I'm sure that SA monitors this forum, and vice versa. Nothing wrong with that.
I read the posts over there, and even added my 2 cents on the issue on their forum (for the record, I disagreed with Jim, I think a judge can use whatever tools he deems necessary to make his/her judgement)... but I have to say that I think his commentary was misunderstood, or misinterpreted, by Art.
Jim was questioning whether the fact that some judges use magnification to judge a model was inherently unfair. He did NOTmean that the use of a magnifier by a judge who was visually impaired was unfair. His comments had nothing to do with people's eyesight, he was questioning the legitimacy of using a magnifier as a judging tool, not their use by people who are visually impaired.
Just thought I'd try to clarify that, so at least we all know exactly what the heck we're arguing about!