[Steve Eddy]

Certainly, there are many participants, but not all are of equal importance (or degree, if you wish)
You are directly contradicting yourself with this:

No contradiction at all. See below.

It is inevitable within these kinds of group dynamics, so how can it be controlled?

My point was never about control. My point was about responsibility. Acknowledging that something is inevitable isn't absolving anyone of responsibility. We can't completely control crime. Some amount of crime is inevitable. But we still hold people responsible for the crimes they commit.

The admins have two realistic choices. Either they remove the bait (which can be subjects such as religion, politics, DBT in the tweako threads, or incessant mumbo jumbo in these parts) or they can drain the pond (close the thread).

I think there is a third realistic choice. It goes to my policy on the political channel that I ran that I mentioned previously. And that was instead of booting the troll, I would boot those who fed the troll. After a while, people finally got the idea, stopped feeding the trolls, and while trolls would still come to the channel and try to start some Schiit, without being fed, they would soon move on to more fertile ground and there was no bedlam on the channel.

Except in this instance, there is no troll. Just someone who says some things that people don't necessarily agree with. Which is fine. There are no rules here saying that everyone has to agree with anyone else. The bedlam results from people taking such a hostile approach, and dismissing as a troll, someone who is completely sincere in what they are saying. And where there is no insincerity, there is no troll in my opinion.

If you really want to discuss this, I'm sure there is some forum somewhere on the internet where it can be done.

Wait, you say my analogy was offensively tasteless, without presenting even a half-assed argument as to why exactly it was tasteless, and you don't think I would want to discuss it?

You've regretted taking on some contentious issues in the past. I'm fairly certain I'd regret it if I took on this, yet you keep on pushing me. Do you recognize the dynamic?

No, I did not say I have regretted taking on some contentious issues in the past. I haven't regretted taking on any issues in the past, including contentious ones.

What I said was I have made posts in the past that in hindsight I probably shouldn't have made. And my point, which you seem to have missed completely, was that I took full responsibility for those posts and didn't try to lay any blame on others, as some here are trying to do blaming AS for posts that they consciously and willingly made.

se

 

[Toom]

I would be interested in learning more about the psychological impact of reducing music listening to a solitary pursuit.

 

[Steve Eddy]

I would be interested in learning more about the psychological impact of reducing music listening to a solitary pursuit.

Don't know much about psychology, so can't offer anything useful on that. But when you get right down to it, it's always been something of a solitary pursuit, don't you think? I mean actually listening to music rather than music serving as a backdrop to a more social affair.

se

 

[limpidglitch]

No contradiction at all. See below.
My point was never about control. My point was about responsibility. Acknowledging that something is inevitable isn't absolving anyone of responsibility. We can't completely control crime. Some amount of crime is inevitable. But we still hold people responsible for the crimes they commit.
I think there is a third realistic choice. It goes to my policy on the political channel that I ran that I mentioned previously. And that was instead of booting the troll, I would boot those who fed the troll. After a while, people finally got the idea, stopped feeding the trolls, and while trolls would still come to the channel and try to start some Schiit, without being fed, they would soon move on to more fertile ground and there was no bedlam on the channel.

Except in this instance, there is no troll. Just someone who says some things that people don't necessarily agree with. Which is fine. There are no rules here saying that everyone has to agree with anyone else. The bedlam results from people taking such a hostile approach, and dismissing as a troll, someone who is completely sincere in what they are saying. And where there is no insincerity, there is no troll in my opinion.
 

 
We seem to largely be in agreement. Except I want to assign some of that responsibility to AS.
 
 
Quote:

Wait, you say my analogy was offensively tasteless, without presenting even a half-assed argument as to why exactly it was tasteless, and you don't think I would want to discuss it?
No, I did not say I have regretted taking on some contentious issues in the past. I haven't regretted taking on any issues in the past, including contentious ones.

What I said was I have made posts in the past that in hindsight I probably shouldn't have made. And my point, which you seem to have missed completely, was that I took full responsibility for those posts and didn't try to lay any blame on others, as some here are trying to do blaming AS for posts that they consciously and willingly made.

se

 

Yes

 

[Steve Eddy]

We seem to largely be in agreement. Except I want to assign some of that responsibility to AS.

Ok.

All I can say is that I hope I never see the day that I place any responsibility on anyone other than myself for anything that I write.

Yes

Ok.

I find this rather odd.

So far two people have said that my analogy was offensively tasteless. Yet neither so far has been willing or able to explain why exactly it is offensively tasteless. Only that it is "obvious"

Well it seems that something that is so obvious should only take a paragraph or two to explain why. But so far, absolutely nothing.

I think it's is just an irrational knee jerk reaction. Sort of like "bad words." Some people are keen to say that you've said a "bad word," but can never say exactly why it's bad. They can never seem to get any farther than "because it is." Because that's simply all they can say as they can't make any sort of rational argument.

Ah well.

If anyone else felt that my analogy was offensively tasteless, could you please give some sort of explanation as to why?

Thanks.

se

 

[dazzerfong]

So far two people have said that my analogy was offensively tasteless. Yet neither so far has been willing or able to explain why exactly it is offensively tasteless. Only that it is "obvious"

I think it's time for you to take your 'rational' mindset back a notch, Steve. This is audio we're talking about, not politics and crime. Right now, analogsurviver is hardly the woman who 'wears the short skirt and low-cut' blouse': if he was less combative about it, I think most of us will let it slide. What's worse, the moment you said 'it is those who respond to those words that are taking the match to them (the rape)', that's going too far.
 
There are far better analogies for what's going on, and you chose the one that had to be mired in controversy and complexity of it. Why not choose a houseowner who doesn't lock their doors instead? Much less controversial!

 

[Opportunist]

Isn't it time to make a clean break and start afresh, staying within the topic of this thread, viz. testing audiophile claims and myths?
 
For my part, I find it frustrating to read posts talking about specific audio equipment, accessories and recordings, including but not not limited to olive oil cables, super-exclusive turntables and recordings made in one of Europe's most beautiful churches, where those are not backed up by reference to tests, data or other verifiable evidence as to their alleged superiority or inferiority. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that other posters share this feeling.    

 

[StanD]

  Isn't it time to make a clean break and start afresh, staying to the topic of this thread, viz. testing audiophile claims and myths?
 
For my part, I find it frustrating to read posts talking about specific audio equipment, accessories and recordings, including but not not limited to olive oil cables, super-exclusive turntables and recordings made in one of Europe's most beautiful churches, where those are not backed up by reference to tests, data or other verifiable evidence as to their alleged superiority or inferiority. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that other posters share this feeling.    

+1x10³ Can we get back to the original purpose of the thread and not bog down on the same stuff?

 

[lamode]

They only have that effect because of some of those replying giving them that effect.

Years ago, I started and ran what became the largest political chat channel on IRC (Internet Relay Chat). And at times we would have genuine, obvious trolls come into the channel. And I could have simply booted the troll out of the channel. But I wouldn't. Instead, my policy was to boot those who took the bait. Why? Because they were the ones who lit the match and turned the channel into a scroll of worthless posts. Not the person doing the trolling.

 
I wasn't going to reply to this because I hoped the topic would die, but it seems it hasn't.
 
That's an absurd moderation policy, and silly to use your own past policy to justify your current view - of course you agree with yourself! lol
 
Btw, you're not the only moderator here, or the only one has has been online for 30 years. None of these attributes add any validity to your argument.
 
Peace

 

[Steve Eddy]

I think it's time for you to take your 'rational' mindset back a notch, Steve.

I'm sorry. I didn't know that rationality was so frowned upon here. I won't let it happen again.

This is audio we're talking about, not politics and crime.

No, we weren't talking about audio. We were talking about who should be held responsible for bedlam. Nor did my analogy have anything inherently to do with politics or crime.

Right now, analogsurviver is hardly the woman who 'wears the short skirt and low-cut' blouse': if he was less combative about it, I think most of us will let it slide. What's worse, the moment you said 'it is those who respond to those words that are taking the match to them (the rape)', that's going too far.

I can only see it "going too far" to those who are incapable of distinguishing logical analogy from moral equivalency.

I guess I'm just giving some people too much credit.

I didn't go to fancy Ivy League colleges or anything. I dropped out of school after 9th grade and had typical grades of Cs, Ds and Fs. But Christ, I know the difference between logical analogy and moral equivalency. And even for those who may have been a bit confused, I'd like to think that once I had explained that I was making a logical analogy, not a moral equivalency, they would say "Oh, ok. I see what you're saying."

There are far better analogies for what's going on, and you chose the one that had to be mired in controversy and complexity of it.

I see no reason at all for why it should be controversial, nor any more complex than the house owner analogy you give below. And still, no one has been able to explain why. Not even you. All I get is "that's going to far."

Why not choose a houseowner who doesn't lock their doors instead? Much less controversial!

Sure, that could work as well. Though it is no better or worse than the analogy that I used. And again, I fail to see why my analogy should be at all controversial, except to those who think a logical analogy is the same as moral equivalency. And if so, I think those people should take a moment to learn the difference (if anything this forum is about learning) instead of getting themselves all in a thither and calling for the smelling salts.

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

I wasn't going to reply to this because I hoped the topic would die, but it seems it hasn't.

That's an absurd moderation policy, and silly to use your own past policy to justify your current view - of course you agree with yourself! lol

Btw, you're not the only moderator here, or the only one has has been online for 30 years. None of these attributes add any validity to your argument.

That's funny. I don't recall ever using the fact that I had been a moderator and have been online for 30 years to add any validity to my argument. I explained my reasoning in the very text you quoted. Let me refresh your memory.

"Why? Because they were the ones who lit the match and turned the channel into a scroll of worthless posts. Not the person doing the trolling"

You say that's an absurd moderation policy. But your only apparent "argument" (and I'm using quotes to indicate that I'm using the term very loosely), is that it is a view that I held in the past, as if because of that alone, it is an invalid view to hold in the present.

What exactly is wrong with the reasoning behind that view? What exactly makes it absurd? If it wasn't all the people responding to the troll who were turning the channel into a scroll of worthless posts, then who the hell was it? And if it was the people responding to the troll who were turning the channel into a scroll of worthless posts, why shouldn't they be the ones to get the boot?

Can you make an actual argument? Something more than "That's an absurd moderation policy"? If that's all you've got, then I guess I can trump it with "No it's not! So there!" and stick out my tongue just for good measure.

I'm not at all averse to admitting I'm wrong, or changing my views and opinions, but I'm not going to so just because someone simply says "That's an absurd moderation policy," or "That's going too far."

Look, this forum is called Sound Science. And rational argument is at the very foundation of science. Rational argument is the crucible that serves to separate fact from fiction and moves us forward. And if you can't make a rational argument, then what on earth are you doing here? Should it be named Sound Scientology instead? Or Sound Pretend Science?

If "I heard it, therefore it is so" doesn't fly in here on matters of audio, why should "That's an absurd moderation policy, therefore it is so" or "You've gone too far, therefore it is so" be allowed to fly when it comes to other matters?

I don't get it.

se

 

[MacacoDoSom]

can't you solve this over the phone?

 

[castleofargh]

that's why talking in front of a beer is the best. sometimes it ends up with a punch in the face, but most of the time it ends well because nobody wants to spill some precious beer.
diplomatic tip1: never stay with an empty glass!
diplomatic tip2: don't get out of the bar before you agree on something!(extra tip, you usually can agree on the taste of the beer and be done with it)

 

[Steve Eddy]

can't you solve this over the phone?

Actually I think the underlying issue about "argument" is relevant to a forum that wants to call itself Sound Science

se

 

[upstateguy]

<snip>

kerfuffle

<snip>

se

 
kerfuffle,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,