I am defending it because a study in a peer-reviewed journal has a decent claim to representing, however imperfectly, some part of the truth, whether Sam likes it or not.
And you know what, I just tried to show you a graceful way out of this conversation, but if you don't want to take it I am feeling just bloody-minded enough to expose invincible ignorance for what the fuck it is. We could save a lot of time and bandwidth if you just call me a bitch now and run home to mama, because you aren't doing yourself any good here. Sam, show me where in the study it says any thing about "smarter" or "claims nothing". And you still haven't answered Eric when about where exactly it says that Firth commissioned the study or that the researchers were paid off or that the results were predetermined. See, this is what you do, every time. You find make unfounded accusations or find a reason to belittle some part of the topic, usually tangential, and hang on to it for dear life as you chuckle to yourself about how clever you are. And you are always beside the point and usually wrong about the specifics. Most people would get frustrated watching a train wreck that insists on happening over and over again. Around here we mostly just kinda avert our eyes to be polite. But hey if we're going to talk bitches... I suggest you stop here because I am telling you that we know you are full of shit and yet you refuse to hear it and... well, it's hard to see how you could make yourself look worse, but by God you are trying. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You have a real bad attitude problem. > > Why do you defend with such anger a study you know nothing about? > Because you think they study claims you're smarter? It doesn't. It > claims nothing. > > . > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > and actually, you're right. I am angry because you are wasting my time > and > > I am allowing it. Just be quiet and admit you have no idea how to > evaluate > > the validity of the sample, and add that you question its findings. This > is > > what wikipedia calls WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You are the CF equivalent. Is that > not > > the essence of your objection. Ok. We have all registered your > displeasure. > > Have a nice day. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346933 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
