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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (537184)	12/17/2009 4:38:52 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578202

"No they aren't." They who, aren't what? I've not talked about any one but you, and I've been having this discussion with you not some group of they. What is your problem dude? "There is nothing to suggest that they engaged in anything but normal procedure. To accept your thesis, " What thesis? I've provided no thesis. "we'd have to believe that no one has noticed that since the paper's publication in 1997." Where have I been discussing any fek'n paper. I haven't. I made one comment about changing data. You said it is common. I said prove it. You couldn't after many attempts to lead me down a prim rose path. Now you are presenting a strawman argument about a paper that hasn't been discussed by us at all. All predictable CJ crapola. Let’s review the facts: This is not an argument, it is a demonstration of the lengths of intellectual dishonesty you are capable of. But it's not the first, it is but one among many. siliconinvestor.com

To: combjelly who wrote (537184)	12/17/2009 5:16:52 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578202

I figure you will take a few more bird walks, possibly endlessly more, attempting to dig your self out of a hole. But as you get in deeper and deeper, from here on I will be reposting the argument at the top of each of my responses. Here you go dude. This is the original and only comment I made to base this discussion on, nothing more nothing less. Notice I didn’t leave the issue open to broad interpretation of what I meant by ‘change data,’ I specifically qualified my comment as referring to data that is not credible. ================ ”I've never heard of a scientific study where changing data was allowed. If the data is not credible* the study is dumped.* Message 26182340 Your response, accompanied with the usual irrelevant put downs, followed by days of munungus and vitriol. <b > “It is actually pretty common.” Message 26182361 My simple challenge…"Prove it." It's not provable, it is from the start one of your more obvious goof ups.