LOL! Ignorance of what, exactly? All I did in my initial post was point out facts. It is a fact that there were two posts that said basically the same thing. It is a fact that only one of them referred to others and/or their posts with pejorative terms like "ridiculous," "amateurish," and "nonsense." I suppose one could argue that the contrast between those two posts isn't interesting, but I found it so, and am free to say so. The fact that you feel it necessary to refer to statements of fact as "preaching" and respond with insults and condescension rather than facts belies your avowed commitment to accuracy. Pity. You have so much to offer.
I would refer you to a post by another forum member made nearly 3 years ago. Regrettably, it appears little has changed in all that time.
"
Chess, I completely agree with you. It's frightening how little the general population knows about science and how it works. The fact is, no matter how much anecdotal or personal evidence you have in support of audio phenomenon X (be it break-in, differences btw. cables, SS amplifiers sounding different, etc.), you cannot trust it until it's been tested in a controlled environment. This is a basic tenet of science. Even scientists have personal biases. This is precisely why double-blind tests are so often used.
Now, cheese-toast (please forgive me 
), being the most vocal (and likely the most qualified -- especially after sushi's departure) representative of the scientific community on this board, your responsibility is greater than you might imagine. To many here, you are the only real-world scientist they've ever had a conversation with. That role comes with a great burden, of which I'm sure you're aware.
Stomping all over someone's current belief system is no way to show them the error of their ways. I admire you for holding the torch of logic, methodology, and reason, but try to keep it held high. It's very tempting to swing it around and fling embers about, but burned people hold grudges."
