You are here

Log in or register to post comments
jdm56
jdm56's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 2:03am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Actually, no. I didn't catch the symbolism. I guess I'm pretty naive, actually. I confess to having no idea what the costumes meant, if anything. To be honest, I didn't pay much attention to them because I thought their "music" sucked.

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Okay. I think this thread is done if we're talking about Village People now.

But seriously, I was going to pitch in w/ my 2 cents, but realized that we're talking about issues that people usually do not give up an inch of ground on. Let's stop battering our heads against walls & move on.

jdm56
jdm56's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 2:03am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Okay. I think this thread is done if we're talking about Village People now.

But seriously, I was going to pitch in w/ my 2 cents, but realized that we're talking about issues that people usually do not give up an inch of ground on. Let's stop battering our heads against walls & move on.

Hey, this is no place for reason and restraint! Besides, do you really think anyone is more apt to concede ground if the subject is, oh let's say...digital vs. analog?

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Besides, do you really think anyone is more apt to concede ground if the subject is, oh let's say...digital vs. analog?


I'd say so. I've seen more flip-flops on digital vs. analog than regarding evolution vs. creationism. Plus, digital vs. analog is SLIGHTLY more pertinent to this forum. Frankly, if we can switch back & forth from Fox News and MSNBC to get most of this kind of argument mash-up.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

JDM, that was sarcasm, BTW. I have heard that idiots have a hard time recognizing sarcasm :-)

Oh, and people that think homosexuality is wrong aren't idiots, they are bigots, well, ignorant bigots.


Quote:

Quote:
Yes, not accepting the theory of evolution makes you an idiot.

I am not name calling, rather I am simply describing your seeming lack of intellect.


Quote:

Quote:
Now you have revealed yourself as an idiot and a bigot, congratulations.

So what does your name calling make you? Not accepting evolution and the big bang makes one an idiot? What an intelligent conclusion!

Wow. What planet are you on where you can call someone an idiot and then deny name-calling in the same post? And with an apparent straight face. Amazing.

So everyone who doesn't "accept" evolution is an idiot, huh? And everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong...well, they're obviously an idiot too. This is rich. And surprising considering how much you liberals prize diversity and tolerance. Many of you seem to be quite a bit less than tolerant yourselves, in light of the fact it is you doing all the name-calling.

jdm56
jdm56's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 2:03am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
JDM, that was sarcasm, BTW. I have heard that idiots have a hard time recognizing sarcasm :-)

Oh, and people that think homosexuality is wrong aren't idiots, they are bigots, well, ignorant bigots.

More name calling, eh? Classy. Maybe you'll start throwing your toys next.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Homosexuality isn't wrong if you're a homosexual. At least a healthy one. Heterosexuality isn't wrong if it disagrees with homosexuality. For everybody in between we have made up metrosexuality. What I find amusing is California Proposition 8. It passed and the homosexuals started burning crosses. Sybmolic of the KKK. I think it is safe to state that anyone that agrees with the KKK are a bunch of faggots. When Mr. Pink complained about his name and asked why he was told it was because he was a faggot. But that doesn't make it so. So, the only thing I can figure out is that the KKK in relation to homosexuals burning crosses in California is the reemergence of the Taliban and the failed policies of the Bush Adminstration.

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Elk,

Thanks for the civil tone you consistently model in your posts.

What do you think of the article I have linked below? It is a Catholic viewpoint of the possible civil consequences churches might be subjected to with state-sanctioned gay marriage.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=5568

BTW, I voted against Prop. 8 in CA, despite the fact my recent presidential/vice pres'l. choices are on record against gay marriage.

Actually, despite ads from the Prop. 8 proponents to the contrary, Obama opposed and continues to oppose Prop. 8. He does not support gay marriage as a federal right, but is against denying any group of people in CA rights that have been affirmed by the CA state constitution.

I did read the Catholic statement you link to. Note this contradiction in the argument:
Paragraph 3: "It began with the persecution of Catholic Charities in Boston. The archdiocese eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt."

Then, toward the end of the article,
"Perhaps some people think it is okay to shut down Catholic adoption agencies, because the Catholics have it coming to them: The Church's enemies are many. Perhaps some people don't care for Methodists, and don't care whether they lose their tax-exempt status."

This is not the conclusion I draw from the article. It seems that the Adoption Agency chose to shut itself down rather than provide services to same-gender couples. That is a choice they made rather than conform with the law. They were not being persecuted; rather, they tended to see conforming with the law as an act of persecution. There is a difference, and it is not subtle.

It is statements such as these that lead me to distrust the author. Note as well that she works for the right-wing Hoover Institution. What I get most from this article are the tactics of fear.

Love is letting go of fear. That's where it's at.

jason

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I have a solution to the whole gay marriage thing.

From what I understand, even the right wing nuts are ok with "civil unions", the contracts which provide the same rights as a traditional "marriage" without being called as such.

Gays are unhappy with civil unions because they feel that label separates them from the rest of society and they wish to be fully integrated.

In the end, it seems to me that the issue is not so much in providing equal rights to the gays as it is in nomenclature. Conservatives do not want gay couples to be called "married" but don't mind so much the same status given to these couples. The gay couples want to be "married" and object to any other nomenclature for the same status as traditionally "married" people.

Hence, my solution: Since the entire argument is about nomenclature, then I think that ALL legal marriages should be called "civil unions" regardless of the genders involved. If one wishes to be "married", one can get married at a church. The church marriages will have no legal standing and couples that wish to be married in a church would still have to undergo a civil union to be legally recognized. This legal recognition can be handled by the church as it is today, by a justice of the peace, etc. I think that solution can be workable. If you think that "marriage" can only take place between a man and a woman - fine. Go get "married" in a church, which can set up whatever criteria it wants for non-legally recognized marriages. However, all legally recognized unions will be called "civil unions", thus blurring any kind of a differentiation between gay and non-gay marriages.

Furthermore, gays can set up their own churches, which can conduct "marriages" under the same set of rules as all other churches.

I think that this scheme will pacify everyone.

How's that?

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
JDM, that was sarcasm, BTW.

you cloak it under the term "sarcasm" , but in the army, we called it "tripping on your own dick"... Id reccomend that you turn your gaze inward before calling any more names.

Actually, on second thought, keep doing what you do.. the more visibility, the better.

Glotz
Glotz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 22 hours ago
Joined: Nov 20 2008 - 9:30am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

It amazing Stereophile tolerates such off-topic flames on subjects like this..

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

"Merely voicing an opinion about right and wrong is hardly the same as judging. Don't you think some things are wrong and should not be condoned or sanctioned by society?"

I do indeed think there are many things that are patently wrong, and should not be condoned (or tolerated) by society. I am not a moral relativist that thinks all behavior is just a matter of perspective. However, I think that homosexuality is a matter of "being" as much a matter of doing. But as for what they do or not, I do not see consensual sex that is part of a interpersonal relationship as wrong, regardless of it not being personally appealing.

There is where we are not going to meet: You view being gay as being an immoral choice, while I see it as an inborn trait that carries no moral connection at all. I don't expect you to want to see it in any other way, but life, and our country is founded on trying to find a middle ground regardless.

Should we ban all non-Christian religions too? How can you feel it OK to have all these other populations saying they are worshipping THEIR one true God and Scripture right down the proverbial road from you? They are all treated equally by the State- essentially being legally validated and condoned by our Constitution. It's what we are all about. Freedom to choose your own path- as long as it doesn't directly infringe upon the rights of others.

That's what this is about. Not asking you to agree or condone- but see that as a nation we validate the right of each person to make their way as they see fit- ESPECIALLY when we disagree with that way.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

You want to deny rights to a group of humanity and you call me childish?
You are a bigot, plain and simple.


Quote:

Quote:
JDM, that was sarcasm, BTW. I have heard that idiots have a hard time recognizing sarcasm :-)

Oh, and people that think homosexuality is wrong aren't idiots, they are bigots, well, ignorant bigots.

More name calling, eh? Classy. Maybe you'll start throwing your toys next.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Oh, this is just great. I just knew this whole topic was bad medicine. I visit this thread for the first time last night and had some fun on the gay issue and now my wife decides we need to have dinner with a male "gay bi-racial couple" on our wedding anniversary. And to make things sound even more sane the white guy is a Republican and the black guy is a Democrat. Thanks a lot guys.

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Oh, this is just great. I just knew this whole topic was bad medicine. I visit this thread for the first time last night and had some fun on the gay issue and now my wife decides we need to have dinner with a male "gay bi-racial couple" on our wedding anniversary. And to make things sound even more sane the white guy is a Republican and the black guy is a Democrat. Thanks a lot guys.

You can break out your "Reservoir Dogs" video. It's shot in black and white. Even though you called me a "brown noser" I keep finding reasons to like you. Oh, there I go kissing up again.

jdm56
jdm56's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 2:03am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Should we ban all non-Christian religions too?


Of course not; and I fail to see the correlation with the homosexual marriage issue. We've all, for the most part, had religious freedom in this country from the founding.
On the other hand, marriage has been nearly universally defined as the union of one man and one woman. Not only from our country's founding, but back through the entire history of civilization. Sure, there have been deviations, mainly into polygamy, but if you look at the whole of human history, I would dare guess that 99% of the people in 99% of the cultures over 99% of recorded time, have accepted the "traditional" definition of marriage. What's changed?

jdm56
jdm56's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 2:03am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
You want to deny rights to a group of humanity and you call me childish?
You are a bigot, plain and simple.


I've explained quite simply why this not an "equal rights" issue. We all have equal rights regarding marriage already. So, I'm not rehashing. You can choose to twist the discussion into any context you find more advantageous to your argument, but you'll do it without me.

If you want to label me a bigot, that's fine. I guess your definition of "bigot" is just anyone who disagrees with you. I've noticed that when a position is exposed as corrupt and indefensible, many proponents of the position will eventually fall back to name-calling.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

You can break out your "Reservoir Dogs" video. It's shot in black and white. Even though you called me a "brown noser" I keep finding reasons to like you. Oh, there I go kissing up again.

I forgot to mention that I have to go to the one Mexican food restaurant in town that I have avoided since it was open. You ask why? Because I hate the owner. You ask why that particular restaurant? Because it is the only one Mrs. Sanford will go to with a gay couple because of the "atmosphere". I don't want to hear anymore talk about how people don't sacrifice for the gay minority any longer. Enough is enough. Mr. Pink my butt. Mr. Pink ain't seen no bad day like I will be seeing. Not one day in his life will compare with my day.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Well, your "explanation" is bs and you are still a bigot.

But , rather than respond to my post I suggest you go to church and pray for my soul. You might as well waste your time that way for awhile :-)


Quote:

Quote:
You want to deny rights to a group of humanity and you call me childish?
You are a bigot, plain and simple.


I've explained quite simply why this not an "equal rights" issue. We all have equal rights regarding marriage already. So, I'm not rehashing. You can choose to twist the discussion into any context you find more advantageous to your argument, but you'll do it without me.

If you want to label me a bigot, that's fine. I guess your definition of "bigot" is just anyone who disagrees with you. I've noticed that when a position is exposed as corrupt and indefensible, many proponents of the position will eventually fall back to name-calling.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Tom

Stop being a bigot. You were walking on water for a while there then dropped like a rock.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

18 pages of this? When my subscription is up I will be done. This is not the forum for this discussion.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Tom

Stop being a bigot. You were walking on water for a while there then dropped like a rock.

Lamont, you will always occupy a warm spot in my heart even though I don't know what you mean to say 1/2 the time :-)

But yes, I do admit I am a bigot against bigots. However , that being a double negative doesn't that make me tolerant? (unless we are speaking spanish) Or at least doesn't that keep me from sinking all the way to the bottom ?

Sinking to the bottom would be OK if it is Shakespeare's bottom. I always did like that character.

BTW, have a happy thanksgiving.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Don't get your panties in a twist. Dime bingo tonight. You going?

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Tom

Stop being a bigot. You were walking on water for a while there then dropped like a rock.

Lamont, you will always occupy a warm spot in my heart even though I don't know what you mean to say 1/2 the time :-)

But yes, I do admit I am a bigot against bigots. However , that being a double negative doesn't that make me tolerant? (unless we are speaking spanish) Or at least doesn't that keep me from sinking all the way to the bottom ?

Sinking to the bottom would be OK if it is Shakespeare's bottom. I always did like that character.

BTW, have a happy thanksgiving.

I think you have a bias on what you perceive is Christianity. No different than you perceive someone is biased towards gay people. It makes you angry and I don't know why. People have been killing each other because they are different since the monolith screwed up that ape and gave him intelligence that he didn't use to his own advantage. He used it to his group's advantage for what he believed in (his group's water rights). Haven't you ever heard the song, "One Tin Soldier". Take away the corny horns, images of peace signs, and the smell of cannabis and my interpretation is that we are all members of the Valley. There are no Mountain People.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7jHp7OchP0

Then again, Valley People sometime come up with an even better theme to a movie that is more realistic rather than based on stereotypes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxYC350nqRM

The crap us Valley People have to go through to get ahead. It never ends. Keep the bridges up. You may need to go back the way you came. But then again you may not. That's the beauty of being on the group that is real. Freedom of choice. All Valley People have freedom of choice. Right or wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zwMtvCMLio

We all gotta die sometime. You can choose to die gay, christian, atheist, or agnostic. Your choice. Doesn't make a difference.

Of course, I'm the type of Roman Catholic that sent letters to Bishops demanding what were we going to do about the Irish during the 1980s.

They replied every time. "We are going to nothing about the Irish Catholic."

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Thanks for clearing that up, Lamont.

I don't think I have a bias against christianity per se.
I was raised Catholic, went to Jesuit High School.

I am bothered by people that think their version of right means everyone else is wrong. Every fundamentalist I have dealt with leaves me with that impression.

I have the suspicion they would like to outlaw all thought that is in disagreement with their own.

I do have a bias against that.


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Tom

Stop being a bigot. You were walking on water for a while there then dropped like a rock.

Lamont, you will always occupy a warm spot in my heart even though I don't know what you mean to say 1/2 the time :-)

But yes, I do admit I am a bigot against bigots. However , that being a double negative doesn't that make me tolerant? (unless we are speaking spanish) Or at least doesn't that keep me from sinking all the way to the bottom ?

Sinking to the bottom would be OK if it is Shakespeare's bottom. I always did like that character.

BTW, have a happy thanksgiving.

I think you have a bias on what you perceive is Christianity. No different than you perceive someone is biased towards gay people. It makes you angry and I don't know why. People have been killing each other because they are different since the monolith screwed up that ape and gave him intelligence that he didn't use to his own advantage. He used it to his group's advantage for what he believed in (his group's water rights). Haven't you ever heard the song, "One Tin Soldier". Take away the corny horns, images of peace signs, and the smell of cannabis and my interpretation is that we are all members of the Valley. There are no Mountain People.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7jHp7OchP0

Then again, Valley People sometime come up with an even better theme to a movie that is more realistic rather than based on stereotypes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxYC350nqRM

The crap us Valley People have to go through to get ahead. It never ends. Keep the bridges up. You may need to go back the way you came. But then again you may not. That's the beauty of being on the group that is real. Freedom of choice. All Valley People have freedom of choice. Right or wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zwMtvCMLio

We all gotta die sometime. You can choose to die gay, christian, atheist, or agnostic. Your choice. Doesn't make a difference.

Of course, I'm the type of Roman Catholic that sent letters to Bishops demanding what were we going to do about the Irish during the 1980s.

They replied every time. "We are going to nothing about the Irish Catholic."

es347
es347's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Feb 9 2006 - 10:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Amen...if I can say that here. There's an S'phile subscription renewal sitting in my inbox awaiting a personal check to re-up for another 3 years. Between the recent editorial regarding NY being underwater someday (what's the worst that could happen....the streetwalkers wearing hip-waders?) and now JA's position post on Christianity, I've pretty much had a gut full of this magazine. Why the hell is it that magazine subscribers or fans of recording artists/actors can't simply enjoy reading or listening or watching without being hit over the head with the political or religious beliefs of those we support monetarily? If a celebrity is a staunch liberal I couldn't care less. I do, however, have a problem when he/she feels that it's ok to body slam conservatives or Christians and do so without consequence. They can thumb their noses at me...fine, but I can reciprocate by not buying their cds or watching their movies....or resubscribing to their magazines. That subscription renewal is going-going-GONE....it now resides at the bottom of my trash can--the same place all the S'phile rags end up. Bye bye JA. I find it surprising that a guy who, apparently, can believe the absurdities put forth in his magazine cannot, apparently, find it in himself to believe in the God of the universe. Come on John, you gave the Tice clock and Mpingo discs a chance. Why not your creator?

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I do, however, have a problem when he/she feels that it's ok to body slam conservatives or Christians and do so without consequence.

With respect, I am not sure when I "body slammed" Christians or conservatives. If I remember correctly, the only mention I have made of Christianity on this forum was to correctly point out in response to another poster that, sadly and tragically, many terrible acts have been committed by people who believed they were behaving in Christ's name. I strongly believe that it is not enough to call oneself a Christian; one is obliged also to behave according to the teachings of Christ. If that belief is found offensive, then I am sorry. I cannot change who I am.

And body slamming conservatives? Yes, I have been strongly critical of President Bush, but Bush is no more a conservative than Michael Fremer.


Quote:
They can thumb their noses at me...fine

Again with respect, no-one is thumbing his nose at you.


Quote:
but I can reciprocate by not buying their cds or watching their movies....or resubscribing to their magazines. That subscription renewal is going-going-GONE....it now resides at the bottom of my trash can--the same place all the S'phile rags end up. Bye bye JA.

I am sorry to see you go.


Quote:
I find it surprising that a guy who, apparently, can believe the absurdities put forth in his magazine cannot, apparently, find it in himself to believe in the God of the universe.

My personal position is that one's religious belief is a private matter. We have Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, and other faiths represented on the magazine's masthead. I fail, therefore, to see that it is required that Stereophile's writers and editors subscribe to one particular faith in order to keep a reader from canceling his subscription.


Quote:
Come on John, you gave the Tice clock and Mpingo discs a chance. Why not your creator?

With respect, my position on both these tweaks is pretty much agnostic, as you will see if you read the coverage of the Tice Clock at www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/784 and of the Mpingo Discs at www.stereophile.com/features/69. In both cases you will see that I published commentary on both sides of the argument. Tice, BTW, thought my coverage was so negative that he canceled all his company's advertising and has not supported us since then.

Again, I am sorry to see you go, but I must ask you the same questions I just asked another poster: Given that off-topic commentary in Stereophile is rare, why do you feel that it outweighs everything else we publish?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

ES437 (transposed):

Oh, for Pete's sake! If Jesus was here today and saw what was being done and said in his name he would never stop throwing up.

John "The Baptist" Atkinson:

I ordered for 2 more years and I don't even read the articles just look at the pictures. I just wanted the T-shirt. But in all fairness I also don't read the articles in Playboy as well. Also, you're correct about Bush. Us conservatives were DUPed.

I just hope we don't give the next guy as much hell as everybody gave the last guy. On a sour note, Ann Coulter has broken her jaw and it is wired shut. But she is coming out with a new book. I can't wait!

If I'm ever in NYC we can play hoops. I'll bring Jesus so don't even think about stealing the ball.

es347
es347's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Feb 9 2006 - 10:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

<<My personal position is that one's religious belief is a private matter.>>

Precisely and it's the last thing a magazine editor should editorialize even when pressed, otherwise you offend roughly half of your readership. If nothing else, it's not smart business. Regarding the body slam comment, it's now politically correct to attack and belittle Christians. Can you imagine the reaction you would get if you disparaged the muslim faith? It's also an accepted fact that Christians are intolerant when in fact we aren't tolerated by the press(journalists), the entertainment industry...at all. That is the greatest of hypocrisies. And regarding the tice clock and mpingo discs, don't bother defending your position on those particular ruses. They are merely two examples from a very large body of nonsense supported by, if not John Atkinson, other contributors to this magazine. I love this hobby and have been messing around with it for over 40 years but I have never believed that Stereophile was taking it in the right direction. ST has his feet somewhat planted on terra firma. The rest of the initials are in LaLa land, somewhere between advertiser appeasement and reality.

Oh and by the way, I believe in the validity of double-blind testing for many things including audio equipment. Surely that's not all that surprising given that I'm a Christian too

es347
es347's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Feb 9 2006 - 10:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

<<Oh, for Pete's sake! If Jesus was here today and saw what was being done and said in his name he would never stop throwing up.>>

Lanomt (transposed),

He IS here and if not throwing up, taking copious notes.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
My personal position is that one's religious belief is a private matter.

Precisely and it's the last thing a magazine editor should editorialize even when pressed, otherwise you offend roughly half of your readership. If nothing else, it's not smart business.

But again I ask the question: when _have_ I attacked Christianity? With respect, you are referring to something that hasn't happened.


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
I do, however, have a problem when he/she feels that it's ok to body slam conservatives or Christians and do so without consequence.

With respect, I am not sure when I "body slammed" Christians or conservatives.

Regarding the body slam comment, it's now politically correct to attack and belittle Christians.

And again, _when_ did I or _anyone_ at Stereophile "attack and disparage Christians?" With respect, you really do seem to be projecting here.


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Come on John, you gave the Tice clock and Mpingo discs a chance. Why not your creator?

With respect, my position on both these tweaks is pretty much agnostic, as you will see if you read the coverage of the Tice Clock at www.stereophile.com/accessoryreviews/784 and of the Mpingo Discs at www.stereophile.com/features/69. In both cases you will see that I published commentary on both sides of the argument. Tice, BTW, thought my coverage was so negative that he canceled all his company's advertising and has not supported us since then.

regarding the tice clock and mpingo discs, don't bother defending your position on those particular ruses. They are merely two examples from a very large body of nonsense supported by, if not John Atkinson, other contributors to this magazine. I love this hobby and have been messing around with it for over 40 years but I have never believed that Stereophile was taking it in the right direction.

So why then do you subscribe? A serious question.


Quote:
I believe in the validity of double-blind testing for many things including audio equipment. Surely that's not all that surprising given that I'm a Christian too

My apologies, but I don't see the connection.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I'm a Christian, too, and when there was a discussion of the atheist book, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, which JA praised, I disagreed and pointed out what I conceived as flaws in the book. That said, we may have disagreements, but I must confess never did I feel disparaged as a Christian by JA or some other writer at Stereophile. I mean, it's historically true that many of the horrible acts in history were committed under the Christian auspices, and some of the atrocities that JA mentions - like it or not - are historical facts. They're not some conspiracy theories made up by kooky atheists. That said, it's equally undeniable, to me, that even greater good has been done by Christians, as well, and it seems unhelpful to formulate an archetype of a group of people or a belief based not on the whole picture but the parts of it. Then, because of the atrocities of the Holocaust and the WWII, we might be able to say that the Germans are a spineless, snobbish race of people without moral fortitude, etc., etc.

In fact, that's how so many of the negative, hurtful stereotypes emerge. That the gays are the reason why the AIDS have plagued mankind (even worse, God has created AIDS to wipe out the homosexuals!) That black people are inherently sociopathic or dangerous because of the problems of the inner city. That the liberals are biased bigots and the conservatives are biased bigots. That audiophiles are obsessive about their hobby because they're lonely geeks without any social life (wait, is that one true? )

It seems to me that if we continue our conversation in this way, starkly black & white, formulating ideas based on sketchy composite of various parts, we're just not getting to the truth of the matter. Which is that not so many things in the world are so black and white. And the fact that so many of us here and elsewhere condemn each other so easily and smugly based on what little we know is proof enough that we are very far from the truth of the matter (and I'm counting myself in this rotten group). Even a 3-minute song can yield a hundred different meanings. That's why we can listen to some Beatles tune, a Mahler movement, or an Art Tatum cut, over and over, ad infinitum. Maybe we can exercise that same kind of patience and devotion and love to real life.

es347
es347's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Feb 9 2006 - 10:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

<<So why then do you subscribe? A serious question.>>

A serious question deserves a serious answer. Equipment specifications and pictures, and letters to the editor....in that order. I read precious little of the reviews, never any of the measurements but find the letters section a hoot. Many of the submitters are more gifted writers than your staff. I have been willing to spend the $10 +/- per year but honestly John, your magazine has taken a pretty sharp left turn in the last few years. Blame it on Bush/Cheney...the stars (Stars as a play on words if you like)...I don't care, but it has. I find that just as infuriating as some of my favorite recording artists or actors bashing conservatives and Christians...and you cannot deny that that happens all the time. As a result I find it increasingly difficult to listen to some of my music without distraction. I am equally annoyed to read political statements in Stereophile. It's just a topic you need to stay away from because whatever side you come down on, you're going to piss off half of your readers. As ncdrawl said "stay in your lane" and life with Stereophile will be much more pleasant.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I'm a Christian, too, and when there was a discussion of the atheist book, The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, which JA praised, I disagreed and pointed out what I conceived as flaws in the book. That said, we may have disagreements, but I must confess never did I feel disparaged as a Christian by JA or some other writer at Stereophile.

I had forgotten that exchange when I responded earlier. Only perhaps in the very broadest sense, in that atheism is antithetical to _all_ religions, can my positive comments for the Dawkins book be interpreted as an attack on Christianity or Christians. I really don't think dissent is the same as an attack. Perhaps I am wrong.

And even Dawkins allows for the feeling that there be a guiding principle to the Universe. After all, the Big Bang may be the best possible explanation for the why and the how things are the way we perceive -- and yes, semantically it is equivalent to the statement "Let there be light!" -- but it also depends on the unfathomable concept of a singularity in space/time.


Quote:
Even a 3-minute song can yield a hundred different meanings. That's why we can listen to some Beatles tune, a Mahler movement, or an Art Tatum cut, over and over, ad infinitum. Maybe we can exercise that same kind of patience and devotion and love to real life.

Amen to that that sentiment, Selfdivider.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
So why then do you subscribe? A serious question.

A serious question deserves a serious answer. Equipment specifications and pictures, and letters to the editor....in that order. I read precious little of the reviews, never any of the measurements but find the letters section a hoot. Many of the submitters are more gifted writers than your staff.

Thank you. Color me puzzled why you don't read the measurements sections, however.


Quote:
I have been willing to spend the $10 +/- per year but honestly John, your magazine has taken a pretty sharp left turn in the last few years. Blame it on Bush/Cheney...the stars (Stars as a play on words if you like)...I don't care, but it has.

Okay. See my later comments.


Quote:
I find that just as infuriating as some of my favorite recording artists or actors bashing conservatives and Christians...and you cannot deny that that happens all the time.

Even so, my point is that that the "bashing" of Christians to which you have repeatedly referred in this thread does not occur in Stereophile magazine.


Quote:
As a result I find it increasingly difficult to listen to some of my music without distraction. I am equally annoyed to read political statements in Stereophile. It's just a topic you need to stay away from because whatever side you come down on, you're going to piss off half of your readers. As ncdrawl said "stay in your lane" and life with Stereophile will be much more pleasant.

As I have explained in this thread, there are some subjects, such as global warming or the introduction of RoHS legislation, that I don't regard as politically partisan and I do regard as worthy of discussion in an audio magazine. That my publishing comments on such matters angers those of, with respect to ncdrawl, a somewhat politically extreme inclination is unfortunate.

And as I have also explained, when the Administration's policies have a direct effect on the state of high-end audio, I also feel that this is something that needs to be covered. If that represents a "pretty sharp left turn in the last few years," so be it. High-end audio doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Thank you for your comments, es347. I wish you and Happy Thanksgiving.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Only perhaps in the very broadest sense, in that atheism is antithetical to _all_ religions, can my positive comments for the Dawkins book be interpreted as an attack on Christianity or Christians. I really don't think dissent is the same as an attack. Perhaps I am wrong.


To be perfectly clear, I never saw it as an attack no matter how you interpret it.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

John "The Baptist" Atkinson:

Why would you even dissent against Christianity unless you had an agenda? The constitution allows for many freedoms that includes religion. Atheists do a lot writing and talking that doesn't add up to shit. It isn't enough that they have the freedom to embrace their ideology. I don't expect to see quotes from the Bible in the magazine anymore than I expect some rant that is completely off topic. Some of you guys are just getting old and want something in print for posterity before you all start forgetting the names of your own great-grandchildren. We all got to die sometime and in the end you're just a lump of shit laying there in some morgue or funeral home. I would hope you guys are smart enough to have a plan on what to do next.

BTW, atheists don't come close to feeding the poor. So, why would they care what Christians believe?

Just because you can't figure something out or find proof doesn't mean there is no answer. Q.E.D.

es347
es347's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Feb 9 2006 - 10:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
John "The Baptist" Atkinson:

Some of you guys are just getting old and want something in print for posterity before you all start forgetting the names of your own great-grandchildren. We all got to die sometime and in the end you're just a lump of shit laying there in some morgue or funeral home.

I'm a handful of years away from becoming that lump of shit, at least I'm hoping, but there's a bright side to aging. At some point we won't have to resubscribe to ANY magazines or newspapers...think about it. Every morning you pick up the one and only copy of Stereophile you own and reread it for the umpteenth time and it becomes revelatory once again. We'll be nodding our heads in agreement with JA's editorial...again. We'll be recaptivated by all those word pictures that so accurately describe the reviewer's listening experience with that $20K interconnect cable. If fact if we get so excited by MF's review of that $100K TT and we lose control of all bodily functions, no sweat with that diaper. Yesiree, we've got that going for us, which is nice.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

That isn't what I posted. You took something out of context to start an entirely different topic.

This isn't necessarily directed at you but I find rather elementary to pick a part of a response, quote it, and respond to it as a series of responses as if each part quoted stands alone. It's lazy and editors as writers should now better than post a rebuttal in such a teen-age Internet fashion. You guys write technical as well as opinion articles. The least you can do is write in the same manner you do for the magazine unless you guys have some young English majors that actually write the articles for you.

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
That isn't what I posted. You took something out of context to start an entirely different topic.

I find... teen-age.. guys.. as well as...young English majors... that act... for you.

So Lamont, sounds like you're heavy into the young boy stuff.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Posted by Aquinas "I

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

tomjtx posted "I do find it disturbing that some of the religious posters here have so nonchalantly shown there bigotry as if there were nothing wrong with it." Something the religious have never accepted is the possibility that all human religious belief is, in and of itself, potentially blasphemous.
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent" Acts Ch:17 V:30

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Scot darling posted "....There is no provable reality outside the images that dance in our heads...." Well then petal, why did you even bother to post that quote here? Didn't you think you'd wake up in the morning and discover it was just a dream & a waste of time?

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Elk posted "......I am continually amazed how even the most bigoted often change to accept upon exposure to good people who happen to be gay..."
The obverse can also be true. Having spent 11 years 'behind the scenes' in our city's central Catholic cathedral and having witnessed there the most astonishingly obscene hypocrisies being practiced on a daily basis by the so called church authorities I was, at an early age, turned against Christianity in all it's forms. Decades later, working as a volunteer nursing on Aids care teams, I found myself working beside a number of blue rinsed middle class church ladies who, in a totally non-judgmental manner, were up to their elbows in nursing terminally ill gay men. The obverse of that were the Baptist s from 'Endeavor', a group that believed homosexuality could be cured by prayer. (They had a very high suicide rate at their live in retreat) These monsters turned up at the bedroom window of a man dying of aids only days before he left the planet haranguing him that he'd go to the devil if he didn't repent his sins. Problem was they hadn't done their research. The man they were attempting to 'save' was a heterosexual who'd acquired the disease through a blood transfusion. Just goes to show - takes all kinds to make up the religious but some are decidedly more saintly or evil than others.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Jan Vigne posted "Certainly they have. Ancient civilizations allowed for the marraiage of owners to slaves even when the slaves were of the same sex. The Bible condones slavery so why not same sex marriage .................................Same sex relationships have been condoned in numerous civilizations throughout history, even honored as something special in cases such as the Native American Shamans. Take a trip into some research and you'll find your answers, though you might not like what you find if you have already made up your mind to the "facts" as they have been fed to you."
Thank you Jan for that exposition of some facts many of the religious choose to deny. They'd do better to study in more depth their own, and others, so called holy books. There's an aspect of religious denial, and it's unique psychology, I find particularly sickening. That is the peculiar enjoyment the religious often experience from sin, especially with sexual 'lapses' they don't enjoy unless they experience them as 'naughty'.
And they call us unnatural ?

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
......... I just believe that marriage is for men and women.

OK. but what's your view of heterosexuals "living in sin"?

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
And consider, there may be Biblical support for the Big Bang: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light".
Pretty cool way to start a universe.

And if you accept fully the implications of big bang theory, a pretty nasty way to end it. Cool isn't the half of it.

es347
es347's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Feb 9 2006 - 10:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

--------------------
The human race is insane.
*******************************************

You got that part right and I assume you are a part of it.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
That isn't what I posted. You took something out of context to start an entirely different topic.

I find... teen-age.. guys.. as well as...young English majors... that act... for you.

So Lamont, sounds like you're heavy into the young boy stuff.

Hey, man! That's the kinda shit that's gonna bring this situation to a head!

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

[quote=Arvo Part] And if you accept fully the implications of big bang theory, a pretty nasty way to end it. Cool isn't the half of it.

Troll or Alias for an existing member? havent decided yet..one that wishes to be serious would not mention Ayn Rand's name in conversation.

Pages

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