Okay guinganbresil, for somebody whose modus operandi is claiming that peer reviewed scientific publications mean the opposite of what the authors say they mean, my opinion of your complaints about my statements that you are a liar is that your complaints are laughable, histrionic defensive tactics, and just more acts of deception on your part.
But it's a serious accusation I'm making against you and I am absolutely serious about it, and so to show everybody reading this -- including you -- who of the two of us is more fair and truthful, I will fully consider your side for as long as your replies are substantive and on the topic of my questions. In the interest of clarity and continuity, if you want to discuss something else, including this preamble, please do it in a new sub-thread, either above or continuing existing, other sub-threads.
guinganbresil 12:25 PM on 7/17/2010
(1) Yes - I was using it (the word "trend") in the colloquial vice statistical sense prior to your valid correction (trend vs. change downthread)
http://www
Question: When using the colloquial sense of the word "trend" were you aware that in science, a more rigorous definition of the word "trend" exists?
Elaborate as much or as little as you wish in one comment, but please be sure to include a clear and unequivocal "yes" or "no" to the question.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment