I hope...

[Quagmire]

...Eric will allow this infraction of the rules. There always has to be an exception to every rule and since I don't consider myself a real "rebel" around here, I don't expect I'll be breaking many in the future so I'll go out on a limb for this one. I'm only doing this because the original post is burried three pages deep in the "Hi everbody" thread and my comments are really meant for the forum community at large, not just the participants of that thread. Here is the post...

<Resident Loser said...

"...that ANYTHING that has any effect on audio reproduction is a distortion of the original signal and is open to debate, scrutiny and further examination/dissection?"

He has taken the discussion away from the debate over the changes and nature of the forum and towards the specific debate for the objective examination of differences in audio reproduction; which he describes as distortion. The only key point that I think he missed is whether such differences, assuming that they do exist, are audible.

ToddB responded by saying...

"You are including some actual listening somewhere in this rigorous evaluation, correct?"

As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate. Now I don't say that they shouldn't have this discussion, just the opposite: I would like to see them argue this point if that's what they wish to do. If you see how easily they slipped into this mode on this thread, perhaps unintentionally even, then you can't tell me there is not ample material for discussion to justify having a board dedicated to this topic.

So I ask all of you members, respectfully and sincerely, where is the big rub in asking them to have this debate on the newly created "Science Lab" board instead? What difference does it make that the name of the board is "Science Lab" instead of "General Forum" except that the discussion they want to have would be less of a disruption if it took place on the board which is intended to cater to this very debate? The only other qualifier or constraint is that they have this debate in a reasonably civil manner -- not resorting to personal attacks. That these two posts are somewhat off topic to the rest of the discussion which was taking place here is no big deal. They are only two of over fifty threads. But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread or what WmAx calls threadjacking. (I like his term better. Hope you don't mind that I borrowed it Chris?)

The old adage rings true... "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." I find it very ironic that the group of people who have demonstrated the greatest desire to have this debate have raised such a vocal protest to finally being given a legitimate platform from which to do so. I didn't bring it up before, but I was a little disturbed in Skeptic's reply to me on this thread, that he took such pride in his achievement of running Jon Risch off of this forum. Is that really the goal? To aleinate people from this forum? To have only one side of an argument heard? I thought that was the objection to censorship which was so vehemently decried before. Skep shouldn't want Jon gone; he should want Jon back here so that he can take him on issue by issue. After all, who better than Jon to represent the most "left wing" element of the subjectivist camp? Jon is the perfect embodiment of those subjective ideals which Skep can contrast against his own -- to help make his most effective case for the merits of the objectivist's point of view. By the way, I hadn't brought it up yet, but for the record I am sorry to see Skeptic go. I realize that I'm opening myself up for a lot of criticism, but this is honestly my point of view and before we see yet another mass exodus, I ask that you at least consider what I have to say. Thank you.>

Q

[Quagmire]

Just for clarification... the first statement was made by Resident Loser. I don't know why it didn't show up in the text even though it was there in the preview?

Q

[ToddB]

<resident loser="" said="">ToddB responded by saying...

"You are including some actual listening somewhere in this rigorous evaluation, correct?"

As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate.
Hey, you left the "LOL" out of my quote. :eek: Don't you know that it was an integral part of my comment? ;)

I'll leave Eric to address the gist of your question, but in this particular example, you're reading too much into the motivation for my post. I have no interest in getting into a debate with </resident>Resident Loser about this, I was simply making an amused rhetorical comment intended to illustrate that the primary goal of these forums - discussing the SOUND of audio equipment, which, of course, necessesitates LISTENING to that equipment - was the one thing missing from his list.

[rb122]

...Eric will allow this infraction of the rules. There always has to be an exception to every rule and since I don't consider myself a real "rebel" around here, I don't expect I'll be breaking many in the future so I'll go out on a limb for this one. I'm only doing this because the original post is burried three pages deep in the "Hi everbody" thread and my comments are really meant for the forum community at large, not just the participants of that thread. Here is the post...

<Resident Loser said...

"...that ANYTHING that has any effect on audio reproduction is a distortion of the original signal and is open to debate, scrutiny and further examination/dissection?"

He has taken the discussion away from the debate over the changes and nature of the forum and towards the specific debate for the objective examination of differences in audio reproduction; which he describes as distortion. The only key point that I think he missed is whether such differences, assuming that they do exist, are audible.

ToddB responded by saying...

"You are including some actual listening somewhere in this rigorous evaluation, correct?"

As far as I'm concerned, they've just entered into the classic argument which we sometimes refer to as the "objectivist -vs- subjectivist" or "naysayer -vs- yeasayer" debate. Now I don't say that they shouldn't have this discussion, just the opposite: I would like to see them argue this point if that's what they wish to do. If you see how easily they slipped into this mode on this thread, perhaps unintentionally even, then you can't tell me there is not ample material for discussion to justify having a board dedicated to this topic.

So I ask all of you members, respectfully and sincerely, where is the big rub in asking them to have this debate on the newly created "Science Lab" board instead? What difference does it make that the name of the board is "Science Lab" instead of "General Forum" except that the discussion they want to have would be less of a disruption if it took place on the board which is intended to cater to this very debate? The only other qualifier or constraint is that they have this debate in a reasonably civil manner -- not resorting to personal attacks. That these two posts are somewhat off topic to the rest of the discussion which was taking place here is no big deal. They are only two of over fifty threads. But anyone who is being honest, knows that this classic debate can often, has often, completely overrun a thread -- what I call hijacking a thread or what WmAx calls threadjacking. (I like his term better. Hope you don't mind that I borrowed it Chris?)

The old adage rings true... "Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it." I find it very ironic that the group of people who have demonstrated the greatest desire to have this debate have raised such a vocal protest to finally being given a legitimate platform from which to do so. I didn't bring it up before, but I was a little disturbed in Skeptic's reply to me on this thread, that he took such pride in his achievement of running Jon Risch off of this forum. Is that really the goal? To aleinate people from this forum? To have only one side of an argument heard? I thought that was the objection to censorship which was so vehemently decried before. Skep shouldn't want Jon gone; he should want Jon back here so that he can take him on issue by issue. After all, who better than Jon to represent the most "left wing" element of the subjectivist camp? Jon is the perfect embodiment of those subjective ideals which Skep can contrast against his own -- to help make his most effective case for the merits of the objectivist's point of view. By the way, I hadn't brought it up yet, but for the record I am sorry to see Skeptic go. I realize that I'm opening myself up for a lot of criticism, but this is honestly my point of view and before we see yet another mass exodus, I ask that you at least consider what I have to say. Thank you.>

Q

See original

[Quagmire]

ToddB,

"...you're reading too much into the motivation for my post. I have no interest in getting into a debate with Resident Loser about this, I was simply making an amused rhetorical comment intended to illustrate that the primary goal of these forums"

No. I understand that ToddB. As per my reply to Resident Loser on the "Hi Everybody" thread, I explained that I was just trying to use a mild example of how this thread hijacking can, and historically has, taken place. I don't think that either of you made an attempt to hijack the thread. I'm sorry that I didn't make that more clear.

Q

[ToddB]

Got it. You were right, of course, the thread had every potential to go sideways at that point. And you were right about the threadjacking in the past, where many a thread would end up being about DBTs regardless of what the thread was originally about. I don't think that Eric is inclined to let that happen in the future, so if you think you see it happening, report the post and let him know about it.

[Quagmire]

Thanks ToddB,

Somehow I still think you're missing the point of my thread. I wasn't trying to prevent the thread from being hijacked. I was only trying to use the exchange between you and Resident Loser as an example of how easily the classic debate themes can arrise, and that without some self restraint demonstrated by the forum members, how it has the potential to then get out of control; the thread effectively being hijacked at that point. I wasn't accusing your or Resident Loser's posts of rising to the level of threadjacking, although RL seems to think that I did.

The point of my post was really just to express a couple of simple ideas:

First, how easy it is for these familiar themes to arrise.

Second, that once these themes have been introduced, without some self restraint being exercised by the forum members, the ensuing post can easily escalate to the point of hijacking the thread.

Third, that because these themes are so easily introduced and brought up time and time again, there is a demonstrated desire to engage in these discussions to the degree that a dedicated board is justified.

Fourth, how the continual call to arms for this debate to take place over and over again, the "threadjacking" as it were, amounts to a form of censorship itself. That no matter what a the purpose of a thread originally, it can be turned back to the Objectivist -vs- Subjectivist debate discouraging the subjective/anecdotal enchange of information, that as I have pointed out many times before, is appropriate in the setting of a hobbyist forum. I cited Skeptic's recounting of how he took such pride in running Jon off of the forum (and thus his point of view) as an example of this.

And lastly, that rather than saying these debates can no longer take place, the site administrator has provided a board devoted to them; so that if Jon and Skeptic were still here, they could argue their points without having to hijack threads, and those who are interested in learning about their respective points of view could seek them out rather than having it thrust upon them.

Q

[ToddB]

No, I DID understand the point of your post. Really. Seriously. Honest. :) I was just addressing other aspects of it that I wanted to clarify.

I think your post was very insightful, as are your followup posts. I also think that if everyone was as conscientious and considerate as you are, that we wouldn't be having a lot of these problems.

Oh, and BTW, I did understand the point of your post. ;)

[Quagmire]

Okay, ToddB. Sorry to belabor the point. There were just a few things that were said that made me unsure. My bad. Going camping for the weekend, so the boards will be rid of me for awhile. Peace brudda.

Q