On 4 Mar 2004 11:31:57 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.

I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.

Please post the analysis results.

Results: 86.7% of those who have read DH Lawrence extensively have
required from three to five years of therapy in order to rejoin
society.

You must have missed these, b'asskisser.
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the analysis results.

Analysis results: as posted earlier: 86.7% of those who had read DH
Lawrence extensively required from three to five years of therapy in order
to rejoin society.

Methodology: methodology was formulated and research conducted at the
Tam-O-Shanter Lounge on Beacon Street in Boston, near Boston College, in the
spring of 1968 (dates are fuzzy). (actually, a great deal of that year
remains fuzzy -- but I digress.) Principal researchers were Norm Riggs,
Bob Wagner, and John Gaquin. Humility forced me to allow Norm and Bob to
claim naming rights.

Discussion centered around the major pita factor associated with the eng lit
class we were all attending at the time. Mr. Riggs tendered the opinion
that DH Lawrence sucked. Mr Wagner accepted Mr Riggs' analysis, and
reevaluated to arrive at a further conclusion; to wit, that DH Lawrence
sucked big-time. Mr Gaquin ordered additional Guinness for all
participants.

Messrs Riggs, Wagner, and Gaquin subsequently surveyed voluntary
participants at surrounding tables. Fifteen subjects participated freely in
the evaluation, without duress of any kind, although some claim that threats
were uttered. Thirteen of the fifteen subjects opined that both the course
and DH Lawrence were so f*&cked up that "...it would take years to f*#cking
recover...". Messrs Riggs, Wagner, and Gaquin estimated the three to five
year interpretive figure based on their extensive experience in the field.
Mr Wagner then ordered more Guinness for all survey participants, except for
the two babes who liked Lawrence. The thirteen respondents represent 86.7%
of the sample field. Responses from the remaining two subjects were
presumed to be universally supportive of Lawrence by the researchers, but
some assumptions were required on the part of the researchers, as the two
subjects in question departed the Tam-O-Shanter in some haste. Details are
cloudy, but the cause of the truncated survey process was either A) they
were being roundly denounced as a**holes by the anti-Lawrence faction, or B)
they were ****ed because someone spilled Guinness on them, and their nipples
were showing. Data at the time could not support a conclusion, so Mr Riggs
ordered additional Guinness for all participants.

Notwithstanding certain transient difficulties associated with the
evaluation, researchers feel that the data collection was reliable, and that
analysis results are valid.

Respectfully submitted, .... etc., etc.

"basskisser" wrote in message

Please post the processes used to obtain the above research numbers,
as well as exactly what type of research performed.

I used the Riggs-Wagner Reevaluative Analysis, first developed in 1968.