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 (66831)	12/16/1999 11:16:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Sorry if you think that my argument with you had to do with lying - as I see it, what I was calling you on was dismissing the studies for which I had posted the abstracts without reading the full studies. Look at what I said again, Edwarda - my focus was entirely on whether you could argue that the studies were flawed unless and until you read the abstracts of THESE particular studies. I think there's a major difference between saying an argument is insupportable or fallacious or not supported by the facts, and calling a person a liar. Message 12277728 "Why, Edwarda! Are you saying that ALL the studies for which I posted abstracts don't have "good bona fides" and are not "backed by good scholarship"? Without even reading them? How very entertaining. I assume you are having a little joke, yes? Perhaps you are trying to fit in with "the guys"?" Message 12277782 "Just curious as to the basis on which you so magisterially dismiss the studies as "poor scholarship," without so much as taking the trouble to read them. Are you channelling them via a crystal ball?" siliconinvestor.com "I think there is a big difference between stating "this study found so-and-so," and stating, "I have reviewed the research, and I found it statistically flawed, and the researchers did not have good credentials." To make the latter statement, you must be stating that you actually read the journals, which are not available on-line [correction ~ it is possible that some of the research is available on-line, perhaps via Lexis-Nexus or something similar], so you must have travelled to a medical library where they were available and on the shelf. If you say the study is statistically flawed, you must also be stating that you have the scientific training to know how to set up the study, and that these researchers did it wrong. If you say the researchers don't have the proper "bona fides", you must also be saying that you KNOW that their credentials are false, even though you probably don't know anything more about them than their names. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you've posted many times that your MA is in medieval literature, I believe. And I don't think you went to a medical library between the time I posted the abstracts to Neo, and the time you posted that the research was flawed."