MY SONIC LAB Cartridges

@nandric 

I note that you are very invested in philosophy, logic and reason.

I was wondering what thoughts you might have to explain why some folk sincerely believe they know what a product sounds like without ever having heard it, nor the system in which the proposed purchase is to be used.

Dear dover,  I realize the limitation of grammar with ''Subject (is)
Predicate'' sentence form while all kind of comparisons we use
assume ''relational statements'' like in our forum with ''better
than,,,'';  ''more important than...'' etc. relations . Those can't
be expressed with ''subject - predicate '' sentence form, To put
this otherwise  not everything can be expressed in terms of
properties or qualities of objects. 
Take for example expression ''brother'' . Everybody thinks to know
what this expression means. But ''brother'' is not some object
with specific properties. It is actually an place in family ordering.
It depends from the extension of the family who all are brothers
and sisters. In industrial countries ''family'' is reduced to ''household''
with ''dad , mom and kids'' but in  an  agricultural society family is
much larger and consequently  more names are invented to
name each member. I myself have no ''born brother'' but do have
many brothers and sisters in Serbia related to me via uncles , ants
etc. family of my ''dad line'' and my ''mother line''. Problem with
''names'' is that thy don't have always exact reference .

Dear dover, If you mean Lew by ''some folk'' I need to explain
his way of thinking. He usually make his assertion explicit
and deduce from those other statements. He of course also
assume that if his assertion (premise) are not true than
also deduced statement can't be true. This a kind of ''self-
evident'' precaution by theoretical thinking. I can't remember
that he ever ''claimed truth'' for his statements.  

@nandric
"some folk" in my post above is not Lew.
It is others who post definitive statements on products that they have never heard. 

Dear dover, I have seen Lewn reaction at your post and assumed
that he was your  ''target'',  That is the consequence of  unclear
reference . I even considered to involve Kant in our discussion
with his distinction between ''pure reason'' and ''experience'' in
order to explain ''the base'' or ''essence'' of mathematics. Anyway
 my intention was to proclaim logic as  ''pure reason'' and defend
my  friend lew as ''pure thinker'' who ''only reacted '' at statements
of others and not at their ''experience''. This way I would put you
by the ''empiricist '' (knowledge based on experience) and Lew
as ''theoretical thinker'' based on ''pure reason'' (grin).  This would
be my ''way out'' from the difficult position to chose between
two persons which I both like.