John Atkinson: "The best speakers I've ever used in my room were the Revel Salon2's"

[PacMan]

But the burden is on you, as I said; you are the one doubting it and only you can find the information that will comvince you.

You came with a claim, so it is obviously your burden to present the evidence (confer "innocent until proven guilty").

 

[mep]

You came with a claim, so it is obviously your burden to present the evidence (confer "innocent until proven guilty").

You have already been given enough evidence to show this really happened. It's pointless for anyone to waste any more time on this subject with you. This is the last time I will ever respond to anything you post on this forum or any other forum in the universe.

 

[PacMan]

You have already been given enough evidence to show this really happened.

I like bullet-proof evidence. You obviously do not want to show that review.
And other questions related should be raised as well if the review is you claim. For instance this: Was Aczel's interest in Fourier clear from before?
(this still does not imply that Aczel did not do anything unethical if what you claim is correct).

It's pointless for anyone to waste any more time on this subject with you. This is the last time I will ever respond to anything you post on this forum or any other forum in the universe.

I prefer communicating with people who can prove their categorical claims and who are factual. No further communication with you will therefore be no loss for me.

 

[rbbert]

You came with a claim, so it is obviously your burden to present the evidence (confer "innocent until proven guilty").

No, you came with several claims; first, that John Atkinson says (not said, says) that Revel Salon 2 were the best speakers he has ever used in his room. Next, that only The Audio Critic is a review magazine you would believe (despite the fact that they barely even exist anymore, and don't you wonder where Issues #1-15 went??). Last, that you don't believe that Peter Aczel reviewed a speaker made by a company of which he was a principle (not against the law, just unethical, so there is no "guilty" or "innocent" involved). Now the second of these is an opinion so there is no right or wrong possible. The other two are just plain wrong, and you are (and will be) totally incapable of showing them to be true.

BTW, you should add at least your name to your signature.

 

[Mike]

Stradivari's are for lovers.

Boy, did this thread go sideways fast. Pacman, I think its time to drop it and get back to the thread.

 

[MDP]

Okay, lets all settle down. This thread is getting out of hand.

 

[Mike]

I'm closing this thread.