Audio Critic

[Steve Eddy]

Re: Re: Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

Oh, LOOK! Another "new member" that appears out of nowhere...

Yeah? Where is it that I should have appeared from? Where exactly did you appear from back in January?

Mr. Anda! Someone who suddenly rides in on their white horse, wearing shining armor... who apparently, in 22 posts, has become an expert on JREF, the JREF forums, the poor persecuted Mr. Anda's plight, and Darat's apparent failings!

And how many posts will it be before you get around to addressing anything I've actually said instead of just flailing your arms?

se

 

[Steve Eddy]

Re: Mr Eddy

It was already acknowledged that Mr Anda and Mr Eddy have an ongoing relationship outside of these forums.

Guess he didn't get the memo.

The fact that Mr Eddy is now pursuing the suspension issue so diligently, seemingly on behalf of Anda, really irks me (even after Darat specifically asked it not be further discussed in this thread at all).

It was offered as a suggestion, not a demand.

se

 

[webfusion]

Fair enough.

One quick question that goes to the heart of the matter with Wellfed as I have viewed it for a long while now:

Do you have any indication that Mr Anda is contemplating a full-fledged lawsuit? You have seen that I have my suspicions, but am I totally off-base in that regard?

I am waiting for that shoe to drop...

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

...snip...

Wellfed was ultimately suspended not for using bad language, but for allegedly ignoring the warnings that were issued within his previous posts.

...snip...

This is incorrect, Wellfed was suspended for breaking Rule 8 of his Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

I sincerely apologize for my use of profanity. I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule. Had I been, I would have behaved myself appropriately.

OK, now I know that Wellfed is lying.

I saw one of the offending posts before Darat edited it. In fact, it was I who reported that particular offence, at the time unaware that it was one of many. The reason I reported it wasn't simply that the BS word was used (which I don't think is so obscene, and I think banning it is a bit OTT), but because it was obvious that there had been a deliberate attempt to circumvent the forum's automatic censorship script.

Some months ago we had a conversation in the Forum Management section about the automatic censorship, specifically that it was editing perfectly innocent words just because they contained a letter string that made up a banned word. Mishit, Scunthorpe and snigger were the three I remember being highlighted. This bug was eventually fixed. However, during the conversation someone pointed out that it was possible to circumvent the automatic censorship by including either html or vB code in the middle of the word to break up the letter string.

Obviously, this could be used to force the genuinely banned words to display, too. Darat remarked that anyone doing that would clearly be deliberately trying to break the membership agreement with conscious intent, and that this would attract censure.

Thus, when I saw the BS word in clear in a post of Wellfed's, with the "i" in the word appearing in bold font, it was perfectly clear to me that he was deliberately using this loophole to post a forbidden word in defiance of the automatic censorship. (In fact it was one word of a two-word post, which now, apart from the mod boxes, reads "Bullsh****t Sherman.")

So don't come it, Wellfed. "I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule," my eye. Why go to the trouble of fiddling with the font of the banned word if you didn't know it was banned and didn't know that that was a way of getting it to show up anyway in defiance of the ban?

Considering this, I now don't believe you that you never noticed any of the warnings Darat posted in the offending posts. You clearly knew you were breaking a rule, and you clearly took steps to frustrate the forum's automatic editing programme designed to enforce the rule. So less of the injured innocent act.

Rolfe.

 

[Moose]

Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

OK, now I know that Wellfed is lying.

[...]

So don't come it, Wellfed. "I wasn't cognizant that I was breaking any rule," my eye. Why go to the trouble of fiddling with the font of the banned word if you didn't know it was banned and didn't know that that was a way of getting it to show up anyway in defiance of the ban?

Of course he knew. In his own words:

Originally posted by Wellfed
One of the very first posts I made at the JREF Forum was to inquire what (Rule 8) referred to. I was told and responded that I thought that to be a good rule.

 

[alfaniner]

So Wellfed, you call it a vacation, as if it was your choice and you "decided" to take some time off from the forum.

Right.

With all that time off, did you make an effort to do a decent simple, double-blind self-test? (One trial is not sufficient).

No?

I didn't think so.

Carry on...

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

Yeah? Where is it that I should have appeared from? Where exactly did you appear from back in January?

Where-ever I came from, I didn't march in and start accusing people of things.

And how many posts will it be before you get around to addressing anything I've actually said instead of just flailing your arms?

se [/B]

I don't know, Steve - how many posts will you be writing before you do one with substance instead of accusations?

 

[edthedoc]

For what it's worth: here are two of Wellfed's statements from the Golden Sound query thread:


"I have received no support from Golden Sound."

then a few posts later:

"I did receive one email from Golden Sound very early in the GSIC debate at Audio Asylum thanking me for standing up for their product. "


Sounds like support to me. Wellfed: have you ANY credibility left at all? Would you care to try to explain why you post these conflicting statements?

 

[jmercer]

For what it's worth: here are two of Wellfed's statements from the Golden Sound query thread:


"I have received no support from Golden Sound."

then a few posts later:

"I did receive one email from Golden Sound very early in the GSIC debate at Audio Asylum thanking me for standing up for their product. "


Sounds like support to me. Wellfed: have you ANY credibility left at all? Would you care to try to explain why you post these conflicting statements?

FWIW - while I don't think Mr. Anda has much remaining crediblity (if any) regarding his self-created fiasco a' la GSIC - I can't really see a single email from the product producer as "support". (Unless you're going to count morale-boosting as support.) If they were funding his costs, advising him on the protocols, providing him with legal or technical assistance, or giving him free products - now that would be a different story.

 

[Wellfed]

So Wellfed, you call it a vacation, as if it was your choice and you "decided" to take some time off from the forum.

Right.

With all that time off, did you make an effort to do a decent simple, double-blind self-test? (One trial is not sufficient).

No?

I didn't think so.

Carry on...

Vacation is Kramer's word for my suspension, he somehow knew I would enjoy it, proving himself prophetic on this one. I had plenty to do on my vacation, DBT's not being on the list, that will have to wait.

BTW, would you mind letting Rolfe know that you were the one that taught me that Bullsh*t formatting technique? Let him know too that I never saw those (Rule 8) "cease and desist" orders.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Fair enough.

One quick question that goes to the heart of the matter with Wellfed as I have viewed it for a long while now:

Do you have any indication that Mr Anda is contemplating a full-fledged lawsuit? You have seen that I have my suspicions, but am I totally off-base in that regard?

Have you asked Wellfed this question? If not, why are you asking me instead of him?

se

 

[Wellfed]

Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Of course he knew. In his own words:

It appears that the bulk of you folks are pretty pathetic.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Re: Re: Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

This is incorrect, Wellfed was suspended for breaking Rule 8 of his Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

You miss the point.

Had he seen and heeded the warnings, he'd have not been suspended, in spite of his having violated Rule 8.

se

 

[Wellfed]

For what it's worth: here are two of Wellfed's statements from the Golden Sound query thread:


"I have received no support from Golden Sound."

then a few posts later:

"I did receive one email from Golden Sound very early in the GSIC debate at Audio Asylum thanking me for standing up for their product. "


Sounds like support to me. Wellfed: have you ANY credibility left at all? Would you care to try to explain why you post these conflicting statements?

It's not worth much edthedoc, and no, I won't take the time to respond to your request. Reference my last posting to this thread.

 

[tim]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

It appears that the bulk of you folks are pretty pathetic.

Why thank you, Wellfed! It's nice to be appreciated. I've just read through this thread and all the rubbish I've seen coming from your neck of the woods makes me want to go somewhere quiet and bang my head against a wall.
Carry on.

 

[Wellfed]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bullwinkle! Just test me.

Why thank you, Wellfed! It's nice to be appreciated. I've just read through this thread and all the rubbish I've seen coming from your neck of the woods makes me want to go somewhere quiet and bang my head against a wall.
Carry on.

Sorry tim, you didn't make it into that classification.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reading Previous Posts and Warnings

You miss the point.

Had he seen and heeded the warnings, he'd have not been suspended, in spite of his having violated Rule 8.

se

If he had not broken Rule 8 he would not have been suspended from the forum. Wellfed was only suspended because he broke his Membership Agreement. It was his actions (in choosing to repeatedly break his Membership Agreement) that caused his suspension.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Rolfe]

BTW, would you mind letting Rolfe know that you were the one that taught me that Bullsh*t formatting technique? Let him know too that I never saw those (Rule 8) "cease and desist" orders.

Rolfe is perfectly capable of reading, thank you.

If you knew you had to use sneaky reformatting to get round the automatic censorship programme, seems to me to be perfectly obvious that you knew you were breaking a rule.

You've consistently denied that you knew you were breaking a rule, even in the face of conclusive evidence that you did know. So why should anyone believe you when you say you didn't notice even one of those big, obvious mod boxes scattered over your posts?

Rolfe.

 

[Hitch]

Rolfe is perfectly capable of reading, thank you.

If you knew you had to use sneaky reformatting to get round the automatic censorship programme, seems to me to be perfectly obvious that you knew you were breaking a rule.

You've consistently denied that you knew you were breaking a rule, even in the face of conclusive evidence that you did know. So why should anyone believe you when you say you didn't notice even one of those big, obvious mod boxes scattered over your posts?

Rolfe.

Because he doesn't go back and read his own posts. If one were of a cynical nature, one might believe this facilitates his contradicting himself. But we have no evidence of that.