PFO review (if we can call it that) of the CLC, with it's inescapable implication that the review system had always sounded like caca until the day the CLC showed up...I'm holding out until this fine work of masquerading fiction gets featured on Oprah. PFO review of another Peter Belt related product (with link to Belt website), logically contradicting the above-noted implication by virture of its earlier publication date. But this reviewer Carol Clark is nothing if not consistent (and suggestable). PFO defense of the place of faith in the audio religion Spaghetti monsters? Do they fly out of the butt? |
Zaikesman, the stuff you posted from PFO strains my credulity. I think of myself as empirical in the best sense of the word and that hearing a difference in an A/B demonstration is sufficient. Peter Belt's stuff, however, has never been available to me to complete such tests, so I have never tried any. I cringe when I read some reviews which ask for leaps of faith and merely trying the products. I heard the very positive impact of the IC in a demo at CES and have been using these since. I assume there is a scientific benefit to why they work and have made no great effort to keep up with the interplay between mystic explanations, scientific explanations, and simplistic criticisms of both by pseudo-scientists. But the pen is just going too far. The CLC, is somewhere in between. I had hoped for a demo at CES and understand why there was none. With the number of credible people embarrassing it, however, I may venture forth. With the Bent pen, however, there is little chance. |
