English is my first language, I also teach it and I have no need to look up the words you suggest. But for fun, I will check them again if you offer a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for why its me who's misunderstanding and not you.
I see that you lost the argument against T. However you won't accept that fact despite the evidence. Which makes the irony rather rich😀
It seems you're misunderstanding the word 'falsify' as I've been using it - it applies to a hypothesis, not to a scam.
At this point, the hypothesis I was referring to wasn't about the operation of the quantum purifiers, rather one to support SY's contention that the Nigerians COULD be for real. Its now become obvious he hasn't got one so his "argument" rather falls over...
Hi Sy,
Again, the comparison is quite bad.
In one case we deal with a material object that can be investigated. Whatever else we may note in the context (overpriced etc.) does not change this.
This material object has a number of properties that some people have observed.
In the other we have nothing.
And I will point out again, that if:
A) JB Devices employ the RFI filteringe devices I noticed
B) Such filtering produces an improvement
C) The actual device can be exposed and purchasing information at normal cost becomes available
you will have:
1) A lot of happy DIY'ers using the cheap generic parts that are the operational principle
2) JB will have much more problems charging what he does
3) You will proven your point partially, as in "it does not work the way he says it does"
With your flatout negativity and dismissal you are actually helping the person you label "a scammer" (as it is easy to dismiss your position) and you are doing those "poor dupes worthy of pity" no favors as they will be able to easily dismiss you as simply an SP (Suppressive Person) or similar labels.
But we had this debate before. You prefer to reject anything that does not fit within your weltanschauung as "scam". It certainly will limit the times you get taken for a ride, even the kind you would have enjoyed and which would have enriched your life.
Ciao T
Again, the comparison is quite bad.
In one case we deal with a material object that can be investigated. Whatever else we may note in the context (overpriced etc.) does not change this.
This material object has a number of properties that some people have observed.
In the other we have nothing.
And I will point out again, that if:
A) JB Devices employ the RFI filteringe devices I noticed
B) Such filtering produces an improvement
C) The actual device can be exposed and purchasing information at normal cost becomes available
you will have:
1) A lot of happy DIY'ers using the cheap generic parts that are the operational principle
2) JB will have much more problems charging what he does
3) You will proven your point partially, as in "it does not work the way he says it does"
With your flatout negativity and dismissal you are actually helping the person you label "a scammer" (as it is easy to dismiss your position) and you are doing those "poor dupes worthy of pity" no favors as they will be able to easily dismiss you as simply an SP (Suppressive Person) or similar labels.
But we had this debate before. You prefer to reject anything that does not fit within your weltanschauung as "scam". It certainly will limit the times you get taken for a ride, even the kind you would have enjoyed and which would have enriched your life.
Ciao T
I once got into an argument with him and he turned me into a newt!
He's a witch! BURN HIM!
se
So,
I take it I am the only one who finds that such a device does not violate the theories of current physics?
I have offered to do a blind test with one, but the consensus was no one believe the results.
I suspect it is not too hard to measure the properties either, when one knows what to look for.
But the question is why bother, so many folks want to waste time offering opinions.
As to sending money to the Nigerians so willing to help you, actually there have been times when I think I could have used their services! But of course that would have been illegal, but an awful lot of fun would have resulted!
I take it I am the only one who finds that such a device does not violate the theories of current physics?
I have offered to do a blind test with one, but the consensus was no one believe the results.
I suspect it is not too hard to measure the properties either, when one knows what to look for.
But the question is why bother, so many folks want to waste time offering opinions.
As to sending money to the Nigerians so willing to help you, actually there have been times when I think I could have used their services! But of course that would have been illegal, but an awful lot of fun would have resulted!
I tried to speak to Jack Bybee about this thread, this morning, but he is off to Lake Tahoe. A man his age has fun when he can get it. I just can't get him interested in contributing here.
That is rather specious. The tone of SY's argument does not affect its validity.
SY rejects claims for which there is no evidence. Skepticism is certainly a weltanschauung (world view), but to dismiss a skeptic because you don't like the message is to forget the whole point of skepticism to begin with - to think before you believe something....
I, for one, would be very interested, assuming you set up decent controls. I take your results quite seriously, despite some minor disagreements about interpretation of those results.
If you do and see the claimed room temperature superconductivity, I will certainly recant everything dismissive I've said. 😀
I reject EXTRAORDINARY claims for which there is no evidence. It's an important distinction.
But... Steve; you got better ;-)
(on topic) Without evidence it's a question of faith
Last edited:
Hi,
But JB's reputation affects the validity of his arguments?
Surely we can afford to measure with ONE yardstick here (or beat people over the head with it)? Surely we do not need to apply one standards for those on "our side" and another for those on "the other side"?
Because if we do we are back to McCarthy, Hitler, Stalin, Ceauşescu, Beria, Ulbricht, Honnecker and let's not forget Bush JR. and the Spanish inquisition.
A skeptic as evidenced by Randi and his cohorts (and it seems Sy is eager to nail his colours to that particular mast) is just another kind of believer with a closed mind. It is just someone who "blindly dis-believes", meaning the exact and polar inversion of those who "blindly believe".
Actually both kinds are quite seriously personalities one may class SP's, they are constitutionally incapable in joining the fun, so they have to make it bad for those that can. One may think of them as two different shade of blue blue meanies... I think the ones in the original Yellow Submarine Anime where the "Believers", the "even bluer and meaner" blue meanies John Lenon mentions at the end may very well have been the "Disbelievers".
I do not have much use for the religious modes of the human mind (belief or disbelief in other words), be it in myself or in others. I do not believe or disbelieve anything (though I do have a lot of suspicions). I do know a few things though.
Now, how about we get back to discussing what ACTUALLY is inside these oh so contentious Quantum Purifiers and if a ordinary DIY'er Dude can manage to make his own versions at lower cost than the originals?
Kind of like what started the "Chipamp" Forum here among others.
Who knows, there may be some mileage in this after all.
For me, I shall look out (and look up in the catalog's) for these green RFI suppressor thingamabobies and see if I can get some use out of them after all... 😛 It may pay for the time wasted in this thread.
Ciao T
But JB's reputation affects the validity of his arguments?
Surely we can afford to measure with ONE yardstick here (or beat people over the head with it)? Surely we do not need to apply one standards for those on "our side" and another for those on "the other side"?
Because if we do we are back to McCarthy, Hitler, Stalin, Ceauşescu, Beria, Ulbricht, Honnecker and let's not forget Bush JR. and the Spanish inquisition.
A skeptic as evidenced by Randi and his cohorts (and it seems Sy is eager to nail his colours to that particular mast) is just another kind of believer with a closed mind. It is just someone who "blindly dis-believes", meaning the exact and polar inversion of those who "blindly believe".
Actually both kinds are quite seriously personalities one may class SP's, they are constitutionally incapable in joining the fun, so they have to make it bad for those that can. One may think of them as two different shade of blue blue meanies... I think the ones in the original Yellow Submarine Anime where the "Believers", the "even bluer and meaner" blue meanies John Lenon mentions at the end may very well have been the "Disbelievers".
I do not have much use for the religious modes of the human mind (belief or disbelief in other words), be it in myself or in others. I do not believe or disbelieve anything (though I do have a lot of suspicions). I do know a few things though.
Now, how about we get back to discussing what ACTUALLY is inside these oh so contentious Quantum Purifiers and if a ordinary DIY'er Dude can manage to make his own versions at lower cost than the originals?
Kind of like what started the "Chipamp" Forum here among others.
Who knows, there may be some mileage in this after all.
For me, I shall look out (and look up in the catalog's) for these green RFI suppressor thingamabobies and see if I can get some use out of them after all... 😛 It may pay for the time wasted in this thread.
Ciao T
Hi,
To be precise (my fault for not being):
The House Committee on Un-American Activities
House Un-American Activities Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Especially the 50's where bad. Though I guess they where worse on my side of the iron Curtain.
They kind of had a bee or two or a whole hive in their bonnets about the red and pink threat to american society.
Ciao T
PS, the Rosenbergs where purportedly spies for soviet russia that gave the commies the Bomb:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For more fun-facts of the past to look up listen to Billy Joel "We Didn't Start The Fire" and look up each line. Quite fun.
To be precise (my fault for not being):
The House Committee on Un-American Activities
House Un-American Activities Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Especially the 50's where bad. Though I guess they where worse on my side of the iron Curtain.
They kind of had a bee or two or a whole hive in their bonnets about the red and pink threat to american society.
Ciao T
PS, the Rosenbergs where purportedly spies for soviet russia that gave the commies the Bomb:
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For more fun-facts of the past to look up listen to Billy Joel "We Didn't Start The Fire" and look up each line. Quite fun.
Exactly. Gold star, Thorsten. When one is selling something for which extraordinary claims are made, no evidence or plausibility is given, and one is supposed to buy on the basis of faith and testimonial, then yes, one ONLY has reputation to validate an argument.
Now, evidence is a different thing, but not forthcoming from the scammers.
ThorstenL
You miss the point of what is going on here entirely.
I am sure that you try to take an even-handed approach with the best of intentions, but in fact you contribute very little by your protracted fence-squatting, other than to give heart to the very many individuals who are entirely prepared to exploit such weakness to their own benefit.
Recall the words of the Irish philosopher Edmund Burke:
'There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.'
This is not a courtroom, more a marketplace of ideas, and an over-legalistic approach is doomed to fail where parties fail to follow your rules of evidence.
It is naiive to imagine that all participants are well-motivated. It is perverse to suggest that others who freely and repeatedly give of their time and knowledge are part of some conspiracy of obfuscation for the preservation of their undeserved self-importance.
We are not involved in a witch-hunt here, we are debunking a fraud, insofar as that is possible in the context of an exchange on an internet forum. Some of the protagonists have commercial interests, for all you know Jack Bybee could be lurking behind one of these aliases, if he even exists.
All the information presented here has to be evaluated by the individual readers on the basis of its provenance (See: The Media Lab by Stuart Brand)
In this case the provenance is minimal. You look at each person's contributions, both individually and as a whole, and make up your mind what to believe, or at least use as a working hypothesis. It's not unlike evaluating an obvious advert, in fact, that's what this thread is all about, 'how do you evaluate an advert?' One way is, come on here and take a poll.
You evidently do not know what to do with a ballot paper, hence you choose to spoil it. Given that you do not have the courage or evidently the education to take a position as a professional engineer and defend it, your attack on SY, whose motivations, as far as I can judge on the basis of the posts of his that I have seen, are beyond reproach, and who is prepared to take a position, is a mere insult.
w
He also said, comfortingly, 'Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.' Fortunately I'm not a believer. Not in the case of bybee purifiers anyway...
You miss the point of what is going on here entirely.
I am sure that you try to take an even-handed approach with the best of intentions, but in fact you contribute very little by your protracted fence-squatting, other than to give heart to the very many individuals who are entirely prepared to exploit such weakness to their own benefit.
Recall the words of the Irish philosopher Edmund Burke:
'There is, however, a limit at which forbearance ceases to be a virtue.'
This is not a courtroom, more a marketplace of ideas, and an over-legalistic approach is doomed to fail where parties fail to follow your rules of evidence.
It is naiive to imagine that all participants are well-motivated. It is perverse to suggest that others who freely and repeatedly give of their time and knowledge are part of some conspiracy of obfuscation for the preservation of their undeserved self-importance.
We are not involved in a witch-hunt here, we are debunking a fraud, insofar as that is possible in the context of an exchange on an internet forum. Some of the protagonists have commercial interests, for all you know Jack Bybee could be lurking behind one of these aliases, if he even exists.
All the information presented here has to be evaluated by the individual readers on the basis of its provenance (See: The Media Lab by Stuart Brand)
In this case the provenance is minimal. You look at each person's contributions, both individually and as a whole, and make up your mind what to believe, or at least use as a working hypothesis. It's not unlike evaluating an obvious advert, in fact, that's what this thread is all about, 'how do you evaluate an advert?' One way is, come on here and take a poll.
You evidently do not know what to do with a ballot paper, hence you choose to spoil it. Given that you do not have the courage or evidently the education to take a position as a professional engineer and defend it, your attack on SY, whose motivations, as far as I can judge on the basis of the posts of his that I have seen, are beyond reproach, and who is prepared to take a position, is a mere insult.
w
He also said, comfortingly, 'Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.' Fortunately I'm not a believer. Not in the case of bybee purifiers anyway...
OK,
I will buy a pair, and see what I find. Should be a month or two. The only claim I am interested in is do they reduce system noise? I could mention a few famous names that got the result right, but the method should not have got them there!
I am perfectly willing to believe people when they tell me they do not hear a difference. I find it interesting when people report a difference that can be measured at a level well below what seems reasonable. Is it that enough claims are made that some have to be right, or is there an unknown multiplier mechanism, or do some people really perceive some things that much better than others?
Wakibaki,
Has voiced my response to this, and well.
The maker of claims is to provide the supporting evidence.
Has voiced my response to this, and well.
The maker of claims is to provide the supporting evidence.
Don't see how there can be any useful exchanges with something like the Purifiers as they're backed by a load of spurious claims.
se
- Status
- Not open for further replies.