What does he have to hide?
Gun control “researcher” won’t let anyone see his data.
Via Insty, who notes this sort of thing happens with gun control “research”
3 Responses to “What does he have to hide?”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 15th, 2016 at 7:25 pm
If you don’t show your source data, you don’t have a study.
You have a cute story.
August 16th, 2016 at 12:14 pm
In 1983 I wrote my Master’s thesis in Chemistry on an obscure literature problem about rates of reaction and energies of activation – a problem so old I referenced Arrhenius’ paper on how reactions worked, from the 1800s, which I had to translate from the Old German.
The issue involved literature from the 1920s, 30s, 40s and up to the present. I learned that one famous chemist who was a grad student in the 1930s was still alive, an emeritus professor at a university, so I emailed him to thank him for his clear, well-written articles from 50 years earlier, and to ask if he wanted to make any comment on the subject of my thesis.
He responded kindly, with encouragement for my new studies on rates of reactions, and with photocopies of his original data from his original lab notebooks, handwritten in a beautifully legible and crisp script five decades earlier, so I could use my computational methods on his own work for comparison with my own.
That right there is how science is done. Anything less (and I have not always lived up to this standard myself) is not deserving of acknowledgement.
August 16th, 2016 at 12:47 pm
“Researchers” always conclude that the constitution is inadequate, that the Bill of Rights in particular, if interpreted literally, places unnecessary and unfair, dangerous obstacles in the way of government.
They concluded those things before doing any “research” and the “research” only exists to support the conclusion.
“Whadayaknow! Our ‘research’ findings say we need more money and power!” You don’t fuckin’ say!! Who’d a thought?!
To take their assertions any more serious than that, to get into the data or technique, is to fall for the trick. It never had anything to do with data or technique,