The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
-
- Posts: 8588
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 400 times
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
I do. Find any post of mine fitting any of those descriptions.
-
- Posts: 8588
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 400 times
- savvypaul
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1675 times
- Been thanked: 3057 times
- Contact:
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
And I said that DQ creates original content, for the forum, about hi-fi.valvesRus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:17 pmSorry for not making myself clear. The comment was in reference to "but at least he is creating original content about hi-fi."
Your posting about "Yes, DQ can be abrasive, curt, occasionally rude, " is spot on, and I don't think anyone would disagree with YOUR assessment.
And, from what I can see, you don't.
So, what's the upside to your facetiousness?
- savvypaul
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1675 times
- Been thanked: 3057 times
- Contact:
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
I was taking you seriously until then.Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:23 pmIf anything, that's the bit I would question. If he was creating original content, then it would cancel any other negative over his posting style. But all I generally see is a self promoted Richard "mini me" without any of the originals whit or understanding, and I just see the repetition of dogma. But I am clearly biased and only out for my own interests.but at least he is creating original content about hi-fi.
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
As you (Paul) know this is not my prime hi-fi forum, so It's never been my intention (in the main) to instigate content, so your observation is correct.
I usually enjoy what others post about, and occasionally add to topics if I feel it may be of interest, or to pass on some snippet I have learned from past experience.
*
-
- Posts: 934
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 1:58 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
I was meerly trying to prempt the response. Fundamentally I don't worry a great deal if you do or don't take me seriously. However I don't see how that alters what I said.
- savvypaul
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1675 times
- Been thanked: 3057 times
- Contact:
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
And you also like to have an argument with DQ and / or make sly comments about him. But you leave that bit out when you are polishing your halo.valvesRus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:36 pmAs you (Paul) know this is not my prime hi-fi forum, so It's never been my intention (in the main) to instigate content, so your observation is correct.
I usually enjoy what others post about, and occasionally add to topics if I feel it may be of interest, or to pass on some snippet I have learned from past experience.
*
My premise is that we can all act like 'wankers' at some time or other, especially online, where this no natural inhibitor. I am not, therefore, well disposed towards one-sided complaints.
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
My argument has never been with DQ per se, but merely with some of the hogwash he posts.savvypaul wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:52 pm
And you also like to have an argument with DQ and / or make sly comments about him. But you leave that bit out when you are polishing your halo.
My premise is that we can all act like 'wankers' at some time or other, especially online, where this no natural inhibitor. I am not, therefore, well disposed towards one-sided complaints.
- savvypaul
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1675 times
- Been thanked: 3057 times
- Contact:
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
It's (what I perceive as) the sort of passive-aggressive remark that makes my eyes roll. Though, I'm sure I've indulged in similar.Lurcher300b wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:50 pmI was meerly trying to prempt the response. Fundamentally I don't worry a great deal if you do or don't take me seriously. However I don't see how that alters what I said.
On the rest of what you said, I don't think it is a fair overall analysis of DQ's posting, here.
Generally, I do take you seriously.
- savvypaul
- Posts: 8775
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:14 pm
- Location: Durham
- Has thanked: 1675 times
- Been thanked: 3057 times
- Contact:
Re: The problem with the Ad-Hom rule on here?
Then I don't understand your dissatisfaction with his posting style.valvesRus wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:58 pmMy argument has never been with DQ per se, but merely with some of the hogwash he posts.savvypaul wrote: ↑Mon Oct 26, 2020 5:52 pm
And you also like to have an argument with DQ and / or make sly comments about him. But you leave that bit out when you are polishing your halo.
My premise is that we can all act like 'wankers' at some time or other, especially online, where this no natural inhibitor. I am not, therefore, well disposed towards one-sided complaints.
If it's all about the content, then address the content.