On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > in terms of the stuff in the article that is upsetting you it may matter.
It's not upsetting me. My common sense says it's biased. The facts say it's biased. Other scientists say it's biased. You will die defending it without knowing anything about it. You wonder why I call you Larry's twin. This is it. You'l defend to no ends something ridiculous just because you don't like people that disagree with you. > Assuming you looked and it mentions this article. More likely it's a > meta-analysis for methodology for whatever he was looking at when he wrote > it, which is not to say that the remarks in methodology may not apply to > the University research.... would have to compare the two and I probably > won't. > > To me it's another journal article. If you think they never contradict each > other, i dunno what to tell you. I am not sure, assuming he is even talking > about the article Larry posted, whether the thingies he says where counted > wrong were the bits I was asking Larry about, the leave one out analysis > times a thousand, which I think deals with scoring the MRIs, or whether > it's in the questionnaire. Wow, you asked fro google scholar and you got it, now it's just a journal article because it doesn't suit you? I should point out it has 334 cites while the study you didn't read or understand has two. But your point is if it's peer reviewed it cannot be denied. Yet here it is and you're trying your darndest to deny it. > If I ever can be bothered to look that won't be tonight, because I am doing > stuff. Larry may be doing it, also, in which case I will if he explains it. > If not... I am not that invested in proving or disproving this, whereas > you, if I may say, seem to be taking it as a personal affront. You are the one that can't seem to let it go. If you walked away as you attempt to do above by saying you don't care either way that's fine. But you belittle me with how successful you were at make the fool of me. That's the only thing driving this discussion, your personal attacks. Realize that and you have no reason to hate me and we can talk like adults. Never happen. > And none of the above changes the basic inequalities > > journal article>blog post Dana> journal article 8 pages 2 cites Sam > journal article 290 pages 334 cites . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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:347059 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
