Civility

[Julf]

Threadcrappers never see what they're doing as threadcrapping.

 

I guess in the same way as name callers never see what they are doing as name calling...

[wdw]

OK...group hug... ;-)

 

I'm reminded of that old saw as to why arguments in academia are so vicious;

 

precisely because there is so little at stake!

 

This is supposed to be a hobby, a joyful pastime...I agree with Barry's question as to whether some of us are truly enjoying our systems and listening to music. Priaptors post was, in my opinion, a simple gleeful note to all...found some new gear and it's great.

Now if it were Mpingo wooden dots, or something new from Ted Denny, maybe we'd all agree on the potential silliness. We could get Monty Python to do the ad copy.

[wgscott]

“Cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.”

 

 

― Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

[Paul R]

Hi Bill -

 

It is quite civil to lob in a amusing (even a sarcastic but amusing) comment in the way you normally do, then go off and write up a blog entry ripping a product or idea to shreds, so long as it is done without being insulting to the original poster. You do that very well I think.

 

It is unfortunately, not what happened.

 

I do not think the tone was "dinner conversation" nor were the comments particularly respectful of the OP. It was, to be honest a lot of showing off. Picking on the easy target. Or to use a more accurate if blunt word - bullying.

 

Not a bit of which is civil behavior by any standards my mother would have recognized. I most strongly suggest that cultural or language differences had nothing whatsoever to do with it either. Some folks simply viewed it as a form of entertainment.

 

-Paul

 

 

Accusations of incivility are a great way to suppress discussion of matters which may very well be of general concern, but do little else, ironically, to add to the civility of discourse.

[esldude]

I had I think the third reply in that thread. And a later one was most unkind, to the manufacturer. I will even agree that it was somewhat less civil for someone putting in a post for something they found better than similar products. I don't know a good answer to such recurring situations.

 

Now as to why comment and spoil someone's dreams. Well, the explanation, which the OP seemed to believe in was simply not true. We could ignore all such things and at a minimum they will increase in the number of times they come up. Maybe a lot, maybe a little, but they would increase. At least for me this isn't so much about protecting others from themselves as it is about increasing the SNR of the forum. I know total subjectivists if there are any will think just the reverse. That paying some attention to violations of possible physics applied to marketing inhibits people sharing their experiences. Again a bit of a dilemma.

 

Considering the widespread proliferation of successful commercial products with sham technology behind them one could not very well think people with a contrary opinion have shut down the offering of those.

 

If it is to the point that a large majority of the posters or Chris doesn't wish to allow calling BS on BS then I for one would simply leave. Maybe that would be welcome by bdiament as he wishes to lock individuals out with which he disagrees (I wasn't named, but clearly he has at least a few people in mind). I think such a policy would be a poor choice.

 

And as stated, unless it happened later in posts I haven't read, no one said the OP didn't hear a difference, just the explanation and marketing had to be untrue.

[esldude]

Hi Bill -

 

It is quite civil to lob in a amusing (even a sarcastic but amusing) comment in the way you normally do, then go off and write up a blog entry ripping a product or idea to shreds, so long as it is done without being insulting to the original poster. You do that very well I think.

 

It is unfortunately, not what happened.

 

I do not think the tone was "dinner conversation" nor were the comments particularly respectful of the OP. It was, to be honest a lot of showing off. Picking on the easy target. Or to use a more accurate if blunt word - bullying.

 

Not a bit of which is civil behavior by any standards my mother would have recognized. I most strongly suggest that cultural or language differences had nothing whatsoever to do with it either. Some folks simply viewed it as a form of entertainment.

 

-Paul

 

Okay, Paul,

 

So lets say you are wgscott, or others and wish to point out the garbage explanation. Give us a sample of a civil way to do that. Or would you contend anyone pointing it out was somehow bullying the OP?

 

One could have said, "thanks for letting us know about this great sounding cable, but do you buy the explanation for how it works?"

 

Then if he says no, I guess not much more to say. If he says yes, you could point out why it cannot be so. I believe the OP would have gotten defensive about it at this point, but cannot know that would have been the case obviously.

[4est]

Call me sheltered or naive, but I find it a bit sad that no one has simply just apologized for raining on Priaptor's parade. Instead what I see are excuses, and it is these sort of excuses that start this whole mess. As with Barry, I feel a certain decorum is appropriate. I know that at times I screw up as well, but I try to be a big enough person to acknowledge when it is called.

 

In my business life I constantly run into BS from competitors and clients, it is simply a part of life- fair or not. If I were to call BS every time I saw it, I would alienate everyone.

 

Simply bad form IMO.

[Julf]

Well, the explanation, which the OP seemed to believe in was simply not true. We could ignore all such things and at a minimum they will increase in the number of times they come up. Maybe a lot, maybe a little, but they would increase. At least for me this isn't so much about protecting others from themselves as it is about increasing the SNR of the forum.

 

Well, it is also about what we (well, Chris, above all) want CA to be. Yet another cosy social corner for exchanging your listening experiences, or a valuable resource and source of knowledge for people interested in computer audio?

 

If it is to the point that a large majority of the posters or Chris doesn't wish to allow calling BS on BS then I for one would simply leave.

 

Likewise.

 

Maybe that would be welcome by bdiament as he wishes to lock individuals out with which he disagrees (I wasn't named, but clearly he has at least a few people in mind).

 

I am sure I am pretty close to the top of his "up against the wall" list.

 

And as stated, unless it happened later in posts I haven't read, no one said the OP didn't hear a difference, just the explanation and marketing had to be untrue.

 

Yes, but that is a fact. Facts are merely inconveniences when you are filled with Righteous Moral Indignation.

[Julf]

If I were to call BS every time I saw it, I would alienate everyone. Simply bad form IMO.

 

Just to be clear, you think it is bad form to call BS BS?

[Jud]

Call me sheltered or naive, but I find it a bit sad that no one has simply just apologized for raining on Priaptor's parade. Instead what I see are excuses, and it is these sort of excuses that start this whole mess. As with Barry, I feel a certain decorum is appropriate. I know that at times I screw up as well, but I try to be a big enough person to acknowledge when it is called.

 

In my business life I constantly run into BS from competitors and clients, it is simply a part of life- fair or not. If I were to call BS every time I saw it, I would alienate everyone.

 

Simply bad form IMO.

 

Hey, Forrest.

 

I dunno, this will probably read as just another excuse, but my impression was the lack of civility came fully as much from the OP, who seemed to take questioning of the marketing claims behind the product as an attack on his personal experience. I felt those who posted in the thread re those marketing claims were actually fairly careful to say they weren't questioning the OP's listening experience, but he appeared reluctant to take yes for an answer.

 

Nevertheless, I certainly regret a thread about a potentially interesting new product devolving so quickly.

[mayhem13]

I just re-read the closed thread again and would like to take this time to call attention to post #18. In the post, the OP does make a personal attack, the first one I believe, calling another member a Propeller Head?

 

What exactly this implies I'm unsure but it doesn't sound much like a compliment to my trained audiophile ears. Prior to this, if my comprehensive skills are working, it seemed as if others were challenging only the mfgrs claims? I also would point out several posts where the OPs subjective listening claims were accepted....quite contrary to Barry's point.

 

I also developed an understanding that the OP too was not really interested in the MFGRs claims but yet proceeded to defend his subjective opinion continually.....although I don't find evidence that was in question?......Hmmmmm.

 

As an innocent bystander, my 'take' would be that the OP presented a product and experience, chose to defend it's merits continually based on his subjective experience and when frustrated that his point was I'll received, lashed out with a personal insult.

 

And those that replied to this thread are somehow to blame?

[wgscott]

Ok, let's consider a different example: Apple OS X tweaking. Although I know a lot less about audio than most folks here, I have spent a lot of time with OS X, so I thought instead of arguing about whether tweaking OS X was necessary or even a good idea, I focused on trying to help others to do what they wanted to do with OS X tweaks, made a few shell scripts, blog posts, and so on.

 

I guess that is civilized.

 

I've now gotten a a bit of a reputation as someone who advocates tweaking OS X for music playback. I don't.

 

The only things I have turned of in 10.8.2 is time machine (because I want to back up manually) and notifications (which irritate me for reasons that have nothing to do with sound quality). I haven't even turned off spotlight or the md processes or iPod mounting.

 

Many of the tweaks are harmless as well as useless, and some (like turning of disk journaling) are in my opinion a very bad idea, and some, like turning off spotlight, are inconvenient and mess with the updating process. These tweaks can be confusing and off-putting, especially for people new to OS X or computer music playback, and are simply unnecessary.

 

One could make a good argument that, ultimately, the more civilized thing to do would be to point out to newcomers that tweaking OS X for audio is basically bull-shit. With a hyphen.

[Jud]

Well, it is also about what we (well, Chris, above all) want CA to be. Yet another cosy social corner for exchanging your listening experiences, or a valuable resource and source of knowledge for people interested in computer audio?

 

I think cosy social corners for exchanging listening experiences are very, very valuable. Consider the decreasing frequency with which some of the true experts here (professionals, including Barry) are sharing insights. I think if things were a bit cosier and more social, they'd share more and we'd learn more. (Think of it as an opportunity to exchange ideas with a particularly interesting professor in the pub after class.) So I think actually that rather than the two things you mention being at odds, a more social atmosphere would foster development of the site as a valuable knowledge resource.

[Priaptor]

We just witnessed an innocent thread posted from an exuberant music lover who simply wanted to let us in on the skinny, some new cables, but the thread had to be shut done...well I want this gentleman to continue to post

 

To crudely paraphrase a great jazz lyric ....

 

Why anyone wants to step on the seams of anyone's dreams, is over my head....

 

WDW

 

To the community at large, I apologize if I offended any. It was not my intent. I can also assure all I have absolutely no financial interest in the company or any other high end audio.

 

I also understand how my "Amazing" enthusiasm could be a little strong. I rarely rave about products and am one of the first to state over the top claims about anything (or everything as we so often see in places like TAS) is tiring.

 

I was introduced to these cables on Saturday, totally skeptical about "another" cable while my dealer delivered my EMM DAC2X. We spent hours listening to the cable comparing to other so called high end cables and it was a product that really excited me, hence my post. In fact, I hadn't even seen the guys website until I went to post and agree with those of you who are skeptical about the nonsensical claims.

 

Just my belief, but I think we will be hearing more about these cables in the not too distant future. Just got the EMM hooked up. More on that after some burning in

 

Again, sorry to have gotten so ornery with some. It was not my original intention.

 

Just a brief background. When I was doing my medical residency, I actually was retailer in high end audio (during the 80s) and was the distributor for a new "super duper" cable, by the name of Siltech, which I am sure most of you have heard of. The schtick and price sold more of these cables than I could get my hands on and quite frankly, I never liked them that much. I also was a reseller for Meitner, who at the time made these gorgeous wood cased tiny preamps and amps. My big thing was setting up turntables and my customers loved that "the doctor was making a housecall" to setup their turntables. I was a reseller for lots of different products including SOTA, SME, Koetsu, ProAc, Lazarus (a great little tube preamp that blew up often), Rowlands, Celestion, Magneplanar, and it was one of the best times in my life.

[bdiament]

Please. There is nothing non-civil about pointing out non-civility. The technical term for this is "deflection"; another form of "yes but".

 

Neither is it suppression to ask folks not to suppress others. It is simply calling for respect for others who may not see things exactly the way you do or the way I do. It is letting folks have their say without feeling the need to stomp all over it.

 

Please discuss what you like. The point is to start a thread to discuss it rather than derail something an OP has started.

 

Why does this seem to be so difficult? Is there so little confidence in a point of view that one must repeat it, mantra-like, in every thread without end - as if the repetition provides support?

 

Those who are truly confident will not care if I post that I love my AMAZING cables, which I'm sure were made by naked elves in the forest whose feet never touch the ground. Others will endlessly dispute the elves, the forest, feet and the ground.

 

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

http://www.barrydiamentaudio.colm

[wgscott]

The point is to start a thread to discuss it rather than derail something an OP has started.

 

Then why not just say that, and forgo the lecture on how we ought to behave?

[Priaptor]

Barry,

 

Incidentally, at the risk of sounding like a sycophant, those present when we were comparing these new cables were most blown away by one of my favorite albums, Equinox.

[bdiament]

Hi Priaptor,

 

I'm sorry to see you apologizing for your own enthusiasm, which was clear in your post.

It was a report of your own experience. Who here has any access to that whatsoever other than you?

 

Perhaps my communication skills are less than what I wish they were. I did not get the point across clearly (if at all) as some continue the "yes but" by pointing out they were not attacking you but the manufacturer. For some reason, I'm not able to adequately communicate how what started as a sharing of your joy was rapidly shredded by folks who post the same things over and over again. My words just aren't getting across properly.

 

Or maybe it is something else. Perhaps a need to demonstrate a refined consumer awareness, no marks here, these are seasoned veterans of audio. I don't know. I just see cowboys with itchy trigger fingers (and Gene Hackman's words from "Unforgiven" come to mind).

 

Your post was an honest one. Please don't take it back.

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[bdiament]

wgscott,

 

Then why not just say that, and forgo the lecture on how we ought to behave?

 

It was a request, not a lecture.

And I did say that. What I got in response was "reasons" for threadcrapping. The same, tired old, transparent reasons.

 

Look, I'm not here to argue with you. I tried to make a point. I'm sorry you don't agree.

 

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[wgscott]

Another one for the ignore list.

[bdiament]

Hi Howie,

 

Barry,

 

Incidentally, at the risk of sounding like a sycophant, those present when we were comparing these new cables were most blown away by one of my favorite albums, Equinox.

 

Our posts must have crossed in the ether. Thanks for your kind and much appreciated feedback. This is certainly the week to hear "Equinox". ;-}

 

Best regards,

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Encore]

I share the concern about the effect of the same endless discussion between a small group of subjectivists and objectivists, for lack of better words. It means that often more than half of the posts listed on the activity page refer to this discussion, in whatever thread it happens to be carried out at the moment.

 

Couldn't we just agree to not begin the same old discussion in every new thread, and instead try to focus on the topic of threads? By now, we now exactly where we stand, and if there are still any nuances to be added, they can be added in dedicated threads about, say DBT's.

 

Please note that I'm not taking a shot at the objectivists. Although I have more than a foot in the subjectivist camp, I do think that a lot of unnecessarily harsh words have from this camp too. I think both camps share responsibility for the sorry state of affairs.

[bdiament]

Amazing and sad how a call for civility raises hackles in some quarters.

(Or should I say "AMAZING"?)

 

I wish you happiness.

 

Barry

Soundkeeper Recordings

Barry Diament Audio

[Paul R]

Why? Bill Scott usually does a great job of making his opinion clear without making an ass of himself. At least unless he intentionally decides to do so.

 

You twist the point and meaning with your questions to a point of view satisfying to your sensibilities.

 

Ask instead, why do you feel your opinion is so valuable that you think it is justified to bully someone else? Why do you think that I, or Barry, or anyone else here needs to be protected from fraud in this subject area? What makes you believe that I, or Barry, or anyone else wants that kind of protection? What decree makes it okay for you to pass judgement on other people's ideas for me? Did I ask you to? Did anyone ask you to?

 

That isn't to say you don't have a lot of bright ideas, and it is enjoyable sometimes discussing them with you. But you did ask, and the answer is you need to ask yourself different questions.

 

I don't have the faintest idea who is, but I am morally certain neither you nor I is the smartest guy in this "room." It is probably one of those silent thousands of people out there who read everything but do not post.

 

-Paul

 

 

 

Okay, Paul,

 

So lets say you are wgscott, or others and wish to point out the garbage explanation. Give us a sample of a civil way to do that. Or would you contend anyone pointing it out was somehow bullying the OP?

 

One could have said, "thanks for letting us know about this great sounding cable, but do you buy the explanation for how it works?"

 

Then if he says no, I guess not much more to say. If he says yes, you could point out why it cannot be so. I believe the OP would have gotten defensive about it at this point, but cannot know that would have been the case obviously.

[NOMBEDES]

Also, in the case of Zu speakers, I am not questioning that they don't sound good. I am even thinking of buying some. But their explanation is total BS (and actually put me off an impulse-purchase).

 

 

I read with great interest your post reference ZU Speakers. I must say that I did not think that ZU was intending to be taken serious when they posted those paragraphs on their website.

 

First, the paragraph(s) were incoherent.

Second, the science was weird.

 

So I concluded that the entire ZU posting was a send off of other vendor's suspect claims. I will ask a ZU rep. at the Rocky Mtn Show next month and report back.