In article , Glenn Richards
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

But the problem is that those who say/believe they can then tend to
refuse to engage in a test whose protocol would enable us to obtain
results which would actually help us to decide if their 'faith' was
well founded or not...

Probably because the likes of Pinkerton persist on posting tirades of
abuse to anyone who says they can hear a difference. And aren't prepared
to lower themselves to his childish and juvenile level.

Oddy enough, although I seem not to be able to hear the kinds of
things you keep claiming, I can't recall ever calling you any of the
above.

There is no need whatsoever for anyone who wishes to engage in such a test
to have anything to do with Stewart. Thus the above does not seem to me to
be a sensible reason for anyone refusing to engage in such a test. The test
can be organised by anyone (or a small group) who understands the relevant
requirements, and the process/results observed and described according to
the relevant methods.

Indeed, if some of those who express the belief that they *can* hear such
differences were to engage in such tests, *and* the results supported their
claims, then this would be strong evidence which could be used to dismiss
what Stewart says. Thus it would be in your interest to engage in such a
test, regardless of any 'cash prize' that might be involved or not.

Being willing and able to engage in this way would also help rebut the
ideas that they refuse to do so out of:

1) A fear that that they are wrong and an unwillingness to face this
possibility.

2) Their claims being knowing 'lies'

3) That they reject the scientific method and rational approaches,
preferring to proceed on the basis of a 'personal faith' which selects and
rejects 'evidence' according to if it supports their beliefs of not.

You seem to be one of the fading minority that have the ability to
disagree with someone else's viewpoint and have it be just that, a
disagreement. I'd mistakenly credited Don Pearce with the same ability,
but recently he's proven himself to be little better than Pinkerton.
Which is sad, because he seems like an otherwise intelligent person.
(Don Pearce, I mean... Pinkerton comes across as a complete cretin.)

If you wish my approach to be more than a 'fading minority' view, then you
can help that process. IMHO The reason my POV tends to 'fade' is that
people see a sucession of others who make sweeping claims about 'audible
differences' which conflict with their own experience and understanding
*but* the claimants then refuse to engage in any tests which would really
shed some light on this matter.

Thus the root of the problem seems to me to rest with claimants who won't
then give any useful backing or support for what they claim. Given this I
can understand why people like Stewart lose patience and decide that the
claimants are 'idiots' or 'liars' even though my own approach is different.

Then again, this is Usenet, and on Usenet there are always two points of
view. Yours, and the incorrect one. ;-)

I was familiar with that long before usenet. :-) My Dad used to work on a
similar basis. However he was amenable to rational argument and evidence.
;-

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html