What Hi-fi Blogs.

[spiny norman]

Rather than responding to the (believe it or not) actually serious advice I was giving, you've chosen to concentrate on one word - would it have made a difference if it had said "an abusive EDITED"? Either way, it's an accurate description of your current behaviour, whether you like it or not.

Which kind of reinforces my original belief that you couldn't give two hoots about the magazine / website's direction (there you go, language all the family can enjoy), and would rather just spout hate and venom at them.

As I said previously, if your agenda is truly what you say, and you honestly think this is the way to go about it, "Good luck with that". Unfortunately I think everything I say is lost on you.

No, 'an abusive EDITED' would still have been a direct personal insult, which would be both uncalled for against the rules around here (surely - although I'm sure I'll be advised by a moderator if that isn't the case), and so wouldn't have helped: it would still be part of your seeming need to make it personal, rather than talking about the magazine.

What's the plan? Provoke an extreme response, so moderation is called for, thus heading off the thread at the pass?

Ditto benlaw, who seems to be determined to make a) just such a thing his life's work, and b) himself look silly.

If so, nice try, but I think I can make my point without throwing sweary insults around, even if they're hidden in plain view behind asterisks.

You seem to be very proprietorial about all this, professorhat – very odd!

But glad I explained exactly what my passion is for the magazine, my sense of disappointment and where I am coming from, so you could be condescending again...

 

[BenLaw]

'Semingly'? Struggling to take your spelling and grammar criticism seriously.

Phew! Just when I thought you weren't going to undermine yourself by being petty...

I thought I'd stoop to your level so you'd have a chance of understanding. Your lack of self-awareness is remarkable.

 

[spiny norman]

I thought I'd stoop to your level so you'd have a chance of understanding. Your lack of self-awareness is remarkable.

Sorry, but I kinda rose above 'Same to you and no returns, so there' rather more than four decades ago. Have a good day...

 

[BenLaw]

Well you've completely failed to notice any of the prof's reasoned and reasonable points, let alone understand them, so that may explain why I've tried a different approach. At least I avoided faux-paternalistic passive aggression.

 

[spiny norman]

Well you've completely failed to notice any of the prof's reasoned and reasonable points, let alone understand them

I understand his points completely, though not the slightly superior 'I own the place' tone. I thought we were having a reasonable discussion as to the nature of my dissatisfaction with the magazine as it stands, which I was endeavouring to explain is more a matter of disappointent and frustration, not anger and vitriol.

I'd even tried to lighten the mood with my weak attempt at humour re the 'magazine spiny' (which I just thought was funny but which the poor sensitive soul took as me mocking his lack of a comma, as if I'd stoop to picking up so minor a slip to make a point!). Then suddently he decides to get aggressive and abuse me. Not quite the behaviour I would expect of one seemingly setting himself up as the arbiter of forum behaviour.

At least I avoided faux-paternalistic passive aggression.

No, sorry - you've got me there: that's not the kind of aspirational out of the box blue-sky envelope-pushing I articulate in order to make myself sound impressive going forward.

Can we get back on topic, please. if you're all done now?

 

[professorhat]

No, 'an abusive EDITED' would still have been a direct personal insult,

Actually, what I said was a description of some of your past posts on the forum and your initial ones in this thread. Note the words "if you want to appear", it was not a personal insult - that would have involved the words "you are". In my experience, rational and reasoned arguments, such as the ones you've since presented after your original tirade, are much more effective than insulting people. Insulting people for example, by comparing journalists' writing efforts to those of "primary school leavers". Hence my initial "good luck with that" comment.

Incredibly, you seem to still believe your original comments were a perfectly acceptable way to talk to someone, so there seems little point in carrying on.

 

[spiny norman]

Semantics, semantics!

Oh well, it's (seemingly) your forum, and so you must prescribe and proscribe as you see fit.

In future I shall try to remember your acceptable forms of posting; and that criticism of the magazine, however heartfelt, is not a subject to be broached here if one dosen't want to be singled out for attack in the cause of derailing any such criticism.

Glad we cleared that one up. :clap:

 

[chebby]

I have received answers to my questions (and criticisms) from Joe and I know the matter can't go any further now.

Although I am unhappy at the outcome that is mostly because I have lost something important to me about the website that I particularly enjoyed over a long period of time.

It is unreasonable for me to push the matter any further.

The stark fact is that I was in a very small minority of people who regularly read the "industry insider" blogs (and other historical pieces) and it always hurts to lose something because it isn't popular enough with other people to make it worthwhile.

We haven't 'lost' Andrew either because his writings continue elsewhere (Gramophone and his own website and Naim's 'Connect' newsletter).

I was initially optimistic that Joe (or one of the other editors) would offer some re-assurance that the temporary 'vacuum' would be addressed and that someone with Andrew's experience and knowledge (and flair) would take up the baton soon. However, I now understand the reasons why that won't happen. The 'clicks' simply weren't there and that's that. Can't argue with the stats. If no-one is reading, it's pointless having anyone writing.

Thanks to the others here for adding support to my query.

 

[John Duncan]

Interesting article in the Guardian today.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2014/jan/24/buzzfeed-success-digital-news

 

[Andy Clough]

Are you after my job JD? But yes, you're right, a very interesting article and well worth a read. It's a conundrum we all face.