Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: "Jenn" <jennconducts@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 25 Jun 2006 11:02:03 -0700
Arny Krueger wrote:
Name-calling is the best you can do?
"The pre-requisite
lobotomy ensures that." Arny, exactly 1 min. before posting the above.
Arny, I promise that this is the last time I'll post in this way, other
than when you personally attack me. I'm trying to help, really. Based
on the above, do you see why people are critical of you here? The
"persecution" that you complain about is brought on by your "what's
good for the goose can be ignored by the gander" attitude and actions.
Please, for your own happiness, consider this. I think that you're
probably a good person, but you seem to have a blind spot in this area.
Best wishes to you.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Arny Krueger
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: Sander deWaal
- Re: A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- From: ScottW
- Note to paul packer
- From: George M . Middius
- 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
- A reasonable argument against double blind tests?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Is the NYTimes...
- Next by Date: Behringer A500 not on 4 Ohm!
- Previous by thread: Arnii Krooger's multifaceted mental disease
- Next by thread: Note to paul packer
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|