On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:00:12 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote:


Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
ScottW wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote:
Don Pearce wrote






d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com


Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose
Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado,
it is very unsound and very, very bad.


Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have
identified right away. You have been very helpful.


How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce?

The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post....
you can't.
So forget it.

ScottW


How are you able to ascertain this if he hasn't respond
and what is it about my post that you think it would not be
possible? And what with this tonic about?

The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on
this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose
to help, oh well.


Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are
your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good?

There's nothing in your protocol that can possibly be done to
make it good. None.


What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad?

All of it.


How can they be improved?


I'm sorry to be somewhat blatant with you Mr. Pearce, but every
time you ask your subject to sit down, aware, taking your test
and consciously follow your protocol, you're ****ed most of the time.



This is your idea of helping, is it?

I was right first time. Sorry I wasted everybody's time by being
goaded into a reply.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com