Adding a “safe haven” forum for discussion of tweaks?
I think we can all agree that threads about tweaks like fuses, stones, mats, power conditioners etc. stir up all kinds of controversy, conflict and ill will.
Short of banning discussion of these controversial topics, is there another solution to this problem?
I got this idea from teo_audio’s comments about a solution implemented at Canuck audio on another thread:
“Canuck audio tames it by having a cable and tweak area for threads. Where any counter to the idea that such things are functional (in attempt or in analysis), is not tolerated.
Meaning.. threads where people discuss tweaks, or mods or cables and so on, if a naysayer posts there, and interrupts the discussion, in any way, they get their posts deleted. And...if the given naysayer can’t hold their tongue, after said deletion-ish warnings..... they will, rapidly, via any repeats in behavior, find themselves banned from the forum. They have to grow up, or get lost.”
You may not like parts of his description, but I think the idea has real merit.
I propose a new “safe haven” sub-forum, with some special rules, for the discussion of tweaks. These rules would ONLY apply to this specific sub-forum, the current rules would continue as they are in all other areas.
The special rules would be along these lines:
Posts that categorically deny the possibility of tweaks having any effect or value are not allowed.
Posts proclaiming tweaks to be “scams” “cons” etc. are not allowed.
Posts that directly state, or imply, that another poster is lying, are not allowed.
Posts that make absolute negative statements like “Science proves it can’t work.” are not allowed.
Posts demanding measurements, controlled listening tests etc. are not allowed.
Posts that express skepticism (without making absolute negative statements), ask tough questions, or request more information are welcome.
Of course, some who hold the above opinions may object, but they would still be able to express those opinions in all other parts of the forum, just like they always have.
What do you think?
Interesting jazz album by the way thanks...
|
Note to cable and tweak haters: Gravity, Atoms, and Time, are all impossible to explain scientifically, so they are snake oil. A bunch of lies coming from a bunch of snake oil salesmen. Yet..those things are believed in and accepted as real. But we can't somehow..hear a difference in cables. Not allowed. Verboten. Logic went all pear shaped in there...somewhere... |
Wow this silly thread is still going? BTW the Bible explains time in I believe it is Genesis 1-1..... Science explains gravity as What is the scientific theory of gravity? Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but..... |
Science describes the way things happen in terms of theory, or sometimes even equations. Newton for example described the gravitational force between two bodies as the sum of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. Thus he quantified the behavior of matter in terms of this gravitational force. Newton did not at any point say what the force of gravity is. Likewise, Einstein introduced a theory of gravity based on mass curving space-time. A more sophisticated set of equations that yield virtually the exact same answers as Newton’s- at least until we reach very high densities and relativistic velocities. At a significant fraction of the speed of light, or near very massive objects, everything changes. This is by the way not a at all theoretical. One of the first proof’s of Einstein’s theory was in the observation of the orbit of Mercury. Being so close to the sun space-time was curved enough to introduce aberrations in its orbit that were unaccounted for by Newton but perfectly by Einstein. That said, deja vu all over again, Einstein did nothing to tell us what the force of gravity is. Where it comes from. Why. Instead he invented the cosmological constant, a sort of anti-gravity, and gave it just the precise value needed to account for the fact the universe expands at the rate that it does, and no more, and no less. Hardly science. Einstein himself acknowledged this failure. Newton stated directly in his Principia Mathematica that he had not described what gravity is, but only what it does. He was clear this was God’s work, and that his work was understanding God’s creation. This is but one in a very, very long and comprehensive list of scientific observations that all point in the same direction: a God created universe. I know. But when we live in a world of lies the truth tends to have exactly this sort of controversial effect on people. Think about it. |
