If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
This is where the big fault in our scientific method lies. We should
not understand the implications only to the field, but to the world. Papers should be reviewed by professionals of different fields before they are published. Holy cow. You DO realize how utterly illogical this is, right? Easy. You are taking my observation to an extreme. I did not say a historian or an economist should review that study done by the civil engineer, but someone who has deeper knowledge of soils. The logic here would be for the paper to be reviewed by different professionals of related fields to evaluate the implications of the study in their fields. Besides, as you mentioned, people from unrelated fields wouldn´t even understand the vocabulary. Liz, I don't have a higher degree. In fact, it was the rigors of academia that turned me off of continuing to pursue studies in my field, which was not chemistry. I now work in the chemistry department of a large research institution. And I look around and respect the immense amount of work that the students are putting into their studies--even the major slacker who nearly didn't get his degree is spending weeks away from his newlywed wife in order to finish his experiments and write his dissertation--and the amount of knowledge the professors have. I respect that too but that does not keep me from being critical when looking at their work. I am not taking away their merit, that was never my point. My point all along has been to tell people to not remain passive before an intimidating title. Yeah, chemists are not humans, they are killing machines since everything they have done to date is ultimately bad. But it always takes a businessman to pull the trigger! I know that´s not what you meant, but this is what I have learned. ...is patently ridiculous. Where on earth do you get off forming an opinion like this? Do you even know what chemistry IS? How about physicists, are they on your **** list too? And those mathematicians--obviously the world is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to the crap those *******s have foisted off on the world. -Alison in OH Oh dear, I don´t even know what to say. You took what I wrote too literally. I don´t have a **** list of careers, I pointed out a failure in the system. If that study on the toxicity of DDT on insects had been reviewed by a physician before it was published, the physician might have pointed out that DDT could be toxic to humans too. If it had been reviewed by a biologist, the biologist might have asked if this substance bioaccumulates and biomagnifies. Besides, research in itself does not do any harm save in some rare occasions. What does a lot of harm, and I thought I made that clear, is someone who uses the knowledge produced by research innapropriately to make money. Therefore, the chemists or researchers of any other area are not devils. A gun will not hurt if the trigger isn´t pulled. I believe a lot of countries in the world are very aware of this. Today, in many countries Brazil included, for every factory you want to build and every product you want to produce, you need to do an environmental impact assessment and you only go on to building the factory and producing that product if you get a greenlight from the local environmental agency (at least here). Also here, when you do a research project, you also need to include the social impact of your project (what benefit will it bring to society?). If there´s no benefit, there´s no money to finance your project. |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
This is where the big fault in our scientific method lies. We should
not understand the implications only to the field, but to the world. Papers should be reviewed by professionals of different fields before they are published. Holy cow. You DO realize how utterly illogical this is, right? Easy. You are taking my observation to an extreme. I did not say a historian or an economist should review that study done by the civil engineer, but someone who has deeper knowledge of soils. The logic here would be for the paper to be reviewed by different professionals of related fields to evaluate the implications of the study in their fields. Besides, as you mentioned, people from unrelated fields wouldn´t even understand the vocabulary. Liz, I don't have a higher degree. In fact, it was the rigors of academia that turned me off of continuing to pursue studies in my field, which was not chemistry. I now work in the chemistry department of a large research institution. And I look around and respect the immense amount of work that the students are putting into their studies--even the major slacker who nearly didn't get his degree is spending weeks away from his newlywed wife in order to finish his experiments and write his dissertation--and the amount of knowledge the professors have. I respect that too but that does not keep me from being critical when looking at their work. I am not taking away their merit, that was never my point. My point all along has been to tell people to not remain passive before an intimidating title. Yeah, chemists are not humans, they are killing machines since everything they have done to date is ultimately bad. But it always takes a businessman to pull the trigger! I know that´s not what you meant, but this is what I have learned. ...is patently ridiculous. Where on earth do you get off forming an opinion like this? Do you even know what chemistry IS? How about physicists, are they on your **** list too? And those mathematicians--obviously the world is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to the crap those *******s have foisted off on the world. -Alison in OH Oh dear, I don´t even know what to say. You took what I wrote too literally. I don´t have a **** list of careers, I pointed out a failure in the system. If that study on the toxicity of DDT on insects had been reviewed by a physician before it was published, the physician might have pointed out that DDT could be toxic to humans too. If it had been reviewed by a biologist, the biologist might have asked if this substance bioaccumulates and biomagnifies. Besides, research in itself does not do any harm save in some rare occasions. What does a lot of harm, and I thought I made that clear, is someone who uses the knowledge produced by research innapropriately to make money. Therefore, the chemists or researchers of any other area are not devils. A gun will not hurt if the trigger isn´t pulled. I believe a lot of countries in the world are very aware of this. Today, in many countries Brazil included, for every factory you want to build and every product you want to produce, you need to do an environmental impact assessment and you only go on to building the factory and producing that product if you get a greenlight from the local environmental agency (at least here). Also here, when you do a research project, you also need to include the social impact of your project (what benefit will it bring to society?). If there´s no benefit, there´s no money to finance your project. |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
This is where the big fault in our scientific method lies. We should
not understand the implications only to the field, but to the world. Papers should be reviewed by professionals of different fields before they are published. Holy cow. You DO realize how utterly illogical this is, right? Easy. You are taking my observation to an extreme. I did not say a historian or an economist should review that study done by the civil engineer, but someone who has deeper knowledge of soils. The logic here would be for the paper to be reviewed by different professionals of related fields to evaluate the implications of the study in their fields. Besides, as you mentioned, people from unrelated fields wouldn´t even understand the vocabulary. Liz, I don't have a higher degree. In fact, it was the rigors of academia that turned me off of continuing to pursue studies in my field, which was not chemistry. I now work in the chemistry department of a large research institution. And I look around and respect the immense amount of work that the students are putting into their studies--even the major slacker who nearly didn't get his degree is spending weeks away from his newlywed wife in order to finish his experiments and write his dissertation--and the amount of knowledge the professors have. I respect that too but that does not keep me from being critical when looking at their work. I am not taking away their merit, that was never my point. My point all along has been to tell people to not remain passive before an intimidating title. Yeah, chemists are not humans, they are killing machines since everything they have done to date is ultimately bad. But it always takes a businessman to pull the trigger! I know that´s not what you meant, but this is what I have learned. ...is patently ridiculous. Where on earth do you get off forming an opinion like this? Do you even know what chemistry IS? How about physicists, are they on your **** list too? And those mathematicians--obviously the world is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to the crap those *******s have foisted off on the world. -Alison in OH Oh dear, I don´t even know what to say. You took what I wrote too literally. I don´t have a **** list of careers, I pointed out a failure in the system. If that study on the toxicity of DDT on insects had been reviewed by a physician before it was published, the physician might have pointed out that DDT could be toxic to humans too. If it had been reviewed by a biologist, the biologist might have asked if this substance bioaccumulates and biomagnifies. Besides, research in itself does not do any harm save in some rare occasions. What does a lot of harm, and I thought I made that clear, is someone who uses the knowledge produced by research innapropriately to make money. Therefore, the chemists or researchers of any other area are not devils. A gun will not hurt if the trigger isn´t pulled. I believe a lot of countries in the world are very aware of this. Today, in many countries Brazil included, for every factory you want to build and every product you want to produce, you need to do an environmental impact assessment and you only go on to building the factory and producing that product if you get a greenlight from the local environmental agency (at least here). Also here, when you do a research project, you also need to include the social impact of your project (what benefit will it bring to society?). If there´s no benefit, there´s no money to finance your project. |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
She only reaps what she sows.
Oh, c'mon now. That's just plain vicious. That's not vicious, that's my opinion and the opinion of others as expressed here lately. You have a weird definition of the term, "vicious". I would actually label some of the things she has said against Phil P as being closer to "vicious". LOL. Oh, sure. Lauren was vicious to Phil P? Right. You must have missed a lot of flame wars in this ng. I'm sure I've missed some of them and others have flamed me for expressing my opinion. You claim to be impartial, but you stick up for Lauren. That isn't the definition of impartiality. Lauren hates Hill's and takes every opportunity to bash away even if it means making things up. I don't see evidence of a specific vendetta against Hills. You've absolutely got to be kidding. Vendetta: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts. You don't think that Lauren has a verbal vendetta going against Hill's? Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems. I don't ever remember Lauren saying that her vet thought that Science Diet was the problem; rather, it was, "try taking the cat off of Science Diet and see what happens." You may have read more into it than that, but I'm sure Lauren would have made that point if it had happened that way. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon. It's more that she never misses an opportunity to bash anything Hill's does and when I directly asked her a couple of days ago if she had ANYTHING POSITIVE to say about Hill's....she said "no". Not to mention the fact that she seems to "remember" health problems (that she hadn't mentioned before) that she attributes to Science Diet anytime someone else mentions a problem they are running into. That's not curious enough for you? Look, you can't claim to be "impartial" and then only see it Lauren's way. Listen, I had a really bad experience with a particular cat food--after shelling out $1100 to the vet and bringing my cat home after four days in the hospital, do you suppose I would not have some hard feelings about that particular food? Which food was it? If you followed Lauren's example you would take every available opportunity to bash that company; yet you don't. |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
She only reaps what she sows.
Oh, c'mon now. That's just plain vicious. That's not vicious, that's my opinion and the opinion of others as expressed here lately. You have a weird definition of the term, "vicious". I would actually label some of the things she has said against Phil P as being closer to "vicious". LOL. Oh, sure. Lauren was vicious to Phil P? Right. You must have missed a lot of flame wars in this ng. I'm sure I've missed some of them and others have flamed me for expressing my opinion. You claim to be impartial, but you stick up for Lauren. That isn't the definition of impartiality. Lauren hates Hill's and takes every opportunity to bash away even if it means making things up. I don't see evidence of a specific vendetta against Hills. You've absolutely got to be kidding. Vendetta: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts. You don't think that Lauren has a verbal vendetta going against Hill's? Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems. I don't ever remember Lauren saying that her vet thought that Science Diet was the problem; rather, it was, "try taking the cat off of Science Diet and see what happens." You may have read more into it than that, but I'm sure Lauren would have made that point if it had happened that way. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon. It's more that she never misses an opportunity to bash anything Hill's does and when I directly asked her a couple of days ago if she had ANYTHING POSITIVE to say about Hill's....she said "no". Not to mention the fact that she seems to "remember" health problems (that she hadn't mentioned before) that she attributes to Science Diet anytime someone else mentions a problem they are running into. That's not curious enough for you? Look, you can't claim to be "impartial" and then only see it Lauren's way. Listen, I had a really bad experience with a particular cat food--after shelling out $1100 to the vet and bringing my cat home after four days in the hospital, do you suppose I would not have some hard feelings about that particular food? Which food was it? If you followed Lauren's example you would take every available opportunity to bash that company; yet you don't. |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
She only reaps what she sows.
Oh, c'mon now. That's just plain vicious. That's not vicious, that's my opinion and the opinion of others as expressed here lately. You have a weird definition of the term, "vicious". I would actually label some of the things she has said against Phil P as being closer to "vicious". LOL. Oh, sure. Lauren was vicious to Phil P? Right. You must have missed a lot of flame wars in this ng. I'm sure I've missed some of them and others have flamed me for expressing my opinion. You claim to be impartial, but you stick up for Lauren. That isn't the definition of impartiality. Lauren hates Hill's and takes every opportunity to bash away even if it means making things up. I don't see evidence of a specific vendetta against Hills. You've absolutely got to be kidding. Vendetta: an often prolonged series of retaliatory, vengeful, or hostile acts or exchange of such acts. You don't think that Lauren has a verbal vendetta going against Hill's? Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems. I don't ever remember Lauren saying that her vet thought that Science Diet was the problem; rather, it was, "try taking the cat off of Science Diet and see what happens." You may have read more into it than that, but I'm sure Lauren would have made that point if it had happened that way. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon. It's more that she never misses an opportunity to bash anything Hill's does and when I directly asked her a couple of days ago if she had ANYTHING POSITIVE to say about Hill's....she said "no". Not to mention the fact that she seems to "remember" health problems (that she hadn't mentioned before) that she attributes to Science Diet anytime someone else mentions a problem they are running into. That's not curious enough for you? Look, you can't claim to be "impartial" and then only see it Lauren's way. Listen, I had a really bad experience with a particular cat food--after shelling out $1100 to the vet and bringing my cat home after four days in the hospital, do you suppose I would not have some hard feelings about that particular food? Which food was it? If you followed Lauren's example you would take every available opportunity to bash that company; yet you don't. |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
In ,
Yngver composed with style: Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon. Same here. I don't want to keep baiting Gauby but I agree 100% with Lauren. Go ahead and let them call me stupid for continuing to feed one formula after another when one vet said ZD and the other said ID. Another yet said, "no no no Sensitive stomach". Been there, done that. So I bought a ton of each formula when it was recommended and I still have most of it. My cat food cabinet is full of food I can't feed anymore. The dry stuff was donated to a rescue group soon after it was opened and I hope that it helped at least some cats but it did nothing for Shadow. |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
In ,
Yngver composed with style: Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon. Same here. I don't want to keep baiting Gauby but I agree 100% with Lauren. Go ahead and let them call me stupid for continuing to feed one formula after another when one vet said ZD and the other said ID. Another yet said, "no no no Sensitive stomach". Been there, done that. So I bought a ton of each formula when it was recommended and I still have most of it. My cat food cabinet is full of food I can't feed anymore. The dry stuff was donated to a rescue group soon after it was opened and I hope that it helped at least some cats but it did nothing for Shadow. |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
In ,
Yngver composed with style: Lauren had a bad experience with SD. Her cat had health problems on it, and her vet advised her to quit feeding it. The cat's health improved, and the vet concluded that SD had been contributing to the problems. It's natural that if a person has a bad experience with a particular food, that she/he will view the food unfavorably. Yet the SD zealots here accuse her of lying and fabrication because she has voiced a poor opinion of SD? C'mon. Same here. I don't want to keep baiting Gauby but I agree 100% with Lauren. Go ahead and let them call me stupid for continuing to feed one formula after another when one vet said ZD and the other said ID. Another yet said, "no no no Sensitive stomach". Been there, done that. So I bought a ton of each formula when it was recommended and I still have most of it. My cat food cabinet is full of food I can't feed anymore. The dry stuff was donated to a rescue group soon after it was opened and I hope that it helped at least some cats but it did nothing for Shadow. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|