Wade, Wade, Wade. One of us is confused. But I don't think it is me. You can't even read. And you've pissed me off.
You post my statement:
<< If you are saying that Maisels never estimated market size then you have indeed proved my point: CCSI never responded to Asensio's assertion that CCSI overestimated market size >>
and then respond:
I am indeed saying that, but that was my point, not yours. Your point was that Maisels estimated market size. He didn't, as I've made clear. And it is the opposite of what you said, so how can I be proving your point?
If you want to make the additional point that "CCSI never responded to Asensio's assertion that CCSI overestimated market size", then go ahead. I would agree with that. It is a good point. But it's not what we were talking about.
It was my point you idiot, and it was what I was talking about. I said it in the post to Janybird to which you responded:
Message 4989693
CCSI wanted someone to respond to all Asensio's assertions. Although Maisels may have adequately responded to the medical claims, in no way did he adequately respond to the market size claims, which are beyond the area of his expertise. There is no way to for you to claim that Maisels is a market expert. CCSI failed to adequately respond to Asensio's assertions regarding potential market size.
Sounds like I made that point before you did. It was the conclusion to everything that I had said. Sorry if I didn't make it simple enough for you to understand that. Or maybe you got bored and stopped reading.
Now let's examine the caption you drone on about.
"The potential market for all bilirubinometers is extremely limited....'' !!
(btw, I did not supply the caption, CCSI did) What is Maisels' response about if it is not related to whether the market is limited? And just how is his response relevant if he does not discuss the potential market? If it is not relevant, then once again, you proved the point I made in the FIRST post to which you responded (and you claimed I did not make):
CCSI wanted someone to respond to all Asensio's assertions. Although Maisels may have adequately responded to the medical claims, in no way did he adequately respond to the market size claims, which are beyond the area of his expertise. There is no way to for you to claim that Maisels is a market expert. CCSI failed to adequately respond to Asensio's assertions regarding potential market size.
And the modem analogy is not yours either. I used a virtually identical analogy in my post to Janybird regarding the birth control expert:
Using my example above, it is as if you said "most people need birth control, so I believe that the market is very large" and pull a number off the top of your head. No independent research, just your opinion based on no training in markets, and no experience in estimating markets. That is not an opinion as to the size of the market based on anything but your medical knowledge, and is not a market evaluation in any traditional sense.
I guess you like to plagiarize my ideas.
The bottom line is, I never said anything about what Maisels is comfortable about giving an opinion on. My point was then, and it remains, that CCSI tried to use someone to prove a point who was not qualified to give an opinion on that point. And as a result, CCSI failed to adequately respond to the statement that "the market is extremely limited." If you can't see that any response to Asensio's statement must refer to market size, then I cannot help you to understand it.
Finally, Maisels is not qualified to give birth numbers. Those came from Unicef. Nor is he apparently qualified to estimate the number of annual bilirubin tests, those came out of business proposals, not a medical journal or something else that a scholar would cite as a suitable reference. Ask any doctor giving a scientific paper if he would rely on business proposals as a proper source. But wait, you're a professor, you should know what a proper source is.
You call Asensio a liar. Please note that I have never said he was telling the truth. I have been saying that CCSI failed to respond to his assertions, regardless of whether they are true. |
