Talk but not walk?

I suspect folks might be mistaking persistence and Gila monster like perseverance for anger and rage. One thing I admire about Michael having interfaced with him more than the average bear, hand to hand combat, MG, May and Peter and me, every day for two years,  is he will not walk away from an argument. He’s like an animal! 😬 If anyone else can’t stand the heat of serious debate or is a little bit timid they should probably stay out of the kitchen. Let’s get cookin’! 👨🏻‍🍳

MG is indeed a breath of fresh air and is onto something we could all learn from. The confrontational posts continue to derail any hopes of this and others threads ever amounting to anything of real value. Not every subject matter and thread is about debate and arguing. Can we hear about what tuning measures, devices, stands, platforms, modifications, gear etc.., was used to bring about such engaging music?

jf471,

MG is obviously free to make any other thread, or contribute in any other thread, as he in fact has already.

Nobody is following him around this forum, and I have not directly interacted with him on any other thread.

I have only stuck around in this thread insofar as Michael started a thread to claim some people are fakes, and has refused to answer honest questions trying to understand and/or challenge that claim.

My very first reply explicitly gave Michael the benefit of the doubt, pointing out I was not impugning his intentions, only pointing out that I would like to to see clarification, and some actual defence, of what he meant and the basis for putting some people in the "faker" category.
And of course to explore the role his constant appeal to empiricism played in all this. Not only that, I have consistently given Michael’s claims more benefit of the doubt than he has ever given me. I’ve consistently said that I’m totally open to the idea that Michael’s methods can produce great results, and that I’d even be excited to hear them. I’ve explicitly said I am not claiming to disprove even his methods I find less compelling, but that I’m simply asking reasonable questions about the basis for their effectiveness and the methods of confirming them as such.

In contrast to my side, continually voicing openness to Michael Green’s legitimacy, he has done virtually nothing but disparage my character as negative and trolling.

It’s rather amazing that this imbalance in intellectual honesty goes completely unnoticed by you.

The FIRST thing Michael did was to brush off these honest, relevant questions and instead put ME in the category of people he was disparaging! (Suggesting he didn’t have to explain anything to me, as I had just exemplified the negative category he’d made up).
And he did this to others as well. And just continued to do it all through the thread; every time I’ve tried to keep on the topic of what Michael actually wrote - he evaded, and just cast aspersions on motivations instead of answering questions or counter arguments.

If you wish to follow Michael’s lead and leave calling people trolls instead of engaging reasonable questions, so be it, but that type of response shouldn’t be missed with many tears.

Why not just engage in honest conversation instead?

I just have to infer that you have swallowed Michael’s anti-scientific attitude that challenging questions equate to "bad vibes" "being negative" "trolling" and must arise out of some personality defect in the questioner. As I’ve said, that’s actually more in line with cult-thinking, not open mindedness.

The way to judge integrity is not by the ones speaking the loudest but instead by the ones who have peace within themselves.

Yup, that sounds more like what a cult leader would say to his disciples. "Ignore the arguments against what I say; if I can make you feel good, you can ignore those skeptics, and castigate their motives for challenging me!"

Perhaps you should consider that problem. It’s one thing to be happy with what you and Michael are doing. As I already said, cheers to you and have fun! It’s entirely another to disparage as trolls anyone who gives voice to reasons why we haven’t followed your hallowed path.

(And, I'm sure I need to point this out: saying your and Michael's response shares characteristics with a cult is NOT the claim it "is" the same as a cult; it's pointing out that it shares the same dubious reasoning used by cults, or any number of different dubious belief systems, which should alert you to a defect in the mode of your replies).

I just read these posts and my system still sounds the same? Learned nothing. Perhaps my system sounds worse as my emotional state is not at peace. I guess I’m also out of this thread and one of the weaklings who can’t take the heat. I leave pointing out the fact that the forums here on Audiogon are losing more and more good Agoners who are weary of what this site has become. A lot of good ones are now gone or have decided to stay mostly quiet.

grannyring,

The confrontational posts continue to derail any hopes of this and others threads ever amounting to anything of real value.

It’s already been pointed out to you: the topic, started by Michael, concerned people he claimed were faking it. Discussing the basis for those claims - about people faking it, about empirical methods etc - IS keeping the topic on the rail. Michael’s thread explicitly (well, as explicitly as he is capable of writing) challenges skeptics, so it’s ridiculous to complain when any skeptics answer the call to defend their view against Michael’s critique.

Not every subject matter and thread is about debate and arguing.

Then why would Michael make an inherently argumentative thread?? Why doesn’t THAT bother you at all?
Can’t you see the blindspot you seem to have for MG’s behaviour here?

You don’t walk in to a room and say "Some people here are faking it! Why are you faking it?" and expect nobody to question this or object...right?

Is it intellectually honest to make an inherently disparaging claim about other people, and when challenged on it simply respond: "Look, I’m not going to argue about it."

Hey grannyring, you are insincere. Don’t bother replying with any defence of yourself; i don’t want to hear it, I’m here to make that claim, and I’ll hear from anyone who just agrees with my assessment of your character, but I’m not going to argue about it so save your breath!

You can immediately see that is a jerk move should anyone make it.

And yet you seem oblivious when people seem to accept that very move as being "nice" and "diplomatic" - when MG uses this tactic. I’m asking you to think more fairly on this. Is that so bad?

Can we hear about what tuning measures, devices, stands, platforms, modifications, gear etc.., was used to bring about such engaging music?

If you want THAT to be the topic of a thread, why not ask Michael to make a thread on THAT topic. E.g. "Let’s discuss tuning our systems."

But please, it doesn’t do anyone any good to keep implying that anyone actually keeping on topic is "derailing" the topic. And to continually disparage the motivations and character of people for keeping the thread on the topic. (As others have joined MG in doing).