241
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
User talk:Toffeeman (view source)
Revision as of 13:24, September 16, 2008
, 13:24, September 16, 2008no edit summary
Don't rant on my user talk page, and either limit your comments elsewhere to intelligent, substantive insights, or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Don't rant on my user talk page, and either limit your comments elsewhere to intelligent, substantive insights, or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
'''''This''''' is a rant (deleted by me from your talk page):
<blockquote>
Seriously, just get stuffed. We Wikipedians do not want you here on account of your foul slimy mouth polluting the minds of other people. You keep stating that you are concerned about the quality of modern historical and scientific research, yet you do not seem interested in upholding values essential to legitimate research in any field. You have said enough that your further rants are easily recognised. Therefore, get stuffed.
</blockquote>
This, deleted by you, is '''''not''''':
<blockquote>
When you ask for “(s)ubstantive comments” and you mean “substantive comment(s) ''''about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them” (my emphasis)'''', why not just say so in the first place?
If
:1. “substantive” excludes anything that considers the PNAS response to be acceptable,
:2. anything that disagrees with “(t)he math is wrong in the PNAS paper” is “nonsensical” and
:3. “learn” excludes the discovery of any errors on your part,
then you should appreciate that other people use the terms “substantive”, “nonsensical” and “learn” in very different ways. Without clear, up front, guidance people are going to interpret these terms how they normally interpret them. They may well be wrong in doing so, but it seems only fair to let them know the correct , yet obscure, interpretation before castigating them for their mis-interpretation.
However, I would advise sticking to the conventional meanings of the words. '''''“The issues raised by Mr. Schlafly are neither obscure nor subtle, but are part of everyday statistical analysis at a level too elementary to need rehearsal in the pages of PNAS.” ''''' That must have hurt, I winced when I read it. Yet it was hurt that could have been avoided by paying attention to the nonsensical and in-substantive comments by those who did not want to learn. I am particularly reminded of Stitch75 who bent over backwards to try and make the letter to PNAS the best possible. In a private email he revealed his motive for getting involved: '''“I want him to fix hix (sic) arguments a far as it is possible and present them in the best way possible.”''' He would have helped and could have helped, something those agreeing with you neither could nor did.
Remember Caesar, thou art mortal
</blockquote>