gdhal
Fair enough. Then, given the recent communication, I’d imagine you might consider extending an apology to me for using the word "fraud" numerous times. What we have is a simple disagreement as to how any kind of testing would be performed. No right or wrong per se, just a difference of opinion. Thanks.
>>>>OK, maybe it’s time to review the bidding. The reason I say it’s a “fraud” is not because gdhal is intentionally perpetrating a fraud or a hoax, at least as far as I know, but because of something fundamental to testing in general. Keep in mind blind tests are almost always presented by skeptics as PROOF that a particular device or idea is a hoax or false. Even though no test has yet been done. Uh, hel-loo! See the fallacy with the argument? So anyway, the fundamental flaw is that a single audio test, any test, even a test done with care and thoroughness, if the results are negative the conclusion cannot be drawn that the device or concept under test failed. The reason the single test with negative results has no meaning is because there are a great many things that can go wrong to produce negative results. I’m not even considering the case where the test is manipulated to produce negative results. I don’t even have to go there.
