Oh brother, let’s not stretch this that far LOL. This is nothing more than a guy who worked for someone for 9 months. That’s it, that’s as far as the story goes. If Robert wants to build it into more than that, that’s up to him. As long as he doesn’t attempt to be "abusive toward another member" his story is as good as anyone’s.
Glupson, everyone sees life through their own lenses. I happen to see it as a pretty cool experience. The guy next to me may see it completely different. The OP is about talking without walking as a question. I, you, Robert, prof, jf47t or anyone else sees life through our own set of values. Prof for example sees through his lenses that I’m here to instigate a fight, even though I say I’m not here to start any fights. Prof thinks because I said things a certain way that it means something based on his perception. It wasn’t what I said, but it was his perception on what I said.
If you look at the OP you will see words. Those words only take on meaning as we apply our own set of values to them. I crafted the OP this way on purpose. Does the OP have meaning to me? Only to the extent that I wished to trigger others reactions to the way they (and I) view words. Some viewed the OP as just what it said, others thought it was provoking, others it gave them a chance to vent, others to bring up feelings about the person behind the OP (that was a little scary to be honest), and as we can read, a whole bunch of sidetracks and additives that had nothing to do with the OP at all.
I wanted to show in real time the motives and intent that we create in our own minds when we see words, topics or discussions. For example one thing that stuck out to me is that so many viewed discussions as "arguments". Those same people viewed the OP as something to start or plant that arguing mindset in to the thread. If you go back and read through the thread again you will see all sorts of motives in the posts written. I’m also interested in the posts that follow this one. With the intent of the OP layout out, will posters be able to curve their own belief system and accept the OP for what it is and was or will they not be able to put the brakes on because of their own agendas that they created?
Which brings us back to the OP and how it relates to the way we view audio. Do we create our own spins on audio to fit our beliefs? Are we able to stretch our views on what audio is and how far are we willing to take it? Do we as listeners see playback as a means to an end or a means to an active beginning?
In this OP I was surprised on how I was personalized instead of the OP as words. I’ll be honest that got a little creepy to me. I was surprised to see others use this thread as an attack platform against me personally, the 20 year old employee thing got really weird. I knew when that started that I was going to give this thread a couple of more days and then reveal the thought behind this OP. As for myself, the motive and meaning behind the OP was crystal clear, but that again shows how I was viewing the OP as a tool. I tried to give hints to the OP but I was again surprised at how dug in folks thinking was and how forcefully they were sticking to their (our) own beliefs systems. I remember prof saying "a dog at the end of a bone" (sorry that’s probably not an exact quote.
So anyway I’m very interested to see the next few posts and the agendas of the posters now that I have given the why of the OP.
Michael Green
www.michaelgreenaudio.net
