Jason J wrote:

Come again? You wanna clarify that? Are you trying to tell me that no one on these forums is allowed to talk about audio products not made by the owners of this forum? And that they don't? Which sounds absolutely ludicrous to me since I'm assuming this is a public forum, but I don't see how else you mean that to be interpreted.

Well, you just gave me another example of you being an idiot, didn't you. Because I made it clear what my remarks were about. I never called anyone an idiot for not believing these products work. I called people idiots for thinking and claiming they know that these products don't work, when they have never tried them, and don't know the first thing about them. And those of you who go so far as to claim the products are fraudulent and so are the manufacturers, are libelous idiots who are courting a lawsuit. I can tell you why I enjoy the product, but that doesn't mean you'll believe me. Like all such idiots, you're predisposed to believe what you know, rather than learn about that which you don't. As for your crack about "pseudo science", you can't tell the difference between science and pseudo-science (but then, we're going back to you being an idiot again, aren't we? Which is almost redundant at this point, given the quality of all your replies). If you could, you'd be able to fill your next post with an explanation that successfully refutes the theories of Geoff Kaitt and Peter Belt, and supports your contention of "pseudo science".

But are you going to do that? Lets see if you will. We obviously know you can't, so I'm betting the farm that you won't and can't. But nevertheless, you picked up the term "pseudo-science" somewhere and now you glibly and happily apply it to everything who's scientific basis is beyond your grasp to comprehend. (Oh, are you saying I'm wrong here? Great, then tell me how the products work! [question ignored by the brilliant debater, Jason J].... Yeah, didn't think you could do that either.)

Like all non-thinkers, you go no further than to believe whatever isn't already established in peer-reviewed articles, isn't reality. And certainly doesn't merit taking 5 minutes to test for yourself, at a cost of nothing. And you reveal in that philosophy, that you don't know the first damn thing about sience. You're not even a pseudo-scientist, and I wouldn't qualify you to be up to the standards of an armchair-scientist. But prove me wrong by posting that scientific refutation you've been dying to share with the group. I'm always ready to learn something new...