In Reply to: ALL, and I mean ALL of the reputable evidence shows that you CAN hear in a DBT test posted by jj on November 28, 2002 at 11:23:08:
"This also means 1 subject at a time, etc, etc. Somebody recently suggested that it was ok to run multiple subjects with one switch.NO!"
Excuse me, but the method we use works. You're criticizing something you don't understand. It wasn't developed overnight and most certainly was done in a haphazard manner. A company our size has neither time nor money to waste on something that can't produce reliable and repeatable results.
Sorry if it is counter to what you have experienced, but you have no grounds to say it is improper.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: ALL, and I mean ALL of the reputable evidence shows that you CAN hear in a DBT test - Jitter_by_Coffee 05:01:17 12/01/02 (41)
- Look, running multiple subjects who can see, hear, etc, each other - jj 23:33:59 12/01/02 (40)
- Re: Look, running multiple subjects who can see, hear, etc, each other - Jitter_by_Coffee 06:26:34 12/02/02 (39)
- So, how many subjects do you run, and how many trials per subject? - jj 07:24:32 12/02/02 (38)
- Re: So, how many subjects do you run, and how many trials per subject? - Jitter_by_Coffee 17:27:51 12/02/02 (36)
- Well, if you run one subject, and they control the switching... - jj 20:59:20 12/02/02 (35)
- Re: Well, if you run one subject, and they control the switching... - Jitter_by_Coffee 13:52:28 12/03/02 (34)
- Argumentum ad exhaustion is hardly convincing - jj 18:03:27 12/03/02 (33)
- Re: Argumentum ad exhaustion is hardly convincing - Jitter_by_Coffee 06:25:59 12/04/02 (32)
- It's called "peer review", Jit - E-Stat 18:00:48 12/04/02 (18)
- Re: It's called "peer review", Jit - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:54:26 12/05/02 (17)
- Here - E-Stat 09:24:36 12/05/02 (16)
- And by all means - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:51:38 12/05/02 (10)
- Why bother? - E-Stat 16:28:36 12/05/02 (9)
- Re: Why bother? - Jitter_by_Coffee 16:59:32 12/05/02 (8)
- It is truly a shame that - E-Stat 20:10:33 12/05/02 (7)
- Re: It is truly a shame that - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:50:07 12/06/02 (6)
- Re: It is truly a shame that - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:52:01 12/06/02 (5)
- Indeed opinions play a part - E-Stat 14:20:55 12/06/02 (4)
- Re: Indeed opinions play a part - Jitter_by_Coffee 22:37:10 12/06/02 (3)
- Let me refresh you memory - E-Stat 07:26:55 12/07/02 (2)
- Re: Let me refresh you memory - Jitter_by_Coffee 06:37:48 12/09/02 (1)
- Actually, I was at Disney two weeks ago - E-Stat 11:49:06 12/09/02 (0)
- Re: Here - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:47:34 12/05/02 (4)
- Re: Here - E-Stat 14:41:06 12/05/02 (3)
- Re: Here - Jitter_by_Coffee 16:58:50 12/05/02 (2)
- They do so on a regular basis - E-Stat 20:07:34 12/05/02 (1)
- Re: They do so on a regular basis - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:48:26 12/06/02 (0)
- Your point? You want to claim that your methods are effective.... - jj 09:54:30 12/04/02 (12)
- Re: Your point? You want to claim that your methods are effective.... - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:51:01 12/05/02 (11)
- Semantic evasion likewise. - jj 15:11:53 12/05/02 (10)
- Re: Semantic evasion likewise. - Jitter_by_Coffee 17:16:40 12/05/02 (9)
- Let's not let the facts bother you, eh? - jj 19:25:02 12/05/02 (8)
- Re: Let's not let the facts bother you, eh? - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:46:59 12/06/02 (7)
- Stop creating false positions for me. - jj 23:49:17 12/08/02 (6)
- Re: Stop creating false positions for me. - Jitter_by_Coffee 06:31:06 12/09/02 (5)
- I guess, once again, you can't deal with the facts... - jj 16:38:53 12/09/02 (4)
- Re: I guess, once again, you can't deal with the facts... - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:14:00 12/18/02 (3)
- It's time for you to retire from this, and admit you have nothing at hand - jj 17:58:41 12/18/02 (2)
- Re: It's time for you to retire from this, and admit you have nothing at hand - Jitter_by_Coffee 05:22:44 12/20/02 (1)
- See the CFP above - jj 21:00:26 12/26/02 (0)
- I'm curious too - E-Stat 15:35:10 12/02/02 (0)