[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
68.186.88.59
In Reply to: RE: I'd love to stick around... posted by Analog Scott on July 05, 2008 at 11:11:34
The "eloquence" may have been lost on you but those particular posts were not intended to be points of argument. There was no point left to argue. i responding to personal insults with personal insults. I do this always with the slight hope that there would be some recognition on the part of the other poster that slinging mud back and forth does nothing to further any meaningful discussion about audio. Funny thing that you would see this in AJs posts regardless of the obvious level of venom contained in them and yet miss that about my posts."
There is no eloquence in insulting the individual with which you are engaged in debate. It is the most base form of argument and is entirely emotionally founded rather than based in reason. If you were engaged in an actual debate, switching to "you are an idiot" and trying to get the last word in while claiming the other was attempting to do so would have made you automatically lose. If someone insults you personally, nothing is accomplished by doing the same and instead it just becomes a self-sustaining pyre of hate that accomplishes nothing. It certainly is tempting, I'll admit that as I've had to bite my tongue a few times when you seem to think that saying "are you on drugs?" qualifies as a good position to instigate debate. Yet, what would have come of it? Just a batch of insults and less appreciating for the opposing position. There is nothing funny about AJ's posts; I hate them as much as any one he is attacking. I can see how they might have come out of frustration being that there is a constant pile on anyone who appears "objectivist" in the one asylum intended for "objectivistic" discussion and I am conflicted on that, but that doesn't excuse the ad hominem attacks nor does it excuse your falling back onto insults. (He also has not addressed one of my posts, but you have repeatedly owing for a response of some manner though not in kind.) You're old enough to know that "...but he's touching me/making faces/calling me names" is not a legitimate defense for being an ass as well.
"No it is not implied nor is it true. i am more than happy to engage in an actual discussion about my listening comparisons between the Rockport and the Forsell and my opinions about their transparency on paper based on objective standards. If you wish to have a meaningful discusion about that feel free to engage me in that discussion. "
From the bits I took the time to read (I try to avoid vitriol as all it does is makes me angry and accomplishes nothing), at the time Don T was asking you reasonable questions and you were dismissing all he had to say and tossing in a few insults. In particular, there was that bit where you told him that he had to prove your position and that you did not. That was what I was referencing for I have no interest in engaging in your idea of "meaningful discussion" on a subject I have no interest in.
"Is this about your alleged desire to be insulted? I still find that odd. But if that is what you are into..."
Sigh. Since you missed it twice: that was sarcasm.
">> Now THAT is an interesting assertion.>>
One based on a great deal of observation of objectivists."
I've heard that one before as variants on the same theme from racists, bigots and persons of varying prejudices. The term for it is "confirmation bias."
"You have managed to gloss over just about all of AJs inflammatory statements. What is your point? I was responding to *your* post."
As I said, I have not received a response from AJ nor recall having responded to one of his posts that was only of an inflammatory nature. In this case, you were responding to my response to carcass and so are doing quite a bit of dancing here to think that you're putting yourself in any sort of positive light. Here in PHP, we have two "objectivists" who are abusive asses whereas there are closer to a dozen "subjectivists" who are the same. You can't reasonably argue that in, say, a situation where there are a couple of crimininals who happen to be African-American that the behaviors of the Ku Klux Klan become acceptible. While this is an extreme example, it does show what the general balance of attitudes happens to be. The problem is that there is a strong group bias in effect for both sides where the majority of participants are are blind to the extent of the negative behaviors of their group and magnify those of the others.
"Yes it is all the above and obviously done tongue in cheek. Again, i note that AJ has posted far more venomous assertions than this and yet you give him a free ride based on the idea that it is parody. Did it ever dawn on you that such parody is not a one way thing?"
You do seem to have an amazing ability to really stretch things beyond reality. Look at carcass93's posts and watch for those that are deleted, this is beyond parody, it is abusive in the same vein as the KKK example. Here on AA, the "objectivists" are the marginalized minority in in that case any sort of insult goes beyond simple parody...or are you also the kind of person who laughs at the old '20s black face movies?
"Again I think you are missing the parody. You seemed to have missed it in my posts to Don T. "
No parody, just being an ass. There is a significant difference though you are missing it.
"Of course not I didn't take them seriously. I didn't take your response seriously either. I took it as an attept at cleverness. I fear now that you took my post seriously. How unfortunate."
Clark Johnson, is that you?
"No. I took a jab at your jab on the samw semantic level. sorry you didn't get it.I thought it would be pretty obvious. Do I have to explain it to you that I never for one moment thought you really were accusing subjectivists of being MDs?"
If that was the case, you should not have used that as the basis for your title or at least included more than two fractured phrases. Humor without context or a setup is an insult. You are continuing it here trying to argue that I am missing basic things while you are demonstrating similar behavior. Hence the Clark Johnson comment of your remarkable ability to see things as always putting you in a positive light and everyone else beneath you. This does seem to reinforce my belief that it takes a remarkably strong ego and set of biases to become an aggressive subjectivist.
"No it doesn't any more than your failure to address any and all of AJs venomous posts shows that about you. dude you sem to think you can wrestle in a mud pit and walk away with clean clothes. Gie this righteous nonsense a rest. You are every bit as guilty of any of us in the mud slinging."
Further and further down we go...
"I've read what you have to say. sorry I am not as impressed with you as your are with yourself."
...and we've struck bottom.
"DUDE! it was a jab at your jab. Move on."
The bottom wasn't far enough down, time to dig it deeper. You do realize that these last comments work contrary to your initial claims, right? Pounding one's chest and making claims of innocence or strength of character does not give those qualities: trying one's best to live the does.
Now, you've reminded me of why I ignore your posts excepting that one the other day where you based an argument against me on the belief that I had no experience with art galleries or appreciation in contrast to yours when in fact I had quite a bit. Shame that series went away.
Follow Ups:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]