Ok teo,
Your previous post about Einstein and death threats was completely irrelevant. (And you’ll find a similar post to the one you made in virtually every pseudo-science forum. "They called X scientist crazy too, you know! Critiques of X claim are just being dogmatic!" If you think any of it amounted to a relevant critique of anything I’ve written here, you just haven’t been reading at all carefully).
You have been doing your best to cast aspersions on folks like myself for voicing some caution in the face of the claims made by the high end cable industry, retailers and audiophiles.
Note, btw, the author of the very paper you cited also includes similar skepticism in his conclusion:
AUTHOR OF PAPER: "The audio cable market certainly owes something to the appeal of audio jewellery but there is also, with little doubt, a significant element of sell-delusion on the part of consumers and probably also reviewers, retailers and manufacturers."
Of course you don’t quote that part ;-)
But at least in posting links to that paper, you are moving toward some specificity. But not quite yet.
The above post addresses your desires directly.
No it doesn’t. You are still posting stuff without making the direct connections - and hence actual argument - that I asked for.
Remember what I’d asked:
prof: 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?
First...you did not in fact show that what you previously wrote - in your "Eisntien" post - was a relevant critique of what I’ve written.
But as you’ve ignored that, now you’ve just posted a link to a single paper. So, please explain how that paper undermines the position I’ve taken here, or shows I’ve been unreasonable or claimed untruths. Can you do this...WITHOUT cherry-picking something I wrote while ignoring the context I’ve given my position in this thread?
That’s what I’m waiting for: for you to actually, specifically justify your critiques.
Thanks.
