|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: Still waiting... posted by Jim Austin on March 20, 2007 at 08:48:57:
In a separate reply, I will give some of the anomalies you are requesting from within the world of audio.My brief reply, to an earlier posting of yours, (link below) was in exasperation because, contrary to what you said, I felt you were NOT grasping what I was trying to convey. In my struggle to convey my thoughts I wanted to point out that we (human beings) had never acquired the ability to 'deal with' (modern) electromagnetism and, I might add, plastics (different mixes of chemicals), man made materials etc - all things now common in the modern environment. You are quite right, these things have only been with us just over a hundred years ( plastics - different mixes of chemicals - only since around the 1920s). What YOU suggest is that because electromagnetism had never been a threat earlier in evolution, therefore we (human beings) do not now see it as a threat (as danger). Whereas my concept is that if we have (such as) a pulsing energy (caused by such as the modern level of electromagnetism), present in the environment, we therefore do not know how to 'deal with' it, therefore we cannot 'sign off' the environment as safe !! THIS is the crucial part of my concept. That we cannot 'sign off' our environment as 'safe'. And, because Nature dictates that if we (and the earliest of creatures) cannot 'sign off' the environment as 'safe', then we (they) must remain under tension. My use of a 'snake' as a quick illustration was, obviously, way out of your thought process because you ended up asking "Are we seeing the cable as a snake" i.e (using sight), whereas I am, most of the time, referring to a time in evolution when there were none of the senses as we know them. And, yet, the earliest of creatures could 'read/sense' their environment without these senses. So, Nature had some tricks up her sleeve !!!
So, how did Nature perform such tricks? How did Nature get the early creatures to sense their environment ? How did Nature get the early creatures to communicate with each other, both to communicate "Watch out there's danger about" and also to communicate "It's OK, you can relax, the danger has gone away" ? And to do this long before the senses as we know them evolved !! For the early creatures to be able to communicate, they had to have both some form of transmitter and some form of receptor - so what did Nature use ?
What WAS available within creatures was chemical concentrations and dilutions !! Is this how the early creatures communicated - by regulating their own chemicals and being receptive to other's chemical changes ?
To give one example. It is known that tobacco plants communicate - that when a tobacco plant is affected by the tobacco leaf virus, it can communicate to other (healthy) tobacco plants - to warn them ??? They cannot communicate by sight, nor by sound, nor by touch, nor by smell, nor by taste - so how do they do it ?
How does a shoal of fish turn 'as one'. instantaneously ? It cannot be by sound - by leader fish shouting "Turn left" or "Turn right" because by the time this (sound) instruction reached the fish at the back, it would be too late for them !!! It cannot be by leader fish using sight - by using semaphore signals - because by the time this instruction reached the fish at the back, it would be too late for them !! Ditto touch, taste, smell !!! And so on - and on.You asked "Why is (my example) a 'snake' on cable risers less threatening?" I used that as a way of trying to illustrate how there are degrees of 'tension'. That even though we are not 'programmed' to deal with electromagnetism (pulsing energy) as a threat, we are still attempting, somehow, to 'deal with it' by asking ourselves "What is that pulsing energy doing in our environment ?" That if you were then INTERPRETING the pulsing energy as "Watch out there's a Lion about", then you would react as though your life would be in danger - it is not what we SEE but HOW we are INTERPRETING what we sense !! Now, if we INTERPRET the pulsing energy as "Watch out there's a hedgehog about." Then the only thing in danger would be that our stash of food could be eaten. Therefore our life would not be in danger, we would be under slightly less tension, therefore we would (feel !!) more relaxed - creating less stress chemicals !!
What I was trying to point out is that it does not take much to change the energy pattern(s) to one(s) where we feel slightly less tension, therefore produce slightly less stress chemicals.You would be amazed Jim, at just what SMALL things can be done which can change our perception of our environment and which, in turn, can create a more 'reassuring' atmosphere which, in turn, allows a lessening of 'tension' which, in turn, can change the way our working memory constructs a 'sound picture'. What YOU and many other hundreds if not thousands of people have been doing, without realising it !!! Yes, you have heard changes in your sound but you have been struggling, stretching, bending, pushing, shoving conventional theories to try to find some sort of explanation - as to why what you had observed could possibly have affected the audio signal going through the system or could possibly have affected the acoustic air pressure waves in the room !!
The problem, Jim, in debating different understandings of a concept is that that is where it stays - a disagreement in understanding - rather than an attempt to find an explanation for people's observations !! To my knowledge, for decades, people have been describing changes to their sound which they have not been able to explain from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories. THIS is the problem we have to try to solve, THIS is what we have to struggle to try to explain, and constantly dismissing their experiences down to "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing" in no way addresses the problem. This dismissing of people's experiences denies them their intelligence - intelligence to be able to think about and then make a judgement as to whether what they had heard could be "Suggestion etc. Etc. Etc.".
To return to the early creatures and their reading/sensing of their environment. Were they 'sensing' chemical changes ? Different changes in chemical dilutions and concentrations giving 'danger' signals or giving 'reassuring' signals ? Could this be how Peter and I could sense a 'stress' chemical which, in turn, caused such a deterioration in the sound and then sense a 'reassuring' chemical which, in turn, gave such a unbelievable improvement in the sound ?
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
"You would be amazed Jim, at just what SMALL things can be done which can change our perception of our environment and which, in turn, can create a more 'reassuring' atmosphere which, in turn, allows a lessening of 'tension' which, in turn, can change the way our working memory constructs a 'sound picture'."I believe that more succinctly summarizes the Belt position than anything else I've ever read.
Thanks, May. Perhaps someday sooner than expected, the paradigm-obsessed audio "experts" in academe will... relax and listen.
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
That's more than some tweaky products do . . . .
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
She just presents a lot of motherhood statements about open-mindedness and scientific method, but she doesn't prove all her products do anything worth while.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
May,Thanks for your thoughtful message. Because I don't have much time, I'm intentionally engaging just a couple of points here.
First--because it's the most important point, IMO--I must take issue with this statement:
> > This dismissing of people's experiences denies them their intelligence - intelligence to be able to think about and then make a judgement as to whether what they had heard could be "Suggestion etc. Etc. Etc.". < <
I think this is exactly wrong--and this difference of interpretation probably lies at the root of our disagreement. To me there is nothing demeaning about the notion that our perceptions are fallible. It is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated repeatedly in the most rigorous way. It's true of me and it's true of you. I do not understand this reverence for (what amounts to subjective) perception. I do not know why you (and, certainly, others) would put what we perceive, or believe we perceive, on such a high pedestal. If this is an issue of human or individual dignity, then none of us have it.
Moving on...
Interestingly, I suspect there may be evidence one way or another about how species react to environments they have not adapted to, but I don't know the evolutionary literature well enough to know with certainty what the answer is. How do creatures respond to threats/influences they have not been evolutionarily programmed to deal with? (there is of course the whole separate issue of learned behavior...).
I BELIEVE the answer is that they ignore them and (if they are threats indeed) they--the oblivious prey--are eaten. This is one of the reasons why isolated populations are so vulnerable--they do not know enough to fear their new predators. But my understanding of this is anecdotal and incomplete. This remains an open--but, I suspect, answerable--question.
Finally, there really must be a mechanism for influencing the mind. It's true that we wouldn't necessarily have discovered it yet. But there are a couple of reasons, intellectually, to be wary of such a proposition. The first--and this is what I meant when I said before that the "threat field" you propose (though the phrase is mine) is "ethical"--is that it's nonspecific. The potential threats are diverse. What mode of influence--what mechanism--would work the same way for an electromagnetic field as it does for floor polish or carpet fibers? This would be unlike anything known to science in its ability to communicate.
The second reason for skepticism is that such things--hidden fields, hidden mass, hidden deities--have been proposed repeatedly in the history of science, and have consistently proven to be wrong. "Hidden mass" or energy theories have a logical defect in that they can explain any observation by putting the right mass or energy in the right place. They can explain anything and so therefore they explain nothing. (The phrase "hidden mass" refers to an alternative to Einstein's general relativity theory--I think it was from Ernst Mach but I could be wrong--that explained the anomalous precession of the perihelion by hypothesizing a massive object hidden behind the sun. Such a theory could explain anything if you set the amount and position of the mass just right. Einstein's theory, in contrast, made one very specific prediction, which happened to compare remarkably well with rigorous, quantitative observation. I think the agreement was to the 8th decimal place.).
The key fact remains, however, that no one has established that there are any anomalies to explain--unless you have undue faith in people's perceptions.
Jim,I'm only going to address one point of this discussion, ok?
May stated: This dismissing of people's experiences denies them their intelligence - intelligence to be able to think about and then make a judgement as to whether what they had heard could be "Suggestion etc. Etc. Etc."
To which you responded: I think this is exactly wrong--and this difference of interpretation probably lies at the root of our disagreement. To me there is nothing demeaning about the notion that our perceptions are fallible. It is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated repeatedly in the most rigorous way. It's true of me and it's true of you. I do not understand this reverence for (what amounts to subjective) perception. I do not know why you (and, certainly, others) would put what we perceive, or believe we perceive, on such a high pedestal.
I have a problem with your position. As a subjective listener I readily admit that our perceptions are fallible. After all illusionist play on that fallibility all the time. Why then should I or any other subjective listener take acception to your assertation that we're perhaps being fooled by our fallibilites? The problem lies when you and those who agree with your beliefs automatically assume we are being fooled. As much as you wish to claim this fallibility is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated repeatedly in the most rigorous way. It's also equally true that I nor anyone I know NEVER mistakes live music for recorded or visa versa! In the area of music, the human ear/brain combo is remarkably adept at recognizing the traits that make live music live music. It also equally adept at recognizing when those traits are missing and thus is listening to recorded music too!
Why then would it be so difficult to believe that some people might be more adept than others recognizing when more or less of these traits are present? Even Peter Aczel readily admits: "Thus, if a loudspeaker (and I add any other audio componenet) has a huge dip at 3 kHz, it will not sound like one with flat response to any ear, golden or tin, but only the experienced ear will quickly identify the problem. It’s like an automobile mechanic listening to engine sounds and knowing almost instantly what’s wrong. His hearing is no keener than yours; he just knows what to listen for.
You could do it too if you had dealt with as many engines as he has."That's all we're claiming too, Jim! We don't have "super" hearing abilities nor are we being decieved. We're just doing what any other rational music lover/audiophile knows ANYONE without any hearing disability can do. The difference between what subject listeners and those who want to proclaim subject listeners have "super" hearing abilities or are being decieved, is that subject listeners have just taken the time to train their ears. Thus it's through this training that they have developed the experience to know what to make of what they hear and then how to interpret it. Even Peter Aczel agrees with that! So whereas it's true that we are all falliable we're not as quite as falliable as many would like to claim we are. What I and I believe May and others take acception to is your quickness to believe we're automatically being decieved by our fallible perceptions, when we claim we hear something you might not believe we can hear, when it's equally possible that some of these people just have better trained ears...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Tubeguy,I respect your position. I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. I have myself argued that it's one thing to KNOW something and another thing to PROVE it. And that, here, is a key difference.
You have no obligation to anyone, least of all me, to prove to me that you really hear what you hear. And you're free to dismiss my objections as misguided or even offensive-though they are not intended to be, as I said.
Yet, as the saying goes (more or less), extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I would settle for ANY proof. And what May, and Geoff, are claiming is nothing if not extraordinary.
I stand by what I said. There's something deep in the human psyche that wants to believe in its own perceptions. And maybe, in your case, those perceptions are perfectly real. But those of us who haven't heard what you heard--or, anyway, who haven't been convinced that what we thought we heard was real--have other, simpler, more probable explanations to fall back on. I don't expect it to be a popular position, but there you go.
And by the way, I certainly accept that training the ear is possible. I have experienced it myself. I can easily identify things now that I may not even have heard a few years ago--when my ears were probably better but less well trained. But there's a world of difference between a dip at 3 kHz and a photo in the freezer. Yes, you can hear real differences, and whatever claims you make (or don't make) for yourself, I'm sure you can do so with considerable skill. But you--and me--also hear differences that aren't there.
Respectfully,
Jim,After reading your last post I'd like to say I also respect your position. Nor am I going to try to talk you out of it. As I stated previously I accept that we are fallible. You seem to be in partial agreement with my POV as I find I'm in partial agreement with your POV. It's this attitude on both our parts that helps foster a better understanding between the differing POVs.
In fact overall the only point you made that I'd disagree with completely is your statement of: you--and me--also hear differences that aren't there. I'm open to the possibility of that statement being true, but will have to disagree with it until it's been proven to me, personally that it is indeed a fact and not just an opinion. In any event, good listening to you Jim.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I'm just wondering what we're talking about: Just what is it that you hear that you believe in and I might not? Are you a "chip" proponent? Do you hear its effects? Or are you talking about (eg) cables? Because if it's cables, I won't even suggest that it's only in your mind. I have other thoughts about that--not original, I'm sure--that I'm not quite ready to share. But the point is that, despite what some folks on AA would have other folks believe, there's a world of difference, technically, between cables having a particular sound and little chips permanently making CDs sound better.
Jim,I was talking specifically about wires. I don't mean to speak against John Curl, I have great respect for his work having previously owned the JC-2 and ML-2 audio components he designed. I have to be honest and state having not heard the "chip" I have difficulty understanding how it is supposed to actually do anything. Thus I'm very skeptical of the "chip" while remaining open-minded that it could possibly work.
The reason I try to stay open-minded to tweaks I don't understand is because many years back I visited Leo Oxley a rep for Hartley speakers in Connecticut at that time. He played a tubed Acoustic Research amp and preamp for me and my friend Rick. While the music was playing Leo placed a VPI Magic Brick on the amp's transformer and asked us if we heard a difference. I said no and Leo said keep listening. Well I listened and listened straining to hear a difference, but I just couldn't.
After 15-20mins Leo asked once again if we hear a difference. I said no and this time Leo said, OK I might as well remove it then and BAM! As soon as he took the VPI Magic Brick off the amp's transformer the sound got hazy and a lot less clear. Whatever the Magic Brick did, it did so slowly I couldn't hear the change, but damn it definitely did something. I think it either damped the transformer or possibly absorbed magnetic fields???? I honestly don't know what it did but it sure did do it. That experience forever changed my opinion about tweaks.
Sure I'm skeptical about "chips" and the such, but try to remain open-minded as well...
and it pisses me off that I can't figure out if it is in my mind or is real (you know I think the very concept of DBTs for audio is flawed, so I won't entertain one in this case!). I am firmly in the camp that believes there are things that can happen that appear irrational or against known scientific concepts, but I still think I can smell a scam. Hence my complete dismissal of Mr. Kait's "products." Remember that scene in The Jerk (Steve Martin at his best) where his "father" shows him a can of Shine-ola and a pile of dogshit???Cheers to you Tom. Amazing how even when these threads start out with gobs of rancor, one can find a nice piece of conversation hidden somewhere down the line...;)
Now it's back to a little frolic on the logic lawn with Andy19191......d'oh!
Hello Robert,In the case of the VPI Magic Brick, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it did something very audible & for the better! I'll also readily admit I ONLY have my beliefs of what it did, which are: 1) It dampened the transformer's vibrations & 2) It affects the magnetic field around the transformer. For all the naysayers I KNOW, not believe it's wasn't "expectation" bias or me fooling myself into believing I heard something that didn't exist in this case! How do I know? I know because I didn't hear a damn thing when I was told I'd hear a difference & when I expected to hear a difference. Instead I heard a difference when Leo removed the brick, I believed the test was over and didn't expect to hear anything different!
I just did a search on VPI's Magic Brick and found on diyAudio Forum this comment by BHD that basically agrees with my POV. BHD stated: "Actually, I think it affects the magnetic field of the power transformer, becuase it's not directly on the transformer itself, it's on the chassis - and it cuts the vibration of the power transformer even when I'm holding it just *above* the chassis. You can feel the reduction of vibration in the chassis and you can hear it as well." Here's a link to his comment: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=431049
Also according to a review in Postive Feedback the VPI Magic Brick as well as the Sakti Stone & Quantum Physics Noise Disrupter are absorbing EMI noise. The complete review can be seen here: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/quantum.htm
But finally I found an article on Six Moons wherein the author wrote: "Let's get one thing straight right away: There's very little of mystery about the Brick. It's a nicely dove-tailed wooden block that frames a heart of laminated iron in a transformer-type core. In Mr. Weisfeld's own words, "The main idea was to redirect the flux lines away from the chassis and remove the many eddy currents it would produce. I think [the Brick] was doing this quite well, plus [providing the additional benefits of] the mass damping of the concentrated weight." Harry, ever the engineer, sure ain't speaking lightly of "concentrated weight". This innocuous looking, 4-7/8" x 3-7/8" x 2-5/16" block of blonde wood weighs in for the fight at an impressive 8lbs" Here's a link to that article: http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge1/edge1.html
So it would appear that my beliefs about the Magic Brick were indeed correct. Like you Robert I remain skeptical about "chips" and tweaks of that sort. That doesn't mean they cannot possibly work, it simply means it would have to be proven to me that it does!
While I don't discount your experiences tubeguy, consider another one. You say the VPI bricks weigh 8lbs. My audio dealer recently told me that he'd tried these, and while they had an effect, they also tried putting a dead weight on the amp, and it had the same effect.And those Shakti things? (Are they the one's that look like large wooden candleabras?). They cost maybe $1500, and he said they improved things, but that the effect was nominal - he couldn't sell them because he couldn't stand behind them. He told me that a potted plant about the same height as the candleabras actually had a better effect than the audio product. 2nd hand info yes, but perhaps worth considering.
Hi Posy,I'm 100% sure that the weight itself played a part in damping the transformers and/or chassis. However I also believe these devices are somehow effecting the magentic field around them as well. I suppose that's why people claim there are differences in the VPI magic brick, the Shakti stone and the Quantum Physics noise disrupter, i.e. amount of weight of each device and how it effects the magnetic field around the transformers.
I admit your theory sounds plausible. I have not attempted to use just an object of some weight on my amp's transformers. I also don't own any of the previously mentioned devices to compare with a heavy object of given weight. I wonder did your friend hear a difference immediately when he put the Shakti stone on the amps, or did he notice after some time or after removing them?
Everyone I know personally who has used any of these devices only noticed an effect after some decent amount of time passed or after removing them (IMHO that's the best way. Leave them on for about 20mins and just keep listening. Then while a song is still playing have someone remove the device from the transformer --- BAM! That's when you'll hear what it was doing, after it's gone!) Just like the Joni Mitchell song says, don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you had till it's gone...
Maybe Robert will let me try his Shakti stone. If he does I'll try comparing it against something of equal weight and see if I hear any differences.
Good listening to you Posy, Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
> > I admit your theory sounds plausible. I have not attempted to use just an object of some weight on my amp's transformers. I also don't own any of the previously mentioned devices to compare with a heavy object of given weight. I wonder did your friend hear a difference immediately when he put the Shakti stone on the amps, or did he notice after some time or after removing them? < <He didn't say, I only know that he was evaluating them for possible consideration of including the item in his dealership, and they found it no better than regular weight. I saw the large wooden Shakti candleabras in the showroom, but never listened to them myself. Nor have I listened to any VPI magic bricks. I have in the past however, tested dead weight (like regular stone bricks) on top of my cd player or amp. I didn't like the effect of that, it made the music sound "squashed", just like the visual effect. That is -not- meant as an evaluation of VPI's product or any other, and I did not place mine on the transformer either. I know the VPI product is alleged to have an effect on EMI, which a brick wouldn't, and I don't know if the resonance tuning effect of the weight is even intentional with the magic bricks.
> > Everyone I know personally who has used any of these devices only noticed an effect after some decent amount of time passed or after removing them (IMHO that's the best way. Leave them on for about 20mins and just keep listening. Then while a song is still playing have someone remove the device from the transformer --- BAM! That's when you'll hear what it was doing, after it's gone!) Just like the Joni Mitchell song says, don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you had till it's gone... < <
Yup, she was right. I know the PWB stuff -really- has that kind of effect, more than anything else I've ever tried. That is, removing it can for many, have a more noticeable influence on the sound than the initial change of installing it.
Hello Again Posy,I found your statement about testing dead weight like a regular stone brick on top of an audio component to be quite interesting. I never quite understood how an electronic chassis could be over-damped. One would think that the deader i.e., less resonant an audio component's chassis is, the less it could possible editorlize the music being reproduced.
So it would seem logical that the more weigh added (provided it didn't damage the chassis in any way) the less resonant the audio component would be, and the less it would effect the music. Yet I've heard others say exactly what you did about the music's sound being "squashed", as if the dynamics have been removed and the soundstage collapsed, when adding what I believe must be too much weight to a audio component's chassis. Personally I cannot understand why this would occur and I'd be very interested if anyone could offer any intelligent reasons for why it does.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I don't think you're killing resonances here, so much as you're tuning them. The resonances are still there, but of a different frequency. Tuning resonances can change the sound a million different ways. (I can hear the sound change from moving a dime on a loudspeaker by a mm or so, so consider that as one of a million different ways). Point being, "changing" the sound is easy. Changing it so that it's entirely an improvement is much, much harder. Whether it's a brick or a dime, I've not been able to do that with dead weight on top of my gear (unless the device was capable of producing good sound in itself, in which case, I wouldn't be referring to it as "dead weight").
$10,000 says you couldn't hear the effect of moving a coin on top of a speaker unless it was moved to a spot where the coin rattled (from a spot where it had not rattled).I believe this extraordinary self-serving boast about your hearing ability is pure fiction.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Oh wait, the Audio Asylum already exists. Never mind.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
The Shakti stone made it worse, but I didn'y notice anything at all until I removed it after 3 weeks. Besides, the only "support group" for audio that I'm engaged with is here, and this is growing mighty thin.If you weren't always such a turd in the punchbowl around here, I'd send it to you for your own experiment. But that would imply that I respect your thoughts and that I would value your conclusions. Neither of those positions is likely given your bully-of-the-sandbox behavior.
RY - The Shakti stone made it worse, but I didn'y notice anything at all until I removed it after 3 weeks. Besides, the only "support group" for audio that I'm engaged with is here, and this is growing mighty thin.
If you weren't always such a turd in the punchbowl around here, I'd send it to you for your own experiment. But that would imply that I respect your thoughts and that I would value your conclusions. Neither of those positions is likely given your bully-of-the-sandbox behavior.Thanks but no thanks Robert. Things like the Shakti are geared more towards yourself and thedubeguy. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have a very real effect on you. It's supposed to. I also have no doubt that the folks who fall to the ground writhing from voodoo spells are feeling very real effects. That is precisely how things are supposed to work. Incredibly strong minds that are not propped up by crutches will certainly experience things like this.
Mine is far to weak to support the Shakti or the Magic brick that affected my good friend Tom.
Good luck with your endeavors and payments towards these great causes.
Folks like Kait and Belt need strong minds like yours to form the symbiotic relationship of Audiophilia supply and demand.
Enjoy.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Too bad you didn't more than glance at my post. You might have noticed a few things.The Shakti wsa a gift from someone who wanted to see how I would respond. I didn't buy it, nor did I want it.
I was surprised because it had an effect. It made it worse. Noticeable only over time, and when it was removed. You do know that there are "components" inside one, don't you? (This has been discussed on AA ad nauseum.) You may also remember that if it hadn't been for your disfunctional persona, I would gladly have sent it to you for a thorough debunking. MIght have been interesting to see if you could actually do it.
I have no "tweaks" in my system.
In case you hadn't read any of them (or in case you don't have a memory), my posts with Mr. Kait have been less than cordial. It is my opinion that he is a a classic old-school huckster. May Belt doesn't deserve my attention.
Nor do you. Your quips and parries aren't humorous: some are mean-spirited childish attacks, others just fall flat. You're certainly not as interesting as Soundmind. At least he had ideas worth debating.
RY - Too bad you didn't more than glance at my post. You might have noticed a few things.I've stepped in dog crap without "noticing things" before, so forgive me.
RY - The Shakti wsa a gift from someone who wanted to see how I would respond. I didn't buy it, nor did I want it.
I got a voodoo doll once, with the suggestion that putting it near my stereo would affect the sound. But of course, I didn't try it, since my science based education allows me to comprehend stupid rubbish when I see it.
RY - I was surprised because it had an effect. It made it worse.
I'm not surprised.
RY - Noticeable only over time,
You have absolutely no clue about psycho-acoustics or auditory memory do you? Of course not. Nor should you. Right, carry on.
RY - and when it was removed.
So you did not notice an immediate detrimental effect, until it was removed, then you noticed? Hmmm, doesn't sound like your ears are very well trained or "golden" after all LOL.
RY - You do know that there are "components" inside one, don't you? (This has been discussed on AA ad nauseum.)
No, I was not aware, nor was I aware of what spices, roots and chicken feet make up a voodoo doll, since I really don't care to know. It won't affect my mind either way.
RY - You may also remember that if it hadn't been for your disfunctional persona, I would gladly have sent it to you for a thorough debunking.
What purpose would that have served? Would you like me to debunk 2+2=5 too? I have more entertaining things to do with my dysfunctional pals here, like you and tubey.
RY - MIght have been interesting to see if you could actually do it.
Do what? What is interesting in me throwing out garbage, on trash collection day?
RY - I have no "tweaks" in my system.
You have awareness of what "tweaks" are? You can't even spell the one's in your system? I'll link the spelling for you below LOL. Do you know that weak minded folks *never* consider or assess themselves to be weak minded? Don't think about that too much :-).
RY - In case you hadn't read any of them (or in case you don't have a memory)
No, I generally don't read through *all* the nonsense here, including your posts.
RY - my posts with Mr. Kait have been less than cordial. It is my opinion that he is a a classic old-school huckster. May Belt doesn't deserve my attention.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.
RY - Nor do you. Your quips and parries aren't humorous: some are mean-spirited childish attacks, others just fall flat.
I am deeply concerned with this. No, really. No one is laughing other than me? Damn.
RY - You're certainly not as interesting as Soundmind. At least he had ideas worth debating.
He tried arguing from a scientific point of view with anti-science loons like yourself, on an audiophile website of all things. An utter waste of time. Where did it get him?
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
"RY - Too bad you didn't more than glance at my post. You might have noticed a few things.I've stepped in dog crap without "noticing things" before, so forgive me."
Very nice, AJ. That's the kind of comment that I'm certain led to your troubles with the neighboring kids "growing up" (I use the term very generally).
"RY - The Shakti wsa a gift from someone who wanted to see how I would respond. I didn't buy it, nor did I want it.I got a voodoo doll once, with the suggestion that putting it near my stereo would affect the sound. But of course, I didn't try it, since my science based education allows me to comprehend stupid rubbish when I see it.
RY - I was surprised because it had an effect. It made it worse.
I'm not surprised."
You have stepped in your own this time, AJ. You acknowledge it had an effect. Why would it if your "science based education" (a claim I have serious doubts about) tells you it must be "stupid rubbish."
"RY - You may also remember that if it hadn't been for your disfunctional persona, I would gladly have sent it to you for a thorough debunking.What purpose would that have served? Would you like me to debunk 2+2=5 too? I have more entertaining things to do with my dysfunctional pals here, like you and tubey."
Dysfunctional? How you got to that conclusion must have something to do with your "science based education" no doubt. You don't have a post at hand that shows me being dysfunctional, do you? Guess that just makes this another in a long line of examples of your borish taunting.
"RY - I have no "tweaks" in my system.
You have awareness of what "tweaks" are? You can't even spell the one's in your system? I'll link the spelling for you below LOL. Do you know that weak minded folks *never* consider or assess themselves to be weak minded? Don't think about that too much :-)."
A couple of things: first, thank you for correcting my spelling. Did I add an extra "t" to Shunyata? I'll correct that as soon as I can. We're fortunate to have someone as helpful as yourself to point out that spelling is more important than content. However, I'm not as caring, so I have no problem pointing out to you that the use of an apostrophe to signify pthe plural condition is entirely incorrect. You have constructed the possesive.
Now to content: I know what tweaks are, but do you? Power cords aren't tweaks, they're just power cords. Surely your "science based education" gave you the tools to understand the link from your wall outlet to your "amp." I would say that "tweak" is necessary, and I'll bet you have a power cord or two as well. I have no Geoff Kait "product," no green pens, no foamcore headshell mounts, no ceramic cable elevators, no shun mook mumbo jumbo. I'm as amazed at auudiophile gullibility as you are, but you have somehow deduced that I'm "dysfunctional" and "anti-science." I think you need to reassess your own procedures for arriving at conclusions. They're faulty. Read your second-to-last sentence in the paragraph referenced above: pay attention.
"RY - You're certainly not as interesting as Soundmind. At least he had ideas worth debating.He tried arguing from a scientific point of view with anti-science loons like yourself, on an audiophile website of all things. An utter waste of time. Where did it get him?"
Sorry AJ. Wrong again. We never argued about content, as I've never taken an "anti-science" position. Soundmind was a pedantic bully. He's not here because he was an ass: too bad, because unlike you, he offered content that is sorely missed.
The last word is yours, AJ. The record of your posts stands as a testament to bad behavior. With all the anger you have coursing through your veins, I'd be surprised if you actually enjoyed this hobby at all. That's a sad thing, as there is a lot of goodness out there to enjoy. Good luck working that out.
Hello Robert,I have a question is possible that you'd allow me to try your Shakti stone? I'd like to do a test of it VS an object of equal weight. I'm curious how much of the effect is due to mass and how much is due to it's effecting the magnetic field around the transformer.
Now remember your advice you gave me about this idiot from Tampax, Fla. POLLYinFLA is an arrogant ass. Look at how often his posts are only taunting others in the name of "joking" & needling" with no real audio content to them. It's obvious he cannot hear squat diddly. Just think about it. He uses some bastardized version of Dr Linkwitz's Orions which WAS carefully designed product before Polly got his hands on it. I guess POLLYinFLA with his extensive scientific high school education believes he can just change what he wants to willy-nilly and it will be an improvement. Now to these god-awful things he calls speakers, he attaches 3 different pro-solid state amps, uses anything available for wires (cheaper the better) and then tops that off with copious amounts of equalization. Yessiree, that's exactly what every other 16 year old has in their basement too!
Unfortunately for all of us here in PHP we have to deal with this sick demented and scared little boy who lives in Polly's body. Safe behind the anonymity his moniker Polly can now get back at everyone who picked on him and beat him up at school. Now at home he's finally able to make everyone pay who disagrees with him. He certainly lives up to his motto: Always negative NOTHING good to say, THAT'S the POLLYinFLA way!
Forget him Robert, he'll only drag you down.
Thetubeguy1954"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Sometimes it's hard to take one's own advice. ;)
I think you have my e-mail address. Send me your mailing address and I'll send the Shakti to you. I may peel the back of of it to see what's in there. My guess is that it is steel laminations like a transformer...
Robert,Unlike POLLYinFLA I don't require the "safety" of an audio forum's moniker. I'm NOT afraid to admit what my real name is nor am I afraid to admit what my real address is. That's what happens when someone like myself behaves like a grown man should and does. POLLYinFLA on the other hand behaves like a scared, sick, demented little 12 year old boy trapped in a man's body. His constant childish taunts desperately requires the "safety" the anonymity of a moniker provides. Otherwise somewhere, someday, when Polly least expects it, someone might actually want to pay him a visit to discuss just how funny all his "joking" & "needling" really was to them! That way they can laugh about it all together.
But Polly really doesn't want to happen. For some strange reason Polly feels that if someone wants to talk with him face-to-face about his "joking" & "needling" they are threatening him. I cannot imagine why Polly would feel this way if he was honestly "joking" & "needling" as he claims. After all "if" all Polly's taunts were honestly simple "joking" & "needling" like he claims they are, how or why would anyone possibly be offended? Is it possible that in his heart Polly knows he really wasn't "joking" & "needling" and perhaps that is what scares him? Or is it possible that Polly has been told by some of the people that are the brunt of his "joking" & "needling" that it doesn't feel like "joking" & "needling" to them? Is it possible that after being told this, Polly simple said to himself "I don't care how they feel about what I say." and just continued taunting some people anyway knowing they didn't recieve his comments as "joking" & "needling?"
Fortunately for POLLYinFLA I happen consider him to be just like an itch I cannot scratch or like a dog barking late at night when I'm trying to sleep, i.e. he's a certainly a great big pain-in-the-ass but he's also definitely he's not even worthy of my time and effort it would take to actually threaten him. Besides based on how Polly posts I honestly believe he's has the mental capacity of a child and I don't believe anyone should threaten children. Anyone who might want to visit Polly should consider that IMHO Polly would probably behave like a little girl and call the police..."Help me please I'm being threatened, by a great big man!" Hopefully one day HEMORRHOIDinFLA will grow up, act like a man, and actually start discussing different audio POVs as opposed to constantly taunting and insulting everyone whom he disagrees with. Hopefully that will happen, but me? I'm definitely not holding my breath...
My address is:
Tom Scata
1450 Marsh Creek Ln
Orlando, Fla. 32828Email is:
thetubeguy(at)yahoo.com
you two have more in common than differences. Can I suggest forming an alliance against me and May Belt? You could call it, oh, I don't know, something like the Knucklehead Alliance. Yeah, that seems about right.
That was a much funnier read than the description of how some of your "products" work. Or maybe I just don't get the humor.
Perhaps you haven't noticed this yet, but except for those unscrupulous individuals who are just here to make a buck, the participants in these fora are less likely to have problems with each other over that which brought us all here (a love of recorded music) than they are over the personality disorders that become glaringly obvious when filtered over the 'net.There's really no need to ally against you and Mrs. Belt. You two already do a superb job of ridiculing whatever credibility you might ever have had. Reading your posts is a bit like watching a car-wreck: gruesome and sad, but fascinating nonetheless.
I think "Knucklehead Alliance" is already taken, by the way. It's a sub-set of Tweaks, and is specifically identified as the home of tweakers who simply refuse to acknowledge that they were taken.
Cordially back,
Mr. Young
Yaaaawn
Maybe you realized you had me confused with AJ? Really, Geoff: "ninth grade personal attacks and such???" What post were you reading? I guess I'll accept the act of deletion as a de facto apology.
Actually, now that you bring it up, I would not retract the "ninth grade personal attacks" portion of the post I deleted. Generally speaking, I find your posts boring and unoriginal.
I didn't "bring it up, Geoff," you did. And clearly either you don't read my posts, or you have missused "unoriginal." There aren't many people here calling for a curbing of the type of bad behavior AJ participates in. If you had read the thread in question, you'd understand that. But be that as it is, since you find my posts so "boring and unoriginal," why not go pick on someone who has a higher than 9th grade comprehension level? Really being a bit unfair here, ae you?I hope your days are nice, as I'm sure you have a lot of trouble sleeping at night.
You seem to have some compulsion to keep responding on this thread. You will make a good stalker if you work a little harder on it, like adding a little more zip and originality to your posts.You display the same attributes you accuse AJ of in terms of personal attacks without substance, which is why I posted on this thread to begin with.
!
Robert,POLLYinFLA thinks of himself as a hot shit sitting in a champagne glass when the sad reality is he's only lukewarm diarrhea floating in a dixie cup!
Go back and read his posts. He seldom if ever says anything intelligent about audio. If when he isn't being hateful in the guise of "joking" & needling" he talks like some uneducated moron. His comments here: "Nice looking woofers. Wonder who makes?" sounds like something a 6 year old would say instead of an adult.
POLLYinFLA typically prefers to berate & disparage anything & anyone that doesn't line up with his views on audio. This is all done in a "joking & needling" manner, or so he claims. As I said many times before POLLYinFLA acts like a sick child that likes to torment animals. I can see him as a child prodding a pitbull with stick feeling secure in the knowledge that the chain will protect him. Just like he feels safe prodding people here on PHP feeling secure in the knowledge that his moniker anonymity will protect him.
Well one day the chain is going to break or he'll misjudge it's length and the dog will get him. I can see him now running home crying to mommy "I was only petting the dog" just like he says to me "I was only joking & needling you." I don't know how many times this idiot needs to be told, IF the person you are "joking & needling" doesn't recieve it as "joking & needling" it ceases to be so!
Yet in POLLYinFLA's sick, twisted, demented mind he believes those he irritates are the ones who needs therapy. This demented horses ass is the one who gets enjoyment out of provoking people and then telling them they have anger problems. The idiot doesn't even see the difference between anger and being irritated. I see him as an irritating little child. You don't get angry with an irritating child, you discipline them! I'd love to see this sick SOB stand in a crowd of some hate group and shout out something they'd find offensive and then tell them I was only "joking" & needling" you. Of course we all know that would never happen. POLLYinFLA only "jokes" & "needles" when a length of chain or PC anonymity prevents those from telling who's actually doing it.
After I've pointed out his atrocious behavior to him many times, and not seeing any change whatsoever in his postings, I'm not sure there is anything to be gained by any further discourse.Many kids who were playground bullies grew up and moved into civil society. He can't seem to. Or alternatively, he never was a bully growing up: he could have been a victim, who only now has found the opportunity get back at the world, an opportunity granted only by the anonymity of the internet. Either way, I feel sorry for him. He can't seem to come to grips with the concept of why there are basic rules of behavior that form the core of civilized society, nor can he understand that this hobby we're in is supposed to be fun.
If I were you (and believe me, I'll do my best to take my own advice here), I'd refrain from replying to him AT ALL. No more name-calling, no more defense against ridiculous statements. Just let it go. Those people with whom you would probably enjoy listening to music already know were you're coming from: those with whom you would never spend time, like PatD or AJinFLA, well, who cares what they think or post??
It does seem that you finally got to one of them though, as two of your posts wound up in Whiner's, even after generating quite a long thread-count. Someone must have complained...Anyway, Tom, I hope you can ignore these guys: time is better spent listening to music. Me, I'll try to do the same....
Robert,I agree with you 100%. POLLYinFLA besides being obnoxious with his constant taunts in the name of "joking" & "needling" is acting like a demented child. He must have been the victim as child like you suggested, because I gave him my real name and address so he could act like a man and say these comments to my face. How did POLLYinFLA react to that? He immediately whined to everyone that I was threatening him.
I'm going to do my best to follow your advice and try to ignore this pain-in-the-ass. Like I said he doesn't make me angery like he wants so desperately believe he does. POLLYinFLA is just irritating like an itch you cannot reach to scratch. Or dog constantly barking at night when you want to sleep.
It did both. I had a 'brick' once, and it seemed to work OK for me as well. It had a slug of iron inside.
Chips or cables, is there really a difference? Historically, no. Cables were originally laughed at, and even disbarred by audio editors from consideration. People privately worked in the background anyway, and now at least some cable differences are given some credibility by most audio magazines. And so it goes!
I agree.
Wow, Jim. I have just seen your reply to someone calling themselves Posy Rorer.For anyone who knows me, it is absolutely hilarious that I should 'dig someone up to fight my battles for me' !! Too right Jim. I can fight my own battles. As for saving face for me - unbelievable !! As for suggesting that I asked someone to defend me - unbelievable !!
It looks to me as though the person calling themselves Posy Rorer might be someone who has a grasp - an understanding of what goes on in nature.There IS a mechanism Jim. Acting on the 'sound' information travelling through the hearing mechanism - and that is 'stress chemicals' !! Stress chemicals caused by us (human beings) not being able to 'sign off' the environment as 'safe'.
In a quick attempt to bring in some of the anomalies I have just promised you I will use an example of something you, yourself, use.
I understand that you use Real Traps and Mondo Traps sound absorbers. Presumably you use them and believe they work from an acoustic point of view ?
Now, leave these sound absorbers in exactly the same (acoustic) position they are in. With exactly the same type of material but change the COLOUR of the material. Then listen. Each time you change the colour of the material, the sound will change !!! Explain that anomaly. Exactly the same acoustics in the room but different sounds !! If any acoustic measurements had been taken in the room, then any measurements taken using the different colours would be exactly the same, there would be no changes in the acoustic measurements - only changes in the sound. Explain that from within acoustic theory.Ditto with the Furutech Room Diffusers, used by Wes Phillips.
Or, let us look at the Ayre Myrtle Blocks placed under equipment which John Atkinson uses, where John acknowledges that they 'improve the sound' and where John says ""Don't ask me why they have an effect". Presumably they are expected to be (somehow or other) dealing with vibrations - and having an effect on the signal going through the equipment.
Try moving these Ayre Myrtle Blocks from underneath the item of equipment being played and placing them under an identical piece of equipment but which is just sitting, passively, on a shelf - NOT connected to the power supply and NOT connected to the audio system - just sitting there passively. The 'improvement in the sound' will STILL be there !! Explain that anomaly from within electronic theory.Similarly with the Shakti Stone which such as Barry Willis and Wes Phillips use. As I understand it, the makers of the Shakti Stone claim that there is an adverse energy pattern generated by a piece of equipment which, somehow or other, doubles back on itself to interfere with the actual audio signal going through that equipment. That the circuit inside the Shakti Stone, when placed on top of that equipment, is activated by this external (surrounding) energy and then, in turn, neutralises that adverse energy pattern, stopping it interfering with the audio signal, so giving an improvement in the sound.
Now, take the Shakti Stone off the piece of equipment being played and place it on an identical piece of equipment sitting passively on a shelf - NOT connected to the power supply and NOT connected to the audio system - just sitting passively on a shelf. The same improvement in the sound will still be there!! Explain that anomaly from within electronic theory !!
How many more examples do you want Jim, I have 25 years of accumulated ones !! That is why I "know my onions", that is why I can recognise other people's experiences when they describe them and that is why I can recognise when other people have NOT had those same experiences.
Regards,
May Belt.
May,Now to the substance:
> > Acting on the 'sound' information travelling through the hearing mechanism - and that is 'stress chemicals' !! Stress chemicals caused by us (human beings) not being able to 'sign off' the environment as 'safe'. < <
That's not what I mean. You're still missing what I mean by "mechanism."
Several days ago we resolved, I think, that it's not even necessary for us to be AWARE of the stressors in order for them to have an effect. Further, you agreed that the presence of the environmental changes need not be perceived even by the subconscious mind. Did I understand correctly?
And can I safely assume that we--people--are the source of those "stress chemicals"? Like pheromones, sort of?
But before our brains (or sweat glands, or thymus, or whatever the source of these chemicals) can produce those stress chemicals, they must be stimulated. Somehow the "threat" has to act on them. If there is no awareness, how do those sources of stress cause those chemicals to be emitted? There must be a causal link between the presence of a threat and the reaction to threat--in your proposal the creation or emission of these chemicals.
This is basic logic. I'm saying only that in order for their to be a link, there has to be a link. Nothing more. And if you acknowledge this--that something has to tie stimulus to response--you run into all sorts of other logical problems. And if you don't agree that there has to be a causal link, you're in effect saying there's causality without causality.
> > "What mode of influence--what mechanism--would work the same way for an electromagnetic field as it does for floor polish or carpet fibers? This would be unlike anything known to science in its ability to communicate." < <The "influence"., the "mechanism"., would be the pulsing electromagnetic energy and, with regards to the floor polish and carpet fibres - the influence would be the different mixtures of chemicals - present in the environment. You see Jim, you can ruin your sound by using certain floor polishes !!!
But you don't know that, do you ?> > "You're still missing what I mean by "mechanism." < <
Let me resort to a story again.
I know, you know and everyone and his uncle knows we (human beings) are aware of our territory and our boundary - and this is NOT because we can SEE a white picket fence !!But, if I state that concept and that you can 'treat' the water pipe, the gas pipe, the AC power cable, the TV aerial, the drainage pipe, all of which are 'breaking' your territory/boundary, then you Jim will demand "What is the mechanism by which we are aware of our territory/boundary ?"
What you do not seem to realise is that the concept (of being aware of our territory) did not come first and then Peter and I 'thought up' various treatments - it was the other way round. We suddenly did something to the water pipe, to the gas pipe etc and, suddenly, the sound was better !!! So, our immediate reaction was "What the hell is going on ?" (A very technical term, I believe, as I have heard electronic engineers use it often !!) From that point, 25 years ago, we have had to try to find an explanation to the question "What the hell is going on ?" Many other people reach a similar stage although from different experiences - you can see it in the sentences they use !!
This awareness of our territory/boundary must have been there, through millions of years of evolution, long before any 'white picket fence' !! The 'awareness' may have happened accidentally, it does not need a superior being to create it. One creature may have found that it could defend successfully a particularly defined area - was successful in doing so, survived and replicated and other creatures who were not able to do the same thing perished !! Classic Darwin's "Survival of the best fitted for that environment." So, that survival technique was replicated, and replicated and replicated !! As was the ability (with later herds, shoals, groups, flocks) to allow a 'leader' or 'sentinel' to 'be on guard' - to give signals of 'reassurance' - so that the rest of the herd, shoal, group, flock, could relax.
So, to demand now, today, what is the mechanism by which we 'know' our territory/boundary is like asking "What is the mechanism by which we know how to breath ?"
Yes, Jim, you are correct in that I state that you do not need to know that our devices and treatments are in the room for you to hear differences in the sound.
Regarding the previous reference to 'floor polish'. I can (or anyone else can), completely unknown to you, go into your room, treat the floor with the 'wrong' floor polish (chemical !!) and ruin your sound. Alternatively, completely unknown to you I can go into your room and treat the floor with the 'right kind' of chemical and give you a remarkable improvement in the sound. What I would be doing is using some of Nature's tricks - tricks similar to how the leader animal of a herd informs the other members of the herd to "Run like hell" or, alternatively, informs the other members of the herd "It's OK, you can relax."
This was Peter's brilliant lateral leap 25 years ago when he began to realise 'what must be going on'. That Nature must have numerous tricks up her sleeve - there to be found !! And, I might add, not reserved exclusively for Peter to find. Ed Meitner found one of them when in the early 1980s, parallel to what Peter was discovering at around the same time, Ed found that freezing things improved the sound !!! Enid Lumley was also describing some of the effects - what she called "gremlins" in her environment - only Enid struggled to try to fit what she was discovering into the conventional interpretation of "something affecting the audio signal or something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves". Enid only needed to have made the intellectual leap and realise that it was she who was being affected and she would have been there - parallel with Peter - in the early 1980s !!There does not seem any point in suggesting that you go to our home page and try some of the 'free' techniques we describe because, if you tried them and found that they gave you improvements in your sound, you would merely put it down to 'suggestion' because "May had suggested they would"!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,Actually, it's quite obvious that these theories you propose are attempts to explain something you observed. And it follows that I can pick apart your theories all I want to from a scientific standpoint (easy enough to do, but--I've realized--pretty pointless) and it doesn't change what you heard, or thought you heard.
I feel we've gone as far as I think we can go right now together, and I appreciate your patience. Since the "mechanisms" you propose make no physical sense, your suggestions are, to me, equivalent to paranormal claims. Can people see ghosts? Have people been abducted by aliens? Is it possible to transmit information directly via thoughts? Does god exist? There's no way to disprove any of these things, I'm not especially interested in doing so, and many people believe in them because, they say, they have experienced these things. None of them have convinced me--that would require something like proof--but I also don't expect them to care that I'm not convinced.
I've got a friend--a very smart guy, a retired college prof--who describes himself as a born-again Christian. He is not like many others who describe themselves that way. He is politically quite liberal (for what it's worth), despises our president, and is among the more thoughtful people I know. His religious beliefs are based on an experience he had once. I've never had such an experience, don't expect to--but I respect him too much to suggest, or to believe, that his deepest beliefs are wrong. I guess you'd say I'm a sort of agnostic in that narrow context. I defer judgment.
Yet the world is full of kooks, frauds, and charlatans--many out to make a buck from the open-mindedness of others and to exploit them in various ways--and they do not all deserve the same deference I pay to my friend. I guess I need to decide where to put you on that continuum. Or maybe I don't need to decide.
May,My sincere apologies for suggesting you might have put "Posy" up to it.
Even if these claims DID deny people their dignity, that fact would not make them untrue.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: