Fake EE Degree

[Chuck]

I should clarify. I used the word "battle" rather loosely in referring to the recent exchange between you and Skeptic. I didn't mean to use the term in a perjoritive manner toward you or Skeptic. That would be a colosal case of the pot calling the kettle black, given my track record. It was just an illustration of the kind of thing that does seem to generate excitement, for better or worse.

Hi Phil,

This e-mail notification really keeps me on my toes. I only just left my last post a few minutes ago, and now "you've got mail" and there is a notification that someone has responded to one of the AR threads. That's pretty cool, as long as it doesn't become too much of an imposition. I really like the new forum format.

You're clarification is both noted and appreciated. Both AR Cable and AA Cable thrive on the excitement created by the heated personal exchanges, but that's not what Chris wants to see on this forum. I've already told Chris that I think he will most certainly see a reduction in traffic, but it's his forum, and his call.

The last time you and I had an exchange, we had a misunderstanding, and the wheels fell off. I don't care to see that happen again, so I'm a little reluctant to read your posts, and more reluctant to respond, but there is something in all this that I believe you and I agree on, and I want to discuss it with you. If I have managed to misunderstand your statements or position you must realize that I am only human and make mistakes just like everyone else. Don't make too much of simple misunderstandings (not that we will have any misunderstandings this time, but they were totally unexpected last time, so I'm just trying to head off trouble before it starts).
I'll try to qualify my statements extensively to minimize the possibility of any misunderstanding.

I have no intention of putting words in your mouth, but it is my impression from things you have said in the past that you think AA Cable has some problems. AA Cable is represented as a place where people can discuss their subjective experiences in peace, but because they also allow technical posts on their cable forum, there are often heated arguments that quickly turn into name-calling and worse. Unless I'm mistaken, always a possibility, you yourself have stated on several occasions that you felt that people posting their objective ideas on AA Cable were doing something contrary to the intent of the forum. Now perhaps you haven't actually said anything along those lines, but that's my understanding and interpretation based on what I've seen, so don't get upset and accuse me of putting words in your mouth. That is not the intent. I'm merely telling you and others what I have come to believe based on reading your posts. I could be mistaken, and you can correct me without calling me names or comparing me to obnoxious people. That is totally uncalled for and unjustifiable.

The reason I'm re-stating what I believe to be your stated position is to make sure that I have understood properly, and to say that if I have understood your posts correctly then I am in total agreement with you. If I'm mistaken about any of this please try to tell me so without calling me names or comparing me to people you obviously don't like. That is the kind of stuff Chris wants to do away with, and we can all probably do a little better, so be nice.

It is a simple fact of life that we often react negatively when our beliefs are challenged. When one warns others not to discuss religion or politics the warning stems from the fact that such discussions so often lead to heated arguments that rapidly deteriorate and become personal. If we set up a totally open forum to discuss politics or religion we will have endless arguments that degrade into personal attacks, and the excitement might produce a lot of traffic, but it would primarily be of interest only to those who wanted to argue with others. If, on the other hand, we restrict the participation in our political or religious forum to those who share common beliefs, the participants will be quite different. We will have an exchange of information between people who are in substantial agreement on the basic issues, and as a result there will be more information exchanged, and less "excitement."

The question that begs to be answered is this; Do Republicans, Democrats, Christians, agnostics, atheists, and others, have a right to get together on Web forums and discuss their common beliefs? Further, do they have the right to do so without constant or even infrequent disruptions from those who disagree with them? If Chris wants to have a forum for Democrats, or agnostics, and wants them to be able to have their discussions without constant personal attacks like we see here, then he has to restrict the contributors in some way. That is not rightly called censorship. A Republican cannot go to a Democratic convention and express his views as if he were a proper member of the community. Chris wants to define this community in a particular way, and that is his decision to make. He is trying to make this forum more like what AA Cable claims to be trying to be, and unless I'm mistaken you also think that there should be a place where people can discuss cable sonics without being hassled, called shills, and attacked in other subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

I think (and feel free to correct me, nicely, if I'm wrong) that we (you and I) agree that there needs to be a place for people to discuss cable sonics without being hassled. We have AH and ecoustics for subjective viewpoints, and AA (like Saturday night) is alright for fighting, so as it is everyone EXCEPT the subjectivists has a place where they can post in peace and be with those of like mind, even if the like mind is the mind of argument (as is the case on AA Cable, and for the time being also here at AR Cable). I think Chris is trying to create a resource that is missing from the Web, and whether we agree with him or not, he's certainly got the right to do what he wants with his forum.

Calling it censorship is just plain wrong. It is not censorship to ask the atheist to refrain from disrupting Church services. That would be a matter of maintaining the peace. Sometimes we have to hold our tongue until the appropriate time and place, right?

Anyone who thinks Chris is acting as a censor is simply looking at the situation from a skewed perspective (and perhaps all perspectives are skewed). Those who think it is censorship need to rethink. Try to take their ideas about audio and convince the AES that their freedom of speech gives them the right to present their ideas at the annual AES convention. Unless the ideas are something very special the AES isn't interested in hearing from the man on the street. No private organization has to accept membership or input from anyone. The word "private" precludes this. It is true that we cannot discriminate based on certain factors in our business dealings, but a private club or organization, Church, etc., is an entirely different matter. A Web forum is in fact a privately owned and operated organization. The participants are the principles of the organization, and the organization, being privately owned, can reject or accept content and contributions from whomever it chooses. The forum owner is the only one with any rights regarding these matters. Chris has a privately owned Web site and has total control over the content thereof. It is exactly as if this were a print publication. Does anyone think they can write an objective argument against cable sonics and then accuse Stereophile and TAS of being "censored" if they refuse to publish the article? Does anyone think they can write an article about evolution and then accuse the Christian Science Monitor of censorship when they refuse to publish it? Does anyone really believe that they can call others names on a forum where the moderator and forum owner don’t want such behavior, and then accuse the forum moderator and owner of censorship? Enforcing rules is not censorship. Most technical discussions require controls; People can’t just spew out anything they like, at will, without respect for the task at hand. Rules enforcement is simply not censorship. Thinking that it is reveals a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "censorship." Don't you agree? If not, where is my thinking flawed?

Thanks,

Chuck