In Reply to: Re: Thanks, posted by thetubeguy1954 on February 1, 2007 at 13:04:49:
that when you say "... the blind acceptance of 'audio' devices..." it is clear you explicitly exclude "Anyone who listens for themself and makes a decision based on that listening...".Now when we look at the full quote again, i.e. yours ...
"OMG! It's the blind acceptance of 'audio' devices like this that keep the Objectivists from ever taking Subjectivists seriously. Are we revisting the Tice Clock all over again?"
... you'll of course admit that the Objectivists idea of "blind acceptance" is decidedly different than yours! While this hardly warrants saying you yourself should know this better than most, i.e. take the continued skeptism of many Objectivists to accept your testamony of cable differences despite the fact that you claim to have conducted blind tests no less!
You'll not convince those Objectivists, and in fact were you more astute an observer you'd note that the reaction against evidence of common audiophiles observations is proportional to the very strength of the investigations. I can think of no greater example of this that the near violent reactions against Jon Risch's careful studies in the DBT field, a reaction that continues to this very day as witnessed by the raving convulsions one can elicit from that deadbeat RBG in reaction to mere mention of the Risch work.
And what of Peter Aczel's moronic comments about it being impossible for well designed amplifiers to sound different (if not driven to clipping ya-da-ya-da)... but aren't there published DBTs that have demonstrated such differences?
Really any effort to reach the RBGs and the Aczels is the very definition of an exercise in futility! Think about it, suppose tomorrow some indisputable evidence of the things these nuts have been denying for decades should wash up on shore, what then?, would you expect a polite "Oops it appears I was maistaken." !!!LOL!!! Not bloody likely! The best you could hope for would be their disappearance, but more likely they'd continue on with their nonsense even in the face of the evidence!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Very well, only allow me to point out - bjh 14:40:05 02/01/07 (22)
- Perhaps You're Right - thetubeguy1954 12:17:48 02/02/07 (20)
- Re: Perhaps You're Right - AJinFLA 18:21:47 02/05/07 (8)
- Re: Perhaps You're Right - thetubeguy1954 06:16:24 02/06/07 (4)
- It is not me you must convince, it is you. - AJinFLA 16:45:55 02/06/07 (1)
- Another Moronic Reply From That Bird-Brain POLLYinFLA - thetubeguy1954 11:09:05 02/08/07 (0)
- Re: Perhaps You're Right - theaudiohobby 08:05:32 02/06/07 (1)
- Re: Perhaps You're Right - thetubeguy1954 10:36:43 02/06/07 (0)
- Re: Perhaps You're Right - andy19191 05:07:00 02/06/07 (2)
- Do you consider yourself to be an "objective audiophile" or a "non-audiophile"? - AJinFLA 16:54:06 02/06/07 (1)
- Re: Do you consider yourself to be an "objective audiophile" or a "non-audiophile"? - andy19191 01:32:12 02/07/07 (0)
- You're rare but not alone - kerr 13:35:21 02/03/07 (10)
- Re: You're alone but not rare - AJinFLA 18:31:56 02/05/07 (1)
- Wow! You made sense! - kerr 07:34:42 02/06/07 (0)
- You guys will do just about anything to avoid actually proving you can detect what you say you can. - Pat D 18:01:02 02/05/07 (7)
- I've already proven it! - kerr 07:29:03 02/06/07 (6)
- Hardly. The burden of proof is on those who make the claim. We point out they haven't met it. (nt) - Pat D 07:53:24 02/06/07 (5)
- No One Is Under ANY Burden To Provide Proof To Others! - thetubeguy1954 06:25:47 02/07/07 (3)
- You don't understand burden of proof. - Pat D 12:02:04 02/08/07 (1)
- Pat D YOU Don't Understand That No One Is Under Any Burden To Provide You With Proof. - thetubeguy1954 11:53:50 02/09/07 (0)
- Exactly - kerr 07:51:05 02/07/07 (0)
- But we HAVE met the burden of proof. The only disagreement is to whom we carry that burden (nt) - kerr 08:32:05 02/06/07 (0)
- Umm... - kerr 11:49:09 02/02/07 (0)