OOPS! Wrong John - post intended for one and only John Marks. [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - ggraff 07:52:59 04/8/02 (216)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - xenon101 10:17:44 04/10/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Analog Scott 20:32:55 04/9/02 (20)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 22:39:10 04/9/02 (12)

No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - jj 08:19:00 04/10/02 (8)

"the guy who argued that digital playback made your muscles get weak?" - clarkjohnsen 14:15:15 04/10/02 (1)

Try again, Clarke - jj 08:36:07 04/13/02 (0)

Re: No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - john curl 11:24:43 04/10/02 (1)

You were there. Wow! An historic occasion... - clarkjohnsen 14:24:10 04/10/02 (0)

Re: No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - john curl 10:49:12 04/10/02 (3)

Enough of the crap, John - jj 19:05:25 04/12/02 (0)

As an AES member from 1967... - clarkjohnsen 14:19:57 04/10/02 (1)

Re: As an AES member from 1967... - john curl 15:20:42 04/10/02 (0)

A point many are making. - jusbe 03:16:01 04/10/02 (2)

Well said! - clarkjohnsen 14:11:23 04/10/02 (0)

Exactly... And how "scientific" are the white papers we see all the time? - jj 08:20:43 04/10/02 (0)

Who are these "objectivists" that you rant about? - jj 21:52:34 04/9/02 (6)

did someone call me? :) <nt> - TOOL 18:05:15 04/10/02 (0)

Re: Who are these "objectivists" that you rant about? - Analog Scott 08:25:38 04/10/02 (4)

Really, now? I'm an AES member. Perhaps you confuse the AES with its members? - jj 08:31:51 04/10/02 (3)

Re: Really, now? I'm an AES member. Perhaps you confuse the AES with its members? - Analog Scott 15:33:06 04/12/02 (0)

"The AES did not conduct that test, some of its members did." - clarkjohnsen 14:08:09 04/10/02 (0)

Not wanting to be pernickety, but - orejones 08:58:57 04/10/02 (0)

Agreed: When experimental results cannot be explained... - justacoder 13:28:13 04/9/02 (0)

Agree almost entirely. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:58:13 04/9/02 (2)

You're not so clumsy - jusbe 03:06:16 04/10/02 (1)

Retract your accusation immediately... - jj 08:33:27 04/10/02 (0)

Are We Being Ungrateful? - PriyaW 10:51:03 04/9/02 (4)

I don`t think so. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:30:48 04/9/02 (3)

Re: Now that's a different bird altogether.... - jj 12:58:51 04/9/02 (2)

Re: Now that's a different bird altogether.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:14:30 04/9/02 (1)

Did it ever occur to you that ... - jj 18:56:02 04/9/02 (0)

in modern mathematics, proof is considered... - suits_me 09:58:12 04/9/02 (0)

...and no one will EVER know whether the test subjects are really telling the truth <nt> - TOOL 09:57:12 04/9/02 (1)

Um, ever hear the word "controls" - jj 10:07:29 04/9/02 (0)

I thought science was just another name for belief, another 'religion' with its own ceremonies... - jusbe 07:19:24 04/9/02 (26)

Re: I thought science was just another name for belief, another 'religion' with its own ceremonies.. - john curl 16:12:01 04/10/02 (1)

Indeed, including new information about the need for DBT test structures, etc. - jj 08:38:16 04/13/02 (0)

Bullshit. Science is testable, religions aren't. Admit the difference. - jj 08:58:24 04/9/02 (20)

Re: Bullshit. Science is testable, religions aren't. Admit the difference. - Anaog Scott 20:41:44 04/9/02 (3)

errr. um ... - jj 21:45:41 04/9/02 (2)

Re: errr. um ... - Analog Scott 15:53:06 04/12/02 (0)

Re: errr. um ... - Analog Scott 15:42:59 04/12/02 (0)

Aah, but religion is testable, you just cant publish the results. nt - PabloP 14:45:11 04/9/02 (1)

Unh. Wanna rethink that in the terms it was originally phrased? - jj 19:28:12 04/9/02 (0)

Very little in science can be PROVED. Data usually 'fits the model'. Have you ever SEEN a neutron? - jusbe 09:02:31 04/9/02 (13)

Do you mean to imply that neutron's don't exist? - Ted Smith 15:58:08 04/10/02 (0)

So, you don't know what science is. Big surprise, that. - jj 09:04:08 04/9/02 (11)

Pray tell; what is science? nt - jusbe 09:05:38 04/9/02 (10)

Since you don't know, why are you making claims about what it is. - jj 09:24:47 04/9/02 (5)

Certitudinous! nt - clarkjohnsen 13:41:05 04/10/02 (0)

Why does my asking indicate my ignorance? Think first before you shoot. nt - jusbe 10:50:30 04/9/02 (3)

Because you ask AFTER you make strong, and incorrect assertions? - jj 12:31:31 04/9/02 (2)

I ask because I was interested in YOUR definition. I cordially withdraw my interest. nt - jusbe 02:59:00 04/10/02 (1)

Then why didn't you go below and read it? It's in this thread! - jj 08:25:29 04/10/02 (0)

My answer: A good one: - clarkjohnsen 09:20:47 04/9/02 (3)

As usual, Clark shoots and misses... - jj 09:26:23 04/9/02 (2)

I would say, to judge by your tone -- - clarkjohnsen 13:39:42 04/10/02 (0)

Nicely put (nt) - jsr 22:49:00 04/9/02 (0)

Post modernist! ;-) - dado5 07:41:38 04/9/02 (2)

S'pose so. My flo', mo' so, Po' Po'-Mo'. No? nt - jusbe 09:00:03 04/9/02 (1)

Troll! (MT) - jj 09:05:03 04/9/02 (0)

Re: the fog of war - Bruce from DC 07:01:10 04/9/02 (6)

I think it's simpler than that, Bruce.... - jj 08:57:00 04/9/02 (2)

Re: questions and more questions - Bruce from DC 10:04:33 04/9/02 (1)

I don't quite agree... I think it's some basic suppositions that stick out... - jj 10:19:14 04/9/02 (0)

"nobody, but nobody, puts ketchup on a hot dog." - dado5 07:50:57 04/9/02 (1)

Re: I agree. - Bruce from DC 09:27:33 04/9/02 (0)

informative post! <nt> - TOOL 07:44:16 04/9/02 (0)

Re: i know of a person willing to bet thousands you are wrong. - zuki 00:59:30 04/9/02 (9)

Would this be the Amazing Randi by any chance? - dado5 05:36:12 04/9/02 (8)

Re: no , it is not someone named randi. - zuki 10:02:34 04/9/02 (7)

Sounded like Randi's MO... - dado5 10:25:56 04/9/02 (5)

Geller lost his lawsuit... - jj 10:35:01 04/9/02 (4)

Re: Geller lost his lawsuit... - Analog Scott 09:50:27 04/13/02 (0)

Thanks...I was not aware of that Popoff was still up and running... - dado5 10:48:16 04/9/02 (2)

Found the answer on Randi's site....thanks much. - dado5 11:09:24 04/9/02 (1)

Re: this is the guy and his site. - zuki 11:15:45 04/9/02 (0)

Another satisfied Bose owner! (nt) - E-Stat 10:19:05 04/9/02 (0)

Science has a dirty little secret ... - Oakroot 00:20:41 04/9/02 (18)

You describe stupidity, not science... - jj 08:49:55 04/9/02 (8)

Re: You describe stupidity, not science... - Don T 14:07:41 04/10/02 (0)

Re: You describe stupidity, not science... - Oakroot 12:00:06 04/9/02 (5)

Oakroot makes personal attacks again, news at 11. - jj 12:33:51 04/9/02 (4)

Would you like some cheese with your whine????? - Oakroot 16:09:47 04/9/02 (3)

Oh, I caught you red-handed, but what else is new? - jj 19:24:31 04/9/02 (2)

Your hypocracy and deceit are certainly not new. nt - Oakroot 13:48:13 04/10/02 (1)

Nor are your libels. - jj 19:09:48 04/12/02 (0)

Reality - Jon Risch 10:23:38 04/9/02 (0)

You cannot blame Science - PriyaW 08:27:26 04/9/02 (7)

Grants are a pain to write as they are all written to a specific ... - Oakroot 11:41:22 04/9/02 (4)

While I have enough reasons - PriyaW 14:12:57 04/9/02 (3)

Apples and Oranges ... - Oakroot 17:32:59 04/9/02 (2)

Finally, you deserves a thank you! - PriyaW 18:01:48 04/9/02 (1)

Re: Finally, you deserves a thank you! - Oakroot 13:40:52 04/10/02 (0)

Re: You cannot blame Science - john curl 11:38:57 04/9/02 (1)

I agree with you. - PriyaW 11:55:47 04/9/02 (0)

darn! I thought no one knew the trooof about my 'perfect' lab reports :) <nt> - TOOL 00:23:08 04/9/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 22:31:15 04/8/02 (3)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - jarthel 06:48:12 04/9/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - ggraff 06:01:22 04/9/02 (0)

Feelings... - Estes 05:29:21 04/9/02 (0)

(yawn...) - jazztrumpet 21:27:49 04/8/02 (0)

whole bunch of show-offs... - TOOL 20:21:31 04/8/02 (5)

Re: whole bunch of show-offs... - Ted Smith 21:30:35 04/8/02 (1)

power cords... - TOOL 21:56:51 04/8/02 (0)

Errr. um, I have. (run, proctored, taken, designed, analyzed, etc DBT's) - jj 20:32:04 04/8/02 (2)

"I would have to say "my experiences" might rather be a largish article" - TOOL 21:57:33 04/8/02 (1)

Um, from what point of view? Designer? Test admin, subject? ...??? - jj 08:27:31 04/9/02 (0)

How about some REAL math? - chickenlogic 17:42:09 04/8/02 (6)

Re: How about some REAL math? - ggraff 06:09:00 04/9/02 (2)

Re: How about some REAL math? - Analog Scott 10:08:00 04/13/02 (0)

Again, you use the offensive word "pseudoscience" - jj 08:44:55 04/9/02 (0)

Yes, let's do some math, shall we? - jj 18:00:44 04/8/02 (2)

Why certainly, my good chum...... - chickenlogic 00:53:57 04/9/02 (1)

Um, you're missing my point entirely.... - jj 08:39:25 04/9/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - scrooie looie 17:24:52 04/8/02 (0)

Why would I care what you think? - Mwalsdor@cscc.edu 16:10:59 04/8/02 (0)

My rant - response. - David Aiken 15:26:27 04/8/02 (3)

How wonderfully refreshing - darkstar 05:00:31 04/9/02 (0)

Thanks, well said <nt> - Ted Smith 16:45:22 04/8/02 (0)

Hear! Hear! - jj 15:37:23 04/8/02 (0)

A fine post, friend! - clarkjohnsen 15:13:44 04/8/02 (1)

Really, Clark? (MT) - jj 15:17:01 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - suretyguy 14:06:01 04/8/02 (0)

PERHAPS I SHOULD MAKE THIS CLEAR - jj 13:54:49 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - fourprof 13:52:41 04/8/02 (0)

Criteria other than sound - sam9 13:42:48 04/8/02 (7)

Placebo Effect? <nt> - TOOL 20:02:28 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Criteria other than sound - Steve Eddy 13:55:23 04/8/02 (4)

Actually, Steve.... - jj 15:15:41 04/8/02 (3)

Re: Actually, Steve.... - Steve Eddy 16:02:02 04/8/02 (2)

Awww. Would a utility ever do that???? - jj 20:05:18 04/8/02 (1)

Re: Awww. Would a utility ever do that???? - Steve Eddy 20:42:00 04/8/02 (0)

Agreed. This has nothing to do with the assualt on the scientific method (MT) - jj 13:46:27 04/8/02 (0)

Important distinction - Cetaele 12:20:28 04/8/02 (7)

Re: Important distinction - ggraff 06:16:10 04/9/02 (1)

Here we agree, entirely... - jj 08:29:59 04/9/02 (0)

While I agree with what you said.... - jj 13:24:22 04/8/02 (4)

I agree, and - Cetaele 16:21:27 04/8/02 (3)

Good question also hard question :-) - jj 17:47:11 04/8/02 (2)

Re: Good question also hard question :-) - Cetaele 17:56:59 04/8/02 (1)

Oh. AMEN to that! - jj 18:01:41 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - dado5 12:16:05 04/8/02 (0)

Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 11:27:14 04/8/02 (10)

Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 11:37:32 04/8/02 (9)

999,998... - Todd Krieger 19:51:31 04/8/02 (1)

Re: 999,998... - Steve Eddy 20:40:59 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 12:15:32 04/8/02 (6)

Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 13:01:04 04/8/02 (5)

Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 14:08:53 04/8/02 (4)

Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 14:20:22 04/8/02 (3)

Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 20:01:14 04/8/02 (2)

Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 20:38:12 04/8/02 (1)

You Win - Todd Krieger 21:01:41 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 10:36:21 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Bob Bales 10:06:35 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - sam9 09:59:27 04/8/02 (2)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Steve Eddy 11:28:54 04/8/02 (0)

Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - kentaja@yahoo.com 11:24:41 04/8/02 (0)

Something else to think about - Is this a troll? - jj 09:14:23 04/8/02 (4)

Re: Something else to think about - Is this a troll? - ggraff 06:28:41 04/9/02 (1)

Well, I'm glad you say it wasn't. - jj 09:20:09 04/9/02 (0)

I think you might missunderstand what ggraff is trying to say... - Ted Smith 14:18:30 04/8/02 (1)

Yeah, that's over the top, and somewhat deep into something else... - jj 15:05:55 04/8/02 (0)

You're as close to 100% wrong as someone has been in a while! - jj 09:02:28 04/8/02 (31)

nope..... - chickenlogic 18:14:38 04/8/02 (1)

Err, it's hard to tell. You're agreeing with me, I think? - jj 19:59:07 04/8/02 (0)

tests need updating - highendman 10:19:34 04/8/02 (13)

And the 80's, 90's and present. - jj 12:56:42 04/8/02 (12)

Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - highendman 16:33:15 04/8/02 (3)

I said - jj 17:50:07 04/8/02 (2)

Re: I said - highendman 18:40:19 04/8/02 (0)

Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - john curl 13:33:18 04/8/02 (7)

Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - john curl 17:20:46 04/8/02 (1)

Your point is? - jj 17:51:18 04/8/02 (0)

Hey John, where`s my CD? - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 14:41:18 04/8/02 (3)

OOPS! Wrong John - post intended for one and only John Marks. [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 04/9/0210:05:13 04/9/02 (2)

s'ok, you saw my name.... - jj 10:21:06 04/9/02 (1)

Re: s'ok, you saw my name.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:37:25 04/9/02 (0)

That's utterly out of context here, John, and YOU KNOW THAT. - jj 13:50:16 04/8/02 (0)

Re: You're as close to 100% wrong as someone has been in a while! - Don T 09:44:38 04/8/02 (12)

Don T is confused, I see. - jj 13:42:03 04/8/02 (6)

Please ....... - Don T 14:05:39 04/8/02 (5)

Re: Please ....... - jj 14:59:49 04/8/02 (4)

Re: Please ....... - Don T 18:28:28 04/8/02 (3)

Squirm all you want... Then admit you're wrong. - jj 19:38:45 04/8/02 (2)

HA! You're speechless! - Don T 20:01:46 04/8/02 (1)

No, just appalled at your attempt at character assassination... - jj 20:15:15 04/8/02 (0)

his post is far more accurate than yours - chiggy 10:28:30 04/8/02 (4)

Re: his post is far more accurate than yours - Don T 11:55:50 04/8/02 (3)

Sorry, dude, but Chiggy caught you out cold... - jj 13:01:42 04/8/02 (2)

Re: Sorry, dude, but Chiggy caught you out cold... - Don T 13:45:09 04/8/02 (1)

It would appear you read someone else's post then... - jj 13:47:49 04/8/02 (0)

(note to self) don't get ino it re: science and math w/JJ - salinas212 09:21:42 04/8/02 (1)

Hunh??? - jj 12:58:30 04/8/02 (0)

Simple Fact - Rodney Gold 08:23:57 04/8/02 (17)

Re: Simple Fact - Steve Eddy 10:51:46 04/8/02 (0)

Only if (and if only) - bdiament 08:53:25 04/8/02 (15)

You're dodging. - jj 09:04:49 04/8/02 (14)

No, I just disagree - bdiament 10:21:56 04/8/02 (8)

If no other way.... - jj 13:06:50 04/8/02 (0)

sort of, - chiggy 10:37:55 04/8/02 (6)

You misread my words - bdiament 11:21:42 04/8/02 (5)

Re: You misread my words - chiggy 13:13:29 04/8/02 (4)

A difference in perception - bdiament 15:39:41 04/8/02 (3)

Re: A difference in perception - chiggy 09:12:37 04/9/02 (2)

We must agree to disagree - bdiament 14:12:30 04/9/02 (0)

Minor Quibble - jj 09:30:31 04/9/02 (0)

What measurements do you find correlate to... - E-Stat 10:18:49 04/8/02 (4)

You ask a complicated question... - jj 13:03:41 04/8/02 (1)

Re: You ask a complicated question... - E-Stat 13:53:29 04/8/02 (0)

Which one had the large sense of space? (nt) - Monte 10:39:31 04/8/02 (1)

Burmester 969/970 (nt) - E-Stat 13:56:34 04/8/02 (0)

Agree....and disagree! - Don T 08:02:08 04/8/02 (1)

Re: I gotta disagree with both of you. - jlee 21:19:45 04/8/02 (0)

Follow Ups

OOPS! Wrong John - post intended for one and only John Marks. [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 04/9/0210:05:13 04/9/02 (2)

s'ok, you saw my name.... - jj 10:21:06 04/9/02 (1)

Re: s'ok, you saw my name.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:37:25 04/9/02 (0)