You are here

Log in or register to post comments
tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: On banning

j_j I enjoy your posts and think you make a positive contribution to this forum. I sympathize with your view on Ethan and I wish he were back.

However, he did refuse at times to put his professional affiliation in his sig. as stipulated in the rules.
It is my understanding that is the reason for his ban.

If that is the main reason I wish he had complied.
I will miss his POV.

Of course, I miss DUP too so I am really weird.

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

"Froggie"

Let me introduced myself,
like Mick Jagger would say

I am Froggie Poo
the only real froggie on this forum

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

sometimes hard work pays off

I was offered by Alan Gouger the gold digger to moderate the avs audio forum after he mistakenly took me for MF

something that none of you could ever achieve

Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
Re: On banning

I believe you said you had lived in London, now your in Chicago, originally a froggie

Does that now make you septic froggie !!!

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

It made me less stiff than a Welsh
and an anarchist

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:

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

Well, you know, I've seen the same old BS time and time again, a couple of griefers pick somebody out and get them banned.

That's what happened here, and I have no idea why "owner, Real Traps" is not a business affiliation.

This site owes Ethan a huge apology in my opinion. Since most of the people here don't give a damn what I have to say, and have made it clear, well, why should I waste my time if the truth is unwelcome? It's not you, wise-*** that you are, mind you.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
It made me less stiff than a Welsh
and an anarchist

So why am I feeling so gimpy right about now, I wonder?

Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
Re: On banning

We Welsh are Stiff, ask any sheep you find

Glotz
Glotz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Nov 20 2008 - 9:30am
Re: On banning

Good move. And thanks. Anybody that wants to hijack this for the sake of his own personal amusement should be banned.

Glotz
Glotz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: Nov 20 2008 - 9:30am
Re: On banning


Quote:
This site owes Ethan a huge apology in my opinion. Since most of the people here don't give a damn what I have to say, and have made it clear, well, why should I waste my time if the truth is unwelcome? It's not you, wise-*** that you are, mind you.

It's about the language and the way some one gets 'even'. Keeping it too the argument serves to diffuse b.s. and haters at the same time. It also allows everyone to remind themselves of the threads initial importance, and automatically show 'tangents' as just that, off-point (or simple insults).

One person's truth is another's inflammatory remark. If the magazine sought to ban someone, the banned party clearly did not serve the majority of readers and posters. I doubt that the staff would act passionately in this type of circumstance. I just don't believe otherwise.

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

you impaired animals

you can't sweet talk a lady like a froggie

mon petit lapin cheri
je t'aime je t'aime
tu es tres belle
tu es la perle de ma vie
embrasses moi
donnes moi la main
viens danser avec moi
je suis fou de toi
oui oui

Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
Re: On banning

True

But when it comes to the nitty gritty of actually F**King someone we are far better than the froggies who are either talking about about or smoking a camal congratulating themselves on their 3 minutes !!!

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 48 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: On banning


Quote:

Well, you know, I've seen the same old BS time and time again, a couple of griefers pick somebody out and get them banned.

This site owes Ethan a huge apology in my opinion. Since most of the people here don't give a damn what I have to say, and have made it clear, well, why should I waste my time if the truth is unwelcome?

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 40 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: On banning

My own thoughts on the subject of Ethan's participation on the Stereophile Forum took a completely different path to MJ Frog's thoughts on the subject. MJ Frog (and others I might add) railed against the unbelievable leeway with which Ethan's 'postings' were allowed to continue. I, however, went down a quite disturbing thought path because I was having a niggling thought that Ethan's continued participation was being deliberately allowed !! Allowed, even in the face of the following various 'postings' by Ethan who, apparently, would rubbish competitors and even imply Fraud !!

Examples :-

>>> "From Ethan Winer :-

I sent this letter in November 2006 to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA):

Quote:
Hi,

I'm working on an article for a major audio magazine about fraud in marketing for audio products. I noticed you gave an award to the Furutech CD "demagnetizer" and I'm wondering on what basis you determined this is an award-winning product. As best I can tell this device is pure snake oil with no basis in science. So please forgive such a direct and possibly rude sounding question, but did they pay you for this award? If not, is there a way you could put me in touch with one of the judges or the person in charge who decided this product is worthy of an award?

Thanks.
Ethan Winer

Needless to say they never even gave me the courtesy of a reply.
--Ethan " <<<

>>> "Likewise for demagnetizing CDs and LP records, the subject of this thread. Unless the heads of Furutech are idiots, which I doubt, all that's left is dishonesty. <<<

Question to Ethan :-
>>> "Ethan, since you're in the room treatment business, I assume you've made comparisons to other products from your competitors. Have you tried either the Shakti or Harmonix devices?"

To which Ethan replied :-
"I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear me say that I consider all of the products sold by both of these companies to be total bullshit with no foundation in science or anything else beyond wishful thinking." <<<

***************

My silent, worrying thoughts, were regarding your moderating (or non moderating !!) of Ethan's 'postings'. Even though my thoughts were silent, I will sincerely apologise to you, Stephen, for having them in the first place. I mention my thoughts and fears publicly because I think I might not have been the only one having such disturbing thoughts !!!

Seeing Ethan 'rubbishing' competitors products and even those people's very integrity, I had the awful feeling that Ethan was being ALLOWED to say those things because they were what YOU also thought, Stephen, but could not voice such - so you allowed Ethan to voice those thoughts for you. You see, Stephen, just how lax moderating of a site can lead to some people getting (thinking) the 'wrong end of the stick' !!!

Your quote Stephen :-
>>> "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." <<<

Sorry, Stephen, but so simply referring to Ethan's 'rubbishing' of competitors as "negative qualities" and that he "could not follow forum rules" is far TOO mild !!

And for such as tomjtx to suggest that the reason why Ethan was banned was because
>>> "he did not put his professional affiliation in his signature. It is my understanding that this is the reason for his ban" <<<
And for j j to re-inforce that belief in an attempt to make it a simplistic reason for Ethan's banning is what I call "being economical with the truth" !!!

We all have the luxury of freedom of speech but it comes with responsibility.

Stephen's statement to manufacturers is clear enough :-

>>> "The Stereophile forum is not to be used by manufacturers as a pulpit to promote their products or discredit the products of others.

Manufacturers should reveal themselves as manufacturers with every post made

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

seducing a woman is like clearing of mines
you don't put your hand in her ass right away

you have to walk around her like a peacock
she has to be lavished with bons mots and friendly gesture
only after she laugh she is ready for more

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On banning


Quote:
seducing a woman is like clearing of mines
you don't put your hand in her ass right away

you turn around her like a peacock
she has to be lavished with bons mots and friendly gesture
only after she laugh she is ready for more

OK, when we drift to 'fisting,' that should be a sign of the end-times for a thread.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
And for j j to re-inforce that belief in an attempt to make it a simplistic reason for Ethan's banning is what I call "being economical with the truth" !!!

The statemetn quoted above is directly defamatory, and I require its retraction.

There was a huge outcry when Ethan used the word "fraud". I won't enter into the question of its validity, because I don't have all the necessary information. I will simply point out that May gets to call me a liar with, apparently, complete impugnity.

Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
Re: On banning

It seems appropriate for this thread somehow !!

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

oh unromantic

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On banning


Quote:

Quote:
And for j j to re-inforce that belief in an attempt to make it a simplistic reason for Ethan's banning is what I call "being economical with the truth" !!!

The statemetn quoted above is directly defamatory, and I require its retraction.

There was a huge outcry when Ethan used the word "fraud". I won't enter into the question of its validity, because I don't have all the necessary information. I will simply point out that May gets to call me a liar with, apparently, complete impugnity.

Just think of this thread as a Festivus celebration.

We are currently up to the "airing of grievances."

We've already had plenty of the labeling of easily explainable events as "Festivus Miracles" throughout the forums.

Not sure how, on the internet, we will be able to participate in demonstrating "Feats of Strength."

Maybe we could call them "Feats of Power" and we'll see if you get your retraction from May or accomplish Ethan's reinstatement!

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
We've already had plenty of the labeling of easily explainable events as "Festivus Miracles" throughout the forums.

Bachman-Turner Overdrive comes to mind.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 40 min ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: On banning

>>> "There was a huge outcry when Ethan used the word "fraud". I won't enter into the question of its validity, because I don't have all the necessary information. I will simply point out that May gets to call me a liar with, apparently, complete impugnity." <<<

I have not called you a liar, I have said that you have been 'selective' in particularly choosing
to describe Ethan's banning as being because of 'not giving his full business affiliation'. And that others have been responsible for Ethan's banning !! Your own words, j j, saying "That's what happened here - a couple of griefers pick somebody out and get them banned"

Only NOW have you acknowledged that Ethan (might have !!!!) implied Fraud !!

Your own quote j j :-
>>> "Well, you know, I've seen the same old BS time and time again, a couple of griefers pick somebody out and get them banned.

That's what happened here, and I have no idea why "owner, Real Traps" is not a business affiliation." <<<

MY interpretation of "being economical with the truth" does not imply that someone is 'lying' - it means that someone is picking and choosing some points and ignoring other points !! Some truths are included, other truths are excluded !! That is what 'being economical' means !!! It DOES NOT mean lying !!! For me to have accused you of lying I would have had to have accused you of telling untruths. I did not !! I said you were 'selective' in which truths you recounted.

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: On banning


Quote:

I have not called you a liar,

Your insinuation is clear. That is all.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: On banning


Quote:

Quote:
seducing a woman is like clearing of mines
you don't put your hand in her ass right away

you turn around her like a peacock
she has to be lavished with bons mots and friendly gesture
only after she laugh she is ready for more

OK, when we drift to 'fisting,' that should be a sign of the end-times for a thread.

I would have been spared a smack on the head if he told me this 40 years ago....

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

Here they pick you up
not the other way around
ride you like an animal
they'll smack your balls if you don't perform
you hear that Freako
men look 10 years older than in Europe
Women 10 years younger

I always thought that I would marry an american
I liked them better in many ways than europeans
I liked their independance
It is easy to get a baby with them
but they are just impossible to live with
oh and they have impossible taste

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: On banning

You just need to toughen up.

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: On banning

What's your point? Living with ANY woman is hard...

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

the future is not getting married
better: live in separate houses like Jack

like they do in France now
marriage screws up everything

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: On banning

I agree 100%

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: On banning

One was five and one was six
They rode on threads and threw their bricks
One was right, the other wrong
They fought like children on the lawn

Ban ban, he shot them down
Ban ban, they hit the ground
Ban ban, that awful sound
Ban ban, Mejias shot them down.

Seasons came and others tried
To break the rules and say "he lied!"
He would always cut them slack,
Until fed up, his whip would crack.

Ban ban, he shot them down
Ban ban, they hit the ground
Ban ban, that awful sound
Ban ban, Mejias shot them down.

At last they're gone, we all know why
And 'til this day, you hear them cry
"It wasn't fair, please let me back!"
And then the righteous thunder whack.

Ban ban, he shot them down
Ban ban, they hit the ground
Ban ban, that awful sound
Ban ban, Mejias shot them down...

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

From Finland all the way down to Malta
We can now roam freely in europe
and renew our blood line at last
I know I'd stay away from Greece
because it would be like going backward
and bringing back old genes and deseases
but I may swing by Denmark
les petites danoises sont tres jolie

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: On banning

Pls keep your genes away from my country!

Freako
Freako's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Jan 17 2010 - 8:29am
Re: On banning

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 48 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: On caning


Quote:

Quote:
We've already had plenty of the labeling of easily explainable events as "Festivus Miracles" throughout the forums.

Bachman-Turner Overdrive comes to mind.

You're probably referring to You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet. See the irony?

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

you wanted to get in
we are just one big happy familly now

----------------
Unemployment is a consequence of workers choosing not to work
G W

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On caning


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
We've already had plenty of the labeling of easily explainable events as "Festivus Miracles" throughout the forums.

Bachman-Turner Overdrive comes to mind.

You're probably referring to You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet. See the irony?

Maybe he meant there were some people who were "Takin' Care of Business."

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 48 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: On caning


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
We've already had plenty of the labeling of easily explainable events as "Festivus Miracles" throughout the forums.

Bachman-Turner Overdrive comes to mind.

You're probably referring to You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet. See the irony?

Maybe he meant there were some people who were "Takin' Care of Business."

Really? I don't get it.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: On caning


Quote:
Really? I don't get it.

Well, that's a given.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 48 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: On caning


Quote:

Quote:
Really? I don't get it.

Well, that's a given.

Hey, no fair! Two against one.

BruceMcCulloch
BruceMcCulloch's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 22 2010 - 2:10pm
Re: On banning

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.

You see, this is what I mean by you being "disingenuous", Stephen. You of course make no reference to what that "fair warning" was exactly. Because as I have already stated, during my entire tenure over three years, you never once PM'ed or emailed me to give me a "fair warning", let alone any warning, about my responses to Ethan, or my participation in general. I would not and could not have ignored that. So the only thing you could be referring to that could come close to being called "a warning" about my participation, is your comment at the end of the Teo thread you closed. Everyone can go to that thread and see what constitutes a "fair warning" to you and John, for a permanent lifetime ban of a three-year long term member without any chance of appeal. Let your "fair warning" speak for itself. Your comment shows it was in fact not even a warning to me specifically, if it could be called a "warning" at all.

When you make the decision to ban a member who has been one for years and contributed hundreds of productive posts, you should not make it frivolously, you should not make it lightly. To be "fair", you should give him the chance to correct his behaviour. Dropping a single "hint" at the end of a closing comment in a thread is not "fair" chance. Not by a long shot. I think it would be more accurate to describe it as an "unfair warning", as it was no more than a vague and general remark made about me, Ethan and Steve, regarding how you and John are "sensitive" to the interactions between us. An understandable reference to what occurred late last year with Ethan's flame war against Synergistic (and FYI, us three were hardly the only participants involved in that). Nowhere in your remarks did you take responsibility for the migraines that gave the two of you, by admitting you allowed Ethan to stomp all over the Manufacturer's rule, which allowed the flame war to be created in the first place. This vague remark about a "sensitivity" was followed by a clear remark about how "you have no plans of banning anyone"?!

As I wrote to John, if your decision was at all fair and not a prejudicial one, you would have at least considered my proposal whereby Ethan and I agree not to mention each other again. Walla, problem solved. If not, well then you could at least say with honesty, that you did attempt to carefully consider the decision. But there is no comment from either of you on why you wouldn't consider my two proposals, is there? Then how can you both say you have had what you described as a 'careful and thoughtful debate' on the decision to ban us, when you don't even include us in that debate?? That's why I say it looks like you already decided to ban me, just as soon as I showed everyone how you openly allowed Ethan to continue to violate the rules you expected everyone else to abide by.

Moreover, your "sensitivity" comment that I was supposed to understand as my one and only warning prior to a lifetime ban, did not specify that it meant "do not ever post anything to Ethan ever again or you will be banned for life". You certainly gave SAS the courtesy of emailing him to specifically tell him to stop saying anything to or about Ethan. That you could at least call a "fair warning". But you never saw fit to offer me that courtesy. And then you even complain about the fact I would come back to try to set the record straight about how unfairly you and John conducted the process on your decision to ban me? Why you even gave a troll like DUP the courtesy of banning him 3 times before making it permanent. How telling is that?

But what really makes your notice to ban such an "unfair warning", is that I was only "made aware" of your closing comment on the Teo thread after I posted a reply to Ethan in another thread that you say triggered the decision to ban. That's why no such warning will ever be "fair" if the participant is not given a fair chance to read it, before you decide to ban him for life without appeal. Besides which, my reply to Ethan was hardly "an attempt to start a flame war", and was unlikely to become one. It was merely an attempt to ask him to debate KBK on cables. A response to the same sort of challenge to SAS that Ethan made, which you nevertheless did not consider an attempt at a flame war. Yet you deleted my post, left his in place, and also left his post calling Ted a fraud and incompetent once again, and did not even condemn it. Which means you don't consider Ethan discrediting an industry member to be an "attempt at another flame war", but you do consider my suggestion that he debate KBK such? That too is telling.

I will leave for the record the relevant part of the email you sent me, that refers to that general comment you made at the close of the Teo thread. This way people have all the information necessary to make up their mind about how "fair" your warning to ban was, this time. Unless you're planning to "make stuff up", there is no other "warning" you gave me about my behaviour, publicly or privately. Certainly none that would indicate you were considering a lifetime ban without appeal, 24 hours after saying you weren't planning to ban anyone. Excerpted from your email to me of Feb. 12th, as your reason for permanent banishment: Stephen Mejias: "You were made aware that your participation in our forum was under intense scrutiny, yet you nevertheless decided to attempt another flame war with Ethan. "

I reiterate: a hint at the end of a thread that I may or may not read, is certainly not the "fair warning" all other members here have received regarding their participation, and the decision on a lifetime ban. That is precisely why I stated that the decision in my case was made unfairly, and that members can now be banned without a proper prior warning. There is nothing I have said that can not be easily verified. So if you have any more comments to add about your decision, fine, but please do not misrepresent me or your actions, or speak in deliberately vague and evasive terms. I don't want to have to come back here just to keep you honest! That could turn out to be a full time job.

- Michigan

p.s. If you can not refrain from misrepresenting the facts about how you did not ever notify me in private that you and John were considering a lifetime ban without appeal, in order to give me a chance to correct the problem, then just close this thread. That way neither of us will have a reason to play cat and mouse with the other. Like I said before, you should never have let this run to begin with. But then, you never did have a problem with someone attacking me, did you? Not even when David L., JJ, Ethan etc. all came marching into my Tweak forum thread with the sole purpose of attacking me without provocation, and disrupting my thread without any intention of sticking to the subject of my post. I can not even sit here and conceive of the very idea that Ethan would have been banned on the spot for life without appeal, for writing a post to me asking me to debate someone. Not at any time, no matter what closing comments you made at the end of a thread.

p.p.s. Stephen Mejias wrote: I see no reason to apologize to Ethan Winer, and I have no plans to revoke his ban.

....Of course, you first told me you have "no plans to ban Ethan Winer", and 24 hours later you banned him. So uh, call me a "skeptic", but I'm having a hard time believing you when you say these things....

BruceMcCulloch
BruceMcCulloch's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 22 2010 - 2:10pm
Re: On banning

I did suggest there was a very clear and deliberate "relaxing of the rules" where Ethan was concerned, that was definitely not extended to either me or others here. I even wrote to Ethan in the Teo thread "What I can't understand is, why are you constantly being given full freedom to violate this rule, while all other manufacturers here must adhere to it?". Of course, that was a bit of posturing on my part. I already knew that favoritism was the answer to that question, as I asked this last year. And the response I got from JA was that Ethan plays a mean cello. Of course I considered the fact that Ethan and Stereophile have a working business relationship, and that could have played into the reasons for why he was given so much more consideration than the rest of us. But in the end, I think Ethan needs Stereophile a lot more than Stereophile needs Ethan.

There was no posturing however, in my making an issue of Ethan's transgression of the Manufacturer's rule. I always felt strongly about that. There is no way on earth you can discuss an audio product, controversial or otherwise, starting off by calling it "fraud". For the only way the 'conversation' can go from there is down. So long before his war against Synergistic, I had posted a polite request in general, asking people to refrain from flippantly accusing manufacturers of fraud, as that is not a charge to make lightly. Plus, it violates the meaning of the term when it actually is used against manufacturers for legitimate reasons. (Needless to say, not being able to hear, prove or understand how an audio tweak works is not a legitimate reason to accuse its manufacturer of fraud). Of course, Ethan had been discrediting manufacturers on Stereophile, for as long as he's been here; about 5 years. As far as I can tell, the "Manufacturer's rule" popped up mid last year, specifically because of all the flame wars he sparked from his arrogant and unsupported accusations of fraudulence. Yet he was allowed to violate it over and over and over again (as well as the affiliation rule, numerous private agreements, and basically everything).

I felt that allowing him to have done that so blatantly, with Synergistics last year, really hurt the morale of the forum's members (at least those of us who were -not- part of Ethan's acolytes). Because most of us can't play the cello, did not invite JA over for supper, and do not advertise in or have had anything reviewed by Stereophile. Most of the "moderation" is done in email, so the membership in general is never made aware of what is going on behind the scenes. As such, they may not know about unfairness within the agreements that have been made by the moderation between members in private. Such as where one party is expected to adhere to it, while the other is freely allowed to violate it. Or the fact that the complaints of some members against others are given high regard, while those against them are regularly ignored. Some of this became part of my own experiences, and some of it I learned through conversations with other members. Who were treated even more unfairly than I was. It was from all this that I started to get a clear picture of how the forum was being moderated, and why there were never any rules posted.

So when I recently saw Ethan being allowed to go at it again in the Teo cable thread with these wrongful accusations of "fraud" against SR (who was not even remotely related to the subject of the thread), I had had enough. By now I was filled with my own biases toward Stephen and John, for their unneveness in the way they apply the rules differently to different members. I first considered expressing my thoughts on this to Stephen in private. Particularly how I felt about the result of what happened after Stephen and John allowed Ethan to get away with his defamation campaign last year, and how they are undermining the stability of the forum by not holding Ethan to the industry member rules he is "supposed" to comply with. I didn't because Stephen made it clear he didn't want to know from me, after I complained about the fact that JA's friend "JJ" was being allowed to violate an agreement (I thought...) we had between us. Which I was nonetheless still expected to respect. All Stephen wanted to know about, was whether I was an industry member or not (because Ethan was bothering him and John in email, complaining that I was, and that something should be done about it. Even though Winer had no more evidence about that than any other claim he makes). So that was the first and last time I complained to the moderation about something, as I vowed never to email Stephen again. Instead, I pulled no punches in publicly expressing my disappointment in the biased moderation going on here.

This time I just flat out called for Ethan's banishment, or failing that, a proper explanation / discussion of why Ethan was again being allowed to violate both the Manufacturer's rule, and as I showed, the affiliation rule that John clearly spelled out for him last year (where Ethan was still refusing to sign his title and full name, as John asked). I was told by Stephen in that thread that there was nothing wrong with what Ethan was doing, and he assured everyone that there were no plans to ban anyone. 24 hours later we both were. In his response to me, Stephen sidestepped the issue of John's request to Ethan re: his affiliation last year, and completely avoided addressing my concern about Ethan violating the industry member rule. Then Stephen ignored this complaint again when two other industry members posted to let him know that he was avoiding that important issue. I knew it was because he could not address it. At least not without further embarassment to both him and JA, because there really is no way to explain why Ethan has been given -so- very many chances to abide by the few rules posted, without drawing attention to the fact that their mode of moderation is a thoroughly biased one.

The reasoning I was given for a lifetime ban without appeal, at this particular time after three years, was, inevitably, vague. I was told in this thread I was given "fair warning", but not what that was. Since it never occurred in email, it could only be a reference to a comment at the end of the Teo thread, where Stephen said they were 'sensitive' to the friction between me, Ethan and SAS. That comment was deemed my "fair warning", and the fact that I merely posted something to Ethan (a request that he challenge KBK to a cable debate, in response to his challenge for Steve to do so), was deemed good enough reason to impose a lifetime ban without any prior warning in PM or email. I sent an email to both of them which stated I had not even read that post before posting something to Ethan, let alone understood the comment as meaning "Do not post anything to Ethan". I also proposed an agreement wherein we couldn't mention the other as a solution to the problem. But I got no response. Which made it clear that the decision to ban me without warning in email or any chance to appeal the decision, was made right as soon as Stephen read my request to ban Ethan, and criticisms of his unfair moderation. But to their credit, they did finally follow through on my request, and reversed their decision of 24 hours earlier, to not ban Ethan! "So kudos to you, Stephen and John, for finally banning Ethan, as you should have a long time ago! My only complaint is you were a little too ban-happy!"

- MJF

BruceMcCulloch
BruceMcCulloch's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 22 2010 - 2:10pm
Re: On banning

I was there at the debates in Montreal when the Furutech, and other such products were being discussed at the Stereophile debate in 2009. The impression I was left with (of all members on the panel), was that they didn't care too much for "tweak products". If I recall, Stephen said it's not something he'd want to fiddle with before playing a record, even if it did work to improve his sound. John admitted that his initial reaction to learning he had just heard another "controversial audio product" (read: one that's not supposed to work), was what you could call a "mixed" one. As in "Oh, it's surprising that I would hear a difference" mixed with "Oh God, not another crazy sounding product there is no good explanation for! I'm gonna get roasted for saying this!". As usual, John was reticent about saying anything in public in favour of (another) controversial tweak, for fear of how that would damage his credibility, and that of his magazine. Already the biggest target for attack by all the anti-high enders and unemployed magicians out there.

I remember that letter of Ethan's to the CES about the Furutech, as I remember listening to the product at the Montreal show. Where both I and my partner (and others at the session) had no problem hearing all the differences produced by demagnetizing the LP. And thinking afterward how arrogant this man is, and how abusive he really is. What kind of a mind takes the trouble to write a letter to the CES questioning their integrity, and their approval of a product he is certain is "fraudulent", when he knows nothing about it, nothing about how it works, and has never even seen it, let alone tested it subjectively or objectively? I would think that the owner of an audio company would have more of a life than that. When one manufacturer goes to those kind of lengths to attack another manufacturer, particularly if it's a competing manufacturer, I think it is always more telling of themselves than whom they are attacking.

Which is why I started to wonder if the fact that at the time, Furutech had started putting to market traditional acoustic products that were very similar to Ethan's, had anything to do with Ethan's campaign against this one product. We learned during the big flame war here re: the Furutech, Ethan started out declaring that the whole concept of magnetizing vinyl was ridiculous and impossible. Until he was schooled on carbon black and petroleum engineering. It was clear to Stereophile readers that Ethan was not a petroleum engineer (but not as clear to the audience at his AES talk, where he again attacked the Furutech and other products he never tested and knew nothing about). This is of course the same mistake that Ethan's friend JJ, and so many like-minded audio skeptics who profess to be knowledgeable about audio, make. Thinking that having one audio-related expertise (ie. room acoustics or digital coding), makes you an expert on everything under the audio-related sun. Has Ethan learned from that? Is there enough doubt now that he will at least stop calling the deMag "fraud"? Of course not. Last I checked, he's still making the same assertions.

Last Oct., Ethan wrote this to JA on the Stereophile blog "My proof that the Furutech demag is BS, besides the common sense obvious, is I heard no difference in the two clips you mailed me. If the effect was so obvious you heard it from another room, then I would have heard at least a small difference.". Which brings up the time he ran around the entire forum, thrusting those very clips at me and everyone, demanding that they take his test challenge, to prove that their listening skills were just as bad as his. (Actually, it was to prove what he believed all along, that there was no difference). But he never publicly published the results, because he said he wouldn't if I didn't take him up on his challenge. Which of course I refused, since I knew he couldn't be trusted to conduct a test, particularly one where his rival is involved. I was still challenged by his idea though, so I took his blind test anyway, and emailed my results to another member. Last year, that member emailed his results to Ethan, and Ethan eventually emailed the answers back to him, and he later emailed the results to me. (If anyone's interested, the "AFTER" files are: "B" and "D"). According to those results, I got all 4 guesses correct. Properly identifying not just "B" and "D", but the fact that there were 2 AFTER files (Ethan had refused to even disclose how many after or before files there were).

All of this only helped to confirm to me what I always believed, though they are hardly likely to admit this. Skeptics, by their very nature, have under-developed listening skills. Example: if you're skeptical about cables, and as a result, your experiences with testing cables are limited, then your understanding of what audible differences exist between various cables is going to be equally limited by your experience with them. And your experience with them will naturally be limited by your belief that they don't do much of anything. Which is due to your limited experience with them. So on and so forth, this is the classic dog chasing its own tail. Even if one has considerable experience testing, say speakers, it doesn't necessarily follow they'll "get" cables, or some other tweak. There are different differences to be had, between them. Some audio products are more subtle in their influence than others, but only to the conscious mind. To the subconscious, they may be just as important if not more so, than those producing gross differences. Basically what high end is about.

I've been doing a lot of head-to-head tests of different video converter software lately, unwittingly training myself via that experience, looking for visual differences in the same clip as outputted by different converters. And its the exact same sort of thing. The differences may only be subconsciously perceived in the beginning, and often you're never sure they're there. After a time, even if I still can't identify what those differences are, I can perceive that they are there nevertheless (in cases where one video is superior over another). I also know that even if unperceived on a conscious level, these differences can translate into very real differences in how you respond, emotionally and otherwise, to a movie.

When someone who is limited by their experiences in ie. cables hears a difference anyway, they will often characterize that difference as insignificant, and not worth the bother or expense. Someone else who is a pro at hearing cable differences, might describe them as night and day. Because of his better listening skills, he realizes there's a lot more going on in the sound picture than his counterpart. This of course will then be characterized by the person who doesn't hear such differences or doesn't believe they can be heard, as some form of delusion, and he will remain skeptical about it. So the "debates" and the flames rage on endlessly on audio forums, hampering progress in so many different corners of the audio sphere. We're going on what...? Over 30 years of cable debates in the audio community, and they're still a "controversial product" in some quarters. Yet all of these audio controversies are academic, and utterly pointless. Predicated on the fear that one might be fooling themselves into hearing something that isn't there. I always thought that was the point of having a stereo.

- Michigan

BruceMcCulloch
BruceMcCulloch's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Feb 22 2010 - 2:10pm
Re: On banning


Quote:

Quote:
James "Ya dozen have to call me JJ" Johnson wrote: 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"?

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

Not possible. James was born with that stick up his butt. It's the only thing that's holding the man together. Well, that and his devotion to his religion of "Feigned Outrage". You know you really gotta wonder about the sanity of a guy, when he is spewing so much hatred in the midst of a major meltdown where he's complaining about others spewing so much hatred....


Quote:

Quote:
Michigan wrote: "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."

DBowker wrote:Doubt that. Just more conspiracy theory there dude.

Doug. Please read this as many times as required until something clicks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: On banning

jesus christ, looks like we need a restraining order...

pathetic. truly.

Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 12 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
Re: On banning

Gotta agree with NC

Take a hint dude, your sounding like the drunk late at night asking for more beer before diving home.

At the end of the day its their forum and they can kick anyone out they feel like.

Their a lot of people on here who are fed up with this crap and just want to talk about hifi and music

Alan

zane9
zane9's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 7 2008 - 6:37pm
Re: On banning


Quote:
...Their a lot of people on here who are fed up with this crap and just want to talk about hifi and music

Alan

+1. Thank you. For some of us, this forum is starting to feel like a private club.

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Online
Last seen: 48 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: On banning


Quote:
Gotta agree with NC

Take a hint dude, your sounding like the drunk late at night asking for more beer before diving home.

At the end of the day its their forum and they can kick anyone out they feel like.

Their a lot of people on here who are fed up with this crap and just want to talk about hifi and music

Alan

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

No
anarchy is always interesting

self tough and self educated
leaving in an habitat of delapidated cities or bare dunes
eating with their fingers
lacking social grace and manners

you can tell now that the Michigan frog is an all together different species from the highly civilized, socialized and playful French frog

smejias
smejias's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: Aug 25 2005 - 10:29am
Re: On banning

I'm going to close this thread now, but I'll return to it to make sure I haven't overlooked anything. Thanks for all the comments.

I strongly feel that we made the right decision in banning Ethan Winer and Michigan J. Frog.

Pages

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