Quote:

But he does work in the fields that high end audio may be and are involved with. JJ has his pedantic screechy repetitive bits and parts just like the rest of us....and being forced to mark his affiliations may slow him down just enough....

You're dreaming, sport. I simply refuse to take abuse, especially from the ignorant, or even more so, from the intentionally ignorant. The dishonest will get no quarter at all. That's how it is, and that's how it will be.

I make no secret of my affiliations in any case.

And, besides, I know the game. If I DO put my "affiliations" in my signature, then it's the "oooh, look at mister smarty pants" argument.

You're playing to a baldly obvious magician's force, and it's so pathetically obvious that I think I'll just explain this nonsense to everyone.

A magicians force, also known as a "whipsaw" argument goes thusly, in its most bald, obvious form.

The magician puts a gold coin in one hand, and holds out both hands closed, and says: "Pick a hand".

The rube picks one or the other.

If it's the result the Magician wants, he'll open that hand and say "here, this is your xxx". If it's the other result, he'll say "ok, that's my hand, here's yours".

That's what this kind of debate is really about, a demand for some way, any way at all, to put down the opponent.

Just so we're clear on how this all works.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Do I need to add it to my signature?

As you do not manufacturer high end audio equipment, tweaks, or accessories, you do not have to identify your business affiliation in your signature. Thanks for asking.

But he does work in the fields that high end audio may be and are involved with. JJ has his pedantic screechy repetitive bits and parts just like the rest of us....and being forced to mark his affiliations may slow him down just enough....

So, an industry affilitaion identifier?

"Affiliation with an audio industry company" disclaimer?

With companies financially backing AES, including his own employer, and J_J being a fellow with AES, not just a member, yes he should be absolutely required to identify the conflict and any others. Money always talks.

Quote:
I make no secret of my affiliations in any case.

Then why was it us who had to provide the information I posted above.

I would suggest a line in his signature.

Quote:

With companies financially backing AES, including his own employer, and J_J being a fellow with AES, not just a member, yes he should be absolutely required to identify the conflict and any others. Money always talks.

I would suggest a line in his signature.

Oh c'mon. This is a small message board. What do you think is going on here? International meetings of corperate giants and puppet "scientists" that have infaltrated the AES discussing exactly what propoganda should be dispersed through JJ in order to keep high end audio down?

Quote:
With companies financially backing AES, including his own employer, and J_J being a fellow with AES, not just a member, yes he should be absolutely required to identify the conflict and any others. Money always talks.

Your accusation, sir, is either an outright lie, an indication of extreme paranoia or studied ignorance of a pathological sort.

There is no such 'conflict', and your defamation of the AES suggests nothing more than a serious malfunction on your part.

If you keep up this nonsense about the AES, somebody a lot more prickly than me is likely to get involved.

I suggest that you admit, and admit right now, that your professional accusations about me are utterly, totally untrue, and that you have no basis whatsoever for uttering these offensive false accusations. Then, cease stalking me, and take responsibility for all of your completely unprofessional behaviors.

Quote:

Quote:

With companies financially backing AES, including his own employer, and J_J being a fellow with AES, not just a member, yes he should be absolutely required to identify the conflict and any others. Money always talks.

I would suggest a line in his signature.

Oh c'mon. This is a small message board. What do you think is going on here? International meetings of corperate giants and puppet "scientists" that have infaltrated the AES discussing exactly what propoganda should be dispersed through JJ in order to keep high end audio down?

Money talks, and companies who pay expect support for their positions. Be honest with yourself Scott.

Quote:

Quote:

With companies financially backing AES, including his own employer, and J_J being a fellow with AES, not just a member, yes he should be absolutely required to identify the conflict and any others. Money always talks.

I would suggest a line in his signature.

Oh c'mon. This is a small message board. What do you think is going on here? International meetings of corperate giants and puppet "scientists" that have infaltrated the AES discussing exactly what propoganda should be dispersed through JJ in order to keep high end audio down?

I'm thinking we need to send people who come up with that kind of paranoia some thicker tinfoil...

And, remember, shiny side out or it doesn't work.

Oh, and edited to add: Anyone who's ever dealt with me knows that I simply refuse to be anyone's puppet. What's ironic is that Sasaudio persists in this kind of accusation, the whole time demanding, in essence, that I act as HIS puppet, and meet his demands. Sorry, mate, my strings broke before I was born, and I dance to my own tune.

Quote:
Money talks, and companies who pay expect support for their positions. Be honest with yourself Scott.

Evidences?

Was it the UFO's who enforce this, or was it Sasquatch, or maybe Nessie?

Your position, sir, is beyond ridiculous.

Quote:

Quote:
With companies financially backing AES, including his own employer, and J_J being a fellow with AES, not just a member, yes he should be absolutely required to identify the conflict and any others. Money always talks.

Your accusation, sir, is either an outright lie, an indication of extreme paranoia or studied ignorance of a pathological sort.

There is no such 'conflict', and your defamation of the AES suggests nothing more than a serious malfunction on your part.

If you keep up this nonsense about the AES, somebody a lot more prickly than me is likely to get involved.

I suggest that you admit, and admit right now, that your professional accusations about me are utterly, totally untrue, and that you have no basis whatsoever for uttering these offensive false accusations. Then, cease stalking me, and take responsibility for all of your completely unprofessional behaviors.

You are bought and paid for son. You can sneak around all you want, but you are either totally ignorant or a bold face liar. Which is it.

Quote:

Quote:
Money talks, and companies who pay expect support for their positions. Be honest with yourself Scott.

Evidences?

Was it the UFO's who enforce this, or was it Sasquatch, or maybe Nessie?

Your position, sir, is beyond ridiculous.

You can only respond with the ridicious because you cannot refute the truth.

Quote:
If you keep up this nonsense about the AES, somebody a lot more prickly than me is likely to get involved.

Is that a threat? Companies financially sponsor AES, that is a fact.

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

Quote:
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization (such as a policeman, lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, editor, or any other entrusted individual or organization) has an interest that might compromise their actions. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:G0z9...=clnk&gl=us

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

With companies financially backing AES, including his own employer, and J_J being a fellow with AES, not just a member, yes he should be absolutely required to identify the conflict and any others. Money always talks.

I would suggest a line in his signature.

Oh c'mon. This is a small message board. What do you think is going on here? International meetings of corperate giants and puppet "scientists" that have infaltrated the AES discussing exactly what propoganda should be dispersed through JJ in order to keep high end audio down?

Money talks, and companies who pay expect support for their positions. Be honest with yourself Scott.

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

Quote:
Simply put your affiliations, conflict and be done with it. Arguement over.

I have no such "conflict". Cease and desist in your false statements.

Quote:
You are bought and paid for son.

Really, then you can tell me where to find all that money?

Do tell.

Your tinfoil hat is slipping, Steve.

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Quote:

Quote:
You are bought and paid for son.

Really, then you can tell me where to find all that money?

Do tell.

Ever look at the definition of a shill? Does not necessarily revolve around money. Check this out.

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

Quote:
A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims.......

In online discussion media, satisfied consumers or "innocent" parties may express specific opinions in order to further the interests of an organization in which they have an interest, such as a commercial vendor or special-interest group. Websites may also be set up for the same purpose. For example, an employee of a company that produces a specific product may praise the product anonymously in a discussion forum or group in order to generate interest in that product, service or group. In addition, some shills use sock puppetry where they sign on as one user soliciting recommendations for a specific product or service. They then sign on as a different user pretending to be a satisfied customer of a specific company.

In some jurisdictions and circumstances this type of activity may be illegal. In addition, reputable organizations may prohibit their employees and other interested parties (contractors, agents, etc.) from participating in public forums or discussion groups in which a conflict of interest might arise, or will at least insist that their employees and agents refrain from participating in any way that might create a conflict of interest.

Or
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

Quote:
a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

The public has a right to know and to reach their own conclusion. Is there some reason you do not want them to know? Are you attempting to dictate they have no right to know?

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Do you have any actual evidence that "fellows," in particular JJ, are now or ever have been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers?

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Ooohhh, he's a FELLOOOOWWWWWWW!

Do you have any idea at all what makes someone a Fellow?

Do you?

Do you know what it means?

What about the IEEE? I'm an IEEE Fellow too. And an IEEE Award Winner.

Ooooh, what does that mean? Do the Gnomes of Industry control everything, Steve, how about it?

Or did your tinfoil hat just slip?

N.B. For those trying to follow this nonsense, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING to this whack-job conspiracy theory. There isn't anything to REPLY to. There is literally NOTHING. All Sasuadio wants is to have some other excuse (like the "ooh, scientist, yeah, one of those ivory tower idiots" argument we see here rather often) to harrass me.

Quote:
The public has a right to know and to reach their own conclusion. Is there some reason you do not want them to know? Are you attempting to dictate they have no right to know?

To know what? What is JJ holding back from "the public?"

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Do you have any actual evidence that "fellows," in particular JJ, are now or ever have been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers?

No, he doesn't. At least one other AES fellow has posted here, and sasaudio hasn't given HIM any crap about it. It's all about sasaudio need to cast aspersions on people, as far as I can tell.

It appears my big offense was to point out a gaping, caravan-sized hole in a quote attributed to a third party.

It's gotten kind of funny, now.

For instance, if J-J is part of the industry, does the new forum rule mean he can no longer disparage the products he disparages?

I don't blame J-J for fighting aganist having to use a corporate moniker, as he would no longer be able to 'dis' other people's 'magic products!'

Quote:
It's gotten kind of funny, now.

For instance, if J-J is part of the industry, does the new forum rule mean he can no longer disparage the products he disparages?

I don't blame J-J for fighting aganist having to use a corporate moniker, as he would no longer be able to 'dis' other people's 'magic products!'

Does the new forum rule prevent industry people from expressing opinions about any audio product? That would be unfortunate if it does.

Quote:
It's gotten kind of funny, now.

For instance, if J-J is part of the industry, does the new forum rule mean he can no longer disparage the products he disparages?

I don't blame J-J for fighting aganist having to use a corporate moniker, as he would no longer be able to 'dis' other people's 'magic products!'

What products did I disparage?

Other than to ask a couple of people about what kind of baseball they play on their morphic field, that is.

Quote:

Quote:
It's gotten kind of funny, now.

For instance, if J-J is part of the industry, does the new forum rule mean he can no longer disparage the products he disparages?

I don't blame J-J for fighting aganist having to use a corporate moniker, as he would no longer be able to 'dis' other people's 'magic products!'

Does the new forum rule prevent industry people from expressing opinions about any audio product? That would be unfortunate if it does.

I'm not sure; For now, we'll have to decide on a case by case basis. If the manufacturers behave like responsible, intelligent adults, there should be no problem.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Do you have any actual evidence that "fellows," in particular JJ, are now or ever have been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers?

Read the quotes I posted about conflicts of interest and shills again. The answer lies within those quotes.

Anyone affiliated with manufacturers, dealers, organizations should post such in their signatures imo. They do at AVS forums, including those belonging to AES. As far as another belonging to AES, is he a member or "fellow"? Doesn't the public have a right to know, or should we keep it hush hush.

Quote:

Quote:
It's gotten kind of funny, now.

For instance, if J-J is part of the industry, does the new forum rule mean he can no longer disparage the products he disparages?

I don't blame J-J for fighting aganist having to use a corporate moniker, as he would no longer be able to 'dis' other people's 'magic products!'

What products did I disparage?

Other than to ask a couple of people about what kind of baseball they play on their morphic field, that is.

I see no reason why you or anyone else should not feel free to praise or be critical of any audio product. I get it that it may be an issue if a maker of a particular audio product is ciritical of someone else's product that directly competes for the same market share. But beyond that I would like to know what technical experts and even producers of audio product think about various other products out there.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's gotten kind of funny, now.

For instance, if J-J is part of the industry, does the new forum rule mean he can no longer disparage the products he disparages?

I don't blame J-J for fighting aganist having to use a corporate moniker, as he would no longer be able to 'dis' other people's 'magic products!'

Does the new forum rule prevent industry people from expressing opinions about any audio product? That would be unfortunate if it does.

I'm not sure; For now, we'll have to decide on a case by case basis. If the manufacturers behave like responsible, intelligent adults, there should be no problem.

Hi Stephen,

Couldn't even their general positions be influenced by affiliations, organizations and no one would never know? I see no wrong with being totally transparent if there is no underlying agenda? It would hurt no one.

Take care.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Do you have any actual evidence that "fellows," in particular JJ, are now or ever have been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers?

Read the quotes I posted about conflicts of interest and shills again. The answer lies within those quotes.

Anyone affiliated with manufacturers, dealers, organizations should post such in their signatures imo. They do at AVS forums, including those belonging to AES. As far as another belonging to AES, is he a member or "fellow"? Doesn't the public have a right to know, or should we keep it hush hush.

Sorry but that is bullshit. there is no "evidence" that JJ is now or ever has been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers in any of those quotes.

Quote:
They do at AVS forums, including those belonging to AES.

Really, now? Evidences, please?

Quote:

As far as another belonging to AES, is he a member or "fellow"? Doesn't the public have a right to know, or should we keep it hush hush.

Yes, he's a Fellow. Oh, he's also a VP in the organization at the minute, I forgot to mention that.

But you didn't go after him with all your tinfoil-hat conspiracy claptrap.

I will repeat:

WHAT PRODUCTS HAVE I EVEN DIRECTLY COMMENTED ON LET ALONE DISPARAGED?

Whoops, you can't name any. Because as a matter of personal policy, I rarely, if EVER, comment directly on somebody's product, in the audio hardware domain. People most often find the truth unpleasant.

I might comment on a CD or something like that, or is that verboten too, now?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
It's gotten kind of funny, now.

For instance, if J-J is part of the industry, does the new forum rule mean he can no longer disparage the products he disparages?

I don't blame J-J for fighting aganist having to use a corporate moniker, as he would no longer be able to 'dis' other people's 'magic products!'

What products did I disparage?

Other than to ask a couple of people about what kind of baseball they play on their morphic field, that is.

I see no reason why you or anyone else should not feel free to praise or be critical of any audio product. I get it that it may be an issue if a maker of a particular audio product is ciritical of someone else's product that directly competes for the same market share. But beyond that I would like to know what technical experts and even producers of audio product think about various other products out there.

I see where you are coming from Scott. The reason it is brought up is because that is not necessarily the case. In times past, we have had a few who have trashed a product or concept that outwardly appears to be distant from their products, thus not directly related. However, it later turned out that they wanted the money spent on their own products, not spent on another, seemingly unrelated product. So it was merely a slick attempt at pushing their product, not necessarily the other product or concept.

Hope this helps Scott.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Do you have any actual evidence that "fellows," in particular JJ, are now or ever have been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers?

Read the quotes I posted about conflicts of interest and shills again. The answer lies within those quotes.

Anyone affiliated with manufacturers, dealers, organizations should post such in their signatures imo. They do at AVS forums, including those belonging to AES. As far as another belonging to AES, is he a member or "fellow"? Doesn't the public have a right to know, or should we keep it hush hush.

Sorry but that is bullshit. there is no "evidence" that JJ is now or ever has been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers in any of those quotes.

It makes no difference. There is no reason why one would not want to be transparent. And reread the quotes I posted.

Quote:
Couldn't even their general positions be influenced by affiliations, organizations and no one would never know? I see no wrong with being totally transparent if there is no underlying agenda? It would hurt no one.

Take care.

Since who I am is totally transparent, what kind of nonsense are you raving about?

Or is this back to your fantasy about how I don't identify myself?

As I said just previously, I don't generally shove my credentials in people's faces. Facts should speak for themselves, rather than the people who state them.

And, given your own prating, you make it clear that if I did state my qualifications, you'd hold THAT against me. You are simply a hater and a fighter, and you hold a completely insane conspiracy theory about the AES and its corporate MEMBERS. If you'd even bother to find out the cost of a corporate MEMBERSHIP you'd know already that it's not going to affect the editorial policy of the magazine.

(fade out to twilight zone music)

Should we all have to disclose if are now or ever have been a member of the communist party too. Should we have to disclose sexual preferences? favorite colors? Whether or not we like Michael Jackson?

What exactly is JJ keeping secret from us again? I admit to not knowing his position on Michael Jackson but I think his web page pretty much discloses anything we *need* to know about him as a pro in the audio industry. I never got the impression that JJ was shy about that stuff.

Quote:
Should we all have to disclose if are now or ever have been a member of the communist party too. Should we have to disclose sexual preferences? favorite colors? Whether or not we like Michael Jackson?

What exactly is JJ keeping secret from us again? I admit to not knowing his position on Michael Jackson but I think his web page pretty much discloses anything we *need* to know about him as a pro in the audio industry. I never got the impression that JJ was shy about that stuff.

Actually, I just noticed that I need to update it to reflect the fact that DTS bought us last December. (blush)

Oh well. Some time, some day.

ETA: What does STEVE think I'm keeping from everyone? Didn't you notice that conspiracy-theory thing about the AES and its corporate MEMBERS, and how the Gnomes of the AES control everything behind the scenes, oh, and ...

Quote:

Quote:
They do at AVS forums, including those belonging to AES.

Really, now? Evidences, please?

Quote:

As far as another belonging to AES, is he a member or "fellow"? Doesn't the public have a right to know, or should we keep it hush hush.

Yes, he's a Fellow. Oh, he's also a VP in the organization at the minute, I forgot to mention that.

But you didn't go after him with all your tinfoil-hat conspiracy claptrap.

I will repeat:

WHAT PRODUCTS HAVE I EVEN DIRECTLY COMMENTED ON LET ALONE DISPARAGED?

Whoops, you can't name any. Because as a matter of personal policy, I rarely, if EVER, comment directly on somebody's product, in the audio hardware domain. People most often find the truth unpleasant.

I might comment on a CD or something like that, or is that verboten too, now?

I don't know because he is obviously hush hush about it. Not only products but concepts, right. What is wrong with being transparent if one has nothing to hide??

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Do you have any actual evidence that "fellows," in particular JJ, are now or ever have been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers?

Read the quotes I posted about conflicts of interest and shills again. The answer lies within those quotes.

Anyone affiliated with manufacturers, dealers, organizations should post such in their signatures imo. They do at AVS forums, including those belonging to AES. As far as another belonging to AES, is he a member or "fellow"? Doesn't the public have a right to know, or should we keep it hush hush.

Sorry but that is bullshit. there is no "evidence" that JJ is now or ever has been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers in any of those quotes.

It makes no difference. There is no reason why one would not want to be transparent. And reread the quotes I posted.

I reread them and must say that there is no "evidence" that JJ is now or ever has been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers in any of those quotes. Nor is there any evidence that I can see of any lack of transparency on JJ's behalf in regards to his work as an industry pro or any of his affiliations. your charges simply lack ANY substance.

Quote:
Should we all have to disclose if are now or ever have been a member of the communist party too. Should we have to disclose sexual preferences? favorite colors? Whether or not we like Michael Jackson?

What exactly is JJ keeping secret from us again? I admit to not knowing his position on Michael Jackson but I think his web page pretty much discloses anything we *need* to know about him as a pro in the audio industry. I never got the impression that JJ was shy about that stuff.

Read the past posts, it is revealed quite clearly. Please don't use ridiculous examples. Again is there something wrong with being transparent? It seems the "scientific" community is always the ones who remain as secrective as possible. As professionals, they should be the most open.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I am being honest. I think the idea that JJ is spreading propoganda on behalf of his employer through some bizarre conection with the AES is absurd.

"Bizarre connection". He is a "fellow" not just a member Scott. Didn't you know that?

Do you have any actual evidence that "fellows," in particular JJ, are now or ever have been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers?

Read the quotes I posted about conflicts of interest and shills again. The answer lies within those quotes.

Anyone affiliated with manufacturers, dealers, organizations should post such in their signatures imo. They do at AVS forums, including those belonging to AES. As far as another belonging to AES, is he a member or "fellow"? Doesn't the public have a right to know, or should we keep it hush hush.

Sorry but that is bullshit. there is no "evidence" that JJ is now or ever has been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers in any of those quotes.

It makes no difference. There is no reason why one would not want to be transparent. And reread the quotes I posted.

I reread them and must say that there is no "evidence" that JJ is now or ever has been engaging in any organized attempts to spread propoganda for the purpose of promoting the interests of corperate backers in any of those quotes. Nor is there any evidence that I can see of any lack of transparency on JJ's behalf in regards to his work as an industry pro or any of his affiliations. your charges simply lack ANY substance.

So what is the problem with everyone being transparent and open to the public Scott?

Well this thread has been completely derailed. And I apologize for my participation in that derailment. But c'mon folks really..... These conspiracy theories around JJ are just plain ridiculous.

I know this because my informants inside the fellowship and at corperate headquarters have been keeping a close watch on him. Watch out JJ I have my eye on you. I do know your favorite color and how you really feel about Michael Jackson.

Big Brother signing out.

Quote:
So what is the problem with everyone being transparent and open to the public Scott?

I don't know your favorite color. Why are you hiding these things? Is it part of an attempt to undermind the audio industry?

seriously though, transparent about what specifically? What has JJ held back from us? what do all of us need to reveal and in what manner? Heck over on the Steve Hoffman forum one has to register their system to post any opinions on the sonic merits of any recording, mastering or piece of equipment. Do we need that kind of transparency here? Do you understand that not telling the world everything about you at the end of every post is not the same as hiding things? This is just an audio forum here. We're not fighting terrorism or curing cancer. It's supposed to be fun. So what sort of regimented disclosure do we all need to go through for a little audio forum chat?

Perspective.

Quote:

Quote:
So what is the problem with everyone being transparent and open to the public Scott?

I don't know your favorite color. Why are you hiding these things? Is it part of an attempt to undermind the audio industry?

seriously though, transparent about what specifically? What has JJ held back from us? what do all of us need to reveal and in what manner? Heck over on the Steve Hoffman forum one has to register their system to post any opinions on the sonic merits of any recording, mastering or piece of equipment. Do we need that kind of transparency here? Do you understand that not telling the world everything about you at the end of every post is not the same as hiding things? This is just an audio forum here. We're not fighting terrorism or curing cancer. It's supposed to be fun. So what sort of regimented disclosure do we all need to go through for a little audio forum chat?

Perspective.

My last post. You do not feel that conflicts of interest are important? Read the quotes concernng conflicts of interest and shill, and their consequences, in a previous post.

Let the public decide if something that important should be known to them. There is certainly nothing wrong with being open and transparent to the public.

Good bye.

Quote:

Quote:
Should we all have to disclose if are now or ever have been a member of the communist party too. Should we have to disclose sexual preferences? favorite colors? Whether or not we like Michael Jackson?

What exactly is JJ keeping secret from us again? I admit to not knowing his position on Michael Jackson but I think his web page pretty much discloses anything we *need* to know about him as a pro in the audio industry. I never got the impression that JJ was shy about that stuff.

Read the past posts, it is revealed quite clearly. Please don't use ridiculous examples. Again is there something wrong with being transparent? It seems the "scientific" community is always the ones who remain as secrective as possible. As professionals, they should be the most open.

the examples are obviously ridiculous because the charges are no less ridiculous. That was simply meant as parody. As to the charge of the scientific community being as secretive as possible. That is truly ridiculous. They, more so than any other group, are all about diclosure for the sake of review.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So what is the problem with everyone being transparent and open to the public Scott?

I don't know your favorite color. Why are you hiding these things? Is it part of an attempt to undermind the audio industry?

seriously though, transparent about what specifically? What has JJ held back from us? what do all of us need to reveal and in what manner? Heck over on the Steve Hoffman forum one has to register their system to post any opinions on the sonic merits of any recording, mastering or piece of equipment. Do we need that kind of transparency here? Do you understand that not telling the world everything about you at the end of every post is not the same as hiding things? This is just an audio forum here. We're not fighting terrorism or curing cancer. It's supposed to be fun. So what sort of regimented disclosure do we all need to go through for a little audio forum chat?

Perspective.

My last post. You do not feel that conflicts of interest are important? Read the quotes concernng conflicts of interest and shill, and their consequences, in a previous post.

Let the public decide if something that important should be known to them. There is certainly nothing wrong with being open and transparent to the public.

Good bye.

I have read them. the problem is you have not connected any meaningful facts (evidence) showing JJ actually has any conflict in interest in posting his opinions about audio on this forum.

Quote:
Hi, Stephen. As the thread starter, I'd like to request that this thread be shut down. It's been long since the thread lost its original aim, and it's just gotten lame. Let's shut this thread down and be stupid elsewhere. Happy Fourth of July wknd!

I have to agree. I find it sad that Lavorgna uses straw-man stereotypes for scientists, but I doubt I'm going to change his opinion here, especially since he isn't reading this thread, I suspect.

The people who spew the hatred for science and engineering, and for the organizations that support them, really need to develop some appreciation for how they get their music in the first place, I think. But so it goes.

Quote:

Quote:
It's been long since the thread lost its original aim, and it's just gotten lame.

By the way, I TOTALLY didn't mean to rhyme. No more couplets from me, I promise... but I'll leave you with the opening stanza from Philip Larkin's "Annus Mirabilis" by way of apology:

Sexual intercourse began
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.

S A S writes stuff.
But does he believe his words?
Who knows the answer?

Quote:
I find it sad that Lavorgna uses straw-man stereotypes for scientists, but I doubt I'm going to change his opinion here, especially since he isn't reading this thread, I suspect.

I didn't really see any typing of actual scientists anywhere in the article. He does talk about audio objectivists and their allusions to science but I saw no mention of actual scientists in the article.

Quote:
The people who spew the hatred for science and engineering, and for the organizations that support them, really need to develop some appreciation for how they get their music in the first place, I think. But so it goes.

It really doesn't matter who is and is not "appreciated." But I saw no hatred for actual science or the organizations that support them in that article.

Quote:
It really doesn't matter who is and is not "appreciated." But I saw no hatred for actual science or the organizations that support them in that article.

Well, I'm sorry to say I don't read it the same way. I've seen the same stereotypes over, and over, and over and over and over, ad-infinitum.

As the behavior around here shows, pretty much you hew to the subjectivist creed 100.00%, or you're an "objectivist", and part of the problem.

I frankly don't know many so-called "objectivists" who fit the words in the editorial, either. Perhaps there are a few, they tend to steer clear of me.

The fact of the matter is that in scientific circles, the seriously rabid "objectivists" are all over me for being "subjective" and I have to keep reminding them that I'm making testable, verifiable claims, here's the experiment, would you like to try it, etc. Then I come here and get tarred and feathered for being one of those useless, luddite objectivists.

I am, frankly, sick of this, and just as sick of the rhetoric that is clearly intended to keep the two groups apart.

Creating more divisions, splits, and dissention is not going to advance the science, the hobby, or anyone's enjoyment, except for sadists or masochists who reveln in the argument.

And what I'd like, frankly, IS SOME GOOD MUSIC. I think both sides have forgotten about that. I don't care if it's Cantus, or Deep Purple, or the Berlin Philharmonic, or Michael Murray at St. John the Divine, or Norman Blake at a coffeehouse.

I would also, perhaps, like to hear the music at home in something like the setting it would normally be in, of course minuses the problems of live recordings.

Sorry, end of rant. I'm just sick of the artificial division and of being on both sides of it.

Quote:

Quote:
It really doesn't matter who is and is not "appreciated." But I saw no hatred for actual science or the organizations that support them in that article.

Well, I'm sorry to say I don't read it the same way. I've seen the same stereotypes over, and over, and over and over and over, ad-infinitum.

As the behavior around here shows, pretty much you hew to the subjectivist creed 100.00%, or you're an "objectivist", and part of the problem.

I frankly don't know many so-called "objectivists" who fit the words in the editorial, either. Perhaps there are a few, they tend to steer clear of me.

The fact of the matter is that in scientific circles, the seriously rabid "objectivists" are all over me for being "subjective" and I have to keep reminding them that I'm making testable, verifiable claims, here's the experiment, would you like to try it, etc. Then I come here and get tarred and feathered for being one of those useless, luddite objectivists.

I am, frankly, sick of this, and just as sick of the rhetoric that is clearly intended to keep the two groups apart.

Creating more divisions, splits, and dissention is not going to advance the science, the hobby, or anyone's enjoyment, except for sadists or masochists who reveln in the argument.

And what I'd like, frankly, IS SOME GOOD MUSIC. I think both sides have forgotten about that. I don't care if it's Cantus, or Deep Purple, or the Berlin Philharmonic, or Michael Murray at St. John the Divine, or Norman Blake at a coffeehouse.

I would also, perhaps, like to hear the music at home in something like the setting it would normally be in, of course minuses the problems of live recordings.

Sorry, end of rant. I'm just sick of the artificial division and of being on both sides of it.

I understand your frustrations. I get much of the same. I guess it comes from not pontifying extreme points of view. However I think I need to point out that the article did trarget so called "objectivists" in audio not scientists in general. One can be an audio objectivist and not be a scientist. Likewise one can be a subjectivist in audio and a scientist by trade. Just because some objectivists like to talk about science doesn't really mean that any criticism leveled towards objectivists is also aimed at science. Frankly, I'm surprised that more scientists haven't chastised many of the extremist objectivist audiophiles for their attempts to turn science into a weapon against subjectivists, many of whom are just trying to get the most enjoyment out of their hobby as they can. I think this is the jist of the article more than anything else.

Quote:
Frankly, I'm surprised that more scientists haven't chastised many of the extremist objectivist audiophiles for their attempts to turn science into a weapon against subjectivists, many of whom are just trying to get the most enjoyment out of their hobby as they can.

Oh, it's happened, and in surprising places, too

Quote:

Quote:
Frankly, I'm surprised that more scientists haven't chastised many of the extremist objectivist audiophiles for their attempts to turn science into a weapon against subjectivists, many of whom are just trying to get the most enjoyment out of their hobby as they can.

Oh, it's happened, and in surprising places, too

Don't think that *your* efforts on this front have gone completely unnoticed.