Re: Thanks to whovever it was

In article <g2u5bp$o9m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, DM
<dm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


Problem was as stated. Opinion presented as 'facts' with no backing or
evidence it seems - in an area where some might then be mislead into
spending sums of money.


If someone reads the hifi press and believes this crap after considering
the reviews and gets taken in then they are fools but have made their
choice.

I don't necessarily agree. If someone has no real education in physical
science or engineering they could easily simply assume that what they read
is reliable. Particularly if they read the same assertions repeatedly made
in magazines, etc, by many people over a long period of time. (In this case
such claims have appeared in the magazines for *decades*.)

Seems to me quite reasonable that someone who just wants a good audio
system to listen to music might feel they don't want to have to study
science and engineering to do so. Although I'd tend to prefer it if they
did, for reasons that will be obvious in the context of this thread. ;->

Someone can know little about engineering or science, but that does not
make them a 'fool'. Their problem here is that they may be offerred no
'choice'. i.e. that all they read tells them that fancy cables are worth
buying, and that 1000 pound mains cables is an option that can make a big
difference to the sounds produced.

Thus the point of challenging such assertions when they pop up on usenet,
etc. That gives the innocent a choice, and at least flags that not all
assertions are reliable. :-) Then up to them what to accept or reject.

If someone reads a few lines written in a newsgroup and acts upon it
then I think they are past help in any form.

Again, I don't really agree. People can learn. We aren't all born already
knowing everything we need to know. Sometimes, of course, they will learn
from bitter experience that their wallet was operated on for no good
reason. But I think they can also learn if given information of a suitable
kind.

But they won't learn if what they have been told isn't challenged or
questioned in some way, or they are given some reason to wonder if what
they were told stands up or not. Mind you, I worked in the 'ed biz' for
many years, so I like to think people can learn, and that it is desirable
that they do so. :-) Alas, I also found that some students are unable to
learn because they are either terrified of admitting they don't know, or
because they are certain they already know - when they are mistaken. So
refuse to listen when their ideas are challenged.




I think we're all still allowed to have an opinion and also state it
in public... it would be a sad place if that was not the case.

Indeed. Just as others are "allowed" to challenge any opinions stated
as if they were facts, and where no evidence is offerred beyond an
assertion of faith. It would be a sad (and misleading place) if that
was not the case.
:-)

Yes I've got absolutely no problem with that, but your previous reply
which has been snipped seemed some what contradictory to this

/quote What he 'believes' is his problem - provided he never states it
in public or it affects anyone else. The problems of others may begin
when he asserts /end quote

That does not infer to me that you think he should be allowed to say
anything.

I note your use of "seemed". Your inferences are your own creations here,
I'm afraid. :-) I can't stop you reading things I didn't actually write.
I meant what I wrote. Nothing else.

I might not agree with hos vies but I do not mind him coming
out with them.

Nor do I. But I then think it reasonable to challenge what was said.
Indeed, it is a useful opportunity to flag up that such views should be
treated with some caution. Thus potentially serving a useful purpose. I
hope that you also do not mind this. But...

On unmoderated usenet groups it is almost meaningless to say that something
is "allowed" (or not) since anyone can post anything. The best we can hope
for is that they tend to stay on topic, and try to engage in an informed
and reasonable way - even when a cherished 'experience' may be challenged.
:-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Change 'noise' to 'jcgl' if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Define a clock
    ... We can have evidence of it's validity, ... I've always given reasons for my assertions. ... The only thing we have when it comes to relativity ... So there's no reason to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: hd radio
    ... assertions and claims about this. ... evidence showing that your other opinion was 'fact'. ... it was anything more than your personal opinion as to your own asserted ... "reason" for another of your opinions. ...
    (uk.rec.audio)
  • Re: CD Sales Down
    ... maybe if I'd set reason aside one time and went with my feeling that one time might have worked. ... Evidence is used to convince someone who DOESN'T already believe. ... entered the guy's head. ... there are all sorts of regulations about secondary usage of tech related to a whole host of items - being able to take something apart and rebuild it into something else. ...
    (alt.guitar)
  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... I still haven't seen a good reason. ... People in Biblical times supposedly saw God. ... The evidence says the opposite. ... that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Big Bang theory. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Toad is the Epitome of Stink Bombs
    ... The question is, if this so called evidence actally exists, will it be ... "The question may be asked what was the reason or motive for the ... motive need be proven by the prosecution, and circumstantial evidence ... and reject that interpretation which points to ...
    (misc.legal)
Loading