In article , Rob
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:

Also from the 'lay POV', I would like to say that the trouble with
these 'snake oil bashing' sessions is that they are never cut and
dried conclusive

Afraid you have missed the point of my posting(s). They are not what
you assert. They are to bring scientifically critical thinking to
assessing a document which is presented by its authors/publishers to
provide a 'scientific' basis for their claims.


Well, yes, and that's fine of course. As a few have pointed out, you are
using up a fair amount of energy before you've questioned the source
(Ben Duncan). Not rocket science, but not a bad place to start on your
critical thought?

The PDF gives a contact. I think I said in an earlier posting that I have
emailed that person asking various questions, and requesting more details.
Since they gave a contact I assumed that was the person they wanted any
questions to be sent to.

BTW I have just this minute had an email in reply from the contact.
That has supplied some more documentation. Not yet had a chance to
look at it, though.

Slainte

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html