Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
stones and tice clocks work.

When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions,
which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of
Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free
on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..

That is a misrepresentation of fact, not opinion.

Nope, it is quite definitely the publishing of opinion.

It's also known as fraud.

Nope, you are wrong on that too. And yes, why _are_ you
doing this in r.a.p.? I have crossposted this response to
r.a.o. where this thread belongs, in my opinion.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

wrote:
Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
stones and tice clocks work.

When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic.

At the risk of being repititous... I read both reviews and still can't
tell... who was the skeptic?


ScottW

In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

wrote:
Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
stones and tice clocks work.

When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic.

At the risk of being repititous... I read both reviews and still can't
tell... who was the skeptic?

TJN said he was "skeptically open-minded."

Stephen

"ScottW" wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:
Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
stones and tice clocks work.

When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic.

At the risk of being repititous... I read both reviews and still can't
tell... who was the skeptic?


So what else is new?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
stones and tice clocks work.

When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic.

Where can we find the measurements taken that demonstrate that Shakti Stones
have any real effect on an audio system?

Both reported similar impressions,

Which one has the measurements?

wrote in message
oups.com

Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile
when he allows the publication of articles which claim
that magic stones and tice clocks work.

When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's
coverage of the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its
advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the
Shakti Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a
high-end true believer, the other a skeptic.

Given the low standards demonstrated by Stereophile when it
comes to audio skepticism...

Both reported similar impressions, which I admit I found
surprising.

(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions to a
non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a skeptic.

(2) A true skeptic does not believe in anything but
skepticism, and he should be in doubt about that.

(3) A true skeptic will not affirm anything, he'll just
report his momentary inability to find any definate reason
to say that its all in error.


You can find the entirety of Stereophile's
coverage of these products in the magazine's free on-line
archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..

FWIW...

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions to a
non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing exists?
Should not then both, having similar senses, report similar results,
skeptic or otherwise? Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or
non-skeptics are intrinsically liars?

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
full.

Should not then both, having similar senses,
report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?

One word: nope.

Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or non-skeptics
are
intrinsically liars?

No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
what their impressions fo the world are.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
full.

Arny, you are such a paradox.
The above is a very sophisticated worldview.
But it appears to me that you except yourself from it.
You appear to your adversaries on this group to be a true believer.
I anticipate your reply would be, "these are opinions you get to have."
If that is so, then my reply to you is, somewhere in the process of getting
these opinions, you picked up the mental baggage of a true believer.
This is a shame. With your apparent grasp of the subtleties, much more is
open to you.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
is affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of
it.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a
glass of water and has the impression that the glass
appears to be full.

Arny, you are such a paradox.
The above is a very sophisticated worldview.

Really? I think it's pretty simple.

But it appears to me that you except yourself from it.

Hey Robert all sorts of things seem to appear to you that
don't actually exist.

You appear to your adversaries on this group to be a
true believer.

Believer in what?

I anticipate your reply would be, "these are opinions you
get to have."

I was thinking more along the lines of "You get to be
wrong". ;-)

If that is so, then my reply to you is, somewhere in the
process of getting these opinions, you picked up the
mental baggage of a true believer.

Speaks to your inability to relate to people as being
cohorts, Robert.

This is a shame. With your apparent grasp of the
subtleties, much more is open to you.

Much more than what?

But thanks for perceiving that I may actually know something
of value, Robert. I guess. :-(

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate reality.
A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a doubting
outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it, is nevertheless
prepared to admit that truth and value. Now either you're saying that
a skeptic is one who is unable to see any truth or value in anything
due to his blinding skepticism, or else he sees the truth and value
but refuses to admit it due to his adherence to the creed of
skepticism, in which case he's simply dishonest. Which is it?


A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.

They can if that's what there.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
full.

But they're both saying the same thing. The only difference is in the
interpretation.

Should not then both, having similar senses,
report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?

One word: nope.

That's one word alright.

Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or non-skeptics
are
intrinsically liars?

No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
what their impressions fo the world are.

But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict reality. If
a stone is there in front of you, that's a reality and a fact. What
you're saying is that the fact of being a skeptic fatally colours your
impression of anything. If that's so, it says little for the creed of
skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool of science.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for
you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees
is affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate
reality.

Whatever that means.

A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a
doubting outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it,
is nevertheless prepared to admit that truth and value.

Whatever that means.

Now either you're saying that a skeptic is one who is
unable to see any truth or value in anything due to his
blinding skepticism, or else he sees the truth and value
but refuses to admit it due to his adherence to the creed
of skepticism, in which case he's simply dishonest. Which
is it?

Not at all.

A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of
it.

They can if that's what there.

Not at all.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a
glass of water and has the impression that the glass
appears to be full.

But they're both saying the same thing.

Not at all.

The only difference is in the interpretation.

That, too.

Should not then both, having similar senses,
report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?

One word: nope.

That's one word alright.

Thanks for agreeing.

Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or
non-skeptics are
intrinsically liars?

No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
what their impressions of the world are.

But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict
reality.


Sure they can. For example, people get things wrong all the
time. Errors and omissions, right?

If a stone is there in front of you, that's a
reality and a fact.

What is reality and what is a fact?

If you see a stone in front of you, in fact all you see is
one side of the stone. Who says that the other side has to
be there?

What you're saying is that the fact
of being a skeptic fatally colours your impression of
anything.

Skepticism is not always fatal. Many skeptics lead long and
happy lives.

f that's so, it says little for the creed of
skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool
of science.

There's that imagination thing again, Paul.

I'm getting this feeling that the very concept of viewpoints
and their potentially profound effects is way over your
head, Paul.

Maybe John Atkinson's dumbed-down epistemology is ate limit
of your mental capabilities, Paul. Maybe even that is beyond
your ability to fathom.

Scary thoughts!

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 08:29:19 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:19:47 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


(1) If a so-called skeptic reports similar impressions
to a non-skeptic, then he's obviously not really a
skeptic.

Really, Arnie? What if the phenomenum both are observing
exists?

OK Packer I take pity on you and now I spell it out for you:

Skepticism is a world view. Everything the skeptic sees is
affected by his world view, just like everything a
non-skeptic sees is affected by his world view.

Well, Arnie, let's assume there's only one ultimate reality.

Probably a safe bet.

A skeptic should be one who approaches something with a doubting
outlook, but if he finds truth or value in it, is nevertheless
prepared to admit that truth and value.

That sounds more like an Objectivist or a Realist.

Now either you're saying that
a skeptic is one who is unable to see any truth or value in anything
due to his blinding skepticism, or else he sees the truth and value
but refuses to admit it due to his adherence to the creed of
skepticism, in which case he's simply dishonest. Which is it?


Nope, a skeptic is one who doubts everything, including reality.


A skeptic and a true believer looking at the same thing
can't possibly have the identically same impressions of it.

They can if that's what there.

A true believer sees a full glass of water and has the
impression that the glass is full. A skeptic sees a glass of
water and has the impression that the glass appears to be
full.

But they're both saying the same thing. The only difference is in the
interpretation.

Should not then both, having similar senses,
report similar results, skeptic or otherwise?

One word: nope.

That's one word alright.

Or are you suggesting that either skeptics or non-skeptics
are
intrinsically liars?

No, just that everybody's world view has a lot to do with
what their impressions fo the world are.

But ultimately their impressions can't deny or contradict reality.

Yes they can, people deny reality all the time. There's a school of
thought, that says we can never know anything for sure due tot the fact that
all knowledge is filtered through our senses which are imperfect.

If
a stone is there in front of you, that's a reality and a fact.

That doens't mean it couldn't be a hallucination.

What
you're saying is that the fact of being a skeptic fatally colours your
impression of anything. If that's so, it says little for the creed of
skepticism, which I always imagined was an ally and tool of science.

Questioning the status quo to see if it agrees with reality is a bit
different than flat out skepicism. The sceintific method encourages the
former.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Chevdo wrote:
John Atkinson is not expressing 'opinion' in Stereophile when
he allows the publication of articles which claim that magic
stones and tice clocks work.

When did I do that, Chevdo? Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions,
which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of
Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free
on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..

That is a misrepresentation of fact, not opinion.

Nope, it is quite definitely the publishing of opinion.

It's also known as fraud.

You allowed to be printed, priase for a device for which you have
(allegedly) the capability to measure the effects of, but did not do so.
The fact that it's efficacy was never verified is at the very least stupid
and sloppy, and at worst an endorsement of snake oil, not that that's
anything new.

The Bug Eater pleads for protection from the big, bad Snake Oil Establishment.

Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions,
which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of
Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free
on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..
[This] is quite definitely the publishing of opinion.

You allowed to be printed,[sic] priase[sic] for a device for which you have
(allegedly) the capability to measure the effects of[sic], but did not do so.
The fact that it's[sic] efficacy was never verified is at the very least
stupid and sloppy, and at worst an endorsement of snake oil,[sic] not that
that's anything new.

Mickey, your ranting raises more than a few questions about your mental
competency. On the one hand, you claim these devices are "snake oil" (an
American idiom that means "worthless or fraudulent goods"). On the other hand,
you bleat about Stereophile not telling you they are "snake oil". Just one
question for you before you go back to banging your head on the sidewalk: If you
already know what you know, why do you need Stereophile to tell you anyway?


..
..
..
..

"George Middius" wrote in message
...



The Bug Eater pleads for protection from the big, bad Snake Oil
Establishment.

Following Stereophile's coverage of
the Tice Clock, Tice canceled all of its advertising and has
had nothing to do with the magazine since. Regarding the Shakti
Stone, I had it reviewed by two people, one a high-end true
believer, the other a skeptic. Both reported similar impressions,
which I admit I found surprising. You can find the entirety of
Stereophile's coverage of these products in the magazine's free
on-line archives at www.stereophile.com, BTW..
[This] is quite definitely the publishing of opinion.

You allowed to be printed,[sic] priase[sic] for a device for which you
have
(allegedly) the capability to measure the effects of[sic], but did not do
so.
The fact that it's[sic] efficacy was never verified is at the very least
stupid and sloppy, and at worst an endorsement of snake oil,[sic] not that
that's anything new.

Mickey, your ranting raises more than a few questions about your mental
competency. On the one hand, you claim these devices are "snake oil" (an
American idiom that means "worthless or fraudulent goods"). On the other
hand,
you bleat about Stereophile not telling you they are "snake oil". Just one
question for you before you go back to banging your head on the sidewalk:
If you
already know what you know, why do you need Stereophile to tell you
anyway?


.
As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to audiophiles.
Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti stone
might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people who
think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.

wrote:

As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to audiophiles.
Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti stone
might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people who
think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.

Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical numbers quoted for SS amps
are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the perspective of choosing one
over another based on that parameter.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to
audiophiles.
Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti
stone
might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people
who
think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.

Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical numbers quoted for SS
amps
are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the perspective of
choosing one
over another based on that parameter.

Graham

For small signal conditions, yes.
But have you experienced the condition where one amplifier which is rated
nearly flat to 20 Hz provides noticeably inferior bass to another with
similar specs? The reason is that damping factor is not reported for large
signals. IMHO, this is one of the major shortcomings in the quantitative
analysis of amplifier performance.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

As a sign of integrity from a magazine supposedly helpful to audiophiles.
Believe it or not there are people who might actually think a Shakti
stone
might acutally do something for their stereo, just like there are people
who
think that damping factor is an important specification for amplifiers.

Damping factor *is* important albeit the the typical numbers quoted for SS
amps
are so high as to be beyond worrying about from the perspective of
choosing one
over another based on that parameter.

Wrong, but thanks for playing.