Well, kudos for the lengthiness of your posts (particularly that last one) - your devotion to your cause seems well matched by your word count.
I don't find it necessary to resort to personal attacks and insults unless I'm attacked or insulted in any way. However, I've never seen a Belt thread that didn't have personal attacks or insults, and this one has PLENTY towards HifiSoundGuy and GoodSound. In fact, I've never seen a Belt thread where the naysayers are actually prepared to have an intelligent debate on the issue. Or even know what an intelligent debate is.
And what I don't like, is not being able to fight back if I -am- attacked or insulted. As a Beltist, I have received no end of mockery and derision from ignorant dickwads on the net. As have ALL Beltists EVERYWHERE (except the Belt discussion group, natch). I've had 50 guys pile on top of me at once, throwing stone after stone, and for the better part of a year, I've happily taken them all on without pitching a sweat. Unlike most Belt experimenters, I'm not embarassed to stand behind the products. Problem is, those "tough geeks" who think their witless mockery and derision is somehow clever & unique, run screaming to the mods when I begin to insult them in return of their insults toward me. And then they deliberately try to break the User Policy to try to get the thread locked, or try to get me banned because they can't take what they dish out.
It seemed (and still seems) appropriate to point out that you were (and seem to continue to be) condemning us for actions which had not even been committed yet, which do not generally take place in this forum, and which have to date not taken place. If you can avoid personal attacks and insults as tools in presenting your arguments, then I consider it safe to say that you will not be martyred by the forum members or administrators as you seem so certain will be the case. To date you at least have skipped personal attacks, but I'd suggest that opening your presence in a thread by describing previous posters as "supremely ignorant twits" might classify as a
bit insulting. Of course, employing a healthy seasoning of belittling, derisive, and insulting statements throughout your posts can be an excellent way to anger and upset an audience that you wish to push into an uproar. Plus it is
just indirect enough not to be a clear case of insulting behavior. It's a slick technique, and one that you seem to have raised to high art.
As for complaints of an absence of intelligent debate by anyone who questions Belt concepts, there are always a possible explanations that don't require all doubters to be "IM"s (to borrow you acronym). One possible explanation would be the approach in which you classify anyone who does not agree with your views or show a willingness to "play along" with them as a fool incapable of thoughtful discourse, thus making any subsequent debate "un-intelligent." The attitude that produced the following statement makes that a strong possibility:
Some people can't hear the effect of the CLC, but that's a different problem altogether. Most of the time, its because of the stupid ways they're testing it (ie. if their belief system says it has to be blind tested, they'll inevitably come up with "blind results"). Other reasons are because they do not know how to listen. They have NO idea what to listen for, and fall back on what they know (ie. highs/mids/lows). Belt products don't change "highs/mids & lows". They produce changes across the board, and not in the freq. spectrum per se.
If you dismiss people who actually test these concepts and find no benefit in the concepts because they must not know how to listen or they tried to use a stupid test technique
and you automatically condemn people who haven't tested the concepts, then the only people left who are capable of intelligent conversation are the ones with whom you already agree. As prophecies go, it's pretty self-fulfilling.
Gotta run for now. It seems likely that this little spectacle will continue a bit longer, so I'll probably check back in from time to time...
Previous Topic
Index
