In Reply to: Re: Lotsa reasons posted by KlausR. on May 6, 2007 at 07:33:20:
...are the numbers? The analyses? You're a "scientific" type; please explain to us dunces.However, all the evidence you may need is in the very book described in your referenced article; of the some eighty instances of "absolute polarity" appearing in the entire audio and acoustical literature (in English), academic and otherwise, through 1987, all but one were positive as to its audibility.
clark
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "There's not enough convincing evidence." Hmm... What's the scientific criterion for "convincing"? Where... - clarkjohnsen 13:33:52 05/06/07 (35)
- Re: However, all the evidence you may need is in the very book described in your referenced article - KlausR. 07:08:36 05/07/07 (34)
- Mr. Blackburn is sorely mistaken on this topic, and I have published a rebuttal. BUT: - clarkjohnsen 07:55:44 05/07/07 (33)
- Re: You avoided answering my question - KlausR. 09:03:26 05/07/07 (32)
- Contrary to the contempt and condescension shown by tlyyra below... - clarkjohnsen 13:57:09 05/07/07 (31)
- And this you call a rebuttal? - KlausR. 00:04:55 05/08/07 (1)
- "Your 'evidence' is not convincing." Back, as always, to that. I.e.... - clarkjohnsen 09:11:50 05/08/07 (1)