Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
The hypocrisy of Ethan Winer's ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments.
"Frog-boy"? This is your contribution to the debate in this thread, Ethan? Calling me insulting names in a blatant ad hominem attack, and on top of that, launching a strawman argument, based on a complete lie you fabricated about me?
I note that this insulting response of yours was completely unprovoked, as I have never addressed you in this thread. So don't ever complain about anyone else's name calling, ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments; provoked or unprovoked. For this post will remain, and will be illustrated to show you to be a lying hypocritical fool, never to be taken seriously by anyone but same.
Now, as to your strawman: Where did I say I believe you can "demagnetize plastic"? Provide evidence for your fallacious assertion. Otherwise, in words you should be familiar with:
I expect a complete, abject, sincere, grovelling retraction of your claim should be forthcoming.
You are confusing an ad hominem argument with a personal attack.
I happen to disagree with that particular statement by Krabapple, so I pointed it out. Those who participate in controlled audio DBTs are relying only on their hearing to detect which piece of equipment is being used. The who do sighted auditions do not rely only on their hearing to determine which piece of equipment is being used. Indeed, they already know what the Device Under Test (DUT) is. BTW, I don't know Krabapple, which shows you have drawn an incorrect conclusion.
So why is the way you have described an A-B comparison not blind, since you maintain that the people involved do not know what is tested, only that a change has been made? Oh, and I should point out that the subjects should control when the changes are made.
I have not claimed to have expert knowledge in audio. You have. You still haven't shown you have expert knowledge in audio (and nothing you have said indicates it, either). I have not said you do not have it, and so you have simply misrepresented me. Your claim is like that of the fellow who found MJF, but failed to show other people that MJF could sing and dance, and who therefore have no reason to believe him.
I evidently understand the "One Froggy Evening" cartoon better than you do, since there is more than one paradox involved and there is more than one interpretation possible.
j-j is an expert and can speak as an authority in his field. That is not merely a claim by him. His expertise is acknowledged by his peers and he is a Fellow of the IEEE and the AES. He is a world class expert in audio psychometrics. You have already admitted you know who he is, so you should not claim otherwise. In any case, anyone can find out who he is through his Profile.
BTW, I didn't quote "works" from j-j, someone else did.
You say "IIRC." Alas, your memory of what was said in the debate between John Atkinson and Arny Krueger is not correct, either, but is also completely flawed. You should listen to it again so you can determine what was said and by whom.
You have claimed that DBTs fail something unstated that you call the range rule, so you have the burden of proof, even according the the Wikipedia article you linked, which is primarily about legal aspects of BOP rather than scientific ones.
See, Frog, they never "attack, they "argue". You and I on the other hand have nothing but "attacks" in our posts.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
If you don't mind, I'm going to borrow this for a moment ...
>>> "Frog-boy is not swayed by facts or logic or even common sense. He believes you can demagnetize plastic." <<<
When Ethan chooses that form of wording to try to insult (to 'put down') you, M J F, it also implies exactly the same thing (insult - put down) to the other people (to name but four prominent people - Michael Fremer, Stephen Mejias, Robert Deutsch and John Atkinson) who can ALSO hear the effect of applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs. If Ethan does NOT realise that he is also, at the same time, with the same wording, insulting those other people then that shows sheer stupidity. If he DOES realise it and goes ahead anyway, then that shows sheer arrogance !!!!
As with another comment by Ethan :-
"The difference between me and guys who are certain they can "hear capacitors" and hear the effect of "demagnetizing plastic" is that my hearing is thus proven superior to theirs. I never once was fooled into thinking I heard such silliness that so obviously does not exist."
And yet another comment by Ethan :-
>>> "Very simple - a blind test lets someone audition speakers without being influenced by how much they cost or how they look. That may not help experienced audio pros like me, but it would certainly help much of the hi-fi buying public." <<<
Again, bordering on arrogance - showing such disdain for the INTELLIGENT audio equipment buying public !!!!! With Ethan's reasoning, why would manufacturers hold Hi Fi Shows if the buying public have to be led around those shows blindfolded so that, in Ethan's eyes, they would not be unduly influenced by price tags or how the equipment looked ???
Regards,
May Belt.
In Ethan's defense, he looks at himself as the person at a witch burning who bothers to question the existence of witchs, even though everyone says they can tell the victim is a witch, as evidenced by the universal agreement of the prominent witch identifiers.
Ethan fancies himself the little boy looking at the naked emperor.
It's good he does that, except he might call out that the emperor is naked when, in fact, he is not.
So, how to satify a naysayer?
Surely, we would not stoop to blind listening. Never that!
____
____
For every person who claims credibility by stating that Lister was laughed at before being proven right, we have a Ptolemy or a Franz Joseph Gall who was regarded as being correct before being found out by a skeptic.
We need Ethan just as much as we need Enid Lumley (RIP.)
Ba Da BING!
RG
LOL, how quickly they forget. CDs are made from plastic, no?
In this thread:
http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=4&vc=1
In this post:
#66117 - 04/26/09 11:07 PM
You wrote:
"I heard differences in the CD demag files FC posted, so I would have thought LP demag would be just as noticeable."
Mr. Frog (I'm trying to be civil with you here), don't bother to reply because I probably won't read it and I surely won't respond.
--Ethan
The same folks who confuse this also confuse disagreement with "logic error", and think that anyone who disagrees with them is making an "ad hominem" argument when the person disagrees with what they SAID.
So I don't think they really quite understand what they are trying to read at the Nizor project.
In any case, Michigan J. Frog hides behind his pseudonym and makes crass, inaccurate, obscene professional accusations, Buddha likewise. It's clear that neither is willing to come forward and attach their actual name and reputation to their ad hominem attacks, straw men, extractions from context, and other false propagandistic manouevers.
LOL!
Yes, you will; and yes, you will!
[quoteHey, I'm still wondering when you'll reveal how you shop for speakers in an honest fashion. Are you one of those guys who just says, "Take my word for it," or do you walk the walk?
I admit to shopping via sighted listening trials. You?
So, then, you admit to either not having read this whole thread before you started demanding things already in evidence, you admit to not UNDERSTANDING the answers that are already in evidence, or more likely you're just pretending that you didnt' read it.
You apparently malicious demands for something I've already said, and your attempt to try to compare them to a dishonest view of what I espouse elsewhere suggest to me that you are being intentionally obtuse, and that your uncalled-for personal attacks are deliberate, and as such intended to cause my reputation actual harm, much like Michigan J. Frog's lies and abuse.
It is a shame that you are unwilling to actualy discuss the matters at hand, and would rather engage in a series of straw-man attacks and ad-hominem attacks and insinuations.
Unfortunately, this appears unlikely, and I must conclude that you are another malicious, cowardly troll who hides behind a pseudonym in order to avoid having their own reputation damaged by their obvious misconduct.
Pardon me, but I recall writing nothing different from this, it is exactly what I have been contending, so where was my 'misstatement'?
Buddha does get his panties in a bunch sometimes with this stuff, especially DBT for some reason. And his logic is not always flawless. But Buddha is definitely not a bad guy as are some others here, and his real name is available if you look hard enough. I'm sure Buddha is a genuine audiophile, and pretty sure he's not in the business. Versus some of the others who hide behind fake names. It's the others who are truly disgraceful because they have a vested interest in refuting what real pros like you and me have to say. So they try to pass themselves off as unbiased bystanders as they hurl their insults.
--Ethan
That consistent view happens to fly in the face of psychological fact: they shouldn't trust their ears unconditionally.
How do you know for sure what your ears can hear if you never test it?
You simply don't know what you're talking about. DBTs are used in 'real science' of hearing, as a perusal of the e.g., the Journal of Audiology will demonstrate. DBTs can, and do, allow reliable detection of sound *down to the theoretical atmospheric limits* jj cites. And they do not necessarily *demand* special skills of the listener -- *if* you already claim you hear a difference between DUT A and B, what 'special skill' do you need to bring to at DBT to demonstrate that or not? You';re already claiming to have the a 'special skill' that would otherwise require training to hear.
Don't confuse this with a recommendation for training for DBTS -- which is a proper recommendation, when doing research, rather than testing a *particular audiophile blowhard's* claim that he *already* hears a big diff between DUT A and B.
Actually, it was 2005, in NYC, and I was *there*, sparky.
I'd say (and have said) that the debate went pretty far off track and didn't really result in a slam dunk for either side.
I'm sure no one will say that.
Really? So far you're failing rather badly and fundamentally to demonstrate that.
'Maybe'? that's your best shot?
LOL...so the *numbers* that were verifiably most different had dollar signs in front of them...*classic* audiophoolery.
OK, so you didn't understand what Sean wrote, or what I'm writing. I get that. Olive never disputes that two loudspeakers sound different. He is studying *preference* based on sound -- which is really only possible when difference in sound exists. It's impossible to have a truly sound-based preference for two things that sound the same. However,it's quite possible to observe a subject having no statistically significant preference between two different-sounding things.
Knowing that JJ *does* happen to be one of the world's experts on these topics, and has the resume and professional accolades to prove it, only makes your braying more amusing.
bzzt. fail.
Quite sensibly cautious. Btw, was this Arny Kruger, David Carlstrom, or one of the QSC guys?
Yes, it was.
No, he was basing his caution on good evidence from research into human hearing and psychology. That's very rational.
Not when it causes you to believe that a Pioneer rack system sounds every bit as good as a Krell system. Then it becomes not just a laughable degree of self-delusion but just short of a dangerous one.
When you present evidence beyond 'I heeeered it!' then maybe you can make such claims. As it stands, the only one making the assumption here is you -- that the Krell and Pio MUST sound different because goshdarnit , it's KRELL vs PIONEER for pete's sake! I say that if compared fairly, they might, under specific circumstances, sound different, whereas in others, they are likely to sound the same. And the objective evidence backs me up.
No, here is where we must *apply* intelligence, not knee jerk 'common sense'. It's why science always requires controls.
Except it doesn't 'violate the scientific range rule', you silly person. Statistical tests are integral to scientific evaluation of audible difference. A scientific subjective test for difference -- that is, a DBT -- relies on them to intrepret the results, because 'common sense' can be misleading. Comparison of the subjective report to the actual identities, and statistical evaluation of the score, is what makes the 'subjective' objective there. Specifying typically a p<.05 -- that is, a smaller than 1-in-20 chance that the 'successes' were just luck -- sets the 'range'.
It's not, it's that your blah blha blah is so mind numbing and off the point of the original conclusion, that it may, in fact, have slipped by.
Of course, I also missed the connection between a monophinic speaker experiment and the conclusion that 'the audio industry needs to grow up,' and how 'dishonest listening' is promulgated on the masses.
You'll do anything in your power to back up that idiotic conclusion, I guess.
You have never shown how the data lead to the conclusion.
___
As to my name, I'm easily found, "JJ."
I'm the same person who's been on the forum for however long, and post only under one name. Nothing dishonest, my email reaches me just as "JJ's" does you.
Is JJ your full name, or do you piss and moan and troll for DBT under something different from your real name?
Pretty damned funny, "I 'JJ' don't like your name."
Maybe "JJ" is like Elvis, or to be more accurate, Cher.
Good one, "J underscore J."
Yeah Anton, but what's your last name?
Anyway, knock it off you two. Buddha, you're starting to sound like Jan, and I'm quite certain you don't want that.
--Ethan
JJ is just having a hissy fit.
Ethan, I love DBT.
It's the blatantly stupid conclusion that your are supporting from the article you posted.
That limited, handicapped trial leads one to conclude that 'sighted listening is dishonest' and 'the audio industry needs to grow up?'
These are social conclusions, not science in ANY form.
I am amazed you would support such a leap.
I've even posted examples of what conclusion would be scientifically appropriate, but no, JJ wants zombie/moonie DBT validation for a dumb ass conclusion.
A have no issue with the fact that sighted preference can vary from blind preference, either, but JJ's unblinking moon eyed love for that idiotic conclusion is amazing.
"See? See? The audio industry needs to grow up! It's dishonest listening, yes!"
I hear Gollum's voice when he types.
"Yes, my precious, he doesn't think the audio industry needs to grow up, does he? We'll show him, we'll show them all. My precious says the audio industry needs to grow up..."
Lordy.
He's maybe a smart guy in other spheres, seems politically liberal (which mitigates in his favor,) but the leap from Sean's listening trial to his conclusion and JJ's level of enamorata with it are perplexing. He seems to have suspended his critical faculties after seeing the term "DBT."
"DBT, slowly I turned, step by step, determining that the audio industry needs to grow up..."
He's tazy.
Really? Would you mind, perhaps, addressing my real position?
You've already shown that you are willing to demand answers to questions I've already answered, and show, as well, that you are willing to LIE about my position so that you can engage in professional insult.
I think you're an intentional, willful, insincere troll who wants to support the lunatic-fringe part of the high end and nothing more, and that you are hiding behind your pseudonym.
When you stop making up positions that I don't hold and then venting bile on your own imaginary positions, get back to me.
Mmmmmmmmmm. Buttons fully engaged, I see.
I am intentional, but you're the new angry man on the block. Sean's avatar arriving to defend the honor of DBT at any cost.
JJ, if that's any kind of 'real' name, you are supporting a social conclusion from a limited listening trial's data.
Now, I'm politically liberal, but your type of science meets social engineering is beyond the pale.
Sean's data in know way logically or scientifically supports his social conclusion.
There's a few leaps I'd welcome you taking, especially flying ones, but that conclusion is nonsensical.
Sorry, I misread something you had said. I know that is your position and I misread something you said. You said you didn't trust Mich. J.'s ears.
If you would trouble to look at j-j's profile, you could find out who he is.
Now, explain to me what MY position is, rather than going off into a completely falacious rant about what you imagine it might have been.
I've already stated it. If you can't find it, search for "preference".
LOL, you sure coulda fooled me!
Here it is in a nutshell, and if you disagree with this please address this, and not Sean Olive or JJ or what anyone else said anywhere else:
1) DBT is the only valid way to determine if people who claim to "hear capacitors" and power cords and all the rest really can hear a difference. DBT is not needed where there is universal agreement that something is audible.
2) Some people are afraid to stick out their necks and be tested blind lest others - and probably themselves! - discover that they really can't hear what they think they can. So instead they make up BS reasons that DBT is somehow invalid.
3) People identified in 2) above are being dishonest because DBT is proven science and deep down they damn well know it. If they really don't know this, then they are fools.
4) Even worse than 3) are vendors of BS products who have a direct financial interest in dissing science and DBT so they can sell their BS products. These people are even more dishonest than 3) because of their profit motive. I assume this is the "dishonest industry" that Sean Olive is talking about. It's certainly what I'm talking about when I say I agree with Sean in that regard. It's also what J. Gordon Holt was talking about when he said current hi-fi thinking is an embarrassment.
Okay dood, give it your best shot. But please, address only what I said above. And please, no straw men like changing the subject to how someone picks a speaker to buy, or whether we should audition only one speaker in mono.
--Ethan
Well, let's get some terminology straight. An SBT where neither the person presenting the system or the person doing the listening knows what the test condition is is in fact a DBT.
So if the guy who presents the pre-amp, etc, in the previous article, does not know which capacitor you're using, you're doing a DBT.
"Sauce for the goose ..."
No, sorry, arguments to the excluded middle are only annoying, not actually valid.
As to one-speaker trials: Using a mono presentation, measurements of the consistancy of the speakers in question, and prior knowlege of stereo imaging, what's the problem? Yes, you can certainly interpret an experiment properly using prior, supported knowlege. You do not need to push all variables into one test, as long as you can comfortably show their lack of interaction, which I submit has clearly been done. (with some limitations on particular kinds of speakers that aren't normal speakers)
One trial of a few speakers, showing that they rank differently in sighted and blind testing shows conclusively that sound quality is not the only factor being used in the sighted test. One does not, therefore, need to test all speakers in all combinations, because one already has proof of the conjecture.
Arguments to exhaustion, arguments to ignorance, and ad-populum ignored, Sean is right for what he actually said, as is Ethan.
Sorry, but Sean's conclusion is not correct.
His conclusion has nothing to to with the 'audio industry needing to grow up.'
He made a broad social conclusion based on a speaker trial.
That's not an argument, that's mere controversion!
Right you are, what Sean did was not not a proper argument leading from his findings to his conslusion.
Yeah, I find that hilarious myself. A troll who comes here from AVS forum under the pseudonym "j_j", bringing along other AVS forum members with names like "krabapple" (which you notice he doesn't have a problem with?), complains long and loud about people posting under names he doesn't like. It is to laugh. When he's unable to attack their content, he attacks their character. And yes, this old dude has been around discussion groups a -long- time preaching his audio-DBT religion, and as a matter of fact he has pissed and moaned and trolled for DBT under different names in the past. Sometimes under sockpuppet identities on the same forum (he got caught on it, but he was never willing to admit it then, and I doubt he'd admit it now). I think on AA he trolled DBT's under the name "the real JJ", because some other fellow beat him to his favorite letters.
I warn you now: He is the absolute King, or possibly Queen of Umbrage. He reminds me a bit of "Gorgeous George", an old timey wrestler. George's "shtick" was to play prissy boy, and engage the audience with histrionics and melodramatic behaviour; and to cry "Get your filthy hands off of me!" whenever you came close to touching him. But after nearly 20 years of exagerrated indignation and resent, I figure it's probably not a "shtick" for this "j_j" character. I think he really _is_ that uptight in real life. One of his handles was "jj the curmudegon", so that probably has something to do with it.
No, I'm not. Your move, next.
Now I'm curious to see if you are going to run away from your claims, as "jj" does all the time, or are at least one of you DBT trolls actually going to support one of your claims, for a change? Surprise me. If you're afraid to make the next move, just tell me and I'll make your move for you and tell you what you're going to say.
Evidences, sir?
No, didn't think so.
You're still just a coward who hides behind a cartoon pseudonym in order to avoid having your words actually affect your (lack of?) reputation in a bad way.
Ethan, I'm going to refrain from using the "f" word to describe you, and instead, will just quiety and politely point out your unfettered ignorance in not realizing that CD's, which are polycarbonate over aluminum substrate, can contain inks on their labels which contain particles readily susceptible to magnetization; ie. iron, nickel and cobalt. In addition to that, the aluminum substrate is not necessarily 100% pure, and may contain ferrous particles as well. I am so surprised that a self-professed "audio expert", as you so often and so loudly claim to be around here, would not already know that. (insert rollingeyes emoticon here).
Yes, I recognize that. I am talking about digital sound files here, and nothing more. It was a blind test I had undertaken (which I might add, you did not have the courage to do so yourself). It had nothing to do with me "demagnetizing plastic", nor did I even state any belief here about "demagnetizing plastic", and most importantly, nowhere in your quote do I state that demagnetizing plastic is possible.
So since you have not supported your claim against me, as I knew you could not, I expect an abject, sincere and grovelling apology from you, "Mr. Winer", for misappropriating my words and using your misappropriations to attack my character.
"I demand satisfaction!" (insert gloveslap clip)
Ethan, get over yourself. I know it's a powerful task, because of the size of your ego, but at least try. I don't -ever- reply to you because I care about whether you read my replies or respond to them, so don't flatter yourself. Whether you do or not reply to me in any situation is incidental, and always in your interest, not mine. To prove this is so, let me emphatically state with bold underline, that I do NOT want you to respond to this message; either directly, or indirectly by making insulting comments about me to one of your friends (except of course to simply deliver the apology I demanded).
Let me note that you added the weasel words, you "probably" won't read my response and "surely" won't respond. This shows you don't even know yourself very well. But, I think we both know the real reason those weasel words are there. It's to give your perceived "reading audience" a face-saving reason to run away from your own words and not have to support them, or to give yourself "a way back in", in case I effectively trounce you in my response. At least this way, no one can accuse you of not being a man of your word, since your word says two different things, allowing you to squirm your way out of or into anything! "Ooooh, clever!" (reg. tm.)
I understand your point May, and I agree. But I can truly never tell whether I am being assaulted by stupidity or arrogance when dealing with what I have come to call "Ethanisms", because stupidity and arrogance are constantly having it out in Ethan's mind, to see who will rule the moment.
As with all reductionists, Ethan reduces complex processes to a simpler understanding that he is more able to deal with, intellectually. So instead of doing more research on a phenomenon, and looking deeper to try to understand it, both of which require more work or thinking than Ethan has always shown he is ready or equipped to do, he instead choosese to adopt the simple-minded belief that myself, Michael Frehmer, Bob Deutsch, Stephen Mejias, John Atkinson, etc etc etc, believe that with the aid of a little audio device, we can happily go around and "demagnetize" anything made of plastic. He then does not hesitate a moment to mischaracterize the position of all these people who may have heard or used the device, and label them unscientific dimwits, with no grasp of "facts or logic or common sense", as he stated. Especially when in fact, as any intelligent person knows, they are not making any sort of statement about how a product works, by simply saying it does.
Next example, he then goes on to "prove" he has "superior hearing" to any of us, by -not- being able to hear the effects of various audio devices he does not happen to believe are having any effect (surprise, surprise). Which I guess is kind of like "proving" you have superior mathematical skills, by not knowing how to add or subtract. Ironically, in the thread about 'demagnetizing plastic', entitled "A Visit to Mikey's & the Furutech deMag", I recently asked Ethan to post the Frehmer files John sent him, so that myself and others could test them for ourselves. At first he didn't see how it was possible (despite claiming to be a digital recording expert), and asked me to ask John to send me the same CD. Then after I explained how it is not only possible but pretty easy to do, he agreed it is possible, but his next excuse was that he didn't want to host the files. (Except I had already given him a link to a free hosting service in my first request, which he ignored). Then he used the excuse that it would be a waste of time, because I would not be able to hear the differences if the files were compressed to the mp3 format (as I, myself, requested!). Then after saying it was too much trouble for him to upload the files, he'd be glad to demonstrate them for me at his place. So in other words it's not asking too much to have me pack my bags and make arrangements to fly to another country to hear and test these files, but It's asking too much for him to hit the send button and upload them to a free hosting site! Well I repeated the link to that site and my request, and he has since ignored my last request, and is not responding to the thread any longer. I guess he plumb ran out of excuses for why he couldn't transfer the files and let me test them.
The reason why I mention this is because in that thread, Ethan claimed his failure to hear differences proves LP demagnetization is a crock. I wanted to see whether there was anything to Ethan's claim about Frehmer's Furutech sample files (particularly when Mr. Frehmer insists there are differences and they're not subtle), or whether Ethan's claim that the Furutech LP demagnetizer does nothing is because of what most of us already believe: Ethan simply can't hear very well, and is not the "superior expert" he claims to be on the forums. To this end, I asked Ethan to upload not only the original demagnetized and non-demagnetized file, but two more copies of the non-demagnetized file, and to rename all four files to something random, to make it harder for me to identify. This was Ethan's chance to "prove" his "superior hearing" of not being able to hear things. And it is my firm belief that the reason he ignored my request on two separate occasions, is because he simply did not want to take the chance that I could identify the demagnetized file blind (whereas he was not even put under that stress), out of 4 copies, despite them being converted to a lossy compressed format, as I requested. Because to take that chance, would risk Ethan being (further) exposed as having inferior listening skills, and not "superior" to everyone else, as he claims.
>>> "So, how to satify a naysayer?" <<<
Experience. Only when they themselves have experienced what others have experienced will they change from being a naysayer !! And, it can happen overnight.
Others have testified to the same thing happening - such as the people who claimed to be disbelievers (naysayers) that different cables could sound different UNTIL they actually heard it happen for themselves, and such as Michael Fremer who "did not want the demagnetiser to work" - he really didn't !! He was so sceptical about it working that, as he says, he was so cynical "that it sat on the floor for 3 months before I tried it" !!!!
Let me explain my reference to "It can happen overnight". Obviously I am replying to an intelligent person so I do not expect to have that sentence misunderstood. So, before "others" jump in, I will explain what I mean more fully.
I do not mean that when someone experiences a 'being knocked back on their heels' event that they IMMEDIATELY change from being a sceptic to a non sceptic 'overnight'. But, for an 'expert in a particular field' to have experienced something and to have been 'knocked back on their heels' it CAN happen overnight but an 'expert' will then proceed to check thoroughly what has happened. AND, to then double check and then re-check the double check !!!!!!!!!!
Sometimes the checking may last months (even years) and many times it is only when someone else, in the same field of work, not connected in any way, not even knowing what happened earlier or elsewhere, also reports similar things happening, that things begin to confirm the effect experienced. THAT is when the scepticism begins to turn to non scepticism. THAT is when the naysayer is no longer a naysayer !! But, I repeat, the initial experience of "being knocked back on one's heels" event CAN happen overnight !!!
I feel I will have to qualify that statement even further (it is amazing how much 'qualifying' one has to do in all these discussions so as not to be misrepresented !!).
When I say that 'experts in a field', when they experience something unexpected happening but remain sceptical, and can then be influenced to cease being sceptical by the experience of others experiencing something similar - I DON'T mean 'influenced' by every report - from every Tom, Dick or Harry. I am not being disrespectful to every Tom, Dick or Harry, their personal opinion and experiences are as relevant as any other persons opinions and experiences. It is just that an 'expert in a particular field' would be more inclined to move from being a sceptic to being a non sceptic by being influenced by (say) SIX similar 'experts in that field' experiencing the same thing as they, than by the experiences of TWENTY disassociated Toms, Dicks or Harrys.
Regards,
May Belt.
Somebody please lock this thread
I recognice that posting style. Why, I'm back on RAO! ;-)
Instant pomposity, anyone? ;-)
Let's review the relevant facts:
Someone posts under the name of a cartoon character who is a male frog and then objects to being called the same?
Nice job of declining to take responsibility for your own actions!
"show you to be a lying hypocritical fool" is not a personal attack?
Which alternative universe is that? ;-)
I wouldn't take one word that this sockpuppet posted seriously again in my life. He's 100% put-on.
Can we have some serious audio discussion here, please?
I agree. Do you have anything relevant to add, Arny, or are you just looking to stir the pot? We don't need any more pot-stirrers.
I will close this thread very soon if we can't get back on course with an intelligent, respectful discussion.
Hold that thought!
Thanks for the personal attack, Stephen. It helps continue the RAO-like experience. ;-)
I mean we have what seems like Middius, we for sure have JJ and we have Arny and I haven't yet figured out the other aliases. We all know where that took RAO. But this forum has something that RAO lacks which is moderation.
IMO, It's time for moderation to do its job.
Despite our history Stephen, it seems like you caught my drift, which is that this thread is going around and around in personality-driven circles.
I've looked at both sides and I see nothing new from the pro-DBT side and nothing new from the anti-DBT side over the past few pages of posts. Furthermore, in my area of greatest familiarity being pro-DBT I see a very lucid, complete expression of just about all the relevant ideas.
If something new were to be said about DBT, it seems like JJ or I would have to first invent it! ;-)
Please take this post as my vote for doing that, forthwith.
There is no personal attack, Arny.
I have no history with you, Arny. However, I agree that this thread is going nowhere. I'll close it now.
Pages