Independent Research? [modified]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You seem to be completely incapable of understanding anything. What I think is "probably true" is that "Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased". I also state that publishing their research is an indicator that it probably is.
OK. Let me get this straight, because your grasp of the english language is absolutely horrible... Person A: "I think my research is unbiased". Person B: "That's probably true". So then...you're saying that in the above text, you would interpret person B as saying that Person A is correct in that he "thinks" his research is unbiased rather than saying Person A is probably correct that his research is unbiased? Are you autistic or something? That makes no sense. Then, in the same breath, you say that the fact the Greenpeace published the research means that it is indeed probably not biased, thereby negating any possibility of the above interpretation of your words (and, by the way, verifying my above claim that you only consider the source of the message)? This is why I get frustrated with you. You're a completel moron.
Red Stateler wrote:
OK. Let me get this straight
I wish you would. this is a real waste of time Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased" Person B: "Thats probably true." Person B is saying that he agrees with A that "Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased."
-
oilFactotum wrote:
You made a baseless claim about what Greenpeace's position is on other studies
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/516558.stm[^]
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
-
So, the is ExxonMobile funded research, which is published like GreenPeace's, also "probably unbiased"?
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
OK. Let me get this straight
I wish you would. this is a real waste of time Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased" Person B: "Thats probably true." Person B is saying that he agrees with A that "Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased."
oilFactotum wrote:
Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased"
That's not at all what you said. You said, "You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true." Mine was an accurate quote and yours is a restatement. I'll just assume that you admit your folly, given the extent you're going through to restate what you originally said. You'll never admit it, though.
-
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
oilFactotum wrote:
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
Because you only consider the source. Typical leftist mindless drone...
-
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
-
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
oilFactotum wrote:
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
And where's the basis for "believing Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased[^]"? :rolleyes:
-
I don't accept your theory that Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent. Or that your use of the word funding is the same in both cases.
oilFactotum wrote:
Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent
Why? One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda (up to and including the banning of chlorine chemistry), the other to sell petroleum products. Surely it is obvious what answers either organisation wants?
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Did I say "reviewed"?
It has to be reviewed to be disproved.
Red Stateler wrote:
Companies perform that research in conjunction with the FDA (which serves to help remove that inherent bias).
They kept it secret.
Red Stateler wrote:
Not just corporate whore
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
Unless it's Exxon. :rolleyes:
-
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
Rob Graham wrote:
I'm staggered. I think you said something intended as a reply, but i'll be damned if I can make one iota of sense out of it.
It's amazing isn't it? And people wonder why I can't hold back calling him an idiot. He's like Ilion on tranquilisers.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Person A: "I think that Greenpeace believes their research is unbiased"
That's not at all what you said. You said, "You also claim that Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased, which is probably true." Mine was an accurate quote and yours is a restatement. I'll just assume that you admit your folly, given the extent you're going through to restate what you originally said. You'll never admit it, though.
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Greenpeace and Exxon are equivalent
Why? One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda (up to and including the banning of chlorine chemistry), the other to sell petroleum products. Surely it is obvious what answers either organisation wants?
Ryan Roberts wrote:
One exists to push an extreme anti capitalist / envronmentalist agenda
Exactly the theory I reject.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Great, you have basis for your claim in one instance.
And where's the basis for "believing Greenpeace thinks their research is unbiased[^]"? :rolleyes:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
Unless it's Exxon. :rolleyes:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
-
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
oilFactotum wrote:
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
I agree you made yourself "clear". All you had to do was completel change what you originally said...And then say I was wrong! :laugh:
-
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
oilFactotum wrote:
Like I said, I don't buy your theory.
Yeah, I know...Unless it's Exxon. :laugh:
-
oilFactotum wrote:
I have made myself perfectly clear. Your refusal to understand will remain your problem, not mine.
I agree you made yourself "clear". All you had to do was completel change what you originally said...And then say I was wrong! :laugh:
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
-
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
Which you then followed up with "which is true"...Then you spent another half dozen posts trying to convince yourself you meant to say that it was "true" that they "thought" there research was unbiased. So are you now going to say you didn't say that? :omg: Astonishing....
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Why are asking me? Dan Bennett made the claim[^]
Which you then followed up with "which is true"...Then you spent another half dozen posts trying to convince yourself you meant to say that it was "true" that they "thought" there research was unbiased. So are you now going to say you didn't say that? :omg: Astonishing....
I'm tempted to say that your continued trolling is astonishing, but it isn't.
-
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
oilFactotum wrote:
You are indeed wrong. Every step of the way.
You know...I'm almost convinced that you actually believe yourself. :laugh: