Vul Kuolun
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Posts
- 532
- Likes
- 0
Thanks, Febs.
Why all the cable haters?
- Thread starter MatsudaMan
- Start date
dazzer1975
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Posts
- 1,514
- Likes
- 11
Quote:
I never said you did applaud the post or that it contained the term "kiddy pool" I am smply pointing out the nature of the post which set the tone for the rest of the "debate" (while accepting my ownresponsibility in that too as my first few comments could have been more tempered) I said perhaps turning a blind eye to one faction because they share similiar views isn't helpful in the big scheme of things.
The points with relation this whole thread I made in the post you quoted, and I am saying a balanced approach and an acknowledgment that attacks come from either side of the debatewould probably do much to help bring boh sides together.
However, I am not sure that is possible with all the good intentions in the world, after reading (and contributing) to this.
Being receptive to other opinions, PROVIDED they are framed in a respectful maner would be the best solution surely?
| Originally Posted by Wmcmanus Now I'm totally confused. What does markl's post on page 1 of this thread, which I've now read for at least the 3rd time, have to do with me? How did I supposedly "applaud" this? My posts (#60 and #64 in this thread) related only to markl's debate with Sovkiller, which had to do with some of his subsequent posts. I agreed with markl that if his cable reviews were to be considered rubbish, then it must also be true that his favorable reviews of RudiStor amps must also be rubbish. I happen to think that neither his cable reviews or his amp reviews are rubbish, but I thought his manner of expression (by using the RudiStor example) was spot on. In other words, if someone was going to hit him below the belt, then he might as well come back with something that will hurt just as much. Of course, he was merely being dramatic to make a point, but I thought it was a quite effective mode of argumentation. That's all. But even in his post on the first page, which I've yet to respond to, I still don't see anything about a kiddy pool. |
I never said you did applaud the post or that it contained the term "kiddy pool" I am smply pointing out the nature of the post which set the tone for the rest of the "debate" (while accepting my ownresponsibility in that too as my first few comments could have been more tempered) I said perhaps turning a blind eye to one faction because they share similiar views isn't helpful in the big scheme of things.
The points with relation this whole thread I made in the post you quoted, and I am saying a balanced approach and an acknowledgment that attacks come from either side of the debatewould probably do much to help bring boh sides together.
However, I am not sure that is possible with all the good intentions in the world, after reading (and contributing) to this.
Being receptive to other opinions, PROVIDED they are framed in a respectful maner would be the best solution surely?
chesebert
18 Years An Extra-Hardcore Head-Fi'er
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Posts
- 8,893
- Likes
- 4,049
Quote:
stop being such a formalist and textualist; put on your realist hat for once. I don't need to tell you what it means to be 'a public place'; I am sure you know the scope via the 1st amendment.
Feels like butting head against Antonin Scalia - 'if you look up xyz in the dictionary, you will find...'
The issue here is not public per se, it's "public place"; as in Headfi is not a public place, but a private place with certain public place characterstics. And please address my arguments in its totality and not cherry pick any one point you want to argue against.
| Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, let's look at the definition of "public": You argue, essentially, that Head-Fi is not a public forum because it doesn't fall within definition 5, and perhaps definition 3. At a minimum, Head-Fi clearly falls within definitions 1, 8, 9, 11 and 12. |
stop being such a formalist and textualist; put on your realist hat for once. I don't need to tell you what it means to be 'a public place'; I am sure you know the scope via the 1st amendment.
Feels like butting head against Antonin Scalia - 'if you look up xyz in the dictionary, you will find...'
The issue here is not public per se, it's "public place"; as in Headfi is not a public place, but a private place with certain public place characterstics. And please address my arguments in its totality and not cherry pick any one point you want to argue against.
Febs
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Posts
- 2,853
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
What an ironic response.
Quote:
I answered the specific question that you asked. I'm sorry if the answer upset you.
Yes, I am familiar with the scope of the definition of "public place" as it is defined in the context of United States Constitutional jurisprudence. But you did not raise the point in the context of whether First Amendment rights to freedom of expression at are issue here. You raised in the context of a discussion regarding whether Head-Fi is more akin to a private conversation at a party or a public conversation. In that context, notwithstanding how Mr. Justice Scalia may have analyzed the question in the First Amendment context, the colloquial definition is more appropriate.
| Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif stop being such a formalist and textualist; put on your realist hat for once. |
What an ironic response.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't need to tell you what it means to be 'a public place'; I am sure you know the scope via the 1st amendment. Feels like butting head against Antonin Scalia - 'if you look up xyz in the dictionary, you will find...' The issue is not public per se, it's "public place" as in Headfi is not a public place. And please address my arguments in its totality and not cherry pick any one point you want to argue against. |
I answered the specific question that you asked. I'm sorry if the answer upset you.
Yes, I am familiar with the scope of the definition of "public place" as it is defined in the context of United States Constitutional jurisprudence. But you did not raise the point in the context of whether First Amendment rights to freedom of expression at are issue here. You raised in the context of a discussion regarding whether Head-Fi is more akin to a private conversation at a party or a public conversation. In that context, notwithstanding how Mr. Justice Scalia may have analyzed the question in the First Amendment context, the colloquial definition is more appropriate.
chesebert
18 Years An Extra-Hardcore Head-Fi'er
- Joined
- May 17, 2004
- Posts
- 8,893
- Likes
- 4,049
Quote:
"colloquial definition is more appropriate" because you said so?
"You raised in the context of a discussion regarding whether Head-Fi is more akin to a private conversation at a party or a public conversation."
No. you missed the distinction between the private vs public property.
| Originally Posted by Febs /img/forum/go_quote.gif I answered the specific question that you asked. I'm sorry if the answer upset you. Yes, I am familiar with the scope of the definition of "public place" as it is defined in the context of United States Constitutional jurisprudence. But you did not raise the point in the context of whether First Amendment rights to freedom of expression at are issue here. You raised in the context of a discussion regarding whether Head-Fi is more akin to a private conversation at a party or a public conversation. In that context, notwithstanding how Mr. Justice Scalia may have analyzed the question in the First Amendment context, the colloquial definition is more appropriate. |
"colloquial definition is more appropriate" because you said so?
"You raised in the context of a discussion regarding whether Head-Fi is more akin to a private conversation at a party or a public conversation."
No. you missed the distinction between the private vs public property.
Febs
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2005
- Posts
- 2,853
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
No, the colloquial definition is more appropriate for the reason that I gave in my post: you are using a definition that arises in the context of a First Amendment analysis, and this is not a First Amendment analysis.
Quote:
I understand that you've argued that the ability to post at Head-Fi is a privilege, and not a right[1] because Head-Fi is privately owned and the staff has the ability to make rules that posters are required to follow. But you've also argued that discussions on Head-Fi are the equivalent of a private conversation held in someone's back yard, and for that reason, those discussions are more private than public. I disagree. Indeed, you yourself have conceded that the "public has the right to view, but not participate" in those discussions, and that alone makes this a public forum in the common definition of that term "open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public."
If the conversations here at Head-Fi were private conversations, why would it be necessary to have a "private message" system that is separate from the main forum messages? The answer is because the purpose of the main forum is to have conversations that are available to the public to read and, subject to certain conditions, participate in. Thus, the "backyard conversation" analogy fails.
___________________
[1]When you're taking the bar exam, the answer "it is a right not a privilege" is never the correct answer. Seriously--they'll tell you that in your bar review course.
| Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif "colloquial definition is more appropriate" because you said so? |
No, the colloquial definition is more appropriate for the reason that I gave in my post: you are using a definition that arises in the context of a First Amendment analysis, and this is not a First Amendment analysis.
Quote:
| No. you missed the distinction between the private vs public property. |
I understand that you've argued that the ability to post at Head-Fi is a privilege, and not a right[1] because Head-Fi is privately owned and the staff has the ability to make rules that posters are required to follow. But you've also argued that discussions on Head-Fi are the equivalent of a private conversation held in someone's back yard, and for that reason, those discussions are more private than public. I disagree. Indeed, you yourself have conceded that the "public has the right to view, but not participate" in those discussions, and that alone makes this a public forum in the common definition of that term "open to the view of all; existing or conducted in public."
If the conversations here at Head-Fi were private conversations, why would it be necessary to have a "private message" system that is separate from the main forum messages? The answer is because the purpose of the main forum is to have conversations that are available to the public to read and, subject to certain conditions, participate in. Thus, the "backyard conversation" analogy fails.
___________________
[1]When you're taking the bar exam, the answer "it is a right not a privilege" is never the correct answer. Seriously--they'll tell you that in your bar review course.
Arainach
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Posts
- 1,983
- Likes
- 16
Quote:
The distinction isn't as important as the effect. Your original claim was something like 'you can't say things I [cheesebert] don't like because it's a private place. The only sense in which Head-Fi is private is that Jude can forbid the discussion of whatever he thus pleases. He hasn't said anything of the sort in this thread, and no one else's opinion on the matter counts for anything. So, for all practical purposes, Head-Fi is a public forum in the context of your argument.
| Originally Posted by chesebert /img/forum/go_quote.gif "colloquial definition is more appropriate" because you said so? "You raised in the context of a discussion regarding whether Head-Fi is more akin to a private conversation at a party or a public conversation." No. you missed the distinction between the private vs public property. |
The distinction isn't as important as the effect. Your original claim was something like 'you can't say things I [cheesebert] don't like because it's a private place. The only sense in which Head-Fi is private is that Jude can forbid the discussion of whatever he thus pleases. He hasn't said anything of the sort in this thread, and no one else's opinion on the matter counts for anything. So, for all practical purposes, Head-Fi is a public forum in the context of your argument.
UseName
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Posts
- 126
- Likes
- 0
You can find posts made on Head-Fi on google. I think that is makes the discussion public, regardless if it is held in a private arena.
I think the point in all this private vs public discussion is that if you are going to post your opinion, you may be analyized and picked apart by not only members of this forum, but also anyone who has access to the internet.
If you insist on calling it private, go ahead, but you are still at risk of being laughed at by anyone who can run a search in google. If you are that sensitive, perhaps you should not be posting at all.
I think the point in all this private vs public discussion is that if you are going to post your opinion, you may be analyized and picked apart by not only members of this forum, but also anyone who has access to the internet.
If you insist on calling it private, go ahead, but you are still at risk of being laughed at by anyone who can run a search in google. If you are that sensitive, perhaps you should not be posting at all.
Riboge
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Posts
- 627
- Likes
- 10
Black and white distinctions of many kinds have become problematic in our times. Alive vs. dead, fetus vs. human person, etc. The internet has brought into being a variety of transitional states between fully private and fully public. We see the problems with this when people treat emails at work, myspace, facebook, etc, as more private than they are since they are less public than shouting it from a street corner or because they are encouraged to think they are in some room in which only the other active participants are present. On the other hand, we are and wish to be to some degree a community which means there should be some degree of identity and shared history, familiarity and mutual good will of members, sense of inside the community and outside, etc. It is a pretty new thing to address a 'space' in which perhaps no one is listening or perhaps many more than apparent are, all with different attitudes and awareness of past discussions.
Arguments based on a claim of distinction between antipodes and precedents based on one pole versus the other make little sense. What we have here is neither but has similarities to both. We have to work out anew what makes sense and what is appropriate given any particular set of events. That is what is happening here. It's hard to see how notions of rights and justice based on the old distinction can be decisive in this. And this reflects the folly of the underlying struggle over the antipodes of difference vs. no difference, subjective vs. objective, scientific vs. experiential. When you measure brain activity of someone listening to music thru one cable vs. another, is the data produced subjective or objective? Surely it is not objective when someone else reads the meters and subjective when the listener himself does, or objective when the meter is outside the listeners head and subjective when it's inside, another trained part of his brain. And so on.
Arguments based on a claim of distinction between antipodes and precedents based on one pole versus the other make little sense. What we have here is neither but has similarities to both. We have to work out anew what makes sense and what is appropriate given any particular set of events. That is what is happening here. It's hard to see how notions of rights and justice based on the old distinction can be decisive in this. And this reflects the folly of the underlying struggle over the antipodes of difference vs. no difference, subjective vs. objective, scientific vs. experiential. When you measure brain activity of someone listening to music thru one cable vs. another, is the data produced subjective or objective? Surely it is not objective when someone else reads the meters and subjective when the listener himself does, or objective when the meter is outside the listeners head and subjective when it's inside, another trained part of his brain. And so on.
UseName
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Posts
- 126
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
I've never seen so many words say so little... forgive me, I appologize for not being as smart as you, what is the purpose of this mess?
| Originally Posted by Riboge /img/forum/go_quote.gif Black and white distinctions of many kinds have become problematic in our times. Alive vs. dead, fetus vs. human person, etc. The internet has brought into being a variety of transitional states between fully private and fully public. We see the problems with this when people treat emails at work, myspace, facebook, etc, as more private than they are since they are less public than shouting it from a street corner or because they are encouraged to think they are in some room in which only the other active participants are present. On the other hand, we are and wish to be to some degree a community which means there should be some degree of identity and shared history, familiarity and mutual good will of members, sense of inside the community and outside, etc. It is a pretty new thing to address a 'space' in which perhaps no one is listening or perhaps many more than apparent are, all with different attitudes and awareness of past discussions. Arguments based on a claim of distinction between antipodes and precedents based on one pole versus the other make little sense. What we have here is neither but has similarities to both. We have to work out anew what makes sense and what is appropriate given any particular set of events. That is what is happening here. It's hard to see how notions of rights and justice based on the old distinction can be decisive in this. And this reflects the folly of the underlying struggle over the antipodes of difference vs. no difference, subjective vs. objective, scientific vs. experiential. When you measure brain activity of someone listening to music thru one cable vs. another, is the data produced subjective or objective? Surely it is not objective when someone else reads the meters and subjective when the listener himself does, or objective when the meter is outside the listeners head and subjective when it's inside, another trained part of his brain. And so on. |
I've never seen so many words say so little... forgive me, I appologize for not being as smart as you, what is the purpose of this mess?
slwiser
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2001
- Posts
- 6,317
- Likes
- 25
Quote:
The purpose is to make an intelligent discussion but those efforts fail for some people.
| Originally Posted by UseName /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've never seen so many words say so little... forgive me, I appologize for not being as smart as you, what is the purpose of this mess? |
The purpose is to make an intelligent discussion but those efforts fail for some people.
3x331m
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Posts
- 2,733
- Likes
- 12
Quote:
I just post 'cause I think I'm smarter than others...
| Originally Posted by UseName /img/forum/go_quote.gif what is the purpose of this mess? |
I just post 'cause I think I'm smarter than others...
UseName
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Posts
- 126
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
I can't tell if you are trying to insult me or Ribose... good one anyway. You burned one of us.... probably.
| Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif The purpose is to make an intelligent discussion but those efforts fail for some people. |
I can't tell if you are trying to insult me or Ribose... good one anyway. You burned one of us.... probably.
slwiser
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2001
- Posts
- 6,317
- Likes
- 25
Quote:
I did not quote Riboge....your comment reminded me of students that go to class having teachers that use the English language as a seond language and speak it relatively well only to use the teachers accent as a dodge for having to understand what is being taught.
| Originally Posted by UseName /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't tell if you are trying to insult me or Ribose... good one anyway. You burned one of us.... probably. |
I did not quote Riboge....your comment reminded me of students that go to class having teachers that use the English language as a seond language and speak it relatively well only to use the teachers accent as a dodge for having to understand what is being taught.
UseName
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Posts
- 126
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
Oh... hahah! You got him good.
I get it now.
| Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif I did not quote Riboge.... |
Oh... hahah! You got him good.
I get it now.
Users who are viewing this thread
