Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

What he said is "listening critically" changes the
user's mindset, whether done blinded or sighted, and
you agreed (as do I).

So far so good.

That is *NOT* two different influences, Arny.
It is the same influence in two different listening
circumstances.

The point is that sighted and blinded listening for the
purpose of evaluating equipment makes changes in the
listener's mindset that are different. Knowing that the
listening is for the purpose of evaluating the equipment
changes the listener's mindset, but the changes are
different depending on whether the listening is blind or
sighted.

I would argue that this is not true....both involve
critical listening, which is comparatively conscious and
left brain oriented. While ordinary music listening is
relatively right-brain oriented. When listening and
comparing at home, as most of us do, we can stay inthe
absorptive mode until something rises to consiousness,
then switch to comparative mode in order to hone in on
the difference.

This is all baseless speculation.

snip

When one has no real defense against arguments that strike at the
core of one's beliefs, one resorts to meaningless blather aimed at
those raising the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves.
Arny's responses above are a case in point.

Arny will be accusing you next of attacking his children, Harry. :-)

But 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. 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. Seems clearly logical to me: IF sighted
listening is invalid on this ground THEN so is blind listening.

I am sure that Mr. Krueger will now again argue that the audience and
I prevented him from making case at HE2005. But they didn't, and I
didn't, as is clear from the recording of the debate.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back,
absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind
conditions.

Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me
say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back,
absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results
were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small
differences.

But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far
poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very
un-laid-back A/B listening.

But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person
was as sensitve asa he needed to be.

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message


What he said is "listening critically" changes the
user's mindset, whether done blinded or sighted, and
you agreed (as do I).

So far so good.

That is *NOT* two different influences, Arny.
It is the same influence in two different listening
circumstances.

The point is that sighted and blinded listening for the
purpose of evaluating equipment makes changes in the
listener's mindset that are different. Knowing that the
listening is for the purpose of evaluating the equipment
changes the listener's mindset, but the changes are
different depending on whether the listening is blind or
sighted.

I would argue that this is not true....both involve
critical listening, which is comparatively conscious and
left brain oriented. While ordinary music listening is
relatively right-brain oriented. When listening and
comparing at home, as most of us do, we can stay inthe
absorptive mode until something rises to consiousness,
then switch to comparative mode in order to hone in on
the difference.

This is all baseless speculation.

Arguments aren't facts. Results observed in the real world are facts.

In comparative, short-snippet testing
one is forced to stay in comparative mode at virtually
all times.

An oft-repeated straw man argument.

There's no need for a DBT to be a comparative, short-snippet test.
However, we know that once a musical passage with an audible defect is
found, comparative, short-snippet tests give the quickest, most reliable
results.

In those cases it is not known whether a musical passage has an audible
defect, a comparative, short-snippet tests gives the quickest, most
reliable results.

Sighted listening conditions the listener to be
insensitive to small differences by distracting him with
non-sonic influences. Often, these non-sonic influences
are huge.

Harry has no response

Blind listening conditions the listener to be sensitive
to small sonic differences by making his sucess as a
sensitive listener contingent solely on differences in
sound quality.

Harry has no response

What *IS* a difference is the difference between active,
comparative listening (left brain), and more laid-back,
absorptive listening (right brain) that we usually do
when listening to music. *THAT* is a difference, Arny.

Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back,
absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under
blind conditions.

Harry has no response

Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let
me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back,
absorptive listening under blind conditions. The
results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to
small differences.

The idea that laid-back, absorptive listening is more
sensitive is like the idea that napping, or otherwise
disengaged ball players play better ball.

I didn't say it was more sensitive...

Not at this instant. But back in the real world and further down the
posting, Harry essentially says just that.

With Harry, you are supposed to believe his every statement in isolation,
it seems.

said it uses a
different part of the brain, which in turn can slowly
bring things to consciousness that are otherwise passed
by...then more focused listening using quick-switching
can help hone in. That's called "open-ended evaluation".

So what?

You seem stubbornly determined to deny this
phenomenon....despite widespread description of just this
protocol as being the most revealing and productive for
most listeners when evaluating gear.

It ain't widespread, it's productivity is not known.

And it doesn't, IMO, require blinding..

Harry has an opinion that blinding isn't required? Who is surprised?

That it requires is an honest
inquiry with no agenda and no foolish predispositions,
e.g. "this one costs twice as much so it must sound
better".

Is there a living human that is free of all agendas? No!

How do we know that the mind doing the evaluation has no predisposition?

The foolish part of "foolish predispositions" is a judgement call. I say
that Harry has a foolish predisposition towards believing in snake oil
like SACD, and he has a number of different opinions.

It sure would be nice if we could do listening tests that are as
resistant as possible to agendas and predispositions, foolish or
otherwise. Sighted tests are obviously not resistant the agenda or
predispositions. Blind tests are well-known to be highly resistant to
agendas and predispositions.


Blinding is a fine tool, and I don't fight it
when it can be accommodated.

However, Harry has admitted that he fights blind tests in his own life. I
believe he's even admitted that he has made zero equipment choices based
on blind tests.

But I will not throw out
the baby with the bath water and adopt a test that both
theory and practical experience indicate interferes with
the thing under test *just* so I can say I did it
double-blind.

Harry makes up some pop-psychology theories, and that satisfies the
"theory" part of his requirements.

One problem with pop psychology theories based on left and right brains
is that everybody who is capable of normal functioning has both halves of
the brain, and they are tightly coupled. Talking about left and right
brain functioning as separate things like like trying to separate the
pistons from an engine and then try to talk about the performance of the
engine and pistons separately.

Harry makes up some speculative reasons why DBTs *might* interfere with
the thing under test that disagree with widespread observations, and that
satisfies the other part of his requirements.

If Harry judged cars like he judges listening tests he'd never go
anyplace in a car, because a car *might* crash.


Nor will I advocate it to others.

Well, that would involve Harry admitting that he is wrong.



When one has no real defense against arguments that strike at the core of
one's beliefs, one resorts to meaningless blather aimed at those raising
the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves.


An admission of your own denial.

Arny's responses above are a case in point.

Notice that he never does tackle the argument that his style of ABX
testing reduces if not eliminates the chance for slow-building,
subconscious (originally) impresses to arise but instead uses primarily an
alien (left-brain) mechanism for musical evaluation.

You want him to lie?

He calls it "a strawman" but
has never offered any conflicting scientific support for his view that the
issue is moot (I suspect because none exists).
Perhaps he thought you might have the will to find the truth for yourself.
Foolish of him, no?

"John Atkinson" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message

What he said is "listening critically" changes the
user's mindset, whether done blinded or sighted, and
you agreed (as do I).

So far so good.

That is *NOT* two different influences, Arny.
It is the same influence in two different listening
circumstances.

The point is that sighted and blinded listening for the
purpose of evaluating equipment makes changes in the
listener's mindset that are different. Knowing that the
listening is for the purpose of evaluating the equipment
changes the listener's mindset, but the changes are
different depending on whether the listening is blind or
sighted.

I would argue that this is not true....both involve
critical listening, which is comparatively conscious and
left brain oriented. While ordinary music listening is
relatively right-brain oriented. When listening and
comparing at home, as most of us do, we can stay inthe
absorptive mode until something rises to consiousness,
then switch to comparative mode in order to hone in on
the difference.

This is all baseless speculation.

snip

When one has no real defense against arguments that strike at the
core of one's beliefs, one resorts to meaningless blather aimed at
those raising the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves.
Arny's responses above are a case in point.

Arny will be accusing you next of attacking his children, Harry. :-)

Atkinson siezes the moral low ground, once again.
I know, I know, Arny made you do it.

But 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.

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.

Seems clearly logical to me: IF sighted
listening is invalid on this ground THEN so is blind listening.

Except that sighted listening gives results that are at odds with reality
and blnd listening for subtle differences doesn't.

I am sure that Mr. Krueger will now again argue that the audience and
I prevented him from making case at HE2005. But they didn't, and I
didn't, as is clear from the recording of the debate.

What is clear is that you wish people not to beleive the truth about sighted
listening for subtle differences.

" wrote in message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back,
absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind
conditions.

Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me
say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back,
absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results
were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small
differences.

But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far
poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very
un-laid-back A/B listening.

But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person
was as sensitve asa he needed to be.

But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce the result
of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

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.

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.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back,
absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under
blind conditions.

Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry,
let me say it specifically: I've personally done
laid-back, absorptive listening under blind
conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor
sensitivity to small differences.

But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a
sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems
to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B
listening.

But what if there were no differences to be heard? That
emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be.

But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce
the result of not hearing differences. that means the test
is a dud.

Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed
to distract the listener from hearing small differences.
Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing
small differences by distracting them with influences
related to sight.

Therefore, sighted evaluations related to small differences
are duds, right Art?

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com


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.

Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"?

Nope.

This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he
puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's
mouth.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back,
absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under
blind conditions.

Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry,
let me say it specifically: I've personally done
laid-back, absorptive listening under blind
conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor
sensitivity to small differences.

But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a
sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems
to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B
listening.

But what if there were no differences to be heard? That
emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be.

But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce
the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud.

Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract
the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be
keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with
influences related to sight.

Therefore, sighted evaluations related to small differences are duds,
right Art?


You are known to be a liar.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
oups.com
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.

Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"?

Nope.

No you didn't say "bad" and "good," Mr. Krueger. You said "coffee"
and "alcohol."

This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he
puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's
mouth.

You seem incapable of saying anything without framing it as
a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement, Mr. Krueger.
No, this not another "Atkinson paraphrase." I merely felt your
analogy was over-stretched, Mr. Krueger. If it bothers you that
much, substitute "coffee" and "alcohol" for "good" and "bad" in
my statement above (whichever way round you feel appropriate).

Either way, it seemed to have gone over Mr. McKelvy's head. Your
metaphor, your foot, so to speak.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

" wrote in
message
nk.net...

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back,
absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under
blind conditions.

Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry,
let me say it specifically: I've personally done
laid-back, absorptive listening under blind
conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor
sensitivity to small differences.

But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a
sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems
to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B
listening.

But what if there were no differences to be heard? That
emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be.

But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce
the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud.

Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract
the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be
keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with
influences related to sight.

Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish.

What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences
were undetected?
It would have to include an element of deception.

ScottW

" wrote in message
nk.net...

Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.

I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it
but I fear my strength last.

Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual.
It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable
proof to others of your ability to perceive difference.

Got it?

ScottW

"John Atkinson" wrote
in message
ups.com
Arny Krueger wrote:
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message

oups.com

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.

Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"?

Nope.

No you didn't say "bad" and "good," Mr. Krueger. You said
"coffee" and "alcohol."

Both of which are fine beverages in the appropriate
contexts.

This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he
puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's
mouth.

You seem incapable of saying anything without framing it
as a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement, Mr.
Krueger.

You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating
your wife" is a question. The statement above is a
declaration.

No, this not another "Atkinson paraphrase." I
merely felt your analogy was over-stretched, Mr. Krueger.

Here's a friendly suggestion John, if your problem is that
you felt the analogy was over-stretched, try saying so
without resorting to the ethically questionable debating
trade practice of putting made-up words in my mouth.

If it bothers you that much, substitute "coffee" and
"alcohol" for "good" and "bad" in my statement above
(whichever way round you feel appropriate).

You seem to be missing the point Atkinson, which you must to
in order to pursue the travesty of an equipment testing
procedure that Stereophile seems to have relied on for its
now-flagging commercial success.

Either way, it seemed to have gone over Mr. McKelvy's
head. Your metaphor, your foot, so to speak.

I think he got my point just fine. If it went over someone's
head, I would point to the person who can't quote it
properly, one who confused a declaration with a question.

"ScottW" wrote in message
newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are
designed to distract the listener from hearing small
differences. Their result is known to be keeping people
from hearing small differences by distracting them with
influences related to sight.

Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish.

You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with
you. Scotty.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating
your wife" is a question. The statement above is a
declaration.

Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've missed the point.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a statement, not a question.
A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you used to be.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped
beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is
a declaration.

Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've
missed the point. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
is a statement, not a question.

No it's a question with a so-called hidden meaning.

There was nothing hidden in my declaration. I think Atkinson
is at the core of it struggling with the strength of my
presentation of the advantages of bias-controlled listening
tests. It's easy to make a strong presentation for a strong
concept, and a strong tool.

A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you
used to be.

Yet another question with a hidden meaning. It functions
like a declaration on some level, but first and foremost
it's a question.

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.

I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it
but I fear my strength last.

Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual.
It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable
proof to others of your ability to perceive difference.

I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for an
individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing if it
was a waste of time until you double check the results while blinded. :-)

Norm Strong

Arny Krueger wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are
designed to distract the listener from hearing small
differences. Their result is known to be keeping people
from hearing small differences by distracting them with
influences related to sight.

Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish.

You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with
you. Scotty.

I am blessed.

and your are unable to respond to my point.

"What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences
were undetected?
It would have to include an element of deception. "

ScottW

wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02...

" wrote in message
nk.net...

Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle
differences is a waste of time, even you.

I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it
but I fear my strength last.

Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual.
It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable
proof to others of your ability to perceive difference.

I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for
an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing
if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while
blinded. :-)


So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted.
That's my normal music listening MO, so wahtever satisfies that
would be my choice.
DBT is the time waster.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"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.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with
sighted.

Given how nice of a guy you've been over the years Art, I
think that would be a very good thing for you to do.

;-)