>But, you are here talking on a list dedicated to digital audio, where, >as a founding principle, we all agree on the fact that results drawn >from a computer's work are predictable >So, by definition, your bravely defended opinion is as much off-topic as >it can get Dave, Perhaps I mistook the meaning of 'Linux Audio User' - assuming that it meant the list was just a community of Linux_Audio_Users to discuss pretty much anything and everything of mutual interest. (I have seen discussions on what music people like (not focused on 'digital audio'), extremely prolonged threads on copyright, and other occasional threads even further removed from 'digital audio', and no one seemed to consider them inappropriate or OT. I think my thread went down in flames because I made comments that people just plain found offensive or took extreme exception to, not because it was OT. As you say, some comments I made appear to call into question basic premises most of you take as absolutely fundamental, and were hence unwelcome if not heretical. I have no further interest in debating this issue here - in fact I never did. I wanted to discuss the issue of bit-depth and its importance to audio fidelity, but my thread got hijacked by those who took exception to my comments about digital degradation - (which itself was just an off-hand comment on my part.) >If you're trolling, you do it well, because I've just fed you. ;) I don't do that - never my intention to raise such a ruckus. I think it's all Carlo's fault. He's so wild and crazy and spontaneous, he just made me feel like I could speak with similar impunity about whatever I thought - however radical, and be similarly open and spontaneous about my views. I will henceforth try really hard to stick to an 'acceptable' range of topics, though you've got me genuinely confused now about just what those are. >This discussion is getting tiring, at least for me. It got tiring for me quite a while back - I just have a tendency to go down fighting. ;) >The only reason I've been reading all of it is because I also am one of >the women on this list. As such, I understand that I can be biased in >this. I will try my best to express what I feel about this list. Please note: I never raised gender as being the issue here - I am (now) well aware that my ideas sound radical and provocative. >I also consider this list one of the more friendly and helpfull lists >around. I've been here for a long time and have never taken things >personally I commend you on your tolerance and wisdom - you doubtless have a thicker skin than I. >Sometimes a little patience goes a long ways on everbody's part. If I was >the target of ridicule for my own unpopular opinian I would try to be >polite about it for a while. Actually, I thought I *was* showing enormous restraint and politeness in response to the insults. (The 'bad words' thread is different - we're just having fun there.) > I hope I got some of my own feelings across on this. Thanks for your input - glad to know I'm not alone here. :) If this disastrous thread demonstrates anything, I think it shows why people like me do better on forums. That way if a weird topic gets started, people can just avoid it like the plague and focus on the ones that they find relevant. It's harder on a list - regardless of all your suggestions about filters, search functions and what not. When I scan through a digest, I end up reading a little bit of everything whether I want to or not. I'll have to go back through the archives and find out what happened w/re to that forum proposal. (Dan's idea is sounding better and better - maybe I will start an occultist's-audio-user list.) :D >>I haven't seen this at all on this list. I think it's one of the most >>helpful and tolerant lists out there. But that's just my *perception* >>of it... > >Let me second this whole-heartedly. I came in here about 6 weeks back >looking for help, and got it in a clear, concise manner, Your absolutely right - you're all a bunch of angels. :D I'm the devil in the black dress. }:> Carry on . . . . . - Maluvia
