Well this just keeps sinking lower and lower. I did try.
In reply to:
When did I use your name specifically?
No one said you used my name specifically. But, you see, I am one of "some people" to whom you referred. You make a statement that insults a number of people, including me, and when I take exception to that, you accuse me of personalizing it. OY!
In reply to:
I didn't even realize that you had posted anything here until you told me that I was insulting you. I had to go back to see that you were in this thread.
You mean you posted without reading the thread? You mean you made an generalized insult without seeing who you were insulting?
In reply to:
I apologize that you thought my statement was insulting or somehow directed towards (sic) you specifically.
Now that's condescending. YOU can't apologize that I THOUGHT it was insulting. It WAS insulting. You can only apologize for making an insulting comment (intended or not); something you apparently are unwilling to do. I cannot be held responsible if you didn't say what you meant. Again, I am "some people" so it WAS directed toward me.
In reply to:
I read that you heard a difference that supports the theory of break-in, precisely because you heard a difference, opposed to others who claim they've heard no difference over time.
Hearing a difference does NOT support the break-in theory. What you are alleging is that if I heard a difference, that means the difference MUST be in the speakers. It's my belief the difference is NOT in the speakers. I'm saying I PERCEIVED a change, NOT that a change took place. Can you understand the difference?
In reply to:
So the fact is that you heard a difference and you have no scientific proof as to why that is, nor do you believe in speaker break-in.
Well, you're getting close. I heard a difference. BECAUSE there is no scientific proof the speaker changed, and BECAUSE I'm fully aware ones senses/brain can be be fooled (become acclimated to a speakers sound), I, therefore, don't subscribe to the theory of speaker break-in. I'm open to any proof that it exists, and when confronted with that proof, will be more than willing to reassess my point of view.
In reply to:
I am confused by how I'm implying you've done something wrong. I don't see how I've done that here.
Well, I don't know about you, but I feel "jumping to conclusions" is wrong. I work very hard to avoid doing so, and I find it offensive when someone tells me I'm doing so. You've implied that I wrongly "thought" your comment to be insulting. You've implied that I "personalized this," when your insulting comment did that. Nothing insultingly personal about an individual, or about "some people," was said up to that point.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that being insulting was not your intent. What I cannot accept is that you seem to think anyone who could possibly find fault with that comment is the one who is wrong.
