oh. I heard it was a good performance. From there to slavish defense of anything he may say, which Sam seems to think we must be engaged in, is a mighty big leap.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Eric Roberts <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > 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:347114 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
