Ignorance and trolls on forums

Got a funny story to post? Just want to talk? This would be a good place for that.
Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Ignorance and trolls on forums

Postby Andreas » Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:00 pm

Maybe it was obvious to you for years, but I have found this year in particular, that more and more people post statements, claims, "facts" on internet forums who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Since they hide behind aliases and can always drop out of discussions when they are pressed for evidence or confronted with conflicting evidence, it is tempting to build yourself up as an authority and whenever questioned, defend yourself with insider information that can't be mentioned.

Many of these people probably believe that their knowledge is beyond the average and that it is their mission to inform the uneducated, but what different are they from classical trolls? I will call them trolls 2.0.

There is one particular poster on the other board, who always claims to an expert on a certain group with 7 letters, and it is my firm belief that he is nothing but a troll 2.0.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:04 pm

Does this have something to do with Beatles remasters?

Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:46 pm

Do you trust all his info? Does he really know what he's talking about (i.e. no noise reduction on the 1987 CDs)?

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:55 pm

I trust none of it. I especially don't trust any recording information that may come from that direction.

That said, I've always found claims of NR on the '87 CDs questionable. Abbey Road in particular is always cited, and I've never noticed less hiss on there than on the Japanese release. It's kind of fun having a copy of that CD, but I wouldn't pay more than the $8.99 I spent on it.
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

Andreas
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 2:41 am

Postby Andreas » Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:17 pm

The question itself is debatable. But what I am criticizing is if you post a mixture of incomplete information, educated guesses and pure speculation as fact, and defend it against any doubts with your alleged statuts as an insider.

PS: The remasters were already done. About 15 times.

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:30 pm

No argument there.

Yes...I seem to recall the remasters being due in early 2007. Or was it early 2006?
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:23 pm

The remasters were actually issued with no change in packaging in 2002. No one noticed. I know this because an insider posted it on a message board.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Beatlesfan03
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 11:45 pm
Location: Another red state :(

Postby Beatlesfan03 » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:42 am

Rspaight wrote:The remasters were actually issued with no change in packaging in 2002. No one noticed. I know this because an insider posted it on a message board.


But you signed a confidentiality agreement and cannot divulge any more details, right? :lol:
Craig

User avatar
Beatlesfan03
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 11:45 pm
Location: Another red state :(

Postby Beatlesfan03 » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:47 am

lukpac wrote:No argument there.

Yes...I seem to recall the remasters being due in early 2007. Or was it early 2006?


There was an article floating around over there last year where Olivia Harrison said that the remasters would be out either late 07/early 08.

For me anyway, the release of said remasters would be anti-climatic as we've had so many false starts that I've long since given up caring anymore.

That said, I've noticed that my interest in the Beatles wanes more and more each year. They were four guys, not gods as so many over there continue to think.
Craig

User avatar
Jeff T.
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:28 am
Location: Blueberry Hill

Postby Jeff T. » Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:07 pm

Beatlesfan03 wrote:For me anyway, the release of said remasters would be anti-climatic as we've had so many false starts that I've long since given up caring anymore.

That said, I've noticed that my interest in the Beatles wanes more and more each year. They were four guys, not gods as so many over there continue to think.


I'm excited enough to burn copies of every one of the remasters for the collection.

No, really, I would enjoy seeing some amazing packages hit the bins with a ton of extras. They better have extras like you never imagined, like over flowing with extras. Pictures, outs, ss, high rezzy, etc. Any attempt to hold back and not include what we all know is there will keep me away.