I haven't noticed that, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

oops, just read the toe in thread, now I see what you mean :-)

I do think that offense was more than dup ever did.

I don't miss DUP at all. I do agree that new faces seem to be showing up and they're often opinionated, but, so far, the discourse stays on a healthy track.

It surprised me when SM and JA decided to "feature" the KOB thread, but with JA's skillful intervention it's stayed reasonably on track. You read that thread and see the outright antagonistic, blindly submissive and everything in between. I think that's a healthier forum. I can imagine how dead it'd be if DUP were still here.

For me, DUP killed many threads. Yes, they went on forever, but I stopped reading them because of the senseless, hard headed, mean (on more than one side) exchanges that would degenerate into babble with incredible swiftness. I was often on the same side as DUP, but you couldn't moderate his rants. IMHO, Stereophile tolerated DUP much longer than A'gon, A'Circle, A'asylum would have.

Dave

DUP is banned.
It seems rather poor taste to keep bashing him.

i dont' think you were addressing me, but the point of the thread was not another dup bash, or praise for that matter, just an example. sorry if it came off as a bash.

While it's a trend or not, the bottom line is there are a number of posters really being insulting to Stereophile writers and other posters, by simply trying to be funny with quick non-sequiturs and bashes, and because I am new, I won't tolerate it. Bring up serious discussions, but when the attacks start I will defend anyone that has acted with respect, intelligence, consideration and knowledge- and if someone has stuck to the issue at hand, not blatantly attacked someone because they feel the science isnt there enough to justify many listeners ears' findings. Argue- fine! Rant- not!

Quote:
i dont' think you were addressing me, but the point of the thread was not another dup bash, or praise for that matter, just an example. sorry if it came off as a bash.

TC, I wasn't addressing you and I didn't think your post was a DUP bash.
That is why I thought Dcs post seemed so pointless, why go on
about DUP. That is, unfortunately, a done deal.

Quote:
While it's a trend or not, the bottom line is there are a number of posters really being insulting to Stereophile writers and other posters, by simply trying to be funny with quick non-sequiturs and bashes, and because I am new, I won't tolerate it. Bring up serious discussions, but when the attacks start I will defend anyone that has acted with respect, intelligence, consideration and knowledge- and if someone has stuck to the issue at hand, not blatantly attacked someone because they feel the science isnt there enough to justify many listeners ears' findings. Argue- fine! Rant- not!

Are you purposely being ironic?

You made one of the offending posts. You looked especially bad attacking someone ( an audio pro and accomplished musician) who knows far more about audio and music than you.

If there were a reality pill I would encourage you to take it.

Hilarious. I am not the one that attacked anyone. How would you know ANYTHING about me at all. And since when does any of the posters have more knowledge or experience than MF or JA. They don't. THEY acted like jerks, and both of the editors let it be known. And when I did respond with venom, it was in response to my request to everyone reminding who did the findings in the first place. They have a lot more credibility than any poster in here.

Quote:
i dont' think you were addressing me, but the point of the thread was not another dup bash, or praise for that matter, just an example. sorry if it came off as a bash.

I actually thought you were mildly supportive of DUP.

It's good to evaluate the health of the forum occasionally.

Dave

You attacked Ethan . He is a music professional (acoustician, recording engineer and classical musician) who has every bit as much experience and expertise as JA.

You seem singularly incapable of self evaluation.

Glotz, you're coming off like a cornered cat. Lots of us respect your original post over in the KOB thread, but you're going overboard defending your opinions and the Stereophile team. In case you haven't noticed, JA, SM, AB and others are joining in, in positive ways. You weaken your position by seeming like a slavish supporter of anything Stereophile says.

I love MF and read him first, but he should be able to take a little interrogation along with the adulation. I'll forgive him if his fuse is a little short at times.

Dave

Tom-

You are not alone. There does seem to be a pumper crop of new members that are skeptics and a number of them seem combative. They arrive making old arguments as if they are new revaluations and expect us to accept them without question based on I don't know what. Hopefully a good number of them will settle down and become productive members. Both talking AND Listening, instead of just being know it alls.

Being a newer member I would tend to agree but..longevity does not protect one from speaking piffle. Nor does a false call to authority an Oracle make.

I have found some folk who are making valid points sometimes make those points in very obscure or scientific ways on the assumption that the poor dolt (me) asking the question holds a degree in electrical engineering. Followup questions are sometimes met with more condecention than help.

Yes Tom, there is a general lack of civility in these forums and elsewhere in society. The insistance that one's viewpoint is much more important than another's is a particular type of narcissism endemic of a culture that values individualism and celebration of the ego over empathy and consideration for the common good.

Having said that, I enjoy a spirited debate between sharp minds and even a little good-natured, intelligent insult between antagonists, artfully done- if not overdone and rehashed ad nauseum.

I am uneasy about the reactionaries who come flying out of the corners with dukes up spoiling for a fight. Reminds me of the road ragers who hide behind (in) their vehicles when they act out in a way they never would if face to face with the objects of their scorn.

On a milder note, I have noticed that some posters elicit opinions and technical answers from members and do not acknowledge those folks who have taken the time to indulge them. This is just bad manners.

There is also a guarded respect that informs the postings of long-standing members, who maintain civility amongst each other despite diametrically opposite viewpoints- most of the time. They usually stay above the fray unless pushed. Bless their good example!

> 1. is it just me? if so, i'll shut up.
> 2. if its not just me, am i hypersensative?
> 3. is this healthy for the forum?

There are audiophile views and there is a scientific view on many, though obviously not all, matters discussed here. The audiophile views are often in conflict with the scientific view. The scientific view is not going to go away because it has been widely adopted by mankind.

Audiophiles do not reason in a manner that is valid to those that hold a scientific view. In turn, scientific reasoning is not accepted by audiophiles. Without an agreed way in which to reason there would seem to be no mechanism to resolve conflicts where they exist. The task for a forum such as this is how to prevent unresolveable conflict escalating in the way it does on unmoderated usenet groups.

> does this make us think harder?

No comment.

> 4. is this unhealthy for the forum?

Like spices, disagreements in moderate quantities are likely to be attractive but in large quantities quite the opposite. An audiophile site like this probably benefits from 1 or 2 Ethans but more would start to become unhealthy.

> do these folks just piss everyone off without any benefit from the interaction?

On the audiophile side I would say yes. Those doing the provoking may gain insights in small doses but in larger ones it would seem to benefit nobody.

> 5. anyone else with any other points of view about this state of affairs.
> 6. did the banning of a former famous member open a black hole that just has to be filled?

You will always get people passing through who hold a scientific view. Few will stay because there is little here to sustain them but since the content of what they say will always be the same this may fit what you are suggesting.

Quote:
Audiophiles do not reason in a manner that is valid to those that hold a scientific view. In turn, scientific reasoning is not accepted by audiophiles.

Sorry, 19191, but that's narrowminded BS.

Quote:

Quote:
Audiophiles do not reason in a manner that is valid to those that hold a scientific view. In turn, scientific reasoning is not accepted by audiophiles.

Sorry, 19191, but that's narrowminded BS.

But you are unable to refute it and so resort to name calling?

No, saying you are narrowminded is not name calling. It is stating the obvious. So let's not get down to schoolyard games, OK?

There are some statements, usually those that attempt to libel an entire group, that do not need to be refuted, they stand as a testament to their own ignorance and need only be called what they are, bullshit. You've managed one of those statements.

Quote:
did the banning of a former famous member open a black hole that just has to be filled?

No, it did not. However, should you be applying for the job, we have your application. We'll get back to you.

Finally, just to prove you are incorrect, here are a few "proofs" that no one can dispute.

John Crabbe. http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...eview&type=

Richard Heyser http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...audio&type=

Nelson Pass http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=nelson%20pass&type=

Just three audiophiles and music lovers.

I am not in the mood to discuss any more BS. If you come up with something intelligent and not just more of the same easy, simple cynicism, let me know. Otherwise, I don't miss udp and I don't miss teh constant BS he promoted.

> No, saying you are narrowminded is not name calling. It is stating the obvious. So let's not
> get down to schoolyard games, OK?

No retreat from name calling then?

> There are some statements, usually those that attempt to libel an entire group, that do not
> need to be refuted, they stand as a testament to their own ignorance and need only be called
> what they are, bullshit. You've managed one of those statements.

The typical response of someone that thinks like a scientist (and has not let their emotions get the better of them) to something they consider false would be to put forward the evidence as they see it and prod around for where information is missing or contradictory. If you consider yourself to be doing this then I cannot see it. But perhaps I do not reason in the same way as you? Are you open minded enough to recognise that the way you sort things out is not necessarily the way others sort things out?

> Quote:
> did the banning of a former famous member open a black hole that just has to be filled?
>
> No, it did not. However, should you be applying for the job, we have your application. We'll
> get back to you.

If you think you are quoting me can I suggest you reread the message I was replying to.

> Finally, just to prove you are incorrect, here are a few "proofs" that no one can dispute.
>
> John Crabbe. http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...eview&type=
>
> Richard Heyser http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...audio&type=
>
> Nelson Pass http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-hptb5&p=nelson%20pass&type=
>
> Just three audiophiles and music lovers.

Perhaps I would dispute the proof if I was confident I understood it. You have listed 3 names and are claiming they reason like audiophiles and scientists? But you have not linked to evidence of this showing how they reason about topics where audiophile beliefs and scientific beliefs are in conflict. Do you consider their names in themselves to be a persuasive argument? I would suggest that nobody that reasons like a scientist would.

> I am not in the mood to discuss any more BS. If you come up with something intelligent
> and not just more of the same easy, simple cynicism, let me know. Otherwise, I don't miss
> udp and I don't miss teh constant BS he promoted.

I am not sure whether this is a graceless admission of defeat or whether you, and perhaps other audiophiles, consider your response to be persuasive. If the latter, you are of course simply demonstrating the truth of the statement you are trying to refute that audiophiles do not reason in the way scientists do.

Quote:
No, saying you are narrowminded is not name calling. It is stating the obvious. So let's not
> get down to schoolyard games, OK?

No retreat from name calling then?

No "retreat", as you prefer to call it, from your grade school yard games, eh? I stand by my assertion you have produced a narrowminded piece of stinking, rotten tripe. It's difficult to pull back from the obvious and the obviousness of stench has no battleground from which to retreat.

I can't see anyone with any sense of logic or desire for facts stating anything similar to what you have posted. You have posted BS. Plain and simple BS. I can imagine someone who prefers a too simple answer to his own conflicts to do just as you have, condemn all who may disagree with you and then belittle them when they disagree. No logic and no proof of either claim but if you stand by those claims you've displayed no inherent scientific ability that I can detect. What are the letters behind your name? You wear them poorly.

In stating the obvious I don't claim to be a rocket scientist, just someone who can spot BS when it is piled high. Do other people "reason" unlike I do? Obviously so, I would never make the bullshit statement you are so proud of.

Quote:
If you think you are quoting me can I suggest you reread the message I was replying to.

If I had quoted Shakespeare in response to your post would you have asked the same question? We don't need another udp. We don't need more uneducated, bigotted BS on this forum. Speaking again of BS, must everything revolve around you? We don't need more antagonism on the forum. We don't need more blatant stupidity splattered onto the forum just to start a fight for the sake of another fight. You've offered no proof of what you claim, so far you've only proven you are a narrowminded bigot who likes to adorn himself in the trappings of a scientist.

Quote:
Do you consider their names in themselves to be a persuasive argument? I would suggest that nobody that reasons like a scientist would.

You attack my "reasoning" as if thinking like a scientist is the Holy Grail of humanity. If what you have posted is an example of thinking like a scientist, you get to keep it all to yourself. It stinks too much to get any closer to than I already have. I can say with a reasonable amount of certainty none of those three audiophiles would disagree with me regarding the BS you've laid on this forum. It doesn't require a scientist to smell BS when it is placed in front of you. It merely requires an arse to take a dump on my living room floor and then blame me for having a house.

If you are dissatisfied as to whether my proof is sufficient, do the research any scientist or anyone with an open, curious mind would do. If you are not curious enough to find out about these three gentlemen, well, what's that say about your intellect? In my time on this Earth I have met more open minded audiophiles than I have curious scientists. You, sir, seem to be just as incurious as you are discourteous.

Quote:
I am not sure whether this is a graceless admission of defeat or whether you, and perhaps other audiophiles, consider your response to be persuasive.

Once again, stating the obvious is neither graceless nor an admission of defeat - as if this were some sort of war game. It is an admission that I find these stupid word games that so many of you prefer to be tiring and repetitive. This is a forum, not a chess game and certainly not a battle of intellects - to which you would come woefully unarmed. The purpose of a forum as I see it is to openly and gladly exchange information and opinions, to work together for the common good of all in hopes of advancing the interest and knowledge of anyone and everyone who joins in for the sake of a common cause. A forum is not a place to come just to find an easy opportunity to bash another person over the head until they "retreat". It is not a place where battles are waged for the sake of another battle and repeated strikes are wielded until the opponent is defeated and cries for a merciful death. There are no "opponents" in a good forum, only those willing to have an intelligent disagreement and respectful debate. It would appear you are neither a good scientist nor a good forum member.

Your comment was insulting to an entire group of people. That is stupidity on parade with a big ugly float to boot and deserves no further response. You still haven't provided proof of anything other than at the slightes provocation you are quite willing to get into the mud to take a whack at someone who dislikes and disagrees with what you posted. Big whoop! When you get in the mud you only get dirt in places where it doesn't belong. Please, do as so many others like you have, take your attitude somewhere else where it will be appreciated or learn to be a good forum member.

Say something intelligent and we can have a discussion. Continue on with this tactless approach and we're done. You and I obviously came here for different reasons.

The problem more and more are seeing is that those who claim to be "scientific" are usually the ones who have to be taught basic electronics by the audiophiles.

And how does being caught red handed, time after time, manipulating evidence/data, and lacking in even basic electronics instruction qualify your side as being "scientific"?? I heard no condemnation from the "scientific" community when exposed.

Again, if the "scientific" side has to manipulate data, what does that say about their "scientific" status? Of course, making the data appear worse than it is is a good way of steering the money in their direction.

Quote:
I am not sure whether this is a graceless admission of defeat or whether you, and perhaps other audiophiles, consider your response to be persuasive.

Maybe you better look at yourself before getting cocky, Andy.

Thing is, this whole thread like many others recently is designed to start a pissing match.

If people have a desire to see who's dick is biggest i suggest going to a local video bookstore. Im getting fed up of egotistical battles and political commentary on the forum.

I really dont care about politics, gay marriage or anything else, these are issues that should be discussed just not in a hifi forum.

There is very little actual real hifi discussion going on, if it does break out then the pissing matches start.

Lets all get back to talking about hifi, respectful differences of opinion are of course to be encouraged but lets keep it friendly.

Alan

Yep!

Got to agree..This months letters - 5 on politics and only 3 on audio. When dolts who know no more on the issue than I pontificate politics or pop religion when they are being paid to speak Audio, they first waste valuable space and second invite scores of political letters instead of audio ones.

It is narcissistic, stupid and annoying. I do not buy the magazine to have the publically naive (anyone who disagrees with my own equally uninformed views) pontificate. There are other magazines and formats for that.

> There is very little actual real hifi discussion going on, if it does break out then the pissing
> matches start.

Are your expectations realistic? What are the motivations of those that post to a forum such as this? What is your motivation in posting in a thread that you claim does not interest you? What is my motivation in pointing out that audiophiles and scientists have different sets of beliefs? Why is Jan making no attempt to discuss the point he picked up on and why does he feel it necessary to try to offend? What is sasaudio's motivation for his post and why does he also wish to offend?

The OP has started a thread on what appears to be a perfectly relevant and reasonable topic for this forum: how to handle the conflict between the minority that express a scientific view and the majority that hold a range of audiophile beliefs. Given that the site is supported by Stereophile there is no question about what the dominant view should be.

The discussion about whether DUP should have been banned has already taken place in another thread.

Should Ethan be banned? Sasaudio possibly thinks so and sasaudio holds audiophile beliefs whereas Ethan holds scientific beliefs. Ethan has said other sites have banned him.

Should I be banned? Jan possibly thinks so and I can no longer log into AudioAsylum and so someone there has probably banned me.

> Lets all get back to talking about hifi, respectful differences of opinion are of course to be
> encouraged but lets keep it friendly.

You will note that discussions between Ethan and sasaudio have been civil on one side and uncivil on the other. Ditto the exchange between myself and Jan above although I must admit to some teasing. The problem is the civility is coming from the wrong side.

One of the commercial sites I occassionally post to has seen a recent rise in the temperature of postings on the subject of audiophile belief versus scientific belief. They have made it clear that personal attacks like Jan's above and sasaudio's on Ethan will not be tolerated and such posters will get one warning ban and then a permanent ban. The temperature has gone down but whether it will work in the longer term remains to be seen because it has biased things against regular audiophile posters who tend to get heated more quickly when disagreement arises.

Quote:
Audiophiles do not reason in a manner that is valid to those that hold a scientific view. In turn, scientific reasoning is not accepted by audiophiles.

I have not seen this.

Most audiophiles are very interested in the science behind music reproduction. Audiophiles and EEs share a common understanding of most points.

The only disagreement occurs when someone states they can hear a difference occasioned by something for which there is no ready, engineering accepted explanation.

The scientific method begins with empirical observation and testing this experience.

This is where things break down. Once camp refuses to accept that the claimed heard difference could be simply placebo effect or easily explainable by other means. The other camp refuses to accept the possibility of anything unknown.

Neither camp is scientific in their approach.

I would also posit that neither side is a willing to learn audiophile.

>> Audiophiles do not reason in a manner that is valid to those that hold a scientific view. In turn,
>> scientific reasoning is not accepted by audiophiles.
>
> I have not seen this.

Really? You have not noticed that audiophiles, based on their reasoning and experience, believe nearly all audio components including cables sound different to each other by changing the sound field in a room by a perceptible amount? Whereas scientists based on their reasoning and experience believe that most competent audio components with a few significantly nonlinear exceptions like speakers, microphones and the like do not change the sound field in a room by a perceptible amount. And how sound perception works explains the rest.

> Most audiophiles are very interested in the science behind music reproduction.

I will agree that audiophiles are interested in explanations but I would disagree that they have much interest in the scientific one. In my experience, audiophiles do not know what science is nor are they particularly interested in finding out. There is nothing much wrong with this but it does lead to conflict when audiophiles assume what they find acceptable should be acceptable to science.

> Audiophiles and EEs share a common understanding of most points. The only disagreement occurs when
> someone states they can hear a difference occasioned by something for which there is no ready,
> engineering accepted explanation.

Scientists do not usually disagree with audiophiles' experiences. They often disagree with audiophiles statements about what is going on objectively.

> The scientific method begins with empirical observation and testing this experience.

In the old days yes but not so much these days. Science consists of an assembly of related hypotheses/laws which predict the outcome of experiments. Where the gaps and wonky bits are is apparent to those that make the effort to learn what has been assembled by mankind so far. The current activity under a Swiss mountain is trying to gather supporting observations for hypotheses that are getting on for half a century old.

> This is where things break down. Once camp refuses to accept that the claimed heard difference could
> be simply placebo effect or easily explainable by other means.

Agreed.

> The other camp refuses to accept the possibility of anything unknown.

Agreed if you add "in the absence of a glimmer of viable evidence and the presence of perfectly straightforward and long established explanations".

> Neither camp is scientific in their approach.

Anyone that follows the scientific method is being scientific in their approach. School children are taught to do it in science classes. It is not particularly difficult.

> I would also posit that neither side is a willing to learn audiophile.

Not sure I understand. My main interest here is learning why audiophiles believe the things they do which was why I was trying to extract from Jan the reason for his objection.

Quote:
Why is Jan making no attempt to discuss the point he picked up on and why does he feel it necessary to try to offend?

What part of "I refuse to discuss uninformed bigotry" are you not understanding? You do not discuss the willful ignorance of insulting an entire group without reason or provocation. You do not discuss bigotry, you call it for what it is - bullshit. You do not discuss how the individual became or why the individual chooses to remain so ignorant, you call them what they are - narrowminded. Then you move on to a more intelligent conversation with someone willing to carry on a discussion not based on ignorance.

Why are you not apologizing for the insult you inflicted on an entire group of people? Who do you believe will feel you are the injured party here? No one is rushing to your defense. Is that because this is the Stereophile forum and we're all just dumb audiophiles who can't reason scientifically like you? Is that your defense You're just too smart for us, eh? Don't you have a mirror to stare into somewhere? A little self-examination on your part would be a good idea along about now.

Quote:
The OP has started a thread on what appears to be a perfectly relevant and reasonable topic for this forum: how to handle the conflict between the minority that express a scientific view and the majority that hold a range of audiophile beliefs

Uh, no, the op was discussing the number of new members who seemingly wish to be antagonistic for no apparent reason. He was talking about people like you who insult everyone in a single sentence. Insulting all audiophiles out of hand is not being scientific. Insulting the person who calls you on it is not being scientific. It is simply choosing to remain oblivious and narrowminded.

Quote:
ould I be banned? Jan possibly thinks so and I can no longer log into AudioAsylum and so someone there has probably banned me.

No and NOOOO!!! Oh, what a shame, their loss I'm certain.

Quote:
Sasaudio possibly thinks so and sasaudio holds audiophile beliefs whereas Ethan holds scientific beliefs.

It's clear you don't realize that sas is an component designer and Ethan is a just merchant with admittedly no formal scientific training. What you are responding to is the fact sas disagrees with you while Ethan is someone who appeals to your bigotry.

Quote:
They have made it clear that personal attacks like Jan's above ...

ROTFLMAO

What part of "you have been a jerk" do you not get?

Quote:
What is sasaudio's motivation for his post and why does he also wish to offend?

Reread my previous post again. I never posted any comment until you made your snide comments about audiophiles. I posted that you should inspect your side before casting stones on others Andy, and not to get cocky. In otherwards, please cool the negative rhetoric.

Quote:
Should Ethan be banned? Sasaudio possibly thinks so and sasaudio holds audiophile beliefs whereas Ethan holds scientific beliefs. Ethan has said other sites have banned him.

I have only audiophile beliefs? Then why have I been the one giving a basic electronics education to the "scientific" gents? In reality I believe in both. I have a lab and list specs on my components. The difference is that I perform my own exhaustive tests, which I have performed for decades, and I don't blindly fall for every comment made. I think it is good policy not to assume anything, whether from the "scientific" community or from audiophiles. To be fair, there is hocus-pocus on both sides.

The first thing I design for is specs, then I perform extended and stringent listening tests. It takes time; approximately 3 1/2 years of testing to get the 11A to market. Simply going through a few quick formulas and ordering parts, a few weeks time, doesn't cut it for me.

I submit that we get a balance, not snake oil from either the "magic pebbles" or the "scientific" sides.

I am with Alan. Let's stop the bickering.

Quote:
Should Ethan be banned? Sasaudio possibly thinks so and sasaudio holds audiophile beliefs whereas Ethan holds scientific beliefs. Ethan has said other sites have banned him.

This are all good points in both your posts. I wear my banishment as a badge of honor. I think I'm about to banned from yet another forum soon.

I was told by the Tweaks mod at Audio Asysum to cease posting things that refute the believers there, though I was not outright banned. But I was banned from Audioholics for daring to prove with hard data that their beloved Audyssey EQ does not do what is claimed.

I see this stuff all the time and, as was observed, it is usually those with little science background who get angry and insulting.

--Ethan

Quote:
I wear my banishment as a badge of honor. I think I'm about to banned from yet another forum soon.

But not from this one.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

What will you do when you run out of forums to play on. Being quietly right is not very fulfilling.

Quote:
What will you do when you run out of forums to play on. Being quietly right is not very fulfilling.

LOL

Quote:
It's clear you don't realize that sas is an component designer and Ethan is a just merchant with admittedly no formal scientific training.

Cmon Jan..... I thought you were much smarter than that... are you writing Ethan off because he has no "formal" training? Need I remind you of all the people who have had an enormous impact on the scientific community despite having no "formal" training??

and I am growing weary of SAS's jabs at Ethan. It is unprofessional. Ethan has taken the high road, and it would be very nice to see SAS do the same. Designer or no designer, competent or not... Professional behaviour is always classy.

you know what Jan.. I think you are just some crotchety old guy that argues for the sake of arguing.. you take no sides, but wait like a goblin under the bridge...

anyone that bans Ethan is a fool. I consider him a breath of fresh air(though I dont always agree with him)... seriously, what fun is being in a herd of people that act like Pavlov's dog?

Quote:
What will you do when you run out of forums to play on. Being quietly right is not very fulfilling.

do you think he is "playing"?? Seriously? I hope Ethan sticks around and that more people will listen to what he has to say.

Quote:
Cmon Jan..... I thought you were much smarter than that... are you writing Ethan off because he has no "formal" training? Need I remind you of all the people who have had an enormous impact on the scientific community despite having no "formal" training??

Did I say I wrote Ethan off because he has no "formal" training? I don't believe I did. You are putting words into my posts that do not exist there simply, possibly, because Ethan also appeals to your unfounded cycnicism and I do not.

The number of inventors and just plain curious people who have had no formal training in their chosen field is legendary. At some point, someone had to learn something not already in a book. I am not so foolish as to not recognize the achievements of my fellow human being. Why then would I take the opportunity to disparage anyone who has made an attempt, no matter how successful or unsuccesful, to improve their mind and their position? I would prefer to believe we all have the capacity to learn astounding things by simply observing what is around us with only a modicum, just a teaspoonful, of wonder and curousity just as too many of us have the disappointing ability to rest upon what they have already learned and not be surprised by what comes next. So why would I not encourage behavior that leads to the former? You've misread my intentions, ncdrawl, and I think with just a bit too much laziness on your part.

However, let me point out that not everyone who has such "informal" training as Ethan possesses also has the audacity to proclaim, "Hell, I do know everything!", as Ethan has done on this forum. You are late to the party, ncdrawl, yet, like Homer Simpson, you want everyone to step aside and allow you to the front of the snack table. You read what you read without regard to past history and there is, I assure you, an enormous past history to this forum. Though even that had nothing to do with my comment regarding Ethan's ability to learn new things. You've lost or more likely never had perspective, ncdrawl. If you had taken the time to learn a few things yourself, ncdrawl, you might have realized just what I was saying about Ethan and not made up your mind to see things as you wish them to be.

To think I am libeling Ethan by saying he has no formal training is absurb in even the broadest sense of how to interpret my comment. Ethan admits this fact and, I think, is even quite proud of his ability to argue vociferously without any sort of formally recognized intelligence backing him up.

I may be disagreeable when it comes to fools and assholes who wish to feel superior simply due to their amount of formal training or their ability to argue without any real life experience getting in the way but, ncdrawl, I'm sorry to say, you have been proving yourself to be the troll hunkering at the front of the bridge and on this forum.

Now, do you wish to discuss audio or would you prefer to take yet another whack at me? This thread is wasted already, why not continue on with the destruction? I'm sure no one else cares.

Quote:

Now, do you wish to discuss audio or would you prefer to take yet another whack at me? This thread is wasted already, why not continue on with the destruction? I'm sure no one else cares.

Jan, I only take whacks at you when I disagree. I am quite capable of getting along with you, and actually like you, despite you being a grumpy old man. You remind me of my grandfather. Arguing with any and everyone, but good at heart.

and I like discussing audio, hell. I like the forum better than the magazine.)

You're free to disagree with me about audio and I would actually encourage a reasonable discussion of points where we do not agree when audio is the topic.

Quote:
you know what Jan.. I think you are just some crotchety old guy that argues for the sake of arguing.. you take no sides, but wait like a goblin under the bridge...

That has nothing to do with audio. And this,

Quote:
Cmon Jan..... I thought you were much smarter than that... are you writing Ethan off because he has no "formal" training? Need I remind you of all the people who have had an enormous impact on the scientific community despite having no "formal" training??

is condescending and a lie.

Quote:
... anyone that bans Ethan is a fool.

ncdrawl, you speak without knowledge of what has gone before. You've made up your mind just as surely as has Ethan and 19191 and no facts will ever be allowed to tread on your conviction that you are 100% correct.

That's the gist of this thread, people who are combative without reason or prior knowledge. The op was referring to the number of newcomers who seem to feel they have something to prove and set about disrupting the apple cart just to say they can. And not one of them takes the time to discover the facts anymore than those who cling to their scientific book learning and use it as a offense weapon (pun intended) take the time to listen rather than just decide.

Breaking news! This crop is not the first to come to this forum with that attitude. Most of the rest have become bored when they were ignored and they eventually left. And those of us who have become the "senior citizens" of the forum sit and wait for the next round to show up.

You do not know the history of this forum, you do not know the history of the relationship between any of the members here but as usual the camps are divided not between right and wrong but between those who firmly believe one thing against those who believe another. Partisanship runs rampant here and seldom are hands extended across the divide. I doubt there is an active member with more than a hundred posts who hasn't been in one scrap or another during their tenure here. Those who chose not to engage simply left, never to return. I've been in my fair share of head to head battles but I can direct you to incidents where any one member you name has also had a go'round with another member, Ethan included - particularly Ethan. My best advice to a newbie might well be to know your friends before you choose your enemies, if enemies they must be.

I don't come here looking for a fight but I will stand up for what I believe to be true. And I'll repeat this since you weren't here last time it got said, I don't feel I have ever made the first insult but, if you insult me, you can expect back just as you have given. If you get along with me, I'll get along with you. If that's similar to your grandfather, if that's "good at heart", then that's what I am.

I haven't made up my mind about you yet, ncdrawl. You seem too quick to run to one side of the ring and too easily prompted to point to someone else's faults without examining your own. You seem to have more to say about the personalities on the forum than engaging in the intent of the forum.

At this point, I'm looking forward to you changing my opinion.

I generally dont agreee with a lot of Jan's posts, we have had a few lively discussions. These have always remained civilised with our agressions directed at the issues and not each other. When i recently had a phone preamp level issue you offered some valuable and constructive info with no agenda. This is exactly how I believe the forum should work.

Whats important here is that people understand the true reason we are here and thats hifi and music. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lively or even aggressive deabte as long as the subject is the focus of the debate and not the indvidual making it. A lot of my posts involve classical music and there are 3 people who are forum regulars with whom im on a journey of discovery about live music, there is nothing but positive feedback between us and we get along great no names, no aggression even when one of us states a strong opinion.

The point that JV makes is absolutely valid, the first time i ever encountered ncdrawl in a post he was attacking me and not the issue at hand.

So in simple terms, cut the aggressive crap and lets get back to talking about music and hifi. In my opinion if thats not why your here then leave ASAP.

Alan