On 1 mrt, 13:10, Martin wrote:
> On 1 Mar 2007 02:41:08 -0800, jeremyrh....@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 1 mrt, 11:43, Deeply Filled Mortician
> > wrote:
> >> Let is be knownst that on Thu, 1 Mar 2007 06:59:08 +0100,
> >> m...@privacy.net (Mister Bartlett) writted:
>
> >> >Deeply Filled Mortician
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Seems to me sometimes people like to slap a label on in a bid to end
> >> >> reasonable debate.
>
> >> >"Reasonable debate"? Seems to me that this "debate" is characterised by
> >> >Mary presenting a hypothesis and backing it up with published research,
> >> >while you, iReid and Martin reply by shouting "not listening, not
> >> >listening, not listening" like any toddler having a tantrum.
>
> >> 'Seems' being the operative word here. It 'seems' to me that you are
> >> convinced, and don't want to question the study.
>
> >I don't have a problem with quetioning the study. I have a problem
> >with questioning it without even having read it, which is what you
> >did.
>
> Since the study has yet to be published, how can we read the published research?
Didn't you give a link to it on the Elsevier site[1]? I know yesterday
is a long time ago, but still ...
In any case, that's a question you really need to ask DFM - he's the
one who is convinced that the study is fatally flawed.
B;
[1] and I have a preprint.
|