In Reply to: RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... posted by Pat D on July 22, 2010 at 23:47:20:
To me their testing is representative of people actually listening to the components and commenting on their experiences/observations. I've been reading the magazine for nearly 20 years and for an individual component there seems to be some consensus on fidelity but they also note when someone experiences it differently.
Donald North
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Donald North 18:31:28 07/23/10 (12)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 19:14:59 07/23/10 (11)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 05:53:07 07/24/10 (10)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 16:14:46 07/24/10 (9)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 17:14:07 07/24/10 (8)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 18:40:25 07/24/10 (7)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - josh358 20:10:08 07/24/10 (0)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 19:11:48 07/24/10 (5)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Donald North 11:54:27 07/25/10 (0)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Pat D 05:30:32 07/25/10 (3)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 07:53:44 07/25/10 (2)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - morricab 13:37:01 07/25/10 (1)
- RE: Protocols aside, all the 'good' objectivists want.... - Tony Lauck 17:51:10 07/25/10 (0)