Audio Critic

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Wellfed
What I am after is the replication of my normal listening environment. I know that this isn't going to happen to perfection, but I wish to avoid any difference in my environment that is not a necessity in protecting the interests of JREF.

ABX testing is not part of my normal listening environment. AB testing is seldom part of my normal listening methodology.

Why do you want to replicate your normal listening environment?

PianoTeacher recommended ABX because he believes it will make it easier for you to detect any differences that may exist between GSIC-treated and untreated CDs.

Of course, you don't need to take his word for it. Try it both ways, and see which way works better for you.

It's also possible that neither way will work, if you don't already know which disc is which. There's really no way to tell for sure, unless you try it.

Originally posted by Wellfed in a different post
My auditory perception is the final arbiter as far as the matter concerns me.

That is entirely reasonable. However, so far, your auditory perception has had some help: you knew, before listening to the CD, whether it was treated. The question is, can your auditory perception do the job alone?

 

[Wellfed]

Why do you want to replicate your normal listening environment?

PianoTeacher recommended ABX because he believes it will make it easier for you to detect any differences that may exist between GSIC-treated and untreated CDs.

Of course, you don't need to take his word for it. Try it both ways, and see which way works better for you.

It's also possible that neither way will work, if you don't already know which disc is which. There's really no way to tell for sure, unless you try it.That is entirely reasonable. However, so far, your auditory perception has had some help: you knew, before listening to the CD, whether it was treated. The question is, can your auditory perception do the job alone?

It's posts like this that make me want to stick around here. There truly are some wonderful people at this site.

I concluded that the GSIC effect is most easily discerned by simply listening as I normally would. I suspect there is the strong potential for paralysis by overanalysis. When I first started using the chip I had a host of discs that I was intimately familiar with. After listening to favorite titles for years one has a really good handle on the nuances of a particular title. I am quite interested to settle your last question to my satisfaction. I do plan on posting my results to scratch everone elses itch as well. I have wondered what I should do if they turn out to be positive. What the hey, I will post them either way.

I will presumably do this with 5 burned discs and see waht occurs. If my results with the burned discs turn out to be negative I will purchase 5 commercial copies for testing. DBT's are the last thing on my list of fun things to do right now. As I settle into life as a private citizen I am sure my curiosity will get the best of me.

I doubt that I will feel like doing this for at least a month. FWIW, I am going to do some simple tests on discs in my collection very soon. Since this won't be done with titles that I already know respond positively to the GSIC this will presumably yield little useful information. I am just curious is all. I presumably won't publish these results unless the exercise yields any interesting result.

Thanks a bunch for your pleasant post. I feel my tantrum subsiding. Peace is definitely good.

 

[Wellfed]

Oh no! The cartoons have come out! He really means it folks! Remember when Carlos and latinjral did the same? Shpdoinkel!

Honestly, did you happen to like my cartoon? It is an old favorite of mine. I need to clarify that I view myself as the one with the tiny head. I view you, and many others, as the callous sophisticates. I don't know that anyone has anything to be particulary proud about in my illustration.

Tell Winny that I regret the harshness in my reply to her post. Actually the tone of my post was harsher than my actual emotions. In any case, I can't stay mad at a person named Winny. I don't know why that is. More waffling I guess.

I truly wish you well with the Challenge, and yes, I did see your "screw you" comment. No hard feelings. Write me privately if you'd like me to share some pointers on the GSIC.

Man, I am over my tantrum, aren't I?

 

[LostAngeles]

Heard good things about this one. Is it available in the US? I've googled for it and not found a lot. I'm a big fan of certain PS2 games (see my posts here)

Katamari Damacy discussion

(BTW, I am dangerously close to posting my own recipes here, something I've never done before...)

Yes, and it's cheap. Also, you get Space Channel 5 2, which I'm not liking as much, but the orginal is still fun.

 

[LostAngeles]

Honestly, did you happen to like my cartoon? It is an old favorite of mine. I need to clarify that I view myself as the one with the tiny head. I view you, and many others, as the callous sophisticates. I don't know that anyone has anything to be particulary proud about in my illustration.

Tell Winny that I regret the harshness in my reply to her post. Actually the tone of my post was harsher than my actual emotions. In any case, I can't stay mad at a person named Winny. I don't know why that is. More waffling I guess.

I truly wish you well with the Challenge, and yes, I did see your "screw you" comment. No hard feelings. Write me privately if you'd like me to share some pointers on the GSIC.

Man, I am over my tantrum, aren't I?

None taken. I was annoyed at all the waffling. I'm sure you're a nice guy and I'll be happy to take a few pointers on the GSIC.

 

[nathan]

language and precision

What I find most annoying is that Wellfed uses sloppy language (but most times the general intent is understandable), but he demands that Kramer uses exceedingly precise language. Whenever Kramer writes something that could be misconstrued (although the general intent is understandable), Wellfed misconstrues it and then accuses Kramer of lying.

I find that duplicitous.

Misunderstanding do occur in negotiations, but I have found that when a misunderstanding becomes apparent, the parties say things like 'I was unclear, let me rephrase that', they do not say 'I have caught you in a lie'. They most certainly do not present draft contracts without clearly labelling them as such upfront, at the top, in big bold letters. Not if they are negotiating in good faith.

 

[Winny]

Tell Winny that I regret the harshness in my reply to her post. Actually the tone of my post was harsher than my actual emotions. In any case, I can't stay mad at a person named Winny. I don't know why that is. More waffling I guess.

HIS. Winny is Winston Churchill. He has used that name for some time in rec.sport.cricket (although he hasn't posted there for a while). He signed on to the JREF forums using his nickname "Winny".

Winny is definitely a "he".

As for the harshness of your post, I didn't really notice any.

I am still astounded that you didn't just demonstrate that the treated discs are "vastly superior to non-treated discs" and make KRAMER and Randi look like fools. After all, the difference is VAST! By jingo, you would be able to tell the difference without any trouble, no matter what the protocol was! You could even tell the difference over a supermarket PA system. From aisle 8. Just near the waffles.

Vastly superior.

sheesh.

Winny

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I do plan on posting my results to scratch everone elses itch as well. I have wondered what I should do if they turn out to be positive. What the hey, I will post them either way.

Thats good to know. It is fun and learning for all. Will you open a new thread?

 

[Gr8wight]

Re: recipe time

And immediately thereafter, he put me on "ignore" and continued to blather on, placing himself into a downward spiral of his own making.
And what is the reason for now continuing to blather?
I have no idea.
Maybe ask Paul Carey.

==================================

MMMMMMmmmm, tasty:

(especially for alfaniner)

Maryland CrabCakes
Back fin and go easy on the Tabasco

(except KRAMER, who I know will dash liberally with the hot sauce, to his discerning taste)

Actually, Webfusion, Wellfed put you on ignore after e-mailing me and asking, "what do you make of webfusion."

I replied, "In my opinion, webfusion is a troll."

 

[Moose]

Re: Responding to Beleth

Wellfed's copy of the headers even as the sender would include the date and time of the message. This would lend credence to his position if they matched the timeframe he claimed to have sent the email. Without the headers, I chose to extend the good will that his presentation was accurate. I do resent your implication otherwise.

I don't really have a horse in this particular race, but I just want to point out that the "sender's" email header lines are basically worthless in terms of validating "who sent what when". Forged sender's headers are a spammer's staple.

Now, I'm not suggesting anybody's done this. I'm just saying that you can't attempt to validate time and place (or even sender) from the sender's email.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Neither can I. It'll be even.

Or you can watch me work my quarter-blackness at Space Channel 5. I can play that with my eyes closed.

Up, Down, Up-Down-Down, Chu, Chu, Chu.

Boy, I haven't played that since the original came out on the Dreamcast.

I never made it past the 'reversed' level. I need to dig that out and put some more effort into it.

I even had an Ulala calendar and magnet set. That game had great character design and funny dialog.

 

[Wellfed]

HIS. Winny is Winston Churchill. He has used that name for some time in rec.sport.cricket (although he hasn't posted there for a while). He signed on to the JREF forums using his nickname "Winny".

Winny is definitely a "he".

As for the harshness of your post, I didn't really notice any.

I am still astounded that you didn't just demonstrate that the treated discs are "vastly superior to non-treated discs" and make KRAMER and Randi look like fools. After all, the difference is VAST! By jingo, you would be able to tell the difference without any trouble, no matter what the protocol was! You could even tell the difference over a supermarket PA system. From aisle 8. Just near the waffles.

Vastly superior.

sheesh.

Winny

Winny, part of my frustration with my Challenge experience is that I did NOT have the opportunity to demonstrate my claim. I was not afforded that opportunity by JREF. I did NOT find good faith on their part. I did not know if it would ever come to pass. I have been frustrated as all get out that Kramer, who holds all of the cards, was allowed to get away with his hypocrisy and deceit.

I realize that my vastly superior comment is difficult to grasp. You WOULD have to understand the lengths that audiophiles will go to to improve the performance of their systems. This is the context in which my comments were given. Even within audiophiledom, one man's vastly superior is another mans "eh, big deal". To be quite honest with you I am more impressed with the GSIC than when I wrote that review. I have found that my perspective has changed from my "Eureka" of that time to one of simply admiring beauty. I hope you can at least respect that the matter is relative. For example I put a new power conditioner in my system last night that cost 60% of what Mr. Randi believes a whole system should cost at most. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. I apologize if my review comments have upset your sensibilities.

I am sensing that there are at least a few here that are interested in finding the truth. I hope I'm right as it would help renew my faith that many do love truth. I wish Shakespeare were still around. His perspective on all this madness would be quite interesting IME.

Here's a literary gem for some to appreciate and for some to pounce upon.

"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."

Alfred Lord Tennyson

 

[Z]

Winny, part of my frustration with my Challenge experience is that I did NOT have the opportunity to demonstrate my claim. I was not afforded that opportunity by JREF. I did NOT find good faith on their part. I did not know if it would ever come to pass. I have been frustrated as all get out that Kramer, who holds all of the cards, was allowed to get away with his hypocrisy and deceit.

I realize that my vastly superior comment is difficult to grasp. You WOULD have to understand the lengths that audiophiles will go to to improve the performance of their systems. This is the context in which my comments were given. Even within audiophiledom, one man's vastly superior is another mans "eh, big deal". To be quite honest with you I am more impressed with the GSIC than when I wrote that review. I have found that my perspective has changed from my "Eureka" of that time to one of simply admiring beauty. I hope you can at least respect that the matter is relative. For example I put a new power conditioner in my system last night that cost 60% of what Mr. Randi believes a whole system should cost at most. Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. I apologize if my review comments have upset your sensibilities.

I am sensing that there are at least a few here that are interested in finding the truth. I hope I'm right as it would help renew my faith that many do love truth. I wish Shakespeare were still around. His perspective on all this madness would be quite interesting IME.

Here's a literary gem for some to appreciate and for some to pounce upon.

"Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all."

Alfred Lord Tennyson

If this were true, if you TRULY wanted to see this chip tested, you'd have stopped waffling, changing stories, adding unnecessary requirements, etc. Line of sight to your system? A dummy chip?? No observers present???

No, every request you made was highly unreasonable and absolutely unnecessary. If you can tell a 'vast difference' - considering this is a CD treatment, supposedly - then you could have taken the challenge already according to earlier protocols. All you had to do was sit and listen - you don't even need to see the discs treated at all, just listen. Then tell them whether what you heard was GSIC treated or not.

But, no, you kept moving the goalposts. You kept adding more requirements and conditions. And every time you do, you make it look as if you really can't hear any 'vast difference' at all.

Clearly, you are not a logical man. Many self-proclaimed audiophiles are not. As you have yourself stated, beauty is a subjective thing; you're happy spending ungodly amounts for bits of electronic fluff that may or may not do a darned thing - and once you do spend, you're going to hear some improvement. Tell me, what products have you bought, installed, then removed and returned telling the vendor that it did nothing at all? Very few, I suspect.

But you never knew that, when JREF accepts a challenge, they are very strict on controls and protocols. You never knew that they would demand irrefutable evidence and undeniable results. You figured you could give them some BS about this disc being more 'spacious' or whatever than that disc, and be able to get away with this little deceit. After all, if they couldn't hear it, it probably just meant they had inferior hearing skills.

Would you have been so quick to agree to testing, if the procedure involved actual analysis of the disc, before and after treatment? Ah, but that has actually been done - and there's absolutely no change in the disc after GSIC treatment.

No change on the disc = no change in the sound quality.

Now you know. You're imagining any improvement. You hear it because you want to hear it... and I think you are realizing this now, because you've effectively escaped the test that you now know, full well, you would fail. And, just to divert attention, you're trying to rumble Kramer, who's only mistake is in assuming you had normal communication skills.

I feel sorry for you, dude. All that money wasted on snake oil and cranial drills, when you could've been buying great music instead - or better still, used that money for things that would be a pleasure to your whole family, not your hypersensitive audio ego.

But I applaud your wife. What an understanding woman, to let you waste hundreds - heck, thousands - of dollars on toys and useless gizmos! I only pray she remains that understanding as your years together grow long. And I pray you never suffer the financial difficulties that have affected so many of us - all your high-end gadgets won't pay the electric bill or buy food, will they? But, hey, maybe some hi-tek audiophile will buy your second-hand deharmonized junk and save your butt.

Doubtful, but if they'll buy ceramic cones and niobium chips...

Geez, this is becoming a PT post. Sorry.

 

[alfaniner]

...
But, hey, maybe some hi-tek audiophile will buy your second-hand deharmonized junk and save your butt.
...

I'm sure he could sell "spent" GSIC chips as new ones and an equally credulous buyer would never know the difference.

 

[Beleth]

Re: Responding to Beleth

First, let me express my respect for Beleth. The work on the FAQ was wondrous.

Now, let me respond carefully and compassionately to her critique of my comments.

Thank you, both for the compliment and for the care in which you responded. It shows. I will try to respond in kind, although I warn you ahead of time I'm probably not going to be as good at it as you were.

Wellfed's copy of the headers even as the sender would include the date and time of the message. This would lend credence to his position if they matched the timeframe he claimed to have sent the email. Without the headers, I chose to extend the good will that his presentation was accurate. I do resent your implication otherwise.

As Moose mentioned, forging headers is extremely trivial to do, especially when sent as text. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the timeframe of the email is not in question; only the content and meaning of the content are.

I disagree with your position about signing a contract. For example, when buying a new car, you might very well sign the contract to order the car, not knowing the exact delivery date, color, VIN, or other details. I would also point out that one person whom I consider to be reasonable did indeed believe that Wellfed was submitting a protocol, KRAMER.

It depends on how important those things are to you. If I were ordering a car, I would not care what the VIN was, but I would definitely care about the color. If the color were not specified on the contract, I'd tell the seller "we need to talk about the color."

In my opinion that's exactly what Michael did with his comments below the -----end-----. In his view, there were still details to be hammered out. I think that he made that clear in the original e-mail, and I know that he has tried to make that clear in the subsequent discussion here on the board.

Think of the stuff below the -----end----- as the text equivalent of a Post-It note stuck to the back page of the contract. It's not right to take a contract from someone, remove the Post-It note, sign it, and send it back.

I feel no obligation to assist Wellfed because I extended good well to him in this analysis. If Wellfed were to ask, I would consider. At this point, however, I am responding to Wellfed's accusation about Kramer's decision.

I find your comment about brinksmanship interesting. Have your considered your comments about me and your own brinksmanship?

If you don't want to help Michael, that's your decision and your business. What I object to, and what I called brinksmanship on your part, is your superior tone in that "I have a memory" section of your post.

It pales in comparison to the he-said-she-said brinksmanship about the exact contents of the e-mail between Michael and KRAMER, but it's still unnecceary posturing.

There's a difference between brinksmanship and calling someone on their own brinksmanship. If you believe that I have done any unneccesary posturing, please point it out and I will apologize.

Finally, I regret the tone of my conclusion regarding insults, but I found Wellfed's attack on people I respect, including KRAMER and Winny, to require comment. I hope that you've expressed your concern to Wellfed too.

After seeing how KRAMER works, both in this claim and in many previous ones, I believe I know what the root cause of this issue is.


It is my firm belief that the Challenge was set up to quiet Charlatans (Geller, Edward, Browne, etc.), but that true Charlatans never apply because they're smarter than that. Therefore the only ones that apply are the Deceived. Application after application I see the same pattern: a Deceived but otherwise sane and rational person applies and gets treated nicely for a while. Eventually, at some point during the protocol negotiations, they start to realize that, hmm, maybe they're not so sure about this paranormal ability as they think they were. The point at which this happens is usually after 95% of the protocol has been accepted by both sides, and one of the symptoms is that negotiations start to go into an endless-looking cycle of minute changes.

This point when a crack appears in the Deceived's plaster is the most critical part of the Challenge. It can be handled one of two ways:
1) We can recognize this as what it is - a symptom of an internal epiphany on the applicant's part - and delicately guide him through it.
2) We can switch to full-bore attack-the-Charlatan mode and scoff at him and start engaging in all sorts of brinksmanship.

I have yet to see KRAMER go into anything but attack-the-Charlatan mode. Instead of gently guiding the applicant into the light of Skepticism, we attack his ego so badly that he has no choice but to attack back.

I feel sorry for Michael. He literally had no idea what he was getting himself into. But instead of this being an eye-opening experience for him, the representatives of the JREF have turned it into an exercise in face-saving.

And in the process, the truth about the workings of the universe is trampled, and the JREF fails in its mission.

And this is the sequence of events time after time after time.

It's a harsh truth but it's the truth. And only by saying it out loud, and admitting to it, can it ever be fixed.





My apologies for that little bit of grandstanding at the end. I'm pretty sure I ended up not being as compassionate in this post as I set out to be, and I apologize for that too.

 

[Beleth]

I have found that my perspective has changed from my "Eureka" of that time to one of simply admiring beauty. I hope you can at least respect that the matter is relative.

Here we have an outward sign of the epiphany of which I spoke in my last post.

Michael, I wish I were in a position to help you with your journey. There is common ground; it's just that it's easier to fight over it than to share it, sometimes. But the rewards for sharing it are infinitely greater. Greater even than a million dollars.

 

[IXP]

Re: Re: Responding to Beleth

After seeing how KRAMER works, both in this claim and in many previous ones, I believe I know what the root cause of this issue is.


It is my firm belief that the Challenge was set up to quiet Charlatans (Geller, Edward, Browne, etc.), but that true Charlatans never apply because they're smarter than that. Therefore the only ones that apply are the Deceived. Application after application I see the same pattern: a Deceived but otherwise sane and rational person applies and gets treated nicely for a while. Eventually, at some point during the protocol negotiations, they start to realize that, hmm, maybe they're not so sure about this paranormal ability as they think they were. The point at which this happens is usually after 95% of the protocol has been accepted by both sides, and one of the symptoms is that negotiations start to go into an endless-looking cycle of minute changes.

This point when a crack appears in the Deceived's plaster is the most critical part of the Challenge. It can be handled one of two ways:
1) We can recognize this as what it is - a symptom of an internal epiphany on the applicant's part - and delicately guide him through it.
2) We can switch to full-bore attack-the-Charlatan mode and scoff at him and start engaging in all sorts of brinksmanship.

I have yet to see KRAMER go into anything but attack-the-Charlatan mode. Instead of gently guiding the applicant into the light of Skepticism, we attack his ego so badly that he has no choice but to attack back.

I feel sorry for Michael. He literally had no idea what he was getting himself into. But instead of this being an eye-opening experience for him, the representatives of the JREF have turned it into an exercise in face-saving.

And in the process, the truth about the workings of the universe is trampled, and the JREF fails in its mission.

And this is the sequence of events time after time after time.

It's a harsh truth but it's the truth. And only by saying it out loud, and admitting to it, can it ever be fixed.

Bravo Beleth,

This sums up my view of this entire ordeal perfectly.

The thing that I find missing in Kramer's communications is any desire to actually understand the applicants and guide them to a reasonable protocol protecting the interests of both parties. Many forum members, on this very thread, have shown much more interest in this kind of interaction.

Unfortunately, in spite of all of our efforts, Mr Anda continues to refuse to do a self-test that would either disprove his claim or give him the confidence to go on.

IXP

 

[Wellfed]

If this were true, if you TRULY wanted to see this chip tested, you'd have stopped waffling, changing stories, adding unnecessary requirements, etc. Line of sight to your system? A dummy chip?? No observers present???

"This" IS true. I wanted to see this test occur and still do. I'd like to hear some specifics from you. On which points did you see me waffle? What story changed? What unnecessary requirements do you refer to specifically. Why would anyone wish to have someone in their line of sight when trying to discern a nuanced effect? The dummy chip was Steven Howard's idea, I thought it a good one. I feel to this day that testing could be done with no observers present in my listening room. Specifically, not generally, what would they be observing for? I was always willing to have an observer present, I just didn't like the idea. Kramer taught me about escape portals. I was trying to eliminate every escape portal I could find. Remember, please be specific.

No, every request you made was highly unreasonable and absolutely unnecessary. If you can tell a 'vast difference' - considering this is a CD treatment, supposedly - then you could have taken the challenge already according to earlier protocols. All you had to do was sit and listen - you don't even need to see the discs treated at all, just listen. Then tell them whether what you heard was GSIC treated or not.

Gr8wight presented a sensibly amended version of Steven Howard's protocol. I was quite open accepting sensible revisions by JREF. No agreeable protocol had been established earlier. I can not take the test without an accepted protocol.

But, no, you kept moving the goalposts. You kept adding more requirements and conditions. And every time you do, you make it look as if you really can't hear any 'vast difference' at all.

I moved no goalposts. I noted a very few requirements which I deemed essential. I asked Kramer if anything appeared unsolvable with them. He believed they were solvable.

Clearly, you are not a logical man. Many self-proclaimed audiophiles are not. As you have yourself stated, beauty is a subjective thing; you're happy spending ungodly amounts for bits of electronic fluff that may or may not do a darned thing - and once you do spend, you're going to hear some improvement. Tell me, what products have you bought, installed, then removed and returned telling the vendor that it did nothing at all? Very few, I suspect.

There have been very few, but there have been some I don't feel obligated to tell you specifically what they were. I actually research my intended purchases quite exhaustively beforehand. I am quite pleased with how things have turned out. You are welcome to come by sometime and tell me where I've made a poor choice.

But you never knew that, when JREF accepts a challenge, they are very strict on controls and protocols. You never knew that they would demand irrefutable evidence and undeniable results. You figured you could give them some BS about this disc being more 'spacious' or whatever than that disc, and be able to get away with this little deceit. After all, if they couldn't hear it, it probably just meant they had inferior hearing skills.

My Challenge application required that I state what a positive result would be. They accepted my application. I don't see you point with the rest of your paragraph.

Would you have been so quick to agree to testing, if the procedure involved actual analysis of the disc, before and after treatment? Ah, but that has actually been done - and there's absolutely no change in the disc after GSIC treatment.

No change on the disc = no change in the sound quality.

Now you know.

I was well aware of Steve Cortez disc analysis prior to submitting my application.

...You're imagining any improvement. You hear it because you want to hear it... and I think you are realizing this now, because you've effectively escaped the test that you now know, full well, you would fail. And, just to divert attention, you're trying to rumble Kramer, who's only mistake is in assuming you had normal communication skills.

There's no way you can possibly know that Napoleon.

I feel sorry for you, dude. All that money wasted on snake oil and cranial drills, when you could've been buying great music instead - or better still, used that money for things that would be a pleasure to your whole family, not your hypersensitive audio ego.

Again, there's no way you can possibly know that. FWIW, my wife thinks my children sometimes get too much. Are you trying to be creepy here, because you're creeping me out big time.

But I applaud your wife. What an understanding woman, to let you waste hundreds - heck, thousands - of dollars on toys and useless gizmos! I only pray she remains that understanding as your years together grow long. And I pray you never suffer the financial difficulties that have affected so many of us - all your high-end gadgets won't pay the electric bill or buy food, will they? But, hey, maybe some hi-tek audiophile will buy your second-hand deharmonized junk and save your butt.

Doubtful, but if they'll buy ceramic cones and niobium chips...

Geez, this is becoming a PT post. Sorry.

My wife is a lovely woman and fully appreciates that my audio passion gives me great joy. She doesn't consider it a waste. She loves me and I love her. Our years together are long already at 29 and counting. We also have not been without financial problems, none of them have been due to my discretionary spending on audio. I run every purchase, over $200 or so, by her first.

BTW, what is it that you don't like about ceramic cones anyway?

 

[Beleth]

Re: Re: Re: Responding to Beleth

Bravo Beleth,

This sums up my view of this entire ordeal perfectly.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, in spite of all of our efforts, Mr Anda continues to refuse to do a self-test that would either disprove his claim or give him the confidence to go on.

It's important to remember that if Michael didn't do at least little pre-evaluation, he wouldn't have written that glowing review in the first place. He's got a lot of internal dissonance going on right now, and delaying the second self-test is a symptom that the plaster has cracked but that he is unwilling to admit it to himself yet.

Again, a gentle but firm hand is needed. What needs to happen is that a basic protocol (with double blinds but without all the camera and other anti-fraud stuff) needs to be hashed out, and then negotiations need to be suspended until Michael has tested himself. After he has done that, negotiations can resume.

It is very, very important that this self-test happen, I agree.

And Michael, I apologize for writing as if you aren't reading this. It probably sounds to you like I have you all wrong. All I can say in my defense is that you should really do an eleven-disc self-test before you pass judgment on me.


(Edited for clarity.)

 

[Wellfed]

Here we have an outward sign of the epiphany of which I spoke in my last post.

Michael, I wish I were in a position to help you with your journey. There is common ground; it's just that it's easier to fight over it than to share it, sometimes. But the rewards for sharing it are infinitely greater. Greater even than a million dollars.

You can help, once I post the interleaved correspondence between Kramer and myself I'd like to hear your opinion, publicly or privately. It is simply good to have the perspective of the sane.

I am not involved with any prideful face-saving effort. I am trying to expose the truth and be vindicated regarding JREF negotiations not my claimed ability. Deceived, or not, I still believe very strongly that I can prove my claim under the simplest of conditions, that condition being peace.