Did someone say "screaming in the mirror"?

From all your bluster and boasting, I'd expect better of you, delius. I made two posts recently, and in your reactions to both you found it necessary to chop pieces out in order to build up a proper head of steam in your lengthy condemnation of my comments. The reason you can't find intelligent debate is that you are too busy finding ways to twist, misread, and dismember people's comments in hopes of proving their stupidity. Sadly, a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees...

Let me offer a few examples.

You made a stab at debunking my HiFiSoundGuy/GoodSound theory, but you ran out of steam partway through. For example, you asked, "How did he know it was back ordered?" and then proceeded to spend a paragraph rambling along on sarcastic, hair-brained answers to your question. In reality, there was a simple answer that would be obvious to anyone with some knowledge of the product I'd referred to. Maybe HiFiSoundGuy knew it was backordered because the order page for the RR2150 had said that it was backordered. Or maybe he knew it was backordered because of the discussion in the RR2150 area of this forum explaining the status of backorders. In other words, maybe he could read. As assumptions go, that's not a great stretch for posts in an online forum. Oh, and the Sonicaps mentioned in HiFiSoundGuy's second post weren't backordered - the receiver he claimed to have ordered was backordered. My post was quite clear, but in your eagerness to find fault in my argument you failed to actually read what I'd written. After your tangent about the backordered 2150, you simply "snipped out" my reasoning and walked away. For somebody who writes such long posts, that's uncharacteristically brief.

It's also interesting that in your very next post, you moved on to my other recent post and ranted a fair bit about orgone energy and the skeptic's dictionary - even though the link I offered was simply the one previously provided by HiFiSoundGuy in his post. And speaking of HiFiSoundGuy's posts, that brings us right back to chopping and skipping portions of my argument that might make distract from ridiculing me. We all know by this point that the Machina Dynamica site lacks any explanation of their CLC, but I clearly explained how we were presented with two separate explanations for its operation. I even included links (which you did not include in the quote) taking you directly to both of those two separate and contradictory explanations. Then, a couple paragraphs later, you ask me "First of all, who said it was a "time travel device"? Please show me where it is being marketed as such." Those links that you left out of your quote showed where it was presented as such, including comments from Geoff that served to confirm that he had originally provided that explanation. I'd already shown you the information you asked me to present to you. You also asked "Second of all, what do you mean by that?" My answer is simple: Mighty fine question, because the full explanation (taken directly from HFSG's previously linked post: "It minimizes the time difference between the time captured on the recording and the current time. This ads realism to the music. Because this device functions as a sort of a time travel apparatus it is not necessary to connect to the audio circuit. It has entirely to do with shortening the distance between time events.") is pretty inexplicable. That's actually my point.

Some time back, I made the statement that pursuing intelligent debate in these circumstances could lead to a "debate of volume." When someone declares victory (such as your comment "No one has apologized for such statements. The closest is Gonk who tried to make excuses for the libel of others (which I have defeated in debate).") after such maneuvers as I've described above, it becomes clear that we've ended up deep in exactly such a debate, and it is just as pointless an exercise as I anticipated.

Not even poor HiFiSoundGuy/GoodSound is safe from delius, it seems. Even the split personality he came here to ostensibly defend is nothing more than an opportunity for derision.

Awwww... do you feel that let down my personal little ankle-biting troll, because I didn't answer your one non-trolling post? I could point out the irony of your statements here, given that you make a "frightened little fool" of yourself in -all- of your posts (and have sustained this for months on end in this thread alone!). Or the fact that I already pointed out you have a far longer list of questions of mine that you were either too scared or too stupid to answer (or both). And you still never responded to that. But instead, I'm gonna show you by example how to take "the high road", and overlook your petty trolling and ankle-biting, by taking your one attempt at an intelligent debate, seriously. I suppose since you finally somehow managed to find the balls to take me on, that's the least I can do. But if you end up regretting it... don't blame me! Okay, let's party!...


You must have really thought that was a brilliant "gotcha" response, certain to squash big bad Delius, didn't cha, Sluggo? Admit it, "didn't cha"?! Ok, wait for it......

You want answers? Here's my answer:


A. "What on earth do you think an audio system is designed to do?".


No, think harder. Think like you've never thunk before, el Sluggo....

Sluggo: "Oh, it's designed to play music!"

Delius: Harder.

Sluggo: "It's designed to create the illusion of a musician(s) before you?"

Delius: Harder!

Sluggo: "It's..."

Delius: Ok, never mind, I can see we're gonna be here all day.

Psychological stimuli are sights, sounds and smells. Last I checked, audio products are designed to provoke psychological stimuli. So are Belt products. Fancy that! You've just learned something new. And I told them that I could accomplish the impossible, and they didn't believe me! Now, for how many seconds are you going to retain that information?


And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect.

And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect.

And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect.


(Are you having fun yet, Sluggette? I know I'm having fun with you.)

So, what have we learned this time, Sluggy?

Sluggo: "Having a belief in a phenomenon is enough to install a placebo effect. And conversely, having a disbelief in a phenomenon is enough to install a reverse placebo effect. "

Delius: Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You failed the test. The proper answer was: "To keep an open mind and attempt to have no expectations over the result of any scientific experiment, whatever the methodology used".


Says who? YOU? Pffft! Don't make me laugh! In only 3 days, you've already given us a faceful of how little of actual fact you know about audio. So seriously Sluggy... who? The JAES? Apparently not, as the inventor of ABX, the most rigorous audio test methodology ever devised by man, can't seem to come up with results that support your claim. ("Comparing Audio Components", JAES, 1983). Preamps, amps, pickup cartridges... It was concluded that despite using test groups sufficient in size to the inventor of the methodology, no differences could be determined. Yet most people, perhaps even "people like you" Sluggo, would admit those audio products do yield differences in sound. You still fail to realize what I've already pointed out on these pages, so-called "objective tests" are part of a "belief system". You wanna know what Clark himself has to say about your religious beliefs?

"When scientific tests have been performed, listeners' audibility thresholds have appeared to be poorer by orders of magnitude compared to casual tests. It has been argued that the methods and equipment used in the scientific test have inhibited the listener's discriminatory ability. "

Yes, it "-has- been argued". By me and many others. And if we're talking about a baby like you who doesn't even have much discriminatory ability to start out with, I'll defend that notion even stronger, in your case. Fact: everything you say think and do is part of a belief system. The question is, which belief system do you adopt? Being the fool you are Sluggo, I see you've naturally gravitated toward a fool's belief systems. I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise. It looks like in order to try to avoid being just another fool, you've adopted those beliefs and become a fool just by believing in them (not that I'm saying you weren't a fool long before that. Because I'm not). In fact, I'm willing to bet you don't even know that much about those test methodologies that you've adopted as part of your religious belief system. I'll bet you've never even participated in a true ABX test, to find out how useful and effective they are. I've taken plenty. Most audio consumers haven't taken any.

I'm curious to know what a brilliant mind like yours has to say about the millions of audio consumers out there who are presently enjoying hifi systems (as we speak), which they have not chosen by way of any form of blind testing. Seriously, we could always use the laughs down here...

Did I say you did? Show me where I said that. You can't because I didn't. On the contrary, I have always advocated the (and I know this is gonna frighten you so heed this as a warning for what's coming next....) radical concept of listening to your own ears. Why do you think I went to the trouble to post my websites, which allows people to test a couple of these radical concepts for themselves? You mean all this time that I've been generous enough to give you the website address and you still haven't made the connection that it allows you to listen for yourself? Damn, you're slow. But admit it, that's where the name "Slug-go" comes from, doesn't it?


Oh my God. And you even quoted the answer to your question two seconds ago! Forget my last remark; you're not slow, you're frozen in time....

So far, my BS meter is not registering (a first for your posts), which means the above is correct. I should add that I feel I can not be "personally faulted" for the fact that the phenomenon is not (currently) measurable in any technical way.

Well, technically, nothing is impossible to refute, so long as you get someone to believe your refutation. I mean look how many people here believe that you have succesfully refuted the Belt products? But now we're getting back to belief systems. And "easy to claim"? Eh, I don't think so. If you had any idea of the complexity of the hypotheses, you'd know they aren't easy claims to make, let alone explain. I shouldn't be personally faulted for that either, they're not my hypotheses. And they may be wrong, in part or in whole. Particularly since they are (currently) difficult or impossible to prove (I mean to the satisfaction of current peer reviewed scientific standards). That however, doesn't invalidate the phenomenon.

Let me come at you from a different angle, and maybe we'll find a concept for you that you can finally begin to understand.... The origins of the universe are currently impossible to prove. And I don't just mean the initial nucleus of a beginning (we'll say the primeval atom, The Big Bang theory, but physicists don't all agree on the origins of this either), but what conditions occurred before the point of singularity. Yet we know that somehow, everything that we have seen in our world and universe flowed from that point. It wouldn't all be here today if it weren't so, and we wouldn't be observing the phenomenon that we do through the telescopes. So if you are correct in your rigid, foolish and ill-thought out stance that reality follows what can be concretely proven in peer-reviewed journals, and all else is "pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo", then we're not having this conversation right now. 'Cos we don't exist, 'cos no one can prove exactly how our universe has come into existence.

How do we know anything about the universe anyway? Looking through telescopes right? Visual information. Humans looking with their human eyes, interpreting data. It's not that different under Belt phenomenon. You can look at a video display and interpret changes in the display prior to and following Beltist experiments. Just as with a telescope, you're using your eyes as tools to gather information. And just as you can use your eyes to measure things, you can also use your ears.

So the Belt phenomenon is not really "impossible to prove", any more than the "Hubble phenomenon". It's just that you seem to be (and struggle to remain) oblivious to the fact that our eyes and ears are used as test instruments all the time, in all kinds of sciences. And since you don't believe the eyes and ears of hundreds of Belt product users across the globe, then your only option is to do the tests yourself, in order to determine whether -your- "test instruments" are sensitive enough to pick up on the phenomenon. But given that your head seems to be filled with cement, maybe you need to be belted in the head with a sledgehammer before you'll hear anything that resembles differences. Who knows.

A bit of a clarification: The "Belt effect" is there whether someone perceives it or not. By that, I mean two things: both the change that the Belt product (or technique) effects, and the problem the Belt device is meant to address. This "problem" (a type of mental stress) is degrading your audio sound as we speak. It's in fact degrading all of your senses. You don't realize that, because you've lived with the problem your entire life. So you never knew life without it. You can't be aware of what you never experienced. That's what makes people like you fail to understand what the hell the Belt product can possibly do in the first place.

With the Belt product (or technique) in place, the change occurs, the stress on your senses is reduced, the sound is instantly perceived as better. (Note that the sound is perceived as better on any audio system in your house, and the video is perceived better as well). Now we get into the concept of "threshold of audibility/visuality". I admit I don't particularly do well as far as visual cues goes, but I can and have perceived improvements in video. I am however, an expert at audibility. Whether you are successful at determining changes for -any- audio phenomenon, including amps, speakers, turntables, cdplayers and wire, is going to depend on your threshold of audibility. Some Belt products or techniques yield relatively small differences, some larger. Some people can hear the effects and some can't. Some of that depends on the products they try and some depends on the person trying them, or a combination thereof. Naturally, many Belt products combined require a lower TA (threshold of audibility).

If a product does effect a change (and I know for a fact all Belt products and all types of audio components do), then you will perceive that change, whether you are conscious of it or not. So long as you have a functioning pair of ears (and presumably, brain). Whether you are conscious of the change is another matter. So even if you can't hear the effects of Belt product, doesn't mean it don't work, only that -you- can't hear it. However, you have already claimed you can't hear it before even testing it. That's caused by a common type of brain damage called "cretinism". Possibly caused by the slug that seems to have permanently nested somewhere inside your cranium. Is -that- why they call you "Sluggo", btw?


No, that's not what I said. Jason Jr. also got that wrong, and I'm guessing, so did all the other IM's here fail to understand my point about IM's. I've repeated it to your friend Jason, I'll repeat it to you. Please read slowly, assuming you've been able to keep up with me thus far: "If you claim the Belt effect does not exist and the products do not work, or even go so far as to claim they are fraudulent, and you have never tested such products, and/or you have no real knowledge of how and why they work, then you are, listen carefully now, an "ignorant moron"". Okay, did that finally sink in? Let me be clearer and mention that you're an IM if you behave that way over ANY audio product. And since you Sluggo have made probably the most false unsupported claims about these products, yes, you are officially an ignorant moron. I'll happily put that on a framed certificate if you want, since you seem to be happy and comfortable with this fact. But if you should ever have a problem with it, don't complain to me for pointing out the obvious truth about you. The solution is simple: stop being an ignorant moron. For some people, this mental disease is not terminal. I don't know how much hope there is in your case, particularly judging from your last post to me. But I'm a positive person, so I like to think there's hope for everyone.

What, not enough bluster and boasting? I can tweak that if you think it needs some juice.

aka "Editing". Trust me, I was doing you and everyone else a favour. The "government" was starting to get interested in your runaway conspiracy rant against the HFSG bot. And I'm sure you know what kind of trouble that can bring on...

I disagree. I really don't have to go through all those machinations to illustrate just how stupid most of these responses are, nor do I need to have "hopes of proving it". I think they're pretty damn self-evident, really. In fact, I'm amazed at how stupid some of my responses have been, and when I point that out, that's just my natural reaction (as in "Oh my God, you CAN'T be that stupid!"). I will also point out that no one has ever been able to prove me wrong about that in any of those reactions . Simply getting offended because I point out how stupid people's remarks or thinking is, doesn't prove that I'm wrong about that. You do it to yourselves, you do.

You just refuse to see how ignorant you dorks are, no matter how many times that fact is proven. I don't even care how "formally educated" you are, I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking for instance about the fact that you are continually using the principles of "good science" to support and defend your arguments that the Belt/MD products don't work. Yet in the most unscientific fashion imaginable, or utilizing principles of "bad science", you are drawing conclusions about all those products, without ever having subjected them to empirical trials, let alone DBT's. And none of you know a g-d thing about them, that much has been made crystal-clear. Especially if you're arguing against theories of "time travel and orgone energy" wrt these products. As if that isn't bad enough, you go on to speculate about people (ie. me, HifiSoundGuy and GoodSound), and you draw conclusions based on your ignorant speculations.

No, I have another theory, Mr. Gonk. The reason I can't find intelligent debate, is not because no one here is intelligent enough to have an intelligent debate. It's because no one here is intelligent enough to consider that there may be something to debate, that all these products have true merit. You've all made up your minds that these products don't work. We've seen many months of this, what other evidence is needed? Why you admitted this yourself just today when you agreed that people here believe the products are a "sham" and it is expected they will always maintain that belief. Despite having never actually tried them.... So that leaves mockery and ridicule (and attempts to "debunk" anything I say, even if I say something obvious like.... oh... "George Bush is a liar").


...Are you trying to say that the people here are dumb as a post?....

I wrote a lot of serious arguments to you, which you obviously couldn't argue against. So what did you do, you chopped out huge forests, if you even responded to them at all. And then you come at me with this conspiratorial crap about HifiSoundGuy, like as if it justifies your abusive behaviour toward him, in which you and your friends not only mocked and ridiculed this guy for hundreds of posts on end, but accused him and the manufacturers of the products he advocated as frauds and rip off artists. Even if your crackpot conspiracy theories are correct (and it seems to have eluded you that I pretty much agreed with them recently), and you have not and can not prove anything is true on your mere speculation, that still doesn't justify your rude and uncivilized behaviour. And all it does in fact is attract dogs of war like me.....

You know, I would have thought that myself. Until I met your pals Sluggo and Jason J.....


Oh, I apologize for snipping out one or two lines in your posts. I thought that was acceptable, since you've shown you have no problem snipping out 95% of mine. Whether HFSG ordered Sonicaps or a receiver, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?? I snipped all that pointless conspiratorial crap out in order to make the point that none of it was relevant to your claim about his motivations, since it's all speculation. I thought I explained that to you already? Nor was it relevant to any of my claims, which were made for you to address, and which you by and large "chopped out" or "skipped over" as you like to say.


So what if HFSG also used the link? (Which I agree, didn't make much sense since he was trying to advocate the concept of orgone energy while referencing a skeptic's page on the subject.... But I never said he was the sharpest tack in the box, did I...). You were still the one making the point that orgone energy was bogus, weren't you? Well I happen to have a lot of respect for the work of Wilhelm Reich, so you could say I took personal offense at your unsupported claim. And guess what, Gonk? AFAIC, it's STILL an unsupported claim! I've asked you to provide solid evidence for that, and "it's interesting" that all you can come up with in response is to tell me you got the link from HFSG. As though that excuses your fallacious remarks about orgone energy. Like everyone else here, you are obviously not prepared to ever admit you're wrong about anything, (or for that matter that you've done anything wrong), or that you have been defeated in an argument. That insecurity you have by the way, is the same reason that people are afraid to try Belt products or techniques. Admitting they work raises all kinds of insecurities sheep, I mean "people" have about what they have learned about the world and what they know of themselves. So they tend to "lose their coordinates", if you know what I mean.

I was familar with that reference on Audiogon. Listen carefully to what I asked you: "Show me where it is being marketed as such". A comment by a user who claims that Kaitt told him this on the phone is not, by any definition, "marketing". An advertisement or mention on MD's site of it being a time travel device would be "marketing". You who's done so much research on "guerrila marketing" should already know and appreciate the difference. And before you come back at me and say Kaitt implied it was correct by not refuting the remark, no, implication is not marketing either. "Served to confirm" is not a "confirmation" either, it's an interpretation. We don't know exactly what Kaitt said to the poster or precisely why he was displeased with what the poster wrote, we can only speculate. Remember the earlier problem I had with you speculating? I'm certainly not going to repeat that dirty process myself.

But its my point as well. Perhaps you didn't get it. No one can explain HFSG's comments because he doesn't know what he's talking about either. Why don't you try asking him what the hell "the increase of the vestigial within the listening room" means? I promise you, we'll -both- have a good laugh if he attempts to respond. That's because he's regurgitating verbatim what he lifted off the Audiogon site. As for this crap about "orgone energy", that's just a user on that site that came up with that. I believe he wrote it as a joke, which is the problem with people disseminating false information from speculation or mockery of products. People reading this site might think that Scientology is behind the clever little clock, if they are stupid enough to believe Sluggo's remarks about that.

My point is you're as much of a fool as you think HFSG is, for arguing the clock is bogus because it can't "time travel" and doesn't run on "orgone energy". All we know for sure is, the official explanation for how the clock works is... there is no official explanation. It's entirely possible that someone somewhere misunderstood something Kaitt was trying to explain about the clock, and now dozens of people later, including you, are totally misguided about how it functions. And disseminating false information around, making others equally as ignorant. (Though yes, I feel Geoff is partly to blame for that for not yet providing any answers himself).

I know from the description alone that users and audio journalists have given about the way the clock works, that it's a Belt product (by that, I mean it operates under the same Belt principles that all Belt products & techniques operate upon). Given what I know of Belt principles, I'm probably as unlikely to believe explanations of time travel and orgone energy for the clock, as you are. However, unlike you, I don't give rat's patootie how the clock works. It's an audio device, so the only question on the table should be, does it have a positive audible effect or not? I don't see too many people here asking that. But that's really the -only- thing they should be asking...

Why do you feel this is a pointless excercise, because I was able to defeat every single one of your arguments in this thread? (Except where I agreed with you of course). I don't think it's a pointless excercise, because I think I've been very successful in making my points, all of which have yet to be refuted by anyone here. They include:

* this entire thread has been about the relentless attack of both members, products and the manufacturers of those products, that the rest of the members here "feel" are bogus. Those attacks against members who have advocated the use of "fringe science" products
have included personal remarks, all manner of insults, mockery, ridicule, scorn, derision, contempt, and went so far as defamation of character attacks with accusations of fraudulence and shilling. Libel was also directed toward the manufacturers and engineers. Absolutely ZERO freaking evidence was given by ALL attackers here to support their claims, and absolutely NO ONE tried the products they were attacking, or even knew much about them.

If the "manouevres" you're complaining about is editing of posts, well let me tell you, you do that a -hell- of a lot more with mine than I've done with yours. And I only edit what truly is irrelevant tripe. I don't cut out huge, significant arguments, as you do with mine, because you already know you can't defeat them thru debate.

No I didn't really come here to defend him/her/it, I came here to defend the truth. You guys were kicking it around like a bloody football, and stomping all over it. What I wrote about HFSG is the truth, as I know it, and its ironic you'd have a problem with that, since you did your fair share of kicking him/her/it around yourself in this thread. Speaking of which, let me get this straight..... you don't have any problem with your buds mocking and deriding HFSG for several hundred posts, or even calling him a shill and a scammer, but you have a problem with any derision you perceive coming from me, right? Let me introduce you to a concept called "hypocrisy", which you and your colleagues seem to be thoroughly unfamiliar with....

WOW!
Mighty defender of truth...
Are the worlds biggest injustices located here ?

all that bitter religous zeal leads me to believe in unresolved issues...
and all those abusive words you wrote...
don't tell me otherwise...
maybe greasing up your batteries really turns your crank...on top of altering your perception and mind...

but come on...
you can call us what you want...even hypocrites...
but please allow me to stick the same label onto you...
you're obviously getting more here than just good sound...and a quest for truth...
you seem to have quite a bit of free time to analyse all our posts...seeking truth as you say...yet you ignore the ones you can't argue...

maybe you're not gaining monetary wise...
I'm thinking...you're looking to get laid or something with one of these guys(Kaitt,Belt,HFSG,GS)...
Or hey here's crazy thought...
maybe you are one of these guys...
Frankly I don't care if you are or about your truth...
But you need to smile more...get out of the house...and out of the range of those clocks...they're really doing a number on you...
you obviously seem to believe they make you sound better too...

I posted again on this thread...damn it. I apologize to fellow Outlaws. No more feeding from me...

I know this is very hard to believe but my stereo system sounds more like live music with these tweaked out CLC's in my system now!! My TV picture looks alot better too! I really hope Scott, (the administrator here) contacts Geoff and May Belt so some of you here can find out what I have been enjoying more every day now!

Holy Moses! This thread is still alive? I've been gone from this forum for many months. I thought it was dead back then. Sheesh!


later,
sraber

I am going to attempt to back away from any of my previous attitude and direction. I’ll pose one basic multi-part ‘question area,’ with associated questions, for delius (I'm not asking you to address every individual question, unless you wish to do so, as long as the answer(s) to the basic ‘question area’ covers the associated questions too):

Basic Question, part 1a: By what process would a person know for themselves, “hear with their own ears,” or in an ‘even handed, fair’ manner, experience an appropriate evaluation of one or more PWB methods or products?

Basic Question, part 1b: If all affects upon the brain, sensory input included, can become psychological stimuli, and if the converse can also be true – one’s psychological state can influence our reception and/or interpretation of input – then how can one determine if the presence or absence of a PWB recommended practice or product as a part of the total psychological experience is having a positive or negative effect upon one’s listening experience apart from so many other variables?

(A small digression that I hope will not detract from the basic question: one might say that audio listening and/or PWB recommendations/products cannot be experienced apart from all other present variables. In this life, can we ever be in a ‘steady state’ such that the affect of one variable can be totally isolated? This is one reason that some seekers of new knowledge tend to rely on test instruments that are, as far as we know, uninfluenced by the psychological state of the person performing the test. However if it is psychological stimuli and/or a psychological result we are ultimately trying to evaluate, how would we be able to tell if one particular stimulus, or group of stimuli, from PWB methods or products is an overall positive influence on a person’s perception of an experience within the total psychological situation being experienced?

I know that there are recommendations, such as the freezing of the two proper photographs, the proper freezing/thawing of CD’s, or certain paper treatments, that can be tried without buying any PWB products, and additionally there may be some free product samples available, but what constitutes a ‘fair’ evaluation? Can I apply one or more recommendations/products within a household unbeknown to other household members and wait for one or more of them to say, “What happened, the audio sounds so much better?” This kind of evaluation seems full of problems in attributing positive change to PWB practices and products.

If I am both the one instituting the changes and the one evaluating the results, am I not setting myself up for the potential influence of ‘the power of suggestion’ or similar effect? Does this matter or not matter to the evaluation?

I guess I’m asking for an ‘evaluation method’ that some group of us could actually accept as a reasonable test, even for those who are either skeptics or critics.)

Basic Question, part 2: If there is no reasonable way, acceptable to a group, to evaluate the potential results, then can there be a reasonable way for that group to attribute positive change to the instituting of PWB methods and products?

There are several individuals outside of this forum who attribute positive results to PWB methods, and there are several individuals who report no positive results. If we only continue to add individual, contrary voices to the pool of opinions, then can any summary conclusion regarding the effects of PWB methods with regard to audio be reached?

[Edit: spelling correction.]