-
room treatment is largely downplayed
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
I see. So, if someone tries something that you haven't tried, or hears something that you haven't heard, then what they say about the resulting sound is a "ridiculous claim"? And you will then feel the need to pose "meaningful challenges" to what that person has to say about what they heard, as if you are the arbiter of someone else's hearing ability? If so, then your approach is tantamount to calling that person a liar, and that's not going to be acceptable.
On other boards, in addition to the examples you gave, I also frequently see suggestions regarding relatively inexpensive DIY solutions, or for products from mail-order/hobbyist-business shops that cost less than competing, more commercial offerings. The range of recommendations is good, as it gives people more options to decide from. Just because you don't happen to like some of the options, doesn't mean that those options are bad.
If you have the experience of hearing that cable, and the effects it had in a system in comparison to the effects that ceiling panels had, then your comments on the subject would be very welcome. However, I get the impression that this is just an extreme hypothetical example you've invented, and that you haven't actually had this experience.
it can have PROFOUND effects on the sound and be more cost effective than wires or equip changes. my room suffers a lot from echoes, soon to be addressed. i am not disagreeing that wires can have positive effect on the system, but to negate room treatment is not wise.
-
Woochifer, you seem to be trying to form as extreme an interpretation of my comments as you can. I'm not sure why, and I don't know how I can be any clearer about what I've said. But, I don't want to keep taking time to try and hash it out with you, so I'll trust that your better judgement will prevail.
Also, I did review our exchange, and I don't think that I've taken your comments out of context at all. I do get the impression that you don't like being told that you have to play nicely with others, however, so if that becomes a problem in the future, we'll have to deal with it.
Your comment about "consensus among professionals", though, is an interesting consideration in it's own right. A page on Shunyata's website, here: http://www.shunyata.com/Default.aspx...y=Applications links to lists of recording studios and professionals, and audiophile equipment manufacturers, who have purchased Shunyata power conditioning, power cord, interconnect, and speaker cable products. Now, it's probably safe to assume that the people and organizations listed on those pages have spent some amount of time optimizing the rooms they work in, and the equipment they work with. Nevertheless, they apparently saw the need to invest in Shunyata's products. Why would they have done that? Could it be that they observed Shunyata's products were capable of solving problems that room treatments, speaker positioning, and equalizing weren't? Doesn't their purchase of Shunyata's products somewhat go against the current "consensus among professionals"? Hmm...
As for this:
"My concern is that you will use the moderator role to enforce a particular bias at the expense of all others."
my bias is to make sure that everyone feels free to have their say. If someone has a problem with subwoofer boominess, I have no problem if they get, for example, five responses about subwoofer repositioning and one response about replacing their interconnect. Since repositioning the sub is free, they'll probably try that first, anyway. However, if they're not happy with the results, I want the person who recommended replacing the IC to have felt free to give that advice, because it will provide the questioner another option to consider as they try to solve their problem. Maybe that person has heard the IC in question, and thinks it has too much bass for the questioner's system. In any event, the questioner is free to decide for themselves how applicable and valid the various advice is, and to make decisions accordingly. If you have a take on the subject that's different than someone else's, then state your case. No one's going to be allowed to attack you for your opinion, either.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitommy
it can have PROFOUND effects on the sound and be more cost effective than wires or equip changes. my room suffers a lot from echoes, soon to be addressed. i am not disagreeing that wires can have positive effect on the system, but to negate room treatment is not wise.
Of course it's not wise. I never said to negate room treatment, nor did I say that room treatment was less cost-effective. What I said was that there are inevitably going to be people who have a different opinion on the matter, and they should know that they can voice that opinion here without being attacked or belittled for it. If those people can't handle having others disagree with them, then they shouldn't participate. But by choosing to participate, that certainly doesn't mean that they should also have to accept being insulted.
-
no disagreement here.
all factors should be considered, some will truly surprise us at times.
-
Oh, really...
"...that certainly doesn't mean that they should also have to accept being insulted..."
So that means there will be equal intolerance of things such as:
You're deaf...
You don't know what to listen for...
What do you expect, listening to that lousy mid-fi junk...
Still believe the world is flat?...
You know, that sort of personal insult.
The phrase "there are also people who believe in..."is a general statement. Such statements about the existence of a group of people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot etc. are somehow equated to these types of direct personal insults in your mind? In MY experience, I can't recall anyone ever saying "you sit in a tree-stand waiting for Sasquatch or ET, whichever comes first". Point one out. Seen alot of "deaf' remarks however...There may be people who claim the framed 8x10 glossy of "Fatty" Arbuckle improves their systems' imaging...and the(to avoid the word "scientific") reasonable, rational explanation is?
Kindly notice the recipients of the "deaf" remarks did little or no p!$$!ng and moaning about them...just kept trudging along with the same message, the same can't be said for others...
He!!, trading barbs was what made this place INTERESTING...it was even funny for the most part...of course one had to be adept at the artform...
jimHJJ(...maybe that's the problem...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
Woochifer, you seem to be trying to form as extreme an interpretation of my comments as you can. I'm not sure why, and I don't know how I can be any clearer about what I've said. But, I don't want to keep taking time to try and hash it out with you, so I'll trust that your better judgement will prevail.
Also, I did review our exchange, and I don't think that I've taken your comments out of context at all. I do get the impression that you don't like being told that you have to play nicely with others, however, so if that becomes a problem in the future, we'll have to deal with it.
I frankly think that you have chosen to focus on a few pointed quotes and disregard the rest of my concerns on this thread. If you want an example of "one of the larger problems on this board" then just look at how you've focused on out of context quotes and then drawn a whole set of presumptions around that. My whole approach is to play fair, and if that's fine with you, then we won't have any problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
Your comment about "consensus among professionals", though, is an interesting consideration in it's own right. A page on Shunyata's website, here: http://www.shunyata.com/Default.aspx...y=Applications links to lists of recording studios and professionals, and audiophile equipment manufacturers, who have purchased Shunyata power conditioning, power cord, interconnect, and speaker cable products. Now, it's probably safe to assume that the people and organizations listed on those pages have spent some amount of time optimizing the rooms they work in, and the equipment they work with. Nevertheless, they apparently saw the need to invest in Shunyata's products. Why would they have done that? Could it be that they observed Shunyata's products were capable of solving problems that room treatments, speaker positioning, and equalizing weren't? Doesn't their purchase of Shunyata's products somewhat go against the current "consensus among professionals"? Hmm...
First off, all that I said is that room acoustics are a far more important issue than cables when dealing with boominess in subwoofers. If you disagree with that, then make your case. I don't think you disagree with my room treatment position, and have just offered up a contrarian position. I don't take issue with that, but are you offering up that list of professionals who use Shunyata products as some kind of support for the notion that cables are just as important as room acoustics? It doesn't say anything to that effect, and none of the people I've ever met who've worked in professional capacities will agree with that either.
You're more than welcome to believe that a list of studios and organizations that have invested in Shunyata products somehow supports a contrary position, but when somebody comes onto this board with an issue with boominess, are you then saying that the Shunyata products can better deal directly with this issue?
What I mean by professional consensus is that every article I've ever read about the causes and effects of boominess and their remedies point to the room acoustics. There's plenty of disagreement on what solutions are most effective (tube traps, corner prisms, parametric equalization, various placements, etc.), but I've yet to see any discussion by people who've actually addressed low frequency boominess issues that indicated the cables as the most effective solution, or even an effective solution at all. This is because subjective interpretations of boominess follow very basic science about things like room modes and standing waves, and how those correlate to changes to the frequency response. Unless the cable can actually change the frequency response and attenuate the most severe peaks in a specific room (which in my room were 10 db+), then they are ineffective for dealing with boominess.
My position on cables is very simple. If you believe they make a difference, fine spend your money on them. If you've already made your investment in the room acoustics, front end equipment, and speaker upgrades, then cables might be the next step. But, if you believe that the cable upgrades should come before all others, then I will disagree and point to any number of reasons why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
As for this:
"My concern is that you will use the moderator role to enforce a particular bias at the expense of all others."
my bias is to make sure that everyone feels free to have their say. If someone has a problem with subwoofer boominess, I have no problem if they get, for example, five responses about subwoofer repositioning and one response about replacing their interconnect. Since repositioning the sub is free, they'll probably try that first, anyway. However, if they're not happy with the results, I want the person who recommended replacing the IC to have felt free to give that advice, because it will provide the questioner another option to consider as they try to solve their problem. Maybe that person has heard the IC in question, and thinks it has too much bass for the questioner's system. In any event, the questioner is free to decide for themselves how applicable and valid the various advice is, and to make decisions accordingly. If you have a take on the subject that's different than someone else's, then state your case. No one's going to be allowed to attack you for your opinion, either.
If that's how you intend to moderate the board, then I have no issue with that. But, if you start to enforce a particular bias under the pretense of civility, then I think that speaks volumes for itself. I hope you do a good job and want to make this all work, but I suggest that you read your own posts if you're seeking out examples.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
I frankly think that you have chosen to focus on a few pointed quotes and disregard the rest of my concerns on this thread. If you want an example of "one of the larger problems on this board" then just look at how you've focused on out of context quotes and then drawn a whole set of presumptions around that.
I think the conclusions I drew from your comments were justified. You obviously disagree. We'll leave it at that.
Quote:
My whole approach is to play fair, and if that's fine with you, then we won't have any problems.
As long as you understand that "fair" is going to include allowing people to voice opinions that may not necessarily agree with yours, then no, we won't have any problems.
Quote:
First off, all that I said is that room acoustics are a far more important issue than cables when dealing with boominess in subwoofers. If you disagree with that, then make your case. I don't think you disagree with my room treatment position, and have just offered up a contrarian position. I don't take issue with that, but are you offering up that list of professionals who use Shunyata products as some kind of support for the notion that cables are just as important as room acoustics? It doesn't say anything to that effect, and none of the people I've ever met who've worked in professional capacities will agree with that either.
You're more than welcome to believe that a list of studios and organizations that have invested in Shunyata products somehow supports a contrary position, but when somebody comes onto this board with an issue with boominess, are you then saying that the Shunyata products can better deal directly with this issue?
What I mean by professional consensus is that every article I've ever read about the causes and effects of boominess and their remedies point to the room acoustics. There's plenty of disagreement on what solutions are most effective (tube traps, corner prisms, parametric equalization, various placements, etc.), but I've yet to see any discussion by people who've actually addressed low frequency boominess issues that indicated the cables as the most effective solution, or even an effective solution at all. This is because subjective interpretations of boominess follow very basic science about things like room modes and standing waves, and how those correlate to changes to the frequency response. Unless the cable can actually change the frequency response and attenuate the most severe peaks in a specific room (which in my room were 10 db+), then they are ineffective for dealing with boominess.
My position on cables is very simple. If you believe they make a difference, fine spend your money on them. If you've already made your investment in the room acoustics, front end equipment, and speaker upgrades, then cables might be the next step. But, if you believe that the cable upgrades should come before all others, then I will disagree and point to any number of reasons why.
I think you're getting so caught up in the minutiae of this particular example that you're missing my larger point. I was trying to illustrate how there will likely be more than one approach to resolving any given problem, and other people may well weigh the validity of those approaches differently. Some people might weigh the approaches based on the current scientific understanding of the problem, while others might weigh the approaches based on their listening observations of the problem. I included the Shunyata example because you mentioned "consensus among professionals", and I wanted to illustrate that not even professionals are in uniform agreement on all audio issues.
However, since my abstractions about this apparently aren't making my point, here's a specific example for you. Every Radio Shack Gold interconnect I've heard sounds like it has a bulge in the bass. I didn't realize this, though, when I first used one, so at the time I assumed that I had a room node that was causing my subwoofer to be slightly boomy, even though I had the LPF on the sub set to where it should be properly intersecting with the bass rolloff from my speakers. I could kinda sorta get rid of the boom by moving the sub out farther into the room, but then I would lose an unacceptable amount of frequency extension, and the sub would be encroaching on the walkway at that point, so I just left the sub back near the wall.
What ended up getting rid of the boominess was replacing that $8 Radio Shack Gold IC with a $27 XLO IC. Not only did the XLO get rid of the boominess, it deepened the bass extension, which by itself should have exacerbated the boominess issue if a room node had been the real problem. Now, there may be $27 worth of DIY room treatments that might have helped address this problem, but I didn't have to resort to trying them. All I had to do was change the cable.
Quote:
If that's how you intend to moderate the board, then I have no issue with that. But, if you start to enforce a particular bias under the pretense of civility, then I think that speaks volumes for itself. I hope you do a good job and want to make this all work, but I suggest that you read your own posts if you're seeking out examples.
I have absolutely no problem with people listening for themselves to any example I give, or any component I comment on, or any cable whose sound I characterize, and coming to entirely different conclusions about how it sounds, or whether it has any sound at all. What I do have a problem with is people getting browbeaten on this board with the suggestion that they don't need to listen to anything for themselves, using the pretense that current scientific understanding says that they don't. I want people to listen to things for themselves, decide about them for themselves, and then feel free to come here and relate their experience. Despite your not so subtle digs, I don't believe I've suggested that any other goal was being pursued.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
The problem appears to be that you (and you are by no means the only one doing this) see fit to denigrate perspectives and experiences that do not agree with your own.
Ironically, this is exactly what you are doing and many others like you as well. My experience is that I have never heard any cable differences and I have been laced with:
- poor hearing
- low-fi system
- head in the sand
- in denial
- engineering degree out of CrackerJacks
- full of hot air
- in denial
And further, you equate "denigrate" with "disagree" and "attack" with "provide an opinion". Just because I don't believe there is a difference between cables doesn't mean I am calling you a liar. I once posted 14 different reasons (other than actual cable differences) where a person could perceive a sonic difference. Frankly, until you eliminate those possibilities, being certain that differences were due to cables is both unscientific and illogical.
If you want to see real denigrations and real attacks, visit rec.audio.opinion on Google. From what I last read, there were lawsuits, restraining orders and accusations of pedophilia.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
I see. So, if someone tries something that you haven't tried, or hears something that you haven't heard, then what they say about the resulting sound is a "ridiculous claim"? And you will then feel the need to pose "meaningful challenges" to what that person has to say about what they heard, as if you are the arbiter of someone else's hearing ability?
Just the other day, I jumped off of our 20 storey office building, flapped my arms and landed safely near the front door. It was quite exhilarating.
If you haven't already done so, why don't you try it? And if you haven't already do so or tried it, then I expect you to behave as you say and not comment on my claim, ridiculous as it may seem to you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
Just the other day, I jumped off of our 20 storey office building, flapped my arms and landed safely near the front door. It was quite exhilarating.
If you haven't already done so, why don't you try it? And if you haven't already do so or tried it, then I expect you to behave as you say and not comment on my claim, ridiculous as it may seem to you.
I see no need to comment on your claim. I think it speaks for itself quite well, and also bookends nicely with your previous post.
-
Awesome Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
I see no need to comment on your claim. I think it speaks for itself quite well, and also bookends nicely with your previous post.
Where on earth did you snarff that from? :)
-
And kindly take notice...
...of the left hand technique...
jimHJJ(...he must be very good at "it"...)
-
ToddB, parts of this thread ...
illustrate quite nicely how the sheer weight of the naysayers has dominated the board. It's the same dogpile tactic so often used to stifle the yeasayer here. You have my thanks and support. Good job! - Bill L.
-
So...
...eight or so posts from three or four avowed "objectivists", in a thread of over sixty, illustrates the "shear"(now cut that out!) weight that has "dominated" the board?...get real!
And if you want to comment on "gangpile" tactics(whatever the he!! that is), howzabout all the recent posters who have been absent from this place, who have again seen fit to grace us with their pin-head comments, because they deem it to be open season as dictated by the anything-but-moderate moderators...oh, yeah...that's OK...
jimHJJ(...pffft!...)
-
Nice post RL. I found your ending it with the sound of escaping gas quite appropriate.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
I see no need to comment on your claim. I think it speaks for itself quite well, and also bookends nicely with your previous post.
Thank you. Now you know how I feel when I hear claims of wires improving the sound of an audio system. I suppose that is some progress.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
I think you're getting so caught up in the minutiae of this particular example that you're missing my larger point. I was trying to illustrate how there will likely be more than one approach to resolving any given problem, and other people may well weigh the validity of those approaches differently. Some people might weigh the approaches based on the current scientific understanding of the problem, while others might weigh the approaches based on their listening observations of the problem. I included the Shunyata example because you mentioned "consensus among professionals", and I wanted to illustrate that not even professionals are in uniform agreement on all audio issues.
However, since my abstractions about this apparently aren't making my point, here's a specific example for you. Every Radio Shack Gold interconnect I've heard sounds like it has a bulge in the bass. I didn't realize this, though, when I first used one, so at the time I assumed that I had a room node that was causing my subwoofer to be slightly boomy, even though I had the LPF on the sub set to where it should be properly intersecting with the bass rolloff from my speakers. I could kinda sorta get rid of the boom by moving the sub out farther into the room, but then I would lose an unacceptable amount of frequency extension, and the sub would be encroaching on the walkway at that point, so I just left the sub back near the wall.
What ended up getting rid of the boominess was replacing that $8 Radio Shack Gold IC with a $27 XLO IC. Not only did the XLO get rid of the boominess, it deepened the bass extension, which by itself should have exacerbated the boominess issue if a room node had been the real problem. Now, there may be $27 worth of DIY room treatments that might have helped address this problem, but I didn't have to resort to trying them. All I had to do was change the cable.
And I think you're illustrating yet another common issue in how interactions on this disintegrate -- by focusing on one aspect of my comment, ignoring the context and the original meaning, and then impugning it to mean something entirely different. My point does not exclude other approaches, but I do make a point on my opinion as to the most effective approach.
Your responses assume that I'm somehow denigrating your approach. No, I'm merely pointing out that for the specific issue that I brought up, the room acoustics are where the solutions need to focus. If you showed some kind of improvement by swapping out the cables, I'm not disputing that. My example is simply an illustration that cables do not address room modes or specific frequency peaks nearly as effectively as parametric equalizers and room treatments do. I've done cable tests and I've experimented with room treatments and parametric equalizers, and to me it's no contest as to which approach is more effective. Your example of swaping out cables to eliminate boominess does not address my assertion as to which approach is more effective because you obviously have not tried the room treatment and equalization approach. As a control measurement, I did a cable swap out when I hooked up my subwoofer. Two different interconnects had zero measureable difference in the levels.
My point is that room acoustic corrections are far more effective than cables in dealing with low frequency boominess issues, and I've made this point countless times on the board. In my room and at my listening position, I have a +14 db peak at 88 Hz, and a +10 db peak at 32 Hz. The only way that a cable can be more effective than the room correction that I've done is if they can directly attenuate that exact amplitude at those exact frequencies and do so with no more than 1/6 octave bandwidth. This is not just theoretical minutae, this is a real world approach that has audible benefits to my everyday listening, and only cost me $100 to implement. If someone wants to state the opposite, then I can and will bring up many points and my own real world listenings that directly contradict that assertion. If pointing this out is somehow a violation of the rules, then this board is in very serious trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
I have absolutely no problem with people listening for themselves to any example I give, or any component I comment on, or any cable whose sound I characterize, and coming to entirely different conclusions about how it sounds, or whether it has any sound at all. What I do have a problem with is people getting browbeaten on this board with the suggestion that they don't need to listen to anything for themselves, using the pretense that current scientific understanding says that they don't. I want people to listen to things for themselves, decide about them for themselves, and then feel free to come here and relate their experience. Despite your not so subtle digs, I don't believe I've suggested that any other goal was being pursued.
And that's where I think you've been barking up the wrong tree in this thread. Somehow, you've attributed the browbeating approach and the "read don't listen" approach to something that I'm guilty of. That's the danger of singling out someone as an example, because if you read through any of the countless contributions I've made to this board over the years, you'll find few examples of me harassing people with challenges for proof, and telling them that they don't need to listen. My posts to this thread certainly don't support the BS that you're purportedly trying to minimize through your approach to board moderation, although it seems that you've somehow read into the posts enough to make that presumption. You've obviously taken issue with a specific type of interaction on this board, but trying to pin the ills of this board to how I've addressed things on this thread frankly shows more of a soapbox rant on your part than anything constructive related to how I've conducted myself.
-
"...if you read through any of the countless contributions I've made to this board over the years, you'll find few examples of me harassing people with challenges for proof, and telling them that they don't need to listen."
Amen. That's the reason I chose to use you as an example earlier in this thread. I've been around long enough to know that what you say in the above sentence is true. It's in the history; which is a point I made very early on in this debate over the most recent changes to the forum; but at that time I was pointing to the historical record to establish the practice by some to engage in harassment and hijacking of threads. Here is an example of how the historical record will exonerate you of these same practices. I'd also like to point out that so far I haven't seen any knee-jerk reaction from the moderator to intervene in the post between you and ToddB. I suspect this is at least partially due to the fact that even though you two disagree about some things, you're not being "disagreeable" and resorting to personal attacks on one another. Credit you two and the moderator for this example of how self restraint and some common sense can rule the day if given the chance.
Q
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Where on earth did you snarff that from? :)
Search engines can be very useful. ;)
I really wanted to use this band, but the file is too large:
-
Waaaa. Mommy, he said a bad word!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...eight or so posts from three or four avowed "objectivists", in a thread of over sixty, illustrates the "shear"(now cut that out!) weight that has "dominated" the board?...get real!jimHJJ(...pffft!...)
As usual, that one will scurry into the fray, kick someone in the side and then run away.
This soon will be like that other site, where never is heard a disagreeing word... A voice of disagreement is seen as blasphemy.
Yep, some want another cable asylum, replete with the moderator's tacit support of selective gang banging. Wonder how long it will take? Bets anyone?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill L
illustrate quite nicely how the sheer weight of the naysayers has dominated the board. It's the same dogpile tactic so often used to stifle the yeasayer here. You have my thanks and support. Good job! - Bill L.
Well, this thread is nothing in comparison to some in the past. All of the moderators are trying to restore some semblance of sanity to this board, so it's nice to know that our efforts are appreciated. Thank you.
-
thank you for your efforts
we all stray from the rules now and again, someone needs to remind us of them.
-
Only time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToddB
Well, this thread is nothing in comparison to some in the past. All of the moderators are trying to restore some semblance of sanity to this board, so it's nice to know that our efforts are appreciated. Thank you.
We'll see how even handedly it's applied in here. So far, it seems that it's permissable for the yeasayers to gang bang any that mightr disagree.
Somehow, I'm not getting my hopes up.
Anyone for audioholics or audiokarma where science and reason are the guide and opinions are only that?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
Anyone for audioholics or audiokarma where science and reason are the guide and opinions are only that?
Great source for HT receiver reviews.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
And I think you're illustrating yet another common issue in how interactions on this disintegrate -- by focusing on one aspect of my comment, ignoring the context and the original meaning, and then impugning it to mean something entirely different.
If you have a problem with my taking issue with your subtle insults, even when they occur in the midst of a larger truism, then stop making the subtle insults. It's pretty easy to do.
Quote:
Your responses assume that I'm somehow denigrating your approach.
You made the comments, you get to live with them.
Quote:
No, I'm merely pointing out that for the specific issue that I brought up, the room acoustics are where the solutions need to focus.
This is your OPINION. I gave you a specific example that differed from your opinion, and yet solved the problem. People are going to have different experiences that lead them to have different opinions. GET OVER IT.
Quote:
...ad nauseum opinions about boominess...
You're really not getting this, are you? I took advantage of your raising the point about boominess to illustrate the general principle of how there will more than likely be differing opinions about every subject that gets brought up here, and that everyone should be able to express their opinion and experience without getting belittled for it. I'm not interested in having a navel-gazingly specific discourse with you about the subject of boominess in this thread, because the subject of boominess is not the point, the principle of people being allowed to relate their experience is the point. If you weren't so busy trying to find things to argue about, you might have realized that.
Quote:
Your example of swaping out cables to eliminate boominess does not address my assertion as to which approach is more effective because you obviously have not tried the room treatment and equalization approach.
So what? Since my $27 cable got rid of the boominess, there was no need to try any other approach. If you think that there are $27 worth of room treatments (and now apparently also equalizers) that would work better, well, good for you.
Quote:
And that's where I think you've been barking up the wrong tree in this thread. Somehow, you've attributed the browbeating approach and the "read don't listen" approach to something that I'm guilty of. That's the danger of singling out someone as an example, because if you read through any of the countless contributions I've made to this board over the years, you'll find few examples of me harassing people with challenges for proof, and telling them that they don't need to listen.
I explained why I singled you out. Try reading the explanation again, and this time try to read what I actually wrote. Also, I read plenty of your posts when I was looking for moderator candidates, and I'm well aware of what you've said in the past.
Quote:
My posts to this thread certainly don't support the BS that you're purportedly trying to minimize through your approach to board moderation...
We've already been over this, and no matter how many times you say it, I'm not going to agree with you.
Quote:
You've obviously taken issue with a specific type of interaction on this board, but trying to pin the ills of this board to how I've addressed things on this thread frankly shows more of a soapbox rant on your part than anything constructive related to how I've conducted myself.
The problem is that you don't seem to be content with giving your side of an issue, without also being allowed to insult sides that disagree with you. Like I said, it's pretty easy to avoid doing this.
|