Soundsmith having Issues because of COVID

What a shame if whom ever re-tipper we believe in is closed
because of this damn virus. Who want to wait for unknown time
till his ''precious'' will get a new stylus or cantilever/stylus combo? 
But Peter himself declared to have ''many employees'' . I wish
Van den Hul deed the same. So the conviction that ''master
himself '' deed the ''repair'' would be ,uh, more convincing.
I noticed many second hand Van den Huls listed on many sites
so I can't believe that he himself made those carts nor that
he does all ''retips'' himself. Besides I mentioned elsewhere
why I don't believe that he does those jobs.
Does those ''Sounthsmith believers'' really believe that Peter
does all the retips or repairs? 

If the assumptions are not true then also deductions from this
assumption can't be true. ''Little accusatory '' remind me of this
guy who told to the parents of his girl: ''you daughter is little bit
pregnant''. 

Well my other assumption is that correct argumentation should consist in refusal of the assumption, say, Nandric your assumptions
are not true because … (the arguments). I don't understand what
the fact that my English is not ''native English'' has to do with my
assumption. The same apply for my ''accusation''. Such ''arguments''
are called ''straw man'' arguments. One is not reacting with
arguments but by ascribing to the opponent some ''bad intentions''. 

sprititomusic, ''Meanings  are creature of darkness'' . I quote
American philosopher, logician and mathematician Quine.
What  you don't understand may be caused by unclear statement
from your opponent or by your inability to understand what
is stated. According to me you limited your argument to what
you self can understand. What kind of criterion is this? 

(addendum) Names and identity. Names assume some bearer
of the name. Names have no meaning but only refer. Knowing
an name does not mean to know anything about the person.
That why names are called ''not  predicative'' . 
Now what does the statement ''Peter has retiped my cart'' or
''Van den Hul has repaired  my cart mean? They obviously don't
mean that someone else deed this work because we would then
say Herman deed or simple '' I have no idea who fixed my cart''. 
Is this so difficult to grasp?

noromance, I stated my assumption that neither Peter nor Van den
Hul do those repairs or retips by them self. Both have some or many
employees. I can't understand that  some persons have difficulty 
to understand this assumption. Despite the fact that English is not
my native language or that this assumption is incomprehensible.
The simple negation of  my assumptions  with arguments would
be sufficient. But I have seen no arguments at all. Instead  there
are the so called ''straw man arguments''. My statement was not
clear (aka ''understandable'') . I ''failed in my initial comment'', my
English is not ''native'' while I also accused without cause the
incriminated persons. My assumption now is that despite your
''native language'' you are not able to understand an simple
English sentence. 
  

I wrote to ''Durob Audio'' an exclusive hifi shop in Holland owned
by Van den Dungen. Van den Dungen was the inventor of the
''Kiseki story''. I asked  advice for my Kiseki Agaat which had
some coils issue. To my surprise I got an answer from the master
him self. He told me that he is searching for someone whom he
can trust because he also had ''some Kisekis'' for repair. He is
in China the most of the time because he owns ''Prima Luna''
factory there .That , a.o. was the reason for my surprise. 
So I posted my Agaat to Durob. But after 3 or 4 months I asked
very polite about my Agaat and his answer was that he lacked
the time for this ''adventure''. So I asked my Agaat back because
I found someone else for the job. This job was done in Hungary.
Now is it not curious that he deed not ask Van den Hul for his
Kiseki's or some other known re-tipper? He made it clear that
he needed to know whom exactly he should trust his carts.

glubson,''nice story but how is it related to Soundsmth story?''
My first post dispute the ''believing''  part of the story.
Believing in Peter's  capability, integrity, ect. is not the same as
believing  in Soundsmith as company. There was an  French
king who stated: ''France that is I''. Besides Peter is not some
''collective being'' . He is as all of us an individual person not
by chance with his own name. Because he himself . stated to
have .''many employees'' there is, say chance, that someone
else retiped the cart. So ''Peter retiped my cart'' will not do.
The reason is simple: it is not true that Peter retiped my cart.
So if someone else deed it then one should use the quantifier
''some'' which is most easy to explain with: ''someone has stolen
my cart''. This is the same as I have no idea who retiped
my cart. Strange ''base'' for believiving. All the 'straw man'' 
constructions against me were actually based on assumption
that my intention was to hurt Peter. I used the other example, 
Van den Hul with the same problem. When people state
 ''Van den Hul retiped my cart'' what are they referring to? 
Van den Hul himself or his company? Companies are theso called 
''legal bodies'' . Invented by lawyers in order to reduce risk for the 
entrepreneurs.
By separating comapies assets from his private assets. Such that
only company assets would be liable for their debts, But company
is not able to act. Only humans can act. So each legal body has
representatives who act in the name of the company. 
My point was that believes have nothing to do with the truth.
An statement is true or false irrespective  from what we believe.
 

testpilote , There is much wrong with your capability to learn. I just
explained  what ''someone'' or ''something'' means but you are
obviously not able to understand . My arguments are not based
on Dutch or other languages but on logic which is universal. Try
logic of quantification but I don't expect much from you. 
You are one of many who have no better arguments than ''straw
man'' kinds. That is avoiding arguments and instead ascribing
to the opponent ''bad character''. ''Colling names'' is, i think,
American expression for your ''arguments''.