Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: that's telling posted by Joe Murphy Jr on October 7, 2011 at 21:20:01
Joe, do you think (and I ask this in all seriousness, not as a wind up) that Michael's site will live or die with the attraction, or lack of it, of AA readers? I wouldn't think it would make a jot of difference.
There's no reason to "use this forum to direct traffic to your site for free". The traffic will come, regardless of what AA members think.
If this site and its members truly won't make a jot of difference in traffic, JA's initial post wouldn't have made it to this site in the first place.
As long as it was OK with Rod, I have no problem with JA announcing the new site on AA. However, #1 neither rep should have pissed in this pool and #2, the "admission" that stirring the pot, if necessary, was (possibly) a premeditated action is appalling.
"If this site and its members truly won't make a jot of difference in traffic, JA's initial post wouldn't have made it to this site in the first place."
I think that post was a courtesy, not a necessity.
Many posts were negative from the start. The pot stirring started long before JA commented.
> I think that post was a courtesy, not a necessity.
I posted the announcement in this forum because I thought that those
passionately interested in PC audio would welcome another, complementary
source of information to the Asylum's PC Audio forum. People shouldn't
read anything more into this fact and my thanks to the moderators for
allowing me to make that post.
> Many posts were negative from the start. The pot stirring started long
> before JA commented.
And my comments to which some have taken great offense were specifically
aimed at those I called "cynics," who see unethical agendas at work in the
activities of those of us professionally involved in audio publishing. Yes,
perhaps I should recognize that when you are in a hole, it might be best to
stop digging. But to judge from the recent "Yikes" post, the baseless
accusation that our editorial decisions are based on advertising concerns
seems to be taken for granted in some quarters. Which is why I felt some
sort of clarification was in order.
> the "admission" that stirring the pot, if necessary, was (possibly) a premeditated action is appalling.
Your quotes and parentheses illustrate very clearly that you know you're reaching for these conclusions. And you have to reach for them because they are not true. You made them up.
And you refuse to take me at my word and apparently would rather twist and interpret them so you can continue to be pissed off and appalled. I feel like I'm talking to some guy in a bar who's just pissed off because the lights are going to come on any minute.
The quotes were for emphasis (maybe not the best choice to show emphasis) and the parentheses around the word "possibly" were put there because you didn't outright say that it was premeditated, though one of your comments above did imply it was an option if need be.
Since you are not willing to put any effort into understanding why the comment JA made, and you agreed with, is wrong, it makes no sense to continue this exchange.
But you can have the last word.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: