yeah and that would be a valid reason to dis it, if that was what happened. But he just keeps saying how offended he is by what whosis said, and as far as I can tell, whosis is only an author because he generated the hypothesis. If he were in a position to fudge the results, even.... but he wasn't
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 3:15 PM, PT <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2/15/2012 4:38 PM, Dana wrote: > > > > > That's not the usual meaning of predetermined, Sam. You might want to > look > > these big words up before you use them. > > Indeed. I believe he is objecting on the assumption that the results > were going to show exactly what they did, no matter what, and the > scientists knew it, so the entire study was only done to support some > actor's off the cuff smart-ass comment about something being wrong with > conservatives. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:346948 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
