Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (66737)	12/15/1999 9:14:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

Even the abstracts made it clear that the research was flawed, as I pointed out. Only one attempted to control for other sociological factors, and none of them attempted to distinguish severity of punishment by any other criterion except frequency. Plus, isolated studies are by their nature inconclusive, especially in social science, which is why they do meta- studies........

To: Edwarda who wrote (66737)	12/15/1999 9:48:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Bravo, Edwarda! Great recovery! So, when you posted the following yesterday, "As I just stated, I have taken the time to read beyond the abstracts and suggest that everyone who blithely cites studies do the same." you didn't actually mean that you had read any of the articles in question, you meant that you had read some unspecified articles and talk it over with your husband and his friends. And THAT'S how you know that the researchers don't have good "bona fides." Of course, that's completely different from actually reading the articles in question, but you've managed to blow enough smoke to save face that I salute you. No one may challenge your assertion, because we were not there when you talked it over with your husband and his friends. So, how do we know whether you are telling the truth or not? It's polite to take you at your word, or at least to let the matter drop.