Originally Posted by arnyk
I'm not a fan of DBT critics who make a religion out of preferences developed in bogus and questionable listening tests.
In fact we can and have met the logical requirements that we first imposed on ourselves before we recommended them to anybody else. Some people have what it takes to organize and perform a good logical experiment, but many others can't. In my opinon and experience, the requirements for a good listening test are easy enough to meet.
Example being the false offensive claims you made just above.
"Blind trials" usually being code for a test that would have been a good DBT except for its intentional defects... Is it fish, is it fowl?
Well, excuse me, Reverend, but I wasn't really referring to you, though I see you couldn't help but get in the pulpit anyway. You have in fact done credible work, but it gets obscured by your quasi ex cathedra
tone when you think someone's failed your fidelity test. (Now there's a double entendre.
) I considered you as being more level-headed about this.
Even though our conclusions on this thread's topic appear to be identical, you have a way of either obtusely misunderstanding language or a habit of making small yet pathological changes to other's posts so you can get into lectura gravis
mode like a know-it-all who must have the last word. You like to focus on differences to the exclusion of commonalities, and you like to do it in a harsh and mean-spirited way.
Let me help you with one simple example of how you misread. It would take too much time and space to do a line-by-line reconstruction of your misrepresentations.
I'm not a big fan of DBT advocates who make a religion out of their "scientific dogma."
"I'm not a big fan of..." is an idiomatic expression in English. I might use it like this: I'm not a big fan of taxes, or I'm not a big fan of country music. I still pay all my taxes willingly, and there are some country artists I enjoy listening to, but I don get excited or "fan"atical about either. Not being a big fan does not make one a critic.
"...of DBT advocates who..." shows respect for DBT proponents through the use of "advocates," a perfectly honorable term. I did not write wackos, Nazis, Zombies, dilettantes, dictators, or fanatics, etc. At the same time the inclusion of "who" indicates there's a subclass of advocates that's about to be described. It introduces a restrictive or essential adjective clause.
"...who make a religion out of their 'scientific dogma.' "is the restrictive clause. It does not brand all DBT advocates with this characterization; rather, it includes another idiomatic phrase, "make a religion" which indicates that some advocates give it god-like status which only they and other special people can discern and execute properly. "Scientific dogma" is in quotes because it is in itself an oxymoron; science and dogma should not be together logically, yet there are cases of dogmatic scientism to be found in many places on AV Science, especially among people who have never done any of the things they demand of others.
You claim to have done these things, and I always accepted that you had. Since I see an evolving tendency on your part to misread or mischaracterize other people's posts, I am no longer interested in what you have to write. I don't trust your objectivity, and I tire of your constant, harping negativity. I'm going to put you on ignore, and I suggest you save yourself from your self-imposed drama and do the same to me.