In Reply to: I think that you need to consider also the effects of your beliefs posted by Norm on May 28, 2006 at 12:09:49:
>>But the real issue, I think, is why you care whether people delude themselves. Is it your responsibility to save them? Who appointed you? If you are out to stop hype to increase sales, lots of luck living in a capitalist society. If you want to justify why you don't buy certain products, save your time as we are not interested.<<...but the central one is that you presume, with your use of "we", to speak for everyone. You should have simply written "I am not interested," and I would The world is full of people who are eager to be deluded--a sucker born every minute, etc. The world is also full, as you suggest, of self-righteous missionary types determined to save these (and other) poor souls from themselves. I can't speak for AnalogBob but for myself, I tend to despise both types. But there's something very tricky--and very special--going on with this audio stuff. There is indeed truth beyond what we can measure, and in audio it all comes together. It's an intersection of science, emotion, and meaning. To me that makes it sacred, in my unreligious way. When something is sacred it deserves, not a lazy faith, but a real commitment. Ms. Belt believes what she says and has put energy into it. I think she's wrong, but I respect her passion.
But the attitude you put forward is pure laziness. "Leave us alone and let us believe whatever we want." That I do not respect.
Jim
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- A bundle of weak arguments - Jim Austin 16:59:24 05/28/06 (44)
- One very weak response - Norm 20:44:33 05/28/06 (31)
- Re: One very weak response - Jim Austin 04:30:06 05/29/06 (15)
- One very weak response redux - Charles Hansen 05:28:07 05/29/06 (3)
- Re: One very weak response redux - Jim Austin 08:45:51 05/29/06 (2)
- Re: One very weak response redux - Charles Hansen 12:11:01 05/29/06 (1)
- Evidence? - hexenboden 15:18:42 05/31/06 (0)
- Of course, I am speaking for myself, as are you. - Norm 05:55:39 05/29/06 (10)
- Science? - John Atkinson 10:21:44 05/29/06 (9)
- Yes, who needs to please everybody.... - cheap-Jack 08:34:26 06/01/06 (0)
- You will seldom see scientist using such loaded words - Norm 11:47:43 05/29/06 (2)
- I was taught to say "weighted words", but yes -- the ol' appeal to the emotions usually wins the masses. nt - clarkjohnsen 09:20:46 05/30/06 (1)
- Maybe another regional difference nt - Norm 12:06:21 05/30/06 (0)
- "Well argued"? - Charles Hansen 12:25:32 05/29/06 (1)
- You still have that imaginary bridge huh? - bjh 12:40:13 05/29/06 (0)
- More examples - Charles Hansen 15:01:21 05/29/06 (2)
- Gravitons... - real_jj 13:21:34 05/31/06 (0)
- When audio engineers go bad - Jim Austin 16:30:04 05/29/06 (0)
- Are you against consumer protection against scams? - Analog Scott 08:42:09 05/29/06 (13)
- On AA, definitely! From government I want it. nt - Norm 11:34:51 05/29/06 (11)
- That makes no sense - Analog Scott 20:59:26 05/29/06 (10)
- It is just the case that it may only be your opinion - Norm 06:37:11 05/30/06 (9)
- Fraud isn't just a matter of opinion - Analog Scott 08:37:56 05/30/06 (8)
- It would be interesting to learn how this product fared if it is a real example. - Norm 12:04:33 05/30/06 (7)
- It is a real example - Analog Scott 15:19:18 05/30/06 (6)
- Or at least trying to do so. - Norm 16:21:15 05/30/06 (5)
- Well then we agree about fraud. - Analog Scott 19:40:43 05/30/06 (4)
- I would not go that far, but there is some fraud, not as much as you think, however, and not defined as you do. nt - Norm 20:22:46 05/30/06 (3)
- Please, stop with your assumptions about what i think. - Analog Scott 08:19:34 05/31/06 (2)
- Re: "the only example I've run across" - geoffkait 09:24:34 05/31/06 (1)
- That's ridiculous - Analog Scott 09:45:56 05/31/06 (0)
- Let me amend that to exclude the W. Bush administration. nt - Norm 11:36:06 05/29/06 (0)
- "You seem to think you are the scam police." No "seem" about it! - clarkjohnsen 09:23:44 05/30/06 (0)
- A bundle of weak arguments redux - Charles Hansen 21:06:08 05/28/06 (1)
- Re: A bundle of weak arguments redux - Jim Austin 04:10:39 05/29/06 (0)
- Re: A bundle of weak arguments - mls-stl 07:17:01 05/29/06 (0)
- Why ???? - hexenboden 08:43:37 05/29/06 (8)
- Re: Why ???? - Jim Austin 08:52:58 05/29/06 (5)
- Conversion - hexenboden 09:16:42 05/29/06 (4)
- Skepticism about what science can tell us? - Norm 11:32:58 05/29/06 (1)
- When did I suggest that ??? (nt) - hexenboden 19:56:26 05/29/06 (0)
- Re: Conversion - Jim Austin 12:25:39 05/29/06 (1)
- Indeed (nt) - hexenboden 19:55:38 05/29/06 (0)
- Re: Why ???? - bjh 11:23:46 05/29/06 (1)
- Babble, babble, LOL (nt) - hexenboden 19:36:05 05/29/06 (0)