Tying up some loose ends and providing examples of reader responses, he
ends on his part the recent series on his blog.

http://www.randi.org/jr/121004science.html#11

In this series his brash style was in evidence with his pull no punches
approach clearly seen. The sad thing is it leaves unanswered by testing
question of the core belief system of the subjective enterprise. One of
the latter's weaknesses is having no systematic way to draw a line in the
sand as to how far subjective listening provides any useful feedback.
Mr. Atkinson has shown some quite muted responses in print to claims of
"stones" wire etc. which allows one to see them as damnation by faint
praise or as a bone tossed to astute readers who can read between the
lines.

In speakers listening of the sort done in the subjective enterprise is
almost universally accepted to have some value, with correct decoding,ex.
"warm" as some freq greater level in the upperbass/mid range; my ever
popular "chocolate" eludes decoding. The failure of the subjective
enterprise is because there is absolutely wno ay to know when the accepted
by all turns into "stones" and similar. It is a world of your opinion is
as good as my opinion and all is bliss in ignorance for want of a defining
method to spot what really makes a difference such that some change rises
above the threshold of audibility.

If Mr. Atkinson shrinks from embracing the reality of the subjective
enterprise by testing, perhaps he can address methods to shine light on
the total morass of "you got your opinion and I got mine" that something
can be heard. Let him publish his clear line in the sand and reasons why
that exclude "stones" etc. and why wire etc. apparently is kosher. Let
him tell us what method allows him to reach these conclusions so that
others may make benefit of it and independently confirm them. Let him list
all commonly reviewed items/practices that appear in print and show us the
status of each according to his method.

Would the readership be so shocked at this so as to lose faith in what is
published in almost every article about "breakin" wires swapped in and out
and the predictable list of "ancillary" gear/practices that makes the
majic happen. Can he then tell us how he decides if each of his authors
has grasp of this method, why some might not, and make a neat package of
the whole.