|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
"Donald Munro" a écrit dans le message de news: .. . internaute wrote: it is said that testoterone injection make the guy very horny, that makes him all excited (aroused? pardon my english), excited to climb moutain, excited to **** deep and hard and from behind the podium girls. so I think that the best dope would be a night with these podium girls with their mini skirt Surely you mean without their mini skirt ? oh well I don't think they would stay longer with their skirt, I would fondle their tits, eat their pussy and **** them all the night ...So... it's just to say that sexy girls are in fact the best dope in life |
Ads |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
in message , Donald
Munro ') wrote: internaute wrote: it is said that testoterone injection make the guy very horny, that makes him all excited (aroused? pardon my english), excited to climb moutain, excited to **** deep and hard and from behind the podium girls. so I think that the best dope would be a night with these podium girls with their mini skirt Surely you mean without their mini skirt ? If you find a miniskirt an impediment there's something very wrong with your technique. -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait patiently for the RAC to arrive. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
In article
.com, wrote: Michael Press wrote: In article . com, wrote: Michael Press wrote: In article .com, "Linda Lou" wrote: I'm sorry, but what kind of scientist is this guy Black? It's not very clinical or objective to inject himself with testosterone and describe his feelings as proof of the results. Does he do these experiments in his garage? Is his dog his lab assistant? Plus, he's one "scientist" refuting the results of several studies cited in the media. A good scientist will always experiment on himself. The report you may take as you will. Once read an account of a scientist who purposely had himself bitten by a black widow spider. Two days of agony. And of course it was double-blind and with a placebo control. One has to wonder about the credibility of people who grasp at non-science to further their position. What are you talking about? You are blind to what I am getting at. Excuse my attempt at humor. Apologies. I missed it. To wit, a silly investigator using himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been "non-science" to further his position. Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a scientist to determine the consequences of black widow poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers? Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his experiences are worth at least as much as other victims, and better than most. When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation. When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself I am thinking of two things. 1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test subjects. 2) Self-knowledge. I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone to observe the effects. His observations are at least as valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an end; better in my opinion. -- Michael Press |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
Michael Press wrote:
Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a scientist to determine the consequences of black widow poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers? Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his experiences are worth at least as much as other victims, and better than most. When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation. Subjective conclusions, whether hidden or blatant are still essentially worthless. They don't prove anything. When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself I am thinking of two things. 1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test subjects. Ethics? I know what the word means in most cases, but I don't follow you on this one. A single person study provides little if any benefit. Subjective information, perhaps, but not something that would constiture medical research with respect to creating anti-doping controls. That's what we're talking about, right? Testing something on yourself and extrapolating to how the populace as a whole would react is stupid. Reporting your dabbling in drugs to the media as a scientific "proof" is beyond stupid. Ethics be damned. 2) Self-knowledge. I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone to observe the effects. His observations are at least as valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an end; better in my opinion. Timothy Leary? Is that you....? Frankly, that would be a lot more interesting - Le Tour de LSD. If anyone at all makes it to the finish line it's a miracle! R |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
Michael Press wrote:
To wit, a silly investigator using himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been "non-science" to further his position. Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a scientist to determine the consequences of black widow poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers? Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his experiences are worth at least as much as other victims, and better than most. When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation. When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself I am thinking of two things. 1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test subjects. 2) Self-knowledge. I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone to observe the effects. His observations are at least as valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an end; better in my opinion. Following in the footsteps of Dr. Albert Hofmann. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
In article ,
Donald Munro wrote: Michael Press wrote: To wit, a silly investigator using himself as a test bed for conducting an experiment cannot be without subjective involvment. And the original poster should not have been "non-science" to further his position. Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a scientist to determine the consequences of black widow poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers? Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his experiences are worth at least as much as other victims, and better than most. When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation. When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself I am thinking of two things. 1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test subjects. 2) Self-knowledge. I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone to observe the effects. His observations are at least as valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an end; better in my opinion. Following in the footsteps of Dr. Albert Hofmann. And Dr. Barry Marshall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall Ulcers: they can be cured, -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
Michael Press wrote:
Certainly a procedure carried out upon oneself falls short of many experimental design ideals. But, how is a scientist to determine the consequences of black widow poison? Interview victims certainly. Ask for volunteers? Ludicrous. Therefore he must make himself the victim. His report is credible. He was monitored by people qualified to observe and log vital signs. His own account of his experiences are worth at least as much as other victims, and better than most. When thinking about Science we sometime try to ignore the subjective, but the subjective does not go away. Best to accept this and watch for the subjective. It is only the hidden subjectivity that corrupts an investigation. When I say that a good scientist experiments upon himself I am thinking of two things. 1) Ethics. He or she should be prepared to undergo procedures he or she proposes to carry out on test subjects. 2) Self-knowledge. I applaud the gent who injected himself with testosterone to observe the effects. His observations are at least as valuable as those who inject testosterone as a means to an end; better in my opinion. Experimenting upon oneself is generally an expedient one is driven to for a test that might not be ethical to conduct upon other subjects. For example, poisons, or proving that yellow fever is transmitted through mosquito bites. However, experimenting with the psychological and physiological effects of testosterone is in a different category. The drug is already regularly used in clinical practice, so there are plenty of subjects available. But the real issue is that the average Principal Investigator is already well-enough supplied with ego, aggressiveness, and feelings of power, confidence, control, and domination. One man's sacrifice in the name of science is another man's good excuse for getting a high. Ben If you can't follow the money, follow the ego. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Learning with the news
In article ,
Steven Bornfeld wrote: wrote: Experimenting upon oneself is generally an expedient one is driven to for a test that might not be ethical to conduct upon other subjects. Hmmm. I can scarcely remember ever reading any clinical papers regarding studies conducted this way (though I don't doubt they're out there). However, this general plot line was used in many of the cheap Hammer horror films of yore. Gah! Heliobacter pylori! Ulcers! -- Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/ "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Getting a decent news reader, filtering | Colorado Bicycler | General | 46 | June 9th 06 03:01 PM |
Dick Pounder screws the innocent once again | Bill C | Racing | 14 | February 20th 06 11:22 PM |
Australian Bicycle Council News | cfsmtb | Australia | 0 | August 17th 05 02:09 AM |
from Rocky Mountain News online.... | U-Turn | Unicycling | 4 | February 9th 05 01:48 PM |
ONLY POSTED TO A HUNDRED SITES AND I HAVE RECEIVED IN LESS THAN 2 WKS | [email protected] | General | 0 | January 16th 05 05:51 AM |