The sampling of 90 people is really really small. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > feel free to run away, Sam, but you still haven't showed me any basis at > all for the crap you've been talking. > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I give up and feel the fool for not heeding this advice sooner: > > > > Dont argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat > > you with experience > > > > . > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Yes it is. It's the same study done three times. Two people, 90 people > > >> and 28 people. > > >> > > > > > > Ah, here's the heart of the problem. No, Sam, it isn't. It's -- I'd > call > > it > > > two studies and an experiment I guess -- that tested the same > hypothesis. > > > According to your nomenclature here, all trials for the same drug are a > > > single study. And mutually responsible for one another's methodology. > > And, > > > according to you, everything anyone remotely affiliated with them may > > have > > > said in an interview... > > > > > > > > >> PURE BS! > > >> If a scientist ever made nickle form an oil company everything they > > >> ever say for the rest of their lives is bunk in your mind. > > >> > > > > > > I don't recall ever saying this... I'd get into what I might have said > > if > > > I had participated in whatever thread you are talking about, but let's > > cut > > > to the chase. You have no clue. You just know you don't like it. I > > suppose > > > you're entitled to this position, but don't ask me to take it (or you) > > > seriously at this point. > > > > > > NOW, you say the science is sound even though you know it was the > > >> equivalent of Bill Maher saying if you don't agree you're inferior. > > > > > > > > > Whatever, dude, you're still talking about something that's completely > > > beside the point. Concentrate on Larry's journal article. What is wrong > > > with the science? > > > > > > > > >> No, I'm saying it was a publicity stunt that for a radio station that > > > > > > some people took seriously. > > > > > > > > > different set of events. > > > > > > > > >> Again if it was tied to anything right > > >> leaning it would be bunk before it started. Now miraculously science > > >> can never be wrong. > > >> > > > > > > Your paranoia is getting on top of you. I am saying that if there is > > > something wrong with the journal article -- besides your moral > > indignation > > > at something said by someone that did not even participate-- > > > then speak up. And learn the freaking difference between a hypothesis > > and a > > > clinical study for fuck's sake > > > > > > > > >> I decided to find out what was BIOLOGICALLY WRONG with people who > > >> DON'T AGREE WITH ME. > > >> > > > > > > so? Is that in the journal article that Larry posted? Is it part of the > > > selection criteria, or does it affect the sample size? You're offended. > > I'm > > > sad you're sad. It still doesn't "see what the scientists had to say" > > mean > > > "predetermined". No matter how sad or offended you are. > > > > > > > > >> That's what Larry claimed and that's why we're discussing it. Do you > > >> not pay attention? > > >> > > > > > > I don't give a fuck what Larry said. That might be why you're... doing > > > whatever you are doing, but I am here because a whiny little bitch like > > you > > > that's all "wa wa wa the man said mean things about my beliefs" needs > to > > be > > > called on his crap every so often and since I'm in the mood for it. So, > > are > > > you actually saying that anyone who knows anyone who has ever said a > rude > > > thing about neo-cons is automatically incapable of objective science? > No > > > wait,`anyone who is testing a hypothesis that in other circumstances > was > > > tested by someone who knows someone who once said that someone who > thinks > > > like you do might possibly have his head up his ass... and you know > what, > > > anyone who thinks the way you do MUST have his head up his ass. Wow. > > Well, > > > my work here is done. Gawd knows how much science that little tirade > > > invalidated not, of course, that you would believe it anyway. > > > > > > > > > I added the "teeny-weeny" surprise but you should realize what outcome > > > > > >> they expected without me spelling it out over and over and over again. > > >> > > > > > > expected outcome != predetermined outc > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:346951 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
