What in the world is going on here??

[ToddB]

I am personally open to returning the cable forum back to the way it was since no newbie in their right mind would venture in there without body armour. I will suggest that to Eric.

Bad idea, because newbies aren't the only audience. Don't you think there are experienced people who might want to come here and talk about cables, without having to endure constant haranguing about DBTs, or getting their hearing insulted?

[markw]

Bad idea, because newbies aren't the only audience. Don't you think there are experienced people who might want to come here and talk about cables, without having to endure constant haranguing about DBTs, or getting their hearing insulted?

From what bizarro world did you drag this from? I've never seen a "naysayer" say that a "yeasayer" can't hear.

The only ones that seem to be insulting anyones hearing are the golden ears who say that those who don't share their beliefs are the ones that can't hear. ...or their equipment isn't up to snuff, etc...

The falsehoods presented as fact on this site are truly amazing. Now, changing history. tsk tsk... AA lite, here it comes

[Resident Loser]

..."...I have a right just like any participant(like yourself) to state my opinion...When someone comes to a amatuer audio website demanding things that only professionals can provide, that IMO is retarded..."

I would suppose the following is Okee-dokee: when someone comes to an amateur audio website demanding to be taken at face value, making completely unfounded and outlandish claims without any substantive information to support those claims, they are raving, lunatic-fringe, @$$holes...as long as I preface it by stating that it is my considered opinion?...

Who has demanded these "things" you speak of? If you have someone in mind, I'd suggest, in future, you address that particular party, rather than indict a whole class of folks based on your bias toward that one person...you exhibit a slight variant of the "shoot-the-messenger" syndome I have previously written of...

And if you simply wish to take the word "retarded" at face value, who is more demonstrably guilty of slowing down or retarding the learning process...people who wish to stop all forward momentum because they claim to hear things without offering anything other than anecdotal "proofs" or those who allow for the possibility of the existence those things, but demand reasonable and rational explanations for them?

Who exactly has dismissed outright, the existence of those possibilities? No one that I can recall, not even the most vocal proponent of controls. If use of terms like "speculation" shake the very tenets of a position, that speaks volumes IMO...If suggesting that some controlled testing might be in order to substantiate certain claims, that is hardly a demand for proof...but some may see it as such...and it is my considered opinion that such an interpretation is steeped in bias...

Other than in the previous paragraph, within which it is mentioned as a point of reference, who has said word one about controlled-bias testing? The only one I see is YOU...and it seems to be done as a typical "smokescreen" ploy...

"...my problem lies in the fact that naysayers will ignore any, and everything that is presented to them if it doesn't support the naysayer position..."

And MY problem lies in the fact that subjectivists will ignore any, and everything that is presented to them if it doesn' support the subjectivist position...Let's talk about "parroting" a party line...go to any of the "questionable" websites...as I have previously pointed out, despite some wording differences, they are all basically the same...and adherents to that philosophy use much the same rhetoric...whenever anything that seems to assail the subjectivist position is merely mentioned, out comes the standard fare of insults as to hearing abilities and or equipment...or they don't respond...or they cover their ears, "la-la-la"-ing, all the way home...

"...Keep in mind, you are here to participate in discussions regarding audio, not to tell moderators how to behave..."

To the first part yes, but I am of the opinion that such discussion goes well beyond putting stylus to groove and waxing poetic about the net result...

To the second part, I am of the opinion that you have far exceeded your position as moderator, if you take that opinion as any thing but opinion and as some indictment as to your fitness for your "position" based on behavioral evidence, that would seem to be a claim YOU make based in a biased mindset...

jimHJJ(...and you already know my opinion re: unfounded claims...)

[jneutron]

John,
I went to the top and read this entire thread, I didn't see your name anywhere where it looks like he attacked you directly. I thought his swan song comment was directed to all of the guys that decided to leave as a result of the changes, and left threads behind to announce it(which I DO think is in poor taste).

Do me a favor...switch viewing modes to either thread or hybrid mode..once you have done that, you will see the windows directory based construct..From that depiction, you will see clearly who has responded to who..
(generic explanation for all who are unfamiliar)
It is quite logical...If you wish to provide a response to the overall thread..the lower left hand corner has the "post a reply" button. That will place your post under the initial poster in the display.

If you wish to DIRECTLY RESPOND to someones post, you click on the "REPLY TO THIS POST" button located in the center of the three buttons on the lower right of the window. That button has the additional advantage, in that the person who you are responding to will receive an e-mail indicating that someone has responded directly to your post, unless the target poster has unsubscribed from the thread.

Since chris chose the "reply to this post" button, it is quite clear that he intended to respond directly to my post. I've seen the type of idiocy he is posting in other places, and have not responded to them, since I was uninvolved. However, his clear choice to post a response to me in an immature fashion using glib remarks as entertainment value for others of his mindset, warrants a response.

You should just leave quietly because why should somebody visiting this site have to share your dissatisfaction with the rules?

I answered Tony's question. And, I stated specifically why I was dissatisfied...the naysayer lab forum name, and the settling of changes here..

The name of that forum...as you see, it was changed in direct response to eric's having been given feedback on that change..he understood, and he chose to consider my feelings (and possibly others) into account. This is a clear indication to me that leaving quietly is not the best option..I spoke my mind, and was heard..I do agree that it is not necessary to go overboard in "final closing comments", though.

Chris's comments seem so general(they could apply to several folks I know of here) that it is difficult for me to extend them directly to you. If he posts his comments after you posted yours, he will definately be under your post whether its on issue, or not. I am having a terrible(scuse the pun) time finding a personal attack here.

As I stated, he made a clear choice to post a response to me..If it were a general post, I would not have responded...but, it was not, so I did. You should switch to thread mode.

In addition. his comment:

PS: Since you're officially gone, don't feel the need to reply to this message.

How one could construe that as anything other than personal is beyond me..


Is clear, concise, and directed solely to me, the poster he chose to respond to..that cannot be misconstrued as a generic

Well, I rarely come to the cable forum.

Hmmm...guess those days are gone, Mr moderator of cables...:-)

When it comes to audio, there are quite a few more issues than cable one could worry about.

That's funny...right, but funny...I'll explain.. For cables alone, I'm delving into transmission line theory, skin effect, propagation velocity, sampling theory, lateralization theory, 3-D visualization geometry reconstruction, analog bandwidth vs slew rate limitations, loop coupling, ground bounce...more, but intent is clear..

I have also been posting on AR since 1997, have definately seen your name, but I don't believe we have had any interaction.

That is why I questioned your earlier statement...this one:

I would probably have a different charactization than Chris because I have had different interactions with you than he does.

As I do not recall even one interaction with you over the years..and, I've had no interaction with chris..

Meaning, if you have a different characterization of me than chris, the chances are very good that you have developed that in viewing my posts, positions, and demeanor over the years...something which chris obviously did not do..he chose to instead, shoot at the hip.

The only alternative I can think of is to do exactly what Eric has asked, you can challenge a persons opinion, but you just have to keep it civil, and not personal. The very moment it becomes personal, the person who took it there should be banned.

I would hope for some style of warning stages, or sequestration..check out DIY.com..they seem to have a moderation style that works..texas, I think it's called..

As for difference of opinion and challenge? Without the allowance of both?....that is called death...inert...one hand clapping..sex by oneself.

I do not want to squelch a good debate(I have been in some doosey's lately)but I really have a VERY low tolerance for obvious personal attacks.

I expect that, and welcome it.

The current changes here were rather abrupt..it is clear from history, as well as in systems theory, that abrupt change always overshoots the mark..that, I expect, hence the 3 to 4 month timeframe I mentioned. During that overshoot, I also expect the "yay" camp to run amok, trashing opposing viewpoints...this is being seen, and clearly I expected that as well. Eventually, it will settle into the desired result..

During the overshoot, you as moderator, are put into a position of either quashing the yays for their poor behaviour, (thereby alienating them as well), or just being too lenient with their stupidity, knowing that this behaviour will settle into a (hopefully) reasonable middle ground..at which time, decisions as to content can be easily reviewed..

Good luck

Cheers, John

[jneutron]

Excerpts pulled from your post..

John,
I didn't see your name anywhere where it looks like he attacked you directly. I thought his swan song comment was directed to all of the guys that decided to leave as a result of the changes, and left threads behind to announce it(which I DO think is in poor taste).......
Chris's comments seem so general(they could apply to several folks I know of here) that it is difficult for me to extend them directly to you. I am having a terrible(scuse the pun) time finding a personal attack here.....

I do not want to squelch a good debate(I have been in some doosey's lately)but I really have a VERY low tolerance for obvious personal attacks.

Terrence,

From your replies, you give the impression that you did not believe chris's post was a personal attack...So, you agreed 100% with what he said.

Does this mean, that if I choose to attack, you will allow it as long as I am applying the attack to an entire class of people? I can call all "yaysayers" bubble headed nincompoops, technophobes, whatever...that is ok? I can call all of them pig headed, with blinders on, with only a one track mind? (direct quotes from a moderator at another site, albeit used against naysayers..) Or is only ok for the class of people you consider yaysayers to trash entire groups of people.....

From your stated words of even handedness and balance, you certainly do not intend to convey that message..nonetheless, your protestations can lead one to conclude that one sided bashing, when in the right direction....is allowed.

As I said..a coupla months for settling time...for the members, the moderators, and the administrator..

Cheers, John

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I would suppose the following is Okee-dokee: when someone comes to an amateur audio website demanding to be taken at face value, making completely unfounded and outlandish claims without any substantive information to support those claims, they are raving, lunatic-fringe, @$$holes...as long as I preface it by stating that it is my considered opinion?...

Supposition is never the domain of the intelligent. Why do you insist on swinging for the extremes? If you read VERY CAREFULLY what I wrote I stated that the yeasayers have ruined the cable forum by making outlandish claims, and using inappropriate adjectives to describe subtleties. The naysayers ruined it by getting in their faces demanding evidence that is clearly out of scope for the average hobbiest. I never contest what people claim they hear(I have heard a few things in mixes that my fellow engineers couldn't), only a person that has identical ear/brain mechanisms can do that. But there is such thing as a respectful disagreement. Maybe not to the argumentive, but to normal folks.

Who has demanded these "things" you speak of?

Apparently you have been in the cable forum only, because had you visited the general forum during one 18 page 7100+ view thread, you wouldn't have asked this question. One person has been banned from the forum, the other is infamous for taking the opposing view on just about everything. I will not mention his name, because it would just add to the undeserving notiriety he currently gets.

If you have someone in mind, I'd suggest, in future, you address that particular party, rather than indict a whole class of folks based on your bias toward that one person...you exhibit a slight variant of the "shoot-the-messenger" syndome I have previously written of...

I don't believe I ever said I had a bias, or a problem with the individual. You see, I can agree to disagree without hate. I don't believe what I said has any reference to any one group of people, it only applies to people who exibit the characteristic I described. It seems to me that you are doing a little "analysis before you know the person" that is so prevalent on so many message boards. The messenger is irrelevant(so there is no need to shoot him) the message and its style of delivery is. I think you are coloring my words with your experiences

And if you simply wish to take the word "retarded" at face value, who is more demonstrably guilty of slowing down or retarding the learning process...people who wish to stop all forward momentum because they claim to hear things without offering anything other than anecdotal "proofs" or those who allow for the possibility of the existence those things, but demand reasonable and rational explanations for them?

You are assuming that ones claims to hearing things slows, or stops learning. I fail to see how that can happen. Why would my audio education be slowed or stopped behind someone elses claims? On the other side of the camp, you are painting the naysayers as if they can do no wrong. That is not the history on this site. The naysayers(at least the ones I have come across) have been neither reasonable nor particularly rational in their perspective. The ones I have come across on this board have attempted to tell me how my job was done, how to do it(much like you have done right here), and that my experience and technical knowledge was worthless because of my opposing view to theirs. And here is the kicker, not one of them had every mix or mastered audio(they have never been to a studio!!!) yet they felt they have all the theory locked down. Theory is wonderful when all things are perfect. In audio rarely are things perfect.

..If suggesting that some controlled testing might be in order to substantiate certain claims, that is hardly a demand for proof...but some may see it as such...and it is my considered opinion that such an interpretation is steeped in bias..

Please do not get so lost in yourself that you don't understand that people might not share your perspective on this issue. 20 people can interepret 20 words in 20 different ways. That is human nature. Everyone looks at things through their own filters. You have yours, I have mine, and somebody else has theirs. Your considered opinion is noted, but it is YOUR opinon.

Other than in the previous paragraph, within which it is mentioned as a point of reference, who has said word one about controlled-bias testing? The only one I see is YOU...and it seems to be done as a typical "smokescreen" ploy...

RA, lay off the shrooms man. This smokescreen ploy you mention is a result of your imagination and paranoia. Once you are freed from its unfluence, get out into other parts of the boards. You have two individuals(one gone now) that made constant references to ABX, DBT and obtaining statistical results. They consistantly posted links to AES papers, DBT results, and various other information to support their opposition. I am at a loss that you actually believe that not one person has mentioned it, have you read every post that has ever been done here? If so, you missed one.

SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

Now after reading all of this can you still make that statement, and make the accusation against me that you did? No more mushrooms RA!!!

And MY problem lies in the fact that subjectivists will ignore any, and everything that is presented to them if it doesn' support the subjectivist position...Let's talk about "parroting" a party line...go to any of the "questionable" websites...as I have previously pointed out, despite some wording differences, they are all basically the same...and adherents to that philosophy use much the same rhetoric...whenever anything that seems to assail the subjectivist position is merely mentioned, out comes the standard fare of insults as to hearing abilities and or equipment...or they don't respond...or they cover their ears, "la-la-la"-ing, all the way home...

This sounds like you just want to argue with me. I have no problem with naysayers or yeasayers. I just not one of them, they both are extremes to me. You on the other hand obviously do have a problem with subjectivitst, but that's not my problem, so there is no need for me to address it.

To the first part yes, but I am of the opinion that such discussion goes well beyond putting stylus to groove and waxing poetic about the net result...

Your opinion is just wonderful to you I am sure, but you are out of line telling moderators how to do their job.

To the second part, I am of the opinion that you have far exceeded your position as moderator, if you take that opinion as any thing but opinion and as some indictment as to your fitness for your "position" based on behavioral evidence, that would seem to be a claim YOU make based in a biased mindset...

Your opinion is noted. The rest of this(whatever it is) is irrelevant, froth, and bait. It is not up to you to set my bounds, or make any opinions of whether I am fit or unfit as a moderator. That is the site owner and the site adminstrators job. Your overwhelming sense of self importance is....well .....er.....leaves me speechless. What is your point in all of this? To make a statement to Eric that he choose his moderators poorly? That you have a VERY big ego, and like the way you look with your chest spread out? If you don't like the changes the adminstrator is making or his choice of moderators, well, there are plenty of places that would probably love to have you. But to rile against me is counterproductive and rather inefficient, and will do absolutely nothing to make whatever point your are attempting to make. As a matter of fact, reading this post of yours gives me a great mental picture. Its like watching a rooster flap his wings and scratch at the dirt.
Whatever point you were trying to make, you sure lost me. If the purpose was to get me angry and riled up, then you are an utter failure in every way.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=jneutron]Excerpts pulled from your post..

Terrence,

From your replies, you give the impression that you did not believe chris's post was a personal attack...So, you agreed 100% with what he said.

From my perspective(and maybe I am wrong) I cannot see a personal attack here. His response(considering the rash of defections and annoucements of defections) seemed generic and ambiguous to me. And yes, I did agree with his points based on that perspective.

Does this mean, that if I choose to attack, you will allow it as long as I am applying the attack to an entire class of people?

I am only concerned with PERSONAL attacks, not one that are generalized and ambiguous. However, if you attacked a whole class of people, I would be more concerned about what people thought about you, than the people you are attacking.

I can call all "yaysayers" bubble headed nincompoops, technophobes, whatever...that is ok?

I have no problem with that. However if I was a newbie, regular or a yasayer, I would think you were a little off. This to me would be like painting a minature picture with a street sweeper.

I can call all of them pig headed, with blinders on, with only a one track mind? (direct quotes from a moderator at another site, albeit used against naysayers..) Or is only ok for the class of people you consider yaysayers to trash entire groups of people....

See my statements above. A civil well versed individual wouldn't need any of these words to convey their point. This sounds overly emotional and out of control to me. I wouldn't take whomever chose this inflammatory language seriously at all.

From your stated words of even handedness and balance, you certainly do not intend to convey that message..nonetheless, your protestations can lead one to conclude that one sided bashing, when in the right direction....is allowed.

If you were angry, irrational, immature, and looking to bait someone you would probably arrive at that conclusion. I expect mature, rational and sane people to agree to disagree with the upmost civility and class.

As I said..a coupla months for settling time...for the members, the moderators, and the administrator..

Cheers, John

If you come here for your enjoyment, keeping things in perspective, and to exchange ideas and opinions, then it shouldn't take that long. If you come here to boost your ego, show how smart you are, and throw your weight around, then it will take you that long to figure out how to do it, and not get banned.

I am really confused. I have watched this site change at least 6 or 7 times since 1997. Each change some people were confused, sad, disoriented, and some were elated, enlightned and happy. But this time some are just plain angry as hell, and looking to anger whomever they can find. I think the purpose of these changes is to make the site friendly and accessable to EVERYONE, not just a faithful few regulars who don't like change. It is obvious that business as usual is not working, hence the changes.

The name of that forum...as you see, it was changed in direct response to eric's having been given feedback on that change..he understood, and he chose to consider my feelings (and possibly others) into account. This is a clear indication to me that leaving quietly is not the best option..I spoke my mind, and was heard..I do agree that it is not necessary to go overboard in "final closing comments", though.

What you did is give constructive critisizm. That will most likely lead to a positive result. Feedback is one thing, good bye cruel world(no reference to anyone) is plain silly, and is done to get some kind of response. Most likely that response is "please don't leave, we need your knowledge". This serves no purpose but to support someone overbloated sense of purpose and self worth. That is bad form to me. When I left HTF, I just stopped going there, stopped posting and responding. I didn't leave a long good bye note so everyone would feel sorry for me. I fully understand the difference between positive constructive feedback, and silly wimpering to illicit a response.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's funny...right, but funny...I'll explain.. For cables alone, I'm delving into transmission line theory, skin effect, propagation velocity, sampling theory, lateralization theory, 3-D visualization geometry reconstruction, analog bandwidth vs slew rate limitations, loop coupling, ground bounce...more, but intent is clear..

This is great John, but room resonances, bad D/A conversion, jitter, and other abnormalties have a far greater effect than everything you have mentioned. Room acoustics alone could render every point you made moot in and of itself. The high ambient levels of most rooms make any problems(or benefits) with cables inaudible. My points is that all other things have to be close to perfect before you can hear anything to do with cables. Emphasis on cables before other issues up or downstream are taken care of is just plain silly.

[Resident Loser]

...you may consider yourself "terrible" but I assure you it is not in the manner you fancy and bandy it about as being. I can no longer engage in any meaningful dialogue with you, as it seems you have this all-pervasive penchant for ignoring the meaning of the written word as you base your responses solely on the misinterpretation of it...you should respond to the meaning of things said and not what you might think is being said or how you wish to "spin" it to yourself and others...I'll grant you, your self-agrandizing puffery and predeliction for tangental posturing is certainly without peer; and I'M a rooster?

Try, do try, to understand that everything that is posted is not about YOU...I could care less about who the media ringmasters engage as the help...there are generic questions which do not require any of your personal "insights" or experiences in order to be answered. There need be no extension of your own personal indulgence in mind altering substances to attempt insult of anyone else. There are no personal attcks or affronts, simply hypothetical situations and what-not that you have taken as such. "Rile" you...my opinion is not something that I would use to "rile" anyone...it is simply my opinion, no more no less...besides, I have better things to do than engage in sport with you...I prefer a challenge...

And BTW, and for the second time, who or what are "Three Stoogies"?...

jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...you may consider yourself "terrible" but I assure you it is not in the manner you fancy and bandy it about as being. I can no longer engage in any meaningful dialogue with you, as it seems you have this all-pervasive penchant for ignoring the meaning of the written word as you base your responses solely on the misinterpretation of it...you should respond to the meaning of things said and not what you might think is being said or how you wish to "spin" it to yourself and others...I'll grant you, your self-agrandizing puffery and predeliction for tangental posturing is certainly without peer; and I'M a rooster?

It seems to me that the only meanful dialog you can have, is one were you look like the big chief talking to all of his subjects. Hence the rooster flapping his wings and scratching at dirt analogy. You seem to take the approach that you write with such complexity(you use unnecessarlily large words for realitivly simple points) that one can not comprehend your meaning. I hate to bring it to you, be even amoungst the unnecessarily large words, your point wouldn't escape a three year old. Pompus attitudes, egostical platitudes don't move me. Your enept attempt to try and make something were there is nothing is boring, time consuming, and wasteful. Here is the bottom line. Be respectful to others opinions whether you agree or disagree. No personal attacks period. If you find you have to call others names, then perhaps you do not have the necessary communication skills to participate on this board. No spin, no miscommunication. I am completely uninterested in your accessment of my personality. You do not know me at all, so trying to analyze something you are unfamilar with is unproductive, unnecessary, and counterproductive to the subject at hand. This is not about me, it is about posters behavior on this board

Try, do try, to understand that everything that is posted is not about YOU

I don't care if its about me, or someone else, no personal attacks, no name calling period!

..I could care less about who the media ringmasters engage as the help

Well I am unconcerned about people who think more highly of themselves than they really are. Your condescending tone is unwarranted, but is making it very clear who you are.

...there are generic questions which do not require any of your personal "insights" or experiences in order to be answered. There need be no extension of your own personal indulgence in mind altering substances to attempt insult of anyone else.

Mindless blather and spin. Or plain lunacy, whatever.

There are no personal attcks or affronts, simply hypothetical situations and what-not that you have taken as such.

Your argument has not become rather unstable. Your hypothetical is this;

I would suppose the following is Okee-dokee: when someone comes to an amateur audio website demanding to be taken at face value, making completely unfounded and outlandish claims without any substantive information to support those claims, they are raving, lunatic-fringe, @$$holes...as long as I preface it by stating that it is my considered opinion?...

Calling someone a raving, lunatic fringe a$$hole would be personal attack. So to say that it was your intention was to present a "simple hypothetical and whatnot" might be a little disengenuous and somewhat misleading.

"Rile" you...my opinion is not something that I would use to "rile" anyone...it is simply my opinion, no more no less...besides, I have better things to do than engage in sport with you...I prefer a challenge...

It is EXTREMELY dangerous to grossly underestimate anyone. Your inability to deal directly with this issues without personalizing things shows argumentive behavior, unstable grounds for an argument, and a feeble attempt to make someone else look small so you look big. People who have a REAL point find this totally unnecessary which clearly shows me you are arguing just for arguing sake, or maybe you just like to see your words online. Others may be amused with your musing, that's great, but it might be helpful to find something more palatable to argue about. It is hard to portray yourself as big, when you think so small(petty). Typical passive aggressive approach, yawn!

And BTW, and for the second time, who or what are "Three Stoogies"?..

A person with your superior intellect and pompus approach should have no problem finding this information out. Why ask a person of inferior intellect such a basic question?

[Resident Loser]

...hardly trying to impress you...but let's see if I can snap you back to reality from the arms of your egocentric dreamscape...As I recall, this whole thing started over your use(while in the position of moderator) of the word "retarded"...and the semi-circular logic that allowed you to insult and attack an entire "class" of folks, as both jneutron and I pointed out...you missed the point then and you continue do so at your own peril...everything beyond that is pure icing on the continuing semi-circular downward spiral cake, as you do your little attempt at a put-down tap-dance...

Re: Your meaning of the "Three Stoogies"...

Q: "Why ask a person of inferior intellect such a basic question?"

A: Because I can't think that stupid...

I've seen stooges, I've seen stogies, I've seen stooges puffing on stogies but I have yet to see "stoogies" singly or in pairs and certainly never triplets...are you attempting to compare three members of this board with Moe, Larry and Curly? This is your definition of moderation?

jimHJJ(...why soitenly! Nyuk, nyuk!...)

[Monstrous Mike]

It seems to me that the only meanful dialog you can have, is one were you look like the big chief talking to all of his subjects.

It is my own humble opinion that you have described yourself with your own words here.

I've been sharing this board with Resident Loser for years and not only are you condescending to him, you are wrong about him as well.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It is my own humble opinion that you have described yourself with your own words here.

I've been sharing this board with Resident Loser for years and not only are you condescending to him, you are wrong about him as well.

Wow MM, I have been coming to this board and interacting with you for years, I never expected that comment from you. Well, when changes come, they really do come! I guess it is true that all things come out in the wash. Well, everyone has their own opinion about everyone else. Based on this interaction with said person, I respectfully disagree with you. But loyalty is a very admireable characteristic.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

...hardly trying to impress you...but let's see if I can snap you back to reality from the arms of your egocentric dreamscape...As I recall, this whole thing started over your use(while in the position of moderator) of the word "retarded"...and the semi-circular logic that allowed you to insult and attack an entire "class" of folks, as both jneutron and I pointed out...you missed the point then and you continue do so at your own peril...everything beyond that is pure icing on the continuing semi-circular downward spiral cake, as you do your little attempt at a put-down tap-dance...

Here is where I think this conversation has totally degenerated into nothing. My statement;

The yeasayers ruined things by using VERY overbloating adjectives to describe everything under the sun. The naysayers ruined things by requiring information from people that they knew they couldn't provide(AES papers, controlled studies, DBT results). They turned something that you listen to, into something you study and read about. Pretty retarded IMO

Have I said anything about you personally in this statement? Do you actually think this attacks an ENTIRE class of folks, or just the naysayers that exibit this kind of behavior. You said yourself you have never mentioned DBT, so how could this apply to you, or your "class" of naysayer? If you or Jneutron have never asked for a DBT, then this does not apply to you, or your class of naysayer. How you can get all worked up about a comment that doesn't even apply to you leaves me puzzled. However, in saying that I still believe that it is "retarded" to come to a amatuer forum asking for things that even some professionals cannot supply. It is rediculous, out of context, stifles the exchange of ideas, and can easily send a conversation into a sprialing bunch of flame bait. I also think it is counterproductive because most folks that demand such information, will ignore what you provide if it counters their agenda. That is not what I call a fair and open debate. Now if this does not describe you, then there is no need for you to be upset or get personal when it is not called for. There is nothing semi circular about that. This is NOT personal, and you are out of context if you take it that way.

Re: Your meaning of the "Three Stoogies"...

Q: "Why ask a person of inferior intellect such a basic question?"

A: Because I can't think that stupid...

Okay, so you got you dig in. Are you happy now? I hope it makes you feel better, as dellusional as that statement is. Now so my meaning cannot be twisted, I was referring to the statement, I have no comment for the deliverer of the statement. Once again, please refrain from any personal attacks, or indirect statements that can be mistaken for one.

I've seen stooges, I've seen stogies, I've seen stooges puffing on stogies but I have yet to see "stoogies" singly or in pairs and certainly never triplets...are you attempting to compare three members of this board with Moe, Larry and Curly? This is your definition of moderation?

Whatever, more splooge here. I happen to know those three members VERY well. If they have no problem being labelled that way as a inside joke, then you should not. This is none of your business. I have heard no complaints from them, I should hear less than none from you. Leave the moderation part out. That was there 1 year before I ever became moderator. In this case, you have WAY overstepped yourself, and you lack the neccesary information to pass any judgement whatsoever. .

[E-Stat]

Here is where I think this conversation has totally degenerated into nothing.

So D'Artagan, you appear to be matching foils with not one or two, but three contenders - and handling yourself quite nicely. Porthos (aka ToddB) is likewise dueling elsewhere. I feel somewhat detached from our band with no one taking aim at me. On guard !

Aramis, er rw

[ToddB]

From what bizarro world did you drag this from? I've never seen a "naysayer" say that a "yeasayer" can't hear...The falsehoods presented as fact on this site are truly amazing. Now, changing history...

If you'll ratchet down the hysteria, and think just a little bit harder about what I said, you'll probably realize what I meant.

[ToddB]

So D'Artagan, you appear to be matching foils with not one or two, but three contenders - and handling yourself quite nicely. Porthos (aka ToddB) is likewise dueling elsewhere. I feel somewhat detached from our band with no one taking aim at me. On guard !

Aramis, er rw

Well then, since you're not busy, go practice.

[Resident Loser]

"...The yeasayers ruined things by using VERY overbloating adjectives to describe everything under the sun. The naysayers ruined things by requiring information from people that they knew they couldn't provide(AES papers, controlled studies, DBT results). They turned something that you listen to, into something you study and read about. Pretty retarded IMO..."

Hmmm...do I see definite articles and pronouns?...Why, yes I do...lawdy mama, sakes alive! "THE naysayers ruined everything..."..."...THE naysayers ruined things..."..."...THEY turned..." I see blanket statements, as would anyone even mildly conversant with words AND their meanings...they DO have meanings, you ARE aware of that aren't you? However, I see no insults aimed at the subjectivists; only at the objectivists...

I see no qualifiers, No "some of" or a "few of" or even a more direct "Mr.X always does" this or that...do you see it now? Make any sense now? Since I'm using itty-bitty words is it more better for you?

"Have I said anything about you personally in this statement?"

Gee, did I say you did? No, I took exception(oops!, sorry big word)...let me say again...me have problem with your words about all...that is what you say...I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to continue on such a simplistic level, so pardon my lexicon! But do try to keep up...take notes, smoke 'em if ya got 'em...

As a member of the objectivist camp, that blanket indictment includes me and many others, ergo...it is incumbent on me to address what is obviously a blatant attempt to discredit the "class"...

Nobody, no how, no where, EVER demanded any "proofs" from newbs, now did they?...of course not, so the rationale of altruism toward that particular group is about as bogus as bogus can get...now that you(the collective) got that out of your system, let's continue...shall we?

Regulars have parroted psuedo-science factoids and the like, in support of their anecdotal evidence in the guise of bona-fide advice to the noobs...again, rebuttal is certainly in order; it is therefore addressed and dealt with as such. I still feel it is best handled in situ...the Lab is another bit of twaddle...but that is simply my opinion.

With re: to Moe, Larry, and Shemp(equal billing and all) and your "rehetorical" question...you think that to be a "dig" as you put it?...that interpretation seems to be a product of your "bias" towards me or a result of your unequaled ability to misconstrue...My words are simply a statement of fact...I can't think that stupid or dumb-down my posts for the masses...in either case that's on you...mistake what you will.

And whether or not all four of you spend your evenings together, having a grand old time sharing "inside jokes", such a tag line is surely in bad form...particularly as you are now a "moderator"...I mean what does such a characterization of fellow members say to the all important and easily frightened newbies, eh?

jimHJJ(...TTFN...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do I see definite articles and pronouns?...Why, yes I do...lawdy mama, sakes alive! "THE naysayers ruined everything..."..."...THE naysayers ruined things..."..."...THEY turned..." I see blanket statements, as would anyone even mildly conversant with words AND their meanings...they DO have meanings, you ARE aware of that aren't you? However, I see no insults aimed at the subjectivists; only at the objectivists...

RL, my name is not t-bone, at least YOU cannot call me that. Sir Terrence is how I would like to be addressed. If I am called any other name than that, I am going to consider that a personal attack. Once again(for the fifth time) be respectful, If you cannot, perhaps you don't have the demeaner to continue posting here.

Secondly, naysayer=objectivist. Yeasayer=subjectivist. My dog Darnell knows this, I am unsure why you don't. They both have ruined this forum(and I spread the responsibility equally between the two and have always). If you cannot see this(or read it) there is not much I can do, blame your high school teacher or whatever. It is apparent that your only desire is to argue maneutia. Not going there, the rules are posted, and it is so simple that even you can understand it.

I see no qualifiers, No "some of" or a "few of" or even a more direct "Mr.X always does" this or that...do you see it now? Make any sense now? Since I'm using itty-bitty words is it more better for you?

Here is what you did miss, and I am unsure....well....I am sure why. You just want to argue, but that will be coming to a conclusion after this.

The naysayers ruined things by requiring information from people that they knew they couldn't provide(AES papers, controlled studies, DBT results). They turned something that you listen to, into something you study and read about.

Read what it say VERY carefully, because the qualifiers are there. No, based on history maybe I should point them out to you. Requiring AES papers, DBT results. That is your qualifier. The problem with you narrow minded way of looking at things, is you tend to overlook the details for the sake of continuing an arguement. In other words, ya see wha you wanna see, so ya can say wha ya .wanna say

Gee, did I say you did? No, I took exception(oops!, sorry big word)...let me say again...me have problem with your words about all...that is what you say...I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to continue on such a simplistic level, so pardon my lexicon! But do try to keep up...take notes, smoke 'em if ya got 'em...

If I didn't attack you personally, then why are you so emotional about this?
A man of superior intellect can communicate at all levels, and that communication is always appropriate to the medium. If they cannot communicate at all levels, then perhaps they are a legend in their own mind. I am sorry you have a problem with my words, the feelings are mutual.

As a member of the objectivist camp, that blanket indictment includes me and many others, ergo...it is incumbent on me to address what is obviously a blatant attempt to discredit the "class"...

If you think you can speak for a whole class, then your ego is the size of our universe.
I am somewhat(and only somewhat) surprised that your superior intellect neglected to see that this was not a blanket a statement as you think. Do you require AES papers or DBT? You said you didn't, so my comments shouldn't(if you don't let them) apply to you.

Nobody, no how, no where, EVER demanded any "proofs" from newbs, now did they?...of course not, so the rationale of altruism toward that particular group is about as bogus as bogus can get...now that you(the collective) got that out of your system, let's continue...shall we?

You obviously stay in only one place on this forum. However objectionist, and subjectionist are in the general foum, speaker forum, digital forum. In the digital forum you have had three gentlemen(objectivist) who consistantly demanded AES or DBT studies. Another gentlemen(who is everywhere and is also a objectivist) consistantly quotes, posts, and demands AES or DBT studies. He is a consistant visitor to this forum and I would be surprised if you don't know who he is.

Regulars have parroted psuedo-science factoids and the like, in support of their anecdotal evidence in the guise of bona-fide advice to the noobs...again, rebuttal is certainly in order; it is therefore addressed and dealt with as such. I still feel it is best handled in situ...the Lab is another bit of twaddle...but that is simply my opinion.

Rebuttal to the evidence is one thing, attack the indiviual is another. One seems to always degenerate into another. That will no longer be allowed period.

With re: to Moe, Larry, and Shemp(equal billing and all) and your "rehetorical" question...you think that to be a "dig" as you put it?...that interpretation seems to be a product of your "bias" towards me or a result of your unequaled ability to misconstrue...My words are simply a statement of fact...I can't think that stupid or dumb-down my posts for the masses...in either case that's on you...mistake what you will.

I don't know you, don't care about you, you could die and go to hades and it wouldn't bother me one bit. I cannot hold a bias againist somebody that I feel that way about. I am also unconcerned about your evaluation of my intellect. Yours certainly doesn't deserve any honorable mention. As I said earlier, if you cannot communicate on all levels, then you skills are quite limited.

And whether or not all four of you spend your evenings together, having a grand old time sharing "inside jokes", such a tag line is surely in bad form...particularly as you are now a "moderator"...I mean what does such a characterization of fellow members say to the all important and easily frightened newbies, eh?

It is not up to you to deside what is in bad form, or not between friends. You seemed to have a real problem with minding your own business. Who championed you as the savior of all? Nobody, deal with yourself, your behavior, and let others deal with theirs. In other words make it your business to mind your own business. Your not a newby, and you cannot speak for them. You are not my friends, and you cannot speak for them.

Since this thread serves no purpose to the body, I am closing it. If you persist to continue to argue any further, I will leave Eric to decide what further action should be taken.