In Reply to: I don't think the limited "science" of critics of the IC define what is "real" and what is not. posted by Norm on June 23, 2005 at 11:31:53:
demonstrates that the "How the Intelligent Chip Works - The Definitive Explanation" article as hype? But that has already been accompolished, the errors have been pointed out, and they have even been acknowledged by the author. Yet the author refuses to acknowledge the impact the errors has on his conclusion and instead engages in diversionary tactics to avoid addressing the issue. Even those on his side of the fence, as it were, seem to have abondoned the explanation and have reverted back to the I don't know how it works but it appears to do so stance.So please don't prattle on about science when all can see clearly that you are involved in what has to be one of the most manifestly obvious exercises of apologetics to disgrace this board. As far as the article being a harmless exercise in advertising hype perhaps you should spend some time trying to get the author to acknowledge such. That would truly allow us to put this sad chapter behing us. You'd still be left with I don't know how it works but it appears to do so which after all is the only credible stance put forward thus far.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- So the challenge is to come up with a 'hypothesis' that - bjh 11:59:50 06/23/05 (38)
- Re: "Hypothesis" is not my word... - geoffkait 12:25:23 06/23/05 (37)
- What do you play these games? The admission is on the public record! - bjh 12:51:39 06/23/05 (36)
- Re: You don't do very well on reading comprehension tests, do you? - geoffkait 14:25:22 06/23/05 (1)
- Then feel free to address the substance of the challenge. Prediction: You won't. nt - bjh 16:58:11 06/23/05 (0)
- Why should anyone take the challenge seriously, it is just prattling on about pseudo science, but - Norm 13:52:44 06/23/05 (33)
- Finally!!! - Ken Perkins 16:27:59 06/23/05 (29)
- Are you happy that it is selling well? nt - Norm 16:59:19 06/23/05 (28)
- Actually I'm not - Ken Perkins 17:18:06 06/23/05 (27)
- Re: Actually I'm not - RBP 17:26:33 06/24/05 (1)
- Re: Actually ... - Jim Willis 06:53:13 06/25/05 (0)
- OK Ken... - Wellfed 22:08:15 06/23/05 (24)
- The simple facts - Ken Perkins 05:21:31 06/24/05 (23)
- Is it a scam if it works? - Norm 11:14:47 06/24/05 (13)
- There is a little anecdotal evidence for you. (nt) - Al Sekela 14:34:27 06/24/05 (11)
- Certainly it is anecdotal evidence. It is no evidence to say it cannot work. nt - Norm 15:38:24 06/24/05 (10)
- Re: With one exception... - Jim Willis 06:47:46 06/25/05 (9)
- If a visual perception allows this judgment. nt - Norm 08:07:10 06/25/05 (8)
- Re: If a visual perception allows this judgment. nt - Jim Willis 12:15:04 06/25/05 (7)
- No, but what do they show or not show? What would we expect to see? nt - Norm 13:29:25 06/25/05 (6)
- We have the pics and a qualitive analysis... - KlausR. 08:10:54 06/26/05 (5)
- And to the counter, I must conclude that it does work and is not a scam - Norm 15:41:08 06/26/05 (4)
- Quantum material everywhere? - KlausR. 23:25:49 06/26/05 (3)
- Re: Quantum material everywhere? - Norm 06:36:29 06/28/05 (2)
- Franssen illusion - KlausR. 08:16:29 06/28/05 (1)
- Enough, no one else is probably paying attention, and we will never convince each other. nt - Norm 11:19:51 06/28/05 (0)
- Re: Is it a scam if it works? - Ken Perkins 13:15:28 06/24/05 (0)
- "No one in the media... have heard of it, worked with it or endorsed it." ROTFLOL! - clarkjohnsen 08:23:06 06/24/05 (8)
- Re: "No one in the media... have heard of it, worked with it or endorsed it." ROTFLOL! - Ken Perkins 09:01:42 06/24/05 (7)
- "Only the media that caters to and exploits audiophools like you." Let's see, that would be... - clarkjohnsen 09:32:10 06/28/05 (4)
- Seriously, talk to someone would you. You've lost it. You need help. Seriously. nt - - Ken Perkins 13:30:58 06/28/05 (3)
- So: It *is* Sound & Vision for you. We're glad to have confirmation. nt - clarkjohnsen 14:35:14 06/28/05 (2)
- Re: So: It *is* Sound & Vision for you. We're glad to have confirmation. nt - Ken Perkins 17:21:08 06/28/05 (1)
- "...one-liner hit and run posts and your whiney letter to Stereophile." Well let's just say... - clarkjohnsen 07:56:14 06/29/05 (0)
- Your other "points" were dull -- and have already been refuted. - clarkjohnsen 07:44:54 06/25/05 (1)
- Seriously, talk to someone would you. You've lost it. You need help. Seriously. nt - bjh 19:20:04 06/25/05 (0)
- ... with your money! HA HA HA nt - bjh 13:59:59 06/23/05 (2)
- probably not yours. Too bad! nt - Norm 14:13:49 06/23/05 (1)
- His loss, not ours. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:23:49 06/24/05 (0)