The only thing I have seen him in was "The King's Speech" where he played a speech therapist who treated King George VI, who had a speech impediment. As a result of his therapy, he was able to give one of the more rousing speeches of WWII Britain. It was a good movie and based off of a true story.
-----Original Message----- From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2012 5:21 PM To: cf-community Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel? > 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. No, you didn't, actually. Do you really think you did? It was > funded by an idiot and his radio station See, I have no idea who the dude even is or why he is famous. Nor do I really care. But I strongly suspect that he is not an idiot, and that it is not "his" radio station. Wasn't this a BBC program? You're doing it again, throwing mud and ignorance around. for the sole purpose of > belittling people that didn't agree with him. Maybe he, like you, has trouble framing questions in any other way. But, I submit, you really don't know what his purposes were. The guy that did the > study appears to have agreed and did the study to help prove the > stupid point. Maybe he said to himself hmm, wonder why that is. Maybe he thought more data would shed some light? Or, maybe you're right and he decided that "to help prove the stupid point" was SO IMPORTANT that he would fudge his data and risk his reputation in his professional field for an article a few people read and which can, most charitably, only be said to raise further questions. See, if we admit your common sense we have to admit mine. Someone who would do what you allege would not have put in the work to go into neuropsychology. He would have majored in political science in the first place. The study itself is extremely suspect because it doesn't > make sense. many studies raise questions and have results that cannot immediately be explained. That doesn't make them "suspect". This is how science works. Someone else does a different experiment looking for an explanation, or tries to reproduce the results. If they cannot, the explanation may have to do with study design. A team of MIT researchers surveyed 55 similar studies and > showed they were always overestimated. Right, and.... what does this have to do with this subsequent study? I mean, really. It's a total red herring. These other studies over here have flaws, so this one must have too, even though it would have had the benefit of that critique when the study was first designed. > You want to spend all week crunching numbers to prove they were right. I don't, actually. > My question is why? Because there is too much mudslinging in the world that operates on the assumption that nobody will check, so you can say what you want and by the time your misstatements are shown to be what they are, the harm will already have been done. You're just the local example. > Why do you care if I don't trust the study to be legit? I don't care what you *think* but when you emit such thoughtless and malicious aspersions without the slightest thought that hey maybe you should check your facts, you pollute my incoming data stream and I get tired of deleting you. Deal with it. You can say what you want, but that also means I can call you on it, and call the liar that you always are, any time I fact-check your statements. > 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? You keep saying this. You have not demonstrated funding, first of all, and second, who knows? Maybe they thought it was an interesting question. Maybe their funding came from somewhere else. What it boils down to is that their results offend you and you assume that therefore they are crooked and cheated, because that is what you would presumably do in their place. I'd rather not know that you think like that, actually. > 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. Do you know that more studies have not been done? Would you believe them if you were? A publicity stunt for what? Firth is presumably already well-known. You don't go into neuropsychology to become famous. University College doesn't need media coverage. > 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. Huh ;) you mean you don't? I don't think you can prove otherwise based on this thread. You don't agree with a statement, therefore the people making it lack integrity and must be bought off. That logic offends me. >> You could, >> days ago, have said "something must be wrong with that, because it >> doesn't make sense." No, you didn't. You made a series of accusations that you were forced, one by one, to admit were completely without any factual basis. > 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. Dude. *I* am not behind the study 100%. I just give science considerably more likelihood of representing some part of the truth than any accusations you may make based on your "common sense". See, it's a shade of grey, that's why you are having trouble seeing it. > They did that to themselves by accepting money from radicals in the > name of science. Radicals? Who is a radical? Firth? You seem to just assume that he must be, because you don't agree with him. And again, you *still* haven't provided any evidence about the funding. You just figure that that must be the case. > 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 don't give a flying fuck about Firth either way. > 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. go figure, you don't think you're nasty at all, do you ;) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347108 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
