Arguments devolve on threads to wordsmithing contests

Some people on here love to argue for the hell of it

To wit: 
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-science-of-cables?lastpage=true&page=8#1709051

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. 

The same people enjoy going from thread to thread to nit pick.It's a hobby for them.It's impossible to have a discussion when it's interrupted constantly.

It seems to be the SOP on most online discussion sites. Why, I have no idea.

Are wordsmithing contests any different from the usual sniper attacks or whack a mole contests? Really? Whack a mole. The sport of kings.

re wack a mole' lol. lovely.

I call 'em 'drive by posting'. or posters.

simply done to illicit some sort of emotional upheaval I think.

oil well.

as for them interrupting anyone or anything, there is always the option of simply over looking such derogatory posts and skipping on to the next post.

I think ignoring ignorance, is the appropriate path. it doesn't like that.

Elizabeth....+1

Larry

@Elizabeth excellent.

I'll opt for Smart LED bulbs that can change colors when  called upon to do so.

Hold on...I'm trying to craft my best argument to argue about arguing.  I'm sure many of you are completely missing the boat with this thread.

Try to introduce a little Science and the Semantic Gymnasts, start their routines(just watch).

Do light bulbs have directionality?

Only if you want them to.

Geoff is the whack a mole champ. 

I think that the bulb will burn brighter if it is croyed and both the bulb metallic threads and the light socket are pasted with TC to prevent micro arching. 

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."

I will come out with the reverse threaded light bulb and stomp to a feverish beat about how great it is......but nobody will be able to use it in their existing sockets. I will blame them for this.

Ceramic or metal sockets?Soft white or daylight?:)

six months later I will introduce a reverse thread adapter that will enhance the original bulb by several orders of magnitude Dilly Dilly

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

I would guess it boils down to that teeny tiny part of the audiophile brain that thinks he (everybody?) is the only one who knows how to do all things audio correctly.

@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

Not sure what the OP means by "wordsmithing." To me, a wordsmith is an exceptionally creative writer. For example, H.L. Mencken would be a wordsmith extraordinaire.

https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/h_l_mencken

https://www.azquotes.com/author/9962-H_L_Mencken

Frank

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.

@oregonpapa  Brilliant response...challenging whether "wordsmithing" was the correct word ;-)  I believe this is where counsel rests its case.

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.

Personally, I think M.C. Escher should get credit for the double helix; he had drawings of it a decade before Watson & Crick came along.

Perhaps you mean Möbius strip.

Pop quiz - what happens to a Möbius strip when you cut it in half length wise, down the centerline of the strip?

part 2 - what happens when you cut the result of part 1 in half, similarly?

Is that wordsmithing? 😳

yeah, I believe that was the title of the piece.......i will guess you will end up with the same thing you started with after cutting, just a smaller version? what do I win? or do I lose?

Do the discussions devolve or do they evolve?

I'll take infinity for 800

Hey, I never said W&C were honest scientists. But RF got it wrong. 

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.

Eventually...maybe. She shared it with W&C. Wilkens shared the Nobel. She would have had she been alive. 

You lose. You’re both way way off. 😥

Or as Frank Zappa said,  "I get off being chuked by a baby octopus and spewed upon with creamed corn".😮

rodman999993,530 posts02-26-2019 7:46pmI deleted my previous, very unkind, post and regret having made it.  Everyone has their own field, after all.

>>>>Correction. Everyone has his own field, after all. 

Do the discussions devolve or do they evolve?

I suspect what happens to them is alternating versions of osmosis and capillary action, each in inverse intensity and magnitude to the other. But I could be wrong.

“>>>>Correction. Everyone has his own field, after all.”

Geoff single-handedly wiped the female and “other” genders out of the lexicon of candidates for possessive pronouns.

"In any dispute, the intensity of the feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake" -Wallace Sayre

(mike drop.....) 

Tell us Geoff, tell us how we're wrong, we need to know!

Superiority Complex

Oh I'm sorry is this a five minute arguement or the full half hour?