New forum created for subjectivist members

[Gregadd]

I wish it was paranoia but it is a daily occurrence. Here is an example of reported post by Steve:

"Back when I was working in A/V retail, we used to love to sell AQ cables, because the mark-ups are huge. "

The violation is this: "If this isn't inflammatory, tell me what is."

The member's crime is being an objectivist here. In contrast if someone threatens to make Blizzard and I kiss in public in women's outifts, there won't be any action but cheering!


Is making things worse from where I sit.

I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that particular member. given our history.Llet me remind you that you called out some members in that thread. I also think it is inapproriate for you to reveal a private complaint. WhenI attended AA with a friend she told me they never call anyone an alcoholic. That's a decison they have to make for themselves. I can presume the ones you called out were objectivist based on thier comments.

Sometimes you have to tear things down before you can build them up.

 

[Joe Whip]

There are quite a few here that I ignore Amir. I agree that is the best approach. I don't think I have ever filed a complaint. I just drop off a forum for a bit and chant is it just audio ( or video)

 

[amirm]

I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that particular member. given our history.Llet me remind you that you called out some members in that thread. I also think it is inapproriate for you to reveal a private complaint.

It is not private complaint. It is a complaint made by Steve and the topic at hand is conduct of moderators/admins. I am providing transparency because in absence of that, I get told I am paranoid. There was no paranoia there. Of all the insults going on and violations of ToS, there was no reason to go after that poster on what he factually wrote.

You have not accepted any honest remark I have made in this thread Greg saying I have this and that agenda. Well, I have to provide evidence that would be discoverable anyway in any legal proceedings. Trust me in what I say and I don't have to provide evidence.

 

[amirm]

There are quite a few here that I ignore Amir. I agree that is the best approach. I don't think I have ever filed a complaint. I just drop off a forum for a bit and chant is it just audio ( or video)

We need more of you Joe . Thanks for doing the right thing.

 

[Steve Williams]

Once again I will categorically state that this has nothing to do with subjectivists vs objectivists or trying to run the objectivists out. That is plain poppy cock lie and once again it is nothing more than a trojan horse and another attempt by Amir to obfuscate and deflect from the real administrative issues here.

This subjectivist forum is a stupid idea and merely another attempt on his side to deflect from the very issue which I have stated and that is an owner who feels he is above the TOS but all too often the only reason we find ourselves in these silly little threads. No one is driving anyone out.

1. That everyone including Amir be subject to the TOS. Has anyone heard or seen Amir agree to this. Please read Gregg's post as to why and how there is so much conflict and it all hinges on the fact that Amir can post ad lib as a member but as soon as there are hostilities in his forum he takes off that hat and then sanctions members and, deletes posts and well as threatens them with ban. He has told me and the mods NOT to moderate his forums we did not serve his interest there and as a result we sit on the sidelines and watch everything unravel as it has done all too frequently since last June

2. There is a unanimous plea by almost every member that this forum be split and it has NOTHING to do with subjectivists and objectivists but rather an administrative juggernaut in how to moderate threads where the owner tells us that we don't represent his interests. Hence we stay out of that forum and leave him to deal with it as he requested but please don't let anyone think that Tom, Lee or I sit on the sidelines doing nothing. We were told to stay out. This is the reason why the forum must be divided. It will allow Amir to administer and moderate as to how he sees fit.It will also extricate the two styles of moderation. The board would look identical and members are free to frequent either side of the sand box. The way it is now the mods are being accused of doing nothing but the realty is the hot spot is Amir and has nothing to do with anything else. Let's call a spade a spade as he has told us never to moderate in his forum. I completely agree and never want to be doing his clean up

There is no one ever going to post in that newly formed subjectivist forum. Look at all the posts just to decide a color for the forum. I intend to close it as it serves no purpose here at the present time. It serves no ones purpose except Amir and that is the crux of the issue not subjectivists wanting to throw out objectivists. There is room in this hobby for both and I enjoy reading threads if substance. With a forum divided it is ludicrous to say that we don't have any control over the direction of the forum.

Amir wanted to divide the forum two weeks ago. When I agreed I was told that I had lost that option

Once again folks, please keep your thoughts on the real issue which is an administrative one and has nothing to do with subjectivists or objectivists. Amir favors the court of public opinion which I am loathe to participate in but feel compelled now to refocus everyone's attention on the poll re our TOS which has also blossomed into members stating they feel it best to divide the forum.

Last I looked this is nothing more than a hobby and look at look at things now

I call it obfuscation and deflection from the real issues at hand

 

[Gregadd]

It is not private complaint. It is a complaint made by Steve and the topic at hand is conduct of moderators/admins. I am providing transparency because in absence of that, I get told I am paranoid. There was no paranoia there. Of all the insults going on and violations of ToS, there was no reason to go after that poster on what he factually wrote.

You have not accepted any honest remark I have made in this thread Greg saying I have this and that agenda. Well, I have to provide evidence that would be discoverable anyway in any legal proceedings. Trust me in what I say and I don't have to provide evidence.

WOW!
Did anybody know about the complaint accept the Admin team? Once you outed the member I knew exactly who it was. Whatever the ultimate resolution was, it shout have reamined private. I think the complaint had merit even if it ultimately did not warrant a sanction.
My policy is absent clear proof to the contrary I assume everyone is telling the truth. Maybe you don't rememebr I have afforded you and others that presumption in the past.
Where I contradicted you it was because I had evidence to to the contrary.

 

[amirm]

Once again I will categorically state that this has nothing to do with subjectivists vs objectivists or trying to run the objectivists out.

Reflect that in your actions, manage the forum fairly with professionalism and due process for everyone concerned and I will be out of a job. I only have to step in because you are failing on all of that.

That is plain poppy cock lie and once again it is nothing more than a trojan horse and another attempt by Amir to obfuscate and deflect from the real administrative issues here.

This statement is direct violation of TOS. It is vulgar, personal and insulting. Which makes this statement look downright bizarre:

1. That everyone including Amir be subject to the TOS. Has anyone heard or seen Amir agree to this.

This is a legal matter and is not up to the membership to decide. But you can sign up to it if you want to waive your rights in that regard. Above I am showing a violation of ToS. What should we do with you now Steve?

 

[Steve Williams]

The truth is the truth Amir

 

[amirm]

Where I contradicted you it was because I had evidence to to the contrary.

You had no evidence. You had an accusation that I was up to no good when I had nothing but good intentions to create a forum where I myself cannot speak my peace. A forum where its opposite was created by Steve.

You want this to go toward direction of resolution Greg? Give advice to Steve. Tell him why he must not waive his rights and be subject to ToS. That is what is needed.

 

[amirm]

The truth is the truth Amir

What does this mean? What is your sanction for violating the ToS here and now? Or do you want to be exempt from it?

 

[Steve Williams]

Amir

You have created this thread and I like everyone is answering and giving their thoughts. Like always to you my points never mean a thing. There are so many here who feel the same. Perhaps you need to sanction all of them as well. It was you who opened this can of worms. Everyone including myself have expressed their thoughts but strangely mine is the only comment you are bothered by.

Dividing the forum would cure all if this very quickly as Lee tom and I won't be accused of lack of moderating your forum. Short of that the most appropriate post IMO today was that from Gregg regarding you and the hats you wear

 

[amirm]

Amir

You have created this thread and I like everyone is answering and giving their thoughts. Like always to you my points never mean a thing. There are so many here who feel the same. Perhaps you need to sanction all of them as well. It was you who opened this can of worms. Everyone including myself have expressed their thoughts but strangely mine is the only comment you are bothered by.

You complain about deflection and then post this?

You told the membership I don't want to be subject to ToS. I am asking you now if you are agreeing to be subject to ToS and if so, what we do with your violation of it just now?

What is your answer please?

 

[LarsS]

Me and my wife enjoyed a glass of wine (white) just now .. isn't life wonderful sometimes?

We had "moules au frites" for dinner, our two cats (Saba & Trisse) insisting on joining us. Here's a link to one of them, which we took care of thirteen years ago being abandonden -- > http://www.katthemmet.nu/aktuellt/2015-1/2015/12/12/lasses-12e-jul.aspx

Amir, Steve ... et.al. ... all yours if needed ...

/Best
Lars

PS: Skating away tomorrow on Sthlms lakes ... DS.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nope, I'd get just as tired of that.

Uh huh.

Tim

 

[ack]

You complain about deflection and then post this?

You told the membership I don't want to be subject to ToS. I am asking you now if you are agreeing to be subject to ToS and if so, what we do with your violation of it just now?

What is your answer please?

Sorry for the interjection, but the answer is quite simple: if you are also willing to agree to be subject to the TOS, then you are both liable under it, for past and present posts. But you cannot choose to apply the TOS on Steve (because he's willing to accept it) and exclude yourself from it, as you have. He's willing to accept the TOS, BUT at the same, he's asking you to do the same - he's even said so explicitly. I hope I am not missing anything. Logically, if you exclude yourself for whatever reason (you have mentioned legal issues), then Steve is also excluded. Balance at the top, as I said the other day.

This discussion is not going well at all, and makes no logical sense.

 

[Steve Williams]

What is your answer that you were asked at the start of the TOS poll. The only way for people to fight you Amir is to stoop to your level. I've made my point. This has nothing to do withering to drive out objectivists. This forum by your own admission functioned fine until last June when PeterB had his meltdown which we all know occurred as a result of you. Further this forum lost one of the best and most liked moderators in JackD201 when he resigned his duties because he as well felt exactly the same as Tom, Lee and I and could not deal with you any further and that is totally chronicled in our admin forum when the two of you had at it. I seem to recall Jack saying that no one in his professional life has ever talked down to him in such a manner as you did.

 

[spazmatron]

Reflect that in your actions, manage the forum fairly with professionalism and due process for everyone concerned and I will be out of a job. I only have to step in because you are failing on all of that.


This statement is direct violation of TOS. It is vulgar, personal and insulting. Which makes this statement look downright bizarre:


This is a legal matter and is not up to the membership to decide. But you can sign up to it if you want to waive your rights in that regard. Above I am showing a violation of ToS. What should we do with you now Steve?

sorry but the word poppycock just means nonsense... balderdash... its not vulgar. this statement might be direct but in the context of what's going on it fits ok.
the creation of this forum is a bit silly and one can only deduce its about more than meets the eye.

amir just how many guys did you think were going to use it? some of these guys see you as the enemy, you think they are going to trot off into a safe zone you created?? you're not the U.N in this situation. i really like you but even so i dont buy this for a second. i was being generous when i say its a naive undertaking.

 

[amirm]

Sorry for the interjection, but the answer is quite simple: if you are also willing to agree to be subject to the TOS, then you are both liable under it, for past and present posts. But you cannot choose to apply the TOS on Steve and exclude yourself from it, as you have.

And until then he is going to violate it left and right with cursing me? He can volunteer at any time to follow it. To act professional. To be polite. To not get personal and insulting. But he is choosing not to. This is not a person who has any ability to work under ToS. Not when he is addressing me or anyone else when he is emotional and angry which unfortunately is often.

He's willing to accept the TOS, but at the same, he's asking you to do the same - he's even said so explicitly. I hope I am not missing anything. Logically, if you exclude yourself for whatever reason (you have mentioned legal issues), then Steve is also excluded. Balance at the top, as I said the other day.

And that is what I told him and he *happily* came to me saying he is excluded after discussing it with an attorney. Yet he comes here left and right asking for the two of us be to be subject to ToS???

This discussion is not going well at all, and makes no logical sense.

It is actually quite useful.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

This thread is finally revealing the real rift, and it is between the owners. The rancor between you dwarfs any rivalry between individual members. Steve and Amir, it sounds like you need a couple of good divorce attorneys. Amir, make sure you let me know where your next forum is. Steve, enjoy running yet another subjectivist audiophile forum. There are a lot of them, but there's probably plenty of room. That's where the market is.

Tim

 

[amirm]

What is your answer that you were asked at the start of the TOS poll.

Same consistent answer I have given. I wrote the TOS as terms to use to govern the membership. It was never written to address you and I. It creates legal issues which I cannot sign up to if we say it applies to us.

The only way for people to fight you Amir is to stoop to your level.

No sir. I have not called anything you have said: "plain poppy cock lie."

I follow the spirit of ToS and then some. You on the other hand are incapable of being professional for a moment. Not in private, not in admin forum, not here.

This forum by your own admission functioned fine until last June when PeterB had his meltdown which we all know occurred as a result of you.

No Sir. PeterB meltdown happened because he got angry at Davey saying he heard a system at a show and said it did not sound good. He went crazy, called us wankers, etc. He called you, you talked to him and told him this:

FWIW he contacted me yesterday and read me the riot act about WBF and then told me about a jihad that has been raging for 30 years and that "I am welcome on AVshowroomsforums as a 'founding' member' and that was his personal invite to me. He also went on to say that if I join "I will have a chance at redemption" because WBF is lost and will never return and that I need to "man up"

I suggested to Peter that he really needs to see a doctor to get his medications adjusted because he seems to be suffering from delusions of grandeur. Many members here have already been asked to join his new forum where wankers aren't allowed and only he and he alone will separate the wheat from the chaff because at WBF we don't cater to audiophiles but rather pander to uneducated normal people

How does one say to him "open mouth and insert foot deeper"

So for those that want to hear his sermon from the mount from the self proclaimed savior of the hobby that he loves so dearly and save it from ruination you know where to find him

You have no regard for truth when you are upset and emotional as you are now. I mean the above is as black and white as can be. Many members were witness to what happened. It had nothing to do with me.