Frankly and personally speaking, I could use less of political rants from both the left AND right-leaning audiophiles. So shrill around here these days. Stop being so damn angry. Have a beer.

I'd like to point out, though, JIMV, how ironic I find it that you're the one advocating doing away with political manifesto content from the forum & the magazine, but you're also the one to start up these new threads & posts that only incite further diatribes and flames. Not a sound tactical approach to your aims, IMO.

I understand, but I'm saying that you've made your position very clear in many different posts, and I don't see why another separate thread devoted to what you've already said on numerous occasions, when all it's probably going to do is incite more anger and flame-throwing, which you don't want, presumably.

First of all I am so tired of coming to this forum just to find that you have inserted yet another thread regarding politics into an audio forum. What purpose has it served? It has kept me from reading about audio! How has it made this forum better? Why piss off a significant section of the reading membership who simply must read every word of this forum because they are incapable of ignoring what offends them? Because you want to throw your political opinions in my face? Who gave you that right on an audio forum? Why keep at this with the same damn thing over and over and over? I don't come here to read your political opinions. Why do you insist that I must?

Why?!

Quote:
Both periods had repeated changes of governments from control by one group to another with both groups assuming power with tiny majorities of 5% or so and in both situations the changes in government were seen as mandates for fundamental change by the party holding power.

I assume your use of the word "majority" recognizes that a significant portion of the populace had, at the time of the Civil War, no voting rights bestowed upon them and those few who did were subject to having less rights than others determined by how many of those non-voting "3/5 of a person" they owned. One thing that has not changed much over the last 140 years is one political party is made up primarily with rich, white males.

What's that say?

Jan, c'mon. The issue is squashed. JIMV already recognizes that the thread would only serve to get even more flame-posts, so there's no need to add fuel to the flame.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratories has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (symbol=Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium (symbol=Ad), an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium, since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

Thanks for the "Governmentium" FW FW FW forward. Been weeks since I saw that but boy I can't get enough of that one, ever since it was composed in, what, the 1970's? I wish government would go away and we could instead be governed by the the infallible private sector guys from GM, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehmann Brothers, Enron, Freddie Mac, etc.

Yeah. Nice sarcasm. But, we both know it would be like being forced to simply deal with a different turd, instead of getting rid of them altogether.

Quote:
There is zero reason to insert politics into an audio review except to anger readers, stroke the users ego, and take up space.

With respect, I am getting tired of repeating myself: when the rare political comment appears in Stereophile, it does so in "As We See It," in published letters and responses to such letters, and very occasionally in monthly columns. Stereophile's formal audio reviews are _free_ from such comments, rendering the point you are making in yet another new thread moot.

And as I have said before, audio doesn't exist in a vacuum. Such matters as an administration's financial policy have a profound effect on this hobby. Would, for example, you have preferred Stereophile keep quiet 15 years ago when the Clinton Administration was proposing a punitive luxury tax on audio components, on the mistaken basis that there was no domestic manufacturing base that would be affected?

And to echo another poster, if you are so bothered by political comments, why do you keep raising this subject on this forum? If you are really can't abide the fact that Stereophile's staff includes strongly opinionated liberals as well as conservatives -- neither of whom has a corner on the truth, I should point out -- then again, with respect, that is not something I feel I need to take any action over. You have made your point; I have listened to what you have to say on the subject; that should be the end of the matter.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
And as I have said before, audio doesn't exist in a vacuum. John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Oh yea? Then how does a vacuum tube amplifier work?
Also audio exists inside my head, also a vacuum.

Quote:

With respect, I am getting tired of repeating myself: when the rare political comment appears in Stereophile, it does so in "As We See It," in published letters and responses to such letters, and very occasionally in monthly columns. ..................................
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Well said Mr A. I'd only like to add the truism/clich

JIMV, if you REALLY didn't want to revisit the issue you wouldn't have responded to JA's post.

Are you just another winger trying to control what is written in the mag.
All you have to do is read selectively, but maybe that's beyond your ability.

Again, if you didn't want to revisit the issue you would STFU.

Quote:

Quote:
And to echo another poster, if you are so bothered by political comments, why do you keep raising this subject on this forum? If you are really can't abide the fact that Stereophile's staff includes strongly opinionated liberals as well as conservatives -- neither of whom has a corner on the truth, I should point out -- then again, with respect, that is not something I feel I need to take any action over. You have made your point; I have listened to what you have to say on the subject; that should be the end of the matter.

If you would read more deeply you would find I had not posted on the issue for about two weeks. I did not return to the subject, YOU did.

Now you have me puzzled. You returned to this subject in the posting that kicked off this thread on December 6. I was addressing the point you raised. If you don't wish others to respond to your talking points, perhaps you should say so in your postings. Not that that would have any effect, but at least others would comprehend your stance.

Quote:
Respectfully, audio is audio and the folk writing about it are no more qualified to pontificate on issues other than their expertise than Joe the Barber or Sally the interior decorator.

And you know that how? Michael Fremer, for example, has been active in American political life since he organized the Students For Goldwater movement at Cornell in the 1960s. Other Stereophile writers are or have also been politically active.

Quote:
We each have our areas of expertise and each have areas in which we know naught...

Of course, but you seem to be making rather a lot of assumptions.

Quote:
A lot of your readers are making it clear they are offended by the random uneducated posts...

Not a lot but, as I pointed out to you earlier, around 60% of those who care to write. Not an overall majority.

And why are statements made that are contrary to your own beliefs "random" and "uneducated." I have graduate and post-graduate degrees in science and I try hard to keep up with modern research, yet I note that my informed and non-random statements about scientific matters are dismissed out of hand by you and others.

Quote:
...and the magazine has made it clear they could care less.

Now you are just making stuff up!

Quote:
With that reality ruling, why return to the issue? I have moved on, why revisit a dead issue?

Because unless you indicate that you would rather others not respond to your political postings, it is hardly surprising that others will indeed do so. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
I have not posted anything on this thread since the 26th until your post...are you confusing me with someone else?

My apologies. I misread the date of your first posting in this thread, which I have only just been reading. But the fact remains that so-called political commentary occurs very rarely in Stereophile and, contrary to your repeated assertions, not at all in reviews.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Well, since the thread is alive I'll add that I don't care where political commentary is planted in Stereophile, I'd rather see none whatsoever. Whenever I'm interested in political views and news I'll look elsewhere. I'm not saying that the contributors to Stereophile don't have valid political views, it's just that I don't want to hear or read them.

Dave

The problem with injecting partisan political statements into articles written for a non-
political publication is the perception by the readers that perhaps the writer isn't as
capable of objectivity as one would hope considering the nature of audio reviewing is one
of subjectivity and trust between the reviewer and the reader.

By way of example, if a certain writer who is very vocal in his/her support for radical
environmentalism raves about a certain speaker employing hemp drivers, lead-free solder
and bamboo cabinetry, suggesting they are the best sounding speakers he/she has come
across in years, well, I would be less inclined to accept the claim at face value and
more inclined to dismiss the high praise as suspect. Regardless of the veracity of the
claim and the truth in the quality of the speaker, neither the manufacturer or credibility
of the writer benefits as much as they would absent the implication of possible agenda advancement.

There is absolutely no substitution for objectivity and credibility in the media business
if your desired target audience is more expansive than simply preaching to the choir. This
used to be an accepted and fundamental truth of reporting. Now, not so much.

I do see some positives coming from this, however. With the internet as easily accessible
to almost everyone now days, people have the ability to choose how they receive their
information from an almost limitless number of sources. People are able to determine for
themselves who is deserving of their trust and are more capable of finding objective truth.
Those who fail to establish that bond of trust and credibility are increasingly finding it
difficult to remain competitive and profitable.

Another benefit is how this change in information has forced media outlets to do away with
all the pretense of objectivism when none existed in the first place. Ultimately, that's a more
honest way of conducting business and the access to media is now diverse enough to allow
equal amplification of opinion.

History will judge this information age as the birth of a truly free media.