@david_ten
I honestly don’t know if you were serious in giving teo’s posts props, given I have yet to see anything but what looks like irrelevant (or specious) drive-by philosophizing from him. Though I may certainly have missed some excellent posts by teo, virtually all I’ve seen (at least in these types of threads) fall pretty heavily into the geoffkait category.
What I see are vague attempts at establishing some elitism for those who
believe the tweakier side of high end audio - various versions of "those poor skeptical souls are unenlightened." E.g.:
And some of those who don’t like what skeptics have to say seem to fall for Teo’s faux-philosophical tone, noticing it’s disparagement of critics supports their own feelings, and think "wow...deep...and so right!"
But what I haven’t actually seen from Teo is an actual cogent argument, that would show his points are directly pertinent to, or act as an actually justified critique, of anyone’s points. In other words: I've yet to see Teo do anything other than raise vague strawmen.
But...hey...I could be wrong. Is Teo doing anything other than appealing to people’s biases with his vague put-downs of skepticism?
Can you point to the relevance of anything teo just wrote to anything I’ve written. Anything that shows I’ve claimed something untrue, or unreasonable, for instance?
I honestly don’t know if you were serious in giving teo’s posts props, given I have yet to see anything but what looks like irrelevant (or specious) drive-by philosophizing from him. Though I may certainly have missed some excellent posts by teo, virtually all I’ve seen (at least in these types of threads) fall pretty heavily into the geoffkait category.
What I see are vague attempts at establishing some elitism for those who
believe the tweakier side of high end audio - various versions of "those poor skeptical souls are unenlightened." E.g.:
It’s why we have such threads as cable debates. Some people live with an outward projection only, and some have a two way path of awareness, which is what is required to build a self beyond the basics.
And some of those who don’t like what skeptics have to say seem to fall for Teo’s faux-philosophical tone, noticing it’s disparagement of critics supports their own feelings, and think "wow...deep...and so right!"
But what I haven’t actually seen from Teo is an actual cogent argument, that would show his points are directly pertinent to, or act as an actually justified critique, of anyone’s points. In other words: I've yet to see Teo do anything other than raise vague strawmen.
But...hey...I could be wrong. Is Teo doing anything other than appealing to people’s biases with his vague put-downs of skepticism?
Can you point to the relevance of anything teo just wrote to anything I’ve written. Anything that shows I’ve claimed something untrue, or unreasonable, for instance?