ANOTHER Mountain Biker Dies!
On Feb 16, 7:21*pm, Shraga wrote:
On Feb 16, 4:35*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Feb 16, 9:17*am, Shraga wrote:
You are guilty of dishonesty or stupidity if you claim you reviewed
"ALL of them to date." Because you didn't do that. At all.
Yes, I did: EVERY experimental study to date. Show me even ONE that I
missed! You CAN'T, as you well know. In fact, you probably haven't
even read all of them, as I have.
So which is it, Mike? You read them all, or you just cherry-picked
them off IMBA's Web site?
If it's "all," then why are you afraid to post the name of this
miraculous search engine you use and your search terms?
By that same logic, your papers are deliberately biased against
mountain biking. What's your point?
No, they aren't. I just tell the truth. The studies' conclusions don't
follow from their data.
Mike, I have read your paper. If you were an undergraduate turning it
in for an introductory creative writing course, I would probably give
you an A. It's clever.
However, you fail in nearly every section to provide rational
scientific rebuttals to the passages in question. Instead, you provide
speculation based on your biased observations.
BS. I critique the studies just as an unbiased professor or editor
would do. Wilson and Seney's conclusions don't follow from their own
data! They claim to be measuring erosion, but don't do that! No
"citation" of anytone else's research is needed, because my point is
perfectly obvious. In all of the dozens of times I have discussed that
paper at scientific conferences, not one person has ever questioned or
argued with that point.
Nobody argues with you, Mike, because you are creepy.
Your statement disproves itself! Nice trick!
|