No Bullshit isn't enough

[Sancho Panza]

Could it be their opinions change?

[oldtimer]

No bullshit is never enough.  (you can now mark the thread "answered")

[Zen Traveler]

Could it be their opinions change?

 

No doubt, but sometimes it's worth having to make a point in a similar discussion (if not the same) when they are arguing a contrary opinion.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Zen Traveler

[Fish]

yes

[Fish]

or no

[Fish]

definitely maybe

[Fjd]

One last comment to this thread.  The restricted forum is not for elite members.  It  is a forum for people with 5000 or more post.  That is the only requirement.  It should represent people that use proper forum eqtiquette and can conduct themselves in a civil manner.  Sometime new members are passionate about a subject and get a little carried away in their verbage.  A member with 5000 post most likely has seen what is and is not acceptable on this public forum.

 

 

I couldn’t find any studies that correlated this type of “good citizenship,” the ability to “self-moderate,” "conduct themselves in a civil manner" and abstain from ad hominem attacks with post count on the internet.  However, I did find a lot of information related to “Internet addiction disorder” and similar compulsive behavior.

 

Who knew?  From my reading I did find out that some people will be attracted to the silent, less visually stimulating, non-tactile quality of text relationships.   It seems that in certain situations that a person's ambivalence about intimacy may be expressed in text communication because it is a paradoxical blend of allowing people to be honest and feel close, while also maintaining their distance.

 

In other circumstances people suffering with social anxiety or issues regarding shame and guilt may be drawn to text relationships because they cannot be seen. Some people even prefer text because it enables them to avoid the issue of physical appearance which they find distracting or irrelevant to the relationship. Without the distraction of in-person cues, they feel they can connect more directly to the mind and soul of the other person.

 

All this, but no studies with good behavior correlations to post counts.

 

 

 

One last comment to this thread.  The restricted forum is not for elite members.  It  is a forum for people with 5000 or more post.  That is the only requirement.  It should represent people that use proper forum eqtiquette and can conduct themselves in a civil manner.  Sometime new members are passionate about a subject and get a little carried away in their verbage.  A member with 5000 post most likely has seen what is and is not acceptable on this public forum.

 

 

 

I suspect that the term "elite" is a very valid perception of that person you responded to and seems to be very consistent with sociological theory. 

 

Indulge this point of view for a moment.  It sure seems all about "elite" members (0.168% or about 1 in 600 of this forum membership, also noting that is about 61 members with many of those member that haven't visited the forum for several years and include several that died - may they RIP) and where it ties into very consistent with sociological theory, where an elite is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of something.  Usually wealth or political power; however, in this context under discussion, the “private BS section” and the need to control it through a very disparate means such as unusually high post counts with no other considerations.  

 

In general, elite means the more powerful group of people which go on to act superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities or posts on a forum and ultimately has more privilege than the rest.

 

Would separatism be a better description?

 

Now let’s think about how some of the long-time members on the forum that have lived and breathed Klipsch, only posted well-intentioned informative posts, may be limited in posting by work constraints (some would call posting while at work cyber-slacking, while in the old days it was known as “goldbricking” when playing around during work) can interpret the posts below. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Really?  All you need to do to be a “Heritage Member” is to hit 5000 posts?  I’m offended, especially at what counts as a post.  “I agree”, "I disagree”, “Top Notch”.  Nothing wrong with these posts, but while adding to the post count, these add little to the quality of the Klipsch Forums.

 

A “Heritage Member” should be someone who has contributed to these Forums over time, and contributions go beyond post counts.

 

How about being here over eleven years as a steady Klipsch Forum member?  How about attending nine Klipsch Pilgrimages (four at Indy, five at Hope)?  How about hauling Cornwalls to Hope three times to support those gatherings (not to mention also putting amps and pre-amps and other gear at risk)?  How about posting or providing links to hundreds of photos taken at all of those gatherings for the benefit of the Forum members?

 

I was invited by Amy (and accepted) to be a part of the original BS Forum group, and I never caused any trouble.  I guess I should have been posting “Howdy Y’all” twice a day every day for eleven years to be recognized as a “Heritage Member”.

 

 

 

I tend to believe that many of us not in the 5,000 post club are just as devoted and have developed solid relationships on this forum board.     We have also experienced the loss of those fellow members that were close to us.

 

 

 

 

 

perpetuates the myth of the "good ol' boys club", which I DON'T want around here.

 

But Chad, that's what's already happened.  It's not a myth, it's reality.  I still don't get it.  Was this "club" requested by a current or former member?  And honestly, I suppose I really don't understand it's basic purpose, even after all of this chatter. 

 

 

But Jim, that's the way it was before.  We had an invisible BS section where only a small part of the members were allowed.  As far as I know, nobody whined.  But as soon as post count became a qualifier for membership, the whining began.  It makes me wonder whether we have 2 problems now:

 

1.  Those who really wanted to be part of the new group and are whining, and

2.  Those who just want to whine for any reason and could care less.

 

 

 

According to Jeff Matthews anyone that has under 5,000 posts and felt the need to express an opinion or view on the topic are only a bunch of whiners.  Why does Jeff feel the need to be so condescending to those posting in this thread that have less than 5,000 posts?     

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Fjd

[CECAA850]

fjd, that was a great post.  I agree on all counts.

[Zen Traveler]

Whew! I'm glad I wasn't in any of that.

[Sancho Panza]

Could it be their opinions change?

No doubt, but sometimes it's worth having to make a point in a similar discussion (if not the same) when they are arguing a contrary opinion.

Yes

[Sancho Panza]

I mean NO

[Sancho Panza]

Maybe

[Ceptorman]

^^Funny^^

[CECAA850]

fjd, that was a great post.  I agree on all counts.

 

In retrospect, I could never imagine Dave knowingly dissing Seadog.

[Fjd]

 

fjd, that was a great post.  I agree on all counts.

 

In retrospect, I could never imagine Dave knowingly dissing Seadog.

 

 

 

I'm talking more about the "perceptions" that are easily made by others when a person posts.  For many, their "perception" is their "reality." 

 

There were several other posts by people that I considered for demonstration purposes but in my experience I believe any perceived meaning demonstrated here was unintentional by the person posting and not deliberate. 

Edited June 26, 2015 by Fjd

[Sancho Panza]

Perception is not Reality, most of the time; it only seems so. LoL

Edited June 26, 2015 by Sancho Panza

[oldtimer]

Sanch is running the table folks!

[oldtimer]

Go man go!  I haven't seen such a flurry since my last bender!

[Sancho Panza]

Sanch is running the table folks!

I like to help out, when I can.

[Ceptorman]

He could be in the club by midnight