>>> "It is easy enough to find measurable differences in different cables." <<<

I also find that quote from Scott unbelievably naive (to say the least) !!!

IF it is so "easy enough", then why do some well respected audio engineers struggle to 'measure' what they have heard ?????? I am reminded of the following letter from Julian Vereker of Naim Audio which was published in Hi Fi News 1995 :-

>>> "Everything that we do to our hi-fi systems affects the way that they sound; Some of these things are simple to measure while others are not so straight forward.
When we were designing the Naim loudspeaker cable, we specified all the parameters that we thought were controllable in manufacture, but when we came to listen to some music on a system using the new cable, we were somewhat alarmed to note that the sound was rather 'phasey' - lacking in a coherent soundstage.
This was such an obvious characteristic we felt sure that we would be able to measure something. But we looked from DC to 500kHz (down to -1440dBV) then up to 500 MHz and down to -100dBV at low currents, high currents, low voltage and high voltage and we could not find anything different in any respect between this new cable and the old design or in fact the new cable and our current loudspeaker cable, NACA5.
We also listen to mains cables of the same specification from different manufacturers for the same reasons. We know they make a difference but have not yet been able to measure anything of consequence. So we specify exactly which mains cable the moulded lead manufacturers may use when supplying us.
I feel that if one cannot be scientific it pays to be pragmatic." <<<

As he states, they heard such an 'obvious characteristic' that they felt they would be able to measure something. They looked up, down, backwards, forwards and sideways but could NOT find any differences in the measurements !!!!!!!!!!! Julian's letter is such a classic piece of writing and so descriptive of their's (and others) experiences that I think it should go into the audio history books !!! Both from the point of view of what they 'heard' and what they COULD NOT measure !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Man oh man, it looks like the crazy tree is in full bloom again.

Quote:

>>> "It is easy enough to find measurable differences in different cables." <<<

I also find that quote from Scott unbelievably naive (to say the least) !!!

Actually it is a simple fact. That you would make a personal attack on me rather than actually discuss the topic shows that all your whining about having "discussions" is just more bullshit.

Quote:

As he states, they heard such an 'obvious characteristic' that they felt they would be able to measure something. They looked up, down, backwards, forwards and sideways but could NOT find any differences in the measurements !!!!!!!!!!! Julian's letter is such a classic piece of writing and so descriptive of their's (and others) experiences that I think it should go into the audio history books !!! Both from the point of view of what they 'heard' and what they COULD NOT measure !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

What did they actually measure? can you cite the list of identical measurements?

Quote:
Man oh man, it looks like the crazy tree is in full bloom again.

I feel like I am slowing down to look at a car wreck. I would feel guilty but the only casualties are a few peoples' credibility. Well, you can't kill a corpse can you? No damage done. Just good ole popcorn guilty pleasure time.

Awwww, James, you don't have me on ignore as you said you did. How dishonest of you.

Mr. Troll-sir, before you go asking any questions of anyone, how about answering the ones that have been put to you? A discussion works between at least two people, avoiding all questions put your way does not a discussion make, But of course, you did know that much, eh, troll?

I know you are but what am I?

Dude get a life.

Can we have a little decorum here?

Scotty, you never told me when you graduate from grade school. What is it now, 2-3 years?

Quote:
Scotty, you never told me when you graduate from grade school. What is it now, 2-3 years?

That joke hurt twice as much the second time. I am destroyed by your cutting wit.

Scotty, my boy, you are destroyed by your own blatant stupidity.

Quote:
This was such an obvious characteristic we felt sure that we would be able to measure something. But we looked from DC to 500kHz (down to -1440dBV) then up to 500 MHz and down to -100dBV at low currents, high currents, low voltage and high voltage and we could not find anything different in any respect between this new cable and the old design or in fact the new cable and our current loudspeaker cable, NACA5.

Duh! ...

Quote:
What did they actually measure? can you cite the list of identical measurements?

What?! you think you know of something the engineers at Naim missed?!!!!

Well, do tell, Scotty, do tell.

May quoted from "the following letter from Julian Vereker of Naim Audio which was published in Hi Fi News 1995".

"Can you cite the list of identical measurements?"

Geezlouise! What a f'ing troll?

ROTFLMF'ingAO at the idiot troll!!!!!

Audiophiles should have the advantage of experience with cables and wires over the last 25 or 30 years, and should know that the *same* cables can sound quite different, depending on what point in time they're auditioned. There should be no need to compare one set of cables to another to establish this point regarding measurements. Brand new cables in the system can often sound whimpy, undynamic, distorted, closed in, threadbare, unengaging, synthetic, bloated, amusical, lifeless, peaky, honky, congealed, unextended, glassy and blaring. All things being equal, after a sufficient break in time, the cables will sound quite different: Open, dynamic, natural, extended, clear, full, musical, coherent, detailed, blatty, in bloom and authoritative. Yet the cables will measure the same after break in as they do brand new.

Sidebar: Same goes for capacitors, speakers and the components. In this ever-changing state of the system, one wonders how anyone can make accurate assessements or comparisons of anything.

Even when audiophiles are aware of this conundrum regarding break in, they insist, "But I will be able to get a rough idea."

Quote:
Sidebar: Same goes for capacitors, speakers and the components. In this ever-changing state of the system, one wonders how anyone can make accurate assessements or comparisons of anything.

Not entirely true, geoff. I've always suggested there are a few measurements that are important to know and which seldom change with time or situation; HxWxD to see if it will fit where you want it to go without having to saw a few 2X4's for a new shelf and weight to find out if you'll have to borrow your neighbor's pick'em-up truck to get it home.

Other than that, you're on your own with specs, IMO they are generally only a center line so you can aim it down the direction you intend to head.

Quote:
Audiophiles should have the advantage of experience with cables and wires over the last 25 or 30 years, and should know that the *same* cables can sound quite different, depending on what point in time they're auditioned. There should be no need to compare one set of cables to another to establish this point regarding measurements. Brand new cables in the system can often sound whimpy, undynamic, distorted, closed in, threadbare, unengaging, synthetic, bloated, amusical, lifeless, peaky, honky, congealed, unextended, glassy and blaring. All things being equal, after a sufficient break in time, the cables will sound quite different: Open, dynamic, natural, extended, clear, full, musical, coherent, detailed, blatty, in bloom and authoritative. Yet the cables will measure the same after break in as they do brand new.

Then there is the listener himself or herself who changes (I tried to explain this to Scott, emphasis on "tried".... but he hadn't boned up on that yet on Wikipedia, so he said it was "bullshit!". ....Which he pretty much says about everything he hasn't "Wikipediaed"). Then there is the ever-fluctuating electrical grid. Then there is the ever fluctuating temperature and humidity in the room. Then there is the ever-changing environment, wrt the Belt fields. But that's for another day. Or another crowd.

p.s. Whatever the hell that is in your avatar, it's scaring me. I hope you keep that thing on a leash, and that frogs are not a part of its diet.

Quote:
Scotty, my boy, you are destroyed by your own blatant stupidity.

Geezlouise! What a f'ing troll?

ROTFLMF'ingAO at the idiot troll!!!!!

Pure genius. Tell me Jan, are you getting offers left and right from think tanks due to your brilliance here on display at the Stereophile forums? I would think the offers would be pouring in.

Jan Vigne, super genius.

Should be your signature.

Now for something completely new. Here's Positive Feedback's review of the Red X Coordinate Pen. The Red X Coordinate Pen is a writing implement. The Red X Coordinate Pen is an audio device. X marks the spot.

Red X Coordinate Pen Image: Red X Coordinate Pen

Red X Coordinate Pen Review in Positive Feedback

Quote:
Jan Vigne, super genius.

Your jealousy is showing, Scotty, another poor character trait to add to your growing list of faults. You keep yappin' and we're going to need more paper to keep up the list.

Nice discussion of audio by the way.

Quote:

Quote:
Jan Vigne, super genius.

Your jealousy is showing, Scotty, another poor character trait to add to your growing list of faults. You keep yappin' and we're going to need more paper to keep up the list.

Nice discussion of audio by the way.

You are keeping a list?
What next? Going through my trash? Phoning me and then hanging up? Creepiness factor is going way up here.

Quote:
You are keeping a list?
What next? Going through my trash? Phoning me and then hanging up? Creepiness factor is going way up here.

Don't know a thing about this bunch, but in fact in previous forums (rec.audio.high-end/opinion) some of the truly nutcase audiophiliacs did in fact take to calling, threatening and then hanging up, calling up bosses, sending mail to corporate attourneys, the board of directors, and the like. They read much at the time like some of the crackpots here, with conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, claims of "monopolizing the internet", bow wow woof woof.

They can get pretty creepy when their completely crackpotoid conclusions are questioned.

No idea if this bunch behaves or acts out yet, though. I'd sorta vote for "acts out" given the level of sociopathic behavior I see here.

From time to time I get stalked by overly zealous skeptics, sometimes by Amazing Randi's disciples, which can be pretty humorous. One such dude, after some weird but funny email exchanges, threatened to "come up here and kick my ass." I told him come on up, I'd kick his ass. He then told me he was a karate black belt and that I should meet him on Randi's yatch for a karate match during the James Randi "Educational Foundation" (wink, wink) retreat in the Caribbean. I told him as much as I'd like to come on down there and kick his ass for him, I had a previous engagement. But I did offer to send Steve Eddy in my place. Audio can be such fun sometimes.

Quote:
From time to time I get stalked by overly zealous skeptics, sometimes by Amazing Randi's disciples, which can be pretty humorous. One such dude, after some weird but funny email exchanges, threatened to "come up here and kick my ass." I told him come on up, I'd kick his ass. He then told me he was a karate black belt and that I should meet him on Randi's yatch for a karate match during the James Randi "Educational Foundation" (wink, wink) retreat in the Caribbean. I told him as much as I'd like to come on down there and kick his ass for him, I had a previous engagement. But I did offer to send Steve Eddy in my place. Audio can be such fun sometimes.

An interesting claim.

Evidence, please.

"An interesting claim.
Evidence, please."

It's all documented, nice as you please, over on Randi dot org. At least the last time I looked. I assume it is still there. The dude who threatened to kick my ass actually had Randi post the email exchanges. As you may or may not know, I was the subject of Randi's weekly screed, The Swift Report, five, count 'em, five times around a year and a half ago. Heck, I even topped Uri Geller a couple a times. Blush. Then there was the big ruckus surrounding the Intelligent Chip over there, that was in '05. You prolly remember that.

Quote:
From time to time I get stalked by overly zealous skeptics, sometimes by Amazing Randi's disciples, which can be pretty humorous. One such dude, after some weird but funny email exchanges, threatened to "come up here and kick my ass." I told him come on up, I'd kick his ass. He then told me he was a karate black belt and that I should meet him on Randi's yatch for a karate match during the James Randi "Educational Foundation" (wink, wink) retreat in the Caribbean. I told him as much as I'd like to come on down there and kick his ass for him, I had a previous engagement. But I did offer to send Steve Eddy in my place. Audio can be such fun sometimes.

That's some funny stuff. I say thumb wrestling is the way to go. Although I can say that I fared OK in a stare down with Randy Couture.

Quote:
It's all documented, nice as you please, over on Randi dot org.

Citation, please.

I'd like to see a link too. not because I am skeptical. I just want to read it. It sounds like a knee slapping funny exchange. "I challenge you to a Karate fight on a boat at sunrise."

Tae Kwon Do rules? MMA rules? FCK? ISKA? Muy Tai? Throwing stars at ten paces?

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all documented, nice as you please, over on Randi dot org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Citation, please."

snip, snip

"Maybe you can get him to agree to a physical match with me. During the TAM 5.5 or the Amazing Adventure Galapagos would be fantastic (I prefer the latter since he would not be able to escape once he was on the boat). It should prove great entertainment for the attendees."

Nope, that's the work of another forum member. It is creepy when it happens to you, I agree - probably one of the very few things we could possibly agree on given your level of incompetence.

BTW, nice discussion of audio.

Quote:
They can get pretty creepy when their completely crackpotoid conclusions are questioned.

Indeed, jimmy, you're going to be sharing a panel with one of those creepy nutcases who pull stunts like that. If I were you, I'd watch my water bottle and my nuts.

That should make for an interesting panel discussion.

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all documented, nice as you please, over on Randi dot org.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Citation, please."

snip, snip

"Maybe you can get him to agree to a physical match with me. During the TAM 5.5 or the Amazing Adventure Galapagos would be fantastic (I prefer the latter since he would not be able to escape once he was on the boat). It should prove great entertainment for the attendees."

So, it wasn't actually a threat, it was obvious sarcasm.

Right. Got it. You're spinning. Who would have thought?

You're sitting on a panel with a nutcase.

Who would have thought?

The story got cleaned up for publication to make the Randi disciple and Randi look like the good guys. As if they are above board. Know what I mean, jelly bean?

More of the story from Randi's website (excerpt):

See randi.org/joom/content/view/121/#i7 to refresh your memory of a major silly scam being used to extract cash from na've audio fans. As I've told readers before, I often get involved in trying to establish a correspondence with the scammers, and that sometimes results in protracted exchanges. With that in mind, read the following emails between reader Matt Schaffner and Geoff Kait, the genius behind this whole Machina Dynamica farce. Matt wrote me:

I teach music technology at an accredited university in Louisville, Kentucky. When I read your blurb on the inventions at Machina Dynamica, I was stunned at their awesome claims. Knowing full well that they are a total fraud, I've been baiting the company's creator with emails. All of the classic signs of woo'woo are here: no reputable references, no outside testing, devices work by mysteriously harnessing the laws of quantum mechanics, etc. I thought you might be interested in our ongoing email exchange. This man is stealing people's money. Please let me know if I can donate to your cause by helping to expose this man.

The email exchange follows. First, Matt approached the Machina Dynamica CEO:

Geoff, I teach classes on music technology at an accredited university. I would like to test some of your products and publish materials on them. I am very excited about the possibility of seeing and hearing some of your devices. Is there any way we might discuss this further?

A prompt response followed from Geoff Kait:

Hello, Matt, thanks for your interest in Machina Dynamica. I respectfully decline to submit any of our products for testing.

Persisting, Matt wrote back:

Do you have any published materials on the testing and performance of your products?

Geoff countered with a desperate alibi:

Matt – All testing information is proprietary. Performance data is also proprietary. All information that we deem relevant is published on Machina Dynamica’s web site.

Translated: No. Matt, ever patient, asked:

Ok, I understand. I wanted to perform an in-class comparison of your goods with other well known audio products. Additionally, I was going to publish some materials concerning comparisons between high–end sound technologies. How can I get information on your data? Have there been any reviews of your products in magazines or online?

Quote:
The story got cleaned up for publication to make the Randi disciple and Randi look like the good guys. As if they are above board.

Evidence?

Nope, didn't expect any, either.

Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story got cleaned up for publication to make the Randi disciple and Randi look like the good guys. As if they are above board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Evidence?
Nope, didn't expect any, either."

That's odd, you didn't copy the whole quote. Too quick on the trigger.

Quote:
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story got cleaned up for publication to make the Randi disciple and Randi look like the good guys. As if they are above board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Evidence?
Nope, didn't expect any, either."

That's odd, you didn't copy the whole quote. Too quick on the trigger.

Evidence? Nope, still no evidence.

How about a nice clear citation from over there? One that you can't be editing.

How about a nice clear citation from over there? One that you can't be editing.

So I'm lying, is that it? Afraid you're barking up the wrong tree, James. Go find it yourself. And you support these people? Shame on you!

Quote:
How about a nice clear citation from over there? One that you can't be editing.

So I'm lying, is that it? Afraid you're barking up the wrong tree, James. Go find it yourself. And you support these people? Shame on you!

Just show us the citation. Surely you can do it without working too hard, now? You said you just cited some of the text, so you must be able to find the original.

My goodness. Just find the original, and post a link. It can't be that hard, can it?

jj, go do a bit of web surfing on the criteria for Randi's 'one million dollar prize' for proofs.

You will quickly find that even the most mundane of subjects (ie, prove this pack of matches is real) cannot be passed or proven by his criteria.

The test and the man are all a lie, by any remote scientific standard (ie: critiera for validation testing) and the man himself cannot hold the torch in any way, as his background is ~literally~ that of a charlatan.

There is also a notable point in his 'career' where he has attempted to put down the very well known Military black ops Phd and physicist Hal Puthoff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff

Hal has done a considerable amount of work for the US government and all on the same subject, for about 45 years straight. Same subject--the whole 45 years.

When those subjects came into public scrutiny, Randi was brought on board to kill off public perception, ie, like a pre-arranged boxing match. Hal took the shot and fell down (to the general public's eye) and Randi emerged seemingly victorious (to the naysayers) and Hal went quietly back to work in his black ops projects and the public interest went away. Add government Shill to Randi's CV. Kinda like McCarthy.

Don't touch Randi with a ten foot pole. He's only there to keep the 75% of the people who are (genetically)incapable of utilizing or having any sort of mental vision, from ever getting out of line or perceiving anything. In that guise, he serves a useful purpose, to that group who want it to be exactly so.

Better watch it, j_j don't take kindly to derrogatory remarks about his idol. No tellin' what he's liable to do, now. Personally, I have a feeling we're in for another one of those "Geez, I really am an audiohile just like you guys, honest" speeches.

I haven't spent much time here recently but I'm not sure JJ is the kind of person who would invest himself that heavily in Randi's shilling and gaming.

Puthoff and Targ--so what makes them experts at detecting charlatans?

perhaps you misunderstood. Randi is the one who has a direct background in being a magician. This somehow translates into his being some sort of guru science god when it it comes to judging science. As if, in the final analysis -that any of his posturing meas more than a hill of bullshit. It works for those who want to believe what they hear, same as talk radio for Republicans listening to 'OxyBoy'. Nevermind Randi's test criteria for his $1M prize, which cannot be used to prove anything but a negative.

Read the fine print.

BTW, my comment about 75% being genetically incapable of stepping out of their box, is actually real.

About 15% can step out of the box...they are the prime movers in society. Be they evil, or benign, or altruistic. There is no ethnic or scholastic level aspect to those percentages as distribution goes, It appeared genetically on the scene, historically time wise ~everywhere~ at the same time-----which raises the kinds of questions that the 75% cannot handle. They (the 75%) actually go angry, petulant or mentally blank --usually all three mental conditions occur- in the same way you can freeze deer in the headlights and then kill or catch it. Same-same. These sort of folks walk around not understanding that ~not~ knowing that their unconscious mind is running the idea and expression of their conscious mind that this is normal--and it is all run out of their emotions. They don't ever consider this and they don't know that it is dangerous and inhumane to them and everyone around them. They don't think deep enough as the neural connectivity that has been granted them via their genetics-it simply isn't there, it isn't in their wiring. This occurs in morons at Walmart and beside the road in Alabama as much as it occurs at Harvard. The guy at Harvard simply has a bigger mental cage to bounce around in to convince him or her that they know 'alot' and cannot be swayed.

The bad folks out there use these understandings against the altruistic and humane who are active in trying to help mankind.. Understand? They sic the nasty and blind on the good. This has been the history of the past 12,000 years. Thus the bullshit tale of people like McCarthy - or in this case, the Amazing Randi.

15% of the population have no problem and can investigate and understand. 10% are in a half-way land.

If you, dear reader, do not understand what I just said, maybe you should get a shirt that says "75%", so I know not to try and talk to you.

That 75%, when they run into me, THAT knowledge is what they see behind my eyes. My mind is open and I am awake and aware. This reflection frightens the bejesus out of the mentally sleeping.

It scares some and they don't trust me. For example, when I walk around in the shopping malls and supermarkets...I get followed around by the shoplifting staff..as they sense something..but they don't know what it is.

Smart people have to mask their awareness, as the reflection can scare the more dense of humanity. This becomes a problem for those who might try and become aware of what really 'is' in this world, as the reflection of the 75% that is around them makes them think that what they see -- is all that there is.

There is so much more.

The big problem is that the inherently aware begin to put this mask on themselves, at about the age of 5. It becomes so ingrained that they forget they are wearing it. Taking it off is tricky and can be messy. But somehow many of us get it done. Some of the insanities of the teenage years are part and parcel of that (in some people) as we -as teens- rail against what is obvious and clear to us. It really ~is~ clear and try and remember your teenage outrage--it is as valid today as it was then.

Basically in this post, I'm speaking to the 15% who can, the 10% who might..and properly ignoring the 75% who never will.

As I said, if you don't understand, please buy that "75%" shirt --so I know not to talk to you.

Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As he states, they heard such an 'obvious characteristic' that they felt they would be able to measure something. They looked up, down, backwards, forwards and sideways but could NOT find any differences in the measurements !!!!!!!!!!! Julian's letter is such a classic piece of writing and so descriptive of their's (and others) experiences that I think it should go into the audio history books !!! Both from the point of view of what they 'heard' and what they COULD NOT measure !!!!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What did they actually measure? can you cite the list of identical measurements?

May, thanks for your relaying the information reference. I have not read that and will check it out.

Scott does ask a valid question. The kind of measurements made makes a difference and well as how those were made, or how well those are made. Personally, I would think that they, as technical people, know what they were doing and tried to check as many things as they can practically do. However, I've seen a team of technical people miss things when group-think takes effect, not that this is what was happening. But it does make question asking valid, if at least to clarify what they are talking about, which is the interpretation I got from Scott's response to your post.

Quote:
But it does make question asking valid, if at least to clarify what they are talking about, which is the interpretation I got from Scott's response to your post.

Questioning evidence is quite valid - however, Scotty being a troll is not. The answer to any question regarding the Naim engineers' observations has been provided as fully as I suspect anyone outside of the Naim engineering staff can supply. Remember, May was simply quoting from a letter sent to an audio publication, she was not present when the measurements were taken. We have to believe the information provided by the reputable engineers at Naim or, what? believe the Naim engineers are quite incompetent at researching and understanding basic information? Which is the more likely here?

Quote:
This was such an obvious characteristic we felt sure that we would be able to measure something. But we looked from DC to 500kHz (down to -1440dBV) then up to 500 MHz and down to -100dBV at low currents, high currents, low voltage and high voltage and we could not find anything different in any respect between this new cable and the old design or in fact the new cable and our current loudspeaker cable, NACA5.

That would appear to me to be a fairly thorough investigation performed by a group of smart folks who have some idea what they might be looking for and where to look for an answer. Is it not for you? You think DC to 500MHz is just not enough information?!

Suggesting there is reason for probable doubt might work well on a TV crime show but hardly in this case. I think even the most sceptical among us can agree the Naim engineering staff cannot and should not be considered slouches when it comes to basic knowledge and research. Unless, that is, that is what fits a far fetched scenario which could then provide sufficient doubt.

Simply attempting to stop any proof that might be found in those words is similar to asking if the Warren Commission actually investigated the motives for Charlie McCarthy (the wooden dummy) wanting JFK killed before they arrived at their single gunman theory. Casting doubt by implying a preposterous or unanswerable situation does not move the discussion forward, does it? Declaring anyone not in agreement with your position to be incapable of conducting adequate research does not an argument make. We've seen this BS from the objectivists over ad over again. At some point there comes a time when you have to accept the fact there are intelligent people doing research yet not finding coventional explanations to their own (sometimes unconventional) questions. That, IMO, certainly is the case with the Naim engineers.

This demand for further proof is nothing more than a poor attempt to halt any discussion and discount any rational evidence by implying the Naim engineers missed something so basic that even Scotty could discern the truth had he the real facts about that McCarthy fellow - though he doesn't seem to have an answer for what is missing, does he? No, Scotty is throwing up smoke screens and nothing more.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Scotty, given their claim that they as a group looked from DC to 500kHz (down to -1440dBV) then up to 500 MHz and down to -100dBV at low currents, high currents, low voltage and high voltage" and "could not find anything different in any respect", what would you think the Naim engineers could possibly have missed in all of that which would have provided a conventional explanation to the difference in perception they also reported? I assume you have a far better chance than Scotty of pointing to something which might have provided a "conventional explanation".

Then the next question to you, WTL, would be, why do you suppose the Naim engineers, being the bright folk familiar with conventional explanations that they are, would not have taken that measurement given how extensively they claim to have searched for any clue conventional or otherwise that would have provided even a hint of difference?

Why would you assume they could not find something so obvious to you and Scotty?

Quote:
Puthoff and Targ--so what makes them experts at detecting charlatans?

Heh, a very good question, we'd also need some evidence they DID detect charlatans.

It looks like we see some folks here repeating basic misunderstandings about the Randi prize, but that's really neither here nor there, what's at hand is Kait's claim of someone threatening him with physical violence.

Funny stuff. My question is valid except for the fact that *I* am the one asking it.

And then these nut jobs whine about me mocking them instead of trying to have a "discussion" with them.

No, for the third time, your question is not valid.

What do you expect as an answer from May? For the third time and as simple as it can be, she was not present at the time. How is she supposed to come up with a compilation of what was measured and what was similar? Answer this one question since you are so good at avoiding any questions that show your ignorance.

What do you expect to find if such a list is presented? Do you not understand the Naim engineers did their best to find an answer? Given their description of their research, what would you be looking for that they might have missed? If you cannot tell us what you are looking for and how that might be helpful and how the Naim engineers could have possibly missed such obvious evidence, then your compilation is merely a fishing expedition.

Those are the discussion points you are avoiding. You want a discussion, answer those questions and we can discuss something pertinent and not something specious.

Fishing for something that might cast doubt is troll work if you can't accept the skills and talents of the Naim engineers. Without an answer as to what you are looking for, you or anyone else who asks the question is taking the discussion off course. So stop with the jj stuff and the false accusations that we don't want a discussion. We want a discussion that is intelligent and not filled with the usual ad hominems from you and your wannabe BFFF.

As before, answer the questions put to you and a discussion might occur. Keep fishing and this goes nowhere simply because the answers have already been provided and they aren't going to change no matter how many times you demand another.

This is no different than MF realizing every time he provided the naysayers with the proof they demanded another proof would come along that had to be met and nothing stopped the demands while those making the demands still would not accept his perceptions. Scotty, you want to proclaim all things you are too lazy to investigate as BS - well, this is BS from you and it has been investigated and it has been addressed time after time.

If you really think the Naim engineers cannot do research or do not comprehend conventional explanations, say so and we can have that to deal with. The comments from the Naim engineers is just one more proof there is more to this than conventional explanation account for. Asking for more proof is not going to provide anything more to any discussion if you do are going to label anything BS just because you don't understand the mechanics - which you clearly do not.

As usual, you got nothing.

"It looks like we see some folks here repeating basic misunderstandings about the Randi prize, but that's really neither here nor there."

Randi's "test" is obviously rigged so that noone can win, not even an honest man. You know, like a magic trick. Randi must have run out of dowsers and spoon benders to go after. Audiophile tweaks are paranormal or occult? Who woulda thunk it?

"What's at hand is Kait's claim of someone threatening him with physical violence."

My claim? Is this a peer review of my claim that he threatened to kick my ass? Look, he threatened to kick my ass and I threatened to kick his ass. It's lucky for him it never came to blows as Steve Eddy would have sewed his ass to his face. The fact that Randi published the episode in such detail shows how desperate he is for attention. Things are tough all over, even for dowser rollers.

Quote:
No, for the third time, your question is not valid.

In the words of the esteemed David Mamet that would be "bullshit bullshit bullshit"

I would explain to you the logical falacies of argument by authority but seriously, I may aw well explain quantum physics to my bulldog.

Good!

The evidence is accepted because the "authority" actually is referring to those who would be considered authorities on the subject and who have no bone to pick in this.

While you, Scotty, still can't tell us what they might have missed since you have no frickin' idea. That also settles how much authority your demands and claims of bullshit have behind them - exactly none, just more copy/paste crap from someone without a clue. Good going, you've once again proven your dishonesty.