In Reply to: So the challenge is to come up with a 'hypothesis' that posted by bjh on June 23, 2005 at 11:59:50:
You are quite mistaken. I have neither ackowledged errors nor have errors of any significance been posted. The naysayers claim to have found error(s). So what else is new? The naysayers claimed the thing couldn't possibly work from day one, technically or in fact, and have been scrambling [in their way :-)] to mount a decent technical attack. Just more hot air and posturing from the naysayers, but not without its own special form of entertainment.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- 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)