They will follow us in audiophile steps, as long as iPhone says so.
Polite Rules for discussing Audio related things
The polite rules for discussing audio:
Folks post three types of messages:
Questions ,about audio function, method, what to buy..
Answers to other folks questions..
And blogging. I bought this, I did this, here is my experience
Allow others to say and describe what they experience and hear. Allow then to offer reasons without arguing. If it is a blog, stop telling them what to do! They don't want you arguing, just wanted to say I did this.
Offer POSITIVE responses. If you disagree with them, do so in a polite and friendly way.
Offer alternatives without aggressive language.And above all, stop tit for tat aggression. Turn the other cheek dudes, turn the other cheek.
What do you think would help create a friendly happy place to discuss audio?
Folks post three types of messages:
Questions ,about audio function, method, what to buy..
Answers to other folks questions..
And blogging. I bought this, I did this, here is my experience
Allow others to say and describe what they experience and hear. Allow then to offer reasons without arguing. If it is a blog, stop telling them what to do! They don't want you arguing, just wanted to say I did this.
Offer POSITIVE responses. If you disagree with them, do so in a polite and friendly way.
Offer alternatives without aggressive language.And above all, stop tit for tat aggression. Turn the other cheek dudes, turn the other cheek.
What do you think would help create a friendly happy place to discuss audio?
290 responses Add your response
david_ten, you surely know how to associate things. Are you subtly directing us all back to the thread of all threads? You definitely know how to talk the talk, walk the walk, and sink with all of us. I was referring to Focal Utopia speakers, too. Not that I have ever heard them, but I did see the picture. |
And the past 64 posts or so would be deleted if I had the power.. to bring the thread back to what it is supposed to be about. I confess I too contributed to the anarchy now inflicted upon us. LOLBut do not mind me... Keep up the drivel No problem. I am no longer the driver. I abandon my post and leave this thread to take it natural course down the drain... |
True. true. and true. However, I placed "responsible" into "responsible anarchy" as an equally important word as anarchy. "Anarchy" itself, in a sense, points to the direction and would not be anarchy in the full meaning that is accepted these days. "Responsible anarchy" should be one word except that I cannot come up with a word. If it worked, there would be no need for enforcement or consequences. Utopian for sure. Humans are not fit for it, I think. When it comes to government/ruling, times of Maria Theresa’s rule were one possible example of tight control that improved lives of many and has done it for centuries after her death. Dictatorship that takes good care of those dictated. It is an interesting reading for some spare time. Now, I am off to looking for those speakers mentioned. |
"responsible anarchy" is no more than utopianism at its worst. And all of the prominent, and intellectually honest, existentialists realized this pretty early on. And you say: Everybody does whatever they want, but not bother others along the way. What you have done here is introduced a rule, i.e. don't bother others. Anarchy rejects rules, at least on the surface, because rules require enforcement and consequence. Enforcement of rules requires some form of authority. Anarchists reject authority. It is oxymoronic to say the least. To say otherwise is to be logically dishonest. And if an anarchist is logically honest he needs to embrace anarchy and all the chaos, lawlessness and violence that goes with any philosophy bereft of any basis for proper behavior. Freedom, safety, economic stability. Hmmmm, that would be a hard sell to many more than just declared anarchists. Not saying that it is not true, but that many would disagree based on their surroundings and pocketbooks. Yes, well, that may be. But it becomes relative when compared to the majority of the world's population, much less those of us enjoying esoteric philosophical conversations on a web site in which there is currently a set of speakers for sale for nearly half a million dollars. |
Freedom, safety, economic stability. Hmmmm, that would be a hard sell to many more than just declared anarchists. Not saying that it is not true, but that many would disagree based on their surroundings and pocketbooks. I am for "responsible anarchy". Everybody does whatever they want, but not bother others along the way. Unfortunately, it seems to be undoable with the set of humans roaming the Earth these days. |
I agree. It would be boring if all the focus was on an original post topic, but, from time to time, I look at threads and get amused by how far from the topic itself they have strayed. Over time here, I have probably learned more about other things than I have about audio reproduction and I find it valuable, too. |
inna said: I will not. I might say that you appear to be unprepared yet to "truly embracing" it. You have no real contact with these things so far. You are just talking your talk. How quickly it devolves into insults. I thought you were above that. I think you even said so in this discussion. No, I am not "unprepared yet" to embrace it but I am fully prepared to reject the actual true implications of anarchy. I get the impression that present day anarchists exist, in the U.S. anyway, only because they know that the authority they hate will allow them to embrace an ideology they could not live with if that very same authority did not guarantee their freedom, safety and economic stability. |
As interesting as some of these discussions are, it is hard to explain how they ended up on an audio-hobby forum. I do not know if it would qualify as anarchy and what Plato would have said about it, but it is enlightening in some way. "You are just talking your talk."This brings back memories of another recent thread. What else could a person do with a talk than talk it? |
celander said: Sometimes incivility can dissociate one’s bias from one’s belief, thereby liberating one to adopt a different belief. But civility rarely achieves this. I don't understand that. inna said: If someone needs a moderator he/she should not say we. I have no need for this, as far as I know. In other words, who is anyone to define what I need or have to ? But if I think you do need a moderator then from the standpoint of an anarchist who are you to say that I am wrong? And if you have no basis for declaring that I am wrong for trying to control you then what recourse do you have? Violence? And do you think in your wildest dreams you are prepared to face unbridled, self interested violence? If an anarchist says we all decide our own course then as a fellow anarchist I might decide my course is to subject you and everyone like you. Will you tell me I am wrong for truly embracing anarchy? |
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." ---Hobbes The above quote sometimes seems to serve as a template for discussion. In short, we do need moderators. All the best, Nonoise |
Someone said: Critical thinking requires energy. I for one don’t waste such energy on forum threads. Besides, I can’t overcome my bias inherent to much of my belief structure. Bias gets in the way of most critical thought as a means of protecting inner voice ego. I've learned a lot on some forums, especially the ones that challenge my belief structure. In order to do that they have to be civil places. They are hard to find. It is hard work to put your beliefs on trial. But that is the only real way to do it. Dig deep into the ideas that conflict with yours. If you can't support them then you change your beliefs. If you can you can then stand firm and defend them rather than just cling to them. I'm not even sure it is necessary, as Socrates suggested, but it certainly is liberating. One of my favorite quotes: "God is dead." Neitschze "Neitschze is dead." God |
Hume: "We can't know anything for sure." Including that statement. Given the heated discussions regarding cable burn-in (etc) maybe Hume should be the patron saint of audiophiles. I think the problem with a Socratic model (as defined above....I know nothing about it) in regard to how it relates to the contentious topics here is that so many of them are so very subjective and that there is often a very even demarcation between believers and naysayers. Both of these are hard to overcome in a Socratic model. Nevertheless, it certainly stands head and shoulders above personal attacks and incivility. |
Whatever happened to Socratic Circles, consisting of (from Wiki) "cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions." "The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic, intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring definitions or and seeking to characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances." That doesn't sound like anarchy or existentialism to me, and usually I look for discourse that follows this method, but it's been awhile since I took philosophy back in college and since I last read Plato, Camus, Sartre or Hume. |
But I suspect the true reasons for lack of civility in forum threads pertain to folks coming to the thread late, only to read the last remark of the latest post, as opposed to reading the OP’s intro, let alone to reading EVERYONE’s contributions. If everyone followed this rule, then maybe the desires of the OP would be met for the thread. Let me demonstrate my point before jumping all over me. To wit, elizabeth made a post on 07-29-2018 at 2:01pm that was very similar to my original post today. I FAILED MISERABLY not seeing it earlier, which precipitated the same sort of knee-jerk reactions from the gallery, like those to my post. My bad. Sorry. 😬 |
I sense the belief the official moderators are reviewing every thread post in the entire forum. That’s clearly not happening. If an OP who moderated and removed legitimate posts on a whim, then an official moderator can review those deleted posts, restore them if the posts seem valid and on point, and curtail the moderator privileges of the OP. The OP, as opposed to an official moderator, is more likely going to be reviewing the thread. But that would not excuse the official moderators from doing their requisite oversight. |
