.
How can you have an argument if you don't have any experience?
Reminds me of a backseat driver. Further to question the character of John Curl just because it is a "tactic" when he don't agree with your view is not in the spirit of this discussion, you should know better
How can you have an argument if you don't have any experience?
Reminds me of a backseat driver. Further to question the character of John Curl just because it is a "tactic" when he don't agree with your view is not in the spirit of this discussion, you should know better
An argument only depends on the logic contained therein. The credibility of the source does not logically imply the validity of any of its arguments.
Also, I have not questioned the character of Mr Curl. If you bother to actually read, I have even defended him when the issue of the expensive booze came up a few posts back.
Also, I have not questioned the character of Mr Curl. If you bother to actually read, I have even defended him when the issue of the expensive booze came up a few posts back.
abzug said:
I've also aplied that "logic" before I've learned to think for myself and do my own experiments. Luckily, I've learnt not to believe everything that is written.
wakibaki said:
Looks to me like Mr Curl talks like any other technical professional with a solid track record who is proud of his work.
In this case, very well deserved.
Had he been driving a 959 i'd be more worried.
I doubt that the exotic brandy public would be interested in a CTC.
At least not the clientele i've encountered, who spend up to $150m on luxury items.
On a personal level, i favor to be leading the watch, instead of the reverse.
BTW, has anybody read Paul Frindle´s Article (post #597)?
He made some astonishing claims about their findings confirmed with double blind tests and it was published rougly ten years ago.
In contrary to xiphmonts position that afaik did not lead to any new studies i´m aware of nor did it change the arguments on either side, what exactly is reflected by the discussion in this thread.
Sometimes it makes me wonder ....
Wishes
He made some astonishing claims about their findings confirmed with double blind tests and it was published rougly ten years ago.
In contrary to xiphmonts position that afaik did not lead to any new studies i´m aware of nor did it change the arguments on either side, what exactly is reflected by the discussion in this thread.
Sometimes it makes me wonder ....
Wishes
And? My point was valid regardless of whom you were replying to, as it addressed an error in your argument.
Then, you quote me and say "Further to question the character of John Curl..."
There's nothing in common between these things.
Then, you quote me and say "Further to question the character of John Curl..."
There's nothing in common between these things.
To me my question was asked to wakibaki and I assumed you were talking about him also.
I'm still wondering how one can argue something without personal experience about it, or at least experience must count for something.
I'm still wondering how one can argue something without personal experience about it, or at least experience must count for something.
It only counts for something if you take implied assumptions based on the person's word. But in a contentious argument they should be made explicit anyway, since obviously they can be also subject to disagreement. Once the entirety of the argument is thus presented, its truth value can be unambiguously evaluated by anyone with sufficient reasoning skills (or it may be found that there is not enough information to assign a truth value with reasonable certainty).
abzug said:
To me there is no argument, as far as I remember, the "hear differences" side said a few times if you don't hear a difference, good for you, but we are called to be hallucinating etc. If that is true, it's OK with me anyhow, at least my hallucinations are consequent and I like what I hear.
You mean "consistent", not "consequent".
That may work for you fine, but expressing false beliefs is a disservice to society. This has been argued very well by W.K. Clifford back in the 19th century; see "The Ethics of Belief".
That may work for you fine, but expressing false beliefs is a disservice to society. This has been argued very well by W.K. Clifford back in the 19th century; see "The Ethics of Belief".
abzug said:
If you want proof, come and visit me, I will be glad to show you, in fact I'm 100% sure you will hear the differences for yourself (as long as you don't wear hearing aids). Further, from what I see even in this thread, there is very few that don't hear differences.
As said, if you don't hear differences, good for you. We have never tried to force anything on anybody, only suggested to go and listen for yourself. To be honest, I won't care if the rest of the world are happy with MP3's, I enjoy what I have, even if you don't like it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.