 | | Re: And now for something completely different... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) It certainly does. I think less of that particular source each time I see it cited. He has no idea what he's talking about in this case, and his collection of assertions is just that, a collection of assertions with bias (but no cites) behind (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: And now for something completely different... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) If by "assertions with bias (but no cites)" you're referring to the listed citations of statements by the American Society for Cell Biology, Bob Park, and Joel Achenbach, I'm afraid the burden is on you to establish that these are biased (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: And now for something completely different... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) No. If two sources come to the same conclusion about something and one is biased and unworthy of further consideration that does not so tar the other source. (...) But I am not, in fact arguing that at all. I'm arguing for private exploitation (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: And now for something completely different... —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) But if you're dismissing the conclusion of Source A because it is flawed, then you must dismiss the same conclusion from Source B. If you're dismissing the conclusion from Source A because you believe that Source A is biased (which still (...) (22 years ago, 7-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: And now for something completely different... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Note that neither of these statements dismiss the conclusion. They merely deride the source. (22 years ago, 10-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
