80.177.28.171
'); } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } else { document.writeln(''); } } // End --> |
In Reply to: RE: "But I do feel that gear should be able to work well in the real world without band-aids." posted by rick_m on November 10, 2008 at 08:27:09
>>> "May is clear to a fault that their products are believed to work directly upon the listener." <<<
Rick m, can you also see the reply I have done to Unclestu ?
The stumbling block seems to be the expression you used - "works directly upon the listener".
These words imply that 'something' is either physically wafting across/past or wafting through the person or actually physically touching them.
Can I describe a hypothetical situation. Something in your room makes you suddenly alert. You don't know what it is but the hairs at the back of your neck suddenly stand up - in other words you have reacted to something !!!
Would you describe that as 'something working DIRECTLY on the person', or having an INDIRECT effect on the person ? If it is not physically touching the person or radiating through them - as in radiation or magnetism - then surely it has to be described as 'indirect' ?
If we can get some common ground in language, we might be able to progress further.
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup: