General Interest > Feed Your Head
Group Therapy increasing Drug Risk?????/
Whooter:
Okay so now you have at least agreed that WIRB was involved (I know you are trying to save face here) So I changed the footer.
You have a fondness for footers, DJ, so I added your disclaimer:
Residential Treatment Outcome-Study
Canyon Research & Consulting: Independent research company that conducted the study.
** Western Institutional Review Board: Independent board that approved research and audited the study.
The above study was presented at the American Psychological Association (APA) conference 2006. ** Dysfunction Junction of fornits was mistaken the first time when he said WIRB never heard of the study. What he meant was he called WIRB and they did hear of the study but said they only approved the Questionnaire.
DJ, The above should alert any new APA members until you can get this straightened out and expose this problem at the next APA convention. Mention some of your degrees sometimes that helps.
...
Troll Control:
It's right in the study. I didn't need to call anyone to read it. They approved the questionaire and that's it. The researcher doesn't claim "oversight" or "auditing" by the WIRB, only you do. Sorry that you made those claims up and got burned, but just read the study. It's in plain print on the second page. Do a search on the document for "oversight" and "audit" and you get zero hits. Those terms appear nowhere in the source document you provided. LOLS. You really shot yourself in the foot there, Whooter.
If you think Canyon/Behrens should be claiming "oversight" and "auditing" of the study by the WIRB, you can ask them to make those claims, but they haven't and they don't. Just you do. This is where you got yourself in trouble. You made wild claims that not even Behrens made.
If you stick to the facts and don't embellish and lie, maybe people will believe you. I think that "fiduciary interest" is influencing your embellishing and making up items that don't exist in the study. :nods:
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---I didn't need to call anyone to read it
--- End quote ---
So now you didnt even need to call anyone? So why did you say you called WIRB? lol
You are all caught up in your underwear, DJ.
This third party oversight has really got you in a tizzy. Calm down. According to you it is just a little questionnaire, no big deal, right? ... lol
...
Whooter:
--- Quote from: "Dysfunction Junction" ---I did call the WIRB and asked if they were a third party auditor for this study and they said "No, we weren't." I asked if their website reflected all of the projects they've untertaken and they siad "Yes, it does. Just use the search feature to pull up any of our research."
--- End quote ---
Whoops.... need to back pedal a little? So I guess you now state that they have worked with this study? lol
I wont continue to rub it in... just needed to point it out. I can adjust the footer notes if you like, let me know.
...
Troll Control:
--- Quote ---I didn't need to call anyone to read it
--- End quote ---
Do you normally call someone to help you with your reading? Maybe you should. Maybe then you could understand that the words "oversaw" and "audited" never appear anywhere in the Behrens paper. Nowhere. Zip. Nada. Ungatz.
You can always tell when Whooter is caught fibbing because he becomes the repetitive spam troll ; )
Let me reiterate for you, since you can't read too good:
I called the WIRB office today and asked, specifically, if they "audited" or "oversaw" the Behrens work. They said they did not. I did not ask if they approved the questionaire because that's written on the second page of the study, unlike some words you keep using, lols.
That also jives with Behrens herself, who makes no claim whatsoever that WIRB either "oversaw" or "audited" her work. Those words never appear anywhere in the work. They only appear in your claims which you cannot substantiate in any way, shape or form. Hence, you resort to name-calling and repetitive spam trolling.
On the second page of the study she says, quite clearly, that WIRB approved the questionaire and that's where her claim ends and yours begins.
My question is simple: why did you make up the claim that WIRB both "oversaw" and "audited" Behrens' work when she never even claimed that ridiculous marketing fantasy herself? Just answer the simple question and we can move on to your remaining bogus claims.
I'm patient and I can wait. But you've had a couple of days and a made couple dozen responses ranging from your fantasies about me in my underwear to calling me a liar, yet, inescapably, nothing you have said appears in that study. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this, but you ought not to invent stories and you won't get burned over and over.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version