What in the world is going on here??

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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.

I also do not recollect any interaction whatsoever with you..although, given my longer history here, you probably are more aware of my inclinations, and the facts than chris.

Well, I rarely come to the cable forum. When it comes to audio, there are quite a few more issues than cable one could worry about. I have also been posting on AR since 1997, have definately seen your name, but I don't believe we have had any interaction.

You confused me there. Did you mean "except" no newbie would venture in there? I can't see how Eric can go back, unless other steps are taken to assure that there is no return to an undesireable environment..I'm afraid I can't give you any recommendations in that regard (after all, I'm just a lab rat).:-)

What I am saying is the bar fights in the cable forum can get so ugly that only a crazy person would enter without being covered with steel body armour.
All joking aside, the cable forum is a little esoteric for the average person, and doubly esoteric for the newbie, so it's not likely you will find them venturing in there often. I know I only have been in their(covered of course) three of four times since I joined AR. I believe room acoustics and quality components are just more important, and wires and cables fall below that.

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 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.

[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]

[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.