Talk but not walk?

@prof Well put. An intelligent discourse.

jf47t,

Those of you reading this pay attention to what Michael says and what the internet trolls are saying.

You just can’t help yourself, can you? This reflexive need to call someone a "troll" instead of take a counter-argument to your beliefs seriously has been imbued very strongly into your mode of thinking, it seems.

Ok, jf47t, I believe I’ve made the reasons I’ve gone this long on the thread as clear as I can.

So in this case I figure this will be my last interaction. I’d like to see if it’s possible, at all, for you to examine your own assumptions and notice the bias you are bringing to calling people trolls and seeing MG as a sweet guru.

Here’s my question:

Why are you faking it?

To expand:

Imagine that I - or anyone else! - started a thread in Michael’s Tuneland forum. The thread is titled "Talk but not walk?"

And the thread follows exactly this tenor: "Where I come from we test don’t just talk, we test our ideas. I’ve been around labs and testing since I was a kid.

But right now there are about 20 threads going on in this forum (Tuneland) where there’s no doubt people are talking about things about which they have no experience.

My question is why? Why are they claiming to know something without testing it? Isn’t this hobby supposed to be about doing? Isn’t it supposed to be empirically based? Why are so many people not being empirical and propounding myths here? Why not walk the walk instead of just talking the talk?

So my question is: why fake it?



Now, jf47t, as honestly as you can think about this:

1. How could this be received? Would that likely be warmly welcomed? or would the accusations contained in such a thread be likely to engender some suspicion and skepticism toward someone who would use such an opening thread, calling out people as fakes? And might someone - even a mod - point out this is not necessarily the best way to start a good natured, civil discussion in the forum?

Think about it. Be honest with yourself.

Then answer:

2. What would some REASONABLE responses be, in the tuneland forum, to the accusations in such a post? If you folks wanted to give it the benefit of the doubt, engage this critique, vs just dismiss it as trolling, wouldn’t questions arise along the lines of:

"Well, hold on, from our perspective you don’t seem to actually be describing people here. We DO test our ideas empirically. So we are confused about what you are actually criticizing. Can you support your criticism with any actual examples of members being un-empirical or faking it? What kind of tests count to you as being "empirical" and what counts to you as "walking the walk?" We need to understand what you mean before we go agreeing that anyone here at all, fits the description you’ve given and deserves the critique you’ve made.  Because we think we have reasons to give you as to why people here don't fit the role you are depicting in your post.

Again...please contemplate whether those would be reasonable questions people could ask of anyone creating such a thread.

Now, if you find yourself agreeing that...yeah...that thread *might* just have the character of rankling feathers and really *would* naturally bring forth probing questions about the assumptions of the thread starter....then imagine the thread starter immediately dismissing these concerns and questions saying "Well, sorry, what I just wrote was perfectly clear. My friends get it; if you don’t, then you don’t and I don’t have to explain myself further to you. And btw, the people asking all those questions, you exemplify my post."

Now, ask yourself: what would be your, or the Tuneland’s, appraisal of this type of response. Would it be "Well, gee, you are right. Thanks SO MUCH for dropping your wisdom on us!" Or would it perhaps be more along the lines of "this person is not here to engage in real conversation or respond to any counter idea that he is wrong."