|
| In article <1115806886.224590.295270@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
hbkta@aol.com writes
>Tom wrote:
>Sure
>any
>course) that
>
>well Tom, extrapolation points to what might be. DO you understand the
>words "might be" ? Saying that such and such might be is not the same
>as saying I believe such and such. In the social sciences such
>extrapolations are often used to point to areas that need more study
>for clarification. In this case I indicated that more study would be
>needed to see "the curve and slope of the line" or a put another way to
>see how fast and far the line rises.
>But in your opinion even the suggestion of further study is,
>"egregiously irrelevant and incoherent babble." I can only wonder why
>you would not want real data on the subject.
>It may be that my extrapolation is innacurrate, I admit as much by
>saying that further study is needed. Only a collection of long term
>studies, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 year follow ups would show what the
>long-term trend really is. But you of course already proclaimed the
>need for such further study is egregiously irrelevant and incoherent
>babble. You can prove my extrapolation to be innaccurate by providing
>the findings and references to such studies; otherwise to say that I
>have extrapolated wrongly is just your opinion.
He has a vested interest in seeing that such studies are never carried
out, He tries to prove that pedophiles are really nice people who are
terribly misunderstood... and gets angry when he is told they are
monsters who should be locked up for life...
>
--
Shez shez@oldcity.f2s.com
Shez's Garden at http://www.oldcity.f2s.com/shez/
|
|