On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > so.... not to revive this zombie thread, but I can't resist restating > this. You don't know whether your journal article even applies. Larry, > the local neuropsych and statistics wonk, says no, although he seems > to think there might be a different problem. If I sank several days > into the statistics I might be able to evaluate the statistics part, > but you wouldn't believe me if I did, and I don't think I know enough > neuropsych to even attempt that.
Why do you think you have to? I said I could probably debunk it without even knowing which study he was referring to. You decided that was your mission of the week to hold me to that. So I did. It was funded by an idiot and his radio station for the sole purpose of belittling people that didn't agree with him. The guy that did the study appears to have agreed and did the study to help prove the stupid point. The study itself is extremely suspect because it doesn't make sense. A team of MIT researchers surveyed 55 similar studies and showed they were always overestimated. You want to spend all week crunching numbers to prove they were right. My question is why? Why do you care if I don't trust the study to be legit? > If these methodology problems were pointed out before the Rees study, > then he, as a researcher in the field, could well have been aware of > them. Maybe even have taken them into account in his study design. If > he didn't, yeah, that might be a problem. But can you yourself tell > whether he did or not? You're doing what you accuse him of doing, > looking for support for a conclusion you have already drawn based on > "common sense." They were paid to get a certain set of results. Do you think if the first study came back as no difference they would have been funded for two more larger ones? Yes I dismiss study that sound stupid until more studies are done to back them up. This is not the case. It was a publicity stunt and a short lived one at that. > This is why I dismiss your arguments most of the time, because they > invariably emerge as a huge waste of time and bandwidth. You made it a waste of time. I said Larry was insulting me by saying I can only think in black and white. You targeted in on the stupid study. > You could, > days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it > doesn't make sense." I did. >You would not have convinced anyone, mind you, > but you still haven't, Since when did you speak for everyone? I find it hard to believe that everyone that's read this stupid thread stands behind your study 100% as you do. > and in the meantime you have impugned the > integrity of the researchers in a multiplicity of ways. They did that to themselves by accepting money from radicals in the name of science. > Maybe they are > evil people indeed, but you have produced no proof of this beyond the > fact that Firth, who did not carry out the actual testing, said > something that offended you. I didn't call them evil and if you're not offended by Firth's statement than I hope you agree with everything he's ever said. > I just don't understand the unceasing nastiness. You must be a very > unhappy person to think like this. Like a broken record, I've been extremely polite considering how nasty you were to me and everyone that you disagree with. But you see me as being the nasty one, go figure. > An analogy to your argument in > this thread: Jimmy Carter has committed hate crimes because he comes > from a southern state. Facepalm. WTF is wrong with you? You are seriously messed up. > OK now... as you were, just had to say. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347104 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
