/dev/null Posted December 2, 2006 Posted December 2, 2006 Number one, you're arguing semantics. Number 2, you're arguing about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Ramius's level of competence (or lack thereof). 853961[/snapback] Someone is getting pissy and talking about #1 and #2 Is this a guilty conscious trying to tell us that you were the one who made dookie in the urinal?
Bungee Jumper Posted December 2, 2006 Posted December 2, 2006 Number one, you're arguing semantics. Number 2, you're arguing about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with Ramius's level of competence (or lack thereof). 853961[/snapback] 1) A die having a "true value" of 3.5 isn't a semantic argument. 2) Yeah, whatever. Where are your research publications?
EC-Bills Posted December 2, 2006 Posted December 2, 2006 Ah yes, the gift that keeps on giving is back just in time for Christmas...
Orton's Arm Posted December 3, 2006 Posted December 3, 2006 1) A die having a "true value" of 3.5 isn't a semantic argument. 2) Yeah, whatever. Where are your research publications? 854111[/snapback] If you're implying Ramius actually has his very own research publications, I'm becoming a Luddite.
Ramius Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 If you're implying Ramius actually has his very own research publications, I'm becoming a Luddite. 854474[/snapback] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum Eat you worthless waste of a human being. PS - i have 3 more on the way.
Johnny Coli Posted December 4, 2006 Author Posted December 4, 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum Eat you worthless waste of a human being. PS - i have 3 more on the way. 856201[/snapback] That pretty much ends that.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum Eat you worthless waste of a human being. PS - i have 3 more on the way. 856201[/snapback] But you obviously don't know anything about it. You measured the effects of CD4 and CD8 T-cells...but your T-cells obviously should have had a true value of CD6, so you used the wrong cells...
Joey Balls Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 That pretty much ends that. 856389[/snapback] Is your "All I wanted was a Pepsi" line from Suicidal Tendencies "Institutionalized"? Haven't heard that song in about ten years.
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum Eat you worthless waste of a human being. PS - i have 3 more on the way. 856201[/snapback] Wow! You found a group of people you can leach off of. Color me impressed.
Chilly Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Wow! You found a group of people you can leach off of. Color me impressed. 857906[/snapback] Yeah, because you know, people that are publishing research generally have no problem with other people not doing any work and taking credit for it.
Ramius Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Yeah, because you know, people that are publishing research generally have no problem with other people not doing any work and taking credit for it. 857917[/snapback] Thats from my undergrad research. And i didnt, you know, write an undergrad thesis based on that research or anything. I actually wrote roughly 1/3 of that paper. there 3 of us undergrads in the lab all working on different parts of the project, and all of us wrote stuff for the paper, with our boss having the final input, and thus 1st authorship.
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Thats from my undergrad research. And i didnt, you know, write an undergrad thesis based on that research or anything. I actually wrote roughly 1/3 of that paper. there 3 of us undergrads in the lab all working on different parts of the project, and all of us wrote stuff for the paper, with our boss having the final input, and thus 1st authorship. 857969[/snapback] I hope for the sake of the paper that the three of you (or at least you) provided the work, while your boss did all the real thinking. Because if you were in charge of the thinking, the paper would be worthless.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Because if you were in charge of the thinking, the paper would be worthless. 858004[/snapback] And you can judge his research as worthless because...?
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 And you can judge his research as worthless because...? 858008[/snapback] I wrote that if Ramius was in charge of the thinking (which he isn't) the paper would be worthless. I'm basing this on the assumption that good research requires good thinking, and the observation that Ramius is generally incapable of rigorous thought.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I'm basing this on the assumption that good research requires good thinking, And you know this because...? and the observation that Ramius is generally incapable of rigorous thought. 858009[/snapback] And you know this because...?
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 And you know this because...?And you know this because...? 858013[/snapback] Because he can ground his conclusions in opinions of posts on a football message board.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 Because he can ground his conclusions in opinions of posts on a football message board. 858020[/snapback] Shhh. Don't give him hints. Let him figure it out on his own. It's a lot funnier that way.
Orton's Arm Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 And you know this because...?And you know this because...? 858013[/snapback] I'll grant you your first "you know this because . . . ?" It's conceivable there's some field of research in which good work doesn't require good thinking. Maybe Ramius has manged to stumble across such a field. As for your second question, I've seen Ramius in action long enough to get an idea of his capabilities and limitations. Unless he's a far different man in the real world than he is on these discussion boards, he isn't fit for serious intellectual work.
Bungee Jumper Posted December 5, 2006 Posted December 5, 2006 I'll grant you your first "you know this because . . . ?" It's conceivable there's some field of research in which good work doesn't require good thinking. Maybe Ramius has manged to stumble across such a field. But that doesn't actually answer the question? How do you know "good research" requires "good thinking"? As for your second question, I've seen Ramius in action long enough to get an idea of his capabilities and limitations. Unless he's a far different man in the real world than he is on these discussion boards, he isn't fit for serious intellectual work. 858026[/snapback] Really? And I ask again, where are your publications?
Recommended Posts