I now know you didn't intend the sentence in question as i (and Cal & Hugo) originally interpreted it (opposite of Leadbelly & John) so i asked as expert (ie Masters degree in English). She interprets it the same way i did, but said she would be surprised if that is actually what you meant.
The object lesson here is that even if 2 people who are good english speakers can write stuff that is ambiguous... think how hard it is when most of our members do not speak English as a 2nd language.
My apologies for taking your post based on what it said and not on what you meant.
dave
I could fix that...
Nah, they forced me to take my meds so I'm back to being a typically well adjusted drone.
OT on
Denis Leary on your avatar was on whipped creams in the 70's, are we on webbed dreams in 2009? Philosophical question, don't connect it with the main discussion here.
I believe that most people misunderstanding one another all over the web could be even finding they could be best friends in real life. I am afraid that large part of online animosity is the media itself presenting people how it can in forums at least, i.e. a fragmented text persona.
OT off
Denis Leary on your avatar was on whipped creams in the 70's, are we on webbed dreams in 2009? Philosophical question, don't connect it with the main discussion here.
I believe that most people misunderstanding one another all over the web could be even finding they could be best friends in real life. I am afraid that large part of online animosity is the media itself presenting people how it can in forums at least, i.e. a fragmented text persona.
OT off
Hi Salas,
I have had several avatars over the past 2 (nearly 3) years. I have noticed that there is more tolerance for my shenanigans when I wear a more appealing image, Zooey Deschanel for instance, as opposed to someone more abrasive, like Denis Leary.
It's interesting.
We've seen first hand today how easy it is to read the wrong intent, the negative (especially if the source is known for conflict) from an innocent sentence but it seems to be the first thing most go for. Too many don't compensate for the communication limitations of this media and see the worst first. Stepping back, reading again and trying to see the positive (if there's any there) is always a good thing to do.
I have had several avatars over the past 2 (nearly 3) years. I have noticed that there is more tolerance for my shenanigans when I wear a more appealing image, Zooey Deschanel for instance, as opposed to someone more abrasive, like Denis Leary.
It's interesting.
We've seen first hand today how easy it is to read the wrong intent, the negative (especially if the source is known for conflict) from an innocent sentence but it seems to be the first thing most go for. Too many don't compensate for the communication limitations of this media and see the worst first. Stepping back, reading again and trying to see the positive (if there's any there) is always a good thing to do.
I have no doubt John and I would get along swimmingly as long as you kept us away from the woodshop. Isn't that right John?
Uh-oh, he just got really ugly all of a sudden.
Strong meds they must be, they even changed your avatar!
Earl Grey Tea now you will only sip, as that captain?
Nice post, Tony. I'll cop to intolerance. And indeed in a previous post, I did say I thought it was not a problem with moderation per se. Rather, it's a question of compatibility, and the changing "demographics", to put it politely, of the population of posters.
Yet, at the same time, I've also been blown away by the knowledge and creativity of some of the members, and I've learned a lot from them. But this gets lost in a quagmire of nonsense of various forms. In a situation where the signal is higher than the noise, the noise is easy to ignore. But when the noise becomes higher than the signal, then that's cause for some sort of action.
So that's where I'm at. I suspect I'll be pretty busy after the first of the year.
Actually, what I said was quite deliberate and as honest as I can possibly be. I'm not one for cryptic gobbledygook.
Thanks Andy
I think this last post of yours makes the problem a bit clearer. Not so much the fact such threads exist, but one of there are too many of them (and obviously you have to look into them to find out whether they are "noise" or not), and and finding the threads you do want to participate in is getting harder.... Obviously everyones definition of noise is going to be different though (which is why I put it in quotes) which makes things difficult. Perhaps there is a need for a new forum category. Something like "Hard Core Engineering" with a no newbie or subjective threads allowed theme
Might go the same way as the Tweakers Sanctuary, but maybe it could work?? Of course working out what level of expertise knowledge or experience would constitute a worthiness to post would be very difficult. I know I couldn't participate, but I certainly would be happy to read and learn and I guess the rule could be that if someone did want to ask a dumb question about something that had been said, they could PM on the understanding that they might not get a reply There is also a risk that the best talent will be less likely to contribute when us of a lesser knowlege level post in the ordinary forums, but I think there comes a time when everyone gets sick of answering the same questions over and over, so it will probably happen anyway...
I won't be surpised if people come down on me like a tonne of bricks over this suggestion, but thought I'd throw it out there
Tony.
Ton of Bricks, reporting for duty, Sir!
I know of NO hard-core tech types (and I just spent several days locked in a room with some of them!) who discount subjective opinions and questions. There is a disdain for such that are accompanied by speculation that contradicts basic physics, however, especially when uttered with an air of absolute certainty and authority. I have trouble understanding why people have a hard time saying, "Huh, I think I heard this, I didn't check it rigorously, I could be mistaken, but maybe someone could suggest why this may be so?" Nope, it's always, "I hear this, I cannot possibly be mistaken or fooling myself, and I spit on the philistines with inferior equipment and hearing than my own."
Even the most hard core of the hard core (and I would tend in that direction) are certainly open to the idea that someone might find something contradictory to their own experience and opinion, once some actual evidence (controlled subjective or measurement or both) are presented. There needs to be room and freedom for this.
I know of NO hard-core tech types (and I just spent several days locked in a room with some of them!) who discount subjective opinions and questions. There is a disdain for such that are accompanied by speculation that contradicts basic physics, however, especially when uttered with an air of absolute certainty and authority. I have trouble understanding why people have a hard time saying, "Huh, I think I heard this, I didn't check it rigorously, I could be mistaken, but maybe someone could suggest why this may be so?" Nope, it's always, "I hear this, I cannot possibly be mistaken or fooling myself, and I spit on the philistines with inferior equipment and hearing than my own."
Even the most hard core of the hard core (and I would tend in that direction) are certainly open to the idea that someone might find something contradictory to their own experience and opinion, once some actual evidence (controlled subjective or measurement or both) are presented. There needs to be room and freedom for this.
Sy after 30 plus years around the finest that is available in the world of audio, I know what I have heard and what I hear. I find it difficult to understand how ones long term experience in this field, is excused as nonsense. I fully understand your opinions and your ideas that most all differences heard are based in some form of bias or another too. I simply know what I hear as I have repeated the processes time and time again to ensure that I was not being "fooled" by some bias. This is not a scientific approach I gather, but after multiple times of doing the same thing over and over again for years, I feel that I have drawn some very worthwhile conclusions and can repeat these to my own satisfaction that the results are consistent and audible.
Last edited:
Even when your not trying you can be insulting!
It comes across as "make it so hatched one"
instead of "Make it so number 1"
Terry
Mr Andy,
you have at any time been not other than honest and straightforward overhere and elsewhere. (but it did sound kind of amusing)
A new category does not adress the issue brought forward by Mr Popa.
I fail to see the added value of moderating contributors as Syn08, Glen, or the 2 Pavels to such an extent.
As Syn08 indicated by the action of posting here, it merely leads to even more polarisation.
Here you have written the explanation yourself, as to why nobody takes your statements as facts.
Knowledge is based on proven facts, not faith, belief, or assumptions.
If you replaced "I know" and "fact" in your posts, with "I think" and "I believe", you would have no controversies.
Magura
Here you have written the explanation yourself, as to why nobody takes your statements as facts.
Knowledge is based on proven facts, not faith, belief, or assumptions.
If you replaced "I know" and "fact" in your posts, with "I think" and "I believe", you would have no controversies.
Magura
If I am not to trust my brain, what good is it to have one? I do not follow your logic in any form what so ever. Some make it a controversy as they do not agree. I trust what I have learned in life through my experiences. They are repeatable and that tells me that I know what I hear, when I hear it. Theory is wonderful, but I follow what I have learned and found to be true for me, as do many others. If this is an issue with you, you can of course choose to ignore my thoughts. I don't have to believe I hear anything. If that were the case, there would be doubt, which I have none of, as I have proven to myself that I can and do hear quite well.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.