>Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion Next time read it first before replying. It's not mandatory to read everything here on an HN thread bu

>Ok, just read it, and it didn't contradict my assertion Next time read it first before replying. It's not mandatory to read everything here on an HN thread but it's common courtesy that you read it all before you reply. Otherwise you'd be wasting my (and your own) time. >Don't take "my understanding" as "I have no idea what I'm talking about." No I didn't. I took it as you didn't read the article. Which I'm right. >I think I've read it before as this was my point above: Agreed. And this point is valid. It supports your assertion. However this does not mean you can dismiss all other assertions, especially the main assertion of the article. Sensation transference. The article brings both points up to be fair and balanced. The possibility of sensation transference remains open just as the "sickly-sweet threshold." We would need a systematic test to prove it either way. Until then sensation transference remains an open possibility for affecting the opinions of people judging both Windows and New Coke. I think it would be wise to be aware that none of us our purely rational creatures, and that things that we're sure about should be judged with a healthy amount of skepticism as that judgement is heavily influenced by unknown biases.