IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Medic. study—placebo tends to lack important effect—relevant to audio?, [was “Placebo effect does not exist”]
Speedskater
post Jun 20 2013, 14:25
Post #101





Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 12-December 07
From: Cleveland, OH
Member No.: 49500



Some of the audioskeptic's more serious papers:

Bibliography

Fejzo, Z., Hastings, S., Johnston, J. D., and Jot, J., “Beyond Coding: Reproduction of Direct and Diffuse Sound in Multiple Environments” 129 AES Convention, San Francisco, CA, November 2010.
J. D. Johnston, “Testing Loudness Models–Real vs. Artificial Content”, 125 AES Convention, New York, NY, October 2-5, 2008.
J. D. Johnston and Smirnov, Serge, “A Low Complexity Perceptually Tuned Room Correction System”, 123 AES Convention, New York, NY, October 5-8, 2007.
J. D. Johnston, “Perceptual Audio Coding - A History and Timeline”, 41st Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2007.
J. Li, and J. D. Johnston, “Perceptually layered scalable coding”, 40th Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, pp.2125-2129, Pacific Grove, CA, October 2006.
Blank, T., Atkinson, B., Isard, M., Johnston, J. D., and Olynyk, K., “An Internet Protocol (IP) Sound System,” 117 AES Convention San Francisco, CA, 28-31 October 2004.
S. Kuo, J. D. Johnston, W. Turin, S. R. Quackenbush, “Covert Audio Watermarking Using Perceptually Tuned Signal Independent Multiband Phase Modulation”, ICASSP 2002, Orlando, FL, May 2002.
Kuo, S. and Johnston, J. D., “A study of why cross channel prediction is not applicable to perceptual audio coding,” 111 AES Convention, New York, NY, 21-24 September 2001.
Johnston, J. D., “Automatic loudspeaker directivity control for soundfield reconstruction,” 19th AES International Conference, Bavaria, Germany, 21-24 June 2001.
Kuo, S. and Johnston, J. D., “Enhancing image coders by using spatial noise shaping (SNS),” Proc. Data Compression Conference, 2001.
Kuo, S. and Johnston, J. D., “Spatial noise shaping based on human visual sensitivity and its application to image coding,” Proc. Int. Conf. Image Processing, 2001.
Johnston, J. D., “Perceptual soundfield reconstruction,” Audio Engineering Society Oct. 2000 Fall Convention Program, Los Angeles, CA, October 2000.
Johnston, J., Herre, J., Quackenbush, S., Allen, J., Dietz, M., Davidson, G. and Boltze, T., “A tutorial on perceptual audio coding,” Workshop on Perceptual Audio Coding Techniques, 105th AES Conf., San Francisco, CA, 28 Sept. 1998.
Johnston, J. D., Quackenbush, S., Davidson, G., Brandenburg, K. and Herre, J., “Wavelet, subband and block transforms” in Communications and Multimedia, Akansu, A. N. and Medley, M. J. (Ed.), Kluwer, April 1998.
Sinha, D., Johnston, J. D., Dorward, S. and Quackenbush, S. R., “The perceptual audio coder (PAC)” in The Digital Signal Processing Handbook, Madisetti, V. K. and Douglas, B. W. (Ed.), CRC Press, IEEE Press, 1998, pp. 42-1 to 42-18, Chapter 42.
Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., “Exploiting both time and frequency structure in a system that uses an analysis/synthesis filterbank with high frequency resolution,” AES 103rd Convention, no. preprint 4519, Oct. 1997.
Johnston, J. D., “A tutorial on perceptual audio coding,” AES 103rd Convention, Oct. 1997.
Quackenbush, S. and Johnston, J. D., “Noiseless coding of spectral components in MPEG-2 advanced audio coding,” 1997 IEEE ASSP Workshop on Appl. of Sig. Proc. to Audio and Acoust., New Paltz, New York, Oct. 1997.
Herre, J., Johnston, J. D., Brandenburg, K., Quackenbush, S. and et al, “Generic coding of moving pictures and associated audio: Advanced audio coding,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG International Standard ISO 13818-7, 1997.
Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., “A continuously signal-adaptive filterbank for high quality perceptual audio coding,” IEEE ASSP Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, Mohonk, NY, 1997.
Johnston, J. D., Podilchuk, C. and Chen, J-H, “Digital coding (data reduction) methods” in Digital Consumer Elecronics Handbook, Jurgen, R. K. (Ed.), McGraw Hill, 1997, Chapter 3.
Herre, J. and Johnston, J. D., “Enhancing the performance of perceptual audio coders by using temporal noise shaping (TNS),” AES 101st Convention, no. preprint 4384, 1996.
Davis, M., Gbur, U., Herre, J., and Johnston, J. D., “MPEG-2 NBC Audio-Stereo and Multichannel Coding Methods” 101 AES Convention, November 1996.
Johnston, J. D., Sinha, D., Dorward, S. and Quackenbush, S., “AT&T perceptual audio coder (PAC)” in Collected Papers on Digital Audio Bit-Rate Reduction, Gilchrist, N. and Grewin, C. (Ed.), Audio Engineering Society, 1996.
Johnston, J. D., “Audio coding with filter banks” in Subband and Wavelet Transforms, Akansu, A. N. and Smith, M. J. T. (Ed.), Kluwer, 1996.
Sinha, D. and Johnston, J. D., “Audio compression at low bit rates using a signal adaptive switched filterbank,” IEEE ASSP, 1996, pp. 1053-1057.
Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Safranek, R. J., “Image coding based on models of human vision” in Handbook of Visual Communication, Academic Press, Invited Chapter, 1995.
Princen, J. and Johnston, J. D., “Audio coding with signal adaptive filterbanks,” IEEE ICASSP, 1995, pp. 3071-3074.
Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Safranek, R. J., “Signal compression based on models of human perception,” Proc. IEEE, Oct. 1993, pp. 1385-1422.
Johnston, J. D. and Ferreira, A. J., “Sum-difference stereo transform coding,” ICASSP '92, March, 1992, pp. II-569-572.
Jayant, N. S., Johnston, J. D. and Shoham, Y., “Coding of wideband speech,” Proc. Eurospeech '91, Sept. 1991.
Brandenburg, K., Herre, J., Johnston, J. D., Mahieux, Y. and Schroeder, E. F., “ASPEC: Adaptive spectral entropy coding of high quality music signals,” 90th Convention of the AES, Feb. 1991, Preprint 3011 A-4.
Brandenburg, K., Stoll, G., Johnston, J. D. and et al, “Coding of moving pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about 1.5 mb./s audio,” ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 MPEG: International Standard ISO 11172-3, 1991.
Johnston, J. D. and Brandenburg, K., “Wideband coding - Perceptual considerations for speech and music” in Advances in Speech Signal Processing, Furui and Sondhi (Ed.), Marcel Dekker, 1991, Preprint 3011 A-4.
Brandenburg, K. and Johnston, J. D., “Second generation perceptual audio coding: The hybrid coder,” AES 88th Conv. Preprint, March 1990.
Safranek, R. J., Johnston, J. D. and Rosenholtz, R. E., “A perceptually tuned sub-band image coder,” Proc. SPIE Symp. Human Vision & Electronic Imaging: Models, Methods & Applications, Santa Clara, CA, Feb. 1990.
Johnston, J. D., “Digital audio - Future trends in quantization, storage, and compression,” AES 7th Intn'l. Conf. Audio in Digital Times, May 1989.
Johnston, J. D., “Perceptual transform coding of wideband stereo signals,” ICASSP '89, May 1989, pp. 1993-1996.
Safranek, R. J. and Johnston, J. D., “A perceptually tuned sub-band image coder with image dependant quantization and post quantization data compression,” ICASSP '89, May 1989, pp. 1945-1948.
Johnston, J. D., “Transform coding of audio signals using perceptual noise criteria,” IEEE Jour. Selected Areas in Commun., vol. 6, no. 2, Feb 1988, pp. 314-323.
Johnston, J. D., “Estimation of perceptual entropy using noise masking criteria,” ICASSP '88 Record, 1988, pp. 2524-2527.
Cox, R. V., Bock, D. E., Bauer, K. B., Johnston, J. D. and Snyder, J. H., “The analog voice privacy system,” AT&T Tech. Jour., vol. 66, no. 1, Jan-Feb 1987, pp. 119-131.
Cox, R. V., Bock, D. E., Bauer, K. B., Johnston, J. D. and Snyder, J. H., “The analog voice privacy system,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1986, pp. 341-344.
Elko, G. W., Flanagan, J. L. and Johnston, J. D., “Computer-steered microphone arrays for large room teleconferencing,” Proc. IEEE Workshop on Applications of Sig. Processing to Audio and Acous., New Paltz, NY, 1986, Paper 1.6.
Flanagan, J. L., Johnston, J. D., Zahn, R. and Elko, G., “Computer-steered microphone arrays for sound transduction in large rooms,” JASA, vol. 78(5), Nov 1985, pp. 1508-1518.
Cox, R. V., Snyder, J. H., Crochiere, R. E., Bock, D. E. and Johnston, J. D., “Testing of wideband digital coders,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1984, pp. 19.3.1-4.
Cox, R. V., Crochiere, R. E. and Johnston, J. D., “Real-time implementation of time domain, harmonic scaling of speech for rate modification and coding,” IEEE Trans. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, vol. ASSP-31, Feb 1983, pp. 258-272, Also in IEEE Jour. of Solid State Circuits, Vol. SC-18, 10-24, Feb 1983.
Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V., Johnston, J. D. and Seltzer, L. A., “A 9.6 Kb/s speech coder,” Bell Syst. Tech. Jour., vol. 61, no. 9, Nov 1982, pp. 2263-2288.
Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V. and Johnston, J. D., “Real-time speech coding,” IEEE Trans. Comm., vol. COM-30, Apr 1982, pp. 621-634.
Cox, R. V., Crochiere, R. E. and Johnston, J. D., “An implementation of time domain harmonic scaling with application to speech coding,” Proc. ICC, 1982, pp. 4G.1.1-4.
Crochiere, R. E., Cox, R. V., Johnston, J. D. and Seltzer, L. A., “A 9.6 Kb/s speech coder using the Bell Laboratories DSP integrated circuit,” Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acous., Speech, and Sig. Processing, 1982, pp. 1692-1695.
Crochiere, R. E., Randolph, M. A., Upton, J. W. and Johnston, J. D., “Real-time implementation of sub-band coding on a programmable integrated circuit,” Proc. ICASSP-81, 1981, pp. 455-458.
Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Digital transmission of commentary-grade (7kHz) audio at 56 or 64 kb/s,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., Jan 1980.
Johnston, J. D., “A filter family designed for use in quadrature mirror filter banks,” Proc. ICASSP, 1980, pp. 291-294.
Steele, R. and Johnston, J. D., “Slope limiting filters for enhancing noisy channel performance of coders,” Proc. ICASSP, 1980.
Johnston, J. D. and Crochiere, R. E., “An all digital commentary grade sub-band coder,” Jour. of Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 27, no. 10, Oct 1979.
Goodman, D. J. and Johnston, J. D., “Sidetone expansion for the regulation of talker loudness,” Electronics Let., vol. 15, no. 16, Aug 1979, pp. 492-493.
Johnston, J. D. and Crochiere, R. E., “An all digital commentary grade sub-band coder,” Proc. Audio Eng. Soc. '63 Conf., May 1979.
Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Digital transmission of commentary-grade (7 kHz) audio at 56 or 64 kb/s,” Proc. ICASSP '79, 1979.
Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Multipurpose hardware for digital coding of audio signal,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., 1978.
Presti, A. J., Johnston, J. D., Crochiere, R. E. and Goodman, D. J., “A digital sub-band coder for speech communication at 9.6 kb/s,” IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., vol. 1, Chicago, IL, Jun 1977, pp. 193-197.
Johnston, J. D. and Goodman, D. J., “Multipurpose hardware for digital coding of audio signal,” Proc. NTC77, 1977.


--------------------
Kevin
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rick.hughes
post Jun 20 2013, 14:55
Post #102





Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 16-February 07
Member No.: 40679



QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 20 2013, 06:05) *
...
Suppose that there are two observers of a series of moving shapes and colors in the night sky. One is an astronomer, the other an UFO enthusiast. The two see exactly the same moving shapes and colors, from more or less the same angle. The next day the astronomer reports, say, that he casually observed the movement of a comet. The UFO enthusiast, on the other hand, reports that he saw an UFO patrolling the Earth.
...

Since we're picking nits in this thread...

Perhaps you meant meteor. The apparent movement of a comet is a lot less than the apparent movement of the moon, being much further away. This does not keep people from reporting UFOs due to essentially stationary lights in the sky, like the very bright planet Venus.

Of course this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Not clear that your analogy does either. At the very least it hasn't clarified anything.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 20 2013, 15:10
Post #103





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10034
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I think he means that the UFO enthusiast is on equal-footing with the astronomer, unless you can come up with another reason why he posted that after telling JJ that his presentation wasn't up to snuff.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gnusmas997
post Jun 20 2013, 17:43
Post #104





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 17-February 13
Member No.: 106697



QUOTE (greynol @ Jun 20 2013, 16:10) *
I think he means that the UFO enthusiast is on equal-footing with the astronomer, unless you can come up with another reason why he posted that after telling JJ that his presentation wasn't up to snuff.

The perceptions of the two human beings were identical. The interpretations differed for a variety of reasons. The perceptions were not altered by what each person reported seeing. This is what's relevant for the discussion - perceptions, not interpretations and reports.

I actually take the trouble and try to write as clearly as I can. If I say that something doesn't meet evidentiary standards, I mean exactly that. I didn't pass judgment on the merit of his presentation and have no desire to do so. I don't even suggest that his presentation is not based on evidence. All I said - and it is still true - is that there isn't a single shred of evidence in that four-part piece.

There's a saying that absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence. I think it's correct. But still, we've been at it for a while and until now nothing surfaced. Being mortal beings we must give up at some point. I choose to do so now. Either you, as community, really have no objective evidence for your beliefs or else you won't share. I have no desire of having any contact with a community like that.

If a moderator could lock/delete this thread and my account it would be appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 20 2013, 18:10
Post #105





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10034
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I will not lock the thread since I imagine that krabapple will want to reiterate that he gave you an additional source of material for your review which you have still ignored up to this point. I would also like to give JJ any anyone else a chance to respond to things that you have said, including that the placebo effect does not exist (so much for your careful wording and despite recent admission that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

We (and I'm speaking for all moderators and administrators this time) do not and will not delete accounts regardless of the reason.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 20 2013, 18:11


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
rick.hughes
post Jun 20 2013, 19:18
Post #106





Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 16-February 07
Member No.: 40679



QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 20 2013, 11:43) *
...
The perceptions of the two human beings were identical. The interpretations differed for a variety of reasons. The perceptions were not altered by what each person reported seeing. This is what's relevant for the discussion - perceptions, not interpretations and reports.
...

Since we're getting all philosophical, it is not self-evident that there can be perception in the absence of interpretation. Isn't that what "misperception" is all about?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Jun 20 2013, 21:44
Post #107





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 20 2013, 03:38) *
What I'd like to see is a few studies that show you that the expectations will really cause to hear things differently. Not just cause you to report things differently, like in Medicine, but to actually hear them differently. For the McGurk effect this kind of evidence is widely available.


There is no difference between "hear" and "report" in this context. So what is your argument now?

The only way you can argue "hear" is if you have electrodes stuck in your auditory nerve. And you're still alive and talking, so you don't.

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Jun 20 2013, 21:44


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Jun 20 2013, 21:46
Post #108





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (rick.hughes @ Jun 20 2013, 11:18) *
QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 20 2013, 11:43) *
...
The perceptions of the two human beings were identical. The interpretations differed for a variety of reasons. The perceptions were not altered by what each person reported seeing. This is what's relevant for the discussion - perceptions, not interpretations and reports.
...

Since we're getting all philosophical, it is not self-evident that there can be perception in the absence of interpretation. Isn't that what "misperception" is all about?


Yep. Perception requires interpretation.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 20 2013, 21:56
Post #109





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10034
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 20 2013, 03:38) *
What I'd like to see is a few studies that show you that the expectations will really cause to hear things differently. Not just cause you to report things differently, like in Medicine, but to actually hear them differently. For the McGurk effect this kind of evidence is widely available.

I thought the issue was that we can't know for sure if the testees aren't falsifying the results.

Why doesn't the same level of skepticism apply to the studies on the McGurk Effect?

How do we know the participants aren't giving the responses they think is expected of them rather than what it was they actually experienced?

This post has been edited by greynol: Jun 20 2013, 21:57


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Jun 20 2013, 22:58
Post #110





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 20 2013, 09:43) *
The perceptions of the two human beings were identical.


First, you MIGHT be able to argue that the sensory input was the same, but unless you can show that the two sets of eyes tracked the same way around the event (which is extremely unlikely to have happened) not even the sensory input was the same.

The perception is what happens to the sensory input after the brain digests it, and is indeed the same as the interpretation. So you need to fix your semantics so that others can actually understand what you mean.

As to audio, well, did you hear that sound from your computer? Now you do. I'm pretty sure you weren't aware of it at a conscious level until I said that, but now you are. So, your perception just changed because of what I wrote here.

Q.E.D.

P.S. Go back and read that slide deck again. It contains conclusions from 100+ years of research. I am not going to cite a gazillion journal papers at you, and would suggest that if you want to understand it, you go back to school, take basic hearing, basic cog-psych, and neurochemistry until you finally get it. I'm certainly not going to help out some insulting dude on the internet.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=453...mp;l=cf14ce9f3d

Pie for strength!

This post has been edited by Woodinville: Jun 20 2013, 22:58


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 20 2013, 23:31
Post #111





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10034
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I just perceived the taste of pie and am now hearing my voice as I'm typing this, as opposed to hearing your voice when I read your post.


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
splice
post Jun 21 2013, 03:52
Post #112





Group: Members
Posts: 127
Joined: 23-July 03
Member No.: 7935



QUOTE (greynol @ Jun 20 2013, 15:31) *
I just perceived the taste of pie and am now hearing my voice as I'm typing this, as opposed to hearing your voice when I read your post.


I perceive Greynol, tongue gripped between teeth, muttering the words as he pecks at his keyboard. In fact, I.... mmm, pie.




--------------------
Regards,
Don Hills
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
TomasPin
post Jun 21 2013, 19:44
Post #113





Group: Members
Posts: 204
Joined: 5-June 13
From: Argentina
Member No.: 108508



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Jun 20 2013, 18:58) *
if you want to understand it, you go back to school, take basic hearing, basic cog-psych, and neurochemistry until you finally get it.

I guess just a fair amount of reading from good (unevidenced?) takes on the matter will do it, if you have an open mind. Most of what I've learnt about audio, if not all, comes from years of lurking these forums. (Maybe you could add reading comprehension to that, JJ wink.gif )

QUOTE

That's just cruel.

This post has been edited by TomasPin: Jun 21 2013, 19:58


--------------------
A man and his music: http://tubular.net/
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
gnusmas997
post Jun 28 2013, 03:18
Post #114





Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 17-February 13
Member No.: 106697



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Jun 20 2013, 23:58) *
I'm certainly not going to help out some insulting dude on the internet.

Where did I insult anyone? If you're talking about my statement that I don't want to have anything to with this community, that's not an insult. I don't have anything to do with any church either. It's a mutually benefitial arrangement and perfectly respectul, the very opposite of insulting.

I demand rigorous scientific evidence before I accept an unusual phenomenon. If you're satisfied just with your lengthy experience in the field, good for you. I hope we can agree to go our separate ways without any hard feelings. If that's not possible then at least know that I didn't intend to insult or harm you in any way.

QUOTE (rick.hughes)
Since we're getting all philosophical, it is not self-evident that there can be perception in the absence of interpretation. Isn't that what "misperception" is all about?

The astronomer didn't really see the comet - he saw some moving shapes and colors. The UFO enthusiast didn't really see an UFO - he saw some moving shapes and colors. Clearly something else, other what they saw, caused them to report their perceptions differently. I'd say this something else was their different beliefs but that's really irrelevant to the discussion. Was irrelevant, I'm out of here - you can continue if you want. No hard feelings.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jun 28 2013, 04:24
Post #115





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10034
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 27 2013, 19:18) *
unusual phenomenon

If you say so...

rolleyes.gif

...then again people must have thought this about Einstein's Special Relativity and I imagine some will still refuse to believe its existence because someone wasn't willing to provide them with the prerequisite knowledge, including those who use GPS.

Yes, those pesky neuro scientists, what do they know anyway?

laugh.gif


--------------------
Your eyes cannot hear.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Jun 28 2013, 20:25
Post #116





Group: Members
Posts: 1402
Joined: 9-January 05
From: JJ's office.
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (gnusmas997 @ Jun 27 2013, 19:18) *
I demand rigorous scientific evidence before I accept an unusual phenomenon.



Ookaayy....

And when somebody with the chops to hand you the results gives it to you?


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AndyH-ha
post Jun 28 2013, 20:53
Post #117





Group: Members
Posts: 2210
Joined: 31-August 05
Member No.: 24222



Is it the least bit unusual? I rather think it is more or less a daily, or nightly, experience. That doesn't mean there isn't any value in quantifying, or otherwise rigorously exploring it, but it hardly seems to strain credence.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st October 2014 - 23:51