At 01:48 AM 2/11/2010, Mark Iverson wrote:
"So, it looks to me like Naudin's playing games with his measurements.
His setup's interesting but I would hesitate to trust a single
measurement on that page."
You guys are pathetic... You're looking for any little discrepancy
in other people's work, and when
you find one, YOU IMMEDIATELY accuse the person of some conscious
attempt at fakery or nefarious
intentions.
People who respond to a single person's post with general accusations
about "you guys" are pathetic.
In addition, "hesitate to trust" is hardly an accusation "of some
conscious attempt at fakery or nefarious intentions." Mr. Lawrence
had first more or less praised Naudin's work (which was interesting),
but, then, seeing a change with no note, on a matter of some
importance, he simply retracted his reliance on Naudin. Naudin could
easily fix this by explaining the change. I saw no accusation of
"fakery," just a concern about a disconcerting change in the
presentation of data.
Man, I would hate to be in such a sorry state that my first
impulse is to judge and
ridicule and cast derogatory remarks about someone... It's either
that or you feel the need to show
everyone how smart you are by trying to find fault everywhere else
but yourselves... Grow up!
Read your own advice and follow it. Clearly Lawrence was *not*
showing a "first impulse" to "judge and ridicule," and that you "saw"
this will tell you reams about yourself if you let this information in.
Perhaps JLN made some improvements and simply posted the new and
improved pics on his site as the
current state of performance; why does he need to keep old data up
there when it doesn't represent
what he's currently accomplished? Just to satisfy behaviorally
challenged judgementals like
yourself?
No, when information is published, and is later changed to show
better information, a serious writer will note the change and explain
it. The old information showed an important phenomenon, as I recall.
The new pics did not. The change was not merely an "improvement."
I.e., Naudin is presenting experimental results. If he gets a
different result, later, the older work is not obsolete. If there was
an error, the appropriate response is correction, not just
substitution. But Naudin isn't a professional (or is he?). He isn't
expected to be perfect. Nobody cried "fakery" here but you, Mark.
