Where have the long-time regulars gone?

After the several incredibly vulgar, threatening personal emails my family received after a minor technical disagreement with Carl I stayed away from Agon until the coast was clear. It was no fun to have my 14yr old daughter open said emails before I could delete them. Phew....
Yet Audiogons censors seem overly active when manufacturers are fairly criticized. For example, they closed an important thread re Electrocompaniet just when their goodwill gesture was coming in to vindicate them! Now THAT's shortsighted, eh?
I've now become somewhat active around here, and hope I'm not seen as one of the boring newcomers. Life's too short, and believe me, there aren't too many places to go and vent when my system just doesn't sound right, or when cruel naive visitors laugh at the funny cables (SPM and my bright red DIY PCs) swim across the floor. Good night folks.

Yet Audiogons censors seem overly active when manufacturers are fairly criticized. For example, they closed an important thread re Electrocompaniet just when their goodwill gesture was coming in to vindicate them! Now THAT's shortsighted, eh?

The Voodoo at work!

Asa, I tried to answer your question, but they did it again.

Unsound, send it to me personally.

On manufacturers, throughout the hiend there is a dynamic - again, tacit - that 1) justifiably protects reputations from incendiary comments that can ruin a small manufacturer (I've seen reviewers do it), and 2) seeks to hide from you the reliability issues involving a particular model.

So, I can understand a ceratin level of moderation/mediation that protects people who aren't in the position to protect themselves - particularly personal and/or unsubstantiated accusations (remember, a manufacturer would be a fool to engage a disgruntled person on a thread).

But, I can not respect censorship of substantiated ideas, even anecdotal, and particularly if the reason is to protect the reputation of someone whose bad acts should be disclosed (I don't believe that a website provider is responsible for third party liability issues, but I could be wrong - maybe we could be enlightened about this. Audiogon, hint, hint).

The ability to converse with each other about reliability and service, in addition to performance, should be an integral part of the service of this site - but that's just my opinion. If it is not, then, IMO, the management should be explicit in those parameters, which are theirs to set (its a private company). And, then, ours to accept or reject as a proffered product. Again, if they wish, regardless of the letter of the law, to "play it safe" for business reasons, then that is their choice. They should be willing, if so, to stand up and say so, however. BUT, again, that's just my opinion, because other than authenticity issues, they have no legal obligation to do so, i.e. capitalism has no interest in authenticity.

Ah, the vagaries of capitalism (self-interest) and the interplay with democracy (freedom). I always love when the capitalist-identified run into the inherencies of the system they are so attached to...

If you are an "American" then you must be a capitalist. If you are a capitalist, then you must agree with the proposition that for-profit enterprises can set their own rules, within the law, on the disemination of information on their property, and particularly if it is for a profit motive (the only definition we have for a corporate entity is one "for profit", not a word about freedom, authenticity, compassion, etc...).

So, do you feel like an "American" this morning?

Asa, re: (1) yes but even moderators need to practice moderation.
(2) Consumer Reports doesn't seem to have this conflict.
I don't necessarily think a manufacturer would be a foolish to defend themselves.
I agree with you re: not respect(ing) censorship of substantiated ideas, even anecdotal. Again others such as Consumer Reports don't seem to have a problem with third party liability issues.
I agree with you about having the ability to converse about reliability and service, in addition to performance and If it's not, then, the manegement should be explicit in those parameters. Otherwise "conversations" may be taken out of context.
Capitalist are no different than others with regard to running to the inherencies of the system.
One can be an American and not be a capitalist. I do agree that for profit-enterprises can set their own rules, with in the law. Fortunatley the law still rules re: disemination of information. As for definitions, the one used is appropriate and keeps our language understandable.
While in an ideal world I would like to feel like a person living in a world without artifical boundries. This morning (afternoon) I'm content with being an American.
Can we keep this forum on the topic of Audio?