you keep saying that. I spent all day yesterday telling you to post your proof if you have some. I'm not available for nursery school games today but I just thought I would put that out there. You had nothing and it was painfully obvious that you had nothing .
Why not just say -- I don't understand it but I can't refute it. Perfectly valid position; mine in fact. Instead you have to be the smart guy talking about how crooked everyone is. I am tired of listening that stuff. Put up or shut up. Meanwhile, quit whining that you don't like it. It doesn't matter that you don't like it. But's a hell of a lot more scientific than implying that you don't don't see conservatives in universities. Especially a British university that serves the middle class, eyeroll. Either make a serious attempt to disprove this or go wa wa wa all the way home, my lad. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I dismissed it because it didn't state what Larry claimed it did, the > funding was totally biased and the results only work if people don't > change their mind. I would have to believe half of us are conservative > and the other half liberal but we can switch sides at will. If it was > a legitimate study I might give it more of a chance. As for peer > reviewed, I know how that process works and it's not pretty. Plus > you're still reviewing what you're told by folks who appear to have an > agenda. > > Speaking of peer reviews, where do I find them? I could see any links > to actually reviews. > > . > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Besides, you cannot simply dismiss something because it does not give > > you a complete answer. The study said that there are other things to > > consider, but suggests that brain structure, at whatever level of > > development, seems to be enough of a contributing factor that > > predictions can be made within an acceptable margin of error. > > > Yes the study was inconclusive as far as offering concrete proof and > > yes, it was suggested that more research is required, but the reason > > more research is required is because the results support the hypothesis > > well above random occurrence. > > > > Now, if the study itself is flawed, then that is one thing and the next > > person to investigate can call the original experimenters on their BS, > > but the results were valid enough to at least make it to peer review. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347023 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
