Talk but not walk?

jf47t,

It’s odd to read this thread that is mostly about Michael’s character instead of the OP.

You seem to have missed that Michael’s OP was an attack on the character of others - calling them out as "fakes." (And he continued to imply people on this thread - e.g. me - are faking it).

Why is your tolerance so high when Michael does this, and so low if anyone challenges Michael to back up his arguments, I wonder?

No one is chasing MG around on the forum attacking his character (I notice he managed to recently turn a speaker thread into yet another bunch of self-promotion...)

But since THIS thread is one started by MG, and he did not behave very well to people who didn’t just accept his claims, then it’s not a surprise that his posts have been scrutinized for their character.

I don’t doubt at all that any number of people can report wonderful interactions with MG. I’m sure - if you he sees you as open to conversion - he can be a great guy. But of course it’s easy to be nice to people who are thanking you for your help and pearl’s of wisdom.

It’s another test of character, for anyone not just MG, to be able to discuss differences of opinion in an intellectually honest manner and not dismiss anyone voicing disagreement or skepticism as "negative" people or trolls.

Which Michael continually implied (and sometime explicitly).

I see and listen with Michael almost every day. We live 5 doors away from each other.

And I’m sure you get along great. But none of that speaks to MG’s actual posts in this thread, which were evasive, dismissive if not outright insulting.

(written to uberwaltz)

There aren’t any questions here Mr. Green avoided. He didn’t give the answers Prof or whomever wanted

Holy cow. I asked for clarifications, and asked specific questions. Michael Green admitted he wasn’t even answering them, didn’t even feel it incumbent on him to do so at all. If you asked me specific questions and I respond with the equivalent of "I'm not going to answer your questions, you don’t get it, and btw you exemplify the problem" you wouldn’t accept my characterization "well, I just didn’t give the answers you wanted." No, that’s disingenuous - as if to put the onus on you, like YOU are in the wrong to not accept those as answers. The fact is I just wouldn’t be answering the questions AT ALL. Michael was not answering my questions AT ALL. Either early on, or when I asked about capacitors. Everyone noticed. Why don’t you?

You are taking pages right out of Michael’s playbook here. Spin something in a disingenuous manner - always imply blame to the respondent.

Prof I have indeed read this whole thread and you and kosst ARE trolling MG. You can twist and turn as much as you wish but you ARE INDEED TROLLING Mr. Green.

Here is what your post shares in common with Mr. Green’s posts: You can cast such aspersions, but you can’t - don’t even bother - to back it up. Calling people names like "troll" without actually showing how their arguments - what they have actually written - deserves that name, is rather undignified. (Whereas I only applied that term to Michael’s post insofar as I showed exactly why the *content* of his post justified that term).

Do you care to back up your name-calling and actually show how my questions to Michael was "trolling?" Point to any argument I’ve made here to be unreasonable?

It would only be intellectually honest to do so, don’t you think?

Or are you set in following MG’s example of just brushing people off with disparaging comments, rather than engaging their questions and arguments?

BTW, anyone notice there has been an influx in the thread of MG acolytes to castigate nay-sayers?

It gives the feeling a siren call went out at some point, does it not?

Prof, when Michael is up on a forum somewhere in the home hobby or professional a post is made on TuneLand and his facebook page. No sirens needed.

Well, that is essentially a siren of the type I was thinking - it seemed that somehow Tuneland people are getting alerted elsewhere about this thread, as opposed to just "stumbling upon it" while perusing audiogon. And that is what you’ve just described: when Michael posts here he alerts his followers.

This serves as a good example of trolling by you.

And that serves as a good example of your misapplication of that term.
My comment was not trolling:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling

It was an honest impression that Michael’s followers and friends were being alerted about this thread from outside this forum. Nothing - as per the definition of trolling - was meant to deceive, and my general impression was essentially vindicated by the information you just posted.

And MG most certainly did engage in your question. If you read MG’s response to you he asked a very straight forward question.

He asked a question to AVOID ANSWERING my question.

I was asking the question first, remember?

Here was my question (which I had to ask twice because he kept avoiding it):

PROF WROTE: "Can you tell us exactly what measurable performance parameters change when a cap is tied down with a tie wrap? And explain why one would expect those measurable changes would be audible, especially with the character you describe?

Can you supply any such measurements for us to see, so we don’t have to just take your word on it?"

Do you actually think those are unreasonable questions to ask, if someone is claiming there is an audible performance difference between a tied and an untied capacitor? I’d hope not!

Yet, instead of answering the question, Green wanted to turn the tables and ask me about the difference between two specific capacitors. That is NOT answering my questions and I’m sure you know it. He only sought a way to try and show me as inexperienced, and use that as an excuse to not answer those completely reasonable questions.

But be my guest - show me how the above questions were, in fact, answered by Michael.

Your answer set the stage for where you wanted to go with this thread.

Yes...I tried to keep Michael actually focused on giving some answers to explain the evidence for his claims, instead of his ignoring them and finding new ways to imply I’m a fake. How impertinent of me!

Michael was talking about people who want to try things instead of talking about them.

And do you think it is unreasonable to first ask the basis on why one would try something in the first place?

Do you just try anything anyone ever suggests? Or, if their suggestion doesn’t seem to make immediate sense to you, would you not ask follow up questions, asking for a better explanation and evidence?

Tell me: what exactly is wrong with that? Because that’s what I was doing with Michael’s claims about crowding components, tied capacitors etc, but he wouldn’t answer.

But Michael and his acolytes tend to imply that if you question the claims before running out and trying them, well, that’s just not right, it’s like a bad character trait and you aren’t playing by the rules they want people to play. "If you haven’t tried it; you are in no position to question it.’

And that is a type of b.s. that deserves to be called what it is.

Another thing I can tell you about Michael is he doesn’t like to do anger.

Yes I did notice he tended toward the passive-aggressive - sprinkling assertions and implied insults (e.g. implying questions like mine made me part of the problem, implying people who were skeptical are trolls oe negative nellies, etc), and doing the passive-aggressive "Oh, if you took THAT from what I said, that’s on you!"

Once again, as I’ve said many times: I am not arguing at all that Michael Green has nothing to offer. Far from it, his tunable speakers and some of his room tuning implementations are intriguing even to me. And I am not declaring that all his tweaks are fake and don’t work. All I’m doing is, when a claim seems ever more outside anything I’ve seen good evidence or explanation for - to ask questions about what type of evidence and methods of testing are being used to vet the ideas. And I’ve also been pointing out that starting a thread implying people are being fakes who don’t go along with Green’s claims and run out to try them, is not a good way to start a civil discussion with people who may not simply accept your claims on face value, and want some reasonable questions answered first.