Now that the money question is being resolved, it is time to look at what
the claimant should put on the table. I propose that the person holding
the money also hold a message which states that the claimant has failed to
discern a difference between his wire and zip cord and it be automatically
posted to various previously listed net distribution sources when the
monitor concludes the test was as agreed. The claimant, in language agreed
upon, will say in effect that he withdraws his previously held view that
his wire product has a "sound" different from zip cord that can be
identified by listening alone testing.

wrote:
Now that the money question is being resolved, it is time to look at what
the claimant should put on the table. I propose that the person holding
the money also hold a message which states that the claimant has failed to
discern a difference between his wire and zip cord and it be automatically
posted to various previously listed net distribution sources when the
monitor concludes the test was as agreed. The claimant, in language agreed
upon, will say in effect that he withdraws his previously held view that
his wire product has a "sound" different from zip cord that can be
identified by listening alone testing.



Wire product?

I thought the issue was power amps? No?

Let's at least discriminate as to what the "challenge" actually is??

And, btw, there should be a similar onus upon those who are "making the
challenge" should they lose the test. Yes?

_-_-bear

On 11 Sep 2005 16:47:22 GMT, BEAR wrote:

wrote:
Now that the money question is being resolved, it is time to look at what
the claimant should put on the table. I propose that the person holding
the money also hold a message which states that the claimant has failed to
discern a difference between his wire and zip cord and it be automatically
posted to various previously listed net distribution sources when the
monitor concludes the test was as agreed. The claimant, in language agreed
upon, will say in effect that he withdraws his previously held view that
his wire product has a "sound" different from zip cord that can be
identified by listening alone testing.

Wire product?

I thought the issue was power amps? No?

You seem to be trying to make money out of those who believe your
assurances that 'Silver Lightning' sounds better than plain old
zipcord. Do you not believe your own claims about your products? Is
this yet another excuse to avoid the challenge?

Let's at least discriminate as to what the "challenge" actually is??

The challenge is that you should prove your claims of audible
difference. Now, since your own commercial website claims that 'Silver
Lightning' cables sound better than other cables, you seem to have set
your own terms, no?

And, btw, there should be a similar onus upon those who are "making the
challenge" should they lose the test. Yes?

Hardly necessary, since we are putting up cold cash. I'm sure that, in
the highly unlikely event of you winning, there will be trumpeting
across the whole of Usenet.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 11 Sep 2005 16:47:22 GMT, BEAR wrote:


wrote:

Now that the money question is being resolved, it is time to look at what
the claimant should put on the table. I propose that the person holding
the money also hold a message which states that the claimant has failed to
discern a difference between his wire and zip cord and it be automatically
posted to various previously listed net distribution sources when the
monitor concludes the test was as agreed. The claimant, in language agreed
upon, will say in effect that he withdraws his previously held view that
his wire product has a "sound" different from zip cord that can be
identified by listening alone testing.


Wire product?

I thought the issue was power amps? No?


You seem to be trying to make money out of those who believe your
assurances that 'Silver Lightning' sounds better than plain old
zipcord. Do you not believe your own claims about your products? Is
this yet another excuse to avoid the challenge?

Forget about what I seem to be doing or not.
I am insignificant.
Either there is a generally accepted CHALLENGE that ANYONE can take up
or there is just so much steam and noise going on.



Let's at least discriminate as to what the "challenge" actually is??


The challenge is that you should prove your claims of audible
difference. Now, since your own commercial website claims that 'Silver
Lightning' cables sound better than other cables, you seem to have set
your own terms, no?

No Lord Pinkerton. Nice try at changing things around to be a personal
vendetta.

You and others here have CLAIMED a CHALLENGE with $$ "prize" EXISTS.
Either you document what that is, and make it OBJECTIVELY UNAMBIGUOUS or
you are continuing to argue for arguments sake. And, Lord Pinkerton,
given you long history of posts to r.a.o. I wonder if this is what you
are most expert at doing?



And, btw, there should be a similar onus upon those who are "making the
challenge" should they lose the test. Yes?


Hardly necessary, since we are putting up cold cash. I'm sure that, in
the highly unlikely event of you winning, there will be trumpeting
across the whole of Usenet.................

Not my style, Lord Pinkerton.

Again, the SUBJECT here is the *alleged challenge* that you and others
are so fond of making reference to as if it actually existed as anything
other than an imaginary beast. After you straighten out that "little
issue" we can move on to "private" challenges. Alright then?

_-_-bear

"Wire product?

"I thought the issue was power amps? No?

Let's at least discriminate as to what the "challenge" actually is??

And, btw, there should be a similar onus upon those who are "making the
challenge" should they lose the test. Yes?"


As I recall, the original prize offered here historically was about wire,
the amp by clark. It really makes no defference to me. If you want
equality in forms of jeopardy then equal amounts of money would also seem
reasonable, no?

BEAR wrote:

Forget about what I seem to be doing or not.
I am insignificant.
Either there is a generally accepted CHALLENGE that ANYONE can take up
or there is just so much steam and noise going on.

I came along here long after this challenge was laid down, and I am not
part of it. But it is plainly obvious to me that this challenge exists,
and that the next step in the process is for someone who believes they
can hear a difference between speaker cables (not related to level or
FR differences) to step up and identify which cable they think they can
distinguish from zipcord under double-blind level matched conditions.
Once someone does that, the details should be fairly easy to iron out.

It's also plainly obvious to me why Randy keeps wanting to make a
federal case of a challenge he clearly doesn't want to accept. The only
thing that's not obvious to me is why the moderators allow him to waste
our time with the same insincere objections year after year after year.

bob

[Moderator's note: Because there is no rule against Randy challenging
the challenge. -- deb ]

"BEAR" emitted :

You and others here have CLAIMED a CHALLENGE with $$ "prize" EXISTS.
Either you document what that is, and make it OBJECTIVELY UNAMBIGUOUS or
you are continuing to argue for arguments sake. And, Lord Pinkerton,
given you long history of posts to r.a.o. I wonder if this is what you
are most expert at doing?

All I can say is... good luck!

I repeatedly asked Mr Pinkerton to clarify the *exact* terms of his
cable challenge such that it could be drawn up into a legally binding
contract. He was unable or unwilling to do this. No explanation was
forthcoming.

Then he wimped out when I asked if he was OK with the test being
performed in Manchester. Reason? He was worried that his car might get
scratched. This despite secure parking facilities, CCTV and security
staff on the premises.