> > "If the current practice is really the best you can and will do, I can > only > > say that your scientific credibility is worth to next-to-nothing." > > </Quote> > > > > So, it was not related to the way you analysed data, but to the fact that > > you consistently refused to back your claims. > > > > Hmm, anyone notice a pattern here? > > > ROTFLMAO. Really, Jeroen, I'm guilty of a lot of sins, but refusing to > provide data to back up my claim is not one of the prime candidates. IIRC, > I've been fussed at for not fighting fair by using too much data in my > arguments. With reference to the landmine debate, look at #74054 in the > egroups database. I admit, I've stopped the process of meticulous > documentation when asked to drop it both on and off list, but I do tend to > overdocument my cases, not underdocument them. > > IMHO, if we were discussing whether there was an elephant in the living > room, I think I could show you the round mud stains, the splintered coffee > table, the big piles of scat that smell like peanuts, point out the fact > that one has to edge along the wall to get to the dining room, remark on > how gray seems to fill our vision, and you still would castigate me for > not backing up my claim that there was an elephant in the living room. > > However, I will be more than happy to be corrected by the list. Do I tend > to make arguments and refuse to provide data to support them? Or, do I > tend to snow people with data? > > Dan M.
You always provide too much data and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I feel that people who provide mountains of numbers and statistics are doing it to hide the relevant data. Again, I don't think you do it for that reason, but it's how I feel. And it can be intimidating to those who don't have the time or resources to refute the avalanche. Some of the things being argued are not concrete but the flood of info can sweep away the sturdiest wall. So don't change a thing. Kevin T. I love it loud
