It isn't a trend isolated to this forum or audiophiles in general, the entire online ecosystem is up to its neck in semantic police. That said, written communication's true meaning often is less than clear in spite of the fact the author thinks the content is straight forward. The subtle clues of meaning and intent we pick up from face to face interaction is sorely missing in the online universe.
oh, yeah. wires. always the hotttest contests surround freakin' wires.
as for word smithing. that would be a step up from some of the wire threads I've seen.
the 'smiths' are usually on the 'science' side of the coin, and the rest are on the 'snake oil' side.
I''m on the coin that stands on end. there is something to wires, but not as much as some would want others to accept or believe.
perhaps though, the largest factor is simply the web. anonymity. folks have in the past decades been tweaked by the web to say 'anything'. And for any reason. to build themselves up somehow, and or to denigrate another, as there are no substantial immediate consequences for untoward acts.
back in the early 00's folks were a lot nicer especially on these pages. just my two cents.
Communication is pretty fundamental. Most understand the literal meaning of words when strung together in cogent (or not so cogent) sentences. Only the context of emotional nuance is missing owing to the medium. Yet when folks engage in the battle of the quotations, all hope of agreement seems lost as to the meaning held within content between the 2 quotation marks.
Its the nature of the beast. Let's face it, the internet already has everything and more. If you really want to know something all it takes is a search. Even the answer to this question, why is it, is already there. Its not even necessary for me to do a search, because I know its there. Its there on Rennlist (the Porsche enthusiast site) its there on WatchUSeek, and visajourney and countless others.
Its there in Eclesiastes: "there is nothing new under the sun."
Nah, I think the concept stated in the OP is due mostly to a lot of folks just think they know more than they do. Don Rumsfeld came close to grasping the fundamentals of this in his theory of "known knowns" and "unknown knowns." It hurts your head if you spend more than a few seconds on it
@millercarbon That is how folks in molecular biology felt after Watson and Crick discovered the DNA double helix structure. Crick literally opined about virtually every topic in the area, leaving nothing for most others to discover in a new way. Lol
I don't use lights. They are snake oil in the nth degree. Everyone is delusional if they think they have light when they flip a light switch. There is no such thing as light. If you think there is prove it. It is just a lot of empty space between the eyes.
Without an unauthorized looksee at the x-ray diffraction data of Rosalind Franklin's work, Watson and Crick would never have come up with the structure. Model building, Watson stumbled on it because of Franklin’s data that he wasn’t supposed to see. Honest Jim indeed. Franklin deserved the Nobel. Watson was a tennis playing skirt chaser at Cambridge. Crick was the brains of that duo.
RF got it wrong? Don't you mean for the time she had her data she hadn't fully interpreted it or analyzed it? It wasn't for anyone else to steal and have at. That's intellectual property theft. Eventually she would have gotten it.