I agree with your point. I think the same principles apply. It was probably a bad example of an intense experience to use. Someone having a non traumatic intense experience might be a better witness, but still all the other stuff pertains. Having an intense experience doesn't even make you an expert in that intense experience.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <sparaig@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > snip > > > > > ++ If you drive off the road and hit a tree, you would have a > > > > > strong expierience- would you not be qualified to have an > > > > > accurate comment on it? N. > > > > > > > > The guy watching you hit the tree who didn't get his bell rung > might > > > > be a better source of information about what happened that > caused > > > > the crash. > > > > > > But not about what it's like to be in a car crash. > > > > > > > I've been in 5 near-fatal (would have been fatal without seat- > belts) car crashes. There's no > > underlying similarities save confusion and perhaps, panic. > > Not about what it's like to be in *that* car crash. > > Unless I'm way off track, the poster is making a > point about the *experience* of the crash, not > about exactly what happened to cause the crash. >
