| Subject: | Re: Dr Phil's test
| | Date: | Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:05:19 GMT
| | From: | "Peter D" <ple@se.ask>
| | Newsgroups: | alt.humor,alt.jokes,alt.tasteless.jokes,alt.tastless.jokes,aus.jokes,be.jokes,wpg.general,wpg.general.uncensored
|
<myhome@manitobatelephonesystem.net> wrote in message
news:gei8nv4dg312tg9p91alp8iqdcjhrihg7u@4ax.com...
> so what you're basically saying is the test blows and you didn't do
> well.
If the test blows, "doing well" is non-definable. If the test is real,
"doing well" in non-definable. How do you "do well" in a test of this sort
even if it is scientifically accurate?
No, seriously, you're the one insisting on it, so do tell. :-)
|