Whew! I'm glad you didn't mean what you said... because, I don't think there are any OO7s out there to take care of the implications of your statement...<grin>
Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on 10/3/02 5:18 PM: >Thanks Robert, > >You are correct. I simply meant that Einstein belonged to a culture that had >men of integrity, intelligence and education and at least enough control so >that Einstein's work could be recognized and he could support himself as a >scholar. > >I know that I am not a genius and this pleases me. I find genius to be >discouraging. The thought of a person of my modest intellectual abilities >being able to make significant scientific contributions simply by hard work, >honesty, and a solid education, is encouraging to me. I still believe in >things bigger than myself. The scientific method works but it requires hard >work and careful preparation of the mind and heart. It requires unwavering >commitment to the pursuit of truth. And for science to survive, it requires >a community of scholars. > > Many people have communicated with me privately that they think I am >correct about CR. Some of these have been people who are written up as >historical giants in psychology. Some are students, some are faculty in >universities, some are just intelligent lay people. All tell me that they do >not wish to be publically associated with CR because of the political harm >it would do them. I say I have no peers because no one is willing to take a >public stand against the corruption that is starring us all in the face. >There are plenty of people smarter than me out there. But I have not seen >any with my courage and dedication to science. At least not in my field. For >years I have put up with things like David Heiser's sending that post to >semnet but not having the integrity to send my followup pointing out that >the data he referenced was invalid. This sort of sophistry happens all the >time in psychology and statistics. It is worse behind the wall of anonymity >that journal reviewers hide behind. No one has said a word about the journal >SEM accepting and then rejecting an article of mine. All the babbling on >semnet about yet another fit index, and no one has the integrity to complain >about fraud in their flagship journal. Yes, I appear to be alone, except for >the dead writers of beautful books on my shelves. I figure I have the >advantage. > >So for now, I remain, > >Peerless, > >Bill > > > > >"Robert J. MacG. Dawson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> >> >> Paul Bernhardt wrote: >> > >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said on 10/3/02 1:43 PM: >> > >> > >Einstein had peers. I do not . >> > >> > This is the kind of thing said by the villian in a James Bond movie. >> >> Well, yes, it is, but... Looking at the rest of the paragraph: >> >> "...Corresponding regressions is easy... The fact that some of you are >> not very smart does not make me a genius" >> >> I don't think that this was intended to be the megalomaniac statement >> that it came out resembling. >> >> -Robert Dawson > . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
