The Krooborg's estrangement from science gets deeper and more intractable
with every passing year. Recent references to the scientific method reminds
me we should reflect on how real scientists work.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Scientific Method

1. State the question or problem clearly

2. Study all available data to see how they relate to the problem.

3. Formulate various hypotheses to explain all of the known facts.

4. Design an experiment to test the validity of the hypotheses, starting
from the most general.

5. Conduct the experiment, using a control if practical.

6. Evaluate the results to determine whether the hypothesis under test was
supported or invalidated.

7. Repeat these steps for all hypotheses until only one is still valid.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


That's what real scientists do in the real world. It's rigorous, but it's
supposed to be. The objective is to execute an experiment that another
scientist can duplicate and see if it works another time.

Now let's pop into the Hive for a quick visit....


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this now -- it
simplifies your experiments and eliminates the need for all that time-
consuming hypothesizing.

2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent rationalizations
to show that these data are "better" than others. Also, if time permits,
jot down some notes on why data reported by people with whom you disagree
shouldn't be considered in your "experiments."

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is already
known, so go on to the experiments.

4. Set up an "experiment" ;-) that is bound and certain to reinforce your
desired conclusion.

5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Be sure to
fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.

6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as obnoxiously
as possible. Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone who criticizes
your hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your conclusion. Experience has
shown that you can usually deflect criticism, no matter how well-founded
it is in reality, by impugning the motives of your critics.

7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry that you've
"proved" your theory and that no more "science" need be brought to bear on
this issue.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



The Krooborg's estrangement from science gets deeper and more intractable
with every passing year. Recent references to the scientific method
reminds
me we should reflect on how real scientists work.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Scientific Method

1. State the question or problem clearly

2. Study all available data to see how they relate to the problem.

3. Formulate various hypotheses to explain all of the known facts.

4. Design an experiment to test the validity of the hypotheses, starting
from the most general.

5. Conduct the experiment, using a control if practical.

6. Evaluate the results to determine whether the hypothesis under test was
supported or invalidated.

7. Repeat these steps for all hypotheses until only one is still valid.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


That's what real scientists do in the real world. It's rigorous, but it's
supposed to be. The objective is to execute an experiment that another
scientist can duplicate and see if it works another time.

Now let's pop into the Hive for a quick visit....


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this now --
it
simplifies your experiments and eliminates the need for all that time-
consuming hypothesizing.

2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent rationalizations
to show that these data are "better" than others. Also, if time permits,
jot down some notes on why data reported by people with whom you disagree
shouldn't be considered in your "experiments."

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is already
known, so go on to the experiments.

4. Set up an "experiment" ;-) that is bound and certain to reinforce your
desired conclusion.

5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Be sure to
fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.

6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as obnoxiously
as possible. Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone who criticizes
your hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your conclusion. Experience has
shown that you can usually deflect criticism, no matter how well-founded
it is in reality, by impugning the motives of your critics.

7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry that
you've
"proved" your theory and that no more "science" need be brought to bear on
this issue.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in the
same breath with Virgil.

Robert Morein said:

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in the
same breath with Virgil.

Thank you so much, sweets. In case you're interested, the part of Dido has
not been cast.

"George M. Middius" wrote:

The Krooborg's estrangement from science gets deeper and more intractable
with every passing year. Recent references to the scientific method reminds
me we should reflect on how real scientists work.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Scientific Method

1. State the question or problem clearly

OK ..OK - get the picture.

I note your inability as ever in *any* post I ever see of yours to actually
*post on topic* and make it relevant to audio, your useless doofus.

Graham

Robert Morein wrote:

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in the
same breath with Virgil.

The 'sidekick' pops up as ever to lick his mate's testicles.

I read up your case. Are you surpised they chucked you out of Uni after failing
to provide a thesis after no less than *7 years* !

Graham

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Robert Morein said:

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in the
same breath with Virgil.

Thank you so much, sweets. In case you're interested, the part of Dido has
not been cast.

You mean Dildo surely ?

Which one of you wears the strap-on ? S'ok I can understand you can't get it
up. Imbecility does that to you.

Graham

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...



The Krooborg's estrangement from science gets deeper and more intractable
with every passing year. Recent references to the scientific method
reminds
me we should reflect on how real scientists work.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Scientific Method

1. State the question or problem clearly

2. Study all available data to see how they relate to the problem.

3. Formulate various hypotheses to explain all of the known facts.

4. Design an experiment to test the validity of the hypotheses, starting
from the most general.

5. Conduct the experiment, using a control if practical.

6. Evaluate the results to determine whether the hypothesis under test was
supported or invalidated.

7. Repeat these steps for all hypotheses until only one is still valid.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Also known as a list of things "Normals" never bother with.



That's what real scientists do in the real world. It's rigorous, but it's
supposed to be. The objective is to execute an experiment that another
scientist can duplicate and see if it works another time.

Now let's pop into the Hive for a quick visit....


* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this now --
it
simplifies your experiments and eliminates the need for all that time-
consuming hypothesizing.

2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent rationalizations
to show that these data are "better" than others. Also, if time permits,
jot down some notes on why data reported by people with whom you disagree
shouldn't be considered in your "experiments."

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is already
known, so go on to the experiments.

4. Set up an "experiment" ;-) that is bound and certain to reinforce your
desired conclusion.

5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Be sure to
fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.

6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as obnoxiously
as possible. Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone who criticizes
your hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your conclusion. Experience has
shown that you can usually deflect criticism, no matter how well-founded
it is in reality, by impugning the motives of your critics.

7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry that
you've
"proved" your theory and that no more "science" need be brought to bear on
this issue.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *


You act like this isn't what you do on a daily basis.
I see you've caught Andre's case of projection. You simply claim that your
enemy does what you do. Pretty sick stuff. Get help soon.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in the
same breath with Virgil.

The 'sidekick' pops up as ever to lick his mate's testicles.

I read up your case. Are you surpised they chucked you out of Uni after
failing
to provide a thesis after no less than *7 years* !

Graham

Uh-oh, now you've done it. Look out for a campaign of lies and vitriol from
a guy to lazy to write a thesis but tenacious enough to go to the Supreme
Court to try and get out of it.

George Minus Middius a écrit :


Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this now -- it
simplifies your experiments and eliminates the need for all that time-
consuming hypothesizing.


For example "tubes are paradigme"


2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent rationalizations
to show that these data are "better" than others. Also, if time permits,
jot down some notes on why data reported by people with whom you disagree
shouldn't be considered in your "experiments."

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is already
known, so go on to the experiments.

Sure !!! Moreover when you are the presomptuous webmaster of a site
fully dedicated to your grandeur.


4. Set up an "experiment" ;-) that is bound and certain to reinforce your
desired conclusion.


Even an allegoric experiment is sufficient. It's a good deed it allows
to deaf people to participate to a hearing test. ;-)


5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Be sure to
fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.


If people are watching just inflate a little bit more your ego and use
it as a screen.


6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as obnoxiously
as possible.

And don't noisily and obnoxiously proclame :
"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."

Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone who criticizes
your hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your conclusion.

I agree.
Open your citation book and submerge the assailants with pertinent adages :
"Precision is the essential art of science"


Experience has
shown that you can usually deflect criticism, no matter how well-founded
it is in reality, by impugning the motives of your critics.


I still agree.


7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry that you've
"proved" your theory and that no more "science" need be brought to bear on
this issue.


Or cross France north to South in an old GS waiting for an editor. :-D



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

Lionel a écrit :

Ooops I just forgot to crosspost... ;-)


George Minus Middius a écrit :


Cyborg's High-Predictability "Scientific" Method

1. Decide what conclusion you want to reach. It's best to do this now
-- it
simplifies your experiments and eliminates the need for all that time-
consuming hypothesizing.



For example "tubes are paradigme"


2. Line up the data that support your premise and invent rationalizations
to show that these data are "better" than others. Also, if time permits,
jot down some notes on why data reported by people with whom you disagree
shouldn't be considered in your "experiments."

3. No hypothesizing is necessary because the desired conclusion is
already
known, so go on to the experiments.


Sure !!! Moreover when you are the presomptuous webmaster of a site
fully dedicated to your grandeur.


4. Set up an "experiment" ;-) that is bound and certain to reinforce
your
desired conclusion.



Even an allegoric experiment is sufficient. It's a good deed it allows
to deaf people to participate to a hearing test. ;-)


5. If people are watching, pretend to run the "experiment". Be sure to
fake a demeanor of impartiality and devotion to truth.



If people are watching just inflate a little bit more your ego and use
it as a screen.


6. Promulgate the results of your "science" as noisily and as obnoxiously
as possible.


And noisily and obnoxiously proclame :
"In my experience professional musicians in blind tests prefer tubes."

Make sure you shout down and ridicule anyone who criticizes
your hypothesis (chuckle), your method, or your conclusion.


I agree.
Open your citation book and submerge the assailants with pertinent adages :
"Precision is the essential art of science"


Experience has
shown that you can usually deflect criticism, no matter how well-founded
it is in reality, by impugning the motives of your critics.



I still agree.


7. Sit back, complacent and smug, and trumpet to all and sundry that
you've
"proved" your theory and that no more "science" need be brought to
bear on
this issue.



Or cross France north to South in an old GS waiting for an editor. :-D





--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in the
same breath with Virgil.

The 'sidekick' pops up as ever to lick his mate's testicles.

I read up your case. Are you surpised they chucked you out of Uni after
failing
to provide a thesis after no less than *7 years* !

Graham

I won in trial court.
In the appeals court, a.k.a. Superior Court, the president judge voted in my
favor. We lost by one swing vote.
State law in Pennsylvania provides educational institutions with immunity
from claims of educational malpractice.
In other words, regardless of what the institution does, the student has no
claim, except for:
1. civil rights issues
2. failure of a course offering to conform to the specific benefits
described in the course catalog.

Under these circumstances, I am gratified that the trial judge ruled in my
favor, risking a reversal that might have damaged her career.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


"George M. Middius" wrote:

The Krooborg's estrangement from science gets deeper and more intractable
with every passing year. Recent references to the scientific method
reminds
me we should reflect on how real scientists work.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Traditional Scientific Method

1. State the question or problem clearly

OK ..OK - get the picture.

I note your inability as ever in *any* post I ever see of yours to
actually
*post on topic* and make it relevant to audio, your useless doofus.

OK, let's chat about audio.
Write something, and I will respond on topic.

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:18:44 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in the
same breath with Virgil.

The 'sidekick' pops up as ever to lick his mate's testicles.

I read up your case. Are you surpised they chucked you out of Uni after
failing
to provide a thesis after no less than *7 years* !

Graham

I won in trial court. etc....

Robert, if you don't mind me saying so I think you demean yourself
trying to justify yourself to people who use your history as a weapon.
Personally I find the tactic beneath contempt, partly because no one
who wasn't there can really know anything about it, whatever they
pretend, and partly because attacks should be based on posts and not
personal history that's no one else's business. Phil Allison on
aus.hi-fi has perfected this art of using snippets of past history as
a bludgeoning club; that alone should tell you why it's too
contemptible to be worth a reply.

paul packer said:

Robert, if you don't mind me saying so I think you demean yourself
trying to justify yourself to people who use your history as a weapon.
Personally I find the tactic beneath contempt, partly because no one
who wasn't there can really know anything about it, whatever they
pretend, and partly because attacks should be based on posts and not
personal history that's no one else's business.

One can safely assume that even you look favorably on throwing the
Krooborg's phoney christianity in his face.

Phil Allison on
aus.hi-fi has perfected this art of using snippets of past history as
a bludgeoning club; that alone should tell you why it's too
contemptible to be worth a reply.

We on RAO have almost no direct experience with that individual. If you want
to educate us, you should crosspost some examples of his objectionable
posts.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:17:52 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Robert, if you don't mind me saying so I think you demean yourself
trying to justify yourself to people who use your history as a weapon.
Personally I find the tactic beneath contempt, partly because no one
who wasn't there can really know anything about it, whatever they
pretend, and partly because attacks should be based on posts and not
personal history that's no one else's business.

One can safely assume that even you look favorably on throwing the
Krooborg's phoney christianity in his face.

It depends on the nature of his "Christianity". If avowed Christians
occasionally slip, I don't believe in bludgeoning them with their
faith. However if they persistently adopt a holier-than-thou stance
and then slip, well, anything goes.

Phil Allison on
aus.hi-fi has perfected this art of using snippets of past history as
a bludgeoning club; that alone should tell you why it's too
contemptible to be worth a reply.

We on RAO have almost no direct experience with that individual. If you want
to educate us, you should crosspost some examples of his objectionable
posts.

I see you've now been initiated. Thanks, Phil, for saving me the
trouble.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:18:44 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

This is a very nice post. I think it will become a classic, quoted in
the
same breath with Virgil.

The 'sidekick' pops up as ever to lick his mate's testicles.

I read up your case. Are you surpised they chucked you out of Uni after
failing
to provide a thesis after no less than *7 years* !

Graham

I won in trial court. etc....

Robert, if you don't mind me saying so I think you demean yourself
trying to justify yourself to people who use your history as a weapon.
Personally I find the tactic beneath contempt, partly because no one
who wasn't there can really know anything about it,

That's the same bull**** cop out they used in trying to get Tookie out of
the death penalty.
A case that goes to the Supreme Court has a long paper trail. Then there's
the fact that he had to lose since what he was suing over was already
established practice and had been for years.

whatever they
pretend, and partly because attacks should be based on posts and not
personal history that's no one else's business.

When Mr. Morein cleans up his act, and stops making the kind of asinine
statements which are his wont, then perhaps people will stop ridiculing him
for his stupid lawsuit.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:53:49 GMT, wrote:


Robert, if you don't mind me saying so I think you demean yourself
trying to justify yourself to people who use your history as a weapon.
Personally I find the tactic beneath contempt, partly because no one
who wasn't there can really know anything about it,

That's the same bull**** cop out they used in trying to get Tookie out of
the death penalty.

You're referring to a domestic case that's had little publicity here.

whatever they
pretend, and partly because attacks should be based on posts and not
personal history that's no one else's business.

When Mr. Morein cleans up his act, and stops making the kind of asinine
statements which are his wont, then perhaps people will stop ridiculing him
for his stupid lawsuit.

It's history, Mike. Play the ball, not the man.