Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus
Whenever you can verbalize the type and content of the data you would accept (from outside sources you did not observe) as valid and would cause you to believe "signal lines" do not exist in the real world, ....just let me know, so I format my data accordingly.
|
Sure, here it is typed out the fourth time: "
Any test that the owner of this forum would describe as a scientific test that proves signal lines are imaginary is satisfactory. As far as presentation, the protocol should be described, along with any controls that were used, a list of the data observed in the test results, and any other pertinent information you want to include. In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary".
In case your intellect doesn't have the resolving power to understand what it means, I can diagram what it means in precise detail:
1. You can format the data in any type or content you want provided Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary. This includes all types, contents, and formats that you may want to use, provided they are acceptable to Carl-NC. (Of course, this is easy for you, as you have shown you generally follow the types and formats that Carl-NC uses).
2. Your test report should describe the protocol and any controls you used for the tests.
3. Your test report should include the test result data you observed.
4. You may (at your option) include any additional information that you consider pertinent.
As you can see I placed no limitations on the type, content or format for the data other than Carl-NC can read it and identify it as a scientific test you ran that proves signal lines are imaginary. This would of necessity rule out making a test report in chinese symbols, or printing white type over a white background. Since we know Carl is reasonable, we know he accepts any reasonable test types and data formats that do not violate the rules of testing. And since there are unlimited ways to format any type or content of valid tests, I don't see a reason to rule any of them out.
Now you have your answer the fourth time. You know what type, content and format is acceptable. Basically there are no restrictions on the type, content or formatting of the data as long as they don't invalidate the test or make it illegible or otherwise obscure the data. The fact is I don't care about the formatting as long as it is comprehensible and the data can be understood by a casual reader. I care more about the content. That is the reason I summed up what is acceptable by saying: "In short, any test report that would convince Carl-NC that you ran a test that proves signal lines are imaginary". Why not use the type and content you used for the tests you ran in 1988?
Carl's concept of testing theory is more similar to mine than what I find from most other forum members. So if what you present as a test convinces Carl-NC you ran tests that proved signal lines are imaginary, then you will have no problem convincing me as well. And even if he doesn't consider your tests to be conclusive proof, they still may be very good evidence.
Take note: A test you ran in 1988 is a test from outside sources I did not observe, so your question is answered.
Best wishes,
J_P