|
|
Post by trebor on Dec 16, 2011 18:42:15 GMT -4
Is This Forum Actually Peer Reviewed By Nasa Scientists Then... No. Can You Point Me In The Direction Of The Peer Review Please...!!! It's that way ---> |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 16, 2011 18:47:40 GMT -4
[Because The American Laziness In It's Usage Of The English Language Is Appalling... You mean "its." To be perfectly blunt, I didn't read the stuff you put in turquoise. I assume that you want to have a reasonable, intellectual conversation. In order to do that, you will be expected to obey certain rules. You will be expected to present your evidence in a clear, rational fashion. This will include doing the math where math is required and citing your sources when you use them. For preference, you will format like an adult, not a twelve-year-old girl. This means you don't need to use colours, bold, or too many capitals. Which is what you are currently doing. We will show you respect when you show that you deserve it. You know what? I am an American. And I'm not the one being lazy with language. If you're being this lazy with language, why should we trust your science? It's all about intellectual rigour. |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 16, 2011 19:01:54 GMT -4
I Used The Assumption That: The Timing On You Tube Videos Is Actually In Seconds, Spend less time formatting, more time thinking. What was timed in hundredths of a second? The interval between the closing consonant of one speaker and the first consonant of another? From what part were these timed? What was the method used to determine these edges, and can you quantify the error in that method? How did you achieve 1/100 a second timing on a YouTube video? What steps other than watching the video as presented on the site did you employ? Your entire methodology is unclear. You have given insufficient information for anyone to understand your process or to replicate it. (As I said on another board: I am in no way approving of the method inferred or implying that it, or any caveat I apply to it, makes it in any way useable.) |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Dec 16, 2011 19:05:36 GMT -4
[Because The American Laziness In It's Usage Of The English Language Is Appalling... You mean "its." To be perfectly blunt, I didn't read the stuff you put in turquoise. I assume that you want to have a reasonable, intellectual conversation. In order to do that, you will be expected to obey certain rules. You will be expected to present your evidence in a clear, rational fashion. This will include doing the math where math is required and citing your sources when you use them. For preference, you will format like an adult, not a twelve-year-old girl. This means you don't need to use colours, bold, or too many capitals. Which is what you are currently doing. We will show you respect when you show that you deserve it. You know what? I am an American. And I'm not the one being lazy with language. If you're being this lazy with language, why should we trust your science? It's all about intellectual rigour. Here, here!  You said it much better than I could. Evidence my attempt earlier today! (Yes, I know. I couldn't resist. There's a wonderful panel in the old "Power Pack" where all the kids raise their right hand and say, variously, "aye," "I," and even -- in Franklin's case, "eye.") |
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 19:11:02 GMT -4
BF;DR Try this analogy; shiny boots. Shiny boots don't make a better soldier, but they are a good indicator. The obverse is even more true; if a soldier either won't follow orders or can't execute them well enough to shine his own boots, then you really, really don't want to trust him with a loaded rifle. Careful use of language arises from careful thought. If you can't formulate a complete sentence, you probably haven't had a complete thought. If you can't take the time to find the spelling of a technical term, you probably haven't taken the time to learn anything about that that technical term describes and entails. Extraneous formatting and superfluous emoticons are a similar sign. If you have to hide the actual thoughts (as expressed by the words) with fancy formats and inline images, you are exactly like the soldier at guard duty inspection who oh-so-carefully stands behind the other men to hide the fact that not only are his boots not shined, but he managed to fall out wearing unlaced sneakers.
Did The Romans Have Shiny Sandals...
Did Che Guevarra's July 26 Movement Have Regulation Above The Collar Haircuts...
Was Alexander The Great A Little Bit Gay...
I Think If I Was In The Army, I Would Be More Concerned About Someone Looking After Their Rifle, Than Looking After Their Shoes...!!!There Is A Lot Of Probabilities In That Statement...Have You Any Proof Of These Assertions...
Apparently Einstein Didn't Speak Till He Was 5 Years Old,
And As I Said Before The Spelling Of Perigee Was A Corruption Of Perigaea...  |
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Dec 16, 2011 19:16:28 GMT -4
Also how were the recordings recorded. One of the timings you have an issue with is when the astronauts stop talking and the president starts. You should think about that.
Edit. that was aimed at post 74.
|
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 19:18:57 GMT -4
Is This Forum Actually Peer Reviewed By Nasa Scientists Then... No.
So This Hobbyist Forum Could Almost Be Described As A Circle Jerk...
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 16, 2011 19:21:23 GMT -4
You're obviously very disgusted with this forum, might I point out that no one is forcing you to post here.
|
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 19:28:09 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Dec 16, 2011 19:32:45 GMT -4
You're obviously very disgusted with this forum, might I point out that no one is forcing you to post here.
I Am Enjoying The Delusions Of Intellectual Superiority On Here,
No Peer Review eh...!!!
Don't You Find That A Little Bit...Um...Uncomfortable... Do you have anything to actually say about Apollo? Or are you here to make social commentary? |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 16, 2011 19:32:53 GMT -4
I Used The Assumption That: The Timing On You Tube Videos Is Actually In Seconds, Spend less time formatting, more time thinking. What was timed in hundredths of a second? The interval between the closing consonant of one speaker and the first consonant of another? From what part were these timed? What was the method used to determine these edges, and can you quantify the error in that method? How did you achieve 1/100 a second timing on a YouTube video? What steps other than watching the video as presented on the site did you employ? Your entire methodology is unclear. You have given insufficient information for anyone to understand your process or to replicate it. (As I said on another board: I am in no way approving of the method inferred or implying that it, or any caveat I apply to it, makes it in any way useable.) Are you going to answer these questions, Damnsod, or would you prefer to just keep hurling insults at members of this forum? |
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 19:34:57 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Dec 16, 2011 19:37:32 GMT -4
Too bad they can't force you to be polite and answer questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Dec 16, 2011 19:39:15 GMT -4
So You Have No Peer Review Then...Interesting...!!! What forums are peer-reviewed? Peer review is a different thing than online bulletin boards. You do know that, right? |
|
|
|
Post by damnsod on Dec 16, 2011 19:41:33 GMT -4
|
|
