Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 6:23 PM
26 online now:
DrJones*, edge, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx, vimesey (7 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,642 Year: 3,679/19,786 Month: 674/1,087 Week: 43/221 Day: 14/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Author Topic:   Laws of Attraction: The seduction of Evolutionary Psychology?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 76 of 102 (291522)
03-02-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 2:19 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
Deeper and deeper. So you really believe these various ad hoc scenarios are a more likely explanation than the explanation given in the paper?

I'm not sure how you can assert that they are "various and ad hoc". I am troubleshooting a study design. Just because they advanced a singular theory first does not make theirs any less "various and ad hoc" or whatever terms you want to throw at me.

None of us, even them, knew if there was a specific chemical associated with symmetry. Neither did any of us, even them, know how it was produced, if there was any.

Thus the question is how to collect "scent" from a human body. My argument is that a tshirt is a flawed medium for collecting the "scent" from a WHOLE HUMAN BODY. It would only select a small portion. And due to variances in bodily function across a body, and known shifts by bodies to makeup for shortages elsewhere, not collecting all scent could very well create an inaccurate result.

Unless you are going to argue that human bodies do not have regional variances in scent production, and that they do not range across the body, I'm not sure what your argument is here.

For certain what cannot be argued is that because they had a small correlation their method was justified and all criticisms based on alternate possibilities (that fit the same data result) are less plausible. This is not first come first serve. That there is an alternative which fits the data, given the reality of human bodies, means they may have made an error.

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 08:35 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 2:19 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 4:04 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 102 (291537)
03-02-2006 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Silent H
03-02-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
My argument is that a tshirt is a flawed medium for collecting the "scent" from a WHOLE HUMAN BODY.

And I would say that the t-shirt covers exactly the areas that human beings seem to be concerned about in regards to scent production. Underarm deodorant is profligate; less so with groin deodorant. T-shirts cover a considerable amount of the human body.

Moreover, they did wear this garmet to bed, where sheets and other bedclothes would have migrated scents from all over the body. It's not unrealistic to suggest that the T-shirt captured, to some degree, scents from all over the place.

And due to variances in bodily function across a body, and known shifts by bodies to makeup for shortages elsewhere, not collecting all scent could very well create an inaccurate result.

Do you have evidence of these variations? Is it known that chemical constitution by volume varies across the skin?

Is there any evidence whatsoever that, at any time, a human body has compensated for asymmetry by increasing stink production at some other part of the body?

You're heading off on a pretty extended analogy - the implication that, just because blind people learn to hear better or people without legs develop stronger arms, scent production will do the same thing doesn't seem warranted. It's a far greater unevidenced leap than you accuse the study of, which is again why I find your objections to be nonsense.

That there is an alternative which fits the data, given the reality of human bodies, means they may have made an error.

It's fine for you to talk about "reality", but here's the thing. On your side you have your idle speculations, your philosophical musings, your unlikely alternate scenarios. On their side they have the results of an actual study that they did.

Sorry, Holmes, but it's pretty clear which side here is on the side of reality, and which side is once again using philosophy to dismiss knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 2:34 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 5:52 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 6:18 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 78 of 102 (291562)
03-02-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 4:04 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
Underarm deodorant is profligate; less so with groin deodorant.

You are arguing that based on sales of products regarding strength of odor, we can determine where glands or bacteria producing specific kinds of pheromones are? I guess I'm not following.

In fact pheromones and other body odors are present all around the body, and yes there is much from the groin region. I find your dismissal of this interesting since there is evidence (which I have not found problematic) of men being attracted to pheromones from female sex organs. Not sure how you square this with yourself.

It's not unrealistic to suggest that the T-shirt captured, to some degree, scents from all over the place.

To some degree? Yes its not unrealistic that it would be to some, random, varied and not accurate degree of what human scent production actually is. It is not unrealistic to suggest that to capture the full output of scent by a human body, something greater than a tshirt is needed.

Let's remember that part of their claim is based on the idea that smell is an important factor for people choosing a partner. That generally is not limited to armpit odor.

Do you have evidence of these variations?

Yes, but since you are suggesting that tshirts are fine it appears to be your onus to show how odor is generated about the body such that a tshirt covers it. When you look this information up you might start discovering why I had other criticisms about their methodology. Indeed sort of why I had that "new question" which you did not answer.

just because blind people learn to hear better or people without legs develop stronger arms, scent production will do the same thing doesn't seem warranted.

That's not the kind of compensation I am talking about.

It's a far greater unevidenced leap than you accuse the study of, which is again why I find your objections to be nonsense.

Uh... I am stating that the human body produces scent all over and there are at least two or three major regions not covered by a t shirt. The "eventually everything comes to the t-shirt" theory is a rather large assumption to make. Suggesting that bodies in competition for mates adjust pheromone production to attract mates is not.

On your side you have your idle speculations, your philosophical musings, your unlikely alternate scenarios. On their side they have the results of an actual study that they did.

You are going to be unpleasantly surprised if you ever make it into science. This is pretty much how it works. You provide what you did, and people comb through it to see things you may have missed. It is not idle speculation and philosophical musings. And possibilities are important, at the very least to rule out in future studies.

I have raised an issue. Is a t-shirt a good medium? If you are going to defend the study, return with an accurate assessment of how scent is produced by the human body, and explain how all of this will be captured by a t-shirt. Like I said, you might discover some other potential problems when you look that up.

The onus is on you, and pointing to a positive result in a study (and again that is being rather generous as it held two components and one was not supportive) is not an answer, if the question is whether the methods were correct. If the methods were wrong then the result could mean something other than what one intended to test.

it's pretty clear which side here is on the side of reality, and which side is once again using philosophy to dismiss knowledge.

I'm doing my best not to get pulled into your attempts at lowering the bar here. You said you like science and the scientific method. What I have been doing is part of the scientific method. That you call it "using philosophy to dismiss knowledge" does make it clear you need to learn more about science.

This was only one small piece of my analysis and you are acting as if you have answered it properly, and that somehow shows yourself to be some brilliant master at something? Or I am some ogre for having questioned this study because it showed a... a... slight correlation!

Actually my question is still waiting a sober answer, and then we could move to the next point. There may be a solid answer. If so I am willing to accept it. But I need something more than "nonsense", "cia saboteurs", and "everything comes to the t-shirt".

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-02-2006 11:53 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 4:04 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 79 of 102 (291567)
03-02-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 4:04 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
using philosophy to dismiss knowledge.

I just realized I should have said something else about this comment. I did say that this paper had some positive points, and unlike EP papers discussing larger scale behaviors, this has set its sights on something I don't find a problem with (hormones cueing reactions).

The fact is that your own citation pretty much stated that it had not provided "knowledge", but rather a suggestion toward knowledge. They admit their first study had a "signal" and yet it needed to be redone because of problems. Yet when I suggest there might be problems with this they'd have to look into, I am obviously wrong because they found a signal?

What's more there are other pheromone studies, including EP studies, which challenge this study's conclusions. They discuss this in their paper. Yet, when I suggest they may be wrong, I personally am trying to dismiss knowledge?

How did you come to believe that this study's results should be held above those of other EP studies with results that tend to challenge their hypothesis? Did you look into them at all?

I am quite interested in concepts that hormones drive reactions. The question is how, and are they hardwired systems, and when did they develop? Methodology will be key to this.

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-03-2006 12:22 AM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 4:04 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 7:40 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 102 (291587)
03-02-2006 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Silent H
03-02-2006 6:18 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
How did you come to believe that this study's results should be held above those of other EP studies with results that tend to challenge their hypothesis? Did you look into them at all?

I'm sorry, what studies were those? If they were presented I missed them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Silent H, posted 03-02-2006 6:18 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 6:39 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 81 of 102 (291710)
03-03-2006 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by crashfrog
03-02-2006 7:40 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
I'm sorry, what studies were those? If they were presented I missed them.

In my analysis, I ended with "ugh, that's enough for now" or something like that. I had already detailed enough to raise questions. I had stopped before getting into the subject of other science studies which pose problems for their study.

Now here's the rub. You claim to have read this study and think its hypothesis was supported with convincing evidence. You even claim it reaches knowledge on the subject.

Yet when I mentioned these other, conflicting studies/explanations you say you "missed them"? Whether you read my analysis or not, they are in your cited article. The authors specifically discuss studies which raise questions/challenge to their findings in this study. They attempted to create an argument of how these findings do not necessarily have to be conflicting, but it was an explanation that involved even more "possibilities" regarding the body than I did in raising my question about their methods.

In fact if you had followed their notations to more current research in that area, you'd have found that their "possibilities" have been pretty much negated as explanations.

Ironically, Pars mentioned a later study by this same team as being an example of good work. From the title alone, it looks like they (since this study you cited) have been forced to investigate this other line of inquiry. Thus your cited study may have already had its conclusions undercut by the same team.

I can't say this for sure as I still have not read Pars' cite, but I certainly have read the cites of current studies which undercut the hypothesis supposedly shown by this study, and they are a directly from work cited by your authors as offering problematic issues.

So once again I am forced to ask you, have you read the paper you cited? If you have, how did you come to believe that this study's results should be held above those of other EP studies with results that tend to challenge their hypothesis? Did you look into them at all?

Raising questions about studies is not trying to destroy knowledge, it is about improving knowledge. And it comes from within EP as well as from outside EP. Are you going to argue that EP scientists who question these results (in ways I agree with) must also be nonsensical?

Before you answer that, you may want to see where the state of knowledge is (even within EP) on that subject.

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-03-2006 12:45 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 03-02-2006 7:40 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2006 1:00 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 102 (291818)
03-03-2006 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Silent H
03-03-2006 6:39 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
Yet when I mentioned these other, conflicting studies/explanations you say you "missed them"? Whether you read my analysis or not, they are in your cited article. The authors specifically discuss studies which raise questions/challenge to their findings in this study. They attempted to create an argument of how these findings do not necessarily have to be conflicting, but it was an explanation that involved even more "possibilities" regarding the body than I did in raising my question about their methods.

You know, I swear I read the article top to bottom, specifically the discussion sections at the end, and this is the second thing you've said about the article that I simply don't recognize. And looking back I can't find it now.

Can you give citations for these things, or what? It's stopped being clear to me that we're even still talking about the same article.

Thus your cited study may have already had its conclusions undercut by the same team.

I thought Pars's link was the one that didn't work.

Regardless, if you believe that a study has been presented that actually gives an evidentiary basis to your arguments, well, I've only been asking for that for 10 posts now. Could you cite something?

So once again I am forced to ask you, have you read the paper you cited? If you have, how did you come to believe that this study's results should be held above those of other EP studies with results that tend to challenge their hypothesis?

I still don't know what studies you're talking about, Holmes. Citations?

Are you going to argue that EP scientists who question these results (in ways I agree with) must also be nonsensical?

No, Holmes; but it's my understanding that they would do it with evidence and not with nonsense. If you have evidence that supports your speculations, this may be as much as the tenth time I've asked you to provide it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 6:39 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 03-03-2006 1:09 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 3:15 PM crashfrog has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 83 of 102 (291823)
03-03-2006 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
03-03-2006 1:00 PM


Crash, I don't know if this is helpful to you or not, but I thought it was interesting at first glance.

link

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2006 01:09 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2006 1:00 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 3:33 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 84 of 102 (291859)
03-03-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
03-03-2006 1:00 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
I do have evidence to support what you assert are my "speculations". Here's how this goes. I put time into reading that article you cited. I read the whole thing quite carefully. I then put effort into an analysis. As far as I can tell you have not read it and/or have not comprehended it. You dismiss it as containing nothing but "nonsense". That's intriguing since I also suggested there were good things in your citation.

To defend against your ad hom descriptions of me as being personally unreasonable to raise questions, I referred you to an article which discusses some of my general problems with EP, but in greater detail, using evidence from science. It would even impact this study. You say you don't have to read it because it too must be nonsense because I agree with it's criticisms.

I then tried to discuss my analysis in a point by point way. I get "nonsense" "cia saboteurs" and "everything goes to the tshirt". None of which answered my point. I suggested that you go look up information on scent production of the body. That would be YOUR onus as it is your cite you are trying to defend. Yet you don't do that. Instead I guess "speculating" that the body must work the way you think it does, even though it doesn't. I have looked it up and have been waiting for your defense to present cites on this.

So after a pure ad hom attack on me, I raise the question of how you handled the EP studies counter to this study. After all, if it is as strong as you say, I was interested how you dealt with the potential problems and conflicting studies they themselves cite. Amazingly you cannot find this in the discussion section... twice? Not even with a ref to Pars' post to use their title as a cross-ref? This was a big hint from me which I did not have to provide, and honestly shouldn't have had to. The onus is on you.

Given all of this, why would I want to bother giving you MORE information? So you can disregard or dismiss it as you have the rest? I will be more than happy to return to this discussion when you show you have any interest in pursuing it seriously. YOU have several oustanding issues, but I'd be satisfied with at least two.

1) You find what issue YOUR cite mentions as problematic from other EP research in this area. Describe how they answer this problem and why YOU find this convincing (such that their own study trumps it and so is "knowledge" as you assert). Final hint: the title of Pars' cite (which is by the same authors) is directly related to this topic in your cite.

2) Take one of the method criticisms from my analysis, and respond to it in a reasonable fashion. You don't have to agree, but it has to be something above pure name-calling.

If you do this, then we will continue. The onus is on you. And the first part is to understand your own study enough to discuss it.

This message has been edited by holmes, 03-03-2006 09:35 PM


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 03-03-2006 1:00 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2006 9:45 AM Silent H has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 85 of 102 (291869)
03-03-2006 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by nator
03-03-2006 1:09 PM


The article has nothing to do with what crash used as a topic and so does not help him.

This article was not trying to specify actions as being genetic adaptations to specific benefits. It seemed to be exploring when a specific trait emerges in humans, and compared this to animal behavior. This is not problematic to me.

I did have problems with some of the anthropocentrist language, but that might have been part of writing a popular article. One critical comment about the method described. Items were dropped in front of human babies. Then items were dropped in front of chimps. There appeared to be some difference between the two and so they extrapolated something from this regarding how species differ with regard to altruism.

Have a gorilla drop something in front of a human baby and see if the kid is altruistic and returns the object.

Heheheh... having seen kids at play, have another child drop an object in front of another child. Its usually swiped.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by nator, posted 03-03-2006 1:09 PM nator has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 102 (292050)
03-04-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Silent H
03-03-2006 3:15 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
I do have evidence to support what you assert are my "speculations". Here's how this goes. I put time into reading that article you cited.

I'm sorry Holmes but the idea that the time you spent thinking about it counts as evidence is ridiculous.

Like I said we're done.

Given all of this, why would I want to bother giving you MORE information?

You would have to actually have given me some information before you could give me more. Hand-waving implications of unspecified "studies" don't count as information.

You don't have to agree, but it has to be something above pure name-calling.

I have not ever called you a name in this thread. That is the tactic you rely on to conceal the lack of content in your posts; I have no need to do the same.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Silent H, posted 03-03-2006 3:15 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2006 12:19 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 87 of 102 (292091)
03-04-2006 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by crashfrog
03-04-2006 9:45 AM


Re: Analysis: short form
I'm sorry Holmes but the idea that the time you spent thinking about it counts as evidence is ridiculous.

I wasn't suggesting the time I spent thinking counts as evidence. First I said that I do have evidence, then I began a discussion of what happened. It starts with the fact that I took your citation seriously and put time into reading it, so I could write a serious discussion.

You would have to actually have given me some information before you could give me more. Hand-waving implications of unspecified "studies" don't count as information.

First I gave you a criticism, that was information I was supplying, which you ignored. Second I pointed to an article, that was more information, and you ignored it. Third I referred to items within your own article as well as a specific article, and you can't find them.

We have yet to get to a position where any specific studies are needed to be brought in. And I should point out that not all "information" needs extra studies to count as valid information. My first criticism involving the t-shirt did not need a study to support it. A t-shirt does not cover the whole body and the whole body produces scents, some powerful ones (sex wise) coming from the crotch. Thus a t-shirt patently does not catch all body odor. I raised this question and it is valid.

It is your obligation as the one defending this study to explain how a t-shirt can capture them, or that that region is good enough. Or you could have suggested that while it is an issue, at the very least this study indicated something unique may be generated by bodies in that area. But you did nothing except bring up cia saboteurs, and some "speculation" that all scents will migrate to the t-shirt.

I have not ever called you a name in this thread.

I didn't say you called me a name. I said your reply to a point in my analysis has to be more than name-calling. Most certainly you have only called them names... "nonsense" being one of the prime ones.

That is the tactic you rely on to conceal the lack of content in your posts;

You know this isn't true. I am pretty sure most readers will understand this is not true either. I am bending over backwards to try to discuss this article seriously with you.

When you feel interested in discussing your citation seriously you know what you have to do. First, explain how they handled conflicting EP studies regarding scent and why it was convincing enough that you believe their study counts as bona fide "knowledge" of the issue. Second, choose an element from the methods section of my criticism, and explain why it is or is not valid for this study. Both should involve sober commentary sans blank dismissive comments.

This will be a first step toward rational discussion. Your move.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2006 9:45 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2006 12:33 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 102 (292101)
03-04-2006 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
03-04-2006 12:19 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
Second I pointed to an article, that was more information, and you ignored it.

If you made a citation of specific research I missed it. If you're referring to the paper that has arguments you agree with, I've already stated why that is insufficient.

I raised this question and it is valid.

It is not valid, for reasons already stated. We're well beyond the point of rhetoric, Holmes. You've offered rhetoric, I've rebutted your rhetoric. The next stage of the discussion is where you supply tangible evidence for your speculations, but you don't seem particularly willing to enter that stage. In fact you refuse to.

I have a suspicion why that is, which is why there's no point in continuing the discussion. If there was factual evidence for your position you would have presented it by now.

I am bending over backwards to try to discuss this article seriously with you.

You're bending over backwards to avoid any factual or evidentiary discussion of the issue. Good day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2006 12:19 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2006 4:49 PM crashfrog has responded

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3899 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 102 (292160)
03-04-2006 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
03-04-2006 12:33 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
If you're referring to the paper that has arguments you agree with, I've already stated why that is insufficient.

All you said is that it must be nonsense. That is name-calling, and worse its name-calling of something you never looked at. If you won't look at what I point to the first two times, why would you look at anything else I'd point to?

It is not valid, for reasons already stated

You said "nonsense", "cia saboteurs", and "it all comes to the t-shirt". None of those are valid rebuttals of my point. You would need to provide evidence or some explanation of how a torso covering item, meant to pick up scent on near contact, could accurately pick up the scent of a full human body.

Let me put this another way. Let's pretend this was YOUR thesis, and you were in front of your thesis commitee. Then they say to you: A t-shirt might not be the best medium as it clearly does not cover the entire body including the genital region which is a known source of unique pheromones. If you said "that's nonsense", "I don't have to worry about that like I don't have to worry about cia saboteurs", and "don't worry, smells get around and it should all land on the t-shirt", you would not be getting past that commitee. You have yet to offer a substantive reply.

I have a suspicion why that is... If there was factual evidence for your position you would have presented it by now.

Funny but that's my line. You presented a citation, I presented an analysis, and you have refused to do anything about it but say "nyah nyah" and "I'm not listening, stupid head".

I've made this really easy for you. Just show that you understand your own citation, by describing where the author's discuss a problem from other EP studies, how they deal with it (theoretically), and why that is sufficient for you. As well as that you can deal with my own criticisms properly by choosing one (you can skip the t-shirt problem if that is too problematic) and explain why it does not pose a problem for their research.

Honestly, how can the above be described as attempting to avoid discussion? I am actually giving you two chances to show your own mettle, for which I'd have to respond in kind.

It's your call. Hi road or back exit.


holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2006 12:33 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by crashfrog, posted 03-04-2006 5:39 PM Silent H has responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 102 (292177)
03-04-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Silent H
03-04-2006 4:49 PM


Re: Analysis: short form
and you have refused to do anything about it but say "nyah nyah" and "I'm not listening, stupid head".

I'm sorry? Can you cite where I've used that specific language?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Silent H, posted 03-04-2006 4:49 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 03-05-2006 5:36 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
7Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019