Changes

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome".  It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.  What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.  Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)   

:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that "Substantive postings are welcome".  It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.  What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.  Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?  [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)   

 

::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?

 

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==

== Please provide your statistical analysis ==