Re: A disappointing week



This is what causes folk to wonder when the "mr. hyde" shows up to attempt
a save of the "dr. jeckle" side of the daring duo. It is lousy science.
It would never be accepted for publication in any even simi peer reviewed
science publication.


>This is exactly what I am talking about when you deal with folks who do not
>have a research background yet want to argue about data. it's worthless and
>a waste of time.
>
>Zoul wants "data". Roger, data is nothing more than information and it can,
>or cannot, be tied to research. If it is tied to research, you're out of
>your league trying to interpolate it. What Andrew has provided is data in
>the term of info. He, as I am, are well aware of whether it is research
>oriented or not. He, not I, *can* investigate research, research
>methodologies, citations and the like.
 
Top posting issues aside, you have no idea what it takes to make "good
science" or "to be accepted for publication in any even simi peer reviewed
science publication". Sentence structure alone pegs you as college
challenged much less doctorate qualified. No doctorate? No qualifications.

===============================================

On 06 Dec 2004 19:50:49 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

> This is what causes folk to wonder when the "mr. hyde" shows up to attempt
> a save of the "dr. jeckle" side of the daring duo. It is lousy science.
> It would never be accepted for publication in any even simi peer reviewed
> science publication.
>
>>This is exactly what I am talking about when you deal with folks who do not
>>have a research background yet want to argue about data. it's worthless and
>>a waste of time.
>>
>>Zoul wants "data". Roger, data is nothing more than information and it can,
>>or cannot, be tied to research. If it is tied to research, you're out of
>>your league trying to interpolate it. What Andrew has provided is data in
>>the term of info. He, as I am, are well aware of whether it is research
>>oriented or not. He, not I, *can* investigate research, research
>>methodologies, citations and the like.
 
Ah, hit upon a nerve. You have no knowledge at all of my suite of letters
to drape before and after my name. Most phd folk I have known show no
indication of such, it is in fact a cause for some distain from them when
seeing folk who have little but the alphebet to show for their efforts.
This is an example of the most childish display of hissy fit to consider.
Andrew does a bit of observation, thinks he sees a pattern, and calls it
science. Mr. hyde to the battle changes that not a whit. Because the
"pattern" is in it's weakist form by narrow definition of "data" serves
only to reflect upon him very very badly in several aspects that leads one
to pity after seeing that laughter is misplaced.


"Top posting issues aside, you have no idea what it takes to make "good
science" or "to be accepted for publication in any even simi peer reviewed
science publication". Sentence structure alone pegs you as college
challenged much less doctorate qualified. No doctorate? No
qualifications."
 
Your top posting issues aside, most phd folk I have known demonstrate much
higher levels of conversational ability.

I am sorry if you feel my "distain" for your lies regarding your (lack of)
educational qualifications fully demonstrated by the simple fact you can't
spell. Maybe you use a different "alphebet" I bet. Maybe your nonsensical
thought structure makes you the "weakist" link.

I'm alphebetting you are a moron.

On 07 Dec 2004 00:44:52 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

> You have no knowledge at all of my suite of letters
> to drape before and after my name. Most phd folk I have known show no
> indication of such, it is in fact a cause for some distain from them when
> seeing folk who have little but the alphebet to show for their efforts.
> This is an example of the most childish display of hissy fit to consider.
> Andrew does a bit of observation, thinks he sees a pattern, and calls it
> science. Mr. hyde to the battle changes that not a whit. Because the
> "pattern" is in it's weakist form by narrow definition of "data" serves
> only to reflect upon him very very badly in several aspects that leads one
> to pity after seeing that laughter is misplaced.