Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , APR
wrote:

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

If you don't think that telling people they're not worth taking
seriously is being dismissive, then I come back to saying you're in
denial. And I say again, you won't change because you don't see this
and you will systematically continue as you have done, despite the
fact that obviously there are people who object to not being taken
seriously when what they are doing is genuinely and in good faith
providing the sort of comparative listening data that virtually
everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business.

Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what
they are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference
with respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you
seriously** or **I cannot take that seriously**

You put your finger on the key issue so far as I am concerned. The problem
I keep addressing is that in order to decide if a report/claim/assertion is
reliable we may need some assessable evidence and details of how the claim
was arrived at by the claimant.

This is nothing to do with doubting the honesty of the person making the
claim so far as I am concerned. I see no reason to feel that Andy (and
others) are knowingly saying falsehoods.

I have simply seen too many cases where what people claim turns out to be
wrong.


Really? Wrong in what way? How do you know they were wrong?




This may be because a phenomenon does not exist in some cases. But
in others it be because they have misinterpreted an experience which is
quite real and repeatable - but did not occur for the reasons they
assumed. Thus some observations may be correctly reported whilst the
causes assigned to them are not.


Can you provide us with the evidence to support this claim?


Scott