What in the world is going on here??

[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