"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message

That difference being that with
real DBTs, the evidence of effectiveness is objectively
measured with proven diagnostic tools such as lab work or
radiological exams, whereas in the dogmatic preachings of
the aBxism choir, the only "evidence" is entirely
subjective.

Resolved then, that anything with a hint of subjectivsm be ignored.

So what have you got for us now, Middiot?

Not quite sure what George is blathering about now, but from the
above you'd think he never heard of measurements, and the funny way
that things that yield positive DBT results always seem to yield
a mundane measurable difference. And of course ABX is
simply a subset of DBTs. George is free to run a 'calibrating'
DBT on his own hearing, to discover where his discriminative
thresholds lie for various audible parameters. He may then
compare them to average thresholds in the literature. He may
find he is (more/less) sensitive than average to that difference.
He will certainly find a point where he can no longer audibly
detect a difference that is still measurable. He will find that
the value of the parameter measures closer to known thresholds
at that point, than it did when he *could* hear a difference.
And then, his reinvention of the wheel will be complete.


Or maybe he's just *afraid* of measurements...they can
brutally reveal one's, er, *personal shortcomings', after all.




David Niven's Academy Award refernence noted. :-)