"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...
to return to the statement of mine that provoked this outbreak
of bile from Mr. Krueger, I was addressing Mr. Krueger's point
that he made at the HE2005 debate that sighted listening changes
the listener's state of mind. I have said that I agree with this,
it does. I have also said that blind listening changes the
listener's state of mind. It does, and Mr. Krueger has said that
he agrees with this.
Where I disagree with Mr. Krueger is in his raising of this change
of state of mind _without qualification_ at the debate to disqualify
sighted listening.
Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.
Your mind-reading abilities aside, Mr. McKelvy, no I don't "know" this.
Willful ignorance is no excuse.
All I am doing is pointing out, as I did at the debate, that as
blind listening _also_ changes the listener's state of mind, that
_in itself_ is an insufficient reason to make a case against
sighted listening.
Another lie.
No, not a lie at all, Mr. McKelvy. Even Arny Krueger has effectively
agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are
different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad"
kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that
validates blind listening. Except he failed to make this subtle
distinction at the debate. Perhaps you'd better let Mr. Krueger
take a glance at your postings before you post them, to make
sure you and he are on the same page.
The changes from a blind comparison are in favor of detection of subtle
differnces, consequently you should be in favor of them.