Ridiculous assertions that someone is being ripped off or conned


How many times has this scenario played out here? Someone purchases product X, and tries it in their system. They report positive results, that it works as advertised, that they got their money’s worth, that they are happy with the purchase. Then someone, usually having zero experience with the product, replies with something like: “No, you’ve got it all wrong! You’re being ripped off! You’re being conned!


Does anyone else understand how ridiculous and absurd these kinds of assertions are?! The consumer who actually put up their own money and took the time to evaluate the product in their own home/system reports it works as advertised, they are happy with it, that they got their money’s worth. Then someone else claims they were ripped off?!


Imagine an agency investigating consumer fraud getting a complaint like this: “My neighbor is being ripped off!” “No, no, he thinks it’s great, does everything he expected it to. He’s very happy with it, but I just know he’s being conned!” Do you seriously think they’re going to open any kind of investigation into it?


You can disagree with what someone says about the effectiveness of a product all you want, but to say they have been defrauded, when they report the exact opposite, is patently ridiculous.


tommylion

Real audiophiles have close friends that occasionally get together to have the music.......play on,  and arouse areas of their brain that they wish could last for eternity. 

Screw the narcissistic, bourgeoise...it defines a class of humanity that has none. 

There are two separate issues here. First, several of the comments conflate disrespectful and insulting comments with demands that personal observations be supported with scientific data and theory. There is never a reason to be rude in your response to a member's reported experience with a product, whatever you may think of that product. It's reasonable to ask for more information, but to deny the validity of the observation is unacceptable.

Second, many of the comments demanding evidence beyond that offered by the original post are based on fallacious understandings of the scientific enterprise. Underlying many of the comments from the naysayers is the assumption that only things that are well understood are valid scientifically. This simply is not true. Scientific inquiry often begins with anomalous observations, outcomes that are not understood. In these cases, the scientific enterprise is optimized when we strive to find the causal path that explains heretofore mystifying observations, not when we dismiss the observations as invalid. The tendency among the "technocrats" and "scientists" in these discussions to dismiss anomalous observations only serves to constrain scientific progress. Better to accept, evaluate  and dismiss after detailed analysis 10 faulty observations than to dismiss without consideration one valid observation. That is, our understanding progresses when we open our minds to possibilities we can't imagine, not when we dismiss out of hand observations of which we don't approve.

May the audio gods grace your ears.