why do so many discussions turn contentious?

Humans have always been opinionated, I'd suggest opinion may be becoming an obsolete descriptor as it pertains to ideas. New modes of information technology has inculcated self belief in the masses of expert status in whatever field they choose. An idea pops in your head, you find information to support it (seems humans prefer confirmation bias), easy and intentional to ignore information refuting or questioning it, ever more information supporting original idea, repeat ad nauseam. You now have created a believer, belief is the same as objective truth to the believer. Some of the arguments on this forum illustrate believers exist here. I'm not sure we'll ever return to mass acceptance that one's truth is subjective in nature. My take is we are in ascendent phase of confusing ideas with belief, we'll be seeing ever more overt and ugly attacks on each other into future.

Can't we play nice, share OPINIONS and OBSERVATIONS, realizing that they often are subjective and biased.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Speakers only
If the opinions were based on observable true facts, I;'d not take issues with many of the comments about speakers here.
There is objectivity in speakers performance.
The Reference is the new high tech wide bands.
Others here just refuse out of stubborness and resistance to my unbiased,  objective testings and validations in real time.
There is sucha  thing as objective true speaker reference point.
Yet others want to argue the isue w/o even attempting to undersatnd my case.
Why is this??
Just accpt there is something outside your  experience. Even if you don't agree, just accept my findings might possible be true. 
This would mean you've been living ina  lie.
No reason to argue, 
Just present facts and ideas that confront and challenge my beliefs.
This is where folks feel offended, when they can't mount a  argument that will stand up to my proof of the pudding. 

Sorry all speakers can not be equal.
There is no such thing as personal preference.
Some speakers have serious flaws and should be pointed out as flawed,
Wilson, vandersteen, Thiel, all flawed.
Sonus faber, flawed,
magnepan
Flawed = handicaped.
= Not high fidelity. 
= Not worth the purchase.

When you act like a jerk, you’re going to get blowback. Then you think of yourself as a victim, and then poor Tammy sometimes has to get involved. I feel bad for and appreciate her and the audiogon team.

mikelavigne1,718 posts09-18-2021 12:51pmfrequent posters here bring their baggage and agenda’s with them, which is the opposite of seeking knowledge or good intensions.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly
Its been my lifelong dream to find the ideal if not near perfect speaker.
Now that I have made this lucky by chance discovery,,, folks here wish to trash my research.

All the bashers have to do is challenge my ideas and findings with some of their ideas built up over the decades.

Instead they stoop to snides and jokes, lacking the skills to confront me with solid evidence that my beliefs are off base.

We seek knowledge of what maks a  speaker a  Definitive Voice for our musis, a  Reference Speaker that others have to be compared next to.

I believe speakers area  science and thus objective, and much less subjective.
That is to say, distortion, coloration is real and results in listeners fatigue.
Something we all wish to avoid in out systems. 

Speakers are a  science and should be approach  via testing and experiementations. 
Results are valid proofs one design is superior to others.