On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Charlie Griefer wrote: .... > But to state unequivocally that it's flawed contradicts much of what has > been said in this thread. Without proof... it's only so much hot air.
Well, if the goal is non-leaning bias study, then the stated "lean" sorta unequivocally does that idea in, right? Proof is an interesting concept. I love to think about it. I like hot-air too, it makes things float (if the rest of the air is cool, of course). .... > I'm not defending the study (or report... let's just call it a report) as > being true or false. I'm simply pointing out that it's somewhat > hypocritical to ask for "proof" in one venue, but to then turn around and in > another venue make an accusation without... proof. Ah, I get that. Wasn't sure if you were specifically responding to Judah, who does a pretty good job of qualifying his statements, unlike myself. =] If you're talking in general, sure, but Judah was pretty clear (Freaking closet scientist-- BURN HIM!!!). =] -- Pay attention to your enemies, for they are the first to discover your mistakes. Antisthenes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:277111 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
