@cleeds
“That’s the challenge faced by this group’s moderators. They can’t babysit every single comment on every single thread, and so they have to make judgment calls.”
The moderators have help reviewing threads. They review those that thread readers report for review. |
Sounds like @hifiman5 is attempting to hijack this thread as a means of circumventing the Admin’s decision to remove his thread on the same topic. |
|
@hifiman5 your first post seemed well put. Your second post seems to relate to what your now-deleted thread concerned.
It’s your choice whether to answer a poster’s question, like the one @cleeds asked you regarding following up with the administrators about their decision to delete your thread. I would have loved to hear that feedback, which is one example of something we can all learn from here.
I’m not concerned about what gets posted here, provided it doesn’t lead to a moderator taking an action to remove it. If one looks at several posts already made here, many are inviting moderators to review and remove them. Not only does this provide a disservice to those who take time to respond to a now-deleted post, but it also disrupts the flow of the discussion.
|
Everything is about politics. These are some of the politics of audio:
Vinyl vs Digital media
Analog vs Digital signal processing
Tubes vs Solid State electronics
electrostatics vs dynamic speakers
full range vs cross-over designs
active vs passive preamps
integrated units vs separates
tone & frequency controls vs purist designs
amps of different class topologies
signal transmission cable topologies
passive vs active room correction
What have you encountered in threads discussing these topics that would trigger an OP or Admin to consider their removal? Do you feel they were justified?
|
@roxy54 I agree. This entire thread is off the rails. |
@clearthink. Why is it that you feel every post concerns you? smh |
We have taller buildings but shorter tempers; wider freeways but narrower viewpoints; we spend more but have less; we buy more but enjoy it less; we have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, yet less time; we have more degrees but less sense; more knowledge but less judgement; more experts, yet more problems; we have more audio gadgets but less enjoyment; more medicine, yet less wellness; we take more vitamins but see fewer results. We drink too much; smoke too much; spend too recklessly; laugh too little; drive too fast; get too angry quickly; stay up too late; get up too tired; read too seldom; watch TV too much and listen to others too seldom.
|
@hifiman5 my post seems to fit this thread perfectly. 😂😂 |
@clearthunk. I never claimed that I wrote the entire post from scratch. I never claimed authorship. It’s a post to a thread that has utterly no meaning. Get over it. Move on. |
@djones51. Close adaptation—modified for the audience here, but not verbatim. |
@clearthink George didn’t pen this quote, as snopes dot com demonstrated. And if you compare the original work by the Reverend Moorehead with my post, word for word, it’s not the same text. But nice work, otherwise. |
Well, this thread is officially off the rails. I’m moving on. |
Why do I get the impression that some contributors are posting from leather recliners, wearing only underwear, with a Colt45 beverage on their side table? |
I sense an anger management course in the future of at least one contributor here. |
@hifiman5 thank you for your initial share/post. I’d love to understand why the Mods deleted the thread, though. Did you ever inquire with them? Just curious. |
I’m satisfied with the thread ending as it stands. Thanks, for everyone’s contributions! |
As with most things, political discourse is susceptible to being generalized a bit much. To wit: Plenty of folks on the left have really nice (read: expensive) audio systems. |
|
Plagiarism is a creature of academia and journalism, pertaining to usurping another’s work as one’s own without attribution. In only those areas, it serves as a check on intellectual integrity and breaches therefrom. Those in academia and journalism could care less about asking permission to use another’s work. So as noble as these disciplines might be under the plagiarism doctrine, there remains an unspoken intellectual dishonesty at the core of these disciplines.
Copyright is a commercial embodiment related to plagiarism, but differs from plagiarism in a key respect. Copyright concerns usurping another’s work as one’s own without securing permission from the original author. That is, in copyright, the focus is not simply attribution, because it doesn’t matter whether the usurper actually is aware of the original work. Permission is what matters, and damages can flow therefrom when permission is not granted.
The doctrine of Fair Use provides an exception to the iron fist of the copyright laws. Most of academia and journalism uses of copyrighted work typically avoid damages from copyright infringement under this doctrine. Parody is another strain of Fair Use that spares one the ravages of copyright infringement.
Now patents are a different creature apart from plagiarism and copyrights. Patents liberally include the work of others, regardless of attribution or permission. This flows necessarily from the nature of patents—building upon the inventive works of others as embodied in the prior art. So blindly copying and pasting into a patent application information obtained from a number of sources without attribution or permission is tolerated and encouraged, provided such content is within the prior art. Nevertheless, patents can be found to be unenforceable should the patentee not fully disclose to the USPTO Examiner all printed publications, patents or other information material to the patentability of their claimed invention, to the extent of their being aware of such information. |
|
