You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: On banning


Quote:

Quote:
You you are more like a pneumatic drill bunny
You are never afraid of repeating the same thing 10 times to make your point
It must be part of your earing problem.. lollipop

Frog speaky haiku
stunted, her intellect
jesus weeping softly

NC, you're a poetic genius! LOL

Grosse Fatigue
Grosse Fatigue's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 22 2007 - 7:04pm
Re: On banning

ncdrawl on his tree
Eating a banana

Come down! They cried to ncdrawl
Come down! Come down!
Silence filled the night, and the night filled the silence

I can't, he finally said
"Why?" they cried
Stars spilled accross the black sky
"Because then you'll stop asking for me"

The people whispered and hodded away themselves

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Dez yuh doog byte?


Quote:
Housekeeper: You've ruined that piano!
Clouseau: What is the price of one piano, compared to the terrible crime that has been committed here
Housekeeper: But that's a priceless Steinway!
Clouseau: Nyot Anymeur.

LOOOLz!

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: Dez yuh doog byte?
smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: On banning


Quote:
In principal I think it's too bad anytime some one gets banned.


I agree.


Quote:
Luckily, Stephen seems to have a lot of patience, is willing to let threads wind their way up and down, and I believe, give all malcontents plenty of warning.


Thanks, Doug.


Quote:
If such a simple solution as restricting trouble makers to certain sections would actually work, I'm sure he'd use them.


This is something we've considered, but the forum doesn't allow for it.


Quote:
But I'm almost positive it wouldn't, and why should certain posters get the privilege to break the rules most of the time and then still get to have some kind of "special needs" section?


This is the same conclusion we came to. It was a strategy we first considered with DUP, but, ultimately, we felt it would be unfair. And, as I said, the forum tool doesn't offer any way to control this. We would have to trust the offender to remain in a specific area and, if we can't trust the person to abide by our overall rules, why should we trust that person to stay in one area?


Quote:
You take away to obsessive noise makers and you may loose some occasional wisdom and/or flavor, but overall you get a lot more room for the conversation to actually grow.


My feeling, exactly. Thanks again.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
REQUIRED FIELD NOW FILLED IN.

Ethan Winer gone.
Gresham's law reigns supreme now.
Who cares about "Frog"?

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: REQUIRED FIELD NOW FILLED IN.


Quote:
Ethan Winer gone.
Gresham's law reigns supreme now.
Who cares about "Frog"?

Aristophanes notes in his play The Frogs (preceding Gresham by almost 2,000 years) that bad money drives out the good.

Coincidence?

I don't think so.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 20 min ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: REQUIRED FIELD NOW FILLED IN.


Quote:

Quote:
Ethan Winer gone.
Gresham's law reigns supreme now.
Who cares about "Frog"?

Aristophanes notes in his play The Frogs (preceding Gresham by almost 2,000 years) that bad money drives out the good.

Coincidence?

I don't think so.

Aesop had one about the fox and the grapes, something to do with the grapes tasting bitter as I recall...

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: REQUIRED FIELD NOW FILLED IN.


Quote:
Aesop had one about the fox and the grapes, something to do with the grapes tasting bitter as I recall...

Grapes, sour, tart, bad.
More patience, then they are ripe.
Too bad, too bad, that.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: REQUIRED FIELD NOW FILLED IN.
sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning

DBowker: In principal I think it's too bad anytime some one gets banned.
Stephen Mejias: I agree.

Yes, I was sure you would love Doug

sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning

I sent an email to both you and John enttitled

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: On banning

Interesting posts indeed. I wonder if there will be any public replies from SM and/or JA - and what they may be.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
Interesting posts indeed. I wonder if there will be any public replies from SM and/or JA - and what they may be.

Why would they?

I'm sure they have already very politely asked this poster to stay away. You see how well that's worked.

It's their forum, not ours.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On banning

Why are you acting like Obama?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On banning


Quote:
Why are you acting like Obama?

Obama doesn't like Ethan, either?

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: On banning

Very enlightening...thanks for the heads up on the forum landscape .

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
Very enlightening...thanks for the heads up on the forum landscape .

Sour grapes is a much better description than heads up.

Read MJFs other posts (if you want to waist that much time)

dave_b
dave_b's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 24 2007 - 6:06pm
Re: On banning

Who's mjf...I was responding to Steven Abe .

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
Or acknowledge the fact that you violate your own rules, you openly allow obvious trolls like "David L", "Krabapple", "Joamonte", "Krueger" etc. to "abuse your hospitality", and when you feel to, you state that disruptive behaviour is ad-revenue generating fun.


It is telling that you are unable to acccept information contrary to your particular beliefs, and that you demand censorship of those who are better known in the scientific field, simply because they do not agree with your, let's say "interesting" claims and accusations. (And let it be clear, a google on "Steven Abe" +audio returns nothing that I can readily discern as someone with standing in the audio community. I get 2 pages of hits, all of them split references as far as I can tell.)

Krabapple and Arny Kreuger, no matter how much you may wish to silence them, have very valid points. (I won't respond to the others, they don't stand out as obviously to me.) They both have the same reaction I do to internet codswallop, to wit, they are simply unwilling to up with it put, and you, sir, madam, or neuter, are simply up to the auditory apparatus in completely nonsensical, ridiculous codswallop.

You owe them an apology, all they've "dared" to do is to try to expose you to some basic science. They're trying to ENHANCE your enjoyment, dude, and this is how you treat them????

Worse than pathetic, it's pathological.


Quote:

It's a function on this forum that folks like Ethan, JJ, Kreuger etc. have often advocated others use against their adversaries, but never actually implemented it themselves, as their behaviour has shown.

Sir, your claim that I have not implimented the "ignore" feature in regard to "Michigan J. Frog"s malicious griefing is provably false, and the fact that somebody here has allowed you another nic so you can AVOID THE FACT YOU ARE ON IGNORE is, frankly, obscenely offensive, BECAUSE I GET TO READ YOUR MISBEGOTTEN DRIVEL AGAIN! Thanks a (*&(*& lot, John and Steven. Thanks a (*&( lot. Do I need to go ignore this one, too? How many more? Would you please keep me posted about the various nics that the former frog gets? I care not to read its phoney-baloney gobbledgook.

John, Stephen,

It is, frankly, time to revolk the ban against Ethan and apologize to him, even if you choose, finally, to endorse the ban you have stated against the individual behind "Michigan J. Frog". It is not Ethan's fault that "frog" is a greifing flamer who stalks Ethan and others, it is "Frog"'s fault.

And, now, Stephen, John, you've apparently allowed the malfeasant back, while banning the much more responsible individual who RUNS AN AUDIO BUSINESS that you may be hurting with this ban???? Really? That's how it looks to me.

This is very, very wrong. I should not be reading "frog"'s dribble under some other (I will presume it's also a "nom du maris" since I get no hits on the name plus audio) nic. You BANNED s/he/it, WHY IS IT BACK?

Restore Ethan, do what you will with Frog, since it appears it's already back. That's what I would think is remotely equitable.

One owns a business. I can't find the other one. One is in the business of helping people make their rooms sound a lot better. I have no idea what the other one does, and google doesn't seem to know either.

What I do know is that Frog is the one responsible for the dissention, because it's very obvious that FROG can not accept controverting opinions, and acts out at the very suggestion someone MIGHT disagree.

Sincerely, jj

sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning

Why would they?

Yes, I see your point. Why would Stephen and John allow the truth about the obvious cronyism and favoritism in their moderating practices, to remain exposed in posts that question the truth and integrity of their decisions? Particularly when the decision to take the radical step of a permanent ban at this particular time, could only have been triggered by the very act of me questioning the truth and integrity of their moderating decisions in the first place. After all, in the Teos thread, I brought up the fact that Ethan Winer was not adhering to the very specific directives John had given him about his sig. This was after months that Ethan kept weaseling around with his sig in order to try to avoid the understandably damaging effects from having people associate his actual words with his actual business. John was clearly fed up with Ethan playing "You're not the boss of me", and made it clear that Ethan had to follow his suggestion for his sig, or face banning to the Manufacturer's forum. As I wrote, Ethan was good for about a week until he simply signed his posts "Ethan". (But even if he'd have signed his posts "Love, Ethan", he would still have gotten away with it).

However, when I mentioned that once again Ethan was never held responsible for his violations, the reply SM gave in that thread is that Ethan's sig was good and fine, and I don't get the impression he appreciated me helping him do his job to begin with. I think I was supposed to not notice the fact that Stephen was totally ignoring my point that even as of present time, Ethan was still not signing his full name or title, as John directed him to do six months ago. This not only showed Ethan was being given a pass that others were not granted, but that Stephen was willing to overlook this inconsistency in their moderation, and the fact that Winer clearly did violate John's "last straw" directive re: the sig. But what Stephen ignored next in that post of mine spoke volumes. The part where I stated in big bold letters (so it wouldn't be ignored), that Winer was clearly in violation of the industry member rule. Sometimes, what deceptive people won't say says a lot more than what they will.

Right after that, Stephen inexplicably closed the thread, stating too many people were flaming in it (quite ludicrous if you read the Teos thread and have been here longer than a week). But of course it meant Stephen could ignore the growing complaints from a chorus of members, all stating Mejias was again ignoring the fact that Winer was violating the IM rule. Stephen also gave us as his reason for closing the thread, the old saw about how "everything that could be said was said". Which is even more ludicrous, because there was clearly an interest in pursuing discussions around the theme; ie. the discussion between myself and Buddha on cable tweaks had only started just before he closed the thread. So if Stephen would prematurely close a thread that was relatively productive, in order to avoid a potentially embarassing discussion among the membership about the uneven moderating standards that he and John practice, then you're right. Why would he allow my posts here to stay, which criticize their unfair moderating practices in greater depth and detail, after they have banned me for doing just that in the Teos thread. Perhaps the only reason my posts are still here, is because John's teeing off on the green, and Stephen has a plumbing problem to deal with.

]I'm sure they have already very politely asked this poster to stay away. You see how well that's worked.

You're "sure" of this based solely on your blind speculation? Don't speculate on what you don't know. I'm not using another account to explain my side of the story for what should be obvious reasons, but prior, I have only ever had one account here. And besides which, no moderator "very politely asks a member to stay away". They simply ban you.

It's their forum, not ours.

That's correct. If John and Stephen think it's okay to clearly apply one standard of moderation for one group of people, and another for those they have had a personal or business relationship with, or that it's okay to institute permanent bans on long-term productive members without ever warning them or PMing them to offer them any chance to correct their behaviour, it's their choice to do so. But I think it's important that people know this is exactly what they are doing (and if they really are about "free speech", they will keep my posts up!). Because I for one would not have signed up if I knew this in advance. Not only is there no notice explaining this new "automatic no-warning no-reason permanent lifetime ban policy" if the mods think you're more "disruptive" than another "disruptive" member, but there are basically no rules in general. As I have said, it's because this allows John to make them up as he goes along. Getting Stephen to apply different rules for different members, that don't apply across the board. This unjustly biased (and hidden) policy of moderation has been applied to me, and applied to other members who have reported this to me in private.

Frankly, I got so sick of these constant "multiple standards" of moderation being applied to all sorts of members in private, in order to avoid anyone else knowing what kind of moderation is being practiced here, that I didn't mind risking my own membership by openly criticizing this unethical practice of SM & JA's (Not that they don't have the right to as it's "their forum, not ours") in the Teos cable thread. Following which I was told by Mejias (in so many words...) "There is nothing to explain or discuss. Shut up and go away. I am closing the thread now to break up this protest you've started, and encourage you to do just that. As this is the second time you have openly criticized the widespread favoritism in our moderating practices, you're a loose cannon we obviously can't have firing off at any time. I will be in touch with John to see what should be done with you about that...". You may be fine with this idea of imposing regulations in private between members that the other member doesn't have to abide by, or all other members for that matter. Not me, no way. I believe in "Live fairly or die". You know, truth, justice, the American way, and all of that.

The first day I came here, Ethan was already convinced that I must be a competitor of his. And last year, during his feud with Ted, he repeated this accusation. Despite after 3 years, of still having no evidence whatsofreakingever, other than what he offered John and Stephen. Which is that I don't respond to his lying bullshit with flowers and chocolates, ergo I must work in the acoustics industry. Nevertheless, Winer managed to convince Stephen to email me and demand that I tell him whether or not I am an industry member. Something that Stephen has never asked anyone else on this forum. And it's a stupid question to begin with, because really... if the issue is that I have been hiding this "fact" for three years, as alleged, why would I implicate myself by admitting it? Anyway, that convinced me that I was definitely not being given the same consideration Ethan was being gven by the moderation, or even the same consideration anyone on the forum was being given (that they are assumed to not be industry members, unless they come forward or there is tangible evidence that proves otherwise).

Of course, I am not an industry member. I'm "just" an audiophile. (Dying breed if you ask me...). The fact is, the reason I went after Ethan Winer, is simply because he's a pathological liar. Sometimes consciously lying, sometimes doing it by way of ignorance. Either way, the vast majority of what he would say about audio in general (sometimes in his own self-professed area of expertise but particularly when he strayed out of it), was simply not true. I was confrontational with him, and his cronies/apologists, because I have a great more deal of respect for the truth, than these people ever will. I didn't see a problem with confronting someone when I believe they are deliberately or unconsciously misleading others, but I saw a huge problem with not doing that. But truth be told, I think the Ethanists are counter-productive to serious, progressive discussions about high end audio, and would rather wish they would leave high enders alone to discuss their own hobby. We have enough disagreements amongst ourselves, without having people come in from "pro" audio forums to insist to people they call "audiophools" that nearly everything our hobby is founded upon, and all of our experiences from that, are null and void.

I know all of their arguments forwards, backwards, inside and out. And I haven't seen anything productive come out of such disparate points of view in twenty years of audio forum debates. And I likely never will. I think that Wes Phillips, in the latest of issue of Stereophile, declaring Ethan's system "not very musical", pretty much says all that need be said about so-called "audio skeptics" of this ilk.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: On banning

a better question yet...why is he back here after being banned?

and better yet...all he does is complain about Ethan some more and piss all over JA and SM! Classic.

returnstackerror
returnstackerror's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: May 17 2007 - 8:32pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
I think that Wes Phillips, in the latest of issue of Stereophile, declaring Ethan's system "not very musical", pretty much says all that need be said about so-called "audio skeptics" of this ilk.

If Ethan (or anyone else) finds his/their system gives them musical pleasure, then that system is musical.

There are a myriad of paths in which to seek ones own musical nirvana : tubes/transistors, vinyl/digital, two channel/multi-channel, planar/dynamic etc. And of course within each of these categories are other distinct paths.

Each path provides their own inherent distortions and given everyone

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
Who's mjf...I was responding to Steven Abe .

MJF = Michigan J Frog = Steven Abe.

MJF was recently banned. He obviously feels he doesn't need to honor the ban.

Hopefully the moderators will soon put him out of his misery before he spreads too many warts

Grosse Fatigue
Grosse Fatigue's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 22 2007 - 7:04pm
Re: On banning

Are you stoned?

Grosse Fatigue
Grosse Fatigue's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 22 2007 - 7:04pm
Re: On banning

you are so square nc

sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
If Ethan (or anyone else) finds his/their system gives them musical pleasure, then that system is musical.

There are a myriad of paths in which to seek ones own musical nirvana : tubes/transistors, vinyl/digital, two channel/multi-channel, planar/dynamic etc. And of course within each of these categories are other distinct paths.

Each path provides their own inherent distortions and given everyone

Grosse Fatigue
Grosse Fatigue's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 22 2007 - 7:04pm
Re: On banning

I personally enjoy being "banned"

It started out in College
One day I had to recite Le Cid from Corneille with an other kid

- "Rodrigue, Do you have Heart?"

and I replied:

- "No I have the Jack of Diamonds"

I was banned of the classroom
and went out to smoke in the toilet

so can you make it lighter please?

sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning

"Steven Abe" wrote: Or acknowledge the fact that you violate your own rules, you openly allow obvious trolls like "David L", "Krabapple", "Joamonte", "Krueger" etc. to "abuse your hospitality", and when you feel to, you state that disruptive behaviour is ad-revenue generating fun.

"James Johnson", aka "Woodenville" (on Hydrogen Audio forum) replied: "It is telling that you are unable to acccept information contrary to your particular beliefs, and that you demand censorship of those who are better known in the scientific field, simply because they do not agree with your, let's say "interesting" claims and accusations. "

Hello? Are you feeling alright? Do you need to rest, it sounds like you need to rest? For the love of ballpark hotdogs James, I have never seen a single post from you in 15 years, when you didn't appear to be anything less than 1,000% "full of yourself". For one thing, the trolls "David L", "Krabapple", "Joamonte", and "Krueger" are not "known in the scientific industry". Unless by that you mean the "pseudoscientific troll industry". For another, that quote of mine talks about their behaviour on the forum, not about their (non-existent) qualifications to talk about audio. Plus I made no "demands of censorship". So I'm just going to have to assume here that you've been trying to see how many crayons you can shove up your nose again.

And by the way, there's still one other important thing you fail to understand: Because of all of your misleading statements about audio, you should be thankful for the fact that no one here is expected or obligated to have or present any "qualifications" to talk about audio. Let alone have to be identifiable by a "Google search" as to their "standing in the scientific community" (lol). We all have opinions, and they all have the same relative value, irregardless of your personal delusions to the contrary. The fact that you have been proven wrong more times than the moon has appeared, should already indicate why that is. Even if the real "James Johnston" knew that you stole his name, and posted here in place of you, it still wouldn't change what I just said.

(And let it be clear, a google on "Steven Abe" +audio returns nothing that I can readily discern as someone with standing in the audio community. I get 2 pages of hits, all of them split references as far as I can tell.)

Oh good grief. The fact that you would even do research on a "Steven Abe" after I signed my post "Michigan", is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard from you. And that's saying something, considering how many times you've made a fool of yourself like this. But seeing you fall back once again to making these ridiculous appeals to authority to try to "win a perceived argument" against your opponent, despite the fact that I was not even talking about audio!, is utterly pathological. Really, I mean that, James. Get help. Quick. Now. Go already. What are you waiting for?

Krabapple and Arny Kreuger, no matter how much you may wish to silence them, have very valid points. (I won't respond to the others, they don't stand out as obviously to me.)

Well "obviously", since the "Krabapple" and "Kreuger" trolls are your very good buddies. Together which, you anti-audiophile cultists have for over 10 years fought battles on audiophile discussion groups, trying to suppress good information, good sound and people who are fond of good sound in their homes. If any of you three, who know absolutely butkis about high resolution audio, ever had any "valid points" to make, you would have converted at least one audiophile to your "everything sounds the same in audio" cause. But you never have in over 15 years. I've even seen you guys admit that to yourselves, in those quiet lucid moments, when you're posting under the phony name "Woodenville", back on your little cult base of Hydrogen Audio. So clearly, it's all been a lot of self-gratifying posturing all this time, to no end but to drive people who care about their sound further away from your audio religion, than they ever were to begin with. Truly, the only "very valid point" here, is the one I made about those 4 audio zealots coming here solely to try to convert people to their religious cause. Unlike you, what I say is supported by evidence that is easily verifiable by scanning their messages on this forum. The fact that they no longer post here is what's "telling".

They both have the same reaction I do to internet codswallop, to wit, they are simply unwilling to up with it put, and you, sir, madam, or neuter, are simply up to the auditory apparatus in completely nonsensical, ridiculous codswallop.

"They are simply unwilling to up with it put". Oh that's classic. Truly. I couldn't make up funnier stuff if I tried. Speaking of "completely nonsensical, ridiculous codswallop", does the word "irony" mean anything at all to you? Anything? At all? Just bang your head once for yes, twice for no.

You owe them an apology, all they've "dared" to do is to try to expose you to some basic pseudoscience. They're trying to ENHANCE your enjoyment, dude, and this is how you treat them???? Worse than pathetic, it's pathological.

Absolutely. Everything you just said applied to you. In spades. All your audiophile "opponents" have ever done is try to ENHANCE your enjoyment "dude". And yet you treat them with disdain and derision, calling them "audiophools". So yes, worse than pathetic, you and your anti-high end cohorts are indeed pathological.

Sir, your claim that I have not implimented the "ignore" feature in regard to "Michigan J. Frog"s malicious griefing is provably false

Really? Not sure how you plan to "prove" you were not reading my posts. But anyway. In Ethan's case, I was referring to incidents where he asked others to ignore me as well as other members, but, and this -is- "provable", he continued to show that he did not have us on "ignore". He only ignored the posts that he thought he could let get away. I don't know how many times he said he was going to ignore Steve (SAS) but never did. As for you and Kreuger well.... I wasn't referring to your posts here. Not that I don't think you haven't done the same thing as Ethan here, but nevertheless, I was referring to the old days on RAO. Where you and him both repeatedly claimed you had someone on ignore, and it later turned out to be a lie. As for the remainder of your hair-tearing rant that I mercifully snipped out.... please volunteer for shock treatment. It will solve all of your problems, I promise.

It is, frankly, time to revolk the ban against Ethan and apologize to him,

LOL! Anything else? Should they also award him a fee for "emotional suffering"? Hey, better yet. Why not make it official and put in the rules "This applies to anyone not named Ethan Winer". If you're going to be Ethan's #1 apologist James, don't be shy. Go all the way. Demand an apology by way of skywriter, for example. I'd say the one good thing that came out of my lifetime ban, was Ethan's lifetime ban. Which let's be honest, if he were treated the same as anyone else here, would have happened a long time ago. If that had happened, then all the flaming that occurred (you included, make no mistake about that my flaming little flamer friend), would have been "under control" so to speak.

even if you choose, finally, to endorse the ban you have stated against the individual behind "Michigan J. Frog". It is not Ethan's fault that "frog" is a greifing flamer who stalks Ethan and others, it is "Frog"'s fault.

Remember what Stephen said about this, "James"? If you make a call to endorse a ban on one member, that means you're asking to be banned as well? I paid my dues, so now it's your turn. Back to "Hyrodgen Audio" with you, individual behind the nic "Woodenville". Oh, and there's no such word as "revolk" (no, it's not spelled the way it sounds). Plus you're really pushing it with "greifing flamer".

And, now, Stephen, John, you've apparently allowed the malfeasant back, while banning the much more responsible individual who RUNS AN AUDIO BUSINESS that you may be hurting with this ban???? Really? That's how it looks to me.

Really? Really, really? Well it looks to me like with all my complaints about the bias that has always been shown in favor of Ethan, I should be glad that -you- are not the moderator here. When it comes to Ethan apologists, none hold a candle to you. Thanks for admitting Ethan was here basically to promote his business in any way he could. And thanks for admitting Ethan's business is hurting. I suspected that, given the amount of time he has to devote to sockpuppeting on various audio forums across the net, but I could not confirm that until now.

By the way, Ethan already told a member here in an email to him, that he didn't really care about being banned. But that he was nevertheless sending an email to Stephen, cc'ed as well to John and someone named "Keith Pray" (which Ethan described as "John's boss", and Ethan's ad publisher), to try to get his banishment rescinded. The reason your friend Winer gave was "it's the principle". So you see James? You needn't blubber and cry and whine and bawl and take a hairy fairy fit over brother Ethan being given the boot. Because Ethan himself doesn't even care himself that he was banned. Seriously. I can send you a copy of the email if you don't believe me (I have the full thing, with headers, in an attachment).

This is very, very wrong. I should not be reading "frog"'s dribble under some other (I will presume it's also a "nom du maris" since I get no hits on the name plus audio) nic. You BANNED s/he/it, WHY IS IT BACK?

Just let me know when you've finished crying, ok? I don't think I want to see this.....

One owns a business. I can't find the other one. One is in the business of helping people make their rooms sound a lot better.

?? Surely you're not talking about those sound-killing room traps that suck the life out of your sound? If this were true, that "rooms sound a lot better" with his traps, then why did Wes Phillips state in the current issue of Stereophile that Ethan's system didn't sound very good?

I have no idea what the other one does, and google doesn't seem to know either.

Well then obviously, that clinches it. If you don't know and your friend Google don't know who someone is, then we must default to "muslim terrorist". All of whom I am sure, are stalking you at this very minute.

What I do know is that Frog is the one responsible for the dissention, because it's very obvious that FROG can not accept controverting opinions, and acts out at the very suggestion someone MIGHT disagree.

You mean like you just demonstrated throughtout your infantile rant? Got it. Brilliant, as ever, James. Brilliant logic, as ever. Must be why John described you last year as "extremely confrontational". Wait, I'll bet all those "griefing flamers" stalking you here are to blame for that, yeh? Anyway, I guess your natty "Google search" didn't turn up this little gem.... It's a rant on a serious pro-audio forum called "The Womb", by none other than your brother-in-pseudoscientific-arms, Ethan the Whiner. He is seen posting a new thread which he called "Pathetic" (ironic title), in which he Whines long and loud to all of the membership about how "wrong" they all are, for not agreeing with his ridiculously idiotic opinions about audio. Did I mention these are all studio pros and musicians, and a far cry from the high end audiophile crowd? Here's a small slice of that Whiner pie for you to digest:


Quote:
Ethan Whiner wrote: "Go ahead and delete this if that's your best response. Fuck it, you can ban me for all I care. Then you'll be no better than the audiophoole forums that have locked threads and even banned me. Those are the same forums that don't allow the mention of blind testing. Is that what this place has become?"


Post #384 (scroll down just a bit): http://thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=13693&page=20

What's most interesting about it, and the reason I bring it up, is because you would think by "the audiophoole (sp) forums that have banned me" he is referring to his having been banned on Stereophile. But NO. He's not. This bawling rant was posted on Feb. 4, 2010 to The Womb. Ethan was banned on Feb 7th. Which means, in case you're still not getting this, Ethan has been banned from *numerous* audio forums, not just Stereophile. And that he was banned from yet another forum 3 days later, after daring the forum he posted this tirade on, to ban him.

Well, guilty pleasure, I know, but it was nice to share this special moment and have one last laugh about you, James. You know, for ol' times sake. Thanks, for replying with such a classic self-righteous senile James Johnston (reg. tm.) rant. It really lifted my spirits.

sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning

n.b. For those who just haven't had their fill of "Whiner Pie", here's a bit more of that Whinerific rant from The Womb....


Quote:

Ethan Whinered:

Folks,

I admit I'm a bit ticked off that the AES Myths thread was locked. I imagine you'll just delete this, but I need to speak my mind. If this makes some of you even more pissed at me, so be it.

Through all 20 pages of that mess, people tried in vain to refute my statements, failed miserably, then changed the subject trying in vain to find other stuff to fault. I expected better at Womb U. where, presumably, understanding audio facts and science is the goal. Locking a thread is an admission that you can't defend your beliefs, and amounts to censorship. It's also cowardly.

You guys need to suck it up and admit you were wrong. And if you still don't understand why you're wrong, I'll be glad to explain it. Yet again. That's what I'm here for.

Man oh man. I'm certainly not going to miss THAT.

sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning

MJF was recently banned. He obviously feels he doesn't need to honor the ban.

Why do you think I should? That the "ban" wasn't "honorable" to begin with, is my point in posting what I did. There's nothing "honorable" about banning someone on the basis of posting a single, non-confrontational post to a specific member, particularly when there was no specific request not to do so. Or banning a member without giving them any chance to correct their behaviour, as Stephen & John did toward me. Obviously, there's more to this decision than what they're willing to admit. Since it was obvious from the conversation, that people thought I must have been given all kinds of warnings or threatened the lives of the moderators or something like this, I'd say that my not "honoring" this disingenuous ban was absolutely necessary. If you think its unfair that I give my side to the story, after not being given a chance to, well the ban was unfair, so we're even Stephen. Besides, like I said, as a new member, I would have wanted to know that members can be banned without warning or obvious reasons, at any time. The fact that some new members have learned something they didn't know about how things are run here, shows that I was right.

And by the way, there's also nothing "honorable" in forum members talking smack about banned members, in a thread devoted to this no less, with the help of the moderator no less, when that member does not have the right of reply. Many audio forums have a policy that forbids this sort of thing. Not Stereophile, obviously.

Hopefully the moderators will soon put him out of his misery before he spreads too many warts

You must be entertained, you keep coming back to this thread? That makes two of us. Know that you can't ban "people", you can only ban IP's. I'm enjoying Japan (hence the name, see?). They didn't ban Japan (yet!). Which is another point, that even in banning IP's, there's a certain drawback, as when you cut off well-used IP's, you can often end up banning a lot more people than you thought you were. But don't worry, I'm only here for the moment. Tomorrow, you'll forget I was. Although I could open up another account at any time if I wanted to, and not sign my name to the end of my posts, I have no plans of doing so. Just don't talk to me about "honoring" a ban that was obviously not done honorably to begin with.

I don't have a problem with any ban, my own included, if I know its done fairly. But because of the way this was done (suddenly, without notice or any chance to correct the problem that even DUP was given 3 times), and the way the moderation in general has always been totally based on his personal feelings toward someone or the day of the week, I think I've lost about as much respect for John Atkinson as I'm going to. Maybe he can't help himself, it's just the "subjectivist" in him....

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: On banning


Quote:

Quote:
Who's mjf...I was responding to Steven Abe .

MJF = Michigan J Frog = Steven Abe.

MJF was recently banned. He obviously feels he doesn't need to honor the ban.

Apparently not.


Quote:
Hopefully the moderators will soon put him out of his misery before he spreads too many warts

I am sure Stephen will take the appropriate action when he is back in the office this morning.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

sabe
sabe's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 18 2010 - 12:34pm
Re: On banning

John, I sent you two proposals, including a temporary ban, and a condition that neither me nor Ethan could mention the other again. Either of those would have resolved whatever problems you supposedly had with my posts. You didn't even send a reply to either, if only to have the courtesy to say they weren't acceptable (which I would have accepted). Where's the "honor" on your side? Instigating a lifetime ban on a member of three years standing with hundreds of productive posts, without any warning, any obvious reason, or any chance to correct their behaviour, that's "honorable" now? When you give someone like "DUP" the chance to be banned three times, before making it permanent?

On top of which, you allow all other members to misstate the record on the facts of this decision to ban me for life, without even right of reply. You know, the fact that you did finally ban Ethan, doesn't mean that you didn't give him much more consideration than you would have myself, or other members you did not have a personal or business relationship with. Favoritism is your right, as it's your site. I just wish you and Stephen wouldn't hide the fact that you moderate the forum in such a way, and pretend every one is treated equally, when many of us have witnessed this not being the case. There's nothing honorable about that.


Quote:
I am sure Stephen will take the appropriate action when he is back in the office this morning.

Well I hope he comes quick, because this a big emergency. If I flap my gums any more about this whole biased moderation thing, why I could start a revolt that would bring the whole system crashing down. You know, it must be a sweet job, being paid to ban and re-ban people all day. How do I get a job like that? Obviously, as I have showed, the forum desperately needs another moderator! I'm pretty good around a computer, John. I think I can handle the job!

Grosse Fatigue
Grosse Fatigue's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 22 2007 - 7:04pm
Re: On banning

Not looking to take a stray bullet here
but maybe it is helpless

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: On banning


Quote:
John, Stephen,

It is, frankly, time to revolk the ban against Ethan and apologize to him, even if you choose, finally, to endorse the ban you have stated against the individual behind "Michigan J. Frog". It is not Ethan's fault that "frog" is a greifing flamer who stalks Ethan and others, it is "Frog"'s fault.

And, now, Stephen, John, you've apparently allowed the malfeasant back, while banning the much more responsible individual who RUNS AN AUDIO BUSINESS that you may be hurting with this ban???? Really? That's how it looks to me.

This is very, very wrong. I should not be reading "frog"'s dribble under some other (I will presume it's also a "nom du maris" since I get no hits on the name plus audio) nic. You BANNED s/he/it, WHY IS IT BACK?

Restore Ethan, do what you will with Frog, since it appears it's already back. That's what I would think is remotely equitable.

One owns a business. I can't find the other one. One is in the business of helping people make their rooms sound a lot better. I have no idea what the other one does, and google doesn't seem to know either.

What I do know is that Frog is the one responsible for the dissention, because it's very obvious that FROG can not accept controverting opinions, and acts out at the very suggestion someone MIGHT disagree.

Sincerely, jj


We didn't allow Michigan J. Frog back in. He created a new account under a different IP and different display name (Steven Abe). The fact that Michigan J. Frog/Steven Abe would do this only strengthens my feeling that banning him was the right thing to do. I have now banned the new IP.

I see no reason to apologize to Ethan Winer, and I have no plans to revoke his ban. He proved that he could not follow forum rules and he showed that he would continue to be a major distraction, with negative qualities far outweighing any positives. I'm sorry you'll miss his participation here. For the forum as a whole, I think we made the right choice in banning Ethan Winer.

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: On banning

In case anyone is concerned or interested:

Posting as "Steven Abe," former forum member Michigan J. Frog made the comment that our forum members are subject to banning at any time, without warning. This is not true. Members will not be banned at any time without warning. Michigan J. Frog was given fair warning, and he chose to ignore it.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On banning


Quote:

MJF = Michigan J Frog = Steven Abe.

MJF was recently banned. He obviously feels he doesn't need to honor the ban.

Apparently not.

He apparently not doesn't need to honor the ban?

"Apparently not," or "apparently?"

Do you journalist types keep a Strunk and White handy? Now I'm perplexed!

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: On banning

"If I flap my gums any more about this whole biased moderation thing, why I could start a revolt that would bring the whole system crashing down."

Doubt that. Just more conspiracy theory there dude. The system is fine when you play by the extremely flexible rules.

tom collins
tom collins's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: Apr 3 2007 - 11:54am
Re: On banning

oh, i thought michael j fremer was banned. my mistake

Grosse Fatigue
Grosse Fatigue's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 22 2007 - 7:04pm
Re: On banning

At last something funny
albeit involuntary

------------
I am an anarchist with a small pension and a castle in the Loire Vallee

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: On banning

I'm confused now. Who got banned?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On banning


Quote:
I'm confused now. Who got banned?

You did, now quit violating the ban.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: On banning


Quote:
I'm confused now. Who got banned?

Obama

thanks, Stephen for taking quick action! I enjoyed Ethan's contributions too, but they were not worth all the internet dick contests we had to wade through in order to uncover them. You mod types did the right thing.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: On banning


Quote:
At last something funny
albeit involuntary

------------
I am an anarchist with a small pension and castle in the Loire Vallee

Froggie, you are always funny, m'dear..involuntarily.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
I see no reason to apologize to Ethan Winer, and I have no plans to revoke his ban.

I would submit that the continued malice shown by "Michigan J. Frog" is solid evidence of the ridiculous, thoroughly dishonest harrassment Ethan (and others, including me) has suffered from an obviously malificient griefer who hides behind pseudonyms, uses proxies to evade bans, and deliberately, intentionally tries to stir up trouble. The sheer, obvious intent to mislead s/he/it shows in its reply to me is demonstrative of the way that s/he/it twists and turns presumed facts into obvious libels, libels that s/he/it flatulates at anyone with a whit of scientific opinion from behind its screen of anonymity.

I repeat my call for you to reinstate Ethan. I think you owe him an apology for even allowing the likes of "Frog" to spew so much hatred at a whole range of folks, Ethan included.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On banning

J_J, you should threaten to boycott the forums if Ethan is not reinstated, post haste.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
J_J, you should threaten to boycott the forums if Ethan is not reinstated, post haste.

I'm sure that would make you happy, eh?

It would certainly make the fantasy types, frauds, and luddites happy. Is that the definition of "common good"?

David_L
David_L's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Oct 28 2009 - 8:23am
Re: On banning


Quote:

Quote:
I see no reason to apologize to Ethan Winer, and I have no plans to revoke his ban.

I would submit that the continued malice shown by "Michigan J. Frog" is solid evidence of the ridiculous, thoroughly dishonest harrassment Ethan (and others, including me) has suffered from an obviously malificient griefer who hides behind pseudonyms, uses proxies to evade bans, and deliberately, intentionally tries to stir up trouble. The sheer, obvious intent to mislead s/he/it shows in its reply to me is demonstrative of the way that s/he/it twists and turns presumed facts into obvious libels, libels that s/he/it flatulates at anyone with a whit of scientific opinion from behind its screen of anonymity.

I repeat my call for you to reinstate Ethan. I think you owe him an apology for even allowing the likes of "Frog" to spew so much hatred at a whole range of folks, Ethan included.

Froggie really had it in for anyone he thought was a a troll which apparently includes ANYONE that didn't agree with him. So I don't post much and when I do he attacked me and others. Weird guy I only post when I have something worth saying but I do read what's going on in here.I have an idea with all his ranting about Ethan "attacking" his "rival" at Synergistics that Froggie also posts under other names trying to cause trouble where ever he goes. Conspiracies are everywhere according to him.

Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 8 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
Re: On banning

Please dont use the term froggie !!!

It can be applied to numerous people who are so hard to seperate as it is !!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On banning


Quote:

Quote:
J_J, you should threaten to boycott the forums if Ethan is not reinstated, post haste.

I'm sure that would make you happy, eh?

It would certainly make the fantasy types, frauds, and luddites happy. Is that the definition of "common good"?

Please take that stick out of your butt, my good man.

Maybe I should have said "Threaten to hold your breath until Ethan is reisntated."

Just joking about the situation, not trying to deny any of us swine your pearls of truth, amigo.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading