He just called it ‘shit paper’ after the corrections. Are you paying attention?
Yuv can you tell me how you could use that paper? The paper is a lazy data vomit with poor controls. It was better after it was fixed. It’s still an outlier because of that lack of control, and it’s exactly the type of lazy database dumper diving that people make stupid conclusions with on all sorts of medical topics.
But hey tf would I know?
Of course! It’s an outrage!
OMFG you guys
4 Likes
It isn’t outrageous at all, it just contradicts what all of you said until now. In fact, it’s the least outrageous claim of all. It’s the only claim that has been plausible so far.
I know that replying to the actual argument written is frowned upon, but I can’t help myself.
What corrections??? As far as I can tell there were no substantial corrections made to the Science version from the preprint. Or any corrections at all. What did I miss?
Trolly my mind has really been blown by your posts. I can’t exactly put it into words. I mean how would you describe the things in this video
4 Likes
It’s been 36 hours and I don’t think a single thing has been accomplished. Pretty impressive.
4 Likes
Nah, in that time we’ve had two posters request month-long self-bans.
6 Likes
I enjoyed it. It’s really hard to see grown man make so many contradictions in such a short period of time without leaving the house.
But in all seriousness, I disagree. I do think it showed to some relevant people how absurd some of the moderation calls had been. Even getting a single post like the one Johnny made earlier today is extremely beneficial to fixing the forum.
1 Like
You haven’t addressed a single moderation call in here.
1 Like
I did so yesterday with you. Both you and Trolly claimed that Church’s behavior in this case required moderation in the sense of temp bans and his posts were subject to moderation with deletion.
So your post here is dishonest at best. I thought we had an honest conversation, it’s a pitty.
1 Like
Who needs bans when you can just frustrate people into quitting.
Anyone here who has posted more than like 5 times ITT this week needs to find a better hobby.
All of you. No exceptions. Myself included.
4 Likes
If you guys want we can open this topic as well. The interesting phenomena of when people are “ran off” and “forced to quit” and when they are malcontents who left.
I got 36 more hours.
It was a joke. I’m in favor of not opening anymore topics. Not in favor of bans except in the most extreme circumstances, argued for church not being banned on multiple occasions and did not vote to ban Sabo for the record.
2 Likes
I don’t think he thinks he’s dishonest, and that’s what’s sad
Back when I had a different view of him, I trusted him saying Churchill was being dangerously misleading and going to get somebody hurt, so I banned Churchill when I had no time to wade through claims and sources and all that. I thought it was urgent and better to err on making sure people didn’t get hurt. My mistake. I shouldn’t have done that.
4 Likes
I know, i used it as a jumping board for a discussion about how self-banned people are referred to based on their team alliance. It’s an interesting subject.
This guy CN is in here saying a paper is “shitty” and “useless” when it was clearly publishable after major revisions. And some of you act like that’s no big deal!