That kind of dialogue which you filled last page with, one or two line replies when I try to return to the subject at hand. It's inevitable audiophile forums attract quite a few people on the spectrum like this. My sincere apologies to the others reading this for my unwise actions in 'feeding the trolls'. Returning to the subject of the discussion Geoff Edgers has
written a half-hearted apologia in the Hoffman forum. 'I'm sorry if this caused any pain to Ken's family or friends. I found his focus and drive fascinating, as well as the world he created in that house. That's why I went to his house and we put together a story that long, with audio and video. And I'd also say if you want to hear a little of what it felt like at Ken's house that day, listen to the audio version. I love that moment when we decide to listen to the music and Ken responds with obvious joy.'
You appear to be asserting that
@Axo1989 is "on the spectrum" and then immediately labeling him as one of many "trolls" - quite analogously to how you've asserted that others here lack critical reading skills (in the very moments when you are making your own shortcomings in that department quite evident).
(Nothing at all wrong with being on the spectrum of course - but it's insulting and stupid to assert that someone is on the spectrum in the offhanded power-play way you've done here.)
And now you claim that the author of the Post article has written a "half-hearted apologia" - another evidence-free claim that does not hold up to a reasonable interpretation of what he actually wrote at the Hoffman forums:
"So it feels funny to be on this thread and to have written the article and to not reply to this comment.
"First, I believe there is a big difference between the article and the comments. But there are certainly a lot of comments and some of them are what you might expect from random strangers coming to an article and allowed to share opinions with no real stake in the matter. There is a lot of hostility and judgement in those comments. As you know, I have control over the article. I don't have control over the comments. So I'll address the article and how it portrayed Ken.
"I wanted to portray Ken respectfully and with input from those who knew him and cared about him. And I certainly didn't show up at his house that day in 2021 thinking there were would be much to talk about with this family other than ... "Dad spent years on this stereo and he just loved listening to music." I didn't even know if I'd quote any of his family members, other than Betsy, who I knew was spending lots of time and energy helping get Ken's house in order.
"But Ken, after answering my questions about his childhood and showing me old newspaper clippings of a ship model building contest he won... dropped this story about his oldest son, Kurt, delivering the "die slowly" line and then talked about being a father in name only. That caught me rather off guard. But I do think I'd have been tone deaf to just let it slip by. It is part of the story. As for Ken... I don't think I wrote anything judging him or criticizing him. I described him and described the world in which he came from. There is something deeply romantic about the era.... of Saul Marantz and classic Swan Lake recordings and the can-do spirit that filled all of those audio magazines.
"Again, I'm sorry if this caused any pain to Ken's family or friends. I found his focus and drive fascinating, as well as the world he created in that house. That's why I went to his house and we put together a story that long, with audio and video. And I'd also say if you want to hear a little of what it felt like at Ken's house that day, listen to the audio version. I love that moment when we decide to listen to the music and Ken responds with obvious joy."
The tone of his post is certainly polite and measured, but that does not make his explanation of his process and defense of his article "half-hearted." To the contrary, it's a sign of civility and the ability to understand others' perspectives. He also notes that he had no intention of discussing family issues at all and didn't even know or imagine that would be part of the story - until Fritz volunteered the information about his son and the "I hope you die slowly" exchange - a detail you conveniently ignore.
And his final paragraph is not an "apologia" - it's an expression of empathy and sorrow if his article caused pain to "Ken's family and friends." So far we have exactly zero evidence that the article caused pain to his family. As to whether it caused pain to the person who wrote the letter to the editor, only that person can answer that question. And if it did cause him pain, that's a shame, but in and of itself it proves or demonstrates exactly nothing about any alleged problems with the article.
I personally don't care much about Fritz or the article at this point. I was definitely fascinated with the YouTube video his family made when I first saw it, and the Washington Post article definitely piqued my interest for the added perspective it brought. But I've seen the video and read the article, and that's that.
What I care a bit more about at this point is your constant baseless assertions about other people's cognitive state, alleged bad motives, and allegedly dishonest or disingenuous explanations of their words and ideas. The problem here is that you're making bad arguments using bad methods, and your only response is to double down.
