"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ups.com...

"What you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as
a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent " I was assuming that there would frequently be a confusion
between the two in practice, as above.
I apologise for expecting you to know this, since it's not your field,
but it does make it clear why I made the point.

Andy,
Good parenting guides/child psychologists recommend that, when disciplining
a child you never say "you are being naughty", you say "your behavior is
naughty", the concept being to concentrate on the behavior, not the child.
In this instance with Jim I think you are saying Jim is being naughty when
you shouldn't be.

As adults can't we concentrate on the supporting information or lack of
supporting information provided rather then the person providing the
information. I think we should have the ability to differentiate between a
comment made about something the person has said and a comment about the
person otherwise we get into situations where comments are taken too
personally and we can very readily, but incorrectly take offence. It's
something that seems to happen all too often on these newsgroups.

Andy Evans wrote:
I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give
some
evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to
imply
they are a liar or worse
I do find it strange, though, that simply asking for someone to give
some
evidence or details of what they say is taken by Andy as trying to
imply
they are a liar or worse. His 'analogy' seems to take for granted that
the
statement questioned must be a foul and deliberate lie.
JLS

Oh, do get a grip Jim. I have said quite clearly (exact quote)

"I didn't say Jim was lying, and I wouldn't. He doesn't
strike me as the sort of person who would deliberately lie."

You witter on endlessly about being misrepresented and then come out
with the above. You're as bad as anyone, except you don't see it or
admit it.

Also for the record I never said that not taking what a person said
seriously was the same as not taking a person seriously. What I did say
was that in practice you might find an appreciable overlap due to the
fact that when people make serious statements they may well be offended
when people don't take such statements seriously. I'm not saying that
what they say should not be challenged if we are talking pure science
(not audio) but one would expect an emotional reaction (large or small)
in many cases.
As noted elsewhere, and as you should well know, the history of science
is peppered with famous and acrimonious personal conflicts based
entirely on differences of opinion (and this applies to academic
circles, if you read ongoing duals-by-letter in academic publications).


Perhaps this 'bond' is unique to JL's experience. Mine is that academic
conferences split into at least three camps. Most of the time it's quite
cordial. Things usually hot up in the evening bar sessions :-)

Rob

Andy,
Good parenting guides/child psychologists recommend that, when
disciplining
a child you never say "you are being naughty", you say "your behavior
is
naughty", the concept being to concentrate on the behavior, not the
child.
In this instance with Jim I think you are saying Jim is being naughty
when
you shouldn't be.

Hi there - no, I'm saying Jim seems to be oblivious to the actual
effects on people of saying "what you say can't be taken seriously"

As adults can't we concentrate on the supporting information or lack of

supporting information provided rather then the person providing the
information. I think we should have the ability to differentiate
between a
comment made about something the person has said and a comment about
the
person otherwise we get into situations where comments are taken too
personally and we can very readily, but incorrectly take offence. It's
something that seems to happen all too often on these newsgroups.

Yes absolutely - in an ideal world all the above should be possible. My
point is that it tends not to happen in practice, and that's human
nature. It doesn't just happen all too often on these newsgroups, it
happens all too often in real life so if we're being realistic we have
to factor it in. I previously said that ignoring this was naive, but
maybe I should say misinformed instead. You can't argue in a vacuum,
you argue with people and all their attendant emotions.

.....academic conferences split into at least three camps. Most of the
time it's quite cordial. Things usually hot up in the evening bar
sessions :-)

Yes, conferences are usually not the worst offenders - a change of
scenery lifts the morale, especially when the conferences are in nice
places abroad. I was thinking more of written exchanges. I remember an
ongoing feud between two colleagues in The Lancet which lasted about 2
years and ended up with one party emigrating to Australia! I think
meeting face to face tempers the emotions more than sitting down at a
computer keyboard where you can't actually see the party involved.

On 2006-09-25, Andy Evans wrote:
Anyway, I repeat:
a) this is a recreational newsgroup

A perfectly good use for the group, but "recreation" doesn't appear
in the group's charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.audio.html).

The key paragraph seems to be:

"uk.rec.audio is an unmoderated newsgroup. It is primarily a forum
for discussion of hi-fi equipment available in the UK, a place for
independant reviews and opinions on hi-fi, and an advice centre
for those bitten by the upgrade bug. It may include discussions on
what hi-fi is trying to do (accurately reproduce music? a 'live'
acoustic?) and its development. It is also a site for the private
sale and exchange of used hi-fi components. "

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

It's an "occupational hazard" in newsgroups that no-one can really control
the way a thread goes. Things often go off at an unexpected tangent.

There might, at times, be recourse in the charter's:

"Lengthy flames on:

* LP/CD differences/superiority,
* specific manufacturers,
* valve/tranny superiority ,
* the relevance of lab measurements

will be frowned upon."

But I don't know who should do the frowning, nor do I know the point at
which such a flame qualifies as "lengthy".

--
John Phillips

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
On 2006-09-25, Andy Evans wrote:
Anyway, I repeat:
a) this is a recreational newsgroup

A perfectly good use for the group, but "recreation" doesn't appear
in the group's charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.audio.html).

The key paragraph seems to be:

"uk.rec.audio is an unmoderated newsgroup. It is primarily a forum
for discussion of hi-fi equipment available in the UK, a place for
independant reviews and opinions on hi-fi, and an advice centre
for those bitten by the upgrade bug. It may include discussions on
what hi-fi is trying to do (accurately reproduce music? a 'live'
acoustic?) and its development. It is also a site for the private
sale and exchange of used hi-fi components. "

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.


The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...



It's an "occupational hazard" in newsgroups that no-one can really control
the way a thread goes. Things often go off at an unexpected tangent.

They do? Can't say I'd noticed....??

:-)


There might, at times, be recourse in the charter's:

"Lengthy flames on:

* LP/CD differences/superiority,
* specific manufacturers,
* valve/tranny superiority ,
* the relevance of lab measurements

will be frowned upon."


Din't leave a whole lot worth bothering with, does it? :-)



But I don't know who should do the frowning, nor do I know the point at
which such a flame qualifies as "lengthy".


Arny does the frowning (all the time) - which is a bit rich, seein's he
ain't even of these shores....

LOL!

John Phillips wrote:

On 2006-09-25, Andy Evans wrote:
Anyway, I repeat:
a) this is a recreational newsgroup

A perfectly good use for the group, but "recreation" doesn't appear
in the group's charter (http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.audio.html).

It does however appear in the group's name !

UK
Recreational
Audio

Graham

Keith G wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...

You'd have to ask yourself long and hard why that might be.

To anyone interested I'd recommend a trip to rec.audio.pro for a pro's view.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:

"John Phillips" wrote

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...

You'd have to ask yourself long and hard why that might be.

A lot of second tier pros whop need to pick fights with hobbyists to
feel better about being second tier?


Scott

wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Keith G wrote:
"John Phillips" wrote

Recreational use any other uses fall within this boundary. I for one
advocate tolerance for other people's uses as well as tolerance for
their views. Nobody has to join in a discussion that isn't of interest.

The 'rec' bit is the implication that this is a 'recreational' group, the
absence of the word 'pro' confirms it. The problem with mixing hobbyists and
pros is that, sooner or later, one faction will get on the other's tits...

You'd have to ask yourself long and hard why that might be.

A lot of second tier pros whop need to pick fights with hobbyists to
feel better about being second tier?

Why ?

Graham