In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no
assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what
they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may
be, but of having no assessable information.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters.

The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend
entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex,
depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you
will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional
magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that
they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In
effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a
hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths
which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down
and enjoy the music.

The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information -
much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or
exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep
communications open, otherwise that point is lost.

The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have
no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the
specific case.

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