Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: "Clyde Slick" <artsackman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 22:20:39 -0400
"paul packer" <packer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:449f3afe.1016828@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 12:14:58 -0700, "ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Just make sure your personal standard of behavior for yourself
Tautology! Personal is for yourself.
(Just thought you'd like to know that. :-))
or your expectation of others (excluding Arny) are not
deviated due to his presence.
Deviated? I thought only septums were deviated.
True, rectums are deviant.
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDem
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: paul packer
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- References:
- A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: j.
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Robert Morein
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: j.
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Harry Lavo
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: jeffc
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Jenn
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: ScottW
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: paul packer
- A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Prev by Date: Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Next by Date: Re: phono cartridge capacitance adjustment?
- Previous by thread: Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Next by thread: Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Index(es):