So....................no one wants to discuss Ted's magic bowls? Eric? Thought not........close the thread..........

Waits to see how long it takes before more snarky comments respond to me although no one has anything to discuss concerning the TOPIC. Won't be long nowwwwwwwwwwwww

What gave you the idea insulting people who are discussing audio means you are discussing audio?

You are a troll and you continue to prove it with each and every post. Not snarky, just a fact just as the fact you expect snark shows you know you are a troll. If you care to discuss the ART system, you are not being held back. If you're only comment is to measure the system and you are under the misguided assumption that is discussing the ART system, you've got your answer and you should move on. We've now devoted the last three pages of this thread to your attempt to derail the conversation, it and you are getting quite tiresome. You are a troll and a distasteful one at that.

A gathering of trolls

Quote:
A gathering of trolls

Goodness, that was nothing to crow about.

Quote:

Quote:
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

I didn't.

Stop with the glib answers, I already showed how you did. What part of my response to you are you failing to understand? Explain how this is not a personal attack, and a violation of the moderator's directive to "end it now"?: David L.: "Please feel free to close this thread and start something "relevant" Looks like "Eric" ran away like his cohort Ted." How about "I knew there was a finger involved here somewhere. It's probably the one stuck up your ass"? Does that not violate the "don't be an asshole" rule? If I'd have done the same thing as David L. under the same circumstances, post 3 personal attacks against him right after being told to "end it now", I would probably have been banned. I think it's telling that you don't see a problem with his negativity, unprovoked personal attacks and violation of the moderator's directives.

Quote:
You're playing the victim for all the sympathy you can muster here.

NO. Now you are out and out insulting me, when I did not do that with you. I am trying to establish what the rules are in order to play by the rules. And despite numerous efforts I'm getting nowhere with that. All I know is I am not interested in participating in any of this if there is going to be a double standard of moderation, where one member is being exempted from whatever rules have been stated. I am certain now that you are purposely using a dishonest tactic of distorting people's words. Stop playing your trolling games with me. No kidding you think there's nothing wrong with David L.'s behavior, you're just like him. I would never trade ethics for ideology. Have some sense of self-respect when you speak to people, or you will not receive any respect from them.

As for the "tests and measurements" you're crowing about, not only has that question has already been asked and answered a long time ago, it is not the topic of this thread. The fact is, you're deliberately changing the subject to avoid the issue I was raising. I asked you to show me what you meant by "repeated failures to perform on my part" and how this complaint of yours is even relevant to my post you were responding to. You failed to do so. Which indicates again that you are being disingenuous. Please stop your trolling j_j. If you can't discuss anything honestly, if you refuse to stop behaving like a troll, then don't respond.

Quote:
Quote: I so agree, that sound is cool stuff. I have a lot of fun in audio, finding out different things about how sound can change.

Again: YES!

If you ever have a chance to play with the resonators at your own place over an extended period of time, well... let's just say I've only touched upon what's possible in this thread, and I can't say any further than that, on account of the never-ending hostilities from your forum mates. But I've been discovering new things in recent days, and I will say it's very fun and fascinating what is possible from what appear as innocuous little ornaments.

Quote:
This surprised me when I first came across this (by accident when I walked behind a visitor with a large panel while she was listening). It is a much greater difference than placing a panels on the first reflection points, at least in the rooms I have played with. Not to say that this is a similar affect, but I have an appreciation of the type of change your are referencing.

Alas, I lost that beautiful sound when I gathered the modules up to take a photograph for the review. I forgot to take down the coordinates! Have not been able to get it back, but I hope to, once I work harder on figuring it out.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.

I didn't.

Stop with the glib answers, I already showed how you did. What part of my response to you are you failing to understand? Explain how this is not a personal attack, and a violation of the moderator's directive to "end it now"?: David L.: "Please feel free to close this thread and start something "relevant" Looks like "Eric" ran away like his cohort Ted." How about "I knew there was a finger involved here somewhere. It's probably the one stuck up your ass"? Does that not violate the "don't be an asshole" rule? If I'd have done the same thing as David L. under the same circumstances, post 3 personal attacks against him right after being told to "end it now", I would probably have been banned. I think it's telling that you don't see a problem with his negativity, unprovoked personal attacks and violation of the moderator's directives.

Quote:
You're playing the victim for all the sympathy you can muster here.

NO. Now you are out and out insulting me, when I did not do that with you. I am trying to establish what the rules are in order to play by the rules. And despite numerous efforts I'm getting nowhere with that. All I know is I am not interested in participating in any of this if there is going to be a double standard of moderation, where one member is being exempted from whatever rules have been stated. I am certain now that you are purposely using a dishonest tactic of distorting people's words. Stop playing your trolling games with me. No kidding you think there's nothing wrong with David L.'s behavior, you're just like him. I would never trade ethics for ideology. Have some sense of self-respect when you speak to people, or you will not receive any respect from them.

As for the "tests and measurements" you're crowing about, not only has that question has already been asked and answered a long time ago, it is not the topic of this thread. The fact is, you're deliberately changing the subject to avoid the issue I was raising. I asked you to show me what you meant by "repeated failures to perform on my part" and how this complaint of yours is even relevant to my post you were responding to. You failed to do so. Which indicates again that you are being disingenuous. Please stop your trolling j_j. If you can't discuss anything honestly, if you refuse to stop behaving like a troll, then don't respond.

Eric, as the person who started this thread I would say J-Js asking for tests is
germane to the topic of this thread. Read the title.
I of course would add that your contributions are just as germane.

It might help to approach this forum with a thick skin, it is lightly moderated.

Quote:
A gathering of trolls

Don't ask for whom the smell trolls. He trolls for thee.

The issue of status of the test was dealt with in another thread. Surely you must be aware of that if I am? So how is it "germane" to simply sit here and continually whinge about why this test hasn't been completed yet, in thread after thread, when it was already asked and answered a long time ago?

You say there's only "light modration" here, but from where I'm standing, it seems to be either too light or too heavy. One member can post over 200 trolling attacks on people and manufacturers, without it even reaching the mod's radar. Yet another returns fire after its clear this troll will never stop his personal attacks, and they're immediately threatened with banishment. "Light moderation" isn't the biggest problem for me. What I can not deal with is uneven moderation, where one member is clearly given favor over others. Has this "David L" character ever been called out over anything at any time by the moderation in his history of trolling this forum? I ask because one member told me the only time he ever saw that happen, was this recent event where we were both threatened with banishment. But even so, that was triggered by what I wrote to David L., and it was my post that was singled out. None of the dozen or more attacks he made against me ever triggered such a notice from the moderator. Nor the dozens of attacks David L made against others here. What am I supposed to make of that? This "light moderation" only comes into play when someone says anything against the poor innocent David L troll? Plays up the innocent victim act by saying to the moderator "just glad at least you can see what some people are doing on here"? (One wonders why you had registered no complaints against that "classic "victimization" type of propaganda", j_j?).

I've been on some audio forums where it's just a "good ol boys" club, and the moderator clearly favors some members over others, because they're friends of his. So forget whatever their TOS or AUP says, you will never be treated equally, only with prejudice. I am personally sickened by that, and I don't want anything to do with such a forum. Or one where defamation rules the day, and civil audio discussions are incidental, if not accidental. Here, there appears there is no TOS, and my request to the moderator asking where and what the rules are were ignored. That really makes me wonder what this forum is about. What statement does it make when a forum says it wants civil discussion on audio, but then allows someone like David L to freely troll it, someone who has long proven he has no intention of ever engaging in civil discussion? This is why I am trying to get to the bottom of why this David L character is being given free permission to continually ignore the "End It Now" directive that the moderator applied to both of us.

As David L has been pleading to get this thread closed, it looks like he will get his wish. Thus after contributing nothing positive to this thread or the previous one he succeeded in getting closed, he succeeds in derailing this thread too. Thus his agenda of preventing any productive discussion on this product on this forum, or any from Synergistic, is carried out. I don't blame David L. for any of this. He's just doing what he came here to do; troll the forum with an agenda against Synergistic Research. He's been able to do it for over 7 months because he knows he will not be held responsible for his words. It's the moderators that are the ones allowing him to do that.

David L has the right to bring up the topic of tests as much as he wants. You can complain about that as much as you want.
Seems fair to me.
Why not just put DL on ignore and continue on with your part of the discussion?

I don't see the problem here.

Again, a thick skin is an asset here

Quote:
David L has the right to bring up the topic of tests as much as he wants. You can complain about that as much as you want.

Thank you for your approval, except that's not what I'm "complaining" about. J_J failed to understand the point as well, and also thought it was about these silly "tests" that don't mean anything. Again, I need to know what the rules are, if I wish to remain a member in good standing, and play by the rules. So far, the only rules I've seen is "don't be an asshole" and "end it now". From all I can see, David L. has been violating the first rule since he got here (most recently, telling one member to go "stick a finger up his ass"), and the second rule several times, starting from 3 minutes of acknowledging it. That included several personal attacks against me in just one post. There must be rules here if you can be banned. So what exactly are they, and why aren't they being enforced?

Quote:
Seems fair to me. Why not just put DL on ignore and continue on with your part of the discussion? I don't see the problem here.

Of course not. You're not the one being targeted here by an agenda-driven troll. Not to mention what you're calling "discussion" has mainly been an exchange of personal attacks, as has been the case with too many other "audio" threads I've witnessed here. As I mentioned several times, I have been ignoring DL. In fact, I ignored the last three personal attacks he posted toward me. But it's certainly not fair if this character gets to libel me as much as he pleases, even using my personal photographs against me, and my only choice is to either ignore him or risk being banned if I don't. No, that's not what I call fun tomjtx.

I won't adhere to anyone's double standard. If that's what this is about, then I'm not interested. I don't even mind if the moderator says "Yes, David L. is my cousin and no, he's not leaving here before you are. Like it or leave". I've had admins of these little clubhouse forums say that to me in so many words, and my choice is not to remain on such forums. I just want to know what the deal is with what appears to be a double standard of moderation on Stereophile, before I waste any more of my time with this. As I have no interest in contributing to a forum that doesn't even adhere to basic principles of fairness. Thus I am calling for a clarification of the "end it now" accord the moderator bound us to, and why David L.'s clear violation of that accord is being ignored. Following that, I hope to learn what is and isn't allowed on this forum.

Quote:
]
J_J failed to understand the point as well, and also thought it was about these silly "tests" that don't mean anything.

I understand EXACTLY what's going down here. You appear to wish to control everyone's speech in order to avoid criticism both of your actions and the products that are mentioned. That's the beginning, middle, and end of your actions.

You, furthermore, wish to push the moderators into enforcing your peculiar view upon everyone else by fiat.

You are not the owner of the thread, you have no idea what I do and do not understand, and you have absolutely no logical, ethical, or moral reason to object to a thing I've said. You're all about playing the victim while victimizing everyone else with your longwinded, off-topic rantings.

Quote:
I don't even mind if the moderator says "Yes, David L. is my cousin and no, he's not leaving here before you are. Like it or leave". I've had admins of these little clubhouse forums say that to me in so many words, and my choice is not to remain on such forums.

Oh if ONLY you would! PLEASE feel free to head towards the nearest EXIT post haste! Here let me hold the door for you "Eric"

Eric is asking basic questions that no one seems to understand or be able/willing to answer.

Quote:
I need to know what the rules are, if I wish to remain a member in good standing, and play by the rules. So far, the only rules I've seen is "don't be an asshole" and "end it now".

Quite simply, he needs to know, what are the rules of the forum? Many of you have been around this forum for several years, surely you must know what the rules are and could easily answer eric's question. So, why haven't you? The only answer he's received so far has been, roughly, "grow a pair" implying "things ain't fair around here". Having been here myself for going on five years I would say that's good advice if you happen to be a subjective audiophile who unknowingly wanders onto this forum. This forum's inhabitants are not friendly to anyone who disagrees with the cleaning staff. Eric, however, is new here and has shown no leanings towards any subjectivist/objectivist ideology other than he enjoys his ART system purchase. That alone is sufficient to begin the attacks ("I call bullshit", eh?) by the usual suspects. None the less, eric is asking an honest question so that he might operate within the boundaries of whatever rules exist on this forum as, so far, he cannot discern any rules of behavior actually do exist - at least not in writing. Up to this point I'd say eric has been one of the more honest and productive members of this forum and he wishes to remain here to discuss audio if at all possible. If you agree and you'd like to see eric stay and contribute more, possibly one of you gents might tell him what the rules of the forum are and how they are applied. If it all boils down to, "Be mature, respectful, thoughtful. You know: Don't be an asshole.", eric's next question is, why does DavidL continue to get away with being an asshole to eric and others? Anyone who honestly believes, "It's probably the one stuck up your ass", is mature, respectful and thoughtful can argue for why that post is not DL being an asshole. However, just because DL was directing that comment at me is not an answer - it is context.

Eric would also like to know why DavidL agreed to "end it now" but then continues without so much as a hiccup to be an asshole despite having given his word to behave. Anyone care to answer eric regarding the meaning of "end it now" and why, if the comment was made to both eric and DavidL only eric is bound to abide by that decree or face expulsion? This, quite obviously, is eric's question that he has repeated several times now but rather than provide an answer he has been ignored by the forum moderators and told he is playing the victim by the one member who otherwise accuses everyone of stalking him. So, rather than answer eric's question, jj decides it is better (for jj) to attack and demean eric just for asking an honest question. Anyone care to speculate on whether jj has behaved in a mature, respectful and thoughtful manner?

Mr. Mejias, I believe your input here has been requested and would be greatly appreciated.

Eric has made and is making an honest attempt to integrate into this forum without causing waves and I'm sure he would appreciate some asistance rather than the usual "grow a pair" attitude of this forum. This isn't about DL's continually demanding measurements. Since that issue has already been addressed and given a reply his continued demands are nothing more than garden variety trolling allowed to run to over 200 posts. Now, someone might want to tell eric why such continued trolling of this forum is acceptable. That would be interesting to read. This isn't even about the disruption of any discussion of audio by the typical suspects using the typical means of insulting the poster, that too is nothing more than besotted trolls doing their troll work. This is about eric asking for a clarification of rules both stated and - most especially - unstated. Whatever else eric might be able to perceive, I doubt he is a mindreader. What problems exist with the forum rules that eric cannot get a satisfactory answer to his questions from any one of you? Why attack him when he is trying his best to stay within the boudaries of, "Be mature, respectful, thoughtful. You know: Don't be an asshole"?

Surely, one of you fine folk must have a reasonable answer to give eric. And, as I said, Stephen, don't be shy about providing your input. You either John.

For one, I tend to agree with Jan here. I too find it awkward how the moderators of this forum use their criteria of moderating - if any. I believe we saw a bit of the same with the Frog vs EW.

With all due respect for Eric, who has attempted to be productive here, I must add, that the victim's role is one you choose yourself. I am fairly new here myself, and I almost fell into that same trap, due to my not understanding the "rough" tone around here. But I distanced myself from feeling personally insulted, as this is just an internet forum after all.

We all have to keep in mind that even though we may feel persecuted at times by other people, this is not the end of the world. Raise your head, laugh and move on. Use the ignore function if necessary. Fake it until you make it!

I am a very sensitive type of being myself, and I just ignore some of the harshest postings, if not for anything else, then for avoiding to get too personal.

Quote:
... the victim's role is one you choose yourself.

Without trying to speak for eric, the only role I see him playing here is that of confused newbie who would like clarification of how things are done on the forum. A month into his time here and the best response he can get is almost everyone already telling him to place people on "ignore"! Why? Just because what DL has been doing is what has always happened here?!

Get beyond eric as "victim" and get to the point you see eric as trying to understand why the same thing always happens on this forum.

So why didn't YOU answer "Eric's" question instead of posting your usual drivel? Glory glory hallelujah his truth is marching on!!!! Give me a break Anyone who can actually read and doesn't have short memory disorder can go back and see "Eric's" agenda on here. Poor lil "Eric" *sniff* the big bad guys ganged up on me. He sounds like a broken record and a bit of a wuss. He claims to have been on other audio forums and describes the horrors there of being told to leave. lol He sounds more like a complete newbie in his tone and mannerisms here or a complete "I want things MY way!" ranter. I "used" his personal photo of Ted's magic bowls without permission! Oh the shock and horror! Has he ever heard of "fair use"? I didn't see any copyright on his picture and let's face it, I only used it in a comedic thread but it's his reactions like this are what make me believe he rarely gets out of the house to deal with the real world. His continuous complaining about me makes me believe that just maybe I'm doing things right around here By the way Jan, you slipped up by using my real name David_L. Not associated with Ethan anymore? lol Your "I knew there was a finger involved somewhere" sentence was very obvious so I responded in kind but more bluntly and direct. Please stop playing the sympathy card and stop quoting the "Don't be an asshole" unless you plan on doing the same. I haven't seen a single instance since then where you haven't been one
So anyways back on TOPIC.........when are the magic bowls going to be tested? I MEAN REAL tests not some newbie's subjective advert like review gushing about these things. Hey if you can't do any measurements then just come out and say so. Be honest. Stop delaying this till another year goes by. That way you won't have to hear me asking over and over and over. Sound like the plan? yeah right

Quote:

Quote:
... the victim's role is one you choose yourself.

Without trying to speak for eric, the only role I see him playing here is that of confused newbie who would like clarification of how things are done on the forum. A month into his time here and the best response he can get is almost everyone already telling him to place people on "ignore"! Why? Just because what DL has been doing is what has always happened here?!

Get beyond eric as "victim" and get to the point you see eric as trying to understand why the same thing always happens on this forum.

Fair enough

Let's see if I understand what you've proposed here, jj.

Quote:
You appear to wish to control everyone's speech in order to avoid criticism both of your actions and the products that are mentioned. That's the beginning, middle, and end of your actions.

The key word here is "appear", this is what you perceive when you see something dislikeable to you, jj. You have no facts to back up this statement just another of your "limbaugh" rants. Or, if you have any facts, you certainly haven't gone to any effort to show them. You just decided it was better to insult and demean eric rather than actually reading and understanding his questions then proceeding to supply a helpful response. That is the insipid totality of your "actions"(?), jj.

Quote:
You, furthermore, wish to push the moderators into enforcing your peculiar view upon everyone else by fiat.

No proof, just insults. When you see someone complaining about what the other guy is doing without providing any proof, you can be pretty sure the complainer is the one doing it first and most often. I would say that pretty well covers your existence on this forum, jj. Anyone who needs proof of that need only look at jj's record; http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/dosea...&fromprof=1 Don't worry, there isn't that much there where jj actually discusses audio (but even when he does, it's a naysayer's stock and trade believe me and not your ears).

Quote:
You are not the owner of the thread, you have no idea what I do and do not understand ...

We all know what you do and do not "understand", jj. You do not understand why everyone fails to find you utterly fascinating.

Quote:
You're all about playing the victim while victimizing everyone else with your longwinded, off-topic rantings.

Why do the complainers always complain about posts that are too long? And off topic? Is their attention span really so short they can't stay with an idea for more than a sentence? jj, you have no room to talk about someone playing the "victim", your history here shows that.

Translation of jj's post, stop complaining because if we care to insult you without cause other than we disagree on audio then you must be destroyed and if the moderator doesn't stop us, that's just your tough luck for being here.

jj, several of us came here to discuss audio. If you have anything non-audio related, take it to another thread. We didn't come here to have you tell us we are trying to control the thread just as you continue to control the thread. Respond to this post with anything unrelated to audio, jj, and you are clearly guilty of derailing the audio conversation that was taking place. Just as guilty as DL is. Then we'll have proof positive of your intentions.

Quote:
Poor lil "Eric" *sniff* the big bad guys ganged up on me. He sounds like a broken record and a bit of a wuss.

And you sound like one of the big bad guys who do such things to derail any discussion of audio.

Quote:
He claims to have been on other audio forums and describes the horrors there of being told to leave.

No, he did not say that. He said he chose to leave when unfair moderation was being exercised and he doesn't care to be on a forum that allows unfair moderation. That's just the fact of the matter when it comes to what eric has posted, you don't get to make up what eric has said and then insult him for your own words - that's jj territory. That is eric's question here, why are you allowed to to do just what you've posted even after agreeing to "end it now"? You remember agreeing to that, right? We have the proof you did and we have proof you didn't intend to honor that agreement. Can anyone explain how this post is not DL being an asshole to eric? This is what you want eric to just "ignore"? Maybe you have that answer for eric, eh, DL? Why are you an asshole? Why can't you now be mature and respectful after agreeing to "end it now"? Just what is your problem with someone else discussing audio?

And maybe you can explain why you use "Eric" in quotes? If you are not "d'ethan" with all that carries with it, what exactly are you implying by your constant use of "Eric"? Or, are you just playing the refs the way Ethan always did? Are you agreeing to things and then continuing to ignore the agreements just as Ethan always did?

And when are you going to show us you can actually discuss audio and not just be an insulting troll? You've taken the thread off course now for five days. Why are you here if it is only to be a troll? Why can't you discuss audio?

Quote:
I didn't see any copyright on his picture and let's face it, I only used it in a comedic thread ...

Funny, I remember Ethan saying exactly the same thing about his fake FaceBook page he created for me and about his spying on me with GoogleEarth not to mention saying his poll on my system was just comedy I didn't understand. "It was just a joke", was an all too common rationalization for Ethan being an asshole. Of course, "the joke" was that Ethan always got away with his little comedy act even when he pulled the exact same crap that got dup banned.

Stephen, are you really not thinking what I'm thinking? At least about the "don't be an asshole" part? If DL's entire first 200+ posts are so exactly like those of someone who was banned for being an asshole, what's the logical conclusion?

Quote:

Quote:
He claims to have been on other audio forums and describes the horrors there of being told to leave.

No, he did not say that. He said he chose to leave when unfair moderation was being exercised and he doesn't care to be on a forum that allows unfair moderation. That's just the fact of the matter when it comes to what eric has posted, you don't get to make up what eric has said and then insult him for your own words

Quote:
"I don't even mind if the moderator says "Yes, David L. is my cousin and no, he's not leaving here before you are. Like it or leave". I've had admins of these little clubhouse forums say that to me in so many words, and my choice is not to remain on such forums."

So yes "Eric" was asked to leave......try READING next time He was ASKED to leave and chose to do so duhhhhhh.Quit splitting hairs over words.

Quote:

And you sound like one of the big bad guys who do such things to derail any discussion of audio.

So YOUR discussion on this tread has been SOOOOO audio related?

It's mostly about you whining about me and j_j Try READING the original thread again moron then what i posted eleswhere. Thin skinned lil"Eric" goes crying to Stephen everytime I say something that anyone else on here would just laugh and shrug off. He's made it his other agenda to keep whining aboout me, sort of like how you are lately , just so he can get his way. Talk about childish.

Quote:

Why can't you now be mature and respectful after agreeing to "end it now"? Just what is your problem with someone else discussing audio?

Try taking your own advice. You always spout such words THEN go off on a rant soon after so why should anyone listen to your suggestions? You haven't discussed audio in this thread since when? It's always about meeeeeeeeee

Quote:

Quote:
I didn't see any copyright on his picture and let's face it, I only used it in a comedic thread ...

Funny, I remember Ethan saying exactly the same thing about his fake FaceBook page he created for me and about his spying on me with GoogleEarth not to mention saying his poll on my system was just comedy I didn't understand. "It was just a joke", was an all too common rationalization for Ethan being an asshole. Of course, "the joke" was that Ethan always got away with his little comedy act even when he pulled the exact same crap that got dup banned.

Stephen, are you really not thinking what I'm thinking? At least about the "don't be an asshole" part? If DL's entire first 200+ posts are so exactly like those of someone who was banned for being an asshole, what's the logical conclusion?

MY conclusion would be that YOU are a looney and need some help Still on about me being Ethan again????? WOW dude that's just plain sad. GET A LIFE I think I'll start calling you "Sandy" since you still insist I'm Ethan. If you don't get the reference then it's your own fault for not having reading comprehension abilities.

Now would you CARE to discuss ted's magic bowls or just go off on another tangent about meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?

Folks,

Pointing out flaws in someone's arguments is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

Disagreeing with somebody's opinion is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

Pointing out when somebody enbraces "victimhood" and cries loudly when their ideas and actions are examined is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Standing up and telling others what they can and can not post, when one is not a moderator, is simply posing as an authority one is not, and is just another form of malicious victimhood, attempting to suck in the moderator to accept one's false accucastions with the obvious goal of eliminating those who would dare to disagree. In short, it is an attempt at malicifent totalitarianism, the same kind of thing written about in Ibsen's "En folkefiende".

It is, in short, an attempt to mobilize lynch mob.

As such, that behavior has NOTHING to offer a civilized individual, and is a breach of the basics of civilization. It is egregious, offensive, and destructive.

Quote:
Folks,

Pointing out flaws in someone's arguments is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

Disagreeing with somebody's opinion is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

Pointing out when somebody enbraces "victimhood" and cries loudly when their ideas and actions are examined is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Standing up and telling others what they can and can not post, when one is not a moderator, is simply posing as an authority one is not, and is just another form of malicious victimhood, attempting to suck in the moderator to accept one's false accucastions with the obvious goal of eliminating those who would dare to disagree. In short, it is an attempt at malicifent totalitarianism, the same kind of thing written about in Ibsen's "En folkefiende".

It is, in short, an attempt to mobilize lynch mob.

As such, that behavior has NOTHING to offer a civilized individual, and is a breach of the basics of civilization. It is egregious, offensive, and destructive.

Thank you, JJ. I could not have expressed it better.

Quote:
Thank you, JJ. I could not have expressed it better.

And, Stephen, you could not have avoided eric's questions any more completely. I suppose - somewhere, somehow - you see jj's "proof" that eric is not asking for direction from you but instead telling people what they can and cannot post? C'mon, SM! If you see it, show it. Otherwise, jj's playing you for exactly what he accuses eric. Same for jj. Why are "the rules" so difficult to express around here?

X2 Stephen. And thanks for saying that.

And thank you, JJ for saving the rest of us the trouble.

Quote:
...attempting to suck in the moderator to accept one's false accucastions with the obvious goal of eliminating those who would dare to disagree. In short, it is an attempt at malicifent totalitarianism, the same kind of thing written about in Ibsen's "En folkefiende".

It is, in short, an attempt to mobilize lynch mob.

As such, that behavior has NOTHING to offer a civilized individual, and is a breach of the basics of civilization. It is egregious, offensive, and destructive.

This is one of the most ridiculous, overwrought, overstated declarations I have ever witnessed. I'm only glad I was alive to see it in its historical context.

j_j, I require thee to remove yon sliderule from thine ass and exercise its measure to attain thee "proportion and perspective." I would suffer a thousand deaths by dull sword than endure another moment of thy bilious quill!

Quote:

Quote:
...attempting to suck in the moderator to accept one's false accucastions with the obvious goal of eliminating those who would dare to disagree. In short, it is an attempt at malicifent totalitarianism, the same kind of thing written about in Ibsen's "En folkefiende".

It is, in short, an attempt to mobilize lynch mob.

As such, that behavior has NOTHING to offer a civilized individual, and is a breach of the basics of civilization. It is egregious, offensive, and destructive.

This is one of the most ridiculous, overwrought, overstated declarations I have ever witnessed. I'm only glad I was alive to see it in its historical context.

j_j, I require thee to remove yon sliderule from thine ass and exercise its measure to attain thee "proportion and perspective." I would suffer a thousand deaths by dull sword than endure another moment of thy bilious quill!

I agree. Eric is not trying anything of the sort - he's just sick of being mocked, and wishes to know the rules around here. Can't blame him. Sorry for being so direct SM, but your attitude don't quite suit a moderator.

Although JJ ironically just one above your post where you say "Disagreeing with somebody's opinion is neither a personal attack nor trolling" DavidL said this:

Quote:
MY conclusion would be that YOU are a looney and need some help Still on about me being Ethan again????? WOW dude that's just plain sad. GET A LIFE I think I'll start calling you "Sandy" since you still insist I'm Ethan. If you don't get the reference then it's your own fault for not having reading comprehension abilities.

Here we see the use of words looney,need some help, get a life, your own fault for not having reading comprehension abilities.

So the timing of your post was unfortunate to say the least, but funny from an irony perspective
I am not sure if you meant it, but your post seems to come out defending DavidL.
When in reality no party can be defended in this as they all are contributing to the ongoing cycle.
That said it is rather clear DavidL style is deliberately confrontational as per the post above yours where it seems your defending his style.
And yes Jan and co are just as bad in their responses, I do feel Eric though was unfortunately set upon as DavidL is continually attacking him at a personal level even in own evaluation thread.
However it does not give Eric the right to ask for action as he has done, but then it should be pretty obvious why frustration is setting in for him.

This leads me to say Stephen, I tend to think it is a bit of a disappointment in using JJ's post as a thank you and confirmation, when the irony of what he says is contradicted by DavidL in the post directly above.
I can understand why one as a moderator does not want to become involved in such threads because as adults we should be able to realise our own responsibilities and behaviour, and the consequences of our actions that include posting here.
As an example it seems to me DavidL wants the last word and yet no-one involved in this argument cycle can let go themselves and feel their point must override DavidL.
People can make their own mind up on posters and their trend/behaviour/point without repeated help of putting the case forward to the jury as in a trial to be won (for that is what it seems).

Now I am as bad for joining in this argument boooo

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:
Thank you, JJ. I could not have expressed it better.

And, Stephen, you could not have avoided eric's questions any more completely. I suppose - somewhere, somehow - you see jj's "proof" that eric is not asking for direction from you but instead telling people what they can and cannot post? C'mon, SM! If you see it, show it. Otherwise, jj's playing you for exactly what he accuses eric. Same for jj. Why are "the rules" so difficult to express around here?

Now onto the TOPIC of this thread. Wait I forgot what it was with all the BS going on in here

Ahhhhh yes the ART System. So does anyone have anything to contribute to this? So why in your opinion does it make such a "profound" change in what people claim to hear(one person even claiming that it affects the sound outside the room they are installed) YET these same people will dismiss any argument asking for acoustic measurements? Sounds like (pun not intended ) that they are relying upon some of May Belt's explanations of the item affecting the listener and NOT the room. I think that has been shown to be bunk as several experiments have been conducted on here already and there wasn't any difference in the sound according to the experimenter. Is it all in your heads then? Expectations? "Hearing" what you are told to expect to hear? The power of suggestion? Why oh why do you continue to "believe" in magic and voo doo instead of measurements? If these magic bowls change the sound then it can be measured (mental issues and self delusion not included).
Let the argu........ermmm discussion begin..........or not............don't really care at this point.

Where's the tests?

The litter box odor is back.

" Thank you, JJ. I could not have expressed it better." ?

All I did was ask you why David L. is being allowed to violate the "end it now" directive you gave us, with his personal attacks against me. You giving DL free reign to continue his personal vendetta against me meant it was no longer clear to me what "end it now" means. I told you at the time I didn't think he would follow your directive, and given that he continues to aim personal attacks at me, I was proven right. So all week I've been asking what is and isn't acceptable, in order to avoid violating the rules. After you called me out for my somewhat less than friendly response to David L. I felt this necessary since there are no posted rules, and I'm not a mind reader. And your response to all that is to completely avoid clarifying your rules and actions, and compare me to Mussolini, for asking you what is expected of members and how the rules are applied? I'm being a "totalitarianist" for asking that, really??

I NEVER stated that "pointing out flaws in someone's arguments" is a personal attack or trolling. Yet with no evidence of this false accusation, you're saying I have?

I NEVER stated that "disagreeing with somebody's opinion is a personal attack or trolling". Yet with no evidence of this false accusation, you're saying I have?

I kindly asked you to clarify what exactly violates your "end it now" directive, so that I can avoid doing so and respect your forum's standards of behavior. And your response is to tell me that this request is "egregious, offensive, and destructive", and "a breach of the basics of civilization as we know it"?? And it means I'm "embracing malicious victimhood"? And that in requesting this clarification, I am "attempting to mobilize a lynch mob"?!

Good God. You can't be serious?

I ask you why (or whether?) you have allowed David L. to violate "end it now", and in agreement with j_j, you actually interpret that as "standing up and telling others what they can and can not post"?? Or that flagging David L.'s post is an "attempt to suck you in to accept one's false accucastions with the obvious goal of eliminating those who would dare to disagree"? What "false accusations" would that be, Stephen? Since you issued a directive to end the personal attacks between us, I showed you 3 verifiable links of David L. attacking me with false accusations, in clear violation of that?

I do not wish to distort anyone's words as j_j does with mine. I could never even hope to do so as well, he seems to make an art form of reimagining people's words and meaning to fit with his paranoid persona. But you did say "you could not have put it better yourself". So I have to presume that means you agree with what he said. Which is pretty scary, because with all due respect, the man seems to be a few beers short of a six-pack. In his raging hyperbolic soapbox lecture, (which was supposed to be a response to Freako simply saying "Fair enough"), j_j appears to have stopped just short of comparing my request for clarification of ground rules, to Hitler's "Mein Kampf". Given all that, I'm surprised i haven't been banned for simply daring to question why David L appears to be comletely exempt from any declared rules here.

So what am I supposed to make of your response? Does all this mean I am just supposed to take targeted harassment and abuse from David L., and my only option is to ignore it because if I return same, I'll be banned if I do? While he is free to attack me or others to his little heart's content? I really don't care for your daft "malicious victimhood" conspiracy theory, when all I am trying to do is find out whether there is a double standard (or favoritism) in place toward David L. If there is, be honest about it. If you wish to apply the rules to some but not others on your forum, I recognize that as your choice. But if otherwise, how do you explain allowing him to continue violating your "end it now" directive? What you were expecting from us by asking us to adhere to it?

If you choose to avoid explaining yourself, then I can only go by what you have allowed David L. to do. Since you did not delete the offending post I flagged, where he is again implying I'm a shilling imposter, then I have to assume it is okay by you for me to do the same with him, and I will not get into any sort of trouble with you for doing so. It must also be okay by you if I choose to stalk him into threads where I see his name, and post insults to him as he did with me (following your request to "end it now"). As for what we're not supposed to do under "end it now", that I have no idea. But then, I'm pretty sure DL doesn't either. (Or perhaps he doesn't care, because he knows the rules don't apply to him?). Anyway, sorry for the length.

Quote:
Oh if ONLY you would! PLEASE feel free to head towards the nearest EXIT post haste! Here let me hold the door for you.

Quelle surprise. Of course you would say that. This way you can carry out your agenda without interference, and prevent productive discussion on the ART or any product by the manufacturer. Which you've been doing by either trying to get your opponents banned, derail any threads on a Synergistic product with your trolling, or try to get them closed if you don't succeed at flame-blasting them to smithereens. So... what does "end it now" mean to you?

Quote:
Poor lil "Eric" *sniff* the big bad guys ganged up on me. He sounds like a broken record and a bit of a wuss.

Well, obviously we can see your promise to the moderator to "end it now" doesn't mean you should refrain from name-calling personal attacks toward me, or the lengthy diatribe against me that followed this. Since the mod has allowed this, as well as your "finger up the ass" remark to Jan Vigne, I presume I have the right to do the same with you, should I choose. As for your "wuss" remark, you shouldn't assume because I have not returned your personal attacks, that I am not able to.

Quote:
I "used" his personal photo of Ted's magic bowls without permission! Oh the shock and horror! Has he ever heard of "fair use"? I didn't see any copyright on his picture and let's face it, I only used it in a comedic thread

I suggest you inform yourself of copyright laws. They have changed in the last 50 years. I'm sorry, there is no "I used it in a comedic thread" exemption.

Quote:
So yes "Eric" was asked to leave......try READING next time He was ASKED to leave and chose to do so duhhhhhh.Quit splitting hairs over words.

Don't ever pretend to speak on my behalf. I do not give you authorization to do so. Especially as you have twisted my words in the past, to suit your agenda. I don't even know why you're debating my words, but Jan Vigne is the one who is correct here. I was never asked to leave any such forum. I left of my own accord in the example I gave, because a forum moderator that declares a double standard moderation policy goes against my principles. That is what "my CHOICE was not to remain" meant. Notice how the word "choice" is in caps? "Try READING next time", as you said to Jan.

Quote:
I agree. Eric is not trying anything of the sort - he's just sick of being mocked, and wishes to know the rules around here. Can't blame him. Sorry for being so direct SM, but your attitude don't quite suit a moderator.

Thank you, Freako. I could not have expressed it better.

Never mind the David-bastard. He's just annoyed his dick is so small...

Quote:
However it does not give Eric the right to ask for action as he has done, but then it should be pretty obvious why frustration is setting in for him.

Thanks. I don't feel I made any demands for action, but simply asked why no action followed what appears to me to be continual violations of the directive the moderator gave for our behavior. Especially in the "Eric ran away" post, where David L. feels it necessary to continue making false and defamatory accusations against me, even though I was avoiding participation. My frustration is real, but it comes from what I perceive as a double standard here. I already had trouble understanding why this David L person is being allowed to derail threads and disrupt dialogue in every thread he's in, following classic troll behavior. Since no forum I know would tolerate this. If Stereophile wishes to be a haven for trolls, it's the administration's option, of course. So upon seeing he was not interested in having a civil debate, I asked David L to ignore me and proceeded to do so myself to his attacks. Of course, he didn't and just continued to blast me with both barrels loaded. When he followed me into my own review thread and launched a series of personal attacks (NOT "differences of opinion", unprovoked PERSONAL ATTACKS) across two posts, I finally said "Okay. I think I have no option but to fight back now". (Even so, I would say I was pretty restrained in my responses). Only then did I found out there's a moderator on this board, when he nearly banned me for fighting back against David L.'s attacks. Using my post as the example that triggered his rebuke. (As far as I know, nothing has ever been said by any moderator on David L.'s behavior here).

So then the mod says he doesn't want to see any more personal attacks between us, and asks us to "end it now". Which both I and David L agree to. That is, after the troll plays up the "victim" angle by saying "I'm glad you see what some people are doing, Stephen". Three minutes later, David L. is back to his usual personal attacks against me. I mention this to the moderator but that was ignored. On Sunday or Monday, I flagged the worst of these, but received no response and I saw the post was still up. So that just left me with a lot of questions as to what to make of the moderator ignoring DL's behavior following the "end it now" directive, what is expected of us, and how to proceed from here. ie. "Will I be banned for making the same sort of personal attacks against the troll, while he has immunity to fire at will?" "Am I going to be told again to ignore him, while he is under no obligation to do so with me?" I was not trolling for sympathy here, as I'm being accused of. I was simply asking for fairness. You know, equality. I want no part of any double standard moderation. If I have to ignore DL, then he has to ignore me. If he can attack me at will, then I should have the option to do the same likewise. And hey, if anyone has a problem with the personal attacks this will create, they just need to "get a thicker skin", as I've been told to do, or use the IGNORE function. If people do not want to give up the right to launch personal attacks, or would defend that right for others, then they should not complain about receiving any.

As it stands, I'm getting so many mixed signals, I'm not sure what up or down is on this forum. Here's what I mean. When I point out personal attacks, people tell me to deal with it or ignore it, which indicates personal attacks are desired by the membership at large (and proof of that is that the threads are saturated with them). Yet the moderator says "no personal attacks, end them now, don't be an asshole, get along with everybody or ignore them if you can't". Which seems to indicate that you're actually not supposed to attack the other guy. (?) Yet he deliberately allows these attacks, even when the most egregious ones are flagged, and this has been pointed out for a solid week. (??) And as for the rules you're "supposed" to follow? Well from what I can gather, they're not posted because you're expected to read the administration's mind on that. And it seems if ever your mind reading skills are not up to par, you'll only know that after you've been banned. (!) Know Orb, that I did not intend to make a big issue of this, and I'm sorry it's become that. But I would argue that I'm not entirely to blame for it either. Sometimes, avoiding an issue, tends to have a snowball effect.

Quote:
And yes Jan and co are just as bad in their responses ...

Excuse me! "Jan and co"? WTF is that supposed to mean? First you accuse me of conspiracy with no proof of such and then you defame me with "just as bad" as "it is rather clear DavidL('s) style is deliberately confrontational." If you're going to make the accusation per jj's delusions, then you need to make sure you can back them up, Orb. Just who is my "company"? Who would that be, those here who agree DL has been an "asshole" (to use Stephen's term) for the better part of 200 posts and is now finding himself to free to escalate his posts into direct personal attacks lacking any moderation of his actions? Those who would like to know why there is such blatantly lopsided moderation - when there is moderation at all - of this forum? Those who would simply like to know what the real rules of this forum are without having to rely on Stephen deciding without notice the "tone" of what you post is sufficient grounds for banishment? I've been threatened with such and Michigan was certainly broadsided in the ban of winer when winer was doing exactly the same thing DL has been doing. Now eric is expected to read SM's mind and know where to step and where not while the landmines are being placed by DL and those who choose to defend him and his words. Or would "my company" be just those who agree the ART system is ingenious? That forms a "co" and a "side" on this forum from what I've been told and that alone makes for attacks from the morons who prefer to disrupt anything if it isn't a bar fight.

After you've answered that, would you care to show me where I referred to David's finger up his ass? Or attacked him without provocation? or "attacked" him at all for that matter? As eric suggests, you know I can do so if that was my decision. Or am I suposed to have the Stereophile "ultra-thick skin" by now and just ignore what DL has trolled across this forum for the last seven months against anyone and everyone who happens to disagree with DL and his trolling? Including Ted with whom, to my knowledge, DL has never had a conversation. Do that, please, Orb, because I'd really, really like to see what the hell I am being accused of before I am sentenced. Maybe more "totalitarianism", eh? If I remember correctly, it was always those who asked questions in a totalitarian society who found themself on the wrong end of curiosity. Color me - and, since he originally asked the question, eric - curious.

Let me state the rules of this forum as plainly as I have found them for the last five years. If you are even remotely a subjectivist audiophile loooking for a place to discuss audio with like minded individuals, have a very thick skin because you are going to be attacked by the morons inhabiting this forum who find bar fights entertaining and discussing audio not so much. Don't complain about the destruction those morons create because you'll find yourself the target of those same selfrighteous liars who defend the actions of the morons. And most of all don't expect fairness from the moderator of this forum because it's just too much goddamn work for him to even answer a question.

Now, Orb, if you had stepped forward when both eric and I asked for clarification of the rules and the "don't expect moderation from the moderator" exemptions to any unstated rules, then most of this might have stopped long before now. But you didn't want to get involved, you just wanted to be another complainer about my "company" and my "confrontational attitude". And it isn't just you who sat by. Mr. Mejias was asked questions only he could answer and he purposely ignored them and continues to ignore them. Then he will rush in quoting eric or myself and threatening to ban one or both of us if we don't "just do as you're told". Doing his job seems to be the one job Mejias can't manage. And trolls like DL know it all too well.

Quote:
Now onto the TOPIC of this thread.

What?! you're feeling you might actually need to mention something about audio to CYA after all this?

If you had any of the pertinent issues of the topic correct, there would be room for discussion - which you would then shut down. But you do not and there isn't much reason - given your trolling behavior - to make all the corrections needed to your misguided interpretations of what has been said here. All you are attempting is to restart the thread from page one claiming none of what has been proven in the last few hundred or so pages over a half dozen threads matters because you don't want to hear it.

Quote:
morons inhabiting this bar who find forum fights entertaining...

Any of you fellas [burp] I mean morons want another round?

If you're going to quote me - and you're not going to once again challenge me to a bar fight - then you really should get the quote down as it was stated.

Quote:
... the morons inhabiting this forum who find bar fights entertaining and discussing audio not so much.

What follows is a general response, not directed to anyone in particular:

Quote:

Pointing out flaws in someone's arguments is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

I agree with this. Does anyone disagree?

Quote:
Disagreeing with somebody's opinion is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

I agree with this. Does anyone disagree?

Quote:
Pointing out when somebody embraces "victimhood" and cries loudly when their ideas and actions are examined is neither a personal attack nor trolling.

I agree with this. Does anyone disagree?

Quote:
Standing up and telling others what they can and can not post, when one is not a moderator, is simply posing as an authority one is not, and is just another form of malicious victimhood, attempting to suck in the moderator to accept one's false accusations with the obvious goal of eliminating those who would dare to disagree. In short, it is an attempt at malicifent totalitarianism, the same kind of thing written about in Ibsen's "En folkefiende".

JJ lost me at the end, but, otherwise, I agree with this. JJ said it better than I could have because, honestly, I often lack the energy to deal with what I perceive to be petty arguments.

I don't understand what the big problem is here. Read the posts in this thread, and try to see the absurdity in them. Then laugh about it and go hug your family, spend time with some friends, listen to music, or post here -- but make your posts positive, productive, thoughtful.

I really don't know why we have to go through this so often.

People want rules. Why? I've stated -- so many times -- what we expect here. We expect people to be mature, kind, intelligent, thoughtful, productive, positive. Other than that, we make decisions as we go along. That does not mean that everything has to be roses. You can be mature, kind, intelligent, thoughtful, productive, positive and still engage in heated debates.

I am not a babysitter, and I am not a cop. I am limited in my ability to police what goes on here. I do not have access to passwords, and users are able to create bogus accounts. All new registrations (we're up to almost 12000 registered accounts) are approved by me before granted access to post -- I run every IP address through a site dedicated to stopping spammers -- but bad accounts can slip through. I expect people to be honest. I hope that people do not abuse our hospitality. I have to trust you to act responsibly.

Besides that, and something I think a lot of people don't realize, is that a lot goes on behind the scenes -- through private messages and e-mails. So don't take for granted that what you see happening on the board is all that's happening.

I don't know what else to do. You can say just about whatever you want here -- we'll decide when the line is crossed, and we'll figure out how to proceed. But your words represent who you are. You can choose to be seen as a kind, intelligent, thoughtful person, or not.

Again, if you can't get along with someone here, I ask that you ignore that person.

Quote:
morons inhabiting this bar who find forum fights entertaining...

That's what I said!

Quote:
Does anyone disagree?

Is it "disagreement" to see these statements as specious and sophistic fabrications of the events on the ground? The prevarications and equivocations in jj's words are difficult to swallow let alone keep down. So, yes, I find them disagreeable in the extreme. Read what eric (and I) have asked, Stephen, not what you care to see in jj's manufactured accounting of his constant delusions of persecution. One pill makes you small.

Quote:
And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call ...

Quote:

Quote:
... attempting to suck in the moderator to accept one's false accusations with the obvious goal of eliminating those who would dare to disagree.

... I agree with this.

For goodnesssake! I asked you to show me proof of what you are agreeing to and you spit back what you agreed to still without any proof of the accusations and indictments.

Here's the job, SM, find where eric (or I) have made this about "those who would dare to disagree." I hate to sound like DL here but, are you not paying attention at all? Can you say what it is eric has asked you to explain? It is not about "those who would dare to disagree", I promise.

Quote:

Quote:
In short, it is an attempt at malicifent totalitarianism, the same kind of thing written about in Ibsen's "En folkefiende".

JJ lost me at the end ...

I'm going to suggest something, SM. I know you're still rather young and maybe you didn't get this in school. There is a thing called a "dictionary" and it explains words you don't understand. "Malicifent"? I agree, my unabridged dictionary has no reference to any such word. But "totalitarianism"? Look it up, Stephen, and before you agree to calls of totalitarianism on this forum you should know what you are agreeing to. Then re-read jj's post and maybe you'll understand who is claiming totalitarianism and why.

If you find any proof of such claims in the questions eric has asked, please, post them for all to see.

Quote:
... we'll decide when the line is crossed, and we'll figure out how to proceed.

Is that your answer to the question of unbalanced administration of your whims? I'm not the only one asking about this SM. As far as I read it the only people not questioning your fairness - or, at best, your expectations we can guess at what you read as "tone" - are those who are benefitting from the lax administration of your momentary whims.

Sorry you see it as personal post by me, the context I mean by being just as bad is that you continue to feed the argument with DavidL when an alternative is to respond once or twice and then let him end with having the last post.
If you look the only one I define as baiting with confrontation is DavidL, but continually pushing back at him will not help to end this.
The alternative to that is what we have now, I dare not count how many pages of arguments we have had when one page (ok realistically 2-3 pages, bah maybe 4 pages with us lot hahaha) with just a few responses to his continual confrontational approach would suffice.

I do hope though we all have a good weekend.
Cheers
Orb

Quote:
.....
All new registrations (we're up to almost 12000 registered accounts).....

I did not realise Froggy and Ethan registered sooo many times with sooo many aliases
Just kidding all, just kidding
Cheers
Orb

OK, that's funny!

I just wonder what happened to the other 11,992.

I am sitting here with my good cup of morning coffee and a smoke, and it strikes me that this is about to be the end of this interesting, but also very dirturbing thread.

Jan, you are not going to stretch Stephen any further no matter what you do. Stand on your tongue for a week, SM has disclosed as much about his rulings as he ever will. The poor man is exhausted.

I suggest we declare "R.I.P." to fairness and balanced modding, and move on. It has now been proved there's no sense in keeping this up. I'd wish there was a stricter moderator than SM, but there isn't, and peace be with it.

We are all adults - well most of us - and since it's obvious that a few members bear psychic scars and horrible trauma's from childhood, I see it as an impossible task to dig deeper into this and reach a constructive outcome. So, let's put it to rest, and discuss the topic if it's still alive.

Happy Birthday USA