This is causing you to troll tuning and myself.
No, Michael, if anyone has trolled, you have trolled this forum. And that is why it truly is worth trying to make sure this kind of stuff is called out.
And unlike you who just throws that word out in a knee-jerk fashion at anyone who asks you clarifying or skeptical questions, one can actually point to your actual posts and behaviour on this thread to show how troll-like it has actually been.
You started a thread that was about castigating some members as fakers. When challenged on your claim, all you’ve done is reply without actual interaction with the challenges, instead using passive-agressive "Oh, what lil’ ol me? I’d never be negative; that’s on you...YOU must be a negative person or a troll."
That is the behaviour of a troll. Make a post you KNOW will rankle feathers, never own up to it or directly address arguments against your claim, and instead pretend the onus for negativity is on whoever challenges your claim. Keep characterizing the person asking you to back up your claims with versions of "you must be one of the people I’m talking about."
That’s trolling 101 behaviour, and it’s worth calling out when a manufacturer comes here and engages the forum this way. And then this is accompanied by an utterly transparent motive of self-promotion, to get the subject to your tuning, and your forum. (Which you as much as explicitly admitted at one point, saying this thread was a door to Tuning).
As I said, there could be nothing LESS helpful to open, honest, civil dialogue than to simply cast people who bring challenging questions as "trolls" which is the card you play constantly to evade, evade, evade giving direct substantive responses. Again...I’m far from the only one who has noticed this modus operandi.
Perfect example, after my continued questions to you ON TOPIC - "what do you mean by testing? What do you mean by empirical? What methods are you using? Can you clarify exactly what you mean and what would fit your claim of "faking it?" and can you give some more explanation or evidence for the other claims you’ve now made (e.g. tied caps)....
.....you again avoid answering any substance of my argument or questions to you, and instead reply only with baiting insults like this:
In other words your smelling of something fishy is probably because you have been wiping your nose with your freshly fish covered hands.
You see, this is the behaviour that keeps the negative thread you started going along the wrong rail. You didn’t have to act this way.
As an example, look at the recent reply to my skeptical questions from
"audiopoint." He acted like someone engaged in honest dialogue: saw the questions were reasonable, and did his best to directly answer them. Even if someone doesn’t accept everything in his answers, that’s no biggie, we can disagree but at least show each other the respect of ENGAGING one another’s ideas, instead of evading anything that doesn’t support one’s own marketing goals and trying to cast challenges in a negative light.
We’ll end with this:
Prof, your not going to win here because listeners are tuning as we speak in real time which is the proof of and for the hobby of listening.
This is just more vaguely self-aggrandizing gobbledygook.
Again, you are carelessly (or...carefully!) mixing up terms to serve your own agenda. What the heck does it mean to say people Tuning (the name for your method and claims) are "proof of and for the HOBBY OF LISTENING"????
That’s absurd. I’m engaged in the "hobby" of listening and so is EVERYONE on this forum, even though most of us are not one of your disciples "tuning" by taking apart our gear, putting it on wood blocks etc.
You seem so blinkered and driven by your own marketing concerns - sorry..."spreading the world about tuning"...that you conflate the most basic universal terms like "Hobby" and "listening" with "Tuning" (which just happens to be your self-marketed term for your methods and services).
It’s a disingenuous move because, hey, who could put down "listening" right? And if you are tuning you are doing the hobby of listening!
No. We have to be able to be conceptually clear and separate these things. You make certain technical and perceptual claims that people who are in the hobby of high end audio, and who LISTEN, can disagree about.
And if you want to say "Oh, gee, whoever would take my claim to be that other people not tuning aren’t listening? I didn’t mean THAT" then don’t bother with that bait and switch. If you DID NOT MEAN to conflate our Hobby or "Listening" with your tuning methods, then DON’T WRITE IN A WAY THAT CONFLATES THOSE THINGS. Don’t shove off your own responsibility for your careless, or self-serving, confusion of terms and twist it into the negative motives of other people.
And note: every further reply you may want to make that avoids my questions and arguments, to say I’m just being a meanie, only re-enforces that you will take the easy, trolling route of "calling names" over "replying to the arguments."
Over ’n out.
(Whether Michael reads this response or not, I still think it’s worthwhile to point out modes of interaction that are pernicious to honest discussion, and Michael seems intent on supplying a never ending stream of examples).