My language should have had nothing to do with this issue. I began with a simple thought, expressed in calm words, which merely asked if we could ever talk to each other again or whether we would ever be united as a country once again. The response from Clay was I had a "tone" that he found offensive. It would appear Clay finds many things offensive. He just can't quite tell us why they offend him, just that they do. On "principal".

"Principal"? A Freudian slip I'm sure.

I have what my father called his "dago" problem. I'll gladly try to be nice to you and get along with you, but once you spit in my face, there's a problem. Right or wrong, those are my principles. However, what John allows on this forum should not have substituted for the real issue of this thread.

My complaint was never with Clay himself. He is a small part of a larger problem. If you read my posts, you should see where I find fault. If you don't have talk radio or don't listen to talk radio as we have it here, maybe you don't understand. I live in the seventh largest city in the U.S. and we have five radio stations which broadcast the same "ideological" programming virtually 24/7. I spend a large portion of my day in my car and when I cruise the dial, it's almost impossible to avoid. And it is all the same mindless hatred, just blind simple hatred, that Clay has for the very word "Al Gore". It is no longer even the person of Gore that offends him because the person has been replaced by a thought process. It is Pavlovian. 24/7 the listeners are being kept in a perpetual state of hatred. The only thing that engenders more bile from the listeners than "Gore" or "Clinton" is when the host invokes "Those People". Fifteen to twenty per cent of America feeds on this stuff and they are being taught to hate an entire group of people who simply disagree with them. It is unfortunate that the fifteen to twenty per cent is comprised of mainly whites and mostly males since that group is not well known for their degree of tolerance and acceptance to change. With this sheepheaded mentality they see "Those People" as someone to be ignored, defeated, abused, forgotten, and left behind. They read books which tell them "Those People" hate America, that "Those People" only seek raw power, that "Those People" are liars and fabricators, "Those People" should be deported (to where?) and imprisoned and that "Those People" are suffering from a mental disorder. All things itended to make any opinion not their own appear weak or dishonest and the arguments not worthy of serious debate. More importantly, intended to make "Those People" into weak minded, dishonest non-human beings. "Those People" become just another Pavlovian response. Facts and opinions, reality itself, have been replaced by talking points provided by radio and TV pundits. And the result is the words "Al Gore" become so offensive, the reader cannot see the real intent of the article and cannot agree with anything stated on the page.

And cannot explain why that is so.

My fight was never with Clay. I've enjoyed his posts on the forum. And it's too bad he couldn't simply state what his prinicples were that made page fourteen so offensive. It's too bad he took refuge behind the skirts of a foul word. And its quite too bad he chose to run rather than state what principles he believes in. It seems certain members can cheer on the one who shouts, "The Emperor has no clothes", but when confronted with the idea they might be naked, they cannot defend the attire they drape about themself.

Whether Clay returns is his decision, but my language should never have been a reason for his departure. That he used it as such, rather than address the words he placed in his first post, is regrettable but not altogether unexpected.

Back in the day, my buddy T.J. and his (then) wife had a gathering at their place. Their daughter, Devon, was two at the time, and was a precocious kid.

As we were all sitting around the kitchen counter/serving bar, T.J. told a story about one of our friends having a self-inflicted adverse social outcome where he worked and, not thinking in kid mode, I chuckled and replied, "Yeah, Rick really fucked himself up the ass on the one."

T.J.'s (then) wife gave me the "ixnay on the earingsway" look and I suddenly realized what I had done, swearing right in front of Devon.

I felt bad, so I looked at Devon and said, "Devon, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used that word. What I meant to say was that Rick fucked himself up the butt."

I was so preoccupied with the latter swear word, that I had completely failed to register the former.

So, this thread has been tough to follow 'cause I'm missing where all the swearing apparently took place. Shit, I hate when that happens.

Cheapskate!

If you stay, I'll write you a limerick.

Quote:
Maybe a few bits I would like the opportunity to come at you about...especially that Big Brother ref...never watched it my life and have no intention of starting now...or ever in the future, so your analogy is completely lost on me.

That you're unfamiliar with the show doesn't really matter. I explained my point in the sentences that follow:

I hope that our members are not motivated to drive others out. No one here should feel motivated to win my or John's favor in the hopes of achieving "immunity." I view this forum as an extension of our audiophile and music-loving family, really. I think of our members as part of a team. I trust that you will treat each other with respect and try to be understanding. When this doesn't happen, I'm deeply disappointed in all of us, and I wonder what we're doing wrong.

Quote
"That thread existed for two weeks. It earned 48 responses from 19 different forum members, beginning with your provocative questions and ending in what I felt was a tasteless and poor rhyme. In between, there were some interesting points, and the thread did allow people to express their feelings."

Stephen, thank you for your compliment on my tasteless , poor rhyming skill.
The song was meant to be just that. It is just a joke poking fun at everyone, myself included for my ineptitude at writing rap songs.

Hope you didn't take it personally

Quote:
Stephen, thank you for your compliment on my tasteless , poor rhyming skill.
The song was meant to be just that. It is just a joke poking fun at everyone, myself included for my ineptitude at writing rap songs.

Hope you didn't take it personally

I didn't take it personally at all, tomjtx. I hope you didn't take my comments personally, either. While I found your post tasteless and poor, as far as poetry goes (and I am no laureate), I also found it playful. Beyond that, I simply thought it was a good place to close the thread.

If anyone has anything else they'd like to say about the DUP ban, they are, of course, free to start a new thread.

Quote:
If anyone has anything else they'd like to say about the DUP ban, they are, of course, free to start a new thread.

How does dup find himself the center of attention so often? And what do a few words in a select thread have to do with a constant barrage of rudeness which extended to everyone new and old for months at a time? One is not equal to the other IMO. The issue of the thread is Cheapskate's "principals" and whether the rest of us should be subject to his prior approval. How can you argue for allowing one person to run wild for months and then turn around and argue for shutting down any comment that Clay or anyone else finds offensive? Why would I have used language in an attempt to get this thread closed? If that was my intent, wouldn't I have continued to increase the chances my language might force the issue? Once again; what am I missing? Why is John held to account for a question while Clay is given a free ride to ignore my questions?

Quote:
Once again; what am I missing?

Jan, I think you're missing the topic that my response addresses. I apologize for not being absolutely clear. This is the thread that was closed after tomjtx's post.

I was addressing tomjtx's question as to whether I had been personally offended by his post to that previous thread.

Quote:
The issue of the thread is Cheapskate's "principals" and whether the rest of us should be subject to his prior approval.

We all find different things to focus on. That, it seems to me, is your issue. The issue of this thread that I wanted to focus on was dormston's questioning my decision to close that other aforementioned thread.

Quote:
How can you argue for allowing one person to run wild for months and then turn around and argue for shutting down any comment that Clay or anyone else finds offensive?

I didn't.

Quote:
Why would I have used language in an attempt to get this thread closed?

I don't think you did.

Quote:
If that was my intent, wouldn't I have continued to increase the chances my language might force the issue?

I don't understand what you're saying. I think you might have mistook the direction of my comments. I wasn't even thinking about you, Jan. I was talking first to dormston, and second to tomjtx.

I'm sorry, Stephen, I hit the wrong post when responding to dormston. The questions were not intended for you. Sorry.

Ohhhhhhhh! Sorry. This danged internet talking stuff is screwy. I'm going to go for a walk.

GoOdness1 I only went and painted a wall...and look what's happening...jings...what a shambles...

PLEASE CAN WE TRY AND FIX THIS WHOLE MESS?

(I am sure we can all wait a wee while to ask if Buddha shagged his mate's wife and thus contributed to the greater social and moral decline in the Western world...)

SHALL WE GIVE IT A TRY OR NOT?

If yes, then the first question must be why Stephen shut down that last thread regarding DUP? Disagree with my logic for this if you must, but however you might reply, PLEASE include a simple YES or NO to being so offended by Tom's rap to have it closed?

I didn't look at it like a closing of the thread so much as a well deserved euthanasia. It was beyond saving.

I hope somebody liked my rap , no one wants to feel unloved :-)

Monty and I sure you mean well and your view is appreciated - now piss off for a wee while and let Jan reply to my question.

Think of it not so much as not being loved as being under appreciated. You have something in common with Van Gogh.

Was I offended? No. Was there a reason to restart the thread after it had lived on life support for a week? No to that also. It appeared everyone who was interested in adding their comments had done so. Restirring a pot that had already thickened, the lumps only rose to the top. It deserved to be taken off the burner.

Quote:
PLEASE CAN WE TRY AND FIX THIS WHOLE MESS?

This mess has nothing to do with dup. I see no reason to stir that pot again. If you would prefer to do so, please, do as Stephen suggests and begin another thread. If you are merely upset that "your" thread was shut down, begin with that idea. I can only see this thread being hijacked if the discussion is now about another thread. I see distinct differences between dup's year long behavior, your thread being shut down and my language.

Now, dormston, it's your turn to answer my questions.

lol

Wait! I gotta ask you something first. Can I use your post in my sigline?

Your rap was, in my opinion absolutely fine and caused no offence that I am aware of. Stephen is the only person it seemed to upset and as moderator he shut the thread down because of it...Jan might have been upset (which is why I am asking the question...and if at the time had been given the chance to say so, then I would have joined him in jumping upon you at the time.Now would you also take a hike for a while until Jan responds, please. And stop being so smarmy with Stephen...this is serious stuff...

Quote:
Jan might have been upset ...

Why do you suppose I might be upset. There seems to be constant inferences that I am responsible for dup's actions and his banishment. Without dragging this thread into a direction it was never intended to follow, would anyone care to explain the logic of these remarks?

Okay Jan, that is good. I agree with you that this whole mess has nothing to with DUP but it does have a lot to do with members feelings when they are upset. Stephen shut a thread down because he was upset by Tom's rap at you without chacking with you, me or anyone in the thread? OR have I interpretted all this wrongly?

Please forget the past for a minute and just concentrate on the question - do you agree that Stephen shut down a thread because of someone (him) being upset?

No double meanings or games.just a simple question.

Okay maybe I should fast track a little, make my point (or explain the logic if I could be so lucky) and then depart for a long while to see what happens.

I made a temporary 'buddy' in Clay - we disagreed massively to start and then swapped exchanges which left us both with some mutual respect for each other. The initial subject happened to be DUP but I suspect it could have been any topic.

Maybe his raising this thread was a huge mistake which he cannot really justify in the cold light of day - I am not saying it was - but it might have been.

Whether justified or not the guy was clearly and obviously upset by some of the responses - including the swearing. Or do you not agree?

John diving in and completely ignoring the swearing in pusuit of a defence for the 'Al Gore' publication or chasing down Clay to justify his remarks, was perhaps not appropriate - if a moderator can shut a thread down because of some fun between members churning over in mouldy old threads and trying to bring some fun back into things (which is what I was doing when Tom joined in with such an eloquent piece of poetry) - then a moderator should shut down a thread when the person raising it is clearly upset by the turns it is taking.

In five hundred words - that is my point and I still consider it wrong for Clay to have been 'forced' into falling on his sword.

Freedom breeds anarchy. Total freedom breeds total anarchy.

We all need rules of some kind on forums such as these otherwise someone will surely concertrate on the exploits of Buddha's mate's dick to the exclusion of more important stuff...Rick's dick could be the title for a new thread...that would be fun...

Over to you all now. And thanks for putting things on pause when asked folks. That is class.

I am gone for a while.

At this point I'm unable to follow your logic.

Quote:
Stephen shut a thread down because he was upset by Tom's rap at you without chacking with you, me or anyone in the thread?

Stephen has said he was not upset with Tom's post. Stephen has no requirement to check with any forum member before he takes any action on the forum proper. That's kind of what "moderator" implies; no?

Quote:
... do you agree that Stephen shut down a thread because of someone (him) being upset?

No.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Clay. Why is this bothering you so much? You made this an issue in this thread when it didn't need to be. Why? "Your" thread (why does everyone assume these are "their" threads to own? It's a public forum.) was closed. Stephen gets to do that. He gets to decide what stays and what goes, who stays and who goes and for how long. He's the head cheese! He's "The Decider"! It's his job. If you have a problem with how he runs the forum I would think you would be more successful taking it up with him rather than trying to cajole me into agreeing with you. I'm sometimes surprised Stephen chooses to keep this job. No one agrees with how he does the work and whether I agree with his decisions all the time or not, it's his job and he gets to decide how to do it. Everyone thinks threads belong to them and they are in control of these threads. They don't and they don't. dup proved that repeatedly. How were you in control of that thread, dormston? You can't delete anything or control what's posted. Really, to think that you were "in control" is a bit absurd. Stephen did what moderators have the power to do. Period.

Please, if you have a complaint with Stephen or John, take it up with them. But stop dragging a long past thread into this one. Stephen closed it. At the risk of being rude, dormston, grow up. If you want comments by other forum members, please, begin a new thread. It's not like we haven't spent enough time on this already.

Now, please answer my questions.

"The issue of the thread is Cheapskate's "principals" and whether the rest of us should be subject to his prior approval. How can you argue for allowing one person to run wild for months and then turn around and argue for shutting down any comment that Clay or anyone else finds offensive? Why would I have used language in an attempt to get this thread closed? If that was my intent, wouldn't I have continued to increase the chances my language might force the issue? Once again; what am I missing? Why is John held to account for a question he answered while Clay is given a free ride to ignore my questions?"

OK, this just in while I posted the above response.

Quote:
Maybe his raising this thread was a huge mistake which he cannot really justify in the cold light of day - I am not saying it was - but it might have been.

Whether justified or not the guy was clearly and obviously upset by some of the responses - including the swearing. Or do you not agree?

John diving in and completely ignoring the swearing in pusuit of a defence for the 'Al Gore' publication or chasing down Clay to justify his remarks, was perhaps not appropriate

At this point I see nothing, repeat, nothing in your post that I can agree with. Let's start with Clay. He has every right the forum permits to express his opinion. But, and I consider this a very large "but", he started a thread with political overtones. Anyone, repeat, anyone who begins a thread on a public forum with politics in mind
is living in a bubble if they can then be "offended" by remarks that disagree with their chosen position. Quite honestly, that applies to any remark foul or pleasant. There is a level of responsibility that comes with asking a controversial question or yelling, "Fire!", in a crowded theater. Clay seemed unwilling to accept any criticism of his position. Might I remind you to read once again who called who rude the first time, to remind you who accused someone of having a "tone". Or, who posted, "Perhaps with less rudeness than you have a habit of displaying. I am not Carl, and don't take kindly to your tone, nor do I have any intention of continuing a non-audio related dialog." But continue he did. He made a decision to post once again on this thread. Who then should be responsible for what happens?

Now, let's discuss "the 'Al Gore' publication". I can only assume you have not read the article at this late date. Overseas delivery and all. But I have a difficult time understanding how you've missed the point made within this thread that the article was not about Al Gore. The words "Al Gore" appeared in the article. But the article was not about Mr. Gore. No way, no how! OK?

The article was about efforts in the music industry, mostly by very small companies, to reduce waste and pollution by recycling or using recycled packaging. No left. No right. No one was trying to get anyone to change their mind about anything. Some of the efforts described actually were quite humorous in their over zealous desire to be politically correct. I would think a real conservative would be delighted to see how ridiculous some of these efforts are. (Take, for example, the cassettes wrapped in leaves which crumbled into the studio consoles when unfolded.)

So, can we get it clear this was not an "Al Gore" publication? Clay simply chose to make it so in his mind. And he did so with Republican talking points (personal attacks, IMO), as I said, straight from the talking heads on conservative blogs, radio and TV. John did not chase down anyone. I really feel like you and I have read two completely different threads.

I'm missing the point in the thread where Clay complained about "the turns it is taking". He only publicly responded to the thought of my language after you raised the issue of unfair treatment a second time. At that point I had calmed down. His "complaint" was a simple ruse to avoid answering any other questions. And, I repeat, if you begin a thread with political overtones, you had better be ready to defend your position against any sort of disagreement with your chosen stance. Clay did not IMO. Show me where he did if you disagree. So, please, reconsider just who fell on their sword and for what purpose it might have happened. I don't think nobility, or any particular "principal", was at play here. If so, tell me what Clay's principles are. I've asked and still not had anyone supply an answer.

I too enjoyed Clay's contribution to the forum. Quite ironically, it was Cheapskate who came to my defense when JK jumped down my throat for things I still do not understand. To my recollection, Clay and I have never had a problem before. If he returns to the audio forum, I will have no problem with his opinions regarding audio. But it would appear he and I disagree on politics. If he cannot see his way past that obstacle, or he finds his place on another forum as he suggested, that's his decision to make. But if he's looking for an audio forum where everyone hates Al Gore with the same ferocity he displayed in this thread, he will likely be looking for a long time.

This is not a reply to anyone, I don't know how to post W/O hitting the reply button
SO:

Yo wassup,

Saw Al gore's Inconvenient Truth
Make me wanna hide away in a booth

Then I see the Global Warming Swindle
Now Gore's movie don't make me tremble

how can I find out which side is right
when the right and left always gonna fight

It either be CO2 or the sun
only science can find which one

Go to citizenjoe.org to see where
the right and the left at least try to fight fair

Please forgive me in advance..............Ill try not to torture anymore:-)

Tomjtx, you certainly have nothing for which to apologize, as far as I'm concerned. I admire that you are sticking your poetic neck out a little in an effort to shift the tone of this thread.

Even in DUP's absence, this forum has been lacking in civility. Stephen's diplomacy, however, is always encouraging. At the end of the day, I can list more positive things about the forum than negative, and will stay into the foreseeable future. It troubles me to see Cheapskate go because I feel he has always been a real mensch, and someone who loves this hobby as much as anyone else here.

Really, though, I have a difficult time understanding the extent to which politics gets peoples' dander up. I'm a liberal, but understand that most conservatives love this country as much as I do and just have a different idea of what's best. Of my six best friends, five are conservative. We'll never see eye-to-eye politically, but we don't have to. Disagreement is not an infuriating context for me. People become so entrenched in their respective belief systems that they lose perspective and forget how to treat other human beings.

For the record, I voted for Kerry, would vote for Al Gore, and believe that global warming is an issue.

Anyone here who voted for Bush, thinks Al Gore is a scheming hypocrite, and believes global warming is a load of garbage, feel free to come hang. I couldn't care less.

Thanks, tomjtx, for keeping things light. I hope this thread can turn a corner.

Cheers,

Thank you, at last, recognition :-)

The one serious line is about citizenjoe.org

A multipartisan site that is trying to foster respectful dialog betwen opposing political views.
I found the site while I was searching for some de-politicized discussion of the state of the science on GW (global warming)

I am definitely a leftie but I have seen some compelling evidence against manmade GW by some climate scientists. I was looking for a scientific discussion among scientists with differing opinions.

What I have seen so far has put me a bit on the fence re MMGW. I want to learn more about both sides of the equation.

However, striving to reduce pollution and gain energy independence seem worthy goals regardless of the validity of MMGW.

Good to see things settling down a wee bit.

Jan, there are some fantastic folks on here - just have a read of that posting by Monty regarding his question for "recording guys" (no link needed, it's easy to find, about two back from this one) which is about Diana Krall - the question is brilliant and makes me almost want to go buy the music to find out what he is talking about. But, hey, the replies are just so good it makes me even more interested in buying some of her stuff, even the earlier stuff!

That, to me anyway, is what this / these forums are all about and is why I joined in the first place.

But, and it probably is a 'but' for many looking for some fun, it is now done and unless I happened to be a recording engineeer on any of her albums, I doubt that anyone could add many more useful posts.

I might try to be smart and launch in with a few more artists where the same thing can be found, and I guess that would probably be okay (?) or I might try some other slight tangent by asking how many others use the same techniques, but all that would be quite okay and the thread could run rampant with no need for 'control' of any kind. A good place to hang out and exchange views on recording techniques.

Boring? Yes, if I was in the market to have some 'fun' I would probably have a go with "Recording guys you sexist idiot, what about all the gals out here?" and sure as eggs is eggs the whole thing would go into hyperdrive of some kind, for a while, and then burn out after all those seeking 'fun' had had their fix. It is so easy with such freedom being permitted by Stephen / John and the end result woluld be total chaos or the anarchy I mentioned earlier. WE (the members) are given 'total' freedom to raise anything we want.

Would I ever do that to Monty? Never in a million years. Why not? Not only because I have the greatest respect for him, but also because I rather suspect he would tell me to piss off in much the same way as I would do to him on any threads where I felt I was 'in control' albeit for short periods and not all the time the thread is open. (I repeat myself by saying these are not chat rooms and again by suggesting that might not be a bad idea.)

We all make mistakes - especially on open forums like this - I just cringe every time I press the send button and then see all my typo's and sometimes want to go hide in the closet if I have been stupid in the heat of the moment with some topic or other - yes, that is true, and I am not ashamed to admit it - very often there is no way out and even the thought of making some kind of retraction or trying make it go away, is not all that easy...you walk away, you mull things over, sleep on them and often that desire for retraction becomes more of a 'well maybe that was no so bad after all and I can defend it now I have thought about it'

One aspect which really struck me on that DUP thread was the cherry picking where folks would launch into something like...DUP's input was crap but I often enjoyed it...that is where the politics begin. We remove the 'but' 'and suddenly find two totally differing opinions.

And therein lies the root of why you and I will never agree on anything at the moment - our positions are entrenched and the whole world is watching for the next move. My guess is that Stephen's prognosis that this is not 'Big Brother' was wrong for many folks who live here maybe for several hours each day - nothing like the same scale and I am trying to be very dispassionate in suggesting such a thing. John has already mentioned tuning in early morning to see what's going on, I do the same, you probably do the same, everyone reading this does it maybe two or three times every day, most days. How many times have you made a posting and just cannot wait to tune in for the next reply - it's exciting, disappointing, annoying, frustrating, rewarding and on and on...

I thought John's earlier reply on the PULSE DVD was great. IF Clay (and others) had picked up on the vibes from some of that music related repartee, then maybe this thread could have wandered into rather pleasant oblivion, but alas we all went into point scoring mode and Clay came back to push John maybe because of me, maybe to find a way out and John went back at Clay, then me and you came back and on and on...then Stephen joined the party and I went into bash the management mode again and Buddha came in with some totally unreal absolutely hilarious stuff which everyone missed and you (or someone) pressed the wrong button and on and on...and the plot was most certainly lost for a while (yes, maybe it still is...tee hee)...then after all that, things calmed down and Tom got the chance to treat us all to some more poetry (poetry? did I really call it poetry...maybe one of those typo's I must check later before pressing send...)

I will again repeat myself and I am sorry you disagree with me that we need control of some kind on our own threads. If I start a thread and find anyone (yes, DUP, John, Stephen et al included) upsetting me in any serious manner then I will tell that person to go away (I do not swear naturally and that is the truth - I stopped somewhere around 1994) and if that person does go not go away, then I will simply make a reply which says it is no longer anything to do with me in any way and request it be shut down. Then it becomes a 'management' issue full stop. I might not like it that anything I have started is permitted to continue because I am seriously upset by some silly swear words during the dialogues,but hey, that's what moderators are for. I feel reasonably sure that if we pushed either John or Stephen into a corner which demanded they stopped or allowed that 'fucking' being permitted on every thread, then they might choose prevention rather than cure?

That my potential friend in music, is true freedom. The freedom which gives the power to those with the power to use it with respect and kindness and gentlness to others - the power which tolerates and forgives rather than prevents. True power is giving it away - which is what John / Stephen and all at the site have done. It is surely down to those with the power they have given to prevent anarchy. That is all of us - A COMMUNITY OF MUSIC LOVERS - yes, you and I are in the same bed whether we like it not Jan and there is no double meaning there whatever!

Anyway, this will probably be the last you will see from me for a very long while. I am following Clay to the high road, the yellow brick road, the low road, the anyroad which leads to pleasant discourse about music and sounds and machines which produce those sounds and cables which join all these machines together and songs and lyrics and poetry...and debates about being ripped off by the industry dinosaurs who dictate what we can and cannot do with huge amounts cash we spend on buying cd's or vinyl or tapes, why Arcade Fire are defintely the best thing to hit the music scene for ages, and why Captain Beefheart was dire stuff near forty years ago and still is, why Led Zep two is better than the four symbols, why John Fahey is probably the greatest guitarist ever to come from USA, why avant garde jazz is really okay to listen to but only in small chunks apart from maybe Jan Garbarek, why Mozart is considered the greatest classic composer when it is so obvious that mantle belongs to Vivaldi, why Tubular Bells never gets a mention in any top ten of all time, why country and western should be reclassified as folk music, and...okay I will stop now...c'mon what do you expect...a short swan song without farewell barbs...

Over to you now as far as I am concerned Stephen (my definite friend in music with that support for Sonic Youth!) and you John (after that PULSE stuff I hope you do not expect me to say 'friend' in any context ...bloody soul mate would be more appropriate!)

So guys (or gals), any ideas where that stony road can be found? Do you think Clay might ever find the same one? Where can that first step be placed?

Gosh so many questions to leave even after all this...

Quote:
Gosh so many questions to leave even after all this...

Yes, the ones I asked that never got answered. In particular, "Why is John held to account for a question he answered while Clay is given a free ride to ignore my questions?" I've asked a dozen questions in this thread, all of which have gone unanswered other than those to which Stephen replied when I misdirected the post. Thanks, Stephen, it's nice to know someone's reading beyond "old fart" language.

Quote:
I will again repeat myself and I am sorry you disagree with me that we need control of some kind on our own threads.

I don't disagree with you on that issue specifically. You seem to have made that mistake repeatedly on this thread. But, as we hear frequently, "We are where we are." We have the amount of control the forum allows, no more and no less. Telling someone to "piss off" because they inject a thought you don't wish to be bothered with is not exactly my idea of freedom. I guess we disagree on how a public forum is run. You find this forum constraining. You feel under the thumb of Stephen and John. I just don't agree with that assessment.

Let me suggest to you, if you're still reading, that should you wish to take the thread in a different direction, you can post a new title when you compose your words. You have that opportunity at any time within the thread. You could have made a post under the heading, "I'm tired of politics, let's discuss Pink Floyd", and posted it within this thread. People wishing to discuss music and not politics would have looked. As is, your point was lost and the references to the previous thread only served to prolong and distort this thread. You did not control this thread any more than you did the previous thread. That's just not how it works on this forum. Again, telling people to piss off isn't "control" and isn't getting us anywhere. Like it or not, the moderator is in control. Sit back and enjoy the ride or buy a ticket for another destination.

Unless someone cares to answer my question posted above, I think this thread has run it's course. Two casualties. Dare I say from people who believed they could control something they could not possibly have control over. Will we learn from history?

dormston,
I would compare a thread to sitting at the community table in a cafe. Some people you know , others you don't.

I would never presume I would have control over a topic I introduced. Just because one starts a thread doesn't de facto give one a moderator's rights over that thread.

Sthephen is the mod and he and JA seem to be the only ones that have the power to moderate. After all, it is Stereophile's website.

You might give AudioCircle a try. It is one of the most heavily moderated forums out there and IMO, that is both it's strength and weakness.
You might find that forum's rules more to your liking.

I tend to surf 3 forums: Here, AudioCircle and the SlimDevices forum.

I just tell myself that each place has it's own rules and culture and I try to adapt to that.

I hope you do keep contributing to the forum here.

Tom

tomjtx - In your quest for non-political answers, you might wish to look for the money behind any particular "scientific" position. "Follow the money" worked well in 1972 and still has a good deal to offer in today's hyper-political climate.

As an example, I just the other day heard a well known commentator flat out state there are no studies which prove second hand smoke is dangerous to anyone. This personality is well known for having a cigar handy and, IMO, he often relies on such statements to lead his listeners down a path of deception. He knows they probably can't think of any such studies off the top of their head, they willing would like to believe their smoking is their own business and, therefore, curtailing second hand smoke is infringing on their rights to smoke. With that in mind they will simply accept what he's stated as fact. Does he have a monetary stake in this arguement? Well, since this is tied into taxes, I would say yes. But the point I've tried to make in this thread is that people believe what they want to believe. In another thread I posted a paraphrase of a famous saying, "People do no want to know what you think, they want you to confirm what they already think." In many ways, that's what this thread has been about.

There is a web site that offers the information you would require to check monetary resources. I'll try to find it and post the address. If anyone else knows what site I'm speaking of, please, give a hand.

Jan,
The potential problem with follow the mony is that both sides receive money.

One figure was: app. 20 million for GW skeptics as opposed to a figure in the billions for GW proponents.

I am on the fence at this point and trying to filter out the propanda that both sides indulge in.

I look forward to you posting that site and thanks,

Tom

Don't look at the amount. Look at who gave the amount. Without trying to argue for or against warming, the energy industry funds studies which provide "anti-warming", "anti-human intervention" results. Obviously, the energy companies have a large stake in whether we continue on our path toward greater dependence on fossil fuels. What would you expect their studies to find? Do you believe they are acting in your best interests?

Government studies are edited and redacted by appointees to an administration that chooses their people by loyalty to a party line. Some appointees have been lobbyists for the industry they are now supposedly policing. Others have no actual experience in the field they oversee. Just remember, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

The pundits who would argue against warming continually site a lack of "consensus" amongst scientists to "disprove" warming exists. With the above two examples, is there any doubt there will always be a lack of consensus? If it only requires one naysayer to disprove what the majority believe, then the money makers have won.

Jan, you make good points and I had considered the source of money and the oversight non-scientists might have over the reports.
However this also applies to the pro GW side as well.

The UN GPPC report was edited and redacted by a consortium of government appointees , not scientists.

Some scientists have filed lawsuits to have their names removed from the GPPC report.

Some scientists have said the report has been too influenced by politics.

It appears to me that both sides are guilty of some distortions and that adds to the difficulty getting to the data free of bias.

I would love to see a debate between 2 scientists rebutting each others conclusions.
To me that would be much more enlightening than a politcal debate.

Regardless, politically, I have to go with the left on what to do re GW, because it seems the prudent course of action.
Scientifically I would like to see less politics in the debate.

As a leftist it dissapoints me to see the left using the smear tactics that the right has used.
Eg. Newsweek's article that called skeptics "global warming deniers"

What does that remind you of?
Semantically putting scientists who have contrary opinion in the same category as holocaust deniers is sleazy and does nothing to generate real education about GW.

An editor at Newsweek has criticized the magazine and says the article is terrible journalism.

Tom

Quote:
So guys (or gals), any ideas where that stony road can be found?

Chris Rea knows where it is. However, I can't recommend the disc unless you are a pure delta blues fan at heart. 95% of people wouldn't like it. Link

The most underappreciated artist on the planet. At least here in the states.

How's that for derailing a thread?

Post deleted by dormston

"The pundits who would argue against warming continually site a lack of "consensus" amongst scientists to "disprove" warming exists."

I believe that most experts agree that warming is taking place. The issue is what causes the warming. One camp argues that human activity causes the warming, the other that that Earth was warming naturally since before the large use of fossil fuels. Around these parts the record for twenty-one consecutive days of 90+ degree temperatures was in something like 1910. Ah, the good old days.

In an age where diplomacy means not talking to anyone who doesn't already agree with you, old style politics of negotitation are having a tough go of it. Frank Luntz (http://www.luntz.com/) has demonized and annointed words to have a power they previously never enjoyed. "Death Tax" vs. "Estate tax". "Tax relief" against "Tax cuts." "Creationism" has given way to "Intelligent design". The idea that a word such as "denier" is so loaded in meaning it places the very people it seeks to define as somehow out of the mainstream as now above suspicion is the problem of the moment. It is all perspective and how someone else wishes to shape how you view the word out of context. In this thread we've seen the words "Al Gore" inflame someone simply by being placed in an article. Chances are most who view "Al Gore" with partisan emotions ignore the equally irrational context of "Bush Haters". It's OK to hate one but to do so you must also hate the person who "hates" the guy on your side. To view one such act as rational behavior while dismissing the other as being fuel solely by blind emotion is the power of words and the result of the mindlessness of sheep.

I'm not suggesting both sides are not equally at fault here, though one side has taken to this wordplay with far greater zeal and from an ealier date than the other, but only suggesting that you should be aware of the game for control that is being waged with you as the chip. Let's say you and I are negotiating the price of a new CD player. It's retailed at $1500 and you've stated flatly you will not pay what you consider an inflated price just so I can make money. I consider making money keeps me in business. My cost is $995 and I would like to get as much profit as possible while still making the sale. I'll make an offer expecting you to counter and using words which allow no simple "yes" or "no" answer. If I offer the player for $1450, you'll counter with $800. Eventually, if we're both serious about the negotiations, we'll arrive at a fair price for both and the deal will be sealed with neither feeling they've lost a significant amount of pride. But, if I'm a skilled negotiator, I will have directed the deal to my favor more often than not.

When you read virtually any word today you must consider you are being sold a product. How skillfully the words are used will shape which way you lean and determines who will close the deal. But both sides will typically begin at a point they know the other side will not accept and work their way to the middle with words that allow no "yes" or "no" to intervene. I can't tell you how to determine which words are loaded and which are not. But I can tell you my experience has been on most ocassions when someone is telling you to watch out because the other guy is trying to pull something off, the person warning you has probably already done just what they are accusing the other guy of pulling.

As my post above suggests we don't want to hear what is being said, we want to hear what confirms our own thoughts. If you've made "denier" a neutral word in your vocabulary, how someone else uses it shouldn't matter. If you view "denier" as sleazy, someone will have already begun to win the negotiations. Each side is trying to sell something and only you are able to negotiate the deal. Try to read neutrally. Know buzz words and talking points when you hear or see them and make them something neutral. It typically means listening to both sides without a predetermined view but with an end point in sight. It's not easy.

Excellent post, Jan, although you may have miscontrued one thing I said.
The word denier is neutral to me but I can easily see why it is not to many people. It is benificial to recognize when someone is engaging in manipulation rather than discourse.

It is my opinion the Newsweek article was doing just that.

I'm not sure what you've heard but what I hear is the consensus is the Earth is warming. How much is debatable and the cause is debatable. The problem I see is one of extreme statements as I suggested above. If the ice caps are thicker in spots, is that anecdotal evidence or evidence that supports a broader consensus. Telling me one thing is true does not make all other things false. Telling me you ate chili and didn't die doesn't mean you won't die of something else. I heard a pundit suggest that carrots were dangerous because 100% the people who died in car accidents ate carrots within their lifetime. If you argue the Earth is in a cycle of warming and that Mars is getting warmer also, does that disprove that man may be adding to the problem here on Earth? Know when your attention is being misdirected.

I generally agree with those on this thread who suggest that conservation is not a bad idea. I think it is merely a personal virtue, but that doesn't mean it's not important or that collectively personal virtues are not going to help the situation. What I'm hearing mostly from the right is they have, finally, conceded the Earth is getting warmer after years of denying it was happening. So, now the tact has turned to whether the listener is afraid of and resistant to ... change. The approach appears to be the left is trying to get you to change your behavior so they can control your behavior. As a good conservative, you should resist change and therefore resist conservation. That argument is beginning to break down among various religious groups who find virtue is a good thing. The next decade should be interesting.

Try this. For each word give the opposite that comes to mind. Use each opposite word only once.

Black -
Day -
Up -
Left -
Democrat -
Liberal -
Activist -
Progressive -

I'd rather be a DUP than a DUPE :-)

9 pages, 88 posts in just 3 days. And is political based and not about audio. I bet the crew at Stereophile is trying to figure out how to get this kind of response to audio topics.
By the way you tube fanatics will be the ruin of us all.
Flea power users excepted.
Anything but class D and horn speakers is irresponsible.

stoke those flames

Quote:
By the way you tube fanatics will be the ruin of us all.

Ahhh, those good Soviet tubes. Now China is in on the act. Think it's a plot?

There's not a doubt in my mind. BAT have gotten their hands on the 6H30 "Super Tube". Head for the bunkers, boys!

While those of you out there claiming that there is better more enviromentally sound power sources out there not being utilized, you will be the first to claim that solar, hydrogen, geothermal power doesn't sound as good as all natural hydroelectric power. Where is DUP when you don't need him?

I imagine solar power is very audio-friendly. If you were to power your home with photovoltaic cells, you could unplug yourself from the grid entirely. Of course, you may not want to. I was watching a television program about solar, and it briefly featured a man whose energy meter ran backwards. This sly fellow actually sold power back to the grid. Sounds like a win-win to me, especially when one considers that the purchase of solar panels is subsidized in many places.

Solar: It's the wave of the future. (You know, because light travels as a wave. Feel free to groan.)

Quote:
I imagine solar power is very audio-friendly. If you were to power your home with photovoltaic cells, you could unplug yourself from the grid entirely. Of course, you may not want to. I was watching a television program about solar, and it briefly featured a man whose energy meter ran backwards. This sly fellow actually sold power back to the grid. Sounds like a win-win to me, especially when one considers that the purchase of solar panels is subsidized in many places.

Solar: It's the wave of the future. (You know, because light travels as a wave. Feel free to groan.)

To much "thermal noise". You should have known.

You can cancel it out if you use Nordost's Solar Wind cables and interconnects.

Shoot, I knew I forgot something.

Woo Hoo!

My September issue arrived!

So, here goes

Nicely done, Buddha.

I finally got to read the article in question and man, we have some very sensitive readers around here. That article was so light weight politically speaking, I can't believe I'm hearing all the outrage. In fact it was a great example of NOT getting political. It just sited some examples of the music industry trying to leave a smaller environmental footprint and encourage recycling. I mean, even if you "don't believe" in Global Climate Change, how is it a BAD thing to use less non-renewable resources and encourage more recycling. Is that really that political, or do some people just see a liberal conspiracy around every corner?

If Car and Motor trend did and article about new forms of fuel, or low emission cars, would that be political, or just relevant industry information? What about Architectural Review writing about greener office buildings? Political or relevant news? I don't see the agenda here- but then again, I'm not looking for one either... Maybe it's the reader who brings too much agenda to the article?