Become a CA Subscriber Today!

Originally Posted by bdiament

Hi Chris,



Can anything be done about this?
I posted over half an hour ago and when I'm logged in, the post doesn't show.
However, if I log out, I can see it. Log back in again and it's gone.

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
Barry Diament Audio

Hi Barry - I'm working on it. This is tough to reproduce as it requires a perfect set of circumstances. The developers who wrote the site software don't see an issue although one clearly exists.

A work around is to use the forum version of this thread here -> Article: Become a CA Subscriber Today!

The issue only pertains to comments when viewed below the actual article.

Thanks for your patience.

The issue only pertains to comments when viewed below the actual article.

That's what happened to me

Originally Posted by 4est

As one of the vocal opponents to subscriptions, I must say that I appreciate Chris' efforts in these changes.

Holy $#^! 4est! Are you feeling alright this morning!

Only kidding of coure. Thanks for appreciation.

Thank you Chris.

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
Barry Diament Audio

Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile

Hi Barry - I'm working on it. This is tough to reproduce as it requires a perfect set of circumstances. The developers who wrote the site software don't see an issue although one clearly exists.

A work around is to use the forum version of this thread here -> Article: Become a CA Subscriber Today!

The issue only pertains to comments when viewed below the actual article.

Thanks for your patience.

Originally Posted by REShaman

Esprit, you may have taken me literally.

Richard, as you can see from my mistakes, english is not my native language.
Regards.

Originally Posted by Esprit

Richard, as you can see from my mistakes, english is not my native language.
Regards.

With that outcome in mind: Imagine a bunch of persons attempting to make sense out of the underlying meaning of specific Polls and Poll numbers as if the CA Polls actually support those findings and interpretation from which to draw certain conclusions about much larger and vital matters, i.e., how many members in the pool have chosen to participate, how many actually in the pool have chosen not to participate and what their participation/none participation signifies relative to the constructed criteria, as if the numbers are reliable indicia of any worthwhile conclusions (which I am certain they are not). Actually polls at CA are what they are (more entertainment than revelation unless you revel in entertainment).

Suddenly an actor, maybe it's Esprit, unsuspecting, makes his entrance in the play To Poll or Not To Poll and innocently exclaims Poll? There's A Poll? What Poll? The crux of that question, perfectly timed in the middle of various attempts to clarify the significance of those Polls, succintly provides another perspective more cogent than all the erudite comments about Polls and numbers (at least in my view).

Your question, "What Poll?" is a reduction of the all that was offered in comment signifying nothing and signifying everything.

A bientôt,
Richard

Sorry for the truncated post below missing the first part. The server went down a while ago and messed things up. This is the whole post. Again excuse the partial duplicate. Glad the server was quickly repaired with service restored quickly.

Originally Posted by Esprit
Richard, as you can see from my mistakes, english is not my native language.
Regards.

Esprit, bienvenu,

Yes, I am aware that English is not your first language. And you express yourself well (enough) to make yourself understood. I appreciate that you are open to accepting that I find humor in the timing of your inquiry. Also I appreciate that you are willing to express yourself in English when I am sure your native language would afford comfort and facility so that you can get across what you mean.

With that outcome in mind: Imagine a bunch of persons attempting to make sense out of the underlying meaning of specific Polls and Poll numbers as if the CA Polls actually support those findings and interpretation from which to draw certain conclusions about much larger and vital matters, i.e., how many members in the pool have chosen to participate, how many actually in the pool have chosen not to participate and what their participation/none participation signifies relative to the constructed criteria, as if the numbers are reliable indicia of any worthwhile conclusions (which I am certain they are not). Actually polls at CA are what they are (more entertainment than revelation unless you revel in entertainment).

Suddenly an actor, maybe it's Esprit, unsuspecting, makes his entrance in the play To Poll or Not To Poll and innocently exclaims Poll? There's A Poll? What Poll? The crux of that question, perfectly timed in the middle of various attempts to clarify the significance of those Polls, succintly provides another perspective more cogent than all the erudite comments about Polls and numbers (at least in my view).

That question, "What Poll?" is a reduction of the question signifying nothing and everything.

A bientôt,
Richard

Originally Posted by REShaman

A bientôt,
Richard

Richard, I'm Italian and I'm living on the Mediterranean Sea
Buonanotte (Wednesday, 25/07, 00,13)

Originally Posted by Esprit

Richard, I'm Italian and I'm living on the Mediterranean Sea
Buonanotte (Wednesday, 25/07, 00,13)

Esprit, buona sera,

My wife, Marie Elena, was born in America to Italian/American parents. Her father (deceased) came from Piemonte and mother (deceased) from Foggia. Excuse my mistake. Happy to meet you.
Best,
Richard
Attachment 1408

Love the photo Richard!

Hi Richard,

Who's that in the photo?
Looks like a lovely hippie couple.
Is that you and your wife?

I love those wonderful Italian girls. Married one myself. ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
Barry Diament Audio

Originally Posted by The Computer Audiophile

Love the photo Richard!

Thank you Chris. It occured to me quite naturally as in making introductions to someone for away as Esprit in Italy. At least he has a sense of a fellow member/subscriber.

Then it occurred to me, although I am looking at you whenever you post, wouldn't be nice if we could familarize ourselves with each other through a tasteful photograph, unless that creates a nightmare of extra bandwidth and cost. But now when one is connecting with me, as you just did, we have an image to also connect to and perhaps increases the feeling of nuclear memberships/subscribers.

Just a thought.

My wife is my gift in this lifetime. My best friend and comes with her own music that makes me so happy and fulfilled.

Best,
Richard

PS Although you did not need to in my estimation, I want to acknowledge you for the flexibility you are demonstrating to others who are favorably affected by your change in certain changes. As many of us have reflected back to our fellow members, we know who you are because you mean what you say and you do what you say and are prepared to shape CA as it requires to make it a success and better in every way.

Originally Posted by bdiament

Hi Richard,

Who's that in the photo?
Looks like a lovely hippie couple.
Is that you and your wife?

I love those wonderful Italian girls. Married one myself. ;-}

Best regards,
Barry
Soundkeeper Recordings
Barry Diament Audio

,

Hello Barry.
Marie was announced by the waiting room shaking before she entered the room. You may recall I shared that with you. I fell in love with the moment she stepped out of her office.
Yes, she is Marie standing next to me. We decided to get married on a bridge over a stream off Quaker Ridge Road in Pomona, NY on the other side of the River. Isn't that near your Bailiwick? One of Marie's colleagues also a psychologist lent us his grounds and we planned our own wedding with tents and lined the stream with Mums for as far as one could see along the stream. Mr. Blackmun from The Coach House in the Village was our maitre d'. Admittedly I am describing what occurred in May 1978, but this is how we feel about one another though we have aged.
Thank you for you lovely comments. I know precisely (well I can imagine) how you feel about Mary.
Best,
Richard

Originally Posted by bdiament

Hi Chris,

I'm sorry if my post upset you but it was that "speculation" I was addressing.
It contained the (in my opinion) logically unsupportable connection between the number of participants in a poll and the number of subscribers to the site. And in suggesting the low poll response equates with a lower number of visitors, it contained an inherent question of a man's Honor.

Perhaps you were not aware of it and did not intend it but such is also suggesting dishonesty on Chris' part with regard to the number of visitors he says the site has. If you're going to call someone's Honor into question, it might be a good idea to have evidence and not speculation. Again, I don't think that was necessarily your intention but that's what the your words said.

Whoa, can't one be surprised without calling someone's honor into question? It never occurred to me that folks would take it that way. I was and am surprised as to how few people have responded to the poll (and other polls). More have responded since this but still only 55 or so.

My speculation had nothing to do with what Chris said the number of members were. I never doubted his numbers, in fact if you considered what I said carefully you would realize that my speculation needed a large number of members. So, to get my point across I had to mention that there are many many more members than voters. My speculation had to do with how many (or few) members of the large group were what I deemed serious.

And I think there is some merit to my speculation. Again, it's not a conclusion, it's just a thought that can be mulled over by others and responded to, but not just dismissed out of hand.

Also, what irritated me about your post about polls was the off hand way you dismissed all of them. Well, I think there is information to be gained from some of them, even if it's not necessarily the info the poll was intended to show. For instance in the Subscriber's poll, Chris C. can glean that 12 of the 55 voters would become subscribers if the segregated forum was eliminated (of course we have to assume that folks are being honest or everything said, not just polls, become useless) and that 8 voters wouldn't subscribe no matter what the case. Maybe if 100 voters said they would subscribe if the segregated topics were eliminated he would think it worthwhile to do so.

Chris C. in case you also thought I was doubting your numbers, not so, never occurred to me.

-Chris

Originally Posted by Jud

Stubborn or disingenuous? I just have to say I disagree strongly with that characterization.

Chris C has already made a number of changes (e.g., non-subscribers being able to view the buy-sell forum; the "Subscriber" badge removed from avatars) in the space of what, a week? I'd call that very reasonable, and the opposite of stubborn.

As to the much more (in my view, at least) serious accusation of calling Chris C's honesty into question, I don't understand where that's coming from. Chris has posted a screen shot of the subscriber forum topics. He did not say the topics were unimportant. He said they were not "core content," which to me means discussions about audio - primarily the music we love and the equipment that serves our love of it. So what topics in the subscriber forum do you feel constitute "core content" to such an inarguable extent that the only possible explanation for Chris C's not acknowledging it as such is that he's out-and-out lying?

Stubborn or disingenuous? I also added or some secret reason.

I'm guessing you think I meant he was lying when I used the term disingenuous.** That's not at all what I meant. I think he's just not telling us (me) something. I'm not saying he's lying as to anything he said.

Specifically why I used disingenuous. Because he seems to think segregated topics are important (he refuses to eliminate them even though quite a few members say they would subscribe if he did), but he downplays their importance when making specific responses to people. So, to me it appears he's not telling us something (which is his right of course).

When I wrote the original post it was more or less just a feeling, but now I have a thought of what it might be. When setting up the subscriber's thing he got input from "advisers" that it was important to have a segregated topics area for subscribers because it gives said an elite or special club feeling. Since this is one of the things that some would be subscribers and non-subscribers don't appreciate I could see why Chris C wouldn't mention it.

Again, the subscriber's topic area doesn't make sense to me (unless it's the above just mentioned). I used the stubborn or disingenuous or secret reason tag because of that. Chris has refused to address why he created the area, which is his privilege, but also begs for speculation as it goes against what people here wanted before subscribers, and only makes the situation worse--less organized.

By the way, I could care less about the subscribers area for myself, that's not why I'm writing all this. I won't become a member except for a month or two at a time, if/when I determine that the sell function seems worthwhile. I'm just interested in the site, it's well being and this issue and would like to see it expand and get more people more involved. I think the subscriber's only topic area goes against the long term well being of the forum. I could be wrong, I was once before.

-Chris

**If that's not the case you better explain because I don't think that Chris C. is lying, and I don't understand where you think I said that.

Originally Posted by crisnee

Specifically why I used disingenuous. Because he seems to think segregated topics are important (he refuses to eliminate them even though quite a few members say they would subscribe if he did), but he downplays their importance when making specific responses to people. So, to me it appears he's not telling us something (which is his right of course).

Have you considered that maybe a whole bunch of people subscribed, at least in part, because of the segregated topics?
I think Chris, you have an idea that some people are forming an elite. That is just not so, at least as far as I can see.

-Paul

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

Have you considered that maybe a whole bunch of people subscribed, at least in part, because of the segregated topics?
I think Chris, you have an idea that some people are forming an elite. That is just not so, at least as far as I can see.

-Paul

Jeez guys, try reading the words, not just you Paul, but the earlier ones I responded to also. So many negative assumptions. Just because one can construe something as negative doesn't make it so.

Of course I've considered that possibility, do I need to spell it out? In fact, that was my point about Chris' possible advisers.

And no, I have no idea of some people forming an elite. I never said that, implied that or thought that, and besides it would just be an idea in the "elites" head, so it also wouldn't concern me. What I did say is that someone might have advised Chris that people would like the idea of an elite and would therefore sign up. If that is actually the case, I don't know, and as I said, I would understand if Chris C didn't disclose that to us.

-Chris

Originally Posted by crisnee

Stubborn or disingenuous? I also added or some secret reason.

I'm guessing you think I meant he was lying when I used the term disingenuous.** That's not at all what I meant. I think he's just not telling us (me) something. I'm not saying he's lying as to anything he said.

Specifically why I used disingenuous. Because he seems to think segregated topics are important (he refuses to eliminate them even though quite a few members say they would subscribe if he did), but he downplays their importance when making specific responses to people. So, to me it appears he's not telling us something (which is his right of course).

When I wrote the original post it was more or less just a feeling, but now I have a thought of what it might be. When setting up the subscriber's thing he got input from "advisers" that it was important to have a segregated topics area for subscribers because it gives said an elite or special club feeling. Since this is one of the things that some would be subscribers and non-subscribers don't appreciate I could see why Chris C wouldn't mention it.

Again, the subscriber's topic area doesn't make sense to me (unless it's the above just mentioned). I used the stubborn or disingenuous or secret reason tag because of that. Chris has refused to address why he created the area, which is his privilege, but also begs for speculation as it goes against what people here wanted before subscribers, and only makes the situation worse--less organized.

By the way, I could care less about the subscribers area for myself, that's not why I'm writing all this. I won't become a member except for a month or two at a time, if/when I determine that the sell function seems worthwhile. I'm just interested in the site, it's well being and this issue and would like to see it expand and get more people more involved. I think the subscriber's only topic area goes against the long term well being of the forum. I could be wrong, I was once before.

-Chris

**If that's not the case you better explain because I don't think that Chris C. is lying, and I don't understand where you think I said that.

So exactly how many is this "quite a few" exactly? How many are speaking out on a topic that as of yet, as far as I can tell, has had no real impact on anyone. All I read in these complaints is projected frustration based on nothing more than conjecture. Shouldn't something actually happen to someone before they complain? If I could get one little fact on how this is going to negatively effect someone maybe it wouldn't be so frustrating reading this nonsense.

Originally Posted by mwheelerk

So exactly how many is this "quite a few" exactly? How many are speaking out on a topic that as of yet, as far as I can tell, has had no real impact on anyone. All I read in these complaints is projected frustration based on nothing more than conjecture. Shouldn't something actually happen to someone before they complain? If I could get one little fact on how this is going to negatively effect someone maybe it wouldn't be so frustrating reading this nonsense.

Why frustrate yourself by reading nonsense at all? There's plenty of sense to read elsewhere, I'm pretty sure.

-Chris

Originally Posted by Paul.Raulerson

Nope, that is, in general, true of all polls.
Paul

Because you say so? Because experts say so?

Did they take a poll on that to come to those conclusions?

I agree that it is likely often true. However, I don't agree that it is always true just because you or experts say so, or because polls of polls say so.

I think the subcriber's poll is special for several reasons among them that we're discussing it while it is open, and because people seem to have strong opinions negative and positive. Also, the positive feelings are negative in a sense, if you get my drift. Negative toward the people who feel the subscription deal is not a good thing.

I'm not stating that this poll is different from the norm, I just think it's a good possibility that it is. << please reread before responding with "crisnee once again states for fact that which clearly can't be proven!"

-Chris