[geek707]

There are two cable threads going with now over 700 posts between them. Is there a point? Does anybody think they are going to change anybodies mind? Does anyone think they have gained anything by reading these posts, after posts, after posts? Don't you have better things to do than argue endlessly?
Maybe an intervention is needed.........

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danamr There are two cable threads going with now over 700 posts between them. Is there a point? Does anybody think they are going to change anybodies mind? Does anyone think they have gained anything by reading these posts, after posts, after posts? Don't you have better things to do than argue endlessly? Maybe an intervention is needed.........

Hey, what do you know. For once you and I agree 100% on something.

It's no longer even a debate about cables; it's mostly about showing up and insulting others, either explicitly or implicitly. It's even gotten to the point that certain folks are insulting people of faith. Pretty sad.

 

[bigshot]

The post count, and the number of reads indicate that the threads are of interest to people. If they don't interest you, read another thread.

The thing that REALLY isn't needed is spawning a thread like this to comment on another thread.

See ya
Steve

 

[JohnFerrier]

I learn things from such threads. From the past...

from gabedamien: Violin users often use a violin tuner or chromatic tuner precisely because they can't trust their ears as well as they can trust machinery.

from enemigo: So, when people claim they need to listen to a setup over an extent period of time before comming to like the sound, it could very well be explained by the brain "adjusting" it's wiring. Also this could explain the "cable burn-in" phenomenon.

Here is a thread lead by a cable believer titled Scientific Listening Experiment: Can we tell the difference? Let's find out.
Hirsch asked a very good question: "Out of 25 people, how many people must reliably be able to detect cable differences for you to conclude that the differences are real?" I had the correct answer. The answer 1 also works for the question: Out of anyone at Head-fi, how many people must reliably be able to detect cable difference for you to conclude that the differences are real?

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The thing that REALLY isn't needed is spawning a thread like this to comment on another thread.

Take your own advice. See below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot If they don't interest you, read another thread.

 

[geek707]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot The post count, and the number of reads indicate that the threads are of interest to people. If they don't interest you, read another thread. The thing that REALLY isn't needed is spawning a thread like this to comment on another thread. See ya Steve

I think the number of reads is more like people slowing by a train wreck to shake their heads at the carnage. And the post numbers are generated by a relatively few people who appear to love to argue the same point over and over.
And the point of the thread is a comment.
And thanks for the pointers John, those are interesting threads.

 

[Wmcmanus]

I agree that those types of threads tend to get out of hand and become pretty boring except to those who enjoy to argue with each other just for the sake of it. But whatever, so long as they remain civil, it's cool with me.

The thing is, the harder someone tries to change my mind (especially with regard to a topic that I have considerable direct, personal knowledge and experience with), the less likely they will succeed in doing so. Knowing this, the typical argument-prone personality type tends to presist anyway, if for no other reason than to annoy me, convince himself that he's smarter than me, or can "show me up", etc. As a result, I've found that the best policy is these sitautions is to simply state my point, defend it once or twice, and then allow whomever to believe whatever.

I'm not actually familiar with the two threads cited by the OP, but I do think that what I've said above generally applies in these situations. If more folks took this attitude (i.e., state their opinions, defend them once or twice, and then let it go), there would be a lot more civility and a lot less stress to contend with in such threads.

When people go to the N'th degree to "prove" their point of view is the "correct" one and then continue to insist on being "right", the discussion quickly becomes annoying to the average observer. Or, I guess more to the point, it becomes annoying to anyone except those few who insist on keeping up the senseless fight. There are certain topics in audio that can't necessarily be resolved and different opinions (often polar opposite from each other) can be equally valid. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[JohnFerrier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus I agree that those types of threads tend to get out of hand and become pretty boring except to those who enjoy to argue with each other just for the sake of it. But whatever, so long as they remain civil, it's cool with me. The thing is, the harder someone tries to change my mind (especially with regard to a topic that I have considerable direct, personal knowledge and experience with), the less likely they will succeed in doing so. Knowing this, the typical argument-prone personality type tends to presist anyway, if for no other reason than to annoy me, convince himself that he's smarter than me, or can "show me up", etc. As a result, I've found that the best policy is these sitautions is to simply state my point, defend it once or twice, and then allow whomever to believe whatever. I'm not actually familiar with the two threads cited by the OP, but I do think that what I've said above generally applies in these situations. If more folks took this attitude (i.e., state their opinions, defend them once or twice, and then let it go), there would be a lot more civility and a lot less stress to contend with in such threads. When people go to the N'th degree to "prove" their point of view is the "correct" one and then continue to insist on being "right", the discussion quickly becomes annoying to the average observer. Or, I guess more to the point, it becomes annoying to anyone except those few who insist on keeping up the senseless fight. There are certain topics in audio that can't necessarily be resolved and different opinions (often polar opposite from each other) can be equally valid. What's so hard to understand about that?

Thanks for being cool and taking time to moderate discussions that get carried away.


.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier And you're Santa Claus : ).

Hey, don't get me wrong. I like intellectual stimulation and debate as much as the next guy, but when you arrive at that point where it becomes clear that one side of the argument cannot possibly pursuade the other (and visa versa), what's the point of continuing with it? Unless, of course, the argument is being waged on both sides by people who really like to argue for the sake of it.

This kind of reminds me of law school when I'd be sitting in the student lounge and there would be this huge, heated debate going on. So I'd listen for a while, and after deciding who was anoying me the most (with their attitude, not the substance of what they were saying), I'd pick the opposite side of the argument, pipe in a few choice remarks, and then leave the room.

About 15 minutes later, I'd come back in and listen for a while again. If the other side of the argument was now becoming more annoying, I'd switch sides and pipe in with a few more choice remarks. Normally, the debate was about abortion or capital punishment, or some other well worn topic, and I'd use these opportunities simply to strengthen my advocacy skills. They would all end up confused about what I "believed in" and in truth, I didn't really know or care. I was totally dispassionate about the topic itself and would have preferred to talk about sports.

At least with Head-Fi,, when this sort of thing happens, you can jump out of that thread and into the one about sports...

 

[JohnFerrier]

Again, thanks for the time that you (and others) put in to moderate the forum. Not to mention your usual contributions as a 5k+ poster...

It's certainly clear that people are deeply passionate about (among other things) audio.

 

[Wmcmanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnFerrier Again, thanks for the time that you (and others) put in to moderate the forum. Not to mention your usual contributions as a 5k+ poster...

You're welcome. Maybe I've said one or two wise things along the way. Must have been an accident!

Quote:

It's certainly clear that people are deeply passionate about (among other things) audio.

Ya, you're right about that. This is actually the counter argument to what I was getting at in my posts above. While it's easy for someone who happens to be dispassionate about any particular issue to step back and say, "Geez, guys... settle down already. This isn't getting anywhere and the more you go back and forth with it, the worse it will get." Yet, when you find yourself in a debate about something that you really care about (one way or the other), it's really hard to know when to stop and step back from the situation.

I guess from my perspective as a moderator, the main thing is that people remain civil and resepctful toward each other. When the personal attacks begin to creep in, it has gone too far. Thankfully, we don't have to deal with that too often.

 

[Zenja]

I don't see anything wrong with having threads like that around. If you're not interested in them, it's very easy to avoid them. Overmoderation sucks. I like how the threads aren't filtered so much here.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus The thing is, the harder someone tries to change my mind (especially with regard to a topic that I have considerable direct, personal knowledge and experience with), the less likely they will succeed in doing so.

With me it takes substantiated arguments and a logical thought process.

See ya
Steve

 

[NotJeffBuckley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wmcmanus Hey, don't get me wrong. I like intellectual stimulation and debate as much as the next guy, but when you arrive at that point where it becomes clear that one side of the argument cannot possibly pursuade the other (and visa versa), what's the point of continuing with it? Unless, of course, the argument is being waged on both sides by people who really like to argue for the sake of it. This kind of reminds me of law school when I'd be sitting in the student lounge and there would be this huge, heated debate going on. So I'd listen for a while, and after deciding who was anoying me the most (with their attitude, not the substance of what they were saying), I'd pick the opposite side of the argument, pipe in a few choice remarks, and then leave the room. About 15 minutes later, I'd come back in and listen for a while again. If the other side of the argument was now becoming more annoying, I'd switch sides and pipe in with a few more choice remarks. Normally, the debate was about abortion or capital punishment, or some other well worn topic, and I'd use these opportunities simply to strengthen my advocacy skills. They would all end up confused about what I "believed in" and in truth, I didn't really know or care. I was totally dispassionate about the topic itself and would have preferred to talk about sports. At least with Head-Fi,, when this sort of thing happens, you can jump out of that thread and into the one about sports...

Isn't that real-life trolling?