be. That's where my religious analogies come in. Again, thanks for a great and thoughtful post. Joel
  19. esldude, I just don't think people asking others to accept different kinds of proof is enough for people to get personal with each other. Different kinds of proof just isn't provocative enough. And, as for your last objection, I just don't get it. Any reference to an earlier time is going to bring with it those negative connotations for you? Maybe i misunderstood. Regardless, the last point was my not my primary point so I won't belabor it. Thanks. Joel
  20. By your own statement, that's not happening in our industry, Rt66indierock. If you say there was a lot of anger since the 70's, the anger proposition doesn't seem to be working or is working way too slowly. I'd rather have some of the bad players out there in the industry and a friendlier overall environment. If you want to disagree, you can have the last word as I've made my point. Joel
  21. Archimago, You're taking one part of my article out of context. But I'm glad you asked the question. The "they" are not only objectivists but the inappropriate objectivists. "Emotional force" is fine. Attacking others personally isn't. That's the "they" I'm talking about. Joel
  22. Tom, If we agree on the above, that's good enough for me. My only reason for mentioning religion was to try to explain the reason some people become inappropriate as they advocate for their objectivist views. That's it. Thanks for taking so much time to create your post. Joel
  23. If there was that much anger in the past, Rt66indierock, more's the pity. The people pushing expensive snake oil have something far more difficult to contend with than inappropriate comments on audio forums. They have to exist in a shrinking audio market. Our comments won't push them away, the market will. Inappropriate comments stand a far better chance of pushing us away from each other. Joel
×
×
  • Create New...