This thread went offtrack on page one, in my opinion. That's when a belief was stated as being empirical evidence. Shortly after that, the whole subjective/objective, objective/subjective business reared its ugly head again. It's my belief that no one here is purely cemented in a single camp, however. Rather, I think we are blends of both camps, and that it is a matter of how the mix is weighted that puts us at bay. Am I wrong?
Then, there is the not-so-small matter of how our experiences are communicated. If a reader cannot grasp a concept that another is trying to express, the subject only sinks deeper into the abyss. To resolve the problem as it applies to this thread, the entire issue of speed accuracy will need to be laid to rest. Only then can the many other aspects that matter be discussed in any meaningful way. Surely there is a way to do that, but the whole affair is not something that can be described as simplistic.
An effort to understand what other posters are really trying to say will go a long way. I suppose reasonable questions are more helpful than derisive comments and extraneous posts about things that have little bearing on the subject.
