wrote

snip quacking


No. I read the charter of this newsgroup, and it
doesn't state "The purpose of rec.audio.opinion
is to blow off some steam". The reason Usenet
was invented was to promote discussion and
further our knowledge of various topics.

Good point.


That is realistically impossible to do on this
group, because everyone is too busy blowing
off some steam.

Yes, this N.G.can be a had row to hoe for Newbies.


I don't know if you or anyone still realizes this,
but the newsgroup actually has a theme; the theme
is audio. The purpose of being here is to discuss
audio.

Have any of your posts been intentionally canceled?
It appears that you have had plenty of opportunities
to get your message across (USEnet intent). What
more do you want?


And I actually didn't come here to "blow off steam",
I came to discuss audio.

Your brand/mindset of audio is unique. It's difficult
for people to relate to your viewpoint when there is
no apparent methodology behind it.


But you left the question open as to why I should
expect to get such hostile reactions of mockery,
derision, scorn and ridicule from everyone.

Soooo? Does this justified a returning in kind
on your part?


Who's fault is it that the tweaks don't seem logical
to you or others, according to your conventional
views? Is it my fault?

Well, yes!


The inventor's?

Yes.


And if you or the self-professed so-called "scientists"
here want to dismiss everything that seems "silly" to
you, as people have been doing throughout the history
of this group, how the hell are we ever supposed to
embrace new concepts and ideas, and progress in our
understanding of the world?

Ok.


I feel sorry for most everyone here, who share this
kind of mentality. And I have a reason to feel sorry,
every time that I sit down and listen to my audio system.
Which probably sounds better than that of most of my
critics.

Quack, quack, quack...


Because I know a lot of things about truth that they
don't,

"Truth"... please define? What is the difference
between a fact and a claim?


about the world we live in that they don't,

Don't we all have our own unique perspective?


and I know that they could enjoy the same or
better sound from their audio, were they not
prisoners of their fear and logic.

How does one "enjoy the same" sound?
Isn't that a null or no difference.


Precisely. (Almost). That's what I intended to
show. That if any of the tweaks (except for the
speaker grounding) have any discernible effect
on the sound,

"discernible effect"... please define? Does
the change have to be for the better (higher
fidelity)?


by -anyone-, then I've shown that there are
phenomena occuring that affect our perception
of sound, which are completely outside of
Newtonian principles; including having a direct
effect on the signal path.

This is a very poor metaphor "Newtonian principles"
as it represented a viewpoint of the world that existed
in the 18th and 19th century. Interesting study for 8th
grade science class.


I think its as easy as pie to demonstrate this, since
I know of so many ways within the realm of
alternative audio concepts.

"concepts"... I see no methodology.


But at the same time, quite difficult, because
there is so much hostility from the mass majority
to learning new things, and accepting the
possibility of new ideas in our understanding of
science, our biology, and the world we live in.

As I understand your byline you have rejected
science in favor of empiricism.


They don't operate on Newtonian principles, we
know that much.

In the strictest sense nothing does. Not since
18th and 19th century.


But we have to remember that QM is a relatively
new science, and not much is known in this area.

"New science"...you have no idea what you are
talking about. Quantum Mechanics was a mature
science by the early 60's. The latest version now
being referred to as Quantum Chromodynamics.