"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
k.net...

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com
Contrary to what is implied on James Randi's website, neither of
these products has been reviewed in Stereophile.

Atkinson...uses the hedge word "implied"

Yes, because in this specific instance, The Amazing Randi follows
his discussion of Stereophile with comments on reviews of the
Shakti and Bybee devices without attributing those reviews with
the publication in which those reviews appeared. The reader is thus
left with the impression that those reviews were published in
Stereophile.

Just like when you claimed rsults from your ABX tests that didn't really
mean what you were trying to imply.

And to judge by the e-mails I get since James Randi
published my address on his site, people _do_ get that impression.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

What sort of impression do SP readers get if they read a positive review
of Shakti Stones?

Would it be A: These things work, the reviewer said so, and SP has all
those charts and graphs and stuff.

Or would it be B: Holy ****, this must be snake oil, they don't have any
sort of measurements to justify the reviewer's impressions.

maybe it would be C: I would like to audition them and
make up my own mind.

maybe it would be D: Maybe they might work, and mmaybe not,
but they are very expensive, and my time and money might be
better spent on other resources that are likely to provide
more otential improvements for less money.

Mikey, your big mistake is in assuming
everyone else is as stupid as you are.