prof,
I agree with many of your statements about how things and claims should be presented, confirmed, and supported. No doubt about your approach to it. Even your, now probably long-forgotten, dissection of original post is, to me at least, right to the point.
Where you may not be doing too well in all of this is putting too many emotions into something eventually completely unimportant. Some guy somewhere claiming things you see as bogus and selling it to other people who also have nothing better to do than to pay to play with bricks (wooden, or whatever) and that irritates you. So what? Let them play with their toys in whatever way they want, but do not pay with your new duodenal ulcer. It is not worth the trouble and you simply cannot win.
Michael Green did not avoid all of my questions or concerns. He explained, to the best of his beliefs, knowledge, and understanding how some of his ideas work. It took some time, but he did. Do I think his room treatments (save me from some cable elevators and such things, I would not believe it even if I heard it myself) work to change the sound? Absolutely. Do I think his explanation is correct? Not really. So what? He is trying to come up with something and present it the best he can. It would not be that hard to write down nice detailed explanation why he is incorrect on at least a thing or two in a few pages over the next fifteen minutes, but what would be the point? To show one's superiority over him on that? Not the best place to feed one's ego. To scare customers from him? It would not, they would just say some grumpy guy did not receive a memo about holistic approach to sound tuning. To put things in the world straight? Not worth it, some still believe that Earth is flat and no major harm happens because of that. To humiliate the person who has posted a fairly unfair assessment of others in his original post? Why? It is not going to change him no matter how hard you try. To force him to reveal that he has no proof for his claims that would be adhering to current scientific methods? You already know that. Why would you do it to yourself, it will only hurt you. After all, more people than just Michael Green are claiming things here left and right that are at times grotesque. Some get called, the others just slide under the radar. And the world rotates.
On a different note, who came up with the idea to disassemble a perfectly well-put together amplifier she/he paid dearly for and why? What was the initial idea about taking the cover off? Do people take doors off an expensive car to see if it corners better? Seems strange to me.
I agree with many of your statements about how things and claims should be presented, confirmed, and supported. No doubt about your approach to it. Even your, now probably long-forgotten, dissection of original post is, to me at least, right to the point.
Where you may not be doing too well in all of this is putting too many emotions into something eventually completely unimportant. Some guy somewhere claiming things you see as bogus and selling it to other people who also have nothing better to do than to pay to play with bricks (wooden, or whatever) and that irritates you. So what? Let them play with their toys in whatever way they want, but do not pay with your new duodenal ulcer. It is not worth the trouble and you simply cannot win.
Michael Green did not avoid all of my questions or concerns. He explained, to the best of his beliefs, knowledge, and understanding how some of his ideas work. It took some time, but he did. Do I think his room treatments (save me from some cable elevators and such things, I would not believe it even if I heard it myself) work to change the sound? Absolutely. Do I think his explanation is correct? Not really. So what? He is trying to come up with something and present it the best he can. It would not be that hard to write down nice detailed explanation why he is incorrect on at least a thing or two in a few pages over the next fifteen minutes, but what would be the point? To show one's superiority over him on that? Not the best place to feed one's ego. To scare customers from him? It would not, they would just say some grumpy guy did not receive a memo about holistic approach to sound tuning. To put things in the world straight? Not worth it, some still believe that Earth is flat and no major harm happens because of that. To humiliate the person who has posted a fairly unfair assessment of others in his original post? Why? It is not going to change him no matter how hard you try. To force him to reveal that he has no proof for his claims that would be adhering to current scientific methods? You already know that. Why would you do it to yourself, it will only hurt you. After all, more people than just Michael Green are claiming things here left and right that are at times grotesque. Some get called, the others just slide under the radar. And the world rotates.
On a different note, who came up with the idea to disassemble a perfectly well-put together amplifier she/he paid dearly for and why? What was the initial idea about taking the cover off? Do people take doors off an expensive car to see if it corners better? Seems strange to me.