It's time to go, see ya later.

[Joe Whip]

Myles, it was Peter how brought all of this on himself. He posted an obnoxious post calling people who disagreed with him cowards. He then couldn't leave "well enough" alone and then went into the "I have special knowledge" route and then the wheat vs. chaff nonsense. All because someone posted that they didn't like the sound of a room in Newport after they stuck their head in for 15 minutes? All through that thread, he acted like an impetuous child. He fully deserved what he got. He has now pulled the ultimate impetuous child act and has taken his ball and has gone home. I am not sure how you can defend this behavior. I have known Peter since the 1980's. There is no doubt that he has passion for this hobby. That passion does not excuse his behavior here. I would have thought the best approach he could have made here was to do a post apologizing for his behavior. after thinking about this and presumably counsel from you and Terry, we get this. I am really surprised. And that is saying something. I guess I will have to add wanker to the chaff t shirt.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Well, that's all of us told. But wait...



Let's "pile on" Amir instead.

Gentlemen, your frustration and annoyance is clear, but ranting at everyone in sight, telling forum members what they should and shouldn't post, and encouraging us to feel ashamed of ourselves is not aiding your stance, IMO. I'm not sure you realise how comical this all seems to the innocent bystander. I'm assuming your online personas are important to you, as name recognition is a part of high-end reviewing. Please take this next comment in the friendly manner intended: you're not doing yourselves any favours here.

I am not in the least trying dictate what people should or should not post, but the reason I liked this forum was its willingness to debate topics from very different viewpoints without prejudice. We should all be welcome under a 'different paths, same direction' spirit of open-mindedness, even if sometimes that means fundamentally disagreeing with the other people in the discussion.

That willingness was what made this forum different from the others. If it becomes yet another bear-pit, dominated by one or two strong characters, what purpose does the forum serve?

 

[MadFloyd]

I am ok with being called a wanker. What I don't want to be known as is a guy who only measures. Kind of a guy who judges women by only asking them for their bust size rather than feeling them to realize the differences between those that measure the same - before he wanks off, that is

Coffee all over my keyboard now... what a great post...

 

[Audio Guy]

Whatever will we do without Lord Pompous, King of the Audiophiles?

 

[bonzo75]

Myles, it was Peter how brought all of this on himself. He posted an obnoxious post calling people who disagreed with him cowards. He then couldn't leave "well enough" alone and then went into the "I have special knowledge" route and then the wheat vs. chaff nonsense. All because someone posted that they didn't like the sound of a room in Newport after they stuck their head in for 15 minutes? All through that thread, he acted like an impetuous child. He fully deserved what he got. He has now pulled the ultimate impetuous child act and has taken his ball and has gone home. I am not sure how you can defend this behavior. I have known Peter since the 1980's. There is no doubt that he has passion for this hobby. That passion does not excuse his behavior here. I would have thought the best approach he could have made here was to do a post apologizing for his behavior. after thinking about this and presumably counsel from you and Terry, we get this. I am really surprised. And that is saying something. I guess I will have to add wanker to the chaff t shirt.

I think Amir is a red herring. Peter had made up his mind to leave after he was surprised to know that we were, *shock* not willing to accept him as Chief of the Chaff, but instead were willing to omit 'of the'

 

[Diapason]

I am not in the least trying dictate what people should or should not post, but the reason I liked this forum was its willingness to debate topics from very different viewpoints without prejudice. We should all be welcome under a 'different paths, same direction' spirit of open-mindedness, even if sometimes that means fundamentally disagreeing with the other people in the discussion.

That willingness was what made this forum different from the others. If it becomes yet another bear-pit, dominated by one or two strong characters, what purpose does the forum serve?

Honestly, I don't see much evidence of the bear-pit, but I see plenty of evidence of topics debated from different viewpoints. Now I don't read every thread, far from it, so maybe I'm missing the bulk of the annoyance, but I've certainly followed the threads mentioned here with interest. I see forceful disagreement, robustly defended, but quite frankly that's what I'm here to read. I learn a lot from the posts on this forum, from all sides in the objectivist/subjectivist divide and more besides. That's what I mean about how comical this looks: for the most part, those feeling put-upon have plenty of support in terms of their views, but are in the process of losing that support by virtue of their broadsides. Again, as an innocent bystander, it's hard to see this as anything other than sour grapes and a lack of willingness to take any criticism whatsoever.

I can easily see that some posts are challenging, even insulting for those who have invested time, energy and passion in this industry. But in these quarters, I think it's a good idea to look closely at criticism and see if it has merit before ranting and flouncing, especially if said criticism is well-considered and well-presented. There's no need to respond to the sly digs and the ad hominems, because the world and his granny knows they reflect more negatively on the poster than on the recipient. However, some of the recent posts do far more damage to the posters' credibility than any random insult levelled at them, IMO. I've never met any of you personally, you're just names to me, but I'm used to seeing those names and such they have a certain amount of built-in cred. Is it better to be known as "that guy who rose above the insults and let his work speak for itself" or "that guy who flounced off in a huff"?

 

[jfrech]

I think the name calling is what got this to the point of where it is.

 

[spiritofmusic]

Diapason +1, v.nicely said. How are your system travails coming along? That Nat amps demo here in London remains open.
Tbh, Peter would gain a lot of kudos if he came back on, and at the very least admitted poor choice of words. Then he could choose to retreat to the world of video blogs w/little comeback, or reintegrate w/others. His choice.
Pride comes before a fall. Or at the same time.
Tbh, I feel the so called enemies of Peter have been pretty civilised in return. Being called wankers, and none of us lashing out. Peter could have worse adversaries.

 

[Audio Guy]

Honestly, I don't see much evidence of the bear-pit, but I see plenty of evidence of topics debated from different viewpoints. Now I don't read every thread, far from it, so maybe I'm missing the bulk of the annoyance, but I've certainly followed the threads mentioned here with interest. I see forceful disagreement, robustly defended, but quite frankly that's what I'm here to read. I learn a lot from the posts on this forum, from all sides in the objectivist/subjectivist divide and more besides. That's what I mean about how comical this looks: for the most part, those feeling put-upon have plenty of support in terms of their views, but are in the process of losing that support by virtue of their broadsides. Again, as an innocent bystander, it's hard to see this as anything other than sour grapes and a lack of willingness to take any criticism whatsoever.

I can easily see that some posts are challenging, even insulting for those who have invested time, energy and passion in this industry. But in these quarters, I think it's a good idea to look closely at criticism and see if it has merit before ranting and flouncing, especially if said criticism is well-considered and well-presented. There's no need to respond to the sly digs and the ad hominems, because the world and his granny knows they reflect more negatively on the poster than on the recipient. However, some of the recent posts do far more damage to the posters' credibility than any random insult levelled at them, IMO. I've never met any of you personally, you're just names to me, but I'm used to seeing those names and such they have a certain amount of built-in cred. Is it better to be known as "that guy who rose above the insults and let his work speak for itself" or "that guy who flounced off in a huff"?

Alternatively, it could be outright trolling! Look at how many views these negative threads are getting.

On another note, some folks who just got called "wanker" will wind up in the same room with Peter before the year is out. I wonder if he's thought about the consequences of insulting people he's sure to see face-to-face?

 

[Ronm1]

As Joe W's post puts it, Peter drove the bus but didnt like paying the tolls. I certainly didn't find piling on or bullying just simple disagreement, nothing more. Not many agreed with him, C'est la vie. IMHO a classic case of a reviewer disliking being reviewed. If anything the bullying was on Peter's part, using his perceived pulpit to make a point. As another thread mentions one reaps what one sows.

 

[Diapason]

Diapason +1, v.nicely said. How are your system travails coming along? That Nat amps demo here in London remains open.

Thank you! My time is being taken up with new baby stuff for now (11 weeks today!) so the system is barely getting switched on. Maybe that's why I'm forgetting how intense this whole hobby can be...

 

[Audio Guy]

I figure this is as relevant as it gets. Here's what the OP reminds me of:

 

[Al M.]

Psychologically speaking, there is only so much of this a person can take before you either skulk off, storm out, or suck a tailpipe. How much one can take varies, but if Peter's departure is angry and bitter, perhaps it is time to reflect why he should feel so angry and bitter to effectively suicide himself like this.

There does seem to have been something of a change in direction here. This was a friendly forum of high-end debate and discussion, but now it seems to be increasingly littered with agenda-filled ranting. If the forum continues down this all-too-predictable story arc, it will end with four people holding two conflicting and extremely polarised views arguing with one another at every juncture. This is at first entertaining, but ultimately extremely frustrating for other members and it lets the air out of the tyres of the forum. Eventually, even the combatants tire of the combat, or more accurately move on to another forum with a bigger audience and do the same thing again, like a plague of locusts.

Alan, I think you are wrong, fortunately, and this board is actually getting better, as also Amir has observed. See my post # 28 on this thread:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...o-see-ya-later&p=324552&viewfull=1#post324552

 

[Al M.]

The rest of your post is fine and reasonable. But the part I quoted above sounds too much like you are blaming the rest of the forum for Peter's leaving and his recent excess of animosity. That part does not make sense in my opinion. It is as if you think the forum should reflect and change to keep Peter here. I don't get that with his recent posting history. It seems to me he put himself on a pedestal he didn't really deserve, and suffered when others failed to see the pedestal. He then got angry, and couldn't let it go.

I agree. Peter is the sole problem, not the forum as a whole which actually is getting better as pointed out.

 

[Al M.]

I am not in the least trying dictate what people should or should not post, but the reason I liked this forum was its willingness to debate topics from very different viewpoints without prejudice. We should all be welcome under a 'different paths, same direction' spirit of open-mindedness, even if sometimes that means fundamentally disagreeing with the other people in the discussion.

That willingness was what made this forum different from the others. If it becomes yet another bear-pit, dominated by one or two strong characters, what purpose does the forum serve?

Well, the one 'strong' character who has spoiled the party just left. Time to move on and enjoy the new and improved ride.

 

[JackD201]

Won't be enough

You were right again!

 

[Audio Guy]

I ask everyone who is into high end audio to join me in an exodus off this board of wankers.

You know what I mean. The latest rant from Amirm was the final straw, plus several total wankers over the past three weeks was enough. You know who you are. We are into high end audio and you are not... not graphs from some corporation, not words from some total wankers.

Look me up, I'm public. I promise you the next board will not allow wankers.

So it is written. So it shall be.

See you later, Joe, see you later Armirm.

Have fun without us.

Please remove all reference to AVShowrooms from this board.

Steve, you are invited over

Thank you,

Peter Breuninger

Lol, thank you sooooooooo much for this. I'm only halfway through my coffee and I already have a slight endorphin boost from reading this thread.

Everything about your post made me smile, it is hilarious. Are you the pied piper of high-end audio? Have you chosen your "next board," where you envision getting more respect as you arrive with a posse of your supporters, ready to rid the Internet of cowards and wankers?

 

[audio.bill]

I stand by my original thoughts in this thread regarding Peter's recent posts and don't think that I have anything to apologize for. I have no problem with members expressing opinions which differ from mine and even encourage it, and agree that discussing our objective and subjective opinions is what makes forum participation so interesting. We can all learn from each other's experiences in our common endeavor of listening to the music we love. When participating in public forums there is a certain level of individual respect that needs to be maintained between participants. Where I believe Peter crossed the line is in the disrespect he has shown for others that dared to disagree with him, which he decided would be best handled by resorting to his childlike and classless name calling. To further discredit himself he then had the absolute gall to disrespect the entire community by declaring that he is an expert on high end audio and others lacking his experience are not. His delusions of grandeur are insulting to many among us who have also been actively involved in this common pursuit for many years, some of whom I would venture to say may even be more knowledgeable on the subject than he is. Peter's deliberate actions which I have described are the true source of the position he now finds himself in, not the response of others to his indefensible behavior.

 

[Alan Sircom]

Well, the one 'strong' character who has spoiled the party just left. Time to move on and enjoy the new and improved ride.

If so, then all to the good. I've just seen enough audio forums torn apart by the process I described to be possibly over sensitised by it, however.

 

[Joe Whip]

Alternatively, it could be outright trolling! Look at how many views these negative threads are getting.

On another note, some folks who just got called "wanker" will wind up in the same room with Peter before the year is out. I wonder if he's thought about the consequences of insulting people he's sure to see face-to-face?

The Cap Audio Fest is right around the corner! Should prove interesting! In the spirit of fellowship, I propose a show video Peter Interviews the Wankers at Cap Audio fest. I am available and will be there.