Geoffkait:I read your last post. I read your last two posts. Did I err? Did I misinterpret something?
to which Atmasphere replied,
"As far as I can tell, you misinterpret on purpose. That makes it hard to have a conversation. Example:
Geoffkait: Or maybe you’re insinuating that any person who doesn’t get the results you’re looking for isn’t honest and careful, it’s hard to tell."
Unfortunately the example you provided has nothing to do with what we’re actually talking about, which is YOUR last two posts and if I had misinterpreted something you said. You have deftly avoided answering my question, instead deciding for some bizarre reason to quote my response to Al on a an entirely different issue. In any case, just to set the record straight, UL is not a requirement or a directive, it’s a guideline or standard. In other words, there is nothing preventing an audiophile from using non UL listed fuses. Audiophiles are not directed or required to use UL listed fuses. In the Government, for example, if the Government specifies that a certain standard is required by the contractor then the standard is required. Otherwise the particular standard is NOT required. End of story.
Then Atmasphere opined,
"Al does not insinuate. You are one of the very few I have ever seen to attack Al, who IMO and that of many others is an important asset to this site. You might consider ratcheting down the rhetoric."
The insinuation that tests that don’t get the "right" results are not honest or careful is rhetoric. His rhetoric. I’ve already pointed out that a scientifically correct test would eliminate the fuse holder altogether. I don’t see any reasonable refutation of that approach from either you or Al on that point, just a lot of who shot John.
cheers
