This thread got a little weird so I don't know if folks are still reading it.
I don't think Glen was trying to be superior or elitist and get the feeling that his views were misconstrued. However I do think his views on Har-Bal are a bit extreme.
Lets say someone mixes something and shoots for a modern commercially produced rock track sound. If this person thinks that their mix has hit that goal when it is obvious that they have missed it by miles then maybe Glen is right - that guy is wasting his time trying to mix music. If you can't at least hear that there is a problem then how can you set about fixing it? Obviously, if he's going for an avant-guard mix which defies commercial mixing trends then that is a different matter.
However, assuming the learner mixer can do a mix and realise something is wrong with it, maybe it's the midrange maybe even the low midrange.... What is wrong with them firing up Har-bal or any analyzer and comparing the visual representation of their mix against their commercial reference track? "Aah looks like my mix has to much 200-400hz content and is lacking around 1000 - 5000 range, maybe I should go back to my mix and make the guitars brighter and cut some 400 out of the bass and kick drum... Maybe that will take me closer to my aim."
Seems like a useful tool to me and for $99 it's cheaper than paying an experienced guy with great ears to point you in the right direction.