omega wrote: > seanadams;213834 Wrote: >> How exactly do you suggest we bet on something if you won't accept >> simple empirical evidence that you are wrong? Will the winner be >> whoever can yell I AM RIGHT the loudest? Or whoever can get the most >> friends to come post on this forum? >> >> No, I am not interested in a bet with you. But if you don't mind, I >> would like a dime bag of whatever you're smoking. >> >> Cheers. > > Hi! > > Okey, so a bet is not an option, as I understand from your quite rude > post. (Quite dishonest of you to imply that I am some kind of > drug-addict and not fit to use your product. But I'm obviously mentally > fit enough to buy the bl-dy box as long as I don't criticize it.) > > Whatever, what I'm suggesting is nothing else but a scientific result. > As probably even you know; scientifical tests are repeatable and can be > duplicated in identical settings. > > Furthermore, a true scientist don't accept the absence of an occurence > as proof for its non-existence. I.e. it is not possible to say that > "You don't have brother since I've not seen him." or "God doesn't exist > since I've not seen Him." or "The squeezebox is without faults since > I've not encountered any." > > > I respect if you don't want to gamble about facts but I believe that > you are man enough to obey facts. Aren't you?
If you can produce a scientific, repeatable test that demonstrates this phenomenon, *I'll* have a bet with you that Sean will be the first to sit up and take notice and work on fixing it. But you've not done that yet. We're all waiting... R. _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
